The NFL Fumbles the Ball

[ZiprHead]

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

Looks like Derec has already supplied it.

 

[RavenSky]

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

Isn't that what Derec is already arguing?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

You interest me young Beave.

So, you think hitting a stranger is more heinous than hitting someone you love?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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

Looks like Derec has already supplied it.

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

Isn't that what Derec is already arguing?

To Derec's credit, he has been a bit (small bit) more sublime than that, but any minute the letters SYG will be peppering posts here more than cayenne in gumbo.

 

[Derec]

So, you think hitting a stranger is more heinous than hitting someone you love?

It depends. What if their relationship goes like this:

Maybe the DJ played this song at their wedding.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Isn't that what Derec is already arguing?

No, I just want her to be held accountable as well for being the initial aggressor.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It depends. What if their relationship goes like this:

Maybe the DJ played this song at their wedding.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Isn't that what Derec is already arguing?

No, I just want her to be held accountable as well for being the initial aggressor.

The problem with your logic is being hit doesn't mean you have to hit back.

Never has meant that. It is your choice.

These are not eight-year-olds on the schoolyard. Ray chose to hit Janay and he chose to hit her hard.

Both of those decisions were 100% his and 100% his responsibility.

 

[RavenSky]

First of all, I would like to see the evidence that she was the "initial aggressor". How far back should we go? Minutes, hours, days, weeks, years?

Second, even IF she somehow started this particular argument with Ray Rice, he followed her onto the elevator and then punched her straight in the face so hard he lifted her right out of her shoe. There is simply zero excuse for what he did... NONE.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I just want her to be held accountable as well for being the initial aggressor.

Accountable how?

 

[untermensche]

No, I just want her to be held accountable as well for being the initial aggressor.

Accountable how?

Something like a thump to the head.

 

[doubtingt]

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.

Of course the larger problem is societal, but the NFL absolutely deserves some blame here. Plenty of if not the majority of people thought Rice's punishment should have been much harsher, including and indefinite ban, based entirely on the first video. The NFL had it fully in there power to do that, but went out of their way to make up reasons not to and made no sincere effort to get the second video because they wanted to be able to have that wiggle room to make up those excuses.
Yes, the NFL is not alone in their willful ignorance to try and "stay out of it" when it comes to domestic abuse. But plenty of people did react more reasonably and ethically then the NFL, so it is fair to judge them harshly. In addition, the NFL is making money off of promoting Rice as a star, so they have more ethical responsibility than the rest of society when it comes to making sure their response to Rice's actions were reasoned and ethical. IOW, the NFL had a moral obligation to be better than the masses that don't profit from Rice, yet they acted like the worst elements of society.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By thebeave :If so, why is DV worse than a random act of violence?

The term "Domestic" refers to parties in a relationship. Usually residing in the same home. Usually economically/financially related. Meaning that the abusive party benefits of an environment where the victim is far more accessible, and with a far greater potential to be emotionally and psychologically manipulated by the same abusive personality party. The manipulation factor is important to note as it disables the victim's will to flee. Also important to note that domestic violence is never just only about physical abuse.

Further, DV cases are usually not about one isolated incident. Victims of DV are always warned that it will happen again. First time, it might start with bruises resulting from being pushed against a wall or a furniture. Next, the violence increases to facial trauma. Next, bone fractures or/and cracked ribs, and the possibility of a head trauma resulting in unconsciousness. Next time, the victim is susceptible to become a casualty. Physical abuse tends to escalate in such highly dysfunctional relationships. It does not just "plateau" and stays there. Victims of DV are always susceptible to meet a fatal outcome.

When I resided in Georgia, my close friend was a DV victim. When I would inquire about bruises on her arms, the excuse was about her dogs getting rough with her. As bruises started appearing on her face, it was about having taken a fall and hitting her face on a furniture. When traces of physical trauma evolved from frequent bruising to a bone fracture, she brushed it off as her being "clumsy". I could not help but notice the hole in their bedroom door and other signs of damages in the walls.

It took a major intervention involving me and her Church to motivate her to leave as soon as possible. I knew her husband and had knowledge he was an alcoholic. I also knew their 2 little girls were showing signs of emotional distress. One would have had to be blissfully oblivious to not notice it.

