Dustin Johnson taking a leave of absence from tour, Suspended for cocaine use

[RFKFREAK]

Why do you guys always try to back me into a corner by trying to imply I'm saying things that I'm not? Can't you all just admit that @RFKFREAK was using the wrong word - which is ALL I was saying - and be done with it??

I never agreed I used the wrong word. According to his religious beliefs, laying with another man's wife is wrong and, knowing that, by doing so he is intending to cause harm to others, regardless of the selfishness of his act or whether he thought he'd get away with it.

[Golfingdad]

I never agreed I used the wrong word.

I know!!!!!!!

[saevel25]

I never agreed I used the wrong word.

According to his religious beliefs, laying with another man's wife is wrong and, knowing that, by doing so he is intending to cause harm to others, regardless of the selfishness of his act or whether he thought he'd get away with it.

Doesn't matter about religious beliefs. Actually the use of the word Intend there is wrong.

If a Man sleeps with another Man's Wife, just for the sole purpose of just having Sex. Lets say she even told him she was married, and still wanted to sleep with him. You can not prove he intended to cause harm, even if he does so or not. You can prove his intent was to have sex.

Now lets say the Man sleeps with another Man's Wife, and it is because he doesn't like him, and the intent was to cause harm. Then sex was just the action to cause the harm. In the first case causing harm is incidental to the action of having sex.

What if the Husband of the Wife, who cheated with the other man, hated his marriage and wanted a divorce anyways. Was there harm done? Unless you can prove the intent was to do harm and the action to cause the harm was to sleep with the other man's wife, you can't say he intended to do harm.

[Cool Breeze]

Quote:

How do you know he didn't think of the consequences? You have no idea what was going through his head.

You're right, I don't.

So there are two possibilities.

1 - He was childish and didn't think of the consequences of his actions.

2 - He was aware of the consequences of his actions, considered them and chose to go forward with said actions.

If he did #1 okay fine.  He was childish but one can learn from that and move forward.

If he did #2 he is a self centered piece of shit and doesn't deserve for anyone to give him the benefit of the doubt.

FYI, I DO NOT THINK THAT HE FITS INTO CATEGORY #2.  I THINK HE SIMPLY ACTED ON HIS IMPULSES.

Quote:

If the wives did this then there were likely issues in their marriages to begin with.

No doubt that is correct.

If it hadn't been Dustin, it would have been someone else.  Cheaters cheat.  It's what they do.

Quote:

People have affairs at most any age. It's about making moral decisions, not youthful stupidity.

This thing didn't stem from him having affairs.  It stemmed from him getting caught snorting blow.

Big difference.  Adultery isn't a felony.  Snorting blow is.

[RFKFREAK]

Doesn't matter about religious beliefs. Actually the use of the word Intend there is wrong.

If a Man sleeps with another Man's Wife, just for the sole purpose of just having Sex. Lets say she even told him she was married, and still wanted to sleep with him. You can not prove he intended to cause harm, even if he does so or not. You can prove his intent was to have sex.

Now lets say the Man sleeps with another Man's Wife, and it is because he doesn't like him, and the intent was to cause harm. Then sex was just the action to cause the harm. In the first case causing harm is incidental to the action of having sex.

What if the Husband of the Wife, who cheated with the other man, hated his marriage and wanted a divorce anyways. Was there harm done? Unless you can prove the intent was to do harm and the action to cause the harm was to sleep with the other man's wife, you can't say he intended to do harm.

Maybe to you the religious belief's don't matter but I think it plays a part in it.

According to his religious belief's, he took an action which he knew was wrong and by laying with another man's wife, he knows that in the eyes of that who he believes is God, he is intending to cause harm whether it is to his God, the woman, the man, or their children if there are any.

[turtleback]

Love me some DJ!!!

I think it's a safe bet that his intent was to have some fun without really considering the consequences.  (Same is probably true for the cocaine as well)

I was watching The Sopranos last night and there was a scene where a guy (Joe Pantaliano) was swinging a chain with a lock on the end at another guy.  He hits him in the head and then says it is no big deal because he wasn't trying to hit him (no "intent") it was an accident.  This is Dustin.  When actions so recklessly disregard the potential consequences, then IMO he loses the option of saying there was no intent.  When you do not give a damn how your actions might hurt someone then you have intent, IMO.

[Golfingdad]

Maybe to you the religious belief's don't matter but I think it plays a part in it.

According to his religious belief's, he took an action which he knew was wrong and by laying with another man's wife, he knows that in the eyes of that who he believes is God, he is intending to cause harm whether it is to his God, the woman, the man, or their children if there are any.

You can keep saying this, and it's going to continue to be wrong every time.

Unless he is INTENTIONALLY trying to hurt somebody, then he's not INTENDING to hurt somebody.  Period.

EDIT:  Just read @turtleback 's post too.

I give up. I take that back.  Hang on ... ;)

[Spyder]

You can keep saying this, and it's going to continue to be wrong every time.

Unless he is INTENTIONALLY trying to hurt somebody, then he's not INTENDING to hurt somebody.  Period.

EDIT:  Just read @turtleback 's post too.

I give up.  I take that back.  Hang on ... ;)

Agreed. As horrible as it is, a drunk driver that causes an accident is not intentionally doing it. There's a very high probability of it happening and it's an absolutely moronic thing to do, but it is likely not his "intent" to do so. He intends to get home.

It seems like a lot of words and opinions are being twisted way out of context in here now, so much so that actual words with clear definitions are magically being changed.

[Cool Breeze]

Deleted.

