Ray Rice NFL Suspension Over Domestic Violence.

[tallguy]

Hardy has not been convicted in the jury phase yet.  (I heard something a few days ago that the North Carolina system is two parts.  First before a judge, and second before a jury.  Until he is convicted by the jury nothing is final.  If he is not guilty in either phase he is not guilty.)  He was found guilty by the judge.  He appealed the conviction and a jury trial is set for November.

The justification until now is that he had not yet been finally convicted and the legal system needed a chance to run its course.  And of course that fits with our system of innocent until proven guilty.  Once the trial is over the Panthers and the NFL would be assumed to act at that point, but they have been hiding behind that until now.

And honestly, I can't really fault them.  We have all heard about the idea that better ten guilty go free than one innocent be punished.  And it does happen.  Players are targets.  There was an occurrence during training camp when Marshawn Lynch of the Seahawks was accused of something.  The police department felt the need to make the allegations public.  In actuality, Marshawn Lynch was at training camp where they have bed checks every night and was nowhere near the alleged incident.  The Seahawks almost immediately termed the allegations "bogus" and the police a few days later acknowledged there was nothing to them.  It happens.  Probably not with Hardy, but it does happen.   

[billisonboard]

I feel like I have benefited from this discussion and, while I am still processing that fully, I wanted to acknowledge it. 

[Shooby]

Well, I think he is absolutely 100% wrong. A man should not hit a women. Period, end of story. Don't care if that is a double standard because it IS and it absolutely should be.


However, having said that, I think this could also be the impetus for him to turn his life around and be and example to others. He and is wife could become advocates of stopping domestic violence. He may have grown up in a home where this was the norm, she too. We don't know. That doesn't excuse it but he could use this experience and turn it into something to educate other young men.

[Shooby]

Nobody should anyone. But a women isn't likely to be able to kill a man with her bare hands versus the reverse. I really don't know why I have to continue to explain biology here.

[Shooby]

The Panthers have benched Greg Hardy who was charged with domestic violence.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 3:43:31 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Hardy has not been convicted in the jury phase yet.  (I heard something a few days ago that the North Carolina system is two parts.  First before a judge, and second before a jury.  Until he is convicted by the jury nothing is final.  If he is not guilty in either phase he is not guilty.)  He was found guilty by the judge.  He appealed the conviction and a jury trial is set for November.

The justification until now is that he had not yet been finally convicted and the legal system needed a chance to run its course.  And of course that fits with our system of innocent until proven guilty.  Once the trial is over the Panthers and the NFL would be assumed to act at that point, but they have been hiding behind that until now.

And honestly, I can't really fault them.  We have all heard about the idea that better ten guilty go free than one innocent be punished.  And it does happen.  Players are targets.  There was an occurrence during training camp when Marshawn Lynch of the Seahawks was accused of something.  The police department felt the need to make the allegations public.  In actuality, Marshawn Lynch was at training camp where they have bed checks every night and was nowhere near the alleged incident.  The Seahawks almost immediately termed the allegations "bogus" and the police a few days later acknowledged there was nothing to them.  It happens.  Probably not with Hardy, but it does happen.   

well Ray Rice hasn't been convicted by a judge or jury yet, only in the court of popular opinion....so there is certainly inconsistency. 

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 6:49:41 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Nobody should anyone. But a women isn't likely to be able to kill a man with her bare hands versus the reverse. I really don't know why I have to continue to explain biology here.

and this is exactly why DV women against men is such a taboo topic and never discussed.

[mmhmm]

Sept 15, 2014 8:05:39 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Sept 15, 2014 6:49:41 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Nobody should anyone. But a women isn't likely to be able to kill a man with her bare hands versus the reverse. I really don't know why I have to continue to explain biology here.

and this is exactly why DV women against men is such a taboo topic and never discussed.

It's been discussed here. I've seen it discussed elsewhere. I've seen articles about it, both professional and non-professional. It's certainly not taboo.

