Ray Rice Video Released

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Video evidence is obviously a very powerful substitute for "just the facts".

Like somebody mentioned above, if we had video evidence of Vick and/or his buddies slamming wounded fighting dogs into the pavement until death, he wouldn't be quite so lovable today.

I think the difference for me is that I understand that seeing the video is more impactful than not seeing the video. The average person will certainly have a more visceral reaction to seeing a woman cold-cocked vs being told that it happened (or seeing the aftermath as we did earlier in this story). This is also true for me, I find it even more disturbing to see it. The same is true for war stories, child abuse, car accidents, etc.

But having said all that, when one is in a role of authority and rule-enforcement, one should understand (or go to whatever lengths needed to understand) the reality of the rule/law/what-have-you being broken intellectually when you are the one deciding such punishments. So even if the said broken rule/law is extremely disturbing, the punishment shouldn't feel any more or less appropriate after seeing the video if one took a sober, reasoned approach to determining the punishment level in the first place. So when I hear Goodell say he "got it wrong", I'm hearing "I didn't understand what a person being knocked out looks like". And in today's "information overload" society and all the resources available to better understand ANY topic one wants to research....that just strikes me as not taking this case very seriously from the onset.

Again, not saying John Q Public should have this "burden of research" before forming an opinion...just that the people responsible for rule enforcement/punishment should.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think animal torture or beating your wife unconscious is the same as playing football, nor do I think we should excuse that conduct from football players. Is that really what you're saying? Do you agree with Vick? We should give him a pass because people tackle him in a sport (a sport he chooses to pay, mind you)? Fuck that. That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. But it shows Vick's criminal mindset. I've seen photos and videos of the result of animal torture, and domestic violence. It's not the same as football. Vick is monster who continues to be a danger to society, and not just animals. Yes, you can get injured if you choose to play football, and Vick probably thinks that the animals and abused women ultimately deserve what happen to them, so he sees those things similarly.

And aren't you a pretty big football fan? Aren't you a part of that "system"? If you believe what you wrote here, and you don't give a shit and support football anyway, I don't know what to think.

Oh wait - I didn't read CU's post as thinking we should give these guys a pass. If that's what his intent was, then I don't agree with that AT ALL.

I do agree that it conditions these guys mentally in a certain way though, quite probably a way that leads some of them towards that type of behavior.

That doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's an attempt to...trace back the causes of it.

The one thing I didn't quite agree with him on (although i glossed over it) was equating their CHOICE to play football and get paid to animal/domestic abuse (where the other party doesn't have a choice).

[Suburban Rhythm]

I've got a ton of respect for William Gay on this

On The Steelers: William Gay wants to help Ray Rice

Cornerback William Gay, whose mother was shot and killed in an act of domestic violence, said he will reach out to Rice, whom the Ravens released Monday after a video showed him knocking out his fiancee with a punch in an elevator earlier this year.

I probably couldn't be so magmanimous

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh wait - I didn't read CU's post as thinking we should give Vick a pass. If that's what his intent was, then I don't agree with that.

I do agree that it conditions these guys mentally in a certain way though, quite probably a way that leads some of them towards that type of behavior.

That doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's an attempt to...trace back the causes of it.

The one thing I didn't quite agree with him on (although i glossed over it) was equating their CHOICE to play football and get paid to animal/domestic abuse (where the other party doesn't have a choice).

I'm not sure that was what CU was saying, but it definitely was what Vick was saying.

And ya, I agree on the rest. Even if you think the injuries are equal and inevitable (which I think is silly, and it doesn't even get into emotional toll of being a victim of crime), There's the consent and the legality part. If football were illegal, and Vick forced people to play until they suffered those kinds of injuries similar to animal torture and domestic violence, the comparison might be more apt. But how he talks is just how criminals rationalize their violent behavior. They live with themselves every day, after all, it's really hard to own all that and what they've done. So its someone else's fault, and they're the real victims.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think the difference for me is that I understand that seeing the video is more impactful than not seeing the video. The average person will certainly have a more visceral reaction to seeing a woman cold-cocked vs being told that it happened (or seeing the aftermath as we did earlier in this story). This is also true for me, I find it even more disturbing to see it. The same is true for war stories, child abuse, car accidents, etc.

