# The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm curious what people here think.... the video is appalling... Ray knocked Janay flat unconscious. If he did that to my sister I'd smash his skull in with a baseball bat.

But Janay's defending her man on social media, who beat her up worse than any other person in her life.

The conduct is inexcusable. It's amazing the kind of abuse / crap that people put up with the worst kind of behavior from loved ones. If a friend knocked her out would she be defending that friend? 

Relationships are complex, but some people seem to put up with way too much insult / abuse and not get out of the relationship. 

Very sad.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

simple answer is that Janay is most likely codependent and unfortunately it's all too common to see abused spouses defend their abuser after the fact, this one is just being played out for all to see


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

I hardly hear of abusers knocking their spouses flat out unconscious in a public place though... most are some type of beatings, etc... maybe I'm just too shielded in my life.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

That video was crazy and it blows my mind that this lady is still with him.

She is getting and will get what she deserves I guess? She is no an enabler. When it happens again, she is the only one to blame.

Sorry, what happened was really messed up....but what she did after is even MORE messed up.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

DoF said:


> She is getting and will get what she deserves I guess? She is no an enabler. When it happens again, she is the only one to blame


be careful with that

blaming the victim 

again it's important to realize that often what you and I view as logical isn't how someone who is abused views it


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

I don't know if she is still the victim and too afraid to leave this horrible person. We all know what the right answer is... but sometimes the victim or the person closest to the situation just can't see it.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Almostrecovered said:


> be careful with that
> 
> blaming the victim
> 
> again it's important to realize that often what you and I view as logical isn't how someone who is abused views it


I'm not blaming the victim, but I will IF it happens again (hope it doesn't).

Sorry if I came off that way.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

What's sad is that the viewing of the video changing things about the situation. 

It was already known that he knocked her out cold with a punch and hauled her out of an elevator. That was worth a two game suspension. Yet when the video is released, suddenly he's fired now?


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

larry.gray said:


> What's sad is that the viewing of the video changing things about the situation.
> 
> It was already known that he knocked her out cold with a punch and hauled her out of an elevator. That was worth a two game suspension. Yet when the video is released, suddenly he's fired now?


Agreed 100%. I heartily agree with Keith Olbermann on this topic - that everyone involved should be fired / resign, including the prosecutors / judge, the Ravens management, and the NFL executives. 

Us as fans of football are also to blame if we condone this behavior.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

DoF said:


> I'm not blaming the victim, but I will IF it happens again (hope it doesn't).
> 
> Sorry if I came off that way.



and I took it the way you meant

it isn't the one who is being abused fault, even if it happens over and over again and they don't leave and defend the abuser when the cops arrive etc

so many people (men or women) who get abused fall into a faulty line of thinking that entraps them. It may seem crazy to those of us who lived a life without abuse but it's a very real condition that gets repeated ad nauseam.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Keep in mind that she has a significant interest in him remaining gainfully employed...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

PBear said:


> Keep in mind that she has a significant interest in him remaining gainfully employed...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She already has 25 million reasons... 

Maybe the best thing to do is for Ray Rice to play, and let him suffer concussion after concussion, be knocked out repeatedly, until he's dumb as a brick... all while she counts the money and enjoys her time...


----------



## VermisciousKnid (Dec 27, 2011)

Now she's tweeting that people are ruining their lives. Is part of what is at play that Ray Rice was going to make $6,000,000 per year for the next few years and now he's going to make nothing?

It doesn't make sense to me that you would want to stay with someone who almost killed you, but it happens time and again. Maybe millions of dollars makes some women put up with treatment that they ordinarily would not? Or maybe he convinced her that he was sorry and the money is irrelevant?

Edit: changed 3 million to 6 million.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

VermisciousKnid said:


> Maybe millions of dollars makes some women put up with treatment that they ordinarily would not?



after watching COPS for many years and seeing the poorest of the poor live with abusive partners and then crying to not arrest them when the police arrived, I doubt the money has much to do with this


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

larry.gray said:


> What's sad is that the viewing of the video changing things about the situation.
> 
> It was already known that he knocked her out cold with a punch and hauled her out of an elevator. That was worth a two game suspension. Yet when the video is released, suddenly he's fired now?


I kind of agree

And this is all coming from an organization that has a history of hiring murderers?

Hmmm

:scratchhead:


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

don't forget dog killers and alleged rapists


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Not how this works. 

This is how it goes: 

Marry at time T-0
Divorce at time T-1

She gets half the difference in his net worth between those two dates. 

Her payday could be very small if Rice remains unemployed. 


QUOTE=justaguy123;10313330]She already has 25 million reasons... 

Maybe the best thing to do is for Ray Rice to play, and let him suffer concussion after concussion, be knocked out repeatedly, until he's dumb as a brick... all while she counts the money and enjoys her time...[/QUOTE]


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

Lila said:


> I wonder if Janay would have behaved the same way, post assault, if Ray was just a normal guy with an average lifestyle? :scratchhead:


99% yes


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

Lila said:


> I don't know if I would agree with you on that one.



go visit a battered women's shelter and ask them how many times it took before they all left and then wonder how many never do leave


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

VermisciousKnid said:


> Now she's tweeting that people are ruining their lives. Is part of what is at play that Ray Rice was going to make $6,000,000 per year for the next few years and now he's going to make nothing?
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me that you would want to stay with someone who almost killed you, but it happens time and again. *Maybe millions of dollars makes some women put up with treatment that they ordinarily would not?* Or maybe he convinced her that he was sorry and the money is irrelevant?
> 
> Edit: changed 3 million to 6 million.


He has a football in his hand...Footballs and guitars make men very easily forgiven...


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

justaguy123 said:


> I'm curious what people here think.... the video is appalling... Ray knocked Janay flat unconscious. If he did that to my sister I'd smash his skull in with a baseball bat.
> 
> But Janay's defending her man on social media, who beat her up worse than any other person in her life.
> 
> ...


You know what my W take on it is? Before Janay enters the elevator she takes a swipe at Rice. In the elevator she takes another swipe and gets in his face. My wife said, "if you are going to dish out a few punches expect to receives some back." 

I know, Rice could punch his way through a brick wall. Janay not so much. Personally, I think Rice should not have struck Janay or anyone for that matter.


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

Yeswecan said:


> You know what my W take on it is? Before Janay enters the elevator she takes a swipe at Rice. In the elevator she takes another swipe and gets in his face. My wife said, "if you are going to dish out a few punches expect to receives some back."
> 
> I know, Rice could punch his way through a brick wall. Janay not so much. Personally, I think Rice should not have struck Janay or anyone for that matter.


Rice should have just walked away from Janay... anything else was exceedingly unwise.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Lila said:


> I don't know if I would agree with you on that one. Time will tell where her head is at these days.


I sat on a felony assault jury where the woman refused to testify against her abuser husband. She'd rather sit in jail than testify against him. The evidence was from other witnesses and her injuries. He'd gone away before in other jurisdictions, and she was waiting for him when he got out.

They ended up with a plea bargain deal that put him away for 3. He was looking at a decade because it happened in front of their kids. That was more than 3 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they're still together.


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

This article is pretty spot on: Opinion: Wife-beating is not a private matter - CNN.com


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

I think the story I read said she also spit in his face two or three times before he hit her the final time. And then she married him the following month. They have a child so maybe she felt that was her best option. 

Supposedly everyone involved was aware the tape existed but some didn't make an effort to see it until it was released yesterday. Plausible deniability up to that point to keep him in the game -- literally. Once the tape was out that wasn't possible.


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

Openminded said:


> I think the story I read said she also spit in his face two or three times before he hit her the final time. And then she married him the following month. They have a child so maybe she felt that was her best option.
> 
> Supposedly everyone involved was aware the tape existed but some didn't make an effort to see it until it was released yesterday. Plausible deniability up to that point to keep him in the game -- literally. Once the tape was out that wasn't possible.



I would think the discovery faze in the trial would have had this tape shown.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lila said:


> Like I said....time will tell. If she feels that she and Ray have overcome this in their relationship, then I do hope she will use her money and status to help other domestic abuse victims overcome.


I would not hold my breath. Her outrage this week continues to include her taking on blame for the incident. Nothing she did deserves that punch. But she continues the story that it did. Very sad, not just for her, but for other women in her position.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Baablacksheep said:


> I think they're both in the wrong: but he won the fight


That is pretty pathetic. He is in a heck of a lot more wrong than she is and to equate the two is ridiculous.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

A guy spends most of his life taking massive hits to his head and his body in a sport that is extremely violent and people are shocked that he is capable of beating his woman? I wonder how many of these incidents happen that are covered up. If there was no tape he would still be playing.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

We all do not know if she has undergone any kind of abuser threats off camera to not leave --or else.

We also do not know if either of them have had any kind of mental health counseling since that incident.

We also do not know if he has done this kind of violence to her before or since.

But I seriously doubt the lady is motivated by money to make the statement that she made to the press.

Sure, she was combative with the guy, even spit at him. But his reaction? One of someone used to getting his way with violence.

Her reaction? Straight out of the battered wife playbook.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

One thing I have learned is that people have their crap and drama. When two people come together they have then couple crap and drama. 

He is clearly physically abusive. She is possibly verbally abusive or maybe codependent. Maybe upset the meal ticket is gone who knows


Lesson I have learned is I have been doing my work for too long because this wasn't surprising to me what I saw in the video. When the first video came out I knew what happened inside the elevator. What does surprise me is how shocked everyone else seems to be. Guess I have become jaded


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

larry.gray said:


> What's sad is that the viewing of the video changing things about the situation.
> 
> It was already known that he knocked her out cold with a punch and hauled her out of an elevator. That was worth a two game suspension. Yet when the video is released, suddenly he's fired now?


That is public outcry for you. Last thing Baltimore ever wanted was this video to come out cause you can't rug sweep it anymore


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

She had it coming!! amirite baabaa?!


----------



## Baablacksheep (Aug 29, 2013)

No she didn't. Read my previous post. If she had said, Ray I'm not talking about this anymore, I'm upset and drunk and we need to calm down. And then he attacked her, yes than he would be 100% at fault. SHE made bad choices too !! She escalated the situation by her loss of control. You guys are saying he could have just walked away. Well duh----- she could have too !!!


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

I have not seen the footage myself, but have heard all about it, nonstop for the past couple days.

This was one incident.

I think it is wrong to judge their entire relationship based on this one incident. Being a "battered" woman means, not just getting punched out once, but enduring repeated physical abuse. Is this the case? I don't know because nobody has elaborated on the story at all.

It is clear that he has a temper problem, reasonable men just don't do that, under normal circumstances. So was there exceptional circumstances invoved here? Or is he an out of control, pumped up - testosterone fueled young male ball of rage?

What is the backstory? And if this was out of character, is there any room at all for some leeway to help him correct his poor behavior? Or should we just hang him because he obviously has no redeeming qualities, and his fiance needs to be ignored because she is obviously battered and incapable of making a responsible choice for herself?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Good thing she didn't say something untoward about black people or mercy me, hurt a dog. THOSE would be real crimes. It was just a woman, no harm no foul.

Because let's be clear he's not fired for beating up a girl. He's fired because the the NFL is only slightly less pretend-family friendly than Disney and they ooze the false nonsense of 'goodness'.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

Baablacksheep said:


> It tells me what kind of "man " you are that in both of your replies you resort to insults. Isn't that usually a sign low intelligence, or lack of a solid theory ? Or maybe both ??


Didn't you just call tall average guy a moron?


----------



## seasalt (Jul 5, 2012)

The NFL has just 86'd a guy and his family because of the judgement of the "court of public opinion". He didn't get a hearing or be allowed to voice a plea for forgiveness on his behalf from his wife. As a matter of fact his victim has been judged almost as harshly as he. 

If he had abused drugs or alcohol instead of his wife he would have been given the choice of rehab and been forgiven his transgression multiple times. There is no back story or evidence he is a serial woman beater. Where is the compassion for someone who is clearly wrong and may be in need of help for himself and his family?

Why are some wrongs more wrong than others? Is breast cancer research funding more appropriate than that of pancreatic or prostate cancer? Wrong is wrong but it should be addressed and not walked away from. A person should be allowed at least one chance for rehabilitation and forgiveness if their remorse is judged sincere. Haven't there been examples of successful marital reconcilliation after infidelity by the remorseful spouse on this site? If he won't acknowledge his horrible action, won't seek help or ask for forgiveness then he has gotten what he deserves.

In my opinion, Ray Rice was wrong and so is the NFL, the media and others that have commented on this matter.

Just sayin',

Seasalt


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Baablacksheep said:


> No she didn't. Read my previous post. If she had said, Ray I'm not talking about this anymore, I'm upset and drunk and we need to calm down. And then he attacked her, yes than he would be 100% at fault. SHE made bad choices too !! She escalated the situation by her loss of control. You guys are saying he could have just walked away. Well duh----- she could have too !!!


Sure. Again, nothing she did deserved that punch. To blame her for that is appalling.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Baablacksheep said:


> It tells me what kind of "man " you are that in both of your replies you resort to insults. Isn't that usually a sign low intelligence, or lack of a solid theory ? Or maybe both ??


Those are not insults. They are the truth. 

You defend an abuser and a coward who hits women, and all but say she deserved it. I will call you what you are.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> I have not seen the footage myself, but have heard all about it, nonstop for the past couple days.
> 
> This was one incident.
> 
> ...


Seriously? One incident? Wow. 

You admit he has a temper problem. Is it seriously your position that this is the first time he has hit her? That the first time just happened to be him knocking her out with a left hook? That the first time was her dragging her unconscious body out of the elevator with less care that one gives taking out the garbage? That the first time just happened to be caught on camera?

Again, wow. He does this to a stranger and none of us think twice of him getting sent away for 3-5 years for assault. But because it is a women, now his wife, suddenly we should look for excuses? When he downplayed what happened to the public when we first learned what happened? When his apology yesterday included everyone but her? The only remorse I saw was that he got caught.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

richie33 said:


> Didn't you just call tall average guy a moron?


That he considers me a moron is a good thing. Based on his character, being in agreement with him would cause me to reassess myself.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

seasalt said:


> The NFL has just 86'd a guy and his family because of the judgement of the "court of public opinion". He didn't get a hearing or be allowed to voice a plea for forgiveness on his behalf from his wife. As a matter of fact his victim has been judged almost as harshly as he.
> 
> If he had abused drugs or alcohol instead of his wife he would have been given the choice of rehab and been forgiven his transgression multiple times. There is no back story or evidence he is a serial woman beater. Where is the compassion for someone who is clearly wrong and may be in need of help for himself and his family?


Actually, no. Take a look at Gordan and his one year ban for DUI.



> If he won't acknowledge his horrible action, won't seek help or ask for forgiveness then he has gotten what he deserves.


You mean when he lied to the public about what actually happened and then apologized to everyone but his wife about what he did? 



> In my opinion, Ray Rice was wrong and so is the NFL, the media and others that have commented on this matter.
> 
> Just sayin',
> 
> Seasalt


Please. Let's get back to facts. A grown "man" knocked an unarmed woman unconscious with a left hook (after slapping her at least once before) and was so concerned that he dragged her out of the elevator like a bag of garbage. Knowing all of this (and if you believe the NFL did not see that tape, I have beach property in Arizona to sell you), he was given a diversionary program by the police and only a 2 game suspension by the NFL.

By hey, she is just a woman. Not like he killed some dogs or smoke some pot. No reason to be upset about what he did. I am sure he was just provoked by an unreasonable harpy.


----------



## changedbeliefs (Jun 13, 2014)

Here's my array of thoughts:

* Their relationship was likely very dysfunctional. He's the recurring theme: athlete makes it big, barely educated, more money than he can spend, and everyone treats him like royalty = massive ego and sense of entitlement, and that bleeds over to EVERYTHING, including his relationship with her. She's been with him for years, damn if she's giving up all that effort now that's he's cash-money. She's yelling and slapping him, you just know there have been plenty of times before where they got in shoving and screaming matches. It's all just a mess.

* I'm not sure what it would take for me to outright punch a woman. I've never outright punched a man, for god's sake. Even if my wife was screaming, drunk, slapping, punching....and I was in such a state of mind to lose that sense of control....and my fist shot out, connected with her jaw full force, sending her into a wall and ending with her slumped on the floor, not moving, I am POSITIVE my first move would be either, put my hands to my head like "OMG, what have I done," or immediately kneel down next to her and try to say something or get her to say something, or see if she's alive, or SOMETHING. He simply stood over her like, "yeah...*****!" Then he kinda just shimmies her around, using his foot to move her leg aside, e.g. He looked like he was taking a rolled-up rug to the dumpster. There is a synapse broken in that dude's head.

* Her social media posts only prove how messed up she is. She said something about how people are preying on them to "gain raitings." Um.....no...they're preying on you because your husband committed a crime, a violent crime, and ought to be in jail, like NOW. Her passing it off like he simply broke a vase in their living room during a lover's tiff is why people are blaming her.


----------



## Miss Taken (Aug 18, 2012)

Women can and do abuse men and when that happens, I believe men have the right to defend themselves from or escape the abuse. In the video we do see her hitting him - some say spitting on him. I don't have cable so haven't heard of this until today. 

The above said, what he did WAS NOT self-defense and is not justified in my opinion. There is a (IMO, sick or flawed) attitude that those that hit deserve to be hit back. I think that's crap. My toddler hits me sometimes. Me being four times his size, should not then give him a left hook, knock him out cold and drag him to his room. That would be child abuse given my size and strength and "power" both monetary and physically over him. The Janay/Ray case is no different.

Self defense allows you to use the necessary amount of force to defend yourself. Given his size compared to hers, that he's an athlete, his strength and the power behind his punches, this was not justified. 

He could have restrained her (and likely even with just with one hand given his size and strength) until they reached their floor. Once they got to their floor he could have walked away and if she instigated the physical altercation, could have even called the cops. Instead he knocked her out with one hit. I highly doubt it's the first time he's hit her either. 

As for her defending him. It doubt it's just money that keeps her there. Battered people stay whether their abuser is rich or poor, powerful or average, famous or unknown, male or female. We have our own examples on TAM with deadbeat husbands and wives abusing their spouses and the battered spouse (mentally/emotionally) unable to leave even if practically, financially and logistically they have the means to walk out the door. I've read stories from men who are the sole providers and supposed heads of their household that are battered by their wives who bring in no income and cheat and don't clean the house. I've read stories from women who work but stay with their abusive cheating, alcoholic husbands even though they have money and family support if they left. My own sister was an abusive-man magnet. She'd stay with broke, jobless, women-beating d0uche-canoes because she thought that was all she deserved. She even assaulted me one night when I tried to get her to come home with me and leave her at the time boyfriend after he beat her. People who are in abusive relationships do not think clearly.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

I am sure it will come as no surprise that this is a hot button issue for me (if you don't get that, read my string of replies).

But I write at a loss of any defense of Ray Rice. What he did was truly awful. Yet the blame heaped on his now wife, the NFL, the media, is nothing but a defense of the indefensible. An admission that he did something bad, but let's now focus on the bad stuff everyone else did. As if what he did really was not that bad. While I hope that is not the intent, it is how it comes across.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Tall Average Guy said:


> Seriously? One incident? Wow.
> 
> You admit he has a temper problem. Is it seriously your position that this is the first time he has hit her? That the first time just happened to be him knocking her out with a left hook? That the first time was her dragging her unconscious body out of the elevator with less care that one gives taking out the garbage? That the first time just happened to be caught on camera?
> 
> Again, wow. He does this to a stranger and none of us think twice of him getting sent away for 3-5 years for assault. But because it is a women, now his wife, suddenly we should look for excuses? When he downplayed what happened to the public when we first learned what happened? When his apology yesterday included everyone but her? The only remorse I saw was that he got caught.


I wasnt excusing him for anything, just saying the general public doesn't know all the facts. And the NFLs swift action, whether it turns out to be the correct one or not, was a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> I wasnt excusing him for anything, just saying the general public doesn't know all the facts. And the NFLs swift action, whether it turns out to be the correct one or not, was a knee jerk reaction.


What other facts do we need to know? What facts are not out there? We have the video. Rice first gave us his lie about what happened. Now he is apologizing (to everyone but his wife) for his actions. 

Is it seriously your contention that we don't know everything about him knocking his wife unconscious?

And how is that anything but a defense of him? "Yea, it looks bad, but we don't know everything" is implicitly saying there may be facts that at least partially excuse what he did. He has had every chance to give us those facts, and yet here we are without them. To suggest that they may exist at this late stage makes no sense.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Almostrecovered said:


> after watching COPS for many years and seeing the poorest of the poor live with abusive partners and then crying to not arrest them when the police arrived, I doubt the money has much to do with this


There are even more financial incentives for poor women not to report it. Once their husband is arrested, he may loose employment. If he is black, he becomes practically unemployable if he has record. If they live in public housing, they can loose it if he has a record. 

NPR had really good piece on this this morning.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Miss Taken said:


> *People who are in abusive relationships do not think clearly.*


THIS!

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon all.
I think he was absolutely in the wrong, is a woman-beater and *should* spend a long time in prison.

But - she doesn't want him in prison, doesn't want him to lose his job. That makes things tricky. Does she have the *right* to decide what is best for her? Does society's interesting on locking up a violent person outweigh the desires of the person he attacked? Does society have the right to judge that she is not acting in her best interest because of the abuse? 

These are deep, difficult questions. :scratchhead:

I have no sympathy for anyone who hits their partner except in direct self defense (retaliation is NOT self defense). OTOH I believe that adults have the right to make their own decisions on what is and isn't acceptable in a relationship.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

richardsharpe said:


> Good afternoon all.
> I think he was absolutely in the wrong, is a woman-beater and *should* spend a long time in prison.
> 
> But - she doesn't want him in prison, doesn't want him to lose his job. That makes things tricky. Does she have the *right* to decide what is best for her? Does society's interesting on locking up a violent person outweigh the desires of the person he attacked? Does society have the right to judge that she is not acting in her best interest because of the abuse?
> ...