Got confused on what thread I was posting in.  lol

[saevel25]

Maybe to you the religious belief's don't matter but I think it plays a part in it.

According to his religious belief's, he took an action which he knew was wrong and by laying with another man's wife, he knows that in the eyes of that who he believes is God, he is intending to cause harm whether it is to his God, the woman, the man, or their children if there are any.

That is if he is 100% devote in his beliefs. There are many variants of being a Christian, and there are many levels of devotion. You are assuming he is 100% devote, and abides 100% to his beliefs. Yet you also forget he is human as well. Sinning does mean he intended to do harm.

You again are using the word Intend wrong. To intend, it had to be his OBJECTIVE to cause harm. Unless his actions were to actually cause harm, meaning the objective was to hurt somebody, then he did NOT intend to cause harm. There are such things as unintended consequences. I could speed on the freeway, my INTENT is to get to my destination faster. The unintended consequences of my actions might be causing an accident. Was the intent to hurt someone, NO, but it could happen.

[Golfingdad]

Agreed. As horrible as it is, a drunk driver that causes an accident is not intentionally doing it. There's a very high probability of it happening and it's an absolutely moronic thing to do, but it is likely not his "intent" to do so. He intends to get home.

It seems like a lot of words and opinions are being twisted way out of context in here now, so much so that actual words with clear definitions are magically being changed.

Right.  And that is precisely why drunk drivers who kill somebody go to jail (hopefully) for vehicular manslaughter or second degree murder.  And what distinguishes those from first degree murder is that there is no intent to actively kill another human.

Dustin Johnson (and to a higher degree, those women) are guilty of negligence, not intent.  I doubt that when the husbands found out that the wives were sobbing uncontrollably and saying "I never meant to hurt you!"

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Right.  And that is precisely why drunk drivers who kill somebody go to jail (hopefully) for vehicular manslaughter or second degree murder.  And what distinguishes those from first degree murder is that there is no intent to actively kill another human.

Dustin Johnson (and to a higher degree, those women) are guilty of negligence, not intent.  I doubt that when the husbands found out that the wives were sobbing uncontrollably and saying "I never meant to hurt you!"

In most cases a drunk doesn't get behind the wheel with the intent to kill someone.  But the courts recognize that when a drunk is so intoxicated that it's reasonable to conclude that they will get into an accident or they show a complete disregard for others in driving intoxicated then there is an assigned malice.  There's a fine line on intending to hurt someone and outwardly not caring if you hurt someone.

Quote:

DUI second-degree murder is the most serious of the felony DUI charges . Unlike vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated...which involves ordinary or gross negligence...DUI second-degree murder involves allegations of implied malice or malice aforethought. Simply put, "malice aforethought" means a conscious disregard for human life.

[Spyder]

In most cases a drunk doesn't get behind the wheel with the intent to kill someone.  But the courts recognize that when a drunk is so intoxicated that it's reasonable to conclude that they will get into an accident or they show a complete disregard for others in driving intoxicated then there is an assigned malice.  There's a fine line on intending to hurt someone and outwardly not caring if you hurt someone.

Eh, "not caring" is not the same as "intent" though. If a player hits a home run, there's a very real chance that ball hits someone. His intention is to hit a home run, but he's not intending on that ball hitting someone (even though people are spaced apart like sardines).

OT, I know, but again - don't use the law to define the English language. Intentionally doing something is different than not caring about an outcome. With that said, you're literally comparing intentional result and variable outcome as being the same thing.

[MPtheKid]

Probably wasn't intentionally trying to cause direct harm. DJ obviously didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the potential consequences of his actions (either that or he didn't care) but that still doesn't make those actions any more justifiable.

Having said that, son was on that yip so I'm not surprised he was trying to take down other tour players' wives. That god complex...

[newtogolf]

Eh, "not caring" is not the same as "intent" though. If a player hits a home run, there's a very real chance that ball hits someone. His intention is to hit a home run, but he's not intending on that ball hitting someone (even though people are spaced apart like sardines).

OT, I know, but again - don't use the law to define the English language. Intentionally doing something is different than not caring about an outcome. With that said, you're literally comparing intentional result and variable outcome as being the same thing.

I'm speaking about the topic generically, not with regards to DJ nor am I attempting to indicate that any of these examples are in any way relatable to what DJ did.  Consider these scenarios;

• A highly intoxicated person get behind the wheel of a car and due to being intoxicated collides with another car killing the other driver.
• A burglar enters a home with the intent to rob it and is surprised that someone is home and gets into a physical altercation that results in the home owner dying.
• A kid playing the "knockout game" knocks out their victim and the person hits their head on the ground and dies

In none of these cases was their intent to kill someone but given the likelihood that someone could die, there is implied malice.  We can mince words and discuss exact meaning and we'd do exactly that if we were the person's defense attorney.

I agree there's a difference between premeditation and these events, since none of the people in my examples premeditated killing someone, but each knew the activities they were engaged in could result in someone's death as a realistic potential outcome.

[zipazoid]

Looks like the future father-in-law has chimed in -

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/wayne-gretzky-gave-dustin-johnson--clean-up-or-no-paulina--ultimatum-143352111.html

[Gunther]

Thanks for posting. This is more in line with what my perceptions of the Gretzky family have been; quite different from some of the craziness that's been spewed on this thread about them.

[zipazoid]

Well, I am sure WG is a concerned father, no different than most fathers would be. If I knew my daughter's fiancee was struggling with drugs, I would definitely be having a talk with him.

But, Paulina is an adult. At the end of the day, she could do whatever she wants, you would think.