I think I talked about this in the Sterling thread, but I'll mention it again (and hey, we have a Rice and Rutgers involved!): Every detail of the manner in which Mike Rice abused the Rutgers basketball team was known in November 2012. It was reported across mainstream media at the time he was suspended. Fast forward six months, the video gets leaked, he gets fired, the AD gets fired, and the university President nearly loses his job as well.

Video and audio always matter.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh wait - I didn't read CU's post as thinking we should give these guys a pass. If that's what his intent was, then I don't agree with that AT ALL.

I do agree that it conditions these guys mentally in a certain way though, quite probably a way that leads some of them towards that type of behavior.

That doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's an attempt to...trace back the causes of it.).

Ok, so what causes all of the other domestic violence in this country? And what other excuses can other people use?

I disagree with about 98 percent of his post. If we lives in a world where 80 percent of football players beat theor wives and 10 percent of the rest of society did, I would agree. I think you will find the numbers are not that clear cut. We just hear about Ray Rice and Chris Brown because of the celebrity factor. Visit a womens shelter and you will see real quick how widespread this problem is.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Ok, so what causes all of the other domestic violence in this country? And what other excuses can other people use?

I disagree with about 98 percent of his post. If we lives in a world where 80 percent of football players beat theor wives and 10 percent of the rest of society did, I would agree. I think you will find the numbers are not that clear cut. We just hear about Ray Rice and Chris Brown because of the celebrity factor. Visit a womens shelter and you will see real quick how widespread this problem is.

Oh I agree.

I'm not saying it excuses it or explains a significant % of it or anything like that.

Believe me, I fully believe that it's a widespread, serious problem, and I'm not trying to minimize it or explain it away.

Maybe my thought wasn't fully like...formed. It was more of a commentary about that NFL players MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO BE (aka "not in all cases") even more desensitized to violence than members of society at large. In many cases this may result in nothing because they're decent human beings. In some cases (the shitbags) it gives them this excuse to rationalize (as Vick does) their shitbag criminal behavior.

[DaddyTorgo]

This just in - some shitbags still don't get it.

NFL overreacted on Ray Rice, Floyd Mayweather says - ESPN

LAS VEGAS -- Floyd Mayweather Jr. says he believes the NFL should have stuck with its original discipline of Ray Rice, saying the league was overly influenced by new video showing Rice knocking out his then-fiancee in an Atlantic City, New Jersey, casino elevator.

The boxing superstar -- who has had his own domestic abuse issues -- said Tuesday that he didn't think the original two-game suspension should be changed because of the video.

Floyd Mayweather Jr. -- who has had his own domestic abuse issues -- said Tuesday he didn't think Ray Rice's original two-game suspension should be changed by the NFL because of video.

"I think there's a lot worse things that go on in other people's households, also," Mayweather said. "It's just not caught on video, if that's safe to say."

No shitbag...it's not safe to say. DIAF. Literally. Please do. Now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

No shitbag...it's not safe to say. DIAF. Literally. Please do. Now.

We'll disagree here (shocking I know)

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

I don't like Mayweather much tbh, but that's kinda how I take his quote.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We'll disagree here (shocking I know)

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

I don't like Mayweather much tbh, but that's kinda how I take his quote.

I don't think the increased suspension is because they didn't know - I agree with you there. It's totally a PR/optics move. But it's not a court of law, so that's understandable/legally okay/whatever.

And if it results in the more appropriate punishment being handed out in the end that's all that matters to me frankly.

I can't read the quote from him in that excerpt - which is completely an attempt to trivialize domestic violence - as anything other than absolutely morally reprehensible and disgusting.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We'll disagree here (shocking I know)

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

I don't like Mayweather much tbh, but that's kinda how I take his quote.