[mmhmm]

Sept 15, 2014 8:04:05 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Sept 15, 2014 3:43:31 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Hardy has not been convicted in the jury phase yet.  (I heard something a few days ago that the North Carolina system is two parts.  First before a judge, and second before a jury.  Until he is convicted by the jury nothing is final.  If he is not guilty in either phase he is not guilty.)  He was found guilty by the judge.  He appealed the conviction and a jury trial is set for November.

The justification until now is that he had not yet been finally convicted and the legal system needed a chance to run its course.  And of course that fits with our system of innocent until proven guilty.  Once the trial is over the Panthers and the NFL would be assumed to act at that point, but they have been hiding behind that until now.

And honestly, I can't really fault them.  We have all heard about the idea that better ten guilty go free than one innocent be punished.  And it does happen.  Players are targets.  There was an occurrence during training camp when Marshawn Lynch of the Seahawks was accused of something.  The police department felt the need to make the allegations public.  In actuality, Marshawn Lynch was at training camp where they have bed checks every night and was nowhere near the alleged incident.  The Seahawks almost immediately termed the allegations "bogus" and the police a few days later acknowledged there was nothing to them.  It happens.  Probably not with Hardy, but it does happen.   

well Ray Rice hasn't been convicted by a judge or jury yet, only in the court of popular opinion....so there is certainly inconsistency. 

Ray Rice has been proven to have done what he did by a video taken at the scene. There's no doubt of what happened in that elevator. Most of these incidents don't have video that actually shows the perp in action.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 13, 2014 21:27:17 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Liberals know sports are a perfect metaphor for the way life really works, and that represents an enormous threat to the entire liberal ideology.

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP, that is utter hogwash. You have to know that. You're not an imbecile. Please, just quit with the nonsensical arguments. They don't stand you in good stead. Honestly. They don't.

I have no illusions about the stead I stand in here.  You may not understand my argument- it is definitely a message "for those who have ears to hear", but it's spot on. Maybe you'll see it one day, maybe you won't.  If you don't like it- please, instead of the long fancy shame me into shutting up approach- and the "no its not" argument-- try making a counter intellectual point. 

Fundamentally, if you understand that liberalism is an ideology at war with nature- you can decode the whole thing.  Once you grasp this, you understand why you so often find moral confusion in liberalism- in liberalism, it's not right and wrong, it's always those perceived to be weak vs. those perceived to be strong-- and the entire function of liberalism is to make sure the odds are even-- even if it means aiding and abetting evil.

This is why liberals were confounded by what Hitler did when he was appeased.  It's why the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan baffled them so and why some in his administration kept telling him to "tone it down", and they even tried to strike the 'provocative' statement of the obvious-- that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" from his speech.  It explains the appeasement of radical islam, and the entire "blame America first" crowd on the left.  And yes, it explains their contempt for "jocks" in general at all levels, and their disgust with some aspects of professional sports- especially the money, and "celebrating in the end zone"-- basically anything that shoves winning in the face of the losers. 

Look, words like "conspicuous consumption", and "McMansion" are words that come from the intellectual underpinnings of the left.  They are words of contempt for winners.  For those who are prosperous.  They hate SUVs, they used to hate cell phones until Cardinal Jobs blessed the devices and made them "cool". 

Liberals believe that through some cosmic accident the wrong people are in charge.  The wrong people are rich, and the wrong people win.  They don't like the structure of the universe itself.  They fail to realize that there's an unequal distribution of human liberty underpinned by an absolute moral code and connected to personal responsibility.  Instead, they see an unequal distribution of wealth, regard it as unfair, and see the role of government-- the only institution that should have guns-- as taking from those that have "too much" and giving it to those that have "too little".

So, sports naturally bothers them.  Let's face it- some people are born into this world who possess natural traits that make them superior athletes, and they generate more interest than teachers, firefighters, police, and even soldiers-- so they get paid millions of dollars to play games while others grind it out, and risk their lives.  Don't think this doesn't drive liberals up the wall-- especially when they'd like to get their hands on that money to pay for climate researchers, and to force gender studies and training for oral sex on first graders.  And why do they do those things I just mentioned (the aren't made up)?  They do them to upset affluent suburban WASPS who they see as people who deserve to be humilated, whose children ought to be divorced from their values and trained to believe in moral relativism and appreciate the challenges of transgendered gay muslims in white, racist, homophobic America.  Because you know- the whole of society should be conformed to the outlook and worldview of 19 fucking weirdos.  And if you disagree-- you're a bully, and need to be sent to some re-education camp.

