The NFL Fumbles the Ball

[RavenSky]

I actually think that Rice's reaction after the punch is more frightening and damning than the punch itself.

He does not react with any empathy, concern, or regret. He isn't even surprised that he knocked her out, and responds like you might expect a chilling sociopath to respond.
IOW, there is no way this was a one time thing where he just "snapped" for a second and for the first time. IF that were true, he would react as though someone else had just knocked her out and been protective, calling for help, and trying to revive her and determine her injuries, rather than what he did which was drag her like she was a cow carcass.

That's why the reaction to this new video is somewhat absurd. The original video already showed his callous disregard for his injured fiancee, and he admitted to hitting her and knocking her out. Hell, even if she had accidentally fallen in the elevator, his response in that original video would have revealed a dangerously unempathic character. I understand that seeing violence is more emotionally impactful than hearing about it. However, the NFL and everyone else's response to how Rice should be dealt with should have been based upon reason and the facts of the situation, not just a gut emotional response. Apparently, Rice described the incident that is seen in the current video rather accurately to the NFL and the Ravens, yet the NFL did next to nothing and the Ravens stood firmly behind him. So that combined with the apparent fact that they made no sincere effort to get this video, strongly suggests that their current reactions are mostly PR and they went out their way to find excuses not to do what was right until the video made that impossible. .

Agree with all of the above.

 

[credoconsolans]

Ray Rice's job is to entertain. Its not actually to run, catch and throw a ball. So any behavior that affects his PR and hence the entertaining value of him and his employer does matter whether or not his running, catching, throwing is affected.

True. Of course the irony is that his job is to entertain by engaging in physical aggression, and the fact that he has been selected for and reinforced for this aggression his whole life, likely made him much more likely to do what he is being fired for, namely to react with physical violence during a conflict with his wife.

If you're a trained dog, sure. But he's not.

 

[fromderinside]

charges against her were dropped, so yes

2. She admits some portion of blame. Is it your belief that she is lying or that she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

She's acting like a typical battered woman in that regard. I don't know that she has a history of being abused by Ray Rice, and I am not suggesting that she has been. But the mere fact of her taking blame for what he did is classic battered-woman syndrome. So is staying with him afterward.

“First, I want to say thank you to all of those who have supported us throughout this situation. I do deeply regret the role that I played in the incident that night, but I can say that I am happy that we continue to work through it together, and we are continuing to strengthen our relationship and our marriage and do what we have to do for not only ourselves collectively, but individually, and working on being better parents for Rayven and continue to be good role models for the community like we were doing before this. I love Ray, and I know that he will continue to prove himself to not only you all, but [to] the community, and I know he will gain your respect back in due time. So thank you.”

I am willing to give someone a second chance after giving them an appropriate penalty for the first offense. I tend to be of the mindset to go somewhat lenient on the first offense (depending on the severity of the offense) and really crack down hard on the second offense, especially when the victim is herself willing to forgive and advocating for lenience. Such incidents, after the first offence, can really be a wake-up call for those individuals who committed the offense to seek help. While the OP was appropriate in pointing out how insane it was for the penalty for pot-smoking to be more severe than domestic violence, I'm not sure ending one's career is necessarily appropriate for this one incident. A second incident, sure. Several game suspension, sure. A few months in jail, sure. But how much more is appropriate after the first offense, given that the victim decided to marry him and is pleading for lenience, understanding and forgiveness? Should the victim's wishes play no part in the matter?

I don't actually disagree with you here. I personally think that the Ravens and the NFL have now over-reacted as much as they under-reacted initially. They created a public relations disaster for themselves with their minimizing the severity initially, and now Ray Rice (& his wife) are the scapegoats.

What I object to is any claim, and there have been many, that she is in any way whatsoever deserving of or responsible for that punch... and his callous behavior while she was still out cold.