That's a reflection of the NFL's horrible and hypocritical handling of this. Not Mayweather's degree of shit baggery(which is off the charts), where he's saying everyone hits their ladies so go easy on Ray. It should have been a year+ before. I'm glad something motivated them to change it. It shouldn't stand for posterity's sake like you seem to be saying.

[molson]

It must be nice to be Floyd Mayweather. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. I wonder how many would agree with him publicly if they could. I choose to think some would, but not that many. But I don't see pro football players as violent warriors who can't control themselves in regular society. A handful are criminals, most aren't.

But speaking of the combat sports, tremendous timing by the UFC to sign Thiago Silva this week. Aggravated battery charges against him were dropped this week after his wife fled the country instead of coopering with the prosecution. But many people heard him threaten to shoot up a jiu-jitsu Center and kill his wife. I guess at some level, I can see how that creates a tricky situation for an employer. But I still don't get it, especially the hurry to sign him this week without letting some time and treatment go by to ensure this guy's not a ticking time bomb. Even if you're motivated solely by money, he's no Floyd Mayweather. I guess they have no interest in improving their image.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

Agreed. Though, obviously Rice is going to be out of the game for longer than the suspension rules for first time offense on domestic violence simply because no one is going to want to pick him up. However, what's the point of creating a domestic violence standard if you are just going to forget about them the first chance you get?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think the increased suspension is because they didn't know - I agree with you there. It's totally a PR/optics move. But it's not a court of law, so that's understandable/legally okay/whatever.

And if it results in the more appropriate punishment being handed out in the end that's all that matters to me frankly.

I can't read the quote from him in that excerpt - which is completely an attempt to trivialize domestic violence - as anything other than absolutely morally reprehensible and disgusting.

FTR, I used the word "quote" improperly.

I was referring to where he was paraphrased "said Tuesday he didn't think Ray Rice's original two-game suspension should be changed by the NFL because of video." The basic principle here I agree with: the video changes exactly nothing afaic.

The actual direct quote that followed is a different matter and is fair game for criticism.

I'll own any heat I get from botching my phrasing, gave the wrong impression of what I meant & puts any misinterpretation on me, completely.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FTR, I used the word "quote" improperly.

I was referring to where he was paraphrased "said Tuesday he didn't think Ray Rice's original two-game suspension should be changed by the NFL because of video." The basic principle here I agree with: the video changes exactly nothing afaic.

The actual direct quote that followed is a different matter and is fair game for criticism.

I'll own any heat I get from botching my phrasing, gave the wrong impression of what I meant & puts any misinterpretation on me, completely.

You guys seem to be missing that the NFL isn't a court of law - they're not bound by the legal system. They can change their minds whenever they want - insofar as it's something they feel they can defend under the CBA versus the NFLPA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You guys seem to be missing that the NFL isn't a court of law - they're not bound by the legal system. They can change their minds whenever they want - insofar as it's something they feel they can defend under the CBA versus the NFLPA.

No, that point isn't missed.
I didn't say they couldn't.
I'm agreeing with the contention that they shouldn't.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think I talked about this in the Sterling thread, but I'll mention it again (and hey, we have a Rice and Rutgers involved!): Every detail of the manner in which Mike Rice abused the Rutgers basketball team was known in November 2012. It was reported across mainstream media at the time he was suspended. Fast forward six months, the video gets leaked, he gets fired, the AD gets fired, and the university President nearly loses his job as well.

Video and audio always matter.

I don't disagree they matter. But that's because the people making such decisions are making them for pure PR/business purposes instead of "doing the right thing".

And I guess thats fine at the end of the day except that I'm bothered by the idea of the accepted dishonesty that this creates in society. And the side effect of ambiguity on when its acceptable for mouthpieces to be honest vs dishonest.

[NobodyHere]

Something I don't understand here is that why is the NFL receiving so much heat for this but the court system is receiving so little. I'm not seeing too many calls for every Baltimore court officer to resign like they are for Goodell and the Ravens management. The courts gave Rice a lighter punishment then what the NFL initially did.