So, yeah- this is one big complicated clusterfuck for an NFL commissioner trying to appease the wacko coalition on the left- the race baiters, poverty pimps, and feminists all have a stake in the outcome-- so do you rush out and suspend the guy for a year, or release him and have Al Sharpton chanting "No justice, no peace" outside your stadiums on Sunday, or do you go easy on the black guy and have NOW all up in your shit?

And you'll note- none of this is really directly related to the issue-- but it's all stuff that has to be considered in the brave new world we now occupy.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 13, 2014 21:26:56 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 13, 2014 20:04:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

She was no threat to him.  Her attacks were spitting and open-handed hitting.  He's a damn NFL player for crying out loud- he's been hit harder with towels in the locker room.  You can defend yourself against a woman if she poses a real threat, but you don't hit a hysterical woman having a hissy fit. You walk away.

LOL... how would you accomplish that in this case? Through the elevator wall?

He had to knock her unconscious?  He couldn't pin her?  He couldn't defend himself?  Btw- he didn't HAVE to get on that elevator-- he chose to, so clearly he didn't think he was taking his life in his hands getting in there with her, did he?  No.  He went in there to give her what she had coming (in his mind) out of view of the public.  

[mmhmm]

Believe as you like, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP. What I posted wasn't an effort to shut you up. I don't really care if you shut up, or you don't. I'm able to sift through gobbledygook for valuable information, just as are most reasonably intelligent people. I'm not the only one here, or elsewhere, who sees this stuff for what it is. If you don't, fine.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 14, 2014 10:06:01 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Was it not an act of aggression when he spit on her?

He could have killed her hitting her that hard.  The question is did she do something to warrant the use of deadly force.  What if he had shot her-- would you be saying that was OK because he was just defending himself?  And don't tell me he didn't know a blow from him hard enough could kill someone-- not with all the NFL crap going on about concussions.  He lost his temper, failed to control himself, and did in fact use force he knew or should have known to be deadly force when it was not warranted.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 8:07:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 15, 2014 8:05:39 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

and this is exactly why DV women against men is such a taboo topic and never discussed.

It's been discussed here. I've seen it discussed elsewhere. I've seen articles about it, both professional and non-professional. It's certainly not taboo.

it's been discussed but how many men press charges and receive justice?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 13, 2014 23:51:37 GMT -5 tallguy said:

To play devil's advocate here:  Do you leave room for the idea that yes, he was wrong but yes, she deserved it?  Is it possible for those to be simultaneously true?  There is little doubt that if she had instead been some random guy from a bar there would be no charge filed.  Does equality only exist when it is convenient?  And is that really equal?  

I can wrap my head around this thought.  I think in general you never really hit a woman-- not just for being a hysterical beotch.  However, I also don't think it's never OK to put your hands on someone to get their attention.  

Not every unfriendly physical contact is felony assault and battery or "domestic violence".  

Mind you, I'm smarter than to do it because you are precisely right- there is a huge double standard when it comes to the law in general, and any woman that wants to can blow the slightest thing out of proportion, so it's just best to know that and not provide her with the opportunity.

But in my heart of hearts, I think it's fine to slap a woman now and then-- open handed-- when she deserves it.  They'd certainly not think twice about slapping a man; and if circumstances were to permit-- my feeling is, turnabout is fair play.  But again, for practical reasons it's just not a very good idea-- but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with slapping someone who needs to be slapped.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 8:09:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 15, 2014 8:04:05 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

well Ray Rice hasn't been convicted by a judge or jury yet, only in the court of popular opinion....so there is certainly inconsistency. 

Ray Rice has been proven to have done what he did by a video taken at the scene. There's no doubt of what happened in that elevator. Most of these incidents don't have video that actually shows the perp in action.

he hasn't been convicted in a court of law, so my argument stands.  one of the other players mentioned was convicted by a judge but not a jury(yet) and hasn't been fired.  not sure about the other player.  so what is the policy - convicted by a judge/jury or just in the court of public opinion?  I don't think Rice should get his job back but I also don't think Vick should have even been allowed to play again (never mind gotten out of jail) but I think there needs to be one policy that everyone is held to.