This has nothing to say about their relationship. She can still marry him and stick around if she wants. But that is separate and apart from whether he should go to jail for assaulting her.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Another concussion courtesy of the NFL.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Tall Average Guy said:


> What other facts do we need to know? What facts are not out there? We have the video. Rice first gave us his lie about what happened. Now he is apologizing (to everyone but his wife) for his actions.
> 
> Is it seriously your contention that we don't know everything about him knocking his wife unconscious?
> 
> And how is that anything but a defense of him? "Yea, it looks bad, but we don't know everything" is implicitly saying there may be facts that at least partially excuse what he did. He has had every chance to give us those facts, and yet here we are without them. To suggest that they may exist at this late stage makes no sense.


If we knew everything, then what was the date when he struck her previous to this one? Where can I read about all his other domestic assault charges?

You do not know if he has apologized to her or not because you are not privy to their private conversations.

Silence does not infer guilt.

All we know is that if you are an NFL player alleged to have carried out some misconduct you will be penalized promptly, and if evidence becomes publicized that corroborates your misconduct expect to lose it all, with out any due process.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> If we knew everything, then what was the date when he struck her previous to this one? Where can I read about all his other domestic assault charges?
> 
> You do not know if he has apologized to her or not because you are not privy to their private conversations.
> 
> Silence does not infer guilt.


Wow. I am to take that you give everyone this same benefit of the doubt? When a person is caught stealing, do you assume it is the first time? Same with drugs, or cheating, or everything else.



> All we know is that if you are an NFL player alleged to have carried out some misconduct you will be penalized promptly, and if evidence becomes publicized that corroborates your misconduct expect to lose it all, with out any due process.


Well, when you lie about what happened, that does tend to happen. I mean, it is not like Rice admitted to a left hook full to the face that knocked her out. It started as a "minor physical altercation." Then when the first video showing him dragging her out of the elevator popped up, reports are that Rice told the Ravens that he had pushed her when she attacked, thus minimizing what he did. Only now, with the full video released, do we see what he truly did and how he reacted - not as someone who felt bad about what he did, but as someone who still did not care about what had happened.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

I am amazed that on this board, Rice is getting so much defense and benefit of the doubt. Contrast this to the CWI forum. 

A women cheats, and she is branded as pure evil. She gets no benefit of the doubt. All presumptions are that her every word is a lie, she cheated multiple times and she is the devil incarnate. A man wanting to take her back is at best strongly counseled to think long and hard before doing it, and at worst mocked for even thinking about, with his mental capabilities put into doubt.

Yet Rice knocks out a women with one punch and drags her around like a bag of trash, and we need to get more facts, don't assume he has ever done this before, and consider her wishes despite them being plainly unhealthy.


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

Amen, a guy knocks out an unarmed woman, whether she is related to him or not, should go to jail.

The same thing if a woman knocks out an unarmed man who is not threatening her (with a baseball bat or what have you), that woman should go to jail.

It is absolute, it is black and white.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

Lon said:


> All we know is that if you are an NFL player alleged to have carried out some misconduct you will be penalized promptly, and if evidence becomes publicized that corroborates your misconduct expect to lose it all, with out any due process.


well the NFL isn't a court
they're a business
and they can suspend or cut a player just from an arrest or public display such as this
just like any employer can if they choose


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



justaguy123 said:


> Amen, a guy knocks out an unarmed woman, whether she is related to him or not, should go to jail.
> 
> The same thing if a woman knocks out an unarmed man who is not threatening her (with a baseball bat or what have you), that woman should go to jail.
> 
> It is absolute, it is black and white.


Well he was charged with aggravated assault, and those criminal charges were dropped after he agreed to go to counseling.

Then the NFL doled out it's punishment.

But by your logic, they should also apply a lifetime ban on ANY player that has ever thrown a punch at another except in cases of self defense. I just gotta say that there would not be many professional athletes left to play in that sport.

As to Rice, if this was his character, to physically abuse women, well then karma has caught up with him. If this assault was out of character and he just lost his temper it's good he's in counseling, but too bad for him he had to learn his lesson the incredibly hard way.

I'm just not going to be one to cast stones at him, because I do not know him. I smoked weed once, a couple years ago, and when I was a child I took money out of my brothers piggy back. I'm a thief and a drug user and I don't want stones cast at me.


----------



## justaguy123 (Aug 20, 2014)

Lon said:


> Well he was charged with aggravated assault, and those criminal charges were dropped after he agreed to go to counseling.
> 
> Then the NFL doled out it's punishment.
> 
> ...


Hey whatever you do to yourself is your business...if you knock someone out in a public space, well you should go to jail. Be banned from sports... that's up to the public, and the public is pretty dang mad about it right now.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> I'm just not going to be one to cast stones at him, because I do not know him. I smoked weed once, a couple years ago, and when I was a child I took money out of my brothers piggy back. I'm a thief and a drug user and I don't want stones cast at me.


That you would compare these is troubling on far too many levels. It trivializes the brutality and lack of humanity to another human being that Rice exhibited. It assumes that actions taken as a child are the same as those by an alleged adult. It assumes that actions taken decades ago say the same about you as those take a few months ago.

But ask yourself this question - what if your daughter wanted to date him? Do you bend over backwards for him if he did that to her? Do you give him the benefit of the doubt if he did that to his last gf six months ago, but now says he is a changed man?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



justaguy123 said:


> Hey whatever you do to yourself is your business...if you knock someone out in a public space, well you should go to jail. Be banned from sports... that's up to the public, and the public is pretty dang mad about it right now.


It's only because the evidence became public. In the vast majority of domestic assault or other aggravated assaults, police don't get involved, no charges pressed and no public record. Professional athletes are involved in physical altercations all the time, but few have to face the wrath of public scrutiny like Rice in this instance.


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)

Lon said:


> It's only because the evidence became public. In the vast majority of domestic assault or other aggravated assaults, police don't get involved, no charges pressed and no public record. Professional athletes are involved in physical altercations all the time, but few have to face the wrath of public scrutiny like Rice in this instance.


no denying this for sure

video changes everything


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

I know a couple people who know Ray and Janay personally, and the word is that Janay is also VERY abusive both verbally and physically. She thrives on drama. The couple is horribly dysfunctional.

They were both drinking, got into a serious fight where Janay was cussing out, insulting and hitting Ray (over what neither of my friend's is sure - one has a feeling it has to do with another woman Ray was talking to). A back and forth ensued where Ray would curse back and then storm away, Janay would pursue with more cursing, insults, and hits. Ray told her to "get the f away" and "don't f-ing touch me again", storm off and again she'd pursue. There was a lot of build up prior to the elevator. From what my friends have heard, it was Janay spitting on Ray - which isn't really visible in the video - that prompted the punch.

I'm not excusing Ray's actions, but that was the reason for the relatively light initial punishment - Janay's hounding Ray, and Ray's squeaky clean record, and character endorsements were considered mitigating factors. A snap action amidst a fight in which both parties had zero control over their emotions, and Ray had repeatedly moved away from the situation prior to their entering the elevator only to be pursued/followed. There was significant provocation.

Hence his being able to agree to do a year long intervention program, and the NFL's rather light initial discipline. Both Ray and Janay were initially charged, but neither Ray nor Janay wanted to press. Janay's were dropped, but Ray's was pursued because of the harshness of the elevator video.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Almostrecovered said:


> no denying this for sure
> 
> video changes everything


Even though it doesn't actually change anything.

There is nothing to justify Rice assaulting her. My grievance over this whole matter is why the court of public opinion holds so much power over the NFLs decision how to treat Rice.

While Rice is unjust, so too is the NFL in their punishment. After this whole boondoggle the league made policy changes spelling out their treatment to domestic abuse by players, and in it they say first offense is six game suspension, second offense is lifetime ban, and that certain aggravating factors, specifically any firearms involved and if the victim is pregnant, could mean harsher penalty for first offense. So how come he has been banned for life, and not six games instead?


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I know a couple people who know Ray and Janay personally, and the word is that Janay is also VERY abusive both verbally and physically. She thrives on drama. The couple is horribly dysfunctional.
> 
> They were both drinking, got into a serious fight where Janay was cussing out, insulting and hitting Ray (over what neither of my friend's is sure - one has a feeling it has to do with another woman Ray was talking to). A back and forth ensued where Ray would curse back and then storm away, Janay would pursue with more cursing, insults, and hits. Ray told her to "get the f away" and "don't f-ing touch me again", storm off and again she'd pursue. There was a lot of build up prior to the elevator. From what my friends have heard, it was Janay spitting on Ray - which isn't really visible in the video - that prompted the punch.
> 
> ...


Your right. My mistake. She was asking for it. She absolutely got what she deserved. Who of us has not snapped and launched a left hook that knocked out our wife or gf. And then dragged them across the floor like a rolled up carpet. It could happen to any one, and we would all be better if we just turned our head, crossed to the other side of the street and pretended we did not see anything.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> Even though it doesn't actually change anything.
> 
> There is nothing to justify Rice assaulting her. My grievance over this whole matter is why the court of public opinion holds so much power over the NFLs decision how to treat Rice.
> 
> While Rice is unjust, so too is the NFL in their punishment. After this whole boondoggle the league made policy changes spelling out their treatment to domestic abuse by players, and in it they say first offense is six game suspension, second offense is lifetime ban, and that certain aggravating factors, specifically any firearms involved and if the victim is pregnant, could mean harsher penalty for first offense. So how come he has been banned for life, and not six games instead?


Since we are giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone and their brother, the NFL says they never saw the tape. Rice reportedly lied to them about the severity of what happened (and his lawyer certainly did that as well). So hence more than 6 games.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lon said:


> There is nothing to justify Rice assaulting her. My grievance over this whole matter is why the court of public opinion holds so much power over the NFLs decision how to treat Rice.
> 
> While Rice is unjust, so too is the NFL in their punishment. After this whole boondoggle the league made policy changes spelling out their treatment to domestic abuse by players, and in it they say first offense is six game suspension, second offense is lifetime ban, and that certain aggravating factors, specifically any firearms involved and if the victim is pregnant, could mean harsher penalty for first offense. So how come he has been banned for life, and not six games instead?


His suspension is indefinite, meaning no time set, not permanent, but I still find the decision unjust. If Ray Rice had laid out a man who provoked and pursued him, finally spitting on him, I don't think we'd even be having this conversation... but because its a woman, it's a whole other story. It's perfectly ok for her to provoke and pursue and spit, having no self-control whatsoever... and entirely upon the man to keep his cool in face of it.

I think Rice's actions are horrible and the suspension should have been 4-6 games. But, and I'll probably be flamed for saying so, I find Janay's actions to be a despicable abuse of female privilege. The expectation that because you are female, you are immune to having your extreme provocation responded to with violence. No man would spit at another man and have any kind of expectation that the man won't deck him for doing so.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

What he did was definitely not done in self-defense but out of pure retaliation in anger. Getting spit on by your then fiancee along with a couple lame slaps (now wife) doesn't mean you have to immediately fully punch her unconsciously. That should be as last and final resort if she was seriousy putting a knife in your heart (trying to kill you) and you had no way out. 

I'm sorry but I'm getting the feeling those with the ''You shouldn't have dished it if you can't take it'' mentality aren't only excusing abusive men but clearly have no understanding of the difference between true self-defense and retaliation. That statement these people with that mentality make is of retaliation. 

And who ever said ''Oh she had it coming'' here is sick. The one who made that statement, did you not see what he did after he knocked her out cold and how nonchalant he was acting?

His actions were despicable.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Tall Average Guy said:


> Since we are giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone and their brother, the NFL says they never saw the tape. Rice reportedly lied to them about the severity of what happened (and his lawyer certainly did that as well). So hence more than 6 games.


Whether they saw the tape or not, it was a legal matter before the courts, and whatever judgment the NFL used has to stem from the verdict of the court. Rice didn't contest the charges, and criminal charges were dropped, even though he never denied assaulting her... It doesn't matter if it were a punch vs a push, it was assault either way. NFL caved into pressure of outaged public, rather than following policies, and to me it sets a poor precedent.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Your right. My mistake. She was asking for it. She absolutely got what she deserved. Who of us has not snapped and launched a left hook that knocked out our wife or gf. And then dragged them across the floor like a rolled up carpet. It could happen to any one, and we would all be better if we just turned our head, crossed to the other side of the street and pretended we did not see anything.


That's just the full story bro. You're welcome to your own conclusion. If a guy spit on you in such a provocation would you lash out? I suspect most people would. Why exactly is it any different when done by a woman? Attacking while hiding behind chivalry? What kind of bs is that? If this was some weak little man that spit on Ray after cursing, insulting and pursuing him... and Ray laid him out, I think everyone would say "serves him right." But its entirely different if you're female and do the same. Ray would be in the wrong in either case, yet their would be no public outcry.

I'm frankly as disgusted by the fact that our society seems to think a woman has no duty to control herself and not pursue, hound and provoke someone to violence under some weird chivalrous notion that women aren't subject to the same physical consequences as men for such behavior, as I am by the notion of a man hitting a woman.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

OnlyQueen said:


> What he did was definitely not done in self-defense but out of pure retaliation in anger. Getting spit on by your then fiancee along with a couple lame slaps (now wife) doesn't mean you have to immediately fully punch her unconsciously. That should be as last and final resort if she was seriousy putting a knife in your heart (trying to kill you) and you had no way out.
> 
> I'm sorry but I'm getting the feeling those with the ''You shouldn't have dished it if you can't take it'' mentality aren't only excusing abusive men but clearly have no understanding of the difference between true self-defense and retaliation. That statement these people with that mentality make is of retaliation.
> 
> And who ever said ''Oh she had it coming'' here is sick. The one who made that statement, did you not see what he did after he knocked her out cold and how nonchalant he was acting?


I didn't say it was self-defense. It is however a snap reaction to extreme provocation that is mitigating.

How many of us have never been pushed beyond our limit and done something we regret in a moment of extreme emotion? Ray should be punished. Indefinite suspension and being released from the team are excessive imo.

The case was tried in the court of public opinion on the basis of only the elevator video. The prosecutor's determination was based on full evidence, circumstances, history and character of the accused.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



OnlyQueen said:


> What he did was definitely not done in self-defense but out of pure retaliation in anger. Getting spit on by your then fiancee along with a couple lame slaps (now wife) doesn't mean you have to immediately fully punch her unconsciously. That should be as last and final resort if she was seriousy putting a knife in your heart (trying to kill you) and you had no way out.
> 
> I'm sorry but I'm getting the feeling those with the ''You shouldn't have dished it if you can't take it'' mentality aren't only excusing abusive men but clearly have no understanding the difference between true self-defense and retaliation. That statement these people with that mentality make is of retaliation.
> 
> And who ever said ''Oh she had it coming'' here is sick. The one who made that statement, did you not see what he did after he knocked her out cold and how nonchalant he was acting?


I doubt his intention was to knock her unconscious, he was probably just reacting the way some men are programmed to react, by escalating the level of force until the tougher person prevails, he just didn't consider how much damage he could do.

As a man it is certainly no way to treat a lady, but I disagree with dvl, female privilege does protect them from violence by men. Call me old fashioned I guess... Where it would get confusing is when a weaker man is in altercation with a physically stronger woman.

Point is Rice punched her when he shouldn't have, how he dealt with her unconscious body isn't really relevant or indicative of his intentions (I don't know how differently anyone else would act if they had knocked out their spouse in an elevator).


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> Whether they saw the tape or not, it was a legal matter before the courts, and whatever judgment the NFL used has to stem from the verdict of the court. Rice didn't contest the charges, and criminal charges were dropped, even though he never denied assaulting her... It doesn't matter if it were a punch vs a push, it was assault either way. NFL caved into pressure of outaged public, rather than following policies, and to me it sets a poor precedent.


No it didn't. The NFL's actions are completely separate from any legal outcome. The have suspended numerous players for conduct that resulted in no charges. Your statement to the contrary is just plain wrong.

As far as caving to pressure from the public, that public buys those tickets. What did you expect?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*The next one to "get knocked out" over this little incident could well be the NFL Commish himself. The CBS newslady interviewer owned him in that interview as he could not convince her in her quest to know, "what did you know and when did you know it?" He looked like a deer blinded by oncoming headlights.

Now if Raven's Coach Harbaugh had knowledge and film footage, along with the Raven's ownership, what plausible deniability does Mr. Goodell at the NFL Office have? All he can say is that no one in his swanky Park Avenue lair had any knowledge of Tape No. 2, when both Harbaugh and the Raven's owner did, all while Goodell is issuing a "knuckle-rapping" two game suspension!

Goodell has ex-FBI and law enforcement folks who can get that film footage, just like the FBI can. Who is he fooling? Methinks that either Goodell or someone in his office was offering to protect Rice, and once the second tape surfaced, there was no redemption to be found.

If more evidence surfaces, which I greatly suspect may happen, causing Goodell to have to sit before some Senate or House Committee and dodge more bombs about this, he could well be joining Eric Cantor as a Wall Street Investment Banker in the very near future in his challenging new career!!*


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's just the full story bro. You're welcome to your own conclusion. If a guy spit on you in such a provocation would you lash out? I suspect most people would. Why exactly is it any different when done by a woman? Attacking while hiding behind chivalry? What kind of bs is that? If this was some weak little man that spit on Ray after cursing, insulting and pursuing him... and Ray laid him out, I think everyone would say "serves him right." But its entirely different if you're female and do the same.


Sure it is. You want to pretend it is different? You going to sit back at a bar and let a guy hit a girl because she had it coming?

Unbelievable. We tell men here to man up and act like the kind of man they should be, then give a guy a pass when he knocks out a woman and drags her across the floor. No mixed message there.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Tall Average Guy said:


> No it didn't. The NFL's actions are completely separate from any legal outcome. The have suspended numerous players for conduct that resulted in no charges. Your statement to the contrary is just plain wrong.
> 
> As far as caving to pressure from the public, that public buys those tickets. What did you expect?


I'm not saying that their decision rests solely on the court verdict, I'm just saying it should be based on what the court determines as fact, and with the release of the elevator footage no facts changed.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Sure it is. You want to pretend it is different? You going to sit back at a bar and let a guy hit a girl because she had it coming?
> 
> Unbelievable. We tell men here to man up and act like the kind of man they should be, then give a guy a pass when he knocks out a woman and drags her across the floor. No mixed message there.


If a woman hounds a man around the bar, slaps him, shouts, insults and cussing him out, finally getting in his face and spitting it in... no, I'm not going to think a damn thing if he swings. It's no different than if it had been a weak, small man doing the same. People who provoke violence by spitting on someone are not worthy of defense. WTF do you think was going to happen when you spit on someone? Give me a break.

Being female, or physically weaker, doesn't mean you're immune to consequences of going all out to provoke someone. You're just as much in the wrong as the person who doesn't withstand that provocation.

It is definitely a mitigating factor imo. I didn't say give the guy a pass. I said the punishment is over the top.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> Now if Raven's Coach Harbaugh had knowledge and film footage, along with the Raven's ownership, what plausible deniability does Mr. Goodell at the NFL Office have?


According to the Ravens, they hadn't seen the video either. They did say that it matches Rice's story, but that the video "changes things" without being willing to comment as to what difference the video made - which to my thinking means "Ray Rice's continued presence on the team damages our brand" more than his release is related to all the details.

The prosecutors office has seen all of the videos, and deemed Ray's participation in an intervention program satisfactory. Legal experts are mixed... with some expressing that whatever provocation by Janay is shown in the casino videos may have been enough to reasonably believe a conviction by jury would not have been a sure thing.

"If she spit on him as well, now you're starting to get into who started it. Is that enough provocation? Could somebody on the jury think that? It's possible." -Former Federal and State Prosecutor Anne Marie McAvoy.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I didn't say it was self-defense. It is however a snap reaction to extreme provocation that is mitigating.


Still, he made that choice to react angrily and overdo it. 
Why was he even following her on the elevator? He could have gone later. Not a smart idea to go inside the elevator with a wife (then fiancee) that's already irritated.

Other than the a male poster here not so long ago that truly hit once in self-defense after reading about how he was being choked by his fiancee, the lights were turned off and he felt scared, the other times is just the man having the ''How dare she does this'' reaction and hitting in anger; as you call it snap reaction and most of the times they hit way harder than what they received from the female or don't stop.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

OnlyQueen said:


> Still, he made that choice to react angrily and overdo it.
> Why was he even following her on the elevator? He could have gone later. Not a smart idea to go inside the elevator with a wife (then fiancee) that's already irritated.


It's actually the other way around. Ray left her on the casino floor to return to their room. Janay followed him to the elevator, as she had done several times when he had walked away. That she was first to enter the elevator is misleading. He wasn't following her.

His reaction is totally unacceptable, but I know that most people are going to have a snap, physically violent reaction to being spit on in such a tense situation after being repeatedly provoked and pursued, and that to me is a mitigating factor. Honestly, what do people think is going to happen when you push someone too far? If some women think that they can engage in such behavior solely because they're women, I think that's at least as despicable as the actual punch.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> I'm not saying that their decision rests solely on the court verdict, I'm just saying it should be based on what the court determines as fact, and with the release of the elevator footage no facts changed.


While different, it still is unconnected. As I noted before, the NFL has acted before any court verdict in a number of cases. They have suspended folks when no charges were ever brought. So to pretend this is a new thing is wrong.


----------



## kindnessrules (Sep 5, 2014)

The video was a little fuzzy, but didn't she hit him first? I'm not justifying his behavior because a man hitting a woman is an unequal and unfair match. And I'm not blaming the victim, but there are many cases when alcohol is involved, a screaming argument ensues, culminating in violence. I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg, and many people would not like the world to see what they do in their private lives. 