Also what's the NFLPA's stance in all this? Will they accept a player being punished twice? Especially when the second punishment exceeds the standard of 6 months for a first offense set forth recently by Goodell?

(This was Rice's first offense right?)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, that point isn't missed.
I didn't say they couldn't.
I'm agreeing with the contention that they shouldn't.

Agreed again... a sign of the apocalypse?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure that was what CU was saying, but it definitely was what Vick was saying.

I appreciate what CU Tiger wrote, but it mainly underscores that Vick's an idiot and anyone with sympathy for his argument, as stated, is also an idiot.

Here's why, bottom-line: Football players get remunerated for the abuse they suffer. Vick's dogs didn't. Now, we may argue that football players don't remunerated as much as they should for this abuse, but that's, by comparison, a minor point. Football players consent to the treatment, and get paid (often handsomely) for it.

The mindset of someone who would think the analogy Vick posits is remotely viable is absolutely beyond me.

Originally Posted by molson

But speaking of the combat sports, tremendous timing by the UFC to sign Thiago Silva this week. Aggravated battery charges against him were dropped this week after his wife fled the country instead of coopering with the prosecution. But many people heard him threaten to shoot up a jiu-jitsu Center and kill his wife. I guess at some level, I can see how that creates a tricky situation for an employer. But I still don't get it, especially the hurry to sign him this week without letting some time and treatment go by to ensure this guy's not a ticking time bomb. Even if you're motivated solely by money, he's no Floyd Mayweather. I guess they have no interest in improving their image.

I think we forget that these are all part of the entertainment industry. As such, the absolute bottom line to the tolerance here regards whether or not it impacts how many people will watch the spectacle. We may wish/hope that these entertainment bodies might require certain conduct standards as a matter of course, but the fact (as you point out) that these incidents don't cause an appreciable drop in viewership (or other engagement) shows that we really don't wish/hope that much (as a general population).

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, that point isn't missed.
I didn't say they couldn't.
I'm agreeing with the contention that they shouldn't.

I agree. It may or may not have been a bad decision and/or policy, but making a different decision later serves only to compound, not clarify, the problem.

It would be another thing entirely if Goodell announced tomorrow that the policy was being changed to, say, a year suspension.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Something I don't understand here is that why is the NFL receiving so much heat for this but the court system is receiving so little. I'm not seeing too many calls for every Baltimore court officer to resign like they are for Goodell and the Ravens management. The courts gave Rice a lighter punishment then what the NFL initially did.

There is nothing new with a rich guy (especially an athlete) getting a light sentence for a crime. Roger Goodell is Mr. Law and Order who built a reputation for hammering players at the hint of lawlessness.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Also what's the NFLPA's stance in all this? Will they accept a player being punished twice? Especially when the second punishment exceeds the standard of 6 months for a first offense set forth recently by Goodell?

(This was Rice's first offense right?)

Why would the NFLPA do anything to take the heat off of Goodell? I would think they would be fine using Rice as a sacrificial lamb for their own purpose of trying to remove the punishing power from Goodell.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Something I don't understand here is that why is the NFL receiving so much heat for this but the court system is receiving so little. I'm not seeing too many calls for every Baltimore court officer to resign like they are for Goodell and the Ravens management. The courts gave Rice a lighter punishment then what the NFL initially did.

Jersey, not Baltimore, FYI. The incident took place at the (former) Revel casino in Atlantic City.

And here's what that prosecutor has been up to:

New Jersey prosecutor who let Ray Rice off the hook is throwing the book at a young mother of two | WashingtonExaminer.com

Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain approved an application for admitting Rice into New Jersey’s Pre-Trial Intervention program that allowed the NFL star to avoid jail time. Instead, Rice has to undergo counseling and will be immediately incarcerated if he does something else wrong.

Meanwhile, McClain is working to put 27-year-old mother of two Shaneen Allen — herself a first-time offender — into jail for at least three years, maybe even a decade.