[mmhmm]

Sept 15, 2014 9:00:08 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Sept 15, 2014 8:07:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It's been discussed here. I've seen it discussed elsewhere. I've seen articles about it, both professional and non-professional. It's certainly not taboo.

it's been discussed but how many men press charges and receive justice?

I don't know. I haven't researched it. Have you? Whether charges are pressed, or not, has more to do with the individual(s) involved than with anything else and that doesn't preclude discussion. Nor, has it prevented discussion.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 8:55:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 14, 2014 10:06:01 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Was it not an act of aggression when he spit on her?

He could have killed her hitting her that hard.  The question is did she do something to warrant the use of deadly force.  What if he had shot her-- would you be saying that was OK because he was just defending himself?  And don't tell me he didn't know a blow from him hard enough could kill someone-- not with all the NFL crap going on about concussions.  He lost his temper, failed to control himself, and did in fact use force he knew or should have known to be deadly force when it was not warranted.

I'm not sure why you're telling ME that. I've stated all along that I believe he was wrong for knocking her out. Most of my posts here were in response to people saying he did it because she was aggressive toward him and I wanted to point out that her "aggression" looked like a response to him spitting on her.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Height and weight are indicators of nothing.  It tells us nothing of the pounds per square inch of pressure he can generate at the end of his fist.  I can bench 220, and the only reason I can do that is I started lifting weights recently.  I bet Rice can bench over 300lbs-- maybe a lot more.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 14, 2014 19:48:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 14, 2014 12:08:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

my four cents:

two for the board: other than being with this jerk, and staying with him, i don't see how this woman is in ANY WAY responsible for getting herself knocked out.

two cents for Richard: i advise you not to suggest otherwise. 

I agree that he's responsible for knocking her out (I never said otherwise), however... she is responsible for making that necessary. 

Ahh, I see.  The old, "she made him do it" defense of a wife beater.  Classy.  Real classy.

[mmhmm]

Sept 15, 2014 9:04:04 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Sept 15, 2014 8:09:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Ray Rice has been proven to have done what he did by a video taken at the scene. There's no doubt of what happened in that elevator. Most of these incidents don't have video that actually shows the perp in action.

he hasn't been convicted in a court of law, so my argument stands.  one of the other players mentioned was convicted by a judge but not a jury(yet) and hasn't been fired.  not sure about the other player.  so what is the policy - convicted by a judge/jury or just in the court of public opinion?  I don't think Rice should get his job back but I also don't think Vick should have even been allowed to play again (never mind gotten out of jail) but I think there needs to be one policy that everyone is held to.

Whether a player is benched, released, or whatever has to do with the team's decision making, not the activity for which punishment might be meted out. One team may react with punishment, another may not. Each team's policy might be different. That's what's being discussed here. The NFL policy should be consistent and equal for all teams and all players. Obviously, it isn't - or, at least, it hasn't been. What you think, or I think, doesn't really carry much clout. However, the reaction to all this from across the country does carry clout. That's what it's all about and why it's being discussed.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 0:34:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I won't change my stance on "if attacked, one has the right to do what's necessary to stop the attack, regardless of the gender of the attacker"... but...

I looked at several different videos of the attack, some "cleaned up" to get the jumpiness out of it, others in slow-motion. And I'm no longer convinced that he didn't start the physical contact part of the confrontation.

So... all that basically means, my stance is unchanged on the general idea of self defense, but I'm no longer defending Ray Rice's actions as self defense. I'm no longer defending his actions in any way.

I'm curious.... What did you see in the video that made you change your stance on the self defense angle for Ray Rice?

[tallguy]

Sept 15, 2014 8:04:05 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Sept 15, 2014 3:43:31 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Hardy has not been convicted in the jury phase yet.  (I heard something a few days ago that the North Carolina system is two parts.  First before a judge, and second before a jury.  Until he is convicted by the jury nothing is final.  If he is not guilty in either phase he is not guilty.)  He was found guilty by the judge.  He appealed the conviction and a jury trial is set for November.