People need to learn to handle their anger because unfortunately it ends up like this. I once noticed a couple arguing in the grocery store; the man was becoming abusive and using profanity. There were innocent little kids involved and I hoped nothing happened after they left the store.

Unfortunately a lot of women are willing to stay with abusers for many reasons: security, loneliness, having someone to "love" them, financial dependency, having nowhere else to go, not wanting to uproot their lives, the man being the father of their kids, etc. We can all get outraged and wonder why they stay, but they have their own reasons which we cannot fathom. 

I hope they can work it out in their own way toward a good outcome. What bothers me is that he has not apologized or expressed remorse, or maybe he has.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If a woman hounds a man around the bar, slaps him, shouts, insults and cussing him out, finally getting in his face and spitting it in... no, I'm not going to think a damn thing if he swings. It's no different than if it had been a weak, small man doing the same. People who provoke violence by spitting on someone are not worthy of defense. WTF do you think was going to happen when you spit on someone? Give me a break.
> 
> Being female, or physically weaker, doesn't mean you're immune to consequences of going all out to provoke someone. You're just as much in the wrong as the person who doesn't withstand that provocation.


So when a drunk acts like one, it is open season on them? A bigger guy gets to do whatever they want, with no consequences, because the smaller guy had it coming? 

He did not merely try to stop her. He knocker he unconscious with a left hook straight to the face. He was so concerned about her, that he then proceeded to drag her out of the elevator like garbage. Heck, he starts to move her with his feet at one point. But since she acted badly, she deserved it.



> It is definitely a mitigating factor imo. I didn't say give the guy a pass. I said the punishment is over the top.


BS. Your initial post all but said she had it coming. If she deserved it, then by definition he gets a pass. 

Let's take your sources as fully accurate. That means he has known this about her a long time. He is no stranger to this. He knew what she is like, knew that she does these things and yet stuck around. Under the prevailing theory, he knocked her out after putting himself in a situation that led up to it.

I guess men should only act like one when it is easy. When it becomes difficult, all bets are off.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

VermisciousKnid said:


> Now she's tweeting that people are ruining their lives. Is part of what is at play that Ray Rice was going to make $6,000,000 per year for the next few years and now he's going to make nothing?


It's also that he's going to blame HER for him losing it, and punish her accordingly. After all, if she hadn't made him mad, if she hadn't argued back, he'd never have had to push or hurt her. 

As someone on NPR said, her comments were designed for protection - to protect her and her kids from his wrath. If she's seen begging people, being on his side, it's less likely (in her mind) that he'll do it again.


----------



## Miss Taken (Aug 18, 2012)

I agree that there is a double-standard when it comes to men hitting women and vice versa. Unfair though it seems, I believe there should be. I strongly disagree with women using their "female privilege" to taunt and hit or spit on men. However I will always feel that where men are _usually_ bigger, stronger than their women, there's hardly an excuse to physically retaliate against them. Save using weapons and the like, most of the time the man can reclaim control whether physically or otherwise over the situation without resorting to punching and beating her back.

I brought up me hitting my toddler son as an example. For the record, he often spits on me too... not in anger but still gross nonetheless.  I am bigger, stronger, smarter, more resourceful than he is. To physically overpower him because he has abused his "toddler privilege" of provoking me, kicking and hitting and hair pulling during temper tantrums would never ever be right. 

I don't doubt that Janay is no angel. I bet she is a drama queen as Dvls has said and that she instigates the fights. At the same time, he is rich, famous and has the means to leave her if he was so troubled by her drama. He is no victim here. Physically, no doubt financially, and likely influentially because of fame and a fan-base, he has the upper hand when it comes to power in their "marriage".

In the elevator incident, had she come at him with a baseball bat, a gun, a knife or the back end of a stiletto shoe then maybe the knockout punch would be forgivable. Otherwise, I just have a really hard time feeling sorry for him.

I also think it begs to ask to what end is the provocation justification for retaliation a valid one to those that argue it? Suppose a man as large or larger than Ray Rice punched you as he did his wife. Do you then have the right to shoot him? If you shoot him does his kin have the right to come and shoot one of your kin? Where should it stop?

An eye for an eye and all that.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

Well said Miss_Taken.

I truly feel no sympathy for Ray Rice. If his wife has always been full of drama and an instigator towards arguments as others who know the couple said, then he could have gotten out of the relationship long ago. 

I feel like this isn't the first time he punched her like that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> So when a drunk acts like one, it is open season on them? A bigger guy gets to do whatever they want, with no consequences, because the smaller guy had it coming?


They were both drinking, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. If I spit in your face, its a fair assumption you're going to retaliate with a fist to mine... that's one reason I'm not going to spit in anyone's face. 



Tall Average Guy said:


> He did not merely try to stop her. He knocker he unconscious with a left hook straight to the face. He was so concerned about her, that he then proceeded to drag her out of the elevator like garbage. Heck, he starts to move her with his feet at one point. But since she acted badly, she deserved it.


What does the after-punch scenario have to do with anything? I don't particularly give a damn about someone who has been harassing me all night either. It's also asinine to make any relevance of the fact she was knocked out as if that's what he wanted.

If I'm spit on by a guy, I'm going to light him up regardless of his own idiotic inebriated state or small size. Explain to me why it should be different for a woman without being sexist. If you're smaller, you take more care of your actions - you don't go picking fights with larger people.




Tall Average Guy said:


> BS. Your initial post all but said she had it coming. If she deserved it, then by definition he gets a pass.


If that's what you got from my first post, I suggest a course in reading comprehension. I've been clear that his actions were wrong and that he should be punished, which in the English the rest of us comprehend, is not the definition of a pass. I reiterate, it is a mitigating factor that she started the confrontation, pursued it when he repeatedly retreated, became physically violent first, and provoked him by spitting on him. Ah, yes... that good old fashioned prerogative of a man to have unlimited emotional regulation in the face of a woman fully intent on abusing female privilege. I'm sorry, but everyone has a breaking point.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Let's take your sources as fully accurate. That means he has known this about her a long time. He is no stranger to this. He knew what she is like, knew that she does these things and yet stuck around. Under the prevailing theory, he knocked her out after putting himself in a situation that led up to it.


She was knocked unconscious and is sticking around. Staying or leaving a relationship is a lot more complicated than you're leading on. I'm glad you're the picture of perfect rationality and robotic self-control, but most people are human.



Tall Average Guy said:


> I guess men should only act like one when it is easy. When it becomes difficult, all bets are off.


BS hyperbole. Everyone agrees his punching her was wrong. What I'm saying is that her instigating, pursuing and provoking him is a mitigating factor. Everyone has a limit to rational control in an emotionally charged situation and sufficient provocation. His punching her is no worse than his punching a small man after being provoked and spit in the face, and hardly anyone would have a problem with such retaliation. People would point fingers at the instigator. But when the instigator is a woman... oh no... its all on the man to have infinite self-control. As sexist a position as I've ever seen.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

turnera said:


> As someone on NPR said, her comments were designed for protection - to protect her and her kids from his wrath. If she's seen begging people, being on his side, it's less likely (in her mind) that he'll do it again.


That is totally conjecture. How many beaten down women pursue and harass and hit their abuser in the manner Janay did Ray? No, Janay was a woman reliant on the assumption that because she was a woman, she was free to do that which would likely bring a person to violence.

I don't go spit in the face of a bigger man even if I'd like to... because ultimately, I'm going to get my ass kicked.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Miss Taken said:


> I agree that there is a double-standard when it comes to men hitting women and vice versa. Unfair though it seems, I believe there should be. I strongly disagree with women using their "female privilege" to taunt and hit or spit on men. However I will always feel that where men are _usually_ bigger, stronger than their women, there's hardly an excuse to physically retaliate against them. Save using weapons and the like, most of the time the man can reclaim control whether physically or otherwise over the situation without resorting to punching and beating her back.


It's not about physical control. It's an emotional lashing out for lack of healthier coping mechanisms. The same reason that woman is compelled to hit him, or spit in his face - extreme emotional distress and rage - is the reason he hits her in this case. She is not a child and he ought not be held to a different standard than her.



Miss Taken said:


> I brought up me hitting my toddler son as an example. For the record, he often spits on me too... not in anger but still gross nonetheless.  I am bigger, stronger, smarter, more resourceful than he is. To physically overpower him because he has abused his "toddler privilege" of provoking me, kicking and hitting and hair pulling during temper tantrums would never ever be right.


Surely you are not saying men should treat women as children? The principle here isn't size and strength, but of development... its reasonable that the child does not know any better.



Miss Taken said:


> I don't doubt that Janay is no angel. I bet she is a drama queen as Dvls has said and that she instigates the fights. At the same time, he is rich, famous and has the means to leave her if he was so troubled by her drama. He is no victim here. Physically, no doubt financially, and likely influentially because of fame and a fan-base, he has the upper hand when it comes to power in their "marriage".


Janay instigates fights and is physically and verbally abusive. Whether he leaves her or not, he's still a victim of such abuse. Or is Janay not a victim of violence because she's chosen to stay with Ray?



Miss Taken said:


> Otherwise, I just have a really hard time feeling sorry for him.


Note, that I don't feel sorry for him or her. They both made that bed. My point is that the provocation is mitigating, and the reason for the lax deal given to him by the prosecutor, and the subsequent lax suspension of 2 games. My position is that the pendulum was swung too far in the other direction - and that Ray is now simply being made pariah for responding poorly to being provoked. As a human being, I recognize that I'm not immune to doing something stupid given circumstances and extreme provocation. If I'm already pissed and stressed and someone spits in my face, I'm probably going to take a violent action in that split second. So I can at least relate to that, even if I have no sympathy for the consequences. I cannot relate or sympathize with someone who got knocked out for provoking someone and spitting in their face... whether they're a man or a woman.



Miss Taken said:


> I also think it begs to ask to what end is the provocation justification for retaliation a valid one to those that argue it? Suppose a man as large or larger than Ray Rice punched you as he did his wife. Do you then have the right to shoot him? If you shoot him does his kin have the right to come and shoot one of your kin? Where should it stop?
> 
> An eye for an eye and all that.


Bear in mind I don't consider it justification, nor "right" in any way. I consider the provocation a mitigating circumstance. This isn't some dude beating on his wife because he has wild out of whack anger issues. This is a guy who threw a punch after being hounded, pursued, shouted and cursed in public, hit, and SPIT on. I believe we all have limits to how far we can be pushed and remain rational. When that limit is passed, rationality doesn't hold a candle to emotion.

I realize I'm well into the territory of unpopular opinion here, but I also think my view on this, is the only one that isn't dripping with sexist notions that a woman may dish and dish, and a man may only take and take. No. I'm inclined to think that you shouldn't dish it out if you don't wanna take it - particularly if you're the smaller party! All of these actions are wrong, but men should not be held to a higher standard of self-control than women, and circumstances, instigation and provocation are definitely a factor.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What does the after-punch scenario have to do with anything? I don't particularly give a damn about someone who has been harassing me all night either. It's also asinine to make any relevance of the fact she was knocked out as if that's what he wanted.


I guess how you treat alleged loved ones is different than I do. If there were truly a provoked reaction, I would have expected to see actions indicating he was upset over what he had done. 



> If I'm spit on by a guy, I'm going to light him up regardless of his own idiotic inebriated state or small size. Explain to me why it should be different for a woman without being sexist. If you're smaller, you take more care of your actions - you don't go picking fights with larger people.


And you don't hit women when you don't have to. 



> If that's what you got from my first post, I suggest a course in reading comprehension. I've been clear that his actions were wrong and that he should be punished, which in the English the rest of us comprehend, is not the definition of a pass. I reiterate, it is a mitigating factor that she started the confrontation, pursued it when he repeatedly retreated, became physically violent first, and provoked him by spitting on him. Ah, yes... that good old fashioned prerogative of a man to have unlimited emotional regulation in the face of a woman fully intent on abusing female privilege. I'm sorry, but everyone has a breaking point.


You claim he was wrong with a couple of sentences, but then write paragraphs excusing what he did and claiming you would have done the same. I don't see how giving greater weight based on the volume of your posts shows a lack of comprehension of your views.



> She was knocked unconscious and is sticking around. Staying or leaving a relationship is a lot more complicated than you're leading on. I'm glad you're the picture of perfect rationality and robotic self-control, but most people are human.


That she is not rational does not excuse his behavior.



> BS hyperbole. Everyone agrees his punching her was wrong. What I'm saying is that her instigating, pursuing and provoking him is a mitigating factor. Everyone has a limit to rational control in an emotionally charged situation and sufficient provocation. His punching her is no worse than his punching a small man after being provoked and spit in the face, and hardly anyone would have a problem with such retaliation. People would point fingers at the instigator. But when the instigator is a woman... oh no... its all on the man to have infinite self-control. As sexist a position as I've ever seen.


Again, one sentence noting he was wrong, but five excusing his behavior. Your first post was all about blaming her for hurting his fist with her face.

It is clear that you don't have a whole lot of issue with what he did because she behaved badly first. As a man, I find it appalling that "equal rights" means men get to decide when they hit women and knock them unconscious. Domestic violence is a big problem - one that is too often ignored. Blaming the victim perpetuates it.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I realize I'm well into the territory of unpopular opinion here, but I also think my view on this, is the only one that isn't dripping with sexist notions that a woman may dish and dish, and a man may only take and take. No. I'm inclined to think that you shouldn't dish it out if you don't wanna take it - particularly if you're the smaller party! All of these actions are wrong, but men should not be held to a higher standard of self-control than women, and circumstances, instigation and provocation are definitely a factor.


Only because that supports your view than men are victims. No one is saying a man has to just take it. But there were a million choices between taking it and knocking her unconscious.

If things were that bad, don't get in the elevator with her. Call security and get her away. Push her away.

But no - he punches her in the face and you think that was understandable. 

But hey, I am the sexist one. 

At this point, I see no point other than to leave you with your victimhood.


----------



## Eagle3 (Dec 4, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8, aren't you a Ravens fan? I thought i have seen that before. Might be making you have such a strong defense to something that is clearly pretty bad. I am not saying Ray Rice is a bad guy, but you have to say he did a horrible thing. Trying to defend this is not a good look.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

The issue of what an NFL player hitting a girl with a haymaker that drops her like she's dead, is, isn't really up for debate, is it? Maybe if she's Cristiane "Cyborg" Venancio, but that's it.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

Everyone... Please. Watch the video and watch it carefully. The reason why she hits him is because HE spat on HER. When they are waiting to get on the elevator he spits on her and she gives him a lazy slap of annoyance. In the elevator he spits on her again and she responds but trying to get him away from her. Then he slaps her, she charges and then he lays her out. SHE DIDNT DO ANYTHING. This man is so wrong. Look for it and you can see by his gesture.

She did not provoke him at all. You guys got it all wrong about this poor woman.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I guess how you treat alleged loved ones is different than I do. If there were truly a provoked reaction, I would have expected to see actions indicating he was upset over what he had done.


Some people come down faster than others. Your "loved one" didn't do what his did to provoke either.




Tall Average Guy said:


> And you don't hit women when you don't have to.


You don't HAVE to hit anyone virtually ever, yet fights are common occurrence. This isn't a matter of propriety. Its a matter of emotion. You hold men to a higher standard than women, which is by definition sexist. 




Tall Average Guy said:


> You claim he was wrong with a couple of sentences, but then write paragraphs excusing what he did and claiming you would have done the same. I don't see how giving greater weight based on the volume of your posts shows a lack of comprehension of your views.


lol for real dude? Greater volume explaining the more nuanced position as to how it relates to being a mitigating factor and sexist attitudes vs saying "wrong" indicates my lack of comprehension? Exactly how many sentences do you need to convey "wrong"? I was taught to spend the most time explaining where my opinion differs from yours, not where we agree. Would you like me to spend more time explaining the part we agree on, or do you really get how much of a waste of time that is beyond a token acknowledgement? My time is better spent discussing the view I hold which you do not.



Tall Average Guy said:


> That she is not rational does not excuse his behavior.


And I haven't excused it. I said its a mitigating factor, again.



Tall Average Guy said:


> It is clear that you don't have a whole lot of issue with what he did because she behaved badly first. As a man, I find it appalling that "equal rights" means men get to decide when they hit women and knock them unconscious. Domestic violence is a big problem - one that is too often ignored. Blaming the victim perpetuates it.


I have a wonderful solution. Don't spit in people's faces and you don't get knocked out. Equal rights does not mean being free to act irrationally with impunity where anyone else would get punched. Equal rights does not mean holding men to a higher standard than women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Eagle3 said:


> DvlsAdvc8, aren't you a Ravens fan? I thought i have seen that before. Might be making you have such a strong defense to something that is clearly pretty bad. I am not saying Ray Rice is a bad guy, but you have to say he did a horrible thing. Trying to defend this is not a good look.


Ravens fan, not Ray Rice fan. Players come and go, and honestly, Ray Rice was terrible last year and had no faith in his come back. I was hoping the Ravens drafted a running back early.

I'm not defending violence . Violence began when Janay first hit Ray. I'm pointing out provocation as a mitigating factor and the double standard.

If you don't want to be hit by a bigger, stronger person, don't hit a bigger stronger person. I'd think this is common sense to most people, but apparently its not when gender gets included and our sexist views of chivalry get involved.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> Everyone... Please. Watch the video and watch it carefully. The reason why she hits him is because HE spat on HER. When they are waiting to get on the elevator he spits on her and she gives him a lazy slap of annoyance. In the elevator he spits on her again and she responds but trying to get him away from her. Then he slaps her, she charges and then he lays her out. SHE DIDNT DO ANYTHING. This man is so wrong. Look for it and you can see by his gesture.
> 
> She did not provoke him at all. You guys got it all wrong about this poor woman.


Except that she did marry him after this assault.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Guess I just don't get it. We have criminal laws in all 50 states against domestic assault and we pay people to punish offenders. We call those people "judges". Not sure when demanding that people be fired or forced to sell teams or companies entered into the equation. If a pop star or movie star strikes his wife, are we going to demand they be fired? Bill Clinton was accused of rape and of physical assault. Where was this outrage? We were told his activities had nothing to do with his job performance. Ted Kennedy killed a woman and his constituents kept reelecting him. A damned football player must be held to a higher standard than the president of the United States or a U.S. Senator? The guy is paid to play ball and win games. If she married the guy after the assault, who was the victim?


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

richie33 said:


> Except that she did marry him after this assault.


Unfortunately not uncommon.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8, brother you got it wrong on this one. Watch the whole video. You can catch him doing it twice.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> Unfortunately not uncommon.


That is true.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Only because that supports your view than men are victims. No one is saying a man has to just take it. But there were a million choices between taking it and knocking her unconscious.


I have no such view. This is simply an example of a double standard. You're better than scarecrows.

There were a million choices, and Janay had those choices too. Both of their choices were bad, but it wasn't Ray who instigated the fight, pursued her, and hit her first. Ray was provoked.



Tall Average Guy said:


> If things were that bad, don't get in the elevator with her. Call security and get her away. Push her away.
> 
> But no - he punches her in the face and you think that was understandable.


Uh huh. He could have. She could have too. Neither did. Both are wrong. Now, let me spit in your face and see how understandable you think punching in that circumstance is. You're a total model of self-control right? Nobody can goad you into violence. Oh wait... it's different when men do it vs women doing it. There's a word for that I think... 



Tall Average Guy said:


> But hey, I am the sexist one.


That's the one.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

FalconKing said:


> Everyone... Please. Watch the video and watch it carefully. The reason why she hits him is because HE spat on HER. When they are waiting to get on the elevator he spits on her and she gives him a lazy slap of annoyance. In the elevator he spits on her again and she responds but trying to get him away from her. Then he slaps her, she charges and then he lays her out. SHE DIDNT DO ANYTHING. This man is so wrong. Look for it and you can see by his gesture.
> 
> She did not provoke him at all. You guys got it all wrong about this poor woman.


I kind of suspected it by his gestures ever since he followed her in the elevator. If he wanted to get away from her as someone is claiming here, since he's NFL player, I'm sure he can run very fast she wouldn't have been able to catch him. 

The way he acted on the video didn't look like a man that was truly trying to get away from her but someone that clearly has anger issues and is an abuser. The difference is he's probably only sorry he was caught.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> Everyone... Please. Watch the video and watch it carefully. The reason why she hits him is because HE spat on HER. When they are waiting to get on the elevator he spits on her and she gives him a lazy slap of annoyance. In the elevator he spits on her again and she responds but trying to get him away from her. Then he slaps her, she charges and then he lays her out. SHE DIDNT DO ANYTHING. This man is so wrong. Look for it and you can see by his gesture.
> 
> She did not provoke him at all. You guys got it all wrong about this poor woman.


My source with the Ravens has it the other way around. She says that Janay spit on Ray.

If he did the spitting, that would seem to argue that he was already intent on hitting her before getting into the elevator. If that is the case, then I don't see it as a triggered spur of the moment rage. But like I said, I know two people who know the couple, one of whom works with the organization... and that's not what they've said. There's also audio that will hopefully get released.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

richie33 said:


> Except that she did marry him after this assault.


Like many women who get abused do. They make excuses for their man's violent streaks.

I'm going to change the story a bit and here goes:
*DvlsAdvc8 * since it's clearly you're making some excuses for this so called ''husband'' (thinking that's a normal reaction to a fiancee you claimed to love; not just any random stranger on the street but your loved one; the mother of your child you don't want to see hurt but ironically you hurt her) would you have still have thought the same that she provoked him if that punch would have killed her? 

I once read about a case of a man that cold punched a girl that was slapping him but she hit the ground and died.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

OnlyQueen said:


> I kind of suspected it by his gestures ever since he followed her in the elevator. If he wanted to get away from her as someone is claiming here, since he's NFL player, I'm sure he can run very fast she wouldn't have been able to catch him.
> 
> 
> 
> The way he acted on the video didn't look like a man that was truly trying to get away from her but someone that clearly has anger issues and is an abuser. The difference is he's probably only sorry he was caught.