Allen didn’t punch anyone out in an elevator. She simply didn't know that her Pennsylvania concealed-carry permit was not valid in New Jersey.

In October 2013, Allen was pulled over for a minor traffic offense. She dutifully informed the officer of her gun and presented her concealed-carry permit. She was arrested.

Allen had a gun because she had been robbed twice in 2013 and feared for her children. Following her arrest, and McClain’s insistence that she face the maximum possible penalty for her oversight, Allen reportedly lost her job.

Judge Donio is also tied to the Allen case. He accepted McClain’s decision to deny Allen entry into the same pre-trial program Rice was allowed to enter.

[DaddyTorgo]

Dirtbag judicial system.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I can't read the quote from him in that excerpt - which is completely an attempt to trivialize domestic violence - as anything other than absolutely morally reprehensible and disgusting.

That's not how I read the quote at all. Horrible messenger, and later he tries to make himself look less guilty, but his message in that quote is essentially the same as 20 people are saying in this thread - that domestic violence is a huge societal issue, but people allow it to be swept under the rug as long as it goes on behind closed doors. The NFL suspended Ray Rice 2 games for hitting a woman, and at least a full season because a video of it came out - that's not really up for debate.

[JPhillips]

The Examiner doesn't provide enough detail for me to get angry about the comparison. Does the office routinely deny the program for gun offenses? Is there a policy or direction form the state DOJ pushing for tough gun sentences or prohibiting the intervention policy? Has this particular prosecutor been consistent about sentencing policy?

I'd also want to get the police report so I could see more specifics about the arrest.

My experience has told me that when you see something that's an obvious one-sided outrage, you should hold off until more facts are released.

[molson]

Ya, it's very possible that this prosecutor was just a coward and didn't feel like doing the work of taking on the unified front of a defendant/victim/expensive private counsel (that does happen a lot), but I think people over-estimate what kinds of sentences people get for this type of domestic violence incident, and what kind of sentences regular people get for DUIs and DUI manslaughters. The video is disturbing, but there were no broken bones or permanent injuries. Prosecutors get TONS of cases of men simply punching their wives and girlfriends and occasionally knocking them out. I imagine a good number of them go through some kind of diversion program on the first offense.

As for the gun thing, obviously that's a "point of emphasis" in places like New Jersey and New York that want to be really, really tough on guns.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Examiner doesn't provide enough detail for me to get angry about the comparison. Does the office routinely deny the program for gun offenses? Is there a policy or direction form the state DOJ pushing for tough gun sentences or prohibiting the intervention policy? Has this particular prosecutor been consistent about sentencing policy?

I had mostly the same questions, so far the one thing I've found is a guest op-ed in USA Today which references at least two other similar cases

This at least appears to be a rather intentional & specific effort (all the way back to refusal to recognize the permit from a neighboring state) to chill gun ownership & possession that is otherwise legal..

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Examiner doesn't provide enough detail for me to get angry about the comparison. Does the office routinely deny the program for gun offenses? Is there a policy or direction form the state DOJ pushing for tough gun sentences or prohibiting the intervention policy? Has this particular prosecutor been consistent about sentencing policy?

I'd also want to get the police report so I could see more specifics about the arrest.

My experience has told me that when you see something that's an obvious one-sided outrage, you should hold off until more facts are released.

This is from the comments section from National Review, so take it with a grain of salt:

Shaneen Allen was arrested carrying a concealed weapon in NJ without a permit, which is a violation of the state's Graves Act and has mandatory sentencing provisions, (the judge cannot reduce the charge or sentence). Allen's gun also was loaded with hollow-point bullets, which in NJ is an additional felony charge. The prosecutor can use prosecutorial discretion and waive the Graves Act. However, in this case McCain did not waive the Act because she violated one or more of his four criteria: the gun is unsecured, loaded, has hollow-point bullets, or there’s a bullet in the chamber. In this case Allen violated at least three of McCain's four criteria, (a .380 Bersa Thunder is semi-auto so a round probably was not chambered--at least I hope not).