As for over reacting now I'm on the side of proportionality in assaults. I'm also never in favor of one who has experience in physical combat (football, war, police work, etc) punching anyone for most any reason just as I'm against them using lethal force for any reason. If a weapon becomes compromised is the only basis upon which I would approve of using lethal force. All that is being said for a reason. My son was murdered at a party because he couldn't get away from a drunken monster quick enough to avoid being punched to the curb and killed. He was fairly slight and athletic but he was no match for a gang banger. Small people, say six foot tall strong women, should never be confronted by a two hundred and forty pound athletic thug which the videos clearly demonstrate and punched out.

We need to train our children, especially boys, to be both brave and rational. 400 years ago knives were taken off the street and deaths came way down. Its now time to ban thuggery from our streets and parlors.

All that beinfg said I disagree that the Ravens or the NFL over reacted. they too necessary action to keep government and society from coming to their door and taking the game of football away from our culture. We need to control the game,the players, the coaches, and the fans else we are likely to become ISIS at some point not far down the road.

 

[Derec]

When you are much stronger than the woman pawing at you you do have the right of self defense.

But you must use restraint. You have no right to inflict bodily harm unless your life is in danger.

Your life, not your pride.

(emphasis added)

That's an unreasonably high standard. You are justified in inflicting bodily harm on anyone who threatens to do the same to you.

But Rice's response was simply over the top. He could have restrained her in a multitude of ways; there is a huge strength and size difference between them.

My suspicion is that is how he typically deals with confrontations.

I agree that it was over the top and that he thus bears blame. But so does she for initially attacking him. So my aim was not to exonerate him, but to implicate her.

 

[J842P]

True. Of course the irony is that his job is to entertain by engaging in physical aggression, and the fact that he has been selected for and reinforced for this aggression his whole life, likely made him much more likely to do what he is being fired for, namely to react with physical violence during a conflict with his wife.

If you're a trained dog, sure. But he's not.

Wait, you don't think person trained and encouraged to be violent will be more likely to react violently?

 

[Derec]

charges against her were dropped, so yes

Or much more likely she is beneficiary of yet another female privilege (that lets women hit men with impunity).

2. She admits some portion of blame. Is it your belief that she is lying or that she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

She's acting like a typical battered woman in that regard.

Of course. If a woman in a domestic violence situation admits portion of the blame it can't be because she shares some blame, even if we know that she attacked him.
Basically blamelessness of women in domestic violence situations has become a feminist axiom. We could also see that in the Marissa Alexander case where even though she shot toward her ex and his children and later physically attacked him (requiring treatment on his part) she is described as "domestic violence victim" even though it has been a mutually abusive situation with the event relevant to her conviction (her shooting at her ex and his children) being an instance of her committing violence against him.

What I object to is any claim, and there have been many, that she is in any way whatsoever deserving of or responsible for that punch... and his callous behavior while she was still out cold.

So you think there was nothing wrong whatsoever with her attacking him? Spitting on him? That's a-ok for women to do to their intimate partners?

 

[doubtingt]

True. Of course the irony is that his job is to entertain by engaging in physical aggression, and the fact that he has been selected for and reinforced for this aggression his whole life, likely made him much more likely to do what he is being fired for, namely to react with physical violence during a conflict with his wife.

If you're a trained dog, sure. But he's not.

Yeah sure, humans are magical mystical non-animals completely unaffected by the most basic and powerful modes of learning and behavioral conditioning shown to determine the behavior of every other vertebrate creature.

You are about a century behind on behavioral science and a lifetime behind in common sense.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

The problem is not the NFL. Blaming the NFL obscures the real problem. In America you can beat the shit out of your wife as long as I don't see it. If I see it I have to act shocked like Inspector Renault in Casablanca. The NFL is not the hypocrites we are. When you saw the original video of him dragging her out of the elevator, you had to be a 24 carat solid gold moron to not know he hit her. But since you see him do it, now it's a 12 alarm fire.

The NFL has rules for drug use that are in the collective bargaining agreement. Domestic abuse is not. So don't compare apples to @ssholes.

The real crime is how he got off from the legal side of things. Why was he not prosecuted? That's the real issue aside from you have to be low to cold cock your woman.

 

[barbos]

I actually think that Rice's reaction after the punch is more frightening and damning than the punch itself.