The justification until now is that he had not yet been finally convicted and the legal system needed a chance to run its course.  And of course that fits with our system of innocent until proven guilty.  Once the trial is over the Panthers and the NFL would be assumed to act at that point, but they have been hiding behind that until now.

And honestly, I can't really fault them.  We have all heard about the idea that better ten guilty go free than one innocent be punished.  And it does happen.  Players are targets.  There was an occurrence during training camp when Marshawn Lynch of the Seahawks was accused of something.  The police department felt the need to make the allegations public.  In actuality, Marshawn Lynch was at training camp where they have bed checks every night and was nowhere near the alleged incident.  The Seahawks almost immediately termed the allegations "bogus" and the police a few days later acknowledged there was nothing to them.  It happens.  Probably not with Hardy, but it does happen.   

well Ray Rice hasn't been convicted by a judge or jury yet, only in the court of popular opinion....so there is certainly inconsistency. 

Not true.  Ray Rice entered a pre-trial diversion program.  There will be no trial.  The legal system HAS completed as far as he is concerned.  It is not inconsistent at all.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 15, 2014 9:10:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 15, 2014 8:04:05 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

well Ray Rice hasn't been convicted by a judge or jury yet, only in the court of popular opinion....so there is certainly inconsistency. 

Not true.  Ray Rice entered a pre-trial diversion program.  There will be no trial.  The legal system HAS completed as far as he is concerned.  It is not inconsistent at all.

If I am not mistaken, this involves an automatic adjudication of "guilty" if not successfully completed, as well.  So, the legal system did deal with this.  The NFL is between a rock and a hard place on this-- you have a team owner and a league who have a significant investment in Rice.  Should THEY be punished because of what happens off the field?

[Shooby]

And, I think we should let the legal and criminal justice system sort these things through. An "accusation" should not be enough to get someone fired from their job. I would think there should be some evidence and due process. Everyone is going ape because they didn't suspend him 2 games ago. Well, what difference does that make? Doesn't it make more sense to follow through the process and gather facts FIRST? If someone is guilty, the facts will come out, which they did. So, what is the problem?

[ArchietheDragon]

Sept 15, 2014 10:11:27 GMT -5 Shooby said:

And, I think we should let the legal and criminal justice system sort these things through. An "accusation" should not be enough to get someone fired from their job. I would think there should be some evidence and due process. Everyone is going ape because they didn't suspend him 2 games ago. Well, what difference does that make? Doesn't it make more sense to follow through the process and gather facts FIRST? If someone is guilty, the facts will come out, which they did. So, what is the problem?

Good thing he has a union that is going to fight for him and protect him. 

[mmhmm]

Sept 15, 2014 9:16:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 15, 2014 9:10:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Not true.  Ray Rice entered a pre-trial diversion program.  There will be no trial.  The legal system HAS completed as far as he is concerned.  It is not inconsistent at all.

If I am not mistaken, this involves an automatic adjudication of "guilty" if not successfully completed, as well.  So, the legal system did deal with this.  The NFL is between a rock and a hard place on this-- you have a team owner and a league who have a significant investment in Rice.  Should THEY be punished because of what happens off the field?

Perhaps the team owner and the league should entertain the idea of taking back what they can get of their investment from Ray Rice. Just a thought ...

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 0:01:43 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Just out of curiosity... I wonder how much of her becoming unconscious can be attributed to her being inebriated. Drunk people become unconscious much easier than sober people.

funny- i was wondering how much of HIS being inebriated contributed to HIM knocking her unconscious. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2014 0:11:32 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Sept 14, 2014 22:23:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hell to the no! If a woman clocks some poor guy in an elevator and drags him halfway out, then leaves him lying there, she should get the same damned treatment!

And if she just slaps him? He's bigger so he just has to take it?

can't speak for him, or you.  but if a woman slaps me, i am man enough to take it.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2014 10:58:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2014 0:11:32 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And if she just slaps him? He's bigger so he just has to take it?

can't speak for him, or you.  but if a woman slaps me, i am man enough to take it.

No kidding, me too. Jeeez.