Ray Rice was charged with 3rd degree aggravated assault, also a felony. However there is no Act or mandatory sentencing provisions associate with this charge. In NJ a third degree crime has a presumption of non-incarceration if the defendant has no prior record, and one is often eligible for a diversion program, (however, in NJ on is not eligible for diversion for animal cruelty cases).

From what I know about the Atlantic County prosecutor’s office, and what I understand from Judge Donio's public statements as reported in the press, they would prefer less restrictive mandatory sentencing and give the presiding judge more discretion during sentencing. Also, Allen could plea to the recommended sentence then appeal the denial of the Graves Act waiver. Then the judge could allow either pretrial intervention or probation. However, Allen would still be consider a convicted felon and have to wait at least 10 years to have the charge possibly expunged.

Note: In NJ hollow-point bullets are strictly regulated. In that hollow-point bullets cannot be possessed legally outside private property. If hollow-point bullets are being transported they must be held in a locked container other than the glove box, and they must not be loaded in a firearm.

Also, in a November 2008 then Attorney General Anne Milgram wrote a directive to assure uniform enforcement of the Graves Act. In it Milgram wrote:

"A prosecuting agency shall not move for or approve a sentence of probation except for extraordinary and compelling reasons that take the case outside the heartland of the legislative policy to deter unauthorized gun possession (~, the defendant has no prior involvement with the criminal justice system, the firearm was unloaded, and the circumstances make clear that the firearm posed no risk to officer or public safety), so that imposition of a state prison term would constitute a serious injustice that overrides the need to deter others from unlawfully possessing a firearm."

Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ray Rice vs. Shaneen Allen | National Review Online

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

This is from the comments section from National Review, so take it with a grain of salt:



Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ray Rice vs. Shaneen Allen | National Review Online

Aaah well that makes some sense.

Still think the penalty for domestic violence needs to be much harsher, even for first-time offenses.

In fact...why not mandatory jail-time for domestic violence?

[flere-imsaho]

I'm against mandatory anything. These mandatory sentencing guidelines always seem to arise out of dissatisfaction with the judicial system, neatly ignoring the idea that a judge is the person best-placed to make a, er, judgment on individual cases.

Sure, some judges don't do a good job. But that's where the root cause is, and where it should be solved. Not with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing means we've given up on improving our judicial system.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

In fact...why not mandatory jail-time for domestic violence?

There probably should be.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I've got a ton of respect for William Gay on this

On The Steelers: William Gay wants to help Ray Rice



I probably couldn't be so magmanimous

While I think what Rice did is disgusting, I do think we need to really think about our society's reactive "pitchfork & stoning" approach to these things. Its the kneejerk, reaction to the public reaction thing I'm referring to really.

Ideally, he would be legally/criminally charged more than he was (or at least there's a good argument for that). But then what? He should be fired from his job? Ok...should he be unable to ever do "that" job again? Ok...what other jobs should he be banned from beyond football?

I'm certainly not defending this guy but there does come a point where I think we need to acknowledge that we work with people that do what Ray Rice did, or perhaps better put, is the way Ray Rice's situation being handled the same way everybody in society should be handled? Should those (non-famous) people all be fired as well? Maybe, but then why just that job? Why not ban him/them from working at all? After all, if they are "bad for business" here, aren't they going to be "bad for business everywhere"?

I just don't subscribe to the "privilege to play in the NFL" part of this argument at all. It is a business, like all other businesses, where your performance (politics aside) gets you sustained employment, not some lottery drawing (genetics aside). You can certainly make rules around who is permitted to work there, but it just seems we have become a society that wants to say "you don't deserve to work if you do x". Well, what do we want all people who have ever done this (or similarly outlived their jail sentence) to do if they cannot work any more? Lifetime jail sentences? Prison camps for life?

I know this is bordering hyperbole (if not downright jumping over that line) but I think its worth debate/discussion to say that (perhaps) there already is a system to punish (or remove) people that do bad things. And under what justification do we selectively choose who gets additional punishment....by who the media covers?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm against mandatory anything. These mandatory sentencing guidelines always seem to arise out of dissatisfaction with the judicial system, neatly ignoring the idea that a judge is the person best-placed to make a, er, judgment on individual cases.

