And this is why

[Sam_2.0]

We only get to judge the couple of minutes that we see on this video. What happened before and after is also very important. This is obviously a very disfunctional relationship.

[NancysSummerSip]

Sept 9, 2014 16:00:17 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

Part of the problem is we need to stop letting the victims decide if they want to press charges or not.

I am honestly worried for Rice's wife. If he was an asshole when he was on top of the world, things are only going to deteriorate from here.

In this state, we don't let victims decide. It has not always been that way, the law changed a few years ago because too many abusers got off, got out and killed their victims.

And yes, you are right Sam. That exchange was likely not their first, nor will it be their last. But at the risk of sounding harsh, she has to leave. Her mealticket lost his means, and she never should have stayed and married him after the assault. That should have been a wakeup call to both of them that this relationship needed to end, or at least come to a stopping point for awhile.

I'm not blaming or defending either of them. Blows were exchanged by both of them. The fact that his knocked her out is not a factor. Love does not hurt the other person; I don't care who hits who or how hard. When it gets to this point, there is no material thing that is worth staying around for, no remembrance of good things past that can be worth risking your life and/or your children's lives.

I know, I'll get slammed, flamed and judged for what I posted. It's already happened. I've not been a victim, so I'm too dumb to understand. My side of this is and has always been from the professional's aspect. I never claimed otherwise.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 10, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Sept 9, 2014 16:00:17 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

Part of the problem is we need to stop letting the victims decide if they want to press charges or not.

I am honestly worried for Rice's wife. If he was an asshole when he was on top of the world, things are only going to deteriorate from here.

 The fact that his knocked her out is not a factor. 

If he had killed her with that punch would it have been a factor?

[billisonboard]

Sept 10, 2014 9:16:32 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

... I'm not saying this excuses the reaction, or "blaming the victim."  But I also do not accept that a woman can cause serious physical harm to a larger opponent, and that she is "harmless."

It draws into question who the "victim" is. Reverse the gender of the two. In that situation, would "she" be the abuser or would "she" have been defending "herself".

[Sam_2.0]

I agree she needs to leave. It's not always easy, but hopefully this has been the wake-up call that she's needed to realize she needs to get out. He also needs to leave. The relationship is obviously toxic for him too.

[NancysSummerSip]

Sept 9, 2014 18:33:34 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Sept 9, 2014 18:30:57 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

We are talking about abuse in General where there is no camera to capture the moment.

DA's tend to not prosecute if the victim will not collaborate or testify.

Multiple people have mentioned 'her' refusing to testify which was the case with all of this.  Someone else mentioned they can prosecute without the victim testifying but in the case of Rice the deal and agreement wasn't unusual for a first offense.   

Because they became husband and wife in New Jersey, Janay Rice cannot be compelled to testify. The state has a law concerning spousal incrimination. In other words, one spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other.

There has been rumor that Ray Rice insisted they marry in New Jersey for this reason. The marriage occurred after the assault, and he wanted to make sure she could not be called as a witness against him, if he were arrested and prosecuted.

Rule 501. Privilege of Accused

N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17 provides:
(1) Every person has in any criminal action in which he is an accused a right not to be called as a witness and not to testify.

(2) The spouse or one partner in a civil union couple of the accused in a criminal action shall not testify in such action except to prove the fact of marriage or civil union unless (a) such spouse or partner consents, or (b) the accused is charged with an offense against the spouse or partner, a child of the accused or of the spouse or partner, or a child to whom the accused or the spouse or partner stands in the place of a parent, or (c) such spouse or partner is the complainant.

[973beachbum]

Sept 10, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Sept 9, 2014 16:00:17 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

Part of the problem is we need to stop letting the victims decide if they want to press charges or not.

I am honestly worried for Rice's wife. If he was an asshole when he was on top of the world, things are only going to deteriorate from here.

In this state, we don't let victims decide. It has not always been that way, the law changed a few years ago because too many abusers got off, got out and killed their victims.