He does not react with any empathy, concern, or regret. He isn't even surprised that he knocked her out, and responds like you might expect a chilling sociopath to respond.
IOW, there is no way this was a one time thing where he just "snapped" for a second and for the first time. IF that were true, he would react as though someone else had just knocked her out and been protective, calling for help, and trying to revive her and determine her injuries, rather than what he did which was drag her like she was a cow carcass.

That's why the reaction to this new video is somewhat absurd. The original video already showed his callous disregard for his injured fiancee, and he admitted to hitting her and knocking her out. Hell, even if she had accidentally fallen in the elevator, his response in that original video would have revealed a dangerously unempathic character. I understand that seeing violence is more emotionally impactful than hearing about it. However, the NFL and everyone else's response to how Rice should be dealt with should have been based upon reason and the facts of the situation, not just a gut emotional response. Apparently, Rice described the incident that is seen in the current video rather accurately to the NFL and the Ravens, yet the NFL did next to nothing and the Ravens stood firmly behind him. So that combined with the apparent fact that they made no sincere effort to get this video, strongly suggests that their current reactions are mostly PR and they went out their way to find excuses not to do what was right until the video made that impossible.

BTW, had the other person been a close male friend of the same build as his fiancee, I think most people would still think his actions unwarranted and reasonable people (a small % of the population) would still think it criminal assault. However, the reactions would be far far tamer than it is now. OTOH, I think if we don't just focus on the punch but give more attention to what his disturbing lack of reaction reveals, then gender would matter somewhat less, because while the gender bias in who can punch whom is great, gender would seem to matter less in terms of showing zero concern for a severe injury you just caused someone you supposedly love.

I agree. He does look like a sociopath. And this second video does not really add anything.

 

[barbos]

Couple of technical comments.
She did hit him first outside of elevator and just before she was knocked out she clearly attacked him.
As for "punched in the face so hard she was knocked out cold" you don't need to hit hard to knock out untrained person, very mild but "lucky" punch is all you need. And frankly I can't say he actually had intent to hit her.
What really looks bad on him is how unceremonious he behaved afterwards.
Did she deserve it? Of course she did not, but the way it looks she sure tried to provoke what happened.

It appears that they were already arguing and that she may have tried to slap him several feet away from the elevator, though it is not as clear whether she actually made contact. Either way, I'm not excusing it. He then followed her into the elevator, cornered her and appears to hit her, and she appears to shove him back. Again, not excusing either of them for getting physical. She then moves towards him. She does not "attack" him as you characterized it, and we do not know what, if anything, she intended to do. Apparently, just having a "sharp and scathing tone" is enough because that is when he punched her in the face with more than enough force to literally knock her off her feet. That was not any sort of "mild but lucky punch" and I'm not sure how anyone who has seen the video can suggest that he didn't intend to punch her in the face. He very clearly punched her face and knocked her out.

If you are a girl or ordinary man and running back really hits you in your head and you are not dead you are lucky.
But as I said before I can't see much on the video. And I am not trying to excuse him, just trying to explain what happened.
I do think she did get on his nerves real good, I do think he is a sociopath and any self respecting woman should not be with him.
And I do think there is a good chance she is just a gold digger and was expecting such a behavior.
I do think if that video had not been made public NFL would not fire him.
Surprising part is the fact that second video was somehow required. What was so shocking there?
Everybody knew that he hit her.

 

[bigfield]

It is wrong for the law to place that burden of fine judgment on the party that did not initiate the violence.

So, if someone slaps you on the face, it is okay to pummel you to death? Ray Rice was much bigger and stronger than his fiance. His reaction was disproportionate to whatever you and some others feel initiated the violence.

I really find it disturbing there are people who are implicitly defending Rice's reactions with this "she started it" claim.

You need to read my post in the context with my exchange with untermensche: We were discussing the broader matter of reasonable force.

And if you look before that, you will see that I consider Rice's response to be over the top.

That should clarify any implications you think are going on.

 

[laughing dog]

So, if someone slaps you on the face, it is okay to pummel you to death? Ray Rice was much bigger and stronger than his fiance. His reaction was disproportionate to whatever you and some others feel initiated the violence.