She finally decided to leave when I brought up to her that if she did not want to do it to rescue herself, she needed to do it for those 2 children. It was a precipitated departure where she had to leave at a time there was no way he could be around or showing up or follow her. She was given shelter in a vacant home owned by her Church with the specific instructions to not return to her home and not make any attempt to contact her husband. He was to not know where she and the children were. I volunteered to go back to her home to fetch clothes for her and the kids and other necessities. She literally left with only her clothes on her back.

Keys in hand, as I opened the door I heaved a sigh of relief as he was not home. I had prepared myself to gather what she needed as fast as possible. I also had prepared myself to remain calm, composed, determined and firm if he were to be home or show up. He did show up. It was an odd situation as he simply waved at me with a "how are you?" and took a bee line to the bedroom, closing the door. I completed my packing and left.

She was a TYPICAL case of someone whose psyche was reduced to believing that she was an accessory to her husband's anger,manifesting itself via his physical abuse on her person. It had been years since the last time he had not been critical of anything she would do or say.She believed herself to be inadequate and undeserving and unworthy. She was not born that way. She did not choose to feel that way. It was years of as she looked at him lovingly, his gaze was filled with contempt. It was years of her thinking he could be rescued from alcoholism if only she loved him enough. It was the hope that it would "get better".It was also economic dependency on him as she was a stay-home mom being the primary caregiver to 2 children.

Why did I share that with you, thebeave? So that you may understand why most people make a distinction between DV and a "random act of violence".

 

[Derec]

She was a TYPICAL case of someone whose psyche was reduced to believing that she was an accessory to her husband's anger,manifesting itself via his physical abuse on her person.

According to what we know she is the "accessory to [his] anger" as she attacked him first. Why are you (and others) so insistent to deny or downplay her involvement in the violence?

 

[Derec]

These are not eight-year-olds on the schoolyard. Ray chose to hit Janay and he chose to hit her hard.

And she chose to him him.

Both of those decisions were 100% his and 100% his responsibility.

And her decision to hit him was 100% her responsibility. Why is the feminist left so insistent on denying, excusing or downplaying any female's violent behavior? Be it Rice's girlfriend or women who mutilate (Lorena Bobbit was not only acquitted of mutilating her husband's genitals, she became a feminist heroine for it!) or even murder their intimate partners (Mary Walker and Nikki Redmond have all been defended by feminists. And even rare convicted murderesses like Jodi Arias have their supporters on the feminist Left).

- - - Updated - - -

Accountable how?

Something like a thump to the head.

I was thinking more along the lines of a criminal charge for assault and battery.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She was a TYPICAL case of someone whose psyche was reduced to believing that she was an accessory to her husband's anger,manifesting itself via his physical abuse on her person.

According to what we know she is the "accessory to [his] anger" as she attacked him first. Why are you (and others) so insistent to deny or downplay her involvement in the violence?

Exactly. It's like last week when one of my neighbours cut me off in traffic. I then blew up his house with a rocket launcher. It's that fucker's own fault for starting it.

 

[Derec]

First of all, I would like to see the evidence that she was the "initial aggressor". How far back should we go? Minutes, hours, days, weeks, years?

I had same event in mind, so immediately prior to him thumping her.

Second, even IF she somehow started this particular argument with Ray Rice, he followed her onto the elevator and then punched her straight in the face so hard he lifted her right out of her shoe. There is simply zero excuse for what he did... NONE.

Is there any excuse for what she did? Or is it ok to commit domestic violence if you are a woman?

Remember, he merely hit her and there is "zero excuse" for that but feminists come up with plenty of excuses for women who do far worse things to men (cut off their penises or even murder them).

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. It's like last week when one of my neighbours cut me off in traffic. I then blew up his house with a rocket launcher. It's that fucker's own fault for starting it.

Those are not analogous at all to two people hitting each other.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And she chose to him him.

Both of those decisions were 100% his and 100% his responsibility.

And her decision to hit him was 100% her responsibility. Why is the feminist left so insistent on denying, excusing or downplaying any female's violent behavior? Be it Rice's girlfriend or women who mutilate (Lorena Bobbit was not only acquitted of mutilating her husband's genitals, she became a feminist heroine for it!) or even murder their intimate partners (Mary Walker and Nikki Redmond have all been defended by feminists. And even rare convicted murderesses like Jodi Arias have their supporters on the feminist Left).

- - - Updated - - -

Accountable how?

Something like a thump to the head.

I was thinking more along the lines of a criminal charge for assault and battery.

Derec

You haven't invalidated anything I said.

Because you can't.

and unless you have a tape of her "hitting him first" (echoes of whining 8 year olds ring in my ears everytime I hear those words) with a baseball bat, you got nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

I had same event in mind, so immediately prior to him thumping her.