And yes, you are right Sam. That exchange was likely not their first, nor will it be their last. But at the risk of sounding harsh, she has to leave. Her mealticket lost his means, and she never should have stayed and married him after the assault. That should have been a wakeup call to both of them that this relationship needed to end, or at least come to a stopping point for awhile.

I'm not blaming or defending either of them. Blows were exchanged by both of them. The fact that his knocked her out is not a factor. Love does not hurt the other person; I don't care who hits who or how hard. When it gets to this point, there is no material thing that is worth staying around for, no remembrance of good things past that can be worth risking your life and/or your children's lives.

I know, I'll get slammed, flamed and judged for what I posted. On the NFL thread, it's already happened. I've not been a victim, so I'm too dumb to understand. My side of this is and has always been from the professional's aspect. I never claimed otherwise.

My prev post I was thinking as a prospective juror.  I have been on 5 juries in my life and it isn't anything like on Law and Order!  I have never been told about anyone's life leading up to the event.  They didn't put the crime in context and they certianly never educated us on anything other than the legal jury instructions for that trial.  then again around here murder trails last maybe two weeks tops.

And watching that video would making convicting him difficult regardless of who presses the charges IMO.

[NancysSummerSip]

Sept 10, 2014 9:30:33 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 10, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

 The fact that his knocked her out is not a factor. 

If he had killed her with that punch would it have been a factor?

Possibly. That would be known as murder, Archie.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 10, 2014 9:35:54 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Sept 10, 2014 9:30:33 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

If he had killed her with that punch would it have been a factor?

Possibly. That would be known as murder, Archie.

So the degree to which someone is harmed in a violent act does matter. 

[NancysSummerSip]

Sept 10, 2014 9:37:26 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 10, 2014 9:35:54 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Possibly. That would be known as murder, Archie.

So the degree to which someone is harmed in a violent act does matter. 

Depends on the jurisdiction. Murder in the first degree would be a deliberate  and intentional act of causing death. You could argue, had it occurred in this case, that it would more likely be second-degree murder or even manslaughter. It's more a matter of intent.

Now "aggravating circumstances" are another story, and I think that's what you mean. This part of New Jersey's list of factors for deciding degree of aggravating/mitigating circumstances:


(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense, and the role of the actor therein, including whether or not it was committed in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner;

(2) The gravity and seriousness of harm inflicted on the victim, including whether or not the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim of the offense was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to advanced age, ill-health, or extreme youth, or was for any other reason substantially incapable of exercising normal physical or mental power of resistance;

(3) The risk that the defendant will commit another offense;

(4) A lesser sentence will depreciate the seriousness of the defendant's offense because it involved a breach of the public trust under chapters 27 and 30, or the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense;

(5) There is a substantial likelihood that the defendant is involved in organized criminal activity;

(6) The extent of the defendant's prior criminal record and the seriousness of the offenses of which he has been convicted;

(7) The defendant committed the offense pursuant to an agreement that he either pay or be paid for the commission of the offense and the pecuniary incentive was beyond that inherent in the offense itself;

(8) The defendant committed the offense against a police or other law enforcement officer, correctional employee or fireman, acting in the performance of his duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his authority; the defendant committed the offense because of the status of the victim as a public servant; or the defendant committed the offense against a sports official, athletic coach or manager, acting in or immediately following the performance of his duties or because of the person's status as a sports official, coach or manager;

(9) The need for deterring the defendant and others from violating the law.

[thyme4change]

Sept 10, 2014 9:32:59 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

I agree she needs to leave. It's not always easy, but hopefully this has been the wake-up call that she's needed to realize she needs to get out. He also needs to leave. The relationship is obviously toxic for him too.

There is the meal ticket factor.  Even if she gets a handsome money settlement, she loses the lifestyle of being married to a celebrity.  She might think it is worth getting knocked around a little bit.  Not a choice I would make, but the fact that she is raging against the NFL for not letting him play might mean she cares about his love of the game, and might indicate her love of being in the halo of awesomeness.  Now that he is kicked out in such a shameful way, she has lost a lot of cool benefits.