He was provoking her so that he would have a reason to act out against her. A predator and a bully.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My source with the Ravens has it the other way around. She says that Janay spit on Ray.
> 
> 
> 
> If he did the spitting, that would seem to argue that he was already intent on hitting her before getting into the elevator. If that is the case, then I don't see it as a triggered spur of the moment rage. But like I said, I know two people who know the couple, one of whom works with the organization... and that's not what they've said.



They might have just been defending him. He could be telling people that. You can tell by his gesture he is spitting on her.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

OnlyQueen said:


> Like many women who get abused do. They make excuses for their man's violent streaks.
> 
> I'm going to change the story a bit and here goes:
> *DvlsAdvc8 * since it's clearly you're making some excuses for this so called ''husband'' (thinking that's a normal reaction to a fiancee you claimed to love; not just any random stranger on the street but your loved one; the mother of your child you don't want to see hurt but ironically you hurt her) would you have still thought the same that she provoked him if that punch would have killed her?
> ...


The results of the punch aren't really relevant to me, although they matter legally. I could get in a fist fight with another man and just happen to kill him from a punch. If he instigated the fight, odds are fair to good I'm not going to be charged. That fact shouldn't change simply because its a woman instigating instead of a man.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> They might have just been defending him. He could be telling people that. You can tell by his gesture he is spitting on her.


I see the gesture you're referring to. The Ravens say his story is consistent with the new video. I only know what I've been told by two people who know them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> He was provoking her so that he would have a reason to act out against her. A predator and a bully.


I don't think that flies. There is ample witnesses and video of Janay in the casino shouting obscenities at and hitting Ray for Ray to be the bully.

The question remaining for me, if my sources are not accurate, is if Ray Rice was purposefully waiting to get into the elevator to retaliate, which would indicate it wasn't a spur of the moment reaction after a night full of fighting... but a premeditated action to retaliate in a concealed manner... and honestly I have no idea which it is.

If it wasn't spur of the moment response and she didn't spit on him, then I'll throw out everything else I've said. I'll also wonder why the prosecution was so lenient. That and my friend's characterization of Janay makes me doubtful this is the case though... but who knows?

AP seems to back up my friend's version of the story after they have viewed a longer, better quality video that includes audio: "Ray Rice and Janay Palmer can be heard shouting obscenities at each other, and she appears to spit in the face of the three-time Pro Bowl running back right before he throws a brutal punch in a video shown to The Associated Press by a law enforcement official."

The video was shown to the AP on condition of anonymity because the official isn't authorized to release it.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The results of the punch aren't really relevant to me, although they matter legally. I could get in a fist fight with another man and just happen to kill him from a punch. If he instigated the fight, odds are fair to good I'm not going to be charged. That fact shouldn't change simply because its a woman instigating instead of a man.


Generally men fist fight each other and can go a couple rounds as seen in boxing matches. However, if you cold punch your gf or fiancee like that, she's not going to last like another guy might. An average framed man still has the strength of a man and can last longer even if the woman were his same size. 

Maybe to you a girl killed or seriously injured after receiving a full Mike Tyson punch means nothing but definitely not for her family.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think that flies. There is ample witnesses and video of Janay in the casino shouting obscenities at and hitting Ray for Ray to be the bully.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't anything about what lead it up to that point. Maybe there was shouting and obscenities. But I'm 100 percent positive that he was spitting on her. Without knowing what lead to it, he was provoking her. And I what you said is true then it appears to be retaliation. So either he is a bully, or a very spiteful and angry person when he feels insulted or embarrassed. 


Well I guess those two kind of intertwine.


----------



## sinnister (Dec 5, 2010)

I won't say what I really want to say or I'll get auto banned .

I will say though that this is NOT the first instance of domestic abuse in the nfl or sports world at large yet there are very different consequences in this case. Mainly due to it being caught on tape.

Make of that what you will. Vile disgusting act but the media is acting like this ish is brand new.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

OnlyQueen said:


> Generally men fist fight each other and can go a couple rounds as seen in boxing matches. However, if you cold punch your gf or fiancee like that, she's not going to last like another guy might. An average framed man still has the strength of a man and can last longer even if the woman were his same size.
> 
> Maybe to you a girl killed or seriously injured after receiving a full Mike Tyson punch means nothing but definitely not for her family.


It goes like that in boxing matches and movies only, pretty much. A real street fight involves a lot of words, and often a sudden punch or rapid combination of punches before someone goes down or they separate. They do not last long at all.

I'm not at all big and powerful, and I can knock out a guy in one punch without much difficulty. It is way different from sports and movies. All you really gotta do is connect well. There has even become a fad among delinquent teens to randomly clock strangers from behind. They call it the knockout game. Scrawny teens knocking out women, and full grown men, in a single blind punch. It's honestly not hard to do. About the same force that will knock a woman out will knock an average man out too.

You misunderstand me though, it's not that I think the results mean nothing in that sense. I was relating that the result doesn't inform to the wrongness of deciding to punch (if you can even call that a decision). ie - If Janay hadn't been knocked out, I don't think the punch is any less wrong. Which is to say I think the result is irrelevant in terms of how wrong it is. Less bad in terms of damage doesn't mean less wrong in moral terms or vice versa.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> I don't anything about what lead it up to that point. Maybe there was shouting and obscenities. But I'm 100 percent positive that he was spitting on her. Without knowing what lead to it, he was provoking her. And I what you said is true then it appears to be retaliation. So either he is a bully, or a very spiteful and angry person when he feels insulted or embarrassed.
> 
> 
> Well I guess those two kind of intertwine.


The AP and police seem to think it's Janay spitting in the high quality video with audio, but I see the movement you're referring to.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The AP and police seem to think it's Janay spitting in the high quality video with audio, but I see the movement you're referring to.


I think there is another video that precedes this incident. I thought that was one with sound.

I read those articles. I don't really think a lot of people are actually paying attention to the video and dissecting it. Just sensationalizing it with gossip and rumors.


----------



## Miss Taken (Aug 18, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's not about physical control. It's an emotional lashing out for lack of healthier coping mechanisms. The same reason that woman is compelled to hit him, or spit in his face - extreme emotional distress and rage - is the reason he hits her in this case. She is not a child and he ought not be held to a different standard than her.


The motivations may be the same but the consequences and eventuality of lashing out are different. If he wanted to go tit-for-tat, why not slap her with the same amount of force she used on him or spit back? I’m not saying that this would be right either but if we are to be treated the same whether right or wrong and behave the same, then why not retaliate the same?...cause the same level of harm to each other in the sake of fairness. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Surely you are not saying men should treat women as children? The principle here isn't size and strength, but of development... its reasonable that the child does not know any better.


Of course not. My analogy exemplifies the differences in power and strength.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Janay instigates fights and is physically and verbally abusive. Whether he leaves her or not, he's still a victim of such abuse. Or is Janay not a victim of violence because she's chosen to stay with Ray?


Could he be the victim of her emotional abuse and physical assaults? Of course. But if things are so bad with your fiancé/wife that you feel the need to strike a knockout punch, things are bad enough to leave. Abused or the abuser, he is in the better position to leave this toxic relationship for a plethora of reasons than is she. Does not leaving mean that one is not a victim of abuse? Of course not and I know that’s NOT what I said. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Note, that I don't feel sorry for him or her. They both made that bed. My point is that the provocation is mitigating,


I DO actually agree that provocation is mitigating. To the extent however.... well, I believe that’s where we differ in opinion. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As a human being, I recognize that I'm not immune to doing something stupid given circumstances and extreme provocation. If I'm already pissed and stressed and someone spits in my face, I'm probably going to take a violent action in that split second.


That’s you... well, and I guess Ray Rice. I know I’ve been provoked many times where I haven’t responded violently even though I wanted to, even though I could have... and likely not even gotten caught or in trouble but I still didn’t... That's me. Martin Luther King saw injustices that would cause someone to want to retaliate violently in anger as did Mahatma Ghandi both of these human being men, sought a more peaceful route. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Bear in mind I don't consider it justification, nor "right" in any way. I consider the provocation a mitigating circumstance.


I do agree that provocation can be a mitigating factor, both legally and in the “public court”. However, I don’t think it’s a get out of jail free card. Provocation lessens both public judgment and criminal sentencing in real life. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This isn't some dude beating on his wife because he has wild out of whack anger issues. This is a guy who threw a punch after being hounded, pursued, shouted and cursed in public, hit, and SPIT on.


In this instance perhaps. You mentioned that a friend of yours that’s a friend of theirs said such and such. Do you know him and his wife personally? I know I don’t. Everything, whether in defence of his or against his actions is speculation. What your friends say they know is also hearsay. I go by what I’ve seen on the video. It looks bad on both accounts but Ray looks worse. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I realize I'm well into the territory of unpopular opinion here,


Comes with the name doesn’t it? (That’s not a barb. I often do agree with your posts) but you do often take the opposing stance and your name is very accurate lol. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> but I also think my view on this, is the only one that isn't dripping with sexist notions that a woman may dish and dish, and a man may only take and take.


This is unfair. I DID say 



Miss Taken said:


> I strongly disagree with women using their "female privilege" to taunt and hit or spit on men.


Nowhere in that quote or my personal beliefs (that weren’t expressed for the sake of brevity) does that lend itself to that I think a woman can dish, dish, dish and that a man must take, take, take. 

I DO and probably always will believe that men are held and SHOULD be held to a higher standard when it comes to male on female violence. GENERALLY SPEAKING. Because men are generally (as was the case with this couple) bigger and stronger than women. 

I agree that a double-standard does exist. However we hold lots of different standards for lots of things. A slap is less of a threat than a punch. A punch is less of a threat than hitting someone with a baseball bat. Threatening to hit with a baseball bat is less threatening than threatening to shoot you with a gun. Public opinion and the law usually states that this is so.

One could even look for double standards when it comes to household pets. Most people would at least tolerate or even commonly think it cute for a Dachshund to jump up on you, or even act out somewhat aggressively by snarling or barking. (“Whatcha gonna do to me you tough ‘wittle’ puppy”?) Those same people would recoil or be horrified if a Pit-bull behaved the same. I suppose that’s very breedist of those people.

And NO, I am NOT saying that either women or men are akin to DOGS. (So please don’t go there as you tried to with your do I believe that women should be treated as children by men argument). 

The reason I bring it up, is that like men – by and large and assuming no weapon is used, women are generally the physically weaker sex. A Dachshund and Pit-bull might have the same level or capability for training (intelligence)... just as how women and men may have the same capabilities for learning) but what separates them is their size and strength and thus natural ability to cause harm if they are aggressive. As with men vs. women, the amount of physical damage and/or injury they can inflict on each other is on different scales so yes, when it comes to violence I do think there is a different standard. Do I think the standard is perfect? No. But it is necessary and logical.


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

I'll weigh in as a Baltimore native (although born in D.C.) and a hardcore Ravens fan ...

I love Ray Rice the player. I do NOT love, or even like, Ray Rice the man.

Okay. His wife provoked him. She allegedly harassed him in the casino, and spat on him in the elevator.

Wrong thing to do.

Her husband (then-fiancé) got mad. He decked her. 

My take on this? She provoked her fiancé. He got angry and reacted. He is much bigger than her. 
He should have walked away and cooled off. Why?

Because this man is strong enough to take a hit from a 350-pound-plus defensive tackle.

Did his then-fiancé realize this? Probably. But she goaded him. 

I do not agree with what she did, but my guess is they both had been drinking prior to this incident.

Both of these people were wrong, and my guess is booze played a factor. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.

Like I said, I loved Rice the player. I find Rice the man disgusting. 

And as a former battered spouse, I can tell you that I was far too ashamed to tell anyone, or even admit, that the husband I chose was punching me out.

Perhaps his wife is shame-based and afraid to admit she wanted to get back at him for his abuse. She may also be ashamed to admit she is married to such a man.

JMO.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My source with the Ravens has it the other way around. She says that Janay spit on Ray.
> 
> If he did the spitting, that would seem to argue that he was already intent on hitting her before getting into the elevator. If that is the case, then I don't see it as a triggered spur of the moment rage. But like I said, I know two people who know the couple, one of whom works with the organization... and that's not what they've said. There's also audio that will hopefully get released.


Were these sources there? Because if they were not there, these "facts" from some one working for an organization in full CYA mode and at the very best got the story from a player desperate to keep his contract. They can be telling you the absolute truth about they have heard and still be way off due to the motivations of the folks they got that information from.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

People nowadays lie as easily as they blink. It's just what people do. There's no self accountability any more, it's all "MY child wouldn't have done that, it must have been YOU, Mr. Teacher, who provoked my son and MADE him spit at you (cuss you out, deck you, etc.)." Instead of what I grew up with, which was "Child, how DARE you embarrass me like that? Just wait til your dad gets home and gives you your punishment."

And because of lawsuits, schools, companies, and the every day man simply can't call such people out. So they get bolder and bolder and lying to protect one's self (or one's organization) is simply what you do. 

I remember hearing about swearing on the Bible in a courtroom and thinking of it with reverence - no one would DARE lie after swearing on the _Bible_, would they? Well, back then, many people didn't. Today? Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do.

As has been made painfully obvious here, the ONLY time such situations are treated as though they should have been treated in the first place (firing, police charges) is when they are put in the spotlight and have to scramble to PRETEND that they even care about doing the right thing, to protect their image.


----------



## sinnister (Dec 5, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Were these sources there? Because if they were not there, these "facts" from some one working for an organization in full CYA mode and at the very best got the story from a player desperate to keep his contract. They can be telling you the absolute truth about they have heard and still be way off due to the motivations of the folks they got that information from.


Hitting a woman is never right. Hitting a woman when you're an NFL running back who bench presses 300lbs with ease is downright criminal.

But I'm not willing to dismiss this as some lifelong abusive neanderthaal who finally got caught on tape. That is NOT how this went down.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Miss Taken said:


> ...cause the same level of harm to each other in the sake of fairness.


I don't think this is the way emotional reactions work. It's certainly not the way a male/male fight plays out, regardless of how lopsided it is. When someone hits you, you're perfectly justified to hit back imo. What was really broken here was the social mores that man not hit a woman, that a man must always have emotional control even when faced with a goading out of control woman. I don't think that's realistic - everyone has a trigger. If you don't want to get hit by a man, don't hit him.



Miss Taken said:


> Of course not. My analogy exemplifies the differences in power and strength.


Dramatic difference of strength exists between many men, yet we don't condemn the stronger man who knocks out his aggressor. So the difference is only gender.



Miss Taken said:


> That’s you... well, and I guess Ray Rice. I know I’ve been provoked many times where I haven’t responded violently even though I wanted to, even though I could have... and likely not even gotten caught or in trouble but I still didn’t... That's me. Martin Luther King saw injustices that would cause someone to want to retaliate violently in anger as did Mahatma Ghandi both of these human being men, sought a more peaceful route.


I've been provoked and not done anything many times, but I won't pretend that there is no limit to how much I may be provoked. I am no MLK or Ghandi. We hold them in such high esteem because they are above norm. I have never been provoked to such degree that I have hit a woman. I'm adherent to the very same social mores that most guys are, but I don't believe that social mores to be just. It rather takes responsibility for self-control and consequences from a woman, and places them on the man - holding him to a higher standard. A woman who hits has no right to such privilege, and in fact her imagined immunity probably plays a part in her willingness to hit - she knows she's unlikely to face any physical retaliation.



Miss Taken said:


> I do agree that provocation can be a mitigating factor, both legally and in the “public court”. However, I don’t think it’s a get out of jail free card. Provocation lessens both public judgment and criminal sentencing in real life.


We agree on that.



Miss Taken said:


> In this instance perhaps. You mentioned that a friend of yours that’s a friend of theirs said such and such. Do you know him and his wife personally? I know I don’t. Everything, whether in defence of his or against his actions is speculation. What your friends say they know is also hearsay. I go by what I’ve seen on the video. It looks bad on both accounts but Ray looks worse.


That's just it isn't it? We haven't seen any of the prior video. Apparently the prosecutor thought it was bad enough on Janay's part that she believed a conviction was not a sure thing. 



Miss Taken said:


> Comes with the name doesn’t it? (That’s not a barb. I often do agree with your posts) but you do often take the opposing stance and your name is very accurate lol.


Wouldn't take that as a barb.  lol It's accurate, though not always on purpose. I have a tendency to see things a little differently than most, and if you do that often enough, people think you're doing that on purpose... so they say "okay Devil's advocate". Long before forums, I spent time in IRC philosophy and politics channels - and this was the name that popped into my head.

So its not that I'm arguing just to argue. I truly believe that anyone who hits is not deserving of protection. If you're weaker and you hit, you're escalating into territory you really don't want to be.




Miss Taken said:


> Do I think the standard is perfect? No. But it is necessary and logical.


I understand what you're saying, I really do. But no such standard exists on strength. If a puny man harasses and hits a big man, the notion is that the punk had it coming... and we have a wide array of sayings for exactly this situation: mess with the bull, get the horns. Your mouth is writing checks your ass can't cash and so forth. A weaker man would be foolish to rely upon the good graces of a stronger man, and the stronger man has no duty to pull his punches simply because his aggressor is weaker. I get the social mores. I get why it exists. IMO, the higher principle is "Don't hit, don't get hit", which entirely lacks the gender bias of the social mores. Women like Janay either willfully take advantage of that privilege, or they're outright stupid to start physical fights with vastly stronger opponents. I suspect many women think they can do so without consequence, which is why they're willing to do so.

As an aggressor, I have no more sympathy for Janay than I have for anyone who starts a fight and gets their ass kicked.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Were these sources there? Because if they were not there, these "facts" from some one working for an organization in full CYA mode and at the very best got the story from a player desperate to keep his contract. They can be telling you the absolute truth about they have heard and still be way off due to the motivations of the folks they got that information from.


Entirely possible, however, the story does not paint anyone in even a remotely good light. Basically, Ray and Janay are horribly dysfunctional. I'm also told that Janay is not the quiet beaten down wife... she's a fireball and drama queen. My friend with the organization is a woman, and even specifically said she can't even understand why Ray was in a relationship with Janay. Ray is easy going and carefree - "a big kid" (her words), and Janay is all drama and attitude. "Ghetto pretty" (again her words) and said that she was arrested not too long ago for stealing a $1k dress - even though she had a millionaire boyfriend.

Sure, the story could be all wrong... but there's more to it than just the events, and you put two and two together and it seems pretty credible.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Prodigal said:


> I'll weigh in as a Baltimore native (although born in D.C.) and a hardcore Ravens fan ...


:: high five ::



Prodigal said:


> He should have walked away and cooled off. Why?


According to accounts, he did just that, several times. One can say that they shouldn't have been in the elevator together... but realistically, a fighting couple is still going to go back to the same room. There's no where to walk off to in the elevator. I'd love to hear the audio - what occurred immediately prior to the first blows? You can see Ray clearly retreat to the far corner of the elevator... and Janay comes to him.



Prodigal said:


> And as a former battered spouse, I can tell you that I was far too ashamed to tell anyone, or even admit, that the husband I chose was punching me out.
> 
> Perhaps his wife is shame-based and afraid to admit she wanted to get back at him for his abuse. She may also be ashamed to admit she is married to such a man.
> 
> JMO.


Totally conjecture, but I suspect that Ray is not an abusive man in the traditional power/control sense. While its totally possible they have come to blows before, I suspect it would have been a similar situation... her hitting, goading, provoking and pursuing and his finally snapping, and that's the end of that.

I think their relationship skills are terrible and they need counseling. I don't think the incident is indicative of Ray Rice as an abuser, nor do I think he should have lost his job and NFL playing privileges for a lapse in self-control in what is a difficult circumstance to keep your cool. I think the prosecutor's office had it right. Intervention program - teach better relationship skills... only Janay needs them badly too.

I mean, this isn't a guy who beat his wife because his supper was cold. This was a snap poor judgment that was provoked. The way this played out in public opinion as a result of how bad the video looks is a shame, because I don't think that's remotely indicative of Ray Rice... but that's my gut speaking.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Entirely possible, however, the story does not paint anyone in even a remotely good light. Basically, Ray and Janay are horribly dysfunctional. I'm also told that Janay is not the quiet beaten down wife... she's a fireball and drama queen. My friend with the organization is a woman, and even specifically said she can't even understand why Ray was in a relationship with Janay. Ray is easy going and carefree - "a big kid" (her words), and Janay is all drama and attitude. "Ghetto pretty" (again her words) and said that she was arrested not too long ago for stealing a $1k dress - even though she had a millionaire boyfriend.
> 
> Sure, the story could be all wrong... but there's more to it than just the events, and you put two and two together and it seems pretty credible.


Not sure how they could have painted Rice in a good light, seeing as even without the video, we knew he had knocked her unconscious. 

I have no idea about her. But I am skeptical of an explanation that places most of the blame on her when the sources: (a) were not present; (b) are from the organization with a clear reason for bias; (c) and the organization got information from the person with the most reason to minimize and try to explain why this happened.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

sinnister said:


> Hitting a woman is never right. Hitting a woman when you're an NFL running back who bench presses 300lbs with ease is downright criminal.
> 
> But I'm not willing to dismiss this as some lifelong abusive neanderthaal who finally got caught on tape. That is NOT how this went down.


Well and this is where I agree as well. Even if she was following and provoking, spitting and slapping, if you are a big man and professional athlete you have other options than knocking your GF 1/2 your size out. He could and just as easily grabbed her by the arms and walked her out of the Elevator or pushed her out. I'm not for "women's privilege" nonsense that says hey a woman can hit you and slap you and your just going to have to take it but what he did was way way WAY over the top. He had other options and didn't use them. Not ok.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Totally conjecture, but I suspect that Ray is not an abusive man in the traditional power/control sense. While its totally possible they have come to blows before, I suspect it would have been a similar situation... her hitting, goading, provoking and pursuing and his finally snapping, and that's the end of that.