Second, even IF she somehow started this particular argument with Ray Rice, he followed her onto the elevator and then punched her straight in the face so hard he lifted her right out of her shoe. There is simply zero excuse for what he did... NONE.

Is there any excuse for what she did? Or is it ok to commit domestic violence if you are a woman?

Remember, he merely hit her and there is "zero excuse" for that but feminists come up with plenty of excuses for women who do far worse things to men (cut off their penises or even murder them).

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. It's like last week when one of my neighbours cut me off in traffic. I then blew up his house with a rocket launcher. It's that fucker's own fault for starting it.

Those are not analogous at all to two people hitting each other.

is your argument that Janay Rice is equally strong as her husband?

 

[Derec]

Derec

You haven't invalidated anything I said.

Because you can't.

and unless you have a tape of her "hitting him first" (echoes of whining 8 year olds ring in my ears everytime I hear those words) with a baseball bat, you got nothing.

Show me where "assault and battery" requires the use of a baseball bat? Is that for females only?

is your argument that Janay Rice is equally strong as her husband?

No. But their relative differences in strength are orders of magnitude less than Tom Sawyer's silly analogy of cutting off somebody vs. blowing their house up.
Why are you and others so insistent that a woman hitting a man is not domestic violence or wrong in any way? Pure, unadulterated sexism!

 

[Sabine Grant]

She was a TYPICAL case of someone whose psyche was reduced to believing that she was an accessory to her husband's anger,manifesting itself via his physical abuse on her person.

According to what we know she is the "accessory to [his] anger" as she attacked him first. Why are you (and others) so insistent to deny or downplay her involvement in the violence?

"she was a typical case..." referring to my close friend whom I am rather certain you have never met in person. You have NO insights whatsoever as to whether my friend caused her husband's anger. My reply to thebeave was in NO way commenting on Mrs Rice but was addressing his question:

If so, why is DV worse than a random act of violence?

His question I clearly quoted at the onset of my post, my post detailing and illustrating why DV is worse than a random act of violence.

I have been noting that when you are challenged to present a rationally centered and documented justification for some of your claims, it is followed by *sounds of crickets*. Such as my asking you to present clinical data invalidating Stockholm syndrome and BWS as you defined them as "sexist psychobabble"when applied to DV victims.

The reality and one I experienced (and one you did NOT) is that my close friend was a typical case of a victim affected by BWS. Part of the symptoms being a self blaming process on the part of the victim.

Now, you quote mined my post, and misrepresented whom I was referring to when I stated " she was a typical case of someone whose psyche was reduced to believing she was an accessory to her husband's anger, manifesting itself via his physical abuse on his person" While you obviously paid no attention to the content of my post being formulated to address thebeave's clearly quoted question at the onset of my reply.

While you took my remark, you chose to respond to with a rant, while taking it out of its intended context. And exploiting that as a platform to launch into assertive conclusions.

Meanwhile, you have persistently dismissed and ignored the mentioned factors in this thread of :

-use of disproportionate defensive force.

-vast disparity between both parties' anatomies. Which was brought up earlier by Athena and brought up to YOUR attention in one of my posts.

 

[dismal]

Show me where "assault and battery" requires the use of a baseball bat? Is that for females only?

is your argument that Janay Rice is equally strong as her husband?

No. But their relative differences in strength are orders of magnitude less than Tom Sawyer's silly analogy of cutting off somebody vs. blowing their house up.
Why are you and others so insistent that a woman hitting a man is not domestic violence or wrong in any way? Pure, unadulterated sexism!

Really. To avoid sexist sentiments all arguments on this topic should be made irrespective of gender.

"A man never hits a woman" fails this test. You could go with "a person never hits a person". Or maybe "a big person never hits a little person".

So, for example, if some 130 pound guy had spit on Ray Rice and bum rushed him in an elevator and gotten dropped we would go with our "a big person never hits a little person" principle (if that's our principle) instead of saying "that idiot deserved it".

 

[dismal]

Meanwhile, you have persistently dismissed and ignored the mentioned factors in this thread of :

-use of disproportionate defensive force.

-vast disparity between both parties' anatomies. Which was brought up earlier by Athena and brought up to YOUR attention in one of my posts.

Do you really think that if a smaller person attacks a bigger person it is not appropriate for the big person to punch them in the head?

This proposition strikes me as wildly disconnected from reality.