Granted, they will probably start a big DV charity and make it a huge lobbying group and stuff so they can get some limelight.  They just haven't gotten that far yet.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 10, 2014 9:42:08 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Sept 10, 2014 9:37:26 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

So the degree to which someone is harmed in a violent act does matter. 

Depends on the jurisdiction. Murder in the first degree would be a deliberate  and intentional act of causing death. You could argue, had it occurred in this case, that it would more likely be second-degree murder or even manslaughter. It's more a matter of intent.

Now "aggravating circumstances" are another story, and I think that's what you mean. This part of New Jersey's list of factors for deciding degree of aggravating/mitigating circumstances:


(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense, and the role of the actor therein, including whether or not it was committed in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner;

(2) The gravity and seriousness of harm inflicted on the victim, including whether or not the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim of the offense was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to advanced age, ill-health, or extreme youth, or was for any other reason substantially incapable of exercising normal physical or mental power of resistance;

(3) The risk that the defendant will commit another offense;

(4) A lesser sentence will depreciate the seriousness of the defendant's offense because it involved a breach of the public trust under chapters 27 and 30, or the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense;

(5) There is a substantial likelihood that the defendant is involved in organized criminal activity;

(6) The extent of the defendant's prior criminal record and the seriousness of the offenses of which he has been convicted;

(7) The defendant committed the offense pursuant to an agreement that he either pay or be paid for the commission of the offense and the pecuniary incentive was beyond that inherent in the offense itself;

(8) The defendant committed the offense against a police or other law enforcement officer, correctional employee or fireman, acting in the performance of his duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his authority; the defendant committed the offense because of the status of the victim as a public servant; or the defendant committed the offense against a sports official, athletic coach or manager, acting in or immediately following the performance of his duties or because of the person's status as a sports official, coach or manager;

(9) The need for deterring the defendant and others from violating the law.

You can't make me believe, though that there is no difference between a slap, a spit, a push, a pinch, a squeeze and a punch that could very easily have killed her.     All violence is not equal. 

[Deleted]

The Charleston Post and Courier released a seven part series on domestic violence (against women) in South Carolina:

Till death do us part

[NancysSummerSip]

You can't make me believe, though that there is no difference between a slap, a spit, a push, a pinch, a squeeze and a punch that could very easily have killed her. All violence is not equal.

No, personally, I can neither make you believe that, nor would I think such logic is sound. The justice system, however, looks at assault as assault, regardless of type, until it reaches a certain level of aggravation. An unwelcome touch on the butt is assault, just like a slap in the face or a kick in the teeth. I'm not defending the legal logic, just presenting it.

FWIW, here is my state's definition of assault. And it covers a lot of territory:

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

And the definition of battery:

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

[Angel!]

An assault is an assault, but they are absolutely charged at different levels. The charge for a slap or spit is much lower than the charge for a punch.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 10, 2014 10:00:03 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

You can't make me believe, though that there is no difference between a slap, a spit, a push, a pinch, a squeeze and a punch that could very easily have killed her. All violence is not equal.

No, personally, I can neither make you believe that, nor would I think such logic is sound. The justice system, however, looks at assault as assault, regardless of type, until it reaches a certain level of aggravation. An unwelcome touch on the butt is assault, just like a slap in the face or a kick in the teeth. I'm not defending the legal logic, just presenting it.

FWIW, here is my state's definition of assault. And it covers a lot of territory:

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

And the definition of battery:

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

Agreed.   but we all know that very, very, very, very, very, very few minor assaults  "go legal", so the I am not that concerned with legal definitions.   I understand that is the angle you are coming from, though. 

[NancysSummerSip]

Sept 10, 2014 10:13:30 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 10, 2014 10:00:03 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

No, personally, I can neither make you believe that, nor would I think such logic is sound. The justice system, however, looks at assault as assault, regardless of type, until it reaches a certain level of aggravation. An unwelcome touch on the butt is assault, just like a slap in the face or a kick in the teeth. I'm not defending the legal logic, just presenting it.