Then wouldn't he already known she was like that and figured out another way besides just building up anger and retaliating in anger (obviously it isn't working out if it's bound to happen again) such as actually helping her by suggesting IC for her or simply break up. It's not like he was forced to stay in a relationship with a woman that angers him that much.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Entirely possible, however, the story does not paint anyone in even a remotely good light. Basically, Ray and Janay are horribly dysfunctional. I'm also told that Janay is not the quiet beaten down wife... she's a fireball and drama queen. My friend with the organization is a woman, and even specifically said she can't even understand why Ray was in a relationship with Janay. Ray is easy going and carefree - "a big kid" (her words), and Janay is all drama and attitude. "Ghetto pretty" (again her words) and said that she was arrested not too long ago for stealing a $1k dress - even though she had a millionaire boyfriend.
> 
> Sure, the story could be all wrong... but there's more to it than just the events, and you put two and two together and it seems pretty credible.


Still doesn't make it acceptable for a professional strong man to hit a woman.

I know quite a few professional athletes through my husband. It's been my experience that the girls who are the quiet, nice ones get dumped and replaced by the drama queens - at least among the African American couples I know; I haven't seen nearly the same amount of drama in the other couples (or singles). I only know one couple of all I know that still has a 'quiet' woman who hasn't been replaced. It's just what the guys go for, I guess.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Not sure how they could have painted Rice in a good light, seeing as even without the video, we knew he had knocked her unconscious.
> 
> I have no idea about her. But I am skeptical of an explanation that places most of the blame on her when the sources: (a) were not present; (b) are from the organization with a clear reason for bias; (c) and the organization got information from the person with the most reason to minimize and try to explain why this happened.


The organization has more sources than Ray and Janay. According to my friend, they did talk to law enforcement and several people who were there and cross checked Ray's story.

Ray's story checks out on every point. He didn't mislead anyone.


----------



## sinnister (Dec 5, 2010)

Wolf1974 said:


> Well and this is where I agree as well. Even if she was following and provoking, spitting and slapping, if you are a big man and professional athlete you have other options than knocking your GF 1/2 your size out. He could and just as easily grabbed her by the arms and walked her out of the Elevator or pushed her out. I'm not for "women's privilege" nonsense that says hey a woman can hit you and slap you and your just going to have to take it but what he did was way way WAY over the top. He had other options and didn't use them. Not ok.


Especially since the dudes biceps are bigger than the circumfrence of her head. I agree completely. He could have just picked her up and put her over his shoulder and she'd be helpless to continue her drama.

A left hook that would put most proffessional fighters down is absurd.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The organization has more sources than Ray and Janay. According to my friend, they did talk to law enforcement and several people who were there and cross checked Ray's story.
> 
> Ray's story checks out on every point. He didn't mislead anyone.


Sure he did. Check out what his lawyer originally said as one example.

But you want this to be true, so you are going to believe this. You say he was wrong, but then go to great lengths to say he was justified in doing it. So you don't think what he did was wrong and are happy to grab onto a story that supports that conclusion. Even though your sources and those they got the information from have every reason to down play his actions, make her into a shrew, say they investigated everything, and say that Rice was honest from the beginning. 

In view of how the Ravens and the NFL have conducted themselves so far (and the honesty both have shown), I need more than their say so before excepting anything like this.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

I seem to have fell on deaf ears.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> I'm not for "women's privilege" nonsense that says hey a woman can hit you and slap you and your just going to have to take it but what he did was way way WAY over the top. He had other options and didn't use them. Not ok.


I agree, and he should face disciplinary action. But all the domestic violence hoopla and indefinite suspension in light of the circumstances is too harsh. Janay Rice was a participant, not a victim, and Ray failed to keep his head in an emotionally tense situation. First time offense, entered into intervention program, lots of character endorsements... seems like he should have been suspended a few games and kept an eye on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Sure he did. Check out what his lawyer originally said as one example.


The Ravens themselves released a statement yesterday saying Ray's story matched the video. What evidence do you have of Ray being deceptive?



Tall Average Guy said:


> But you want this to be true, so you are going to believe this.


It has nothing to do with what I want. What benefit is it to me?



Tall Average Guy said:


> You say he was wrong, but then go to great lengths to say he was justified in doing it. So you don't think what he did was wrong and are happy to grab onto a story that supports that conclusion.


Violence is always wrong. I said he was provoked, and that provocation is mitigating. This isn't a man who sought to beat a woman, or exercise control/power over a woman. This is a man who was provoked. Many sources, including law enforcement officials have attested to Janay's behavior immediately prior to the elevator - hitting, shouting and cursing Ray. They have seen video from the casino floor. Officials have also indicated that Janay spit on Ray in the elevator. I don't think it was right to punch her, but that a person faced with such provocation is likely to eventually crack. Its just like saying you should walk away from every fight. Yeah, you should. But when it provoked, it's just not going to happen all of the time once tension and emotion are involved... and that is human and mitigating.

If he just wanted to lay the smack down on Janay, why did he back to the other side of the elevator when the confrontation began? They had both already hit one another, and Janay pursued him to the other side of the elevator. No, I have no sympathy there. She knows what's up, stay the f away from him, don't come at him again.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Even though your sources and those they got the information from have every reason to down play his actions, make her into a shrew, say they investigated everything, and say that Rice was honest from the beginning.
> 
> In view of how the Ravens and the NFL have conducted themselves so far (and the honesty both have shown), I need more than their say so before excepting anything like this.


Are you sure you're not the one seeing what you want to see on the basis of an ugly split second action in a video?

Because the prosecution had all of the evidence, and rather than pursuing the case, they deemed his conviction as uncertain as a result of Janay's provocations and pursuit - and agreed to an intervention program (effectively probation on condition of program completion). Are they part of the NFL conspiracy? What's their incentive to deceive?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> I seem to have fell on deaf ears.


The problem is that what you've expressed is conjecture. I agree, it looks like he puts his face forward and could be spitting on her... but the AP's law enforcement sources contradict that idea - saying SHE spit on HIM, and they have better video AND audio, as well as video before the elevator.

Ray's poor judgment was the use of excessive force, but I can't lop him in with all the POS woman beaters because of the provocation. It's a crime of passion provoked by Janay and faster than rational thought. That matters to me, and obviously to the prosecution.

How many men here would put a baseball upside the head of a man they walked in on screwing their wife? Now go talk about right and wrong, provocation and justification. Provocation is an important factor. I will not consider a woman who hits and acts the aggressor as any sort of domestic violence victim. Such a woman is a domestic violence initiator and participant.


----------



## oregonmom (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm not understanding how Janay was the one who provoked?

I will take you at your word that she was a mean, nasty person the whole night. I will just put a different spin on it. You and your male buddy are out drinking and partying and he's being a giant arse. You've finally had enough of his BS and you spit on him. He back hands you and keeps walking to the elevator. You not only get on the elevator with him, you then stand over him while he's trying to push the floor and either say something or spit again and he swings his elbow to get you out of his space. Then you swing on him and he charges. Who started the physical altercation? Who was the provoker? You don't seem to believe he spit on her ("I see the motion your referring to") and even if we don't consider that, if she was such a raging b!tch that he couldn't take even one more minute of it or he's going to snap, why get on the elevator? Why stand over her?

I haven't been physically abused, but I have been verbally and emotionally abused and the tactic is the same. I'm going to push your buttons until you come back at me, I will give it back worse and blame you because you are the one who snapped. That is the cycle of abuse, and you are buying in.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The problem is that what you've expressed is conjecture. I agree, it looks like he puts his face forward and could be spitting on her... but the AP's law enforcement sources contradict that idea - saying SHE spit on HIM, and they have better video AND audio, as well as video before the elevator.



If she spit on him it was not in this video. Of that I am certain. The other video they may have of them, I don't know.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The Ravens themselves released a statement yesterday saying Ray's story matched the video. What evidence do you have of Ray being deceptive?


Look at his lawyers original statement about this. He lied to all of his about the "minor physical altercation."



> Violence is always wrong.


Except where you said it was deserved and you would not step in. Don't forget that part.



> I said he was provoked, and that provocation is mitigating. This isn't a man who sought to beat a woman, or exercise control/power over a woman. This is a man who was provoked. Many sources, including law enforcement officials have attested to Janay's behavior immediately prior to the elevator - hitting, shouting and cursing Ray. They have seen video from the casino floor. Officials have also indicated that Janay spit on Ray in the elevator. I don't think it was right to punch her, but that a person faced with such provocation is likely to eventually crack. Its just like saying you should walk away from every fight. Yeah, you should. But when it provoked, it's just not going to happen all of the time once tension and emotion are involved... and that is human and mitigating.


Do you have a source for her spitting on him? Beyond an anonymous tipster in the beginning, I don't see any reference to that. The reports I have seen indicate three employees at the casino saw him spit on her.

Ray Rice spat in face of fiancee twice before punch, Outside The Lines reports - ESPN

And if she spit on him in the elevator, why does he not wipe his face?



> If he just wanted to lay the smack down on Janay, why did he back to the other side of the elevator when the confrontation began? They had both already hit one another, and Janay pursued him to the other side of the elevator. No, I have no sympathy there. She knows what's up, stay the f away from him, don't come at him again.


If he was trying to stay away from her, why did he get on the elevator after her? If she truly jumped in front of him, he did not have to follow her. But he did.



> Are you sure you're not the one seeing what you want to see on the basis of an ugly split second action in a video?


And it is not based on a split second. It is him knocking her out with one punch. Yet this great guy who you alleged snapped in the heat of the moment was so horrified about what he had done that he dragged her like a bag of garbage.



> Because the prosecution had all of the evidence, and rather than pursuing the case, they deemed his conviction as uncertain as a result of Janay's provocations and pursuit - and agreed to an intervention program (effectively probation on condition of program completion). Are they part of the NFL conspiracy? What's their incentive to deceive?


I see that as a problem with domestic violence in our society. People defend it, mitigate it, and blame the victim. Because she asked for it. I mean, if she had behaved better, he would not have had to smack her around. It is the defense that every batter gives.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

oregonmom said:


> I'm not understanding how Janay was the one who provoked?
> 
> I will take you at your word that she was a mean, nasty person the whole night.


Mean, nasty, pursuing, and physical. She had already hit him many times. Stage set for high tension emotion.



oregonmom said:


> I will just put a different spin on it. You and your male buddy are out drinking and partying and he's being a giant arse. You've finally had enough of his BS and you spit on him. He back hands you and keeps walking to the elevator. You not only get on the elevator with him, you then stand over him while he's trying to push the floor and either say something or spit again and he swings his elbow to get you out of his space. Then you swing on him and he charges.
> 
> Who started the physical altercation? Who was the provoker? You don't seem to believe he spit on her ("I see the motion your referring to") and even if we don't consider that, if she was such a raging b!tch that he couldn't take even one more minute of it or he's going to snap, why get on the elevator? Why stand over her?


Your spin analogy doesn't fit the facts as I understand them. If the facts are different, then my opinion may also be different.

In your analogy, I would be provoking. Spitting is considered assault in most states. I initiated physical confrontation. Unless "being a giant arse" means threatening or baiting a fight (which is actually also considered assault, legally speaking).

The facts as I understand them are Ray and Janay arguing on the casino floor. Ray walking away. Janay pursuing, shouting curses and insults. Ray stops and they argue some more. Janay hits Ray. Ray again walks off. Janay has initiated the physical confrontation by hitting Ray. She pursues him when he retreats. That, to me, is provoking by definition. He leaves her again... and if you watch the longest version of the video, you'll see him standing ALONE at the elevators. Janay can be barely seen coming up behind him just as an elevator opens. He says something to her, and she swats him momentarily before heading to the open elevator. He follows her to the open elevator... but he was waiting for the elevator alone before she arrived. That they get on the same elevator appears to be a matter of circumstance or convenience. She's even cussing him out as she's entering the elevator.

What transpires in the elevator early is less clear. I agree, it looks like Ray spits on her (although, Ray is well known for spitting when he talks, so who knows... happened in a game once a few years back). I'm told he got in her face and said something and she spit on him, so he slapped her. He backed away, she came at him, and he swung what he says was an open handed swat/slap - hard enough to knock her off balance but not a full blown punch. It's impossible to tell from the video - and it doesn't really matter. He says that in falling from the blow she hit her head on the railing hard.

As I understand those facts, I believe Janay to be the aggressor... Ray repeatedly retreated, and was pursued and provoked.

As for why he stood over her, who knows. Maybe he was moving to choose the floor number of his room and told her to get her own - no idea. All I know is that my friend, and law enforcement according to articles, indicate that the final trigger was her spitting.



oregonmom said:


> I haven't been physically abused, but I have been verbally and emotionally abused and the tactic is the same. I'm going to push your buttons until you come back at me, I will give it back worse and blame you because you are the one who snapped. That is the cycle of abuse, and you are buying in.


That doesn't fit with the descriptions of Janay being the aggressor all night. Suddenly she gets in the elevator and you think she's not behaving the way she has been witnessed all night? 

It will be interesting to see the other videos and hear the audio - perhaps you're right and we'll find out.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Do you have a source for her spitting on him? Beyond an anonymous tipster in the beginning, I don't see any reference to that. The reports I have seen indicate three employees at the casino saw him spit on her.
> 
> Ray Rice spat in face of fiancee twice before punch, Outside The Lines reports - ESPN



FINALLY!! It's so obvious. This should have been come out. 

Maybe that now it's in the news people will believe it. Since me not working for the media, you can't believe what I say.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Look at his lawyers original statement about this. He lied to all of his about the "minor physical altercation."


That is a minor physical altercation if you believe she was knocked out by the railing after an open handed swing. I believe Ray on that. If his hits were actual punches, she would have been down on the first one. 



Tall Average Guy said:


> Except where you said it was deserved and you would not step in. Don't forget that part.


Quote where I said it was deserved. I said it was provoked. I wouldn't step in. Well, more accurately, I wouldn't step in for this poor little provoking woman's benefit - but I would likely step in simply to stop more violence; same as I try to do when a fight breaks out between two guys.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Do you have a source for her spitting on him? Beyond an anonymous tipster in the beginning, I don't see any reference to that. The reports I have seen indicate three employees at the casino saw him spit on her.


I cited the AP. The AP reported that she spat at him; most of the reports out there are just the regurgitated AP story. 

Example:
Longer Ray Rice Elevator Video Features Obscenities, Spitting




Tall Average Guy said:


> And if she spit on him in the elevator, why does he not wipe his face?


The same could be said in reverse no?



Tall Average Guy said:


> If he was trying to stay away from her, why did he get on the elevator after her? If she truly jumped in front of him, he did not have to follow her. But he did.


I doubt it got any thought. But he was waiting for the elevator long before Janay appears in the video. The were totally separate when she comes from behind him, walks past him, and enters the elevator he was waiting for. Looks like circumstance or convenience... or maybe he followed to respond, because she is still looking back and fussing at him as she's about to enter the elevator.



Tall Average Guy said:


> And it is not based on a split second. It is him knocking her out with one punch. Yet this great guy who you alleged snapped in the heat of the moment was so horrified about what he had done that he dragged her like a bag of garbage.


I didn't say he was horrified. I'm sure at that moment, he didn't give a sh*t.



Tall Average Guy said:


> I see that as a problem with domestic violence in our society. People defend it, mitigate it, and blame the victim. Because she asked for it. I mean, if she had behaved better, he would not have had to smack her around. It is the defense that every batter gives.


Is that the defense women use when they hit? She had already hit him... repeatedly. Was he asking for it? Or is it that it doesn't matter because "he's a man, he can take it." You hit someone, expect to get hit back. I have a chipped tooth (molar) from a woman hitting me in the jaw with something small in her hand. I've never hit a woman, but that's the closest I've come, and honestly I feel I had every right to. You get violent with me, all bets are off.

Don't hit me and I won't hit you. I may or may not give a woman more consideration, but if you hit me, I have every right to hit back regardless of how weak you are or immune to consequence you think you. Fortunately, I retained the wherewithal to tell her to gtfo, and physically move her when she refused - her whole aim was to get me to hit her so she could blackmail me into not breaking up with her.

If Ray was actually spitting on her and provoking her as the link you posted indicates, then I'll change position.


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

1). How many felons work in the NFL?
2). I find it ironic that two organizations that should not have anything to do with it. Acted. The NFL. Congress. Its neither of their business. The one who should have acted. Did not do much. The local prosecutor. Looks like felonious assault to me. Dont care much who the target is. Wife or stranger. Assault is assault.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> FINALLY!! It's so obvious. This should have been come out.
> 
> Maybe that now it's in the news people will believe it. Since me not working for the media, you can't believe what I say.


To be fair, multiple sources have reported she spit on him too. 

What a lovely couple.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> To be fair, multiple sources have reported she spit on him too.
> 
> 
> 
> What a lovely couple.



I honestly think a lot of though was knowing bits and pieces of information and rumors.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

It seems that separating issues is a problem again. I guess we think blame get absorbed by whomever is most wrong. That's a logic fallacy.


1. Ray Rice punched her in the face and knocked her out. Ok that's called assault and it's a criminal offense.
2. Janay probably participated in escalating things. That's naive or crazy on her part.
3. Someone at the NFL apparently had access to this tape in April. WTF did they wait for? 

This is connected but Ray, Janay and the NFL are indeed three separate topics. When someone says that Ray Rice should have consequence, it doesn't say that Janay has no blame. When people say that Janay provoked the incident too, it doesn't mean RR wasn't wrong as well. When someone says the NFL didn't handle things right, it doesn't mean RR or JR somehow inocent.

My thoughts is that there has to be a consequece for punching your girl out no matter who else is at fault. It's not a close call either.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Thundarr said:


> It seems that separating issues is a problem again. I guess we think blame get absorbed by whomever is most wrong. That's a logic fallacy.
> 
> 
> 1. Ray Rice punched her in the face and knocked her out. Ok that's called assault and it's a criminal offense.
> ...


Spitting on someone is equally assault and subject to the same extent of the law as punching someone.

Janay admitted to participating, and she has been belittled for it by the public.

And yes, the league bumbled this whole incident. The reason I suspect is because owners have no integrity, only care about money and are hypocrites for saying they don't condone this behavior, while in reality they are completely tolerant of the culture that breeds machoism and the kind of people that act this way, owners don't care if players are not professional off the field so long as they can sell their brand as s wholesome image and revenue comes in.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

You can't kill someone or give them a concussion from spitting. 

They are not equal.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Lon said:


> Spitting on someone is equally assault and subject to the same extent of the law as punching someone.


You just made my point Lon. You replied to my comment which stated that 'we aren't separating issues' by distinctly not separating issues. You did the opposite actually. Her offense or offenses do not remove his offense or offenses. RR is a muscular and atheletic guy that would never need to hit a woman as a means of protection.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Thundarr said:


> You just made my point Lon. You replied to my comment which stated that 'we aren't separating issues' by distinctly not separating issues. You did the opposite actually. Her offense or offenses do not remove his offense or offenses. RR is a muscular and atheletic guy that would never need to hit a woman as a means of protection.


I don't think he ever felt like he needed to physically protect himself from her, I think he was reacting to the situation he found himself in to protect himself emotionally, and the only way he instinctively knew how to deal with the stress was to throw a punch. Like dvl said, it was a crime of passion, I don't think he is a woman basher, and if he were then we'd likely have heard from a string of women going to the press about how he used to punch them too.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

It doesn't matter if he has a pattern of punching women. He punched a woman when he didn't have to.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



turnera said:


> You can't kill someone or give them a concussion from spitting.
> 
> They are not equal.


They are equal in terms of "assault". If the charges were battery, or aggravated assault, then the punch would carry weight where spitting wouldn't. Both are crimes.


----------



## oregonmom (Jan 6, 2012)

I am talking about the long version of the video. As she walks up and he is standing there waiting, he spits on her (not "saying something")then she back hands him. It looks pretty clear to me, and the OTL report backs that up. But if you want to believe something different, no amount of arguing is going to change that.

It's hard for me to take you seriously and that you're not just playing devils advocate () when you say things like he got on the elevator because of circumstance or convenience. Really? I didn't have another ride and my car was conveniently there so I don't see the problem with driving home drunk. This guy just started making out with me but it would have been inconvenient for me to remove his tongue from my mouth so I could tell him I was married. It was no circumstance he got on the elevator with her, he followed her. Even if she just appeared out of no where and stole his elevator, it's a big casino, the next elevator will be in 30 seconds. What a giant inconvenience to go thru to have peace. Life is inconvenient to everyone a lot of the time and you can make a choice to either accept the small one or fight it and make it even bigger. I'd say the result of him getting on that elevator has made things a lot more inconvenient for him than an extra 30 second wait, don't you think? You even say in the version you heard that he got in her face. And that is acceptable? I'm not excusing Janay's behavior at all. She made choices to escalate things too. She didn't do anything to deserve being knocked out. I just don't agree with anyone getting physical with someone else unless there is serious physical danger. No matter what she said or did previous to or in the elevator, she was no serious danger to him. But that is just my own moral compass I abide by.

I don't understand your last bit at all? I didn't say she all of a sudden was a peaceful angel once she got in the elevator. She looked pissed. And drunk. My point was abusers will keep pushing until the other person snaps, then take extreme "protective" action because you "made" them. Sounds like she was on the verge of snapping all night if it was the way you said it was, then two spits and getting in her face made her snap and charge. My H would like to call me stupid over and over till I'd say stop calling me stupid a$$hole, then he'd unleash the obscenities because I had the nerve to call him an a$$hole. He didn't mean anything when he called me stupid, that was me taking it the wrong way. I'm sure Janay just took him spitting on her and getting in her face the wrong way too.

Absolutely, they both just sound like peachy people I'd love to hang out with . It's obviously a horribly dysfunctional relationship. We could go round and round about who is worse, but the fact is they both are contributing. It's JMHO that Ray took really bad and turned it into totally unacceptable.

