Need I even point out that Simmons is billed as the archetypal "Everyman" who's explicitly paid to express the opinion of, well, the Everyman? What exactly is wrong here? He said something everyone is thinking. EVERY FUCKING ONE. Is it that he used bleeps, because the last time I checked those aren't "bad words"…

Salisbury shows picture of dick = 1 week.

This sounds awful. It's like a J. Walter Weatheman lesson right out of Arrested Development. I was waiting to hear about a fan's arm flying off before pointing at you sand saying, "And that's why you don't go to live sporting events."

Hicks, assholes, yokels, jerks, morons, assholes, buttheads, fuckfaces, dudebros...let's not get caught up in semantics here. They are all ultimately describing the same thing.

I should have specified "wear my team's colors at an opposing stadium."

Just throwing this out there: no alcohol at either (as in one or the other) tailgating or concessions. Would this solve anything?

If the dudebro with the helmet would have been some poor bystander, I would quietly applaud his foresight.

I'm relieved to know that the NFL is unequivocal and swift with its justice for serious infractions such as these.

Totally agreed all around. DB was going for pick (justifiably), but he would have killed him if he'd just gone for a hit. I don't get these plays in a Week 3 game much less. Why on earth would you put the franchise guy in unnecessary danger like this?

+1, but sadly and knowing deep down that I'm making a mistake and that I should listen to my friends and leave.

This turned around what has been an otherwise shitty afternoon. I thank you, Brah.

People never cease to amaze you. I've spent the better part of this guy's career hating him, but he's pretty much completely redeemed himself with these two tweets.

The guy at :50.

"I won't try and leave bruises." Wow. Just...wow. As in he will inflict juuuuuuuuust enough pain to leave no evidence.

"Due process should always be a guiding principle in any law, not just constitutional law." The two are inseparable if it's a law, so what's your point?

I've said this before, but Stephen A. needs to address the role that Peterson's child played in provoking Peterson to abuse him.

The problem with your assessment is that you're not understanding "due process" at a legal term of art, but rather a layperson's synonym for "fairness." Due process is a constitutional right...not an employer-employee condition.

I haven't been following this story too closely, but has Stephen A. Smith said that we should consider the role of the child in all of this? We need to have an open discussion about children provoking the parent's alleged "abuse." Now don't get me wrong...I care deeply for children and I was raised in such a way…