FWIW, here is my state's definition of assault. And it covers a lot of territory:

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

And the definition of battery:

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

Agreed.   but we all know that very, very, very, very, very, very few minor assaults  "go legal", so the I am not that concerned with legal definitions.   I understand that is the angle you are coming from, though. 

Yes, you are right. At least one other poster pointed out that many of them either get pled down, or even downfiled before they ever get to court. I was always surprised at the number of DV arrests that were entered as assaults. The difference: someone charged with DV could not post bond and get out of jail the same day; they had to go to court the next morning. An assault charge is bondable.

We've had a number of high-profile/celebrity DV arrests locally; seems those folks always get charged with assault. Heaven forbid they should spend a night in the slammer. Had they been Mr./Ms. Ordinary Citizen, I think things would have been different.

[973beachbum]

Sept 10, 2014 11:16:20 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Sept 10, 2014 10:13:30 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Agreed.   but we all know that very, very, very, very, very, very few minor assaults  "go legal", so the I am not that concerned with legal definitions.   I understand that is the angle you are coming from, though. 

Yes, you are right. At least one other poster pointed out that many of them either get pled down, or even downfiled before they ever get to court. I was always surprised at the number of DV arrests that were entered as assaults. The difference: someone charged with DV could not post bond and get out of jail the same day; they had to go to court the next morning. An assault charge is bondable.

We've had a number of high-profile/celebrity DV arrests locally; seems those folks always get charged with assault. Heaven forbid they should spend a night in the slammer. Had they been Mr./Ms. Ordinary Citizen, I think things would have been different.

It might be because there is no room at the inn literally.  Wasn't it Paris Hilton who was let out and they said they had a federal mandate to reduce the overcrowding?  I know in my county alone we have a jail designed to hold 300 people that is housing almost 900. 

at some point they have to make the decision of who should be let out/not put in.  I trust that most of the time they do have everyone's best interest mind.  Who would I rather have in jail that night the DV assualt or the attempted robbery by gunpoint?  I may be selfish but I would rather have the attempted robbery by gun.

[andreawick]

Sept 9, 2014 15:44:39 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Yep, she wrote on Instagram :

"Just know we will continue to grow & show the world what real love is!"

Honey if that is real love I don't want it for any of my female relatives.

they'll keep growing until his money runs out....which should be right about.......

[Deleted]

Had they been Mr./Ms. Ordinary Citizen, I think things would have been different.

I wish that were true. I know of too many nobodies that also walked away from DV charges very easily.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 11:49:07 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Had they been Mr./Ms. Ordinary Citizen, I think things would have been different.

I wish that were true. I know of too many nobodies that also walked away from DV charges very easily.

I'll bet MOST walk away with a slap on the wrist if anything for first offense.

[ohhkay2]

If the only time he ever hit her was in response to her hitting him, would he still be the abuser and her the victim?

I don't like the double standard. Boys AND girls need to be taught to keep their hands to themselves. If you decide to attack someone you don't get to determine how they respond. IMO regardless of what anyone else says, the uproar is because she's a woman, not because she's smaller or weaker. It's just something that hurts to watch, even if you know she was deadass wrong for attacking him.

If it had been two men, with the attacker being her size and strength, very few would have an issue with it. No one would expect him to walk away because the man who attacked him was smaller than him. Men don't have that built in protection to the point that they believe they can attack someone and expect them not to fight back bc it wouldn't be "fair". If it had been another man who was clearly no match against Rice, he'd be called all types of stupid for picking a fight he had no hope of winning. The onus would not be on Rice to walk away. It's not because of her size or strength. Women are allowed to get away with bad behavior because "she can't really hurt him" "he should be a real man and walk away" "he should have more self control". So yes, I think there's a lot of victim blaming going around, I'm just not sure who the actual victim is. And no, I don't believe he should be able to claim self defense - I guess I just don't see her as an innocent victim. They were equally wrong in my eyes and she was right for apologizing because she started the whole mess. I don't believe he should get this big black mark while she gets a free pass..