I have noticed that you seem to have the belief that people can make others do things they wouldn't normally do, both in this thread and one over in CWI. I used to feel that way too. I would point to my H's bad behavior to justify my own bad behavior. He made me act the way I acted because of all the BS he was pulling and most normal people would act exactly how I was if they had to deal with that sh!t too. I might not be wrong about that . How I feel now though is if I live my life with that type of mindset, I am giving others power over me. I want to be a strong person who lives by my morals regardless of the sh!t flying around me, and I can be that strong person. I can choose not to escalate a bad situation and still state my unhappiness with it. I can take responsibility for my actions without taking blame for someone else's reaction to my actions. I think that is a big reason why we disagree on this subject, because we disagree on whether or not others drive us to do things. To each their own


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Lon said:


> They are equal in terms of "assault". If the charges were battery, or aggravated assault, then the punch would carry weight where spitting wouldn't. Both are crimes.


They are not equal.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



turnera said:


> They are not equal.


If you spit on me, and do not stand down immediately, I will strike you back, regardless of what gender you are. Of course there are all sorts of other possible paths such a conflict could take, but in the heat of the moment, a punch isn't all that extreme.

Now if he'd pulled a weapon, then that would be aggravated assault, and he'd be serving time. I don't believe he was necessarily acting in self defense, but nor do I take this incident as one by an abusive husband, because there is nothing to indicate that is the case.

Now if there was at least one other incidence on some sort of record, of him assaulting or using any other form of intimidation against a domestic partner, then you can begin to make a case for a pattern of abuse. But I refuse to villainize someone just because the single incident happened to go vital on the internet.


----------



## ET1SSJonota (Dec 25, 2012)

Looks like a lot of people don't like our justice system, that weighs objectively based on the evidence in hand. That's kinda sad.

Tall Average Guy wants to verbally punish anyone who doesn't agree with him, going to the extent of rephrasing his opponents arguments in order to create strawmen. Way to go buddy. 

I'll disclaimer: I have no interest in football whatsoever, any team or individual. None. I think Ray Rice should be in jail for assault. 

I ALSO think Janay Palmer should be in jail (or have served some time), although not as much as Ray. And for God's sake they should have not been allowed to marry after such an incident (for BOTH of their protection).

Janay hardly has any of the characteristics of a chronically abused woman. She displays ZERO body language of a scared, abused woman. She clearly has zero qualm striking and aggressively attacking Ray.

I see people "suggesting" he spits on her in the hallway. And yet she doesn't flinch, wipe, or otherwise acknowledge any such event, and STRIKES him as she walks by. I have seen many people get spit on in my life. I have NEVER seen a single person fail to react to it in any way. Then, after supposedly getting spit on, she has absolutely no immediate reaction to him getting on the elevator with her? No trying to get the door closed early? Give me a break. The worst I could see is he was trying to "intimidate" her with a head fake - and it clearly didn't work as she just struck him as she walked by. 

With a terribly grainy video, and a whole lot of assumptions, you can try to make a guess as to what went down inside the elevator. To my eyes, it looks like HE gets spit on when he gets to close in the elevator, and he pushes her as she strikes at him as well, retreating to the farthest corner of the elevator - where she VERY aggressively follows. From there comes the "knockout blow" that is so highly lauded.

2 things - the rapid development of the strike means there was no "thinking" about it. This was not him holding her, considering the strike, and then delivering a crushing blow to her face. It was a snap reaction - one he says was done with an open hand, and which cannot be definitively disagreed with by the video (it's just a black streak across the camera). What IS clear is that her head strikes the METAL bar on the back of the elevator on her way down - which could absolutely induce a loss of consciousness. The media articles use language like "brutally beat" or "viciously knocked out" - when the reality is it could have been a hard slap that put her into a hard object. STILL assault - but not "brutal" or "vicious". He didn't stand over her inert body raining down additional blows. Characterization is a huge aspect of this. And the media totally distorts it. 

His actions after that point tell ME he cared little for her *at that point*. He treated her like an animal. As "mitigating" as her attacks on him in the beginning were, this to me makes him look even worse. 

The professionals involved charged BOTH parties for assault. BOTH. Read that again. BOTH - which by all video evidence is 100% the correct answer. His, in my opinion, far more egregious. But all anyone is talking about is his - and deflecting and criticism of Janay with this macho sexist talk like he's the only one who should have controlled his behavior. BullSh1t. 

If this had been two men, we would all be talking about how some dumbass went after a professional football player and got knocked out. But because it was a woman, now the script is flipped, and Ray is the only wrong-doer. As Dvls pointed out succintly - SEXIST. 

And to the people who want to say he "could have" done X, Y, or Z instead - I'd certainly like to see your composure in the same situation. 

We're creating something with this attitude.. there's a liveleak video out there right now with a woman who continuously goes after a man calmly standing in a parking lot, and after she finally hits/pushes/provokes him enough times she gets struck twice (on two separate charges by her)- and leaves CLEARLY believing she is going to get the positive side of an assault charge against HIM. This is not justice. This is not "equality". But it IS the result of thinking that women are incapable of initiating violence against men, and that they are not allowed to defend or reciprocate.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That is a minor physical altercation if you believe she was knocked out by the railing after an open handed swing. I believe Ray on that. If his hits were actual punches, she would have been down on the first one.


You mean like the actual left hook that did not her out? WFT!?! His lawyer told us all it was a minor physical altercation. That was a lie, but you still defend it.



> Quote where I said it was deserved. I said it was provoked. I wouldn't step in. Well, more accurately, I wouldn't step in for this poor little provoking woman's benefit - but I would likely step in simply to stop more violence; same as I try to do when a fight breaks out between two guys.


Back in post # 81 you posted this:



> If a woman hounds a man around the bar, slaps him, shouts, insults and cussing him out, finally getting in his face and spitting it in... no, I'm not going to think a damn thing if he swings. It's no different than if it had been a weak, small man doing the same. People who provoke violence by spitting on someone are not worthy of defense. WTF do you think was going to happen when you spit on someone? Give me a break.


No other reading that she deserved it. If you are not willing to even think about getting involved, it is because you don't think he did anything wrong.



> I cited the AP. The AP reported that she spat at him; most of the reports out there are just the regurgitated AP story.
> 
> Example:
> Longer Ray Rice Elevator Video Features Obscenities, Spitting


So after he spit in her face, right? Even assuming that is correct, he gets to spit at her and that is no issue. In fact, you continue to rail over her hitting him, even though it was in response to that. But she does it back and a left hook is what she gets? You have no problem with that?



> The same could be said in reverse no?


Seeing as his spitting was outside the elevator, it could have been that she had already wiped it off. Or perhaps she did not get a chance to since she was knocked unconscious.



> I doubt it got any thought. But he was waiting for the elevator long before Janay appears in the video. The were totally separate when she comes from behind him, walks past him, and enters the elevator he was waiting for. Looks like circumstance or convenience... or maybe he followed to respond, because she is still looking back and fussing at him as she's about to enter the elevator.


Or him trying to get away is a CYA made up after the fact. If all was as you were told, he did not have to get on that elevator. But he did.



> I didn't say he was horrified. I'm sure at that moment, he didn't give a sh*t.


He quite clearly did not give a damn. Seemed like SOP to him.



> Is that the defense women use when they hit? She had already hit him... repeatedly. Was he asking for it? Or is it that it doesn't matter because "he's a man, he can take it." You hit someone, expect to get hit back. I have a chipped tooth (molar) from a woman hitting me in the jaw with something small in her hand. I've never hit a woman, but that's the closest I've come, and honestly I feel I had every right to. You get violent with me, all bets are off.
> 
> Don't hit me and I won't hit you. I may or may not give a woman more consideration, but if you hit me, I have every right to hit back regardless of how weak you are or immune to consequence you think you. Fortunately, I retained the wherewithal to tell her to gtfo, and physically move her when she refused - her whole aim was to get me to hit her so she could blackmail me into not breaking up with her.


Not a lot different then at least woman poster here who blames her every bad behavior on the actions of her husband. She does something bad in reaction, the blame is on them. No responsibility for anything.

Much like you. Just because you are bigger or stronger, no issue. A gal hits you, you have free reign to beat her unconscious because, well, you are not responsible. 



> If Ray was actually spitting on her and provoking her as the link you posted indicates, then I'll change position.


Would you? Because three first hand witnesses - not folks with third hand knowledge who got it from people with a vested interest to cover for themselves and Rice - have said that he spit at her and yet you keep defending him. Keep justifying his behavior.

Domestic violence is a huge problem. Not just for women, though they get more of the physical damage as a general matter. And the almost universal excuse by the abuser is that the victim's actions drove them to do it. If they had acted better, not yelled, not touched me, not nagged, not sworn at me, I would not have hit them. Your defense is no different. If a women gets knocked out, look first to see what they did to have it coming - only if she was a pure innocent do you then look at the one to throw the punch.

I truly hope you never know someone in this situation. But your defense of this is truly sad and part of the problem.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

The cycle of abuse is a really fcked up thing.

They say that it takes someone about 7 times of leaving before they finally end it with an abuser/end it for good.

My first thought was when the video came out to the public, what he was saying to her at home. He was prob blaming her for the loss of everything. Notice she issued a statement - he didn't.

And my guess is it probably wasn't the first time he's hit her.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> If you spit on me, and do not stand down immediately, I will strike you back, regardless of what gender you are. Of course there are all sorts of other possible paths such a conflict could take, but in the heat of the moment, a punch isn't all that extreme.


I guess that only goes one way though, right? Because he spit on her first. But when she reacts, that excuses him going nuclear. 

The contortions pulled to justify what he did are absolutely amazing. He actions are examined under a microscope, while his are brushed aside.

But I guess it is might makes right. He's the bigger guy, so he can yell obscenities and spit on her with impunity. She has to take it, because if she reacts, she is asking to get decked.



> Now if there was at least one other incidence on some sort of record, of him assaulting or using any other form of intimidation against a domestic partner, then you can begin to make a case for a pattern of abuse. But I refuse to villainize someone just because the single incident happened to go vital on the internet.


Can I villainize him for knocking his wife unconscious? Because I thought that was pretty damn pathetic back in February, as was the defense that she was to blame. But if you did not think it was a big deal to knock a woman unconscious then, I see why you would not care now.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree, and he should face disciplinary action. But all the domestic violence hoopla and indefinite suspension in light of the circumstances is too harsh. Janay Rice was a participant, not a victim, and Ray failed to keep his head in an emotionally tense situation. First time offense, entered into intervention program, lots of character endorsements... seems like he should have been suspended a few games and kept an eye on.


I can see what your driving at but that's the deal when you're a celebrity. He gets paid millions of dollars to play a game. Downside is he is in the media spotlight.

Had this same incident occurred and Ray worked at Home Depot I doubt they would have fired him over this and that video would have never come to light cause really no one but the cops and lawyers would have cared anyway. 

But when you are in the public spotlight, politician - celebrity this is the deal you know going in. Is it fair? Maybe not but it is what it is and they know that.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I guess that only goes one way though, right? Because he spit on her first. But when she reacts, that excuses him going nuclear.
> 
> The contortions pulled to justify what he did are absolutely amazing. He actions are examined under a microscope, while his are brushed aside.
> 
> But I guess it is might makes right. He's the bigger guy, so he can yell obscenities and spit on her with impunity. She has to take it, because if she reacts, she is asking to get decked.


That right there is the definition of a true bully who was pretending to be against bullying.

I've seen several posts on other sites about these sub-culture types saying they would deck a woman that spits on them (according to them, they are ''Oh she's acting like a man, she gets hit like a man'') but then when it's actually the guy that spits first and gets all confrontational because after all it's an easy target for him and she can't do nothing and the woman actually reacts but guy has the nerve to still deck her, suddenly that guy is still justified and the sub-culture says ''Well there must be a reason why he spit and she started the hitting''.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Wolf1974 said:


> I can see what your driving at but that's the deal when you're a celebrity. He gets paid millions of dollars to play a game. Downside is he is in the media spotlight.
> 
> Had this same incident occurred and Ray worked at Home Depot I doubt they would have fired him over this and that video would have never come to light cause really no one but the cops and lawyers would have cared anyway.
> 
> But when you are in the public spotlight, politician - celebrity this is the deal you know going in. Is it fair? Maybe not but it is what it is and they know that.


If he is working on Home Depot, he can't afford the best legal representation. A big part of the initial charge of 3rd degree assault was because of legal negotiations and a plea deal. With a more serious charge, he won't get the counseling and no jail time that Rice got.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*The sad thing is that the Rice Case seems to point out that he ain't the only one doing this in the NFL, or in professional sports for that matter. I think that we're soon going to find out that spousal abuse is fairly common in professional sports, making each of the sports have to deal with it by unloading these abusers from their rosters and forcing them into common workday jobs, greatly provided that someone would hire them.

Roger Goodell has literally been caught with his pants down. Security sources say that the Rice tapes were at his disposal back in February, while he says they weren't. Maybe sitting before an investigative panel, albeit congressional in nature, will jog a few of his memory cells into recollecting whether he indeed is lying, or is just a typical overcompensated dumbass who gets paid a lot for sitting on his ass waiting for his next photo-op or the next NFL Draft!*


----------



## RollerCoasterRide (Sep 8, 2014)

I think its already been said but yeah it could be that he has $ and if she didnt defend him she might have to give that up. 

Some people ive heard say they feel a bit bad that hes being trashed so hard, that he made a mistake and its not lke hes going around ddfending himself and puffing his chest out. I say 1) It has to happen bc the nfl messed up so bad with the first punishment that they have to make him a scapegoat...if nothing more than to take the eyes off them and 2) ANYONE who makes that much money...i dont feel bad if its gets taken away when u mess up. If someone gave me millions to be a model citizen its just stupid to go smoke weed or hit women or shoot someone

I dont feel sorry for him


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

RollerCoasterRide said:


> I dont feel sorry for him


Same here. It's his actions that got him trashed harshly (rightfully so).

Other than some of the World Cup games or well-known boxers, I don't watch these games and I dislike him even more when it was seen how he was then dragging her body like it was garbage instead of at least being so concerned and worried if he could have killed her or an ''Omg, what have I done'' reaction.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> > I can see what your driving at but that's the deal when you're a celebrity. He gets paid millions of dollars to play a game. Downside is he is in the media spotlight.
> ...


I doubt that's the case. Legal representation or not doesn't matter when you have video evidence.

Victims determin how rigidly the DA will go after someone. A victim that wants to help with the prosecution is an easier case to win. And that's just the bottom line for DAs is clearing and winning cases. You can win cases of domestic violence even if the victim won't cooperate but it's very difficult. 

I can't say it's the same everywhere but if this incident happend here he would have been plea bargained down to 3rd degree assault and or harassment and forced to take the standard anger management courses. This is assuming it
Is his first time arrested for this. You don't even need a lawyer to get this done its called fast track in Colorado. It's like an hour of let's make a deal every morning in court. Most people plea to avoid a court case.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Jellybeans said:


> The cycle of abuse is a really fcked up thing.
> 
> They say that it takes someone about 7 times of leaving before they finally end it with an abuser/end it for good.
> 
> ...


It's 7-9 times before they break away. A lot depends on the support system the victim has in place. I agree that judging by the level of violence that's not the first rodeo for either one of them


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Wolf1974 said:


> I doubt that's the case. Legal representation or not doesn't matter when you have video evidence.
> 
> Victims determin how rigidly the DA will go after someone. A victim that wants to help with the prosecution is an easier case to win. And that's just the bottom line for DAs is clearing and winning cases. You can win cases of domestic violence even if the victim won't cooperate but it's very difficult.
> 
> ...


With a video of it? Most of those plea bargains are because the best witness is the battered spouse. You take what you can get when the victim is not going to testify. But with a video, you don't need her testimony. A prosecutor who is tough on crime (and aren't they all) is not going to plea to an automatic diversion program when he has a video like that to play for the jury.

If they truly are doing that in circumstances like this, I have to seriously ask why. Because I am guessing they don't do that with other crimes with video evidence. Would they have agreed to a plea that gave no jail time to a guy knocking over a convenience store or selling drugs? I doubt it.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I guess that only goes one way though, right? Because he spit on her first. But when she reacts, that excuses him going nuclear.
> 
> The contortions pulled to justify what he did are absolutely amazing. He actions are examined under a microscope, while his are brushed aside.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to justify the behavior of either of them by contorting anything, all I'm saying is that none of us spectators know the entire context, we don't know when or how this whole confrontation began or ended (assuming that anything was discussed about this incident between them after she regained consciousness). All we know is that at one moment in time they were in an elevator together, one or both seemed agitated and he struck her resulting in her losing consciousness, and he dragged her out of the elevator.

To say he's an abuser, she's a battered woman, she deserved it, he spat first, she spat first, and on and on, is merely extrapolating things about this incident based on each of our own personal imagination.

You have voiced your views about a man hitting a woman, and I share very similar views as you, but neither of us can accurately determine the entire sequence of events or the kind of relationship they have based on barely one minute of video surveillance of this, and judging the entirety by simply applying our own personal values to a sliver of information would be irresponsible. You can cast your judgement all you like, I personally reserve mine because there is not nearly enough evidence for me to responsibly make a judgement about that incident.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree, and he should face disciplinary action. But all the domestic violence hoopla and indefinite suspension in light of the circumstances is too harsh. Janay Rice was a participant, not a victim, and Ray failed to keep his head in an emotionally tense situation. First time offense, entered into intervention program, lots of character endorsements... seems like he should have been suspended a few games and kept an eye on.





Tall Average Guy said:


> With a video of it? Most of those plea bargains are because the best witness is the battered spouse. You take what you can get when the victim is not going to testify. But with a video, you don't need her testimony. A prosecutor who is tough on crime (and aren't they all) is not going to plea to an automatic diversion program when he has a video like that to play for the jury.
> 
> If they truly are doing that in circumstances like this, I have to seriously ask why. Because I am guessing they don't do that with other crimes with video evidence. Would they have agreed to a plea that gave no jail time to a guy knocking over a convenience store or selling drugs? I doubt it.


Well you can doubt it all you want but when you have dockets full of cases you Can't prosecute them all. Most district attorney offices are understaffed and it's a pure move through volume and numbers game. Every time they offer a plea to a suspect and they take it that goes in the win column. Makes the boss happy.

Like I said can't speak for all jurisdictions but the bigger they are the more they operate like this. fast track here is open court and I have been to over 150 of them on duty. If you want to see what it's like go down to your local courthouse and watch. Seriously it's eye opening.

In this country for first time domestic violence offenders where no weapon was used, and attempted murder was not charged the case is plea bargained out. Not saying it's right just saying that's the way it goes


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

arbitrator said:


> The sad thing is that the Rice Case seems to point out that he ain't the only one doing this in the NFL, or in professional sports for that matter.


The Rate of Domestic Violence Arrests Among NFL Players | FiveThirtyEight

https://stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/123.nflviol.pdf


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Lon said:


> You can cast your judgement all you like, I personally reserve mine because there is not nearly enough evidence for me to responsibly make a judgement about that incident.


Of course we never know all the facts, or at least can't prove we do. There is not incident out there that we can't say there might be more evidence. Yet we make judgments. But if it allows us to not take a stand against a man that knocked out his fiance, I guess then it is different?


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Wolf1974 said:


> Well you can doubt it all you want but when you have dockets full of cases you Can't prosecute them all. Most district attorney offices are understaffed and it's a pure move through volume and numbers game. Every time they offer a plea to a suspect and they take it that goes in the win column. Makes the boss happy.
> 
> Like I said can't speak for all jurisdictions but the bigger they are the more they operate like this. fast track here is open court and I have been to over 150 of them on duty. If you want to see what it's like go down to your local courthouse and watch. Seriously it's eye opening.
> 
> In this country for first time domestic violence offenders where no weapon was used, and attempted murder was not charged the case is plea bargained out. Not saying it's right just saying that's the way it goes


I am not saying there would not be a plea bargain. I am saying that I don't think the plea would end up with no time served and a diversion program. Not with video evidence, and thus no need for the key witness. If they still would let a guy walk free even with that evidence, I find that a terrible indictment of our justice system.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am not saying there would not be a plea bargain. I am saying that I don't think the plea would end up with no time served and a diversion program. Not with video evidence, and thus no need for the key witness. If they still would let a guy walk free even with that evidence, I find that a terrible indictment of our justice system.


Well can't argue that. It's not a perfect system by any stretch but is the one we have


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Update: I misunderstood what my friend had described. We were texting last night and she didn't mean to say that she spit on him in the elevator. The ESPN story of what occurred immediately before and in the elevator is correct.

Janay had hit and spit on Rice in the casino, and I misunderstood. I thought she was talking about the elevator.

So I am wrong on the facts, and Ray did not get pushed over the edge in a snap. He had been agitated and retreated, but had ample time to cool down. Instead, he simply waited until they were alone to get violent.

Janay's behavior that night was wrong, but what Ray did is indefensible without it being a snap crime of passion.



Tall Average Guy said:


> You mean like the actual left hook that did not her out? WFT!?! His lawyer told us all it was a minor physical altercation. That was a lie, but you still defend it.


If it was an open handed swing as claimed, then you have every reason to believe it was impact with the railing that knocked her out. The first hit was clearly not a full blown punch and the only reason many believe the second one was, is that Janay went down. I could push someone down and they get knocked out in the fall. Is a push more than a minor altercation because they hit their head falling?

"Lie" is still just your assumption. According to the Ravens Wednesday, Ray did not lie. He's not on the team anymore. They have no reason to defend him. Admitting he lied would even make the team look better. Are they all lying? What is the Ravens incentive?




Tall Average Guy said:


> Back in post # 81 you posted this...
> 
> No other reading that she deserved it. If you are not willing to even think about getting involved, it is because you don't think he did anything wrong.