I really find it disturbing there are people who are implicitly defending Rice's reactions with this "she started it" claim.

You need to read my post in the context with my exchange with untermensche: We were discussing the broader matter of reasonable force.

My response in bold-face is relevant to your statement about "It is wrong for the law to place.....".

And if you look before that, you will see that I consider Rice's response to be over the top.

That should clarify any implications you think are going on.

Not really, since the last sentence is an observation about a number of posters in the thread.

 

[bigfield]

You need to read my post in the context with my exchange with untermensche: We were discussing the broader matter of reasonable force.

My response in bold-face is relevant to your statement about "It is wrong for the law to place.....".

I'll clarify then: I stated "fine judgment", by which I mean that you shouldn't be expected to differentiate between a risk to your life and a risk of injury, like broken bones. Both require an urgent response.

The risk of bodily injury from a slap is negligible.

And if you look before that, you will see that I consider Rice's response to be over the top.

That should clarify any implications you think are going on.

Not really, since the last sentence is an observation about a number of posters in the thread.

Well I hope it clears up my point of view, at least.

 

[hyzer]

So you think there was nothing wrong whatsoever with her attacking him? Spitting on him? That's a-ok for women to do to their intimate partners?

Unless she had a weapon, I hardly agree that what we saw was an 'attack'. I don't think that she is capable of actually hurting a professional running back from the NFL. She 'may' have been out of control, then again, he might have called her 'ho' or 'skank' and that is what initiated her response. We will prolly never know the exact events of that evening in their lives, however there is no excuse whatsoever for cold cocking another person, watching their head hit a railing, then dragging their lifeless body around like a wet carpet........

 

[laughing dog]

My response in bold-face is relevant to your statement about "It is wrong for the law to place.....".

I'll clarify then: I stated "fine judgment", by which I mean that you shouldn't be expected to differentiate between a risk to your life and a risk of injury, like broken bones. Both require an urgent response.

In my dictionary, "urgent" and "proportionate" are not synonyms. Neither are "urgent" and "reasonable". So, the intent of my comment stands. The law should require sentient members of the human race to make such judgments and hold them accountable when they don't.

 

[untermensche]

I'll clarify then: I stated "fine judgment", by which I mean that you shouldn't be expected to differentiate between a risk to your life and a risk of injury, like broken bones. Both require an urgent response.

A serious injury is a risk to your life.

If that woman had a knife or a bat then punching her in the head would be appropriate.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Any reason why this important detail,

Then she shouldn't have attacked him in the first place.

You are evading the observed reality that there is an undeniable disproportion between her anatomy and his. Why are you evading addressing that specific and undeniable reality?

If a much smaller man had attacked him nobody would be defending his decision to attack or had blamed Rice for clocking him.

Considering this is addressing intimate partners resorting to physical violence, your scenario would have to include the detail of a physically smaller male involved in an intimate partnership with the much stronger male. I can guarantee you that there are cases of DV within male same gender couples and where the stronger male is responding with a disproportionate use of force against the smaller male. What the court will take in consideration is the disproportionate use of force especially when involving 2 parties with vastly different anatomies.

But make it a womyn, especially a womyn romantically involved with Rice, and suddenly she has the Goddess-given right to physically attack him whenever she wants.

Male on male DV is not non existent FYI. I am not sure why you cultivate the belief that DV is only present in opposite genders couples/partners.

as to "defend himself"versus "retaliate" : defense, certainly, however the level of defense force is to be proportionate to the threat. Retaliate, non!

Retaliation that goes beyond defense is wrong as well.

There is NO, absolutely NO legally sanctioned right to "retaliate".Self defense being the legal term when addressing a situation when one party is justified engaging in the use of physical force in order to protect himself/herself from an imminent threat of harm or death. "retaliation" is NOT protection. Retaliation indicates a pursued escalation into further use of physical force.

Operative words being "as well", meaning shared blame with the initial attacker, rather than sole blame that everybody keeps assigning him.