That does seem standard though. With Jay and Bey, he responded perfectly, but everyone seemed to want to judge them vs Solange. "She (Beyonce) should have stepped in" "He must have did something to deserve it" and on and on. Men are supposed to have super human self-control, but women are almost expected to behave badly. People will say "she's crazy" and move on (doubt she will face any consequences), but there is a legit uproar over Rice. Both cases of a video taped attack and both "victims" decided not to press charges.

Also, it might just be the sucky quality of the video I watched, but it looks like he slapped/mushed her and the bar knocked her out. He could have just as easily pushed her and ended up with the same result (due to the bar and how she fell).

[Value Buy]

Sept 10, 2014 9:04:29 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

She looks like a physically strong woman.  Not that it makes it right to hit her or whatever.  But she looks like she is taller than him, and is no waif.  I'm not saying that critically,  she has a great shape.  Maybe she is my size, which wouldn't make her strong - I am the definition of a weakling.    Maybe I am being fooled by the look she has on her face.  It makes her look tough.  I can't find any pictures of her arm muscles being all cut or anything.  

I know a picture is only a snapshop of a second in time.

To me, This picture tells me of a woman who has been through the ringer.

Whether it is from physical abuse, or just too much unwanted public exposure, I do not know.

[Value Buy]

Sept 9, 2014 16:55:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 9, 2014 16:49:44 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Is it justified for someone who's professionally trained to knock someone else who is not able to render them real harm, completely unconscious?  He didn't retaliate in kind, he used his professional force to overwhelm the other even knowing that she couldn't do him real damage based on training and physical prowess. 

Female violence against males isn't an issue that many wish to deal with.

I am wondering if she is the dominant one in the bedroom.

This could explain his physical abuse of her in public.

He could be acting out his frustration in public.

And do not think this is not an issue out there.

In no way am I condoning his actions.

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 10, 2014 12:31:46 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 9, 2014 16:55:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Female violence against males isn't an issue that many wish to deal with.

I am wondering if she is the dominant one in the bedroom.

This could explain his physical abuse of her in public.

He could be acting out his frustration in public.

And do not think this is not an issue out there.

In no way am I condoning his actions.

Now that is a theory I can get behind.  Or should I say that she can get behind.  

[achelois]

Sept 10, 2014 12:31:46 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 9, 2014 16:55:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Female violence against males isn't an issue that many wish to deal with.

I am wondering if she is the dominant one in the bedroom.

This could explain his physical abuse of her in public.

He could be acting out his frustration in public.

And do not think this is not an issue out there.

In no way am I condoning his actions.

What?

[quince]

 I actually agree that female violence against males is often ignored or dismissed when it should not be. It does not make disproportionate response OK, but it is something people wave off. We also talk about victims of domestic violence as though they were always female- they are not.  Female victims have the stigma of it being their fault for not having better judgement- male victims have people who don't want to acknowledge that a woman can abuse a man, and don't see a female striking a male as a problem at all.

I do not want my male or female friends or relatives in abusive situations.

[Deleted]

Ok, am I the only one here that saw that he appeared to spit on her twice? In the garage when she walked past him, and in the elevator. Both times, she swung her arm toward him AFTER it looked like he spit on her.

[mmhmm]

Sept 10, 2014 9:30:33 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Sept 10, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

 The fact that his knocked her out is not a factor. 

If he had killed her with that punch would it have been a factor?

Excellent question, Archie. At his size and strength, her death was a real possibility. You just don't haul off and clock a smaller, weaker individual who's unarmed and drunk as a skunk. There are better ways to deal with the problem.

[Deleted]

Sept 11, 2014 6:42:56 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Ok, am I the only one here that saw that he appeared to spit on her twice? In the garage when she walked past him, and in the elevator. Both times, she swung her arm toward him AFTER it looked like he spit on her.

Yeah, I thought I saw that too.