There are wrongs I don't get involved with every single day. In fact, that's true for just about all of us. She was violent, he was violent. They're both wrong... why should I stand up for someone who started it?



Tall Average Guy said:


> So after he spit in her face, right? Even assuming that is correct, he gets to spit at her and that is no issue. In fact, you continue to rail over her hitting him, even though it was in response to that. But she does it back and a left hook is what she gets? You have no problem with that?


If that's what happened, after a night of being hit and cursed at, I'm not saying it's right... its still wrong. I'm just saying such agitation is a mitigating factor. If a man spits at me at the peak of a stressful, high tension conflict, I'm likely to lash out and doubt many people would harshly judge it. Yet women are granted an additional immunity from their actions. Don't spit and don't hit. If you're a participant, I have no sympathy.




Tall Average Guy said:


> Or him trying to get away is a CYA made up after the fact. If all was as you were told, he did not have to get on that elevator. But he did.


If you watch the longest videos, he is standing alone. He left for the room on his own and you can see her come up from behind him just prior to what is now being reported as his first spitting on her outside the elevator. She followed and doesn't arrive until about when one of the elevator doors opens. So he did leave her, and she followed. They're obviously going to the same room. He obviously left her to get away from her. If she's following to the same room, what does it matter that he wait for another elevator?



Tall Average Guy said:


> He quite clearly did not give a damn. Seemed like SOP to him.


No doubt, but this is a temporary state of mind. I've gotten into a fist fight with a friend before, and I have to say, I wouldn't have cared about him much in the immediate aftermath if I had laid him out, even though we were good friends before the conflict, and subsequently came to terms and are good friends today. That's just not how the mind works in that situation. At that moment, I hated him.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Not a lot different then at least woman poster here who blames her every bad behavior on the actions of her husband. She does something bad in reaction, the blame is on them. No responsibility for anything.
> 
> Much like you. Just because you are bigger or stronger, no issue. A gal hits you, you have free reign to beat her unconscious because, well, you are not responsible.


Inaccurate. A person is responsible for their actions. However, an action provoked does not have the same weight as that action unprovoked.

If someone hits me, I can hit back. I don't find that to be controversial. We ought not take the sexist route and differentiate on gender, and place all burden on the man to have supreme self-control and never to respond in kind to a woman simply because she's weaker. The law certainly doesn't. This is no different than a weaker man hitting me. My response is at my discretion at that point. Don't hit, don't get hit.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Would you? Because three first hand witnesses - not folks with third hand knowledge who got it from people with a vested interest to cover for themselves and Rice - have said that he spit at her and yet you keep defending him. Keep justifying his behavior.


I just did. I misunderstood what I was being told and had a text conversation about it last night. She did not mean to indicate that Janay spit on Ray in the elevator - which was my cause to believe that Ray snapped. She said she was spitting at him, and the way it came out made me think that it was "spit in face" - rage - punch. She clarified that Janay spitting took place earlier, when she was shouting at and hitting Ray, prior to Ray leaving for the room. So Ray retreated, but when Janay followed, Ray switched from retreat to become an agitator himself. He retained his cool in the earlier conflict, and then sought to escalate the conflict once they were alone.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Domestic violence is a huge problem. Not just for women, though they get more of the physical damage as a general matter. And the almost universal excuse by the abuser is that the victim's actions drove them to do it. If they had acted better, not yelled, not touched me, not nagged, not sworn at me, I would not have hit them. Your defense is no different. If a women gets knocked out, look first to see what they did to have it coming - only if she was a pure innocent do you then look at the one to throw the punch.


Absolutely not. My initial reaction in Feb was disgust for Ray Rice; sheer confusion at how dramatically apart from his persona this action appeared to be, and even a sense of betrayal for my having cheered for this person. As it was revealed that Janay had been hitting him and provoking, and they were both drunk... I became neutral; it was a mutual fight by intoxicated people out of control. When it came out that she had been provoking and pursuing him when he walked away, for most of the night, and then mistakenly understood that she had spit on him in the elevator - it appeared to me to be a snap reaction to extreme provocation.

After last night's texts, I realize I misunderstood what I was being told, and that Ray himself had gone on the offensive after initially showing greater poise. At the point of the elevator, after wisely escaping the tense situation... Ray still wanted a fight. He wanted to hit her.



Tall Average Guy said:


> I truly hope you never know someone in this situation. But your defense of this is truly sad and part of the problem.


I was wrong about the conditions immediately prior to the elevator hit and thus conclusion about Ray Rice. I do however, stand by my opinion that a woman has no expectation, privilege or right to hit a man, and not be hit in return. It's no different than a weak man picking a fight with a strong man. Gender confers no immunity from the consequences of one's actions and men ought not be held to a higher standard. Hit and you may get hit. His not doing so is entirely discretionary.


----------



## survivorwife (May 15, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> The cycle of abuse is a really fcked up thing.
> 
> They say that it takes someone about 7 times of leaving before they finally end it with an abuser/end it for good.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

It's my opinion, but I do believe she is in fear of him still. She has a child with him. He's the one with the power, money and position to take control of the child (fight her in court, defame her, use the media against her, etc.) 

The media (particularly the sports broadcasters) attempted to minimize the initial event, making it appear that her spitting on him was worthy of a knock-out punch or that (they presumed) it was a one-time thing and he's such a great football player and all around nice guy we should ignore the brutality. Just what did they think seeing the first video? That he didn't hit her that hard? That she was just drunk and over-acting? Just what in the second video opened their eyes?

Oh yes, she is afraid alright. He got his hand slapped with the first video. The media still loves him. She gets ignored and has nowhere to go. He had an "image" and probably threatened her into staying. Maybe used the child as hostage. If she left and took the child, he was wealthy enough and powerful enough to regain custody and what mother wants to knowingly give up custody to her abuser.

All speculation on my part, just happen to know the mind of an abuse victim and what thoughts may hold them hostage. It isn't always just about the money. Sometimes it's to protect the innocent child from further harm. If she takes the beating, maybe he'll leave the child alone.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I guess that only goes one way though, right? Because he spit on her first. But when she reacts, that excuses him going nuclear.


Apparently, she didn't spit at all on the elevator, which is what I understood to be the straw that broke the camel's back if you will. She had already hit him repeatedly and spit on him earlier with no return from him.



Tall Average Guy said:


> The contortions pulled to justify what he did are absolutely amazing. He actions are examined under a microscope, while his are brushed aside.
> 
> But I guess it is might makes right. He's the bigger guy, so he can yell obscenities and spit on her with impunity. She has to take it, because if she reacts, she is asking to get decked.


And you're doing the opposite. She's going ballistic and venting her anger in the form of physical violence, but he's supposed to be immune and stuff his. Men are not immune... push the right buttons and I believe any man will eventually lash out just as she had been. But since we're more powerful, it's all different... or actually, not based on power... since its generally socially acceptable for a guy to hit a weaker guy back (if still not exactly legal). It's all different if you're a woman hitting someone. I call bs on that. If you hit someone, expect to be hit back. Period. They are willing to hit because they know they're protected by that social mores - they expect he will not hit back. That's privilege, that's a double standard and its unacceptable to me. After being hit, one's choice to hit back is at their discretion imo. Don't hit, don't get hit. It's pretty simple.



Tall Average Guy said:


> But if you did not think it was a big deal to knock a woman unconscious then, I see why you would not care now.


It's irrelevant to me that its a woman, or that they're knocked unconscious. All that's relevant to me is provocation. No one should expect to not get hit by someone they hit and continue to provoke.

Where I condemn Ray Rice, is that he retreated, and then chose to take on the role of the aggressor once out of sight.

The knockout is irrelevant. Changes nothing. Whether or not my punch knocks out another man or he brushes it off... has no bearing on the criminality.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Apparently, she didn't spit at all on the elevator, which is what I understood to be the straw that broke the camel's back if you will. She had already hit him repeatedly and spit on him earlier with no return from him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So to your mind no matter what your strength and ability if someone provokes you they get whatever they had coming?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> *The sad thing is that the Rice Case seems to point out that he ain't the only one doing this in the NFL, or in professional sports for that matter. I think that we're soon going to find out that spousal abuse is fairly common in professional sports, making each of the sports have to deal with it by unloading these abusers from their rosters and forcing them into common workday jobs, greatly provided that someone would hire them.
> 
> Roger Goodell has literally been caught with his pants down. Security sources say that the Rice tapes were at his disposal back in February, while he says they weren't. Maybe sitting before an investigative panel, albeit congressional in nature, will jog a few of his memory cells into recollecting whether he indeed is lying, or is just a typical overcompensated dumbass who gets paid a lot for sitting on his ass waiting for his next photo-op or the next NFL Draft!*


Even if true, it's not the sports or their tolerance. It would be about where the players come from. Bad environments and dysfunctional families - where sports keep many of these kids relatively straight, and are often viewed as a way out.

Players are going to have all of the issues of the demographic from which they come.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> So to your mind no matter what your strength and ability if someone provokes you they get whatever they had coming?


So you're asking if I have a right to not get my ass kicked when I pick a fight with a bigger man, better fighter?

I hit him, but he should acknowledge how much weaker I am and pull his punches? Is that a realistic demand of someone in a fight and heat of the moment?


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So you're asking if I have a right to not get my ass kicked when I pick a fight with a bigger man, better fighter?
> 
> I hit him, but he should acknowledge how much weaker I am and pull his punches? Is that a realistic demand of someone in a fight and heat of the moment?


Um. Yeah. So if you are drunk out of your mind and pick a fight with a professional MMA fighter who has the ability to restrain you and pin you to the ground or push you away he shouldn't do that he should just go to town and break every one of your arms and legs cause he can and well you started it right?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> Um. Yeah. So if you are drunk out of your mind and pick a fight with a professional MMA fighter who has the ability to restrain you and pin you to the ground or push you away he shouldn't do that he should just go to town and break every one of your arms and legs cause he can and well you started it right?


I have no expectation to be pinned or restrained regardless of his ability to do so. I would expect to be hit back. Continuing an attack on an incapacitated person exceeds that.

And let's be real, that's exactly what would happen and no one would judge poorly. He's not going to restrain me. He's going to light me up until I retreat or I'm unable to keep fighting.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

I completely disagree. In the Monday morning quarterbacking that would occur the issue would definitely come up. Hey Mr MMA could have done this and that and not broken this guy in two.

We are not talking about two drunk local joes at a bar who are swinging at each other. Their is a clear difference between that and a man with his strength knocking his GF/wife out. Doesn't excuse her nonsense but what I'm saying is he had other options. Other options that he didn't use even the pure strength of grabbing her by the arms and restraining or forcing her out the elevator


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> We are not talking about two drunk local joes at a bar who are swinging at each other. Their is a clear difference between that and a man with his strength knocking his GF/wife out. Doesn't excuse her nonsense but what I'm saying is he had other options. Other options that he didn't use even the pure strength of grabbing her by the arms and restraining or forcing her out the elevator


I follow what you're getting at, I just don't think most people are going to have the wherewithal to be making those considerations while they're amped up full of adrenaline, and emotional tension, much less alcohol. I think there's a point in every person where reason gives way to emotion.

And honestly, I doubt Ray Rice would have been given any additional consideration if he had more softly slapped Janay after she hit him. You'd still have the same people railing about a man hitting a woman. Socially, a man isn't allowed to have any physical reaction to a woman's physical aggression. Push her and people will think you're abusive. Grab her and people will think you're abusive.

There is a double standard - a man may lay no finger on a woman, while a woman can go apesh*t on a man, and nobody really cares unless she causes major injury. There was no outrage by anyone, male or female, over the hit that chipped my tooth. Most were like "Damn!! She got you! lol"... just surprise that she could hit that hard. If I'd have hit her with that exact same force, even in retaliation, I'd be strung up by my balls. It's bullsh*t to be honest. If you don't want to be hit by someone, don't hit them. There's no, "he hit me harder so its on him"... well no sh*t... he's stronger, wtf were you thinking in hitting him?

That's my problem with considering domestic violence issues. She gets a pass because she can't hit as hard? It's all on him if he retaliates? I don't think so. I think provocation is mitigating, and its just a fight at that point, no different than a man getting beat up by a stronger man he picked a fight with.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is a double standard - a man may lay no finger on a woman, while a woman can go apesh*t on a man, and nobody really cares unless she causes major injury. There was no outrage by anyone, male or female, over the hit that chipped my tooth. Most were like "Damn!! She got you! lol"


I think there is a bit of a double standard when it comes to the level of force either gender is permitted to use.

However, I think when it comes to physical abuse, it invokes the same reaction whether or not its a man or a woman doing the hitting: universally people would tell any abused person to dump the abuser.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And you're doing the opposite. She's going ballistic and venting her anger in the form of physical violence, but he's supposed to be immune and stuff his. Men are not immune... push the right buttons and I believe any man will eventually lash out just as she had been. But since we're more powerful, it's all different... or actually, not based on power... since its generally socially acceptable for a guy to hit a weaker guy back (if still not exactly legal). It's all different if you're a woman hitting someone.
> 
> I call bs on that. If you hit someone, expect to be hit back. Period. They are willing to hit because they know they're protected by that social mores - they expect he will not hit back. That's privilege, that's a double standard and its unacceptable to me. After being hit, one's choice to hit back is at their discretion imo. Don't hit, don't get hit. It's pretty simple.
> 
> ...


A nice little reality you have worked your way into. In the real world, it does matter. Getting slapped on the shoulder does not give you license to knock a women out any more than it allows you to pull a gun. Proportionality is part of it and you pretend otherwise at your own risk.

But hey, I am sure you look like a big man when you punch a woman in the face because they slap you. Definitely brag about how you are all about equal rights. You also include how you acting like an @$$ and provoking a weaker person is no issue because if they react, you get free reign to take a swing. Definitely what a real man would do.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's my problem with considering domestic violence issues. She gets a pass because she can't hit as hard? It's all on him if he retaliates? I don't think so. I think provocation is mitigating, and its just a fight at that point, no different than a man getting beat up by a stronger man he picked a fight with.


Nice strawman.

He had lots of options, including restraining her. He takes on 300 lb line every week. Are you seriously telling me that knocking her out was his only option?

You keep likening to a bar fight, when it was nothing of the kind. He was not in danger. She was not going to kill him or really hurt him. He had any number of options, including physically grabbing her hands to prevent her from hitting him. But since she had it coming, he gets to punch her with everything he has if he wants. Because in a fight with someone that loves her, she should expect that.

I will say you really should examine what happens with most domestic violence incidents and how the parties defend it. Your defense of Rice is almost straight from the play book. She had it coming. If she would have behaved, I would not have had to hit her. If she had not hit/spit/cursed/yelled at me, I would not have had to knock her out. All in the name of making sure women know there place.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

It's clear his own experience is clouding his judgment, his embarrassment at having a girl hit him and break his tooth, at being laughed at. Understandable, but not appropriate in this case.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

It took longer for the NFL to make a decision about Aaron Hernandez, by the way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> A nice little reality you have worked your way into. In the real world, it does matter. Getting slapped on the shoulder does not give you license to knock a women out any more than it allows you to pull a gun. Proportionality is part of it and you pretend otherwise at your own risk.
> 
> But hey, I am sure you look like a big man when you punch a woman in the face because they slap you. Definitely brag about how you are all about equal rights. You also include how you acting like an @$$ and provoking a weaker person is no issue because if they react, you get free reign to take a swing. Definitely what a real man would do.


Thanks for the example.

I describe how a woman hit me so hard she chipped one of my teeth, and you describe slapped shoulders and denigrate my manhood... and I didn't even hit her. lol Case in point.

Who initiated the violence? That's where I look first. You apparently care about protecting weak people who start violence. Awesome cause.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Nice strawman.


Do you even know what a strawman is? 



Tall Average Guy said:


> He had lots of options, including restraining her. He takes on 300 lb line every week. Are you seriously telling me that knocking her out was his only option?


Yep, he did. So does almost every single person involved in a fight ever. That emotion is capable of overriding reason in moments of stress is a fact of being human, and given that fact, removing any responsibility for provocation is absolutely as idiotic as thinking this is a strawman argument.

It doesn't apply to Ray and Janay, as Ray actually re-engaged and initiated the elevator confrontation as I admitted to being wrong about.



Tall Average Guy said:


> You keep likening to a bar fight, when it was nothing of the kind. He was not in danger.


Danger is not the issue. The vast majority of fights are not matters of self-defense, but matters of runaway emotion. 



Tall Average Guy said:


> But since she had it coming, he gets to punch her with everything he has if he wants. Because in a fight with someone that loves her, she should expect that.


The degree to which you are completely one-sided borders on the satirical. Unshealth thy sword uphold the lady's honor!! Except, "in a fight with someone she loves", she shouldn't be HITTING. Honestly, wtf do you not get about that? Don't hit people, and you don't get hit back. If I hit someone and they hit me back, its absolutely absurd for me to claim they're the guilty party simply because I'm weaker. DON'T HIT! Hold women to the same damn standard men are held to. In a guy on guy fight, do we punish the bigger guy who one-punch knocks out the punk that picked the fight? Why exactly is it different for women, and doesn't that in fact encourage women to hit by removing the disincentive of retribution?



Tall Average Guy said:


> I will say you really should examine what happens with most domestic violence incidents and how the parties defend it. Your defense of Rice is almost straight from the play book. She had it coming. If she would have behaved, I would not have had to hit her. If she had not hit/spit/cursed/yelled at me, I would not have had to knock her out. All in the name of making sure women know there place.


FYI, this is a strawman... since you obviously can't recognize them.

Don't hit me, and I won't hit you. But don't pretend you can hit me all you want simply because you're weak. To escalate an argument into physical violence with a stronger person isn't just wrong, it's downright idiotic.

Good to know what you think a man's place is. She can hit you all she wants. She can go apesh*t crazy on you and knock your teeth out with an ashtray in hand... but if you swing, it's all your fault for not having superhuman levels of emotional control. Funny, I didn't know a slap on the shoulder could send me to the dentist. Thankfully I knew punching her back would send me to jail. Sweet justice.

And I'm vilainized for advocating that women not hit men AT ALL, if they don't want to be hit. Lo and behold I thought that was common sense. No sympathy for whoever hits first. I'm not crying any tears for a weak guy who hits me if I then knock out him out, and I don't see that women should have any special hitting privileges. No double standard. Don't hit. Don't get hit.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

turnera said:


> It's clear his own experience is clouding his judgment, his embarrassment at having a girl hit him and break his tooth, at being laughed at. Understandable, but not appropriate in this case.


Nothing embarrassing about being hit with an ashtray chipping a tooth. My point is that female violence is shrugged off, and yes, a crazy woman can do some damage - I can attest. Ultimately though, its not about the damage... its about the fact that female violence is widely tolerated simply on the assumption they can't do much damage. Its about tolerance for a woman's loss of emotional control, but a man's must be perfect. A weak man hits a strong man, and the strong man lays him out... nobody blinks. The weak man was a punk. A woman hits a man, and the man lays her out... crucify him!! The woman is a victim. Yet the only difference between the weak man and the woman is gender.

She's free to push and push and push to his breaking point... and if he responds emotionally in kind, she's a victim. Gimme a break, I'll never agree with that.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Do you even know what a strawman is?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are villainized for hiding behind equal rights to defend knocking out a woman. Because she was not a perfect angel, she got what was coming to her. Of course, there never are perfect angels. There is always some bad behavior you can point to. But might makes right. He can act like an ass, knowing that if she reacts badly, he is then free to hit her in your world view. He can provoke, call her names, insult and degrade her. But she better watch her behavior. Because if she does not restrain herself, then he does not have to either. Because if he gets hit, he can hit back - its her responsibility not to provoke that.

That is the bully logic. The stronger preys on the weaker. They can say what they want, and then justify their physical violence by pointing to the person they bullied. 

That you defend this is pathetic. I see no reason for further discussion.


----------



## Nikita2270 (Mar 22, 2014)

I have a question that's somewhat unrelated to the nature of the other posts.

I'm definitely not a football fan but on my way home from work, I was listening to a news show discussing this situation and how the NFL is now getting blasted for not taking action. Apparently there are a lot of domestic violence groups flipping out at the NFL's inaction on the issue.

So here's what I don't get.

Why does the NFL have to do anything except take action on his contract once he's in jail? They aren't an enforcement or judicial body...they're his employer. They certainly can get rid of him if they deem him unfit for employment but its not their job to penalize him in any other way.

I don't get why people are freaking out about what action the NFL took against someone who really hasn't gone fully through the legal system. 

One of the interviewees mentioned that the NFL is insensitive to spousal abuse and that they're excusing it.

I don't get why the NFL is suddenly responsible for educating people and dealing with spousal abuse cases. Why is that considered their responsibility as an employer?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Nikita2270 said:


> I have a question that's somewhat unrelated to the nature of the other posts.
> 
> I'm definitely not a football fan but on my way home from work, I was listening to a news show discussing this situation and how the NFL is now getting blasted for not taking action. Apparently there are a lot of domestic violence groups flipping out at the NFL's inaction on the issue.
> 
> ...


Because it's the NFLs actions and decisions that mostly affects the personal outcome for Rice.

His legal status is irrelevant to him, football fans, the media, he is doing his court ordered counseling whether or not he keeps his job. Its whether he gets to be a professional athlete making millions and millions that is on the line.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> You are villainized for hiding behind equal rights to defend knocking out a woman. Because she was not a perfect angel, she got what was coming to her. Of course, there never are perfect angels. There is always some bad behavior you can point to. But might makes right. He can act like an ass, knowing that if she reacts badly, he is then free to hit her in your world view. He can provoke, call her names, insult and degrade her. But she better watch her behavior.


You accuse me of strawman arguments, and keep presenting them against me. Who said anything about a perfect angel? I said "don't hit, don't get hit". Very simple. There is not always some bad behavior to point to. There is only violence.

