Popeyejones":2j389eus said:
1. Federal trumps local law. The law itself treats Federal law as more serious.
2. AFAIK he hasn't paid back any money. He will almost certainly have to as part of his sentencing but I don't know where that claim is coming from.
3. He didn't just steal money from rich people. Insider trading steals money from working people's pension funds, from banks that then trickle down to customers, from the investment portfolios of non profit organizations. It's from everybody. It's why there's a Federal law against it.
4. The claim that he got roped into this is kinda laughable. He actively spent eight months purchasing insider information. He did so negotiating payments using code words in texts to avoid getting caught. In this eight months he made 1.2 million dollars while the guy who supposedly "roped him into this" made 10K and scored some game tickets. That he's a victim of paying 10K to make 1.2 million while deliberately trying to hide his illegal activity from law enforcement over months and months is laughable.
Long story short, he happens to be good at football but he's a scumbag who is going to jail. He didn't lose his head of lose his cool. He did this for months. And he didn't just fall out of the sky and become a Seahawk. Because of this he got cut by the Browns and took a vet minimum deal from the only team in the league that would take him. TBH if the Hawks weren't really hurting at linebacker at the time I don't think there's a chance that they would have gotten within a thousand yards of him either.
IMO it's fine to like him as player, but if you have to gussy up the story here to make liking him as a player more palatable, that should tell you something.
2. Pete Carroll said he paid the money back, that's your source.
3. The spirit of the law is in place to prevent people from using insider information to dump assets that they know are overvalued, which does cause the issues that you are referring to, but none of that applies to Kendricks case. Why? Kendricks bought assets he knew were going to increase in value. No one was forcing the seller to sell, so if they choose to sell they will lose out on the profit regardless of whether or not the person buying is doing so based on insider information or not. So, in this case, you are either naive to how the financial sector works or you haven't actually read the SEC report on Kendricks case. What Kendricks did has virtually no impact on anybody else.
4. I don't see any issue with the claim that a 24-year-old got roped into insider trading even while knowing it was against the law. He was 24-years-old, young adults make dumb decisions and let people convince them to do all sorts of dumb things. He plead guilty to all charges, he's not making excuses, and he paid back the money. What more do you want?