While you keep evading the observed reality that he used disproportionate force in response to a perceived aggression on her part and the use of disproportionate force being aggravated by the undeniable reality of the vast disparity between his status as a very strongly built party facing a party whose built is vastly inferior. You keep dismissing over and over those observable realities.

Further, not a peep on your part regarding how Rice did not check on her at all following his punching her. We have here a deplorable scene of a man whose use of physical force results in an unconscious party, same man who at no time checks on the unconscious party. And mind you that this deplorable scene involves 2 parties who are supposed to care about each other.

Is that a functional response from a party who cares about his romantic partner to not check on her state of unconsciousness? In my book, it is not and denotes a troubling and unsettling detached attitude on Rice's part.

But everybody (ironically except the wife herself) is acting as if she did nothing wrong by attacking him and that 100% of the fault lies with him. And when she acknowledges her portion of the blame everybody is acting as if she is just a victim of "Stockholm syndrome" or "battered woman syndrome" or similar sexist psychobabble.

Did I not explicitly address Aluxus' question to Ravensky earlier, indicating that the only parties who would be equipped to assess whether she is affected by symptoms under the DSM IV- PTSD related to BWS would be mental health care professionals? Do you at all pay attention to what is being stated as you claim "everybody....".

In view of you defining "Stockholm syndrome" and BWS as "sexist psychobabble", I will expect you can submit clinically supported data that such trauma related syndromes are non existent and the product of a "sexist" mentality.

Considering your having blamed DV victims for staying with the abusive party, it does not surprise me that you would demonstrate such lack of understanding and knowledge regarding human responses to inflicted trauma.

Or are you suggesting that escalation into pursued physical violence is the right course in view of this "retaliate"?

I am not sure there was much escalation as she went down after the first punch. If he continued beating on her after she stopped attacking that would make it much more clear cut.

My question was asked in view of you having used 2 terms "defense" and "retaliation" in your justification of when ANY male can defend himself as if they are interchangeable. When they are not. Retaliation indicating an escalation into pursued use of physical force/violence.

In view of you having used the term"retaliation" in your answer addressing ANY male right to defense, I will ask again :

Are you suggesting that escalation into pursued physical violence is the right course?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

*Waiting for the stand your ground defense of Ray Rice*

 

[thebeave]

Reading about this Ray Rice story and watching the TMZ clip reminded me of the "knockout game" from last year. It was a topic on the old forum:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?t=328947&highlight=knockout

What has me puzzled is the different reactions between the various posters then and now (many are the same people, myself included). In the discussion of the knockout game in the old forum, the attitude of many was along the lines of, "Um...nothing to see here...move along". Complaints about it being sensationalized/hyped by the media, or "old news" (6 months ago), or its from a right wing (Breitbart) website, etc. But it seems to me the circumstances of the person being knocked out in the knockout game were far more heinous than the Ray Rice incident. The knockout game victims were largely random and unknown to the hitter, or elderly and many of the "knockouts" were labeled as hate crimes (against Orthodox Jews, for example). Completely unprovoked. And the perpetrators did nothing to aid their victim afterward (at least Ray Rice didn't just walk away after he hit her). Some knockout victims ended up in the hospital and some even died. Janay Rice recovered quickly and went back to Ray afterwards and even married him! The race of the perpetrators were the same as well.

What's different about this situation? Is it solely about the fact that its famous people involved? Does it have to do with it being a domestic violence incident? If so, why is DV worse than a random act of violence? Is it because Janay is black and the knockout victims were white? The media has completely sensationalized this and there's not much complaint about that. I was trying to watch some afternoon TV yesterday during lunch and CBS broke in with a Special Report to talk about it! Just interested in hearing some thoughts from others.

 

[bigfield]

What's different about this situation? Is it solely about the fact that its famous people involved? Does it have to do with it being a domestic violence incident? If so, why is DV worse than a random act of violence? Is it because Janay is black and the knockout victims were white? The media has completely sensationalized this and there's not much complaint about that. I was trying to watch some afternoon TV yesterday during lunch and CBS broke in with a Special Report to talk about it! Just interested in hearing some thoughts from others.

Famous people, and more importantly, a famous organisation which had the power to punish Rice and chose to punish mildly.