Sure, some judges don't do a good job. But that's where the root cause is, and where it should be solved. Not with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing means we've given up on improving our judicial system.

I tend to agree with that, but I think that means we also need to accept that sentences aren't going to be consistent, especially across different judges. People get really riled up when they perceive inequity there, and I understand why, but if we rely on human discretion, that's unavoidable. There are mechanisms in most states to disqualify judges without needing to show cause, if one side thinks the judge is just too harsh or too lenient on a certain kind of case, for example.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I've got a ton of respect for William Gay on this

On The Steelers: William Gay wants to help Ray Rice



I probably couldn't be so magmanimous

Gay tried to hit a woman in the open field, but he whiffed and she ran right past him.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by stevew

Gay tried to hit a woman in the open field, but he whiffed and she ran right past him.

That is so wrong. We know the woman ran over him, not around him!

Adrian Peterson Runs Over William Gay - YouTube

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm against mandatory anything. These mandatory sentencing guidelines always seem to arise out of dissatisfaction with the judicial system, neatly ignoring the idea that a judge is the person best-placed to make a, er, judgment on individual cases.

Sure, some judges don't do a good job. But that's where the root cause is, and where it should be solved. Not with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing means we've given up on improving our judicial system.

Agreed with all of this. I mean you have the Ray Rice thing, but then you have a case where a wife slaps her husband in a fight, while the cops are over because a neighbor has called, and she has never done it before and is horrified that she has done it - its domestic violence. Does it deserve jail time?

[Logan]

BREAKING: AP Source: Law enforcement official sent copy of Ray Rice tape to NFL executive in April

— The Associated Press (@AP) September 10, 2014

[Logan]

AP Newsbreak: Source says Rice video sent to NFL

The person played The Associated Press a 12-second voicemail from an NFL office number on April 9 confirming the video arrived. A female voice expresses thanks and says: "You're right. It's terrible."

[molson]

Exciting. I hope this gets worse for the NFL just for my own personal amusement.

[Logan]

NFL statement:

"We have no knowledge of this. We are not aware of anyone who possessed or saw the video before it was made public on Monday. We will look into it."

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Logan

NFL statement:

"We have no knowledge of this. We are not aware of anyone who possessed or saw the video before it was made public on Monday. We will look into it."

NFL PR spin machine just hired on 100 more people.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Logan

AP Newsbreak: Source says Rice video sent to NFL

Ruh roh!

[stevew]

Goodell hopefully will have to step down if this keeps snowballing.

[molson]

But why, NFL? Why is Ray Rice playing so damn important?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

But why, NFL? Why is Ray Rice playing so damn important?

A very good question.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Clearly someone is going to get fired after all of this.

It always seemed pretty obvious someone in the NFL saw the video. Peter King reported in July. So did that ESPN reporter (sorry, I forget her name). In her story she even described being told exactly what happened - Rice punching his wife and her head hitting the railing. That's a pretty detailed and accurate account of what was on that video.

As much as I enjoy football, the NFL as an organization, is pretty damn arrogant and annoying.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Clearly someone is going to get fired after all of this.

I don't have the same issues with Goodell that many fans do. But, ultimately, this mess is his responsibility. I think this will damage his authority and ability to negotiate with the Players Association going forward.

Any investigation led by him will be meaningless to the general public.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I don't have the same issues with Goodell that many fans do. But, ultimately, this mess is his responsibility. I think this will damage his authority and ability to negotiate with the Players Association going forward.

Any investigation led by him will be meaningless to the general public.

I don't have issues with him either really. I don't think he will get fired, but someone will. There has to be a fall guy (or women) for this.

[Toddzilla]

Ray Rice is punished by not being allowed to get any more brain damage

[BillJasper]

Part of me wonders if there isn't a wink-wink deal between the Players Association and the League on the issue of domestic violence?