Curse all she wants. Insult all she wants. It will be met with curses and insults in return. Given an inferior physical position, I'd suggest women not play that game with violence. The person starting the violence is not a victim of violence. PERIOD.



Tall Average Guy said:


> Because if she does not restrain herself, then he does not have to either. Because if he gets hit, he can hit back - its her responsibility not to provoke that.


Yes, its her responsibility to not start violence. Just like its his responsibility to not start violence. The person starting the violence is NOT a victim.



Tall Average Guy said:


> That is the bully logic. The stronger preys on the weaker. They can say what they want, and then justify their physical violence by pointing to the person they bullied.
> 
> That you defend this is pathetic. I see no reason for further discussion.


False. If the stronger starts the violence, then its on them. It's not about who is strong or who is weak - who started it? Who escalated the conflict from argument to violence? Who hit first? Why do you allow/forgive that she may become violent as a result of his baiting words (get her to hit him, so he can hit her), but in previous posts seemingly rejected any notion that he may be triggered to violence as a result of her words (though you were mistaking my position on it; or was that another strawman?)? So, she's not responsible for keeping her cool and not hitting him if he's verbally baiting her so he can have an excuse to knock her out, but he IS responsible the other way around for keeping his cool through her verbal baiting AND being hit? So he's always responsible, and she's always not? That's brilliant.

Only in a world that holds women as less than fully responsible for their actions do we consider a woman who hits first a victim.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Nikita2270 said:


> I have a question that's somewhat unrelated to the nature of the other posts.
> 
> I'm definitely not a football fan but on my way home from work, I was listening to a news show discussing this situation and how the NFL is now getting blasted for not taking action. Apparently there are a lot of domestic violence groups flipping out at the NFL's inaction on the issue.
> 
> ...


Because it's public spotlight. As I said earlier had ray rice worked at Home Depot he would have certainly been charged but his employer wouldn't have asked for the video and no one would be saying he should be fired. Want big bucks for playing a sport or acting this is comes with the territory


----------



## Nikita2270 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lon said:


> Because it's the NFLs actions and decisions that mostly affects the personal outcome for Rice.
> 
> His legal status is irrelevant to him, football fans, the media, he is doing his court ordered counseling whether or not he keeps his job. Its whether he gets to be a professional athlete making millions and millions that is on the line.


I totally agree with the NFL taking action against him if he's in the middle of a public scandal which is an embarrassment to them publically. Its probably laid out in his contract.

I also agree that if he does get convicted of something, they should...like other employers...have a right to fire him or force him into counselling. For instance, my employer forced one of our employees into drug counselling because it was affecting his work performance.

But the action they take should be up to their discretion. Also I still don't understand why they are now seemingly to be responsible on domestic violence circumstances. The interviewee mentioned that the NFL is spreading "ignorance about domestic violence by not prosecuting him more fully." To me, their responsibility is to get the tape and the information to the authorities so they can take proper action and decide then whether he's violated his contractual agreement to the NFL and penalize him according to their own discretion.

Again, I'm not a football fan. I guess I just don't understand the flaming anger against the NFL commissioner. He's a football league commissioner...not a prosecutor. I'm assuming you don't need an educational background in domestic violence to get a commissioners job.


----------



## Nikita2270 (Mar 22, 2014)

Wolf1974 said:


> Because it's public spotlight. As I said earlier had ray rice worked at Home Depot he would have certainly been charged but his employer wouldn't have asked for the video and no one would be saying he should be fired. Want big bucks for playing a sport or acting this is comes with the territory


Ok...so I get that they have a right to fire him because he is in a public job. That's fine.

What I'm saying is that I don't get the rage towards the NFL itself and the Commissioner in particular.

The rage at Rice and the demand that he's fired, I totally understand.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Nikita2270 said:


> I totally agree with the NFL taking action against him if he's in the middle of a public scandal which is an embarrassment to them publically. Its probably laid out in his contract.
> 
> I also agree that if he does get convicted of something, they should...like other employers...have a right to fire him or force him into counselling. For instance, my employer forced one of our employees into drug counselling because it was affecting his work performance.
> 
> ...


It is up to their discretion to a large extent, but they should apply the policy the same across the board, and on behaviors and convictions, not based on how much of a media spectacle something becomes.

I think people are angry at the league because it tried to minimize this, knowing full well the attention it would get, then when it did get out the commissioner knee-jerk reacted again.

As I understand, after the initial charges the league set its policies surrounding domestic abuse by players, and so far with this case it has already diverged from that policy. The league is playing fast and loose with its rules based on how much pressure it's getting from owners (and whatever is most profitable for them).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

I think the league's discipline was informed by the legal system. They only gave him an intervention program, so it must not have been that bad... thus 2 game suspension.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

It's all about brand image, Nikita. Why do these men get millions of dollars for playing a game? They are considered representatives of their city, heroes who embody strength and tactical cunning. 

Children look up to them, people buy their jerseys and wear them proudly, associating themselves with a winning team. Advertisers pay handsomely to associate their products with this positive image.

Damage this brand, and you risk losing the loyalty of your fans, the most important thing that any team possesses.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I follow what you're getting at, I just don't think most people are going to have the wherewithal to be making those considerations while they're amped up full of adrenaline, and emotional tension, much less alcohol. I think there's a point in every person where reason gives way to emotion.
> 
> And honestly, I doubt Ray Rice would have been given any additional consideration if he had more softly slapped Janay after she hit him. You'd still have the same people railing about a man hitting a woman. Socially, a man isn't allowed to have any physical reaction to a woman's physical aggression. Push her and people will think you're abusive. Grab her and people will think you're abusive.
> 
> ...



I agree that people can be pushed beyond good sense which also goes to the length of the crime consideration as well. Someone hits my daughter for example I don't care who it is, old man or woman, they are getting hit back end of story. But it's the degree of the self defense that's considered by the law and law enforcement.

Give you a real world example of a case I had MaNY years ago. Old lady, in her late 70's is in a grocery store and walking. Little girl, I think like 5, cuts in front of her to grab some Halloween candy. This lady took her hand and smacked the back of this girl not hard enough to knock her down but made a thud sound. Before she, the old lady, says a word she gets backhanded by dad in same manner and dad says don't you ever ****ing touch my kid. Police are called.

So old lady now wants to press charges. She has committed one act, he, the father, another. So I tell her you can press charges for 3rd degree assault but I am letting dad press charges for child abuse as well. Well she decides not worth the trouble and everyone moves on. 

Now Same scenario but dad punches the old woman so hard he knocks her out cold. Guess what dads going to jail that night and no he isn't signing a complaint for child abuse. 

So to a degree the law will protect you and others under self defense, against a man or a woman, however it doesn't allow for you to over egregiously retaliate. 

And I don't think she gets a pass. Matter of fact had he never hit her she likely would have been arrested had he called. And I don't think all this would have been as bad had he grabbed her and thrown her out the elevator or restrained her. Hell I would even say that had the video showed her slap him and he slap her that would have been more accepted. Sure some are one sided and believe never touch a woman hitting you but they are in the far minority compared to most who see what his reaction is and think that's just too far. And I still agree it was too far he had other options.


----------



## Nikita2270 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lon said:


> It is up to their discretion to a large extent, but they should apply the policy the same across the board, and on behaviors and convictions, not based on how much of a media spectacle something becomes.
> 
> I think people are angry at the league because it tried to minimize this, knowing full well the attention it would get, then when it did get out the commissioner knee-jerk reacted again.
> 
> As I understand, after the initial charges the league set its policies surrounding domestic abuse by players, and so far with this case it has already diverged from that policy. The league is playing fast and loose with its rules based on how much pressure it's getting from owners (and whatever is most profitable for them).


If there is a policy for exactly how long to suspend a player for this type of charge and they violated that policy for this one particular guy....then I get it.

I'm not a sports fan. I didn't realize they have specific standards for these offenses and were deviating. To me, it seemed like a police matter and how the NFL deals with the PR should be based on the rules they deem appropriate to the contractual obligations they have with their employees.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Nikita2270 said:


> Ok...so I get that they have a right to fire him because he is in a public job. That's fine.
> 
> What I'm saying is that I don't get the rage towards the NFL itself and the Commissioner in particular.
> 
> The rage at Rice and the demand that he's fired, I totally understand.


Well that goes into the media flaring it and making a larger issue out of something that frankly happens every day in America. If the media never spent more than 30 seconds on it this wouldn't have been as big an issue as it is. But that's what passes for good journalism in today's society. Personally I think they should start being held accountable for their defamation of people before having all the facts. My father used to say that journalism was about facts. Now it's the Entertainment tonight 

Personally I also don't get why the NFL was targeted either. Guess they just make a big target


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

I hate the notion that someone is a role model simply because they can run fast or throw a ball far. I'm not that sort of fan. I don't particularly care about the player's business. I care about how they play. I don't care about their illegal activity. That's what the legal system is for. If someone commits a crime and they're not in jail, that's an issue with the legal system, not the NFL.

Ultimately though, the NFL is just selling entertainment. Ray Rice is no longer employed because his unpopularity destroyed his entertainment value. I personally don't care and think such issues ought only be legal issues.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

Guys cut Ray Rice some slack he is a born again Christian now. Rehab to follow.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> Now Same scenario but dad punches the old woman so hard he knocks her out cold. Guess what dads going to jail that night and no he isn't signing a complaint for child abuse.


Tricky... if I'm hitting someone out of emotional knee-jerk retailiation, there isn't a dial-up the appropriate punch setting. It's just a punch as quickly as I can get to it. If it knocks her out it knocks her out, but that wasn't my intention. If that means I'm going to jail so be it.

A long time ago I was pursued by an old man to my doorsteps returning from walking my dog. I was using one of those retractable leashes, and during the walk my dog suddenly sprinted after this kid playing in their driveway before I hit the lock and began reeling him in (had never done that before). Kid runs inside and I go about my walk. Getting back to my place, an old man starts cussing about me scaring his kid in his yard, saying my dog should be put down... a hostile mess. I responded hostile in kind naturally - even though I didn't mean to scare the kid. If dude came at me without shouting and cursing, he would have gotten a sincere apology. Anyhow, after I said something back to him, he actually stepped up to me and pushed me. I said "don't f-ing push me, get the f off my property", and he said something and pushed me again. I pushed back lost his footing on the steps, he fell down (there was a big stoop by the door, and then 3 maybe 4 steps to the sidewalk). He broke his hip or something when he hit the sidewalk. Plenty of witnesses (my sister, my wife, my neighbor and a neighborhood teen). I called an ambulance. A neighbor got his wife and she called the police. The police interviewed me and a bunch of people but I wasn't picked up. The old man later threatened to sue in a letter, but that was the last I heard from him.

He pushed me twice. I pushed him one good time and he wound up with a broken hip. Equivalent?


----------



## oregonmom (Jan 6, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> She's free to push and push and push to his breaking point... and if he responds emotionally in kind, she's a victim. Gimme a break, I'll never agree with that.


This right here is where your thinking is flawed. I won't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't think she has the right to push and push. Once she started pushing, Ray could have said to her, "Look Janay, I'm here to have fun and I'm not going to participate in this drama. Next time you start up with more of this drama, I'm leaving, getting my own room and I'll meet you in the lobby tomorrow at check out time." That is how you handle someone pushing your buttons, not by excusing, ignoring and letting your rage get pent up inside of you. That's when emotion takes control and you snap. Get control of your emotions and state your boundaries immediately once things start going downhill and it's amazing how things don't make you snap anymore.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

Ray Rice is a professional athlete, used to being hit by 300 pound men at full force. Janay hitting him is equivelant as a fly hitting a lion. He could have easily killed her.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

I fully agree that's the best response. I only differ in that some seem to think that the person starting a fight is suddenly a victim when hit back by a stronger person... or rather, not person... but woman. That reasoning only seems to be applied to women who hit first. If a weaker guy hits first, there's no outrage when he gets his ass kicked. And... as if you can dial-up just the right level of violent when you're enraged anyhow.

To say the things you suggest, would mean that the other person hasn't "gotten" to you; and I have to say, pretty darn rare from what I've seen.


----------



## FalconKing (Aug 8, 2012)

oregonmom said:


> This right here is where your thinking is flawed. I won't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't think she has the right to push and push. Once she started pushing, Ray could have said to her, "Look Janay, I'm here to have fun and I'm not going to participate in this drama. Next time you start up with more of this drama, I'm leaving, getting my own room and I'll meet you in the lobby tomorrow at check out time." That is how you handle someone pushing your buttons, not by excusing, ignoring and letting your rage get pent up inside of you. That's when emotion takes control and you snap. Get control of your emotions and state your boundaries immediately once things start going downhill and it's amazing how things don't make you snap anymore.



Hmm..to be honest though. I can't imagine a lot football players have a high level of emotional intelligence. Or a lot of professional athletes in general. You are a gifted athlete. People give you breaks and cater to you. Things that would be inappropriate in social situations are ok for you because a lot people don't hold you accountable for your actions. You attract a lot of unstable and impulsive people(men and women) and that is your reality. You are no stranger to physical confrontation and with the constant feeding of your ego you are most certainly not humble. You have a sh!tload of money. 

Things that most people think twice about, you wouldn't. 

Not all are like this but I would say a significant amount are. And not making excuses, but it just always seems to be that way.


----------



## Turnupslip (Sep 12, 2014)

I do understand Ray Rice used excessive force when it wasn't necessary but I'm pretty sure if some woman enacted some type of punishment on her abuser and overdid it, many people would cheer and say ''You do girl''. 

What about this scenerio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7W9EnO7EsI&index=75&list=FLu8ocSQAFZBJ5Ny8SlOkcsQ

In here the one hitting first was the guy and afterwards the girl threw a pot of hot grits in his face (I'm guessing someone is going to get 2nd-3rd degree burns there). Up to this point, it might be self-defense but then she hits him with a pan 7-8 times in anger.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Wow, finally got around to reading through this whole thread. Some thoughts:

1. What's with comparing a man cold c0cking his wife/gf to defending oneself from a random attack from a stranger? Domestic violence is not the same as random violence from a stranger. This is someone you (supposedly) love and know well. You know what they are capable of physically, whether or not they have a weapon, the issues they are upset about, their degree of sobriety, etc. If you use more force then necessary to prevent injury to yourself, then it's abuse. More latitude for use of force is to be granted if you're attacked by a person on the street--male or female, simply because of the element of surprise, and because of all the variables that you can't know. 

2. Yeah, women do physically assault men. It shouldn't be tolerated. Dvls, you mentioned a woman hit you with an ashtray and broke your tooth. Did you press charges? That would be an appropriate response. If you didn't do that, did you at least drop her as a friend/acquaintance after telling he to stay away from you? That would have been an appropriate response. Or did you just suck it up--maybe secretly embarrassed, maybe secretly repressing the urge to hit her hard enough to chip her tooth right back? Also a "socially acceptable" response . . . except that it left you seething with resentment. 

There ARE appropriate responses to women who initiate physical attacks, but who have no chance of actually causing you grave bodily injury. 

Life is full of provocation. When I'm driving my Expedition down the highway and some jerk in a mini is harassing me I have to practice restraint even though I'd like to flatten him and his sh!tty little car like a pancake. 

Life is full of inequalities (men big and strong, women smaller and weaker), and it results in burdens and double standards. I'm not against working to make things more fair under the law, but there is no way to legally sanction punitive or retaliatory physical response from a man towards a woman. How would that look? "Well officer, she slapped me pretty hard--see the red mark on my cheek? So I though I'd try for a slap back but wow, did ya know how delicate a woman's jaw bone is? Yeah, whoops--and jeeze those high heels she was wearing! Lost her balance and went right over that rail." 

3. I don't care what your gender or what your size, if you are in the position to gravely injure or kill someone with your bare hands, _then you do bear the extra burden to make sure you don not remain in a situation where you lose control._ Most women couldn't kill their husbands in that manner--a lot of men (maybe most?) could do so to their wives. Losing awareness of that fact is not an option--for your sake, as much as hers. 

Yeah, we all have our limits. If your spouse is able to push you to your limit--to the point where rage trumps reason--then GET OUT. If I thought that my husband would respond my VERY WORST physical attack (no weapons--just my hands, my spit, and my words) by beating me up beyond what was needed for him to escape or protect himself until I calm down . . . then I 'd leave him in a heartbeat, for his sake as well as for mine. 

I know, I know . . . "it's not fair". I gotta rate that one of the biggest "va-clang's" that I come across on this forum. 

4. Finally: if you wish to have a discussion about how women abuse "female privilege," trying to do it with a back-drop like the Rice debacle is a non-starter. You're not going to win any converts, because some social scourges are just going to trump others every singe time.


ETA: I don't drive an Expedition or a mini . . . . just a minivan!


----------



## oregonmom (Jan 6, 2012)

FalconKing said:


> Hmm..to be honest though. I can't imagine a lot football players have a high level of emotional intelligence. Or a lot of professional athletes in general. You are a gifted athlete. People give you breaks and cater to you. Things that would be inappropriate in social situations are ok for you because a lot people don't hold you accountable for your actions. You attract a lot of unstable and impulsive people(men and women) and that is your reality. You are no stranger to physical confrontation and with the constant feeding of your ego you are most certainly not humble. You have a sh!tload of money.
> 
> Things that most people think twice about, you wouldn't.
> 
> Not all are like this but I would say a significant amount are. And not making excuses, but it just always seems to be that way.


I completely agree with you, and I wouldn't expect him to say that for all the reasons you state. Which really is the big problem here, entitled, angry, dysfunctional people acting that way. Big shock, right? There are a lot of people out there who feel entitled regardless if they are a celebrity or rich or anything else, they are just special and we all should treat them that way 

I guess my bigger point is that something like this happens and people take the opportunity to "shine a light on domestic violence" and I don't always agree with the way that message is presented. The whole you never can lay a hand on a woman ever no matter what thing. I happen to agree, but that just leaves the door open for people to say you are excusing the woman's behavior. I think we need to teach people how to have functional relationships on both sides and how to not escalate arguments. That is what is going to stop abuse, and there really is no wiggle room for argument there. In most cases, one person in the relationship stopping the cycle can change the whole dynamic - stop arguing about who is worse so they should do it first and just step up and do something about it. Of course there is the guy who is just going to beat his wife for not cooking dinner right or folding his clothes right and that kind of approach isn't going to work, but for most people I think it does. Janay could have changed the cycle too, not by not hitting him, by going way back and addressing the issue she was so mad about in the first place. And if Ray didn't want to work it out, she could have told him she wasn't going with then. Stop this stuff at the first signs of escalation, that should be the message to everyone involved IMHO.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

FalconKing said:


> Hmm..to be honest though. I can't imagine a lot football players have a high level of emotional intelligence. Or a lot of professional athletes in general. You are a gifted athlete. People give you breaks and cater to you. Things that would be inappropriate in social situations are ok for you because a lot people don't hold you accountable for your actions. You attract a lot of unstable and impulsive people(men and women) and that is your reality. You are no stranger to physical confrontation and with the constant feeding of your ego you are most certainly not humble. You have a sh!tload of money.
> 
> Things that most people think twice about, you wouldn't.
> 
> Not all are like this but I would say a significant amount are. And not making excuses, but it just always seems to be that way.


fwiw, the ones I know are all sweethearts, a lot more thoughtful - and polite! - than I would have expected. Of course, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Wow, finally got around to reading through this whole thread. Some thoughts:
> 
> 1. What's with comparing a man cold c0cking his wife/gf to defending oneself from a random attack from a stranger? Domestic violence is not the same as random violence from a stranger. This is someone you (supposedly) love and know well. You know what they are capable of physically, whether or not they have a weapon, the issues they are upset about, their degree of sobriety, etc. If you use more force then necessary to prevent injury to yourself, then it's abuse. More latitude for use of force is to be granted if you're attacked by a person on the street--male or female, simply because of the element of surprise, and because of all the variables that you can't know.


:iagree:



GettingIt said:


> 2. Yeah, women do physically assault men. It shouldn't be tolerated. Dvls, you mentioned a woman hit you with an ashtray and broke your tooth. Did you press charges? That would be an appropriate response. If you didn't do that, did you at least drop her as a friend/acquaintance after telling he to stay away from you? That would have been an appropriate response. Or did you just suck it up--maybe secretly embarrassed, maybe secretly repressing the urge to hit her hard enough to chip her tooth right back? Also a "socially acceptable" response . . . except that it left you seething with resentment.


:iagree:



GettingIt said:


> There ARE appropriate responses to women who initiate physical attacks, but who have no chance of actually causing you grave bodily injury.
> 
> Life is full of provocation. When I'm driving my Expedition down the highway and some jerk in a mini is harassing me I have to practice restraint even though I'd like to flatten him and his sh!tty little car like a pancake.
> 
> Life is full of inequalities (men big and strong, women smaller and weaker), and it results in burdens and double standards. I'm not against working to make things more fair under the law, but there is no way to legally sanction punitive or retaliatory physical response from a man towards a woman. How would that look? "Well officer, she slapped me pretty hard--see the red mark on my cheek? So I though I'd try for a slap back but wow, did ya know how delicate a woman's jaw bone is? Yeah, whoops--and jeeze those high heels she was wearing! Lost her balance and went right over that rail."


:iagree:



GettingIt said:


> 3. I don't care what your gender or what your size, if you are in the position to gravely injure or kill someone with your bare hands, _then you do bear the extra burden to make sure you don not remain in a situation where you lose control._ Most women couldn't kill their husbands in that manner--a lot of men (maybe most?) could do so to their wives. Losing awareness of that fact is not an option--for your sake, as much as hers.
> 
> Yeah, we all have our limits. If your spouse is able to push you to your limit--to the point where rage trumps reason--then GET OUT. If I thought that my husband would respond my VERY WORST physical attack (no weapons--just my hands, my spit, and my words) by beating me up beyond what was needed for him to escape or protect himself until I calm down . . . then I 'd leave him in a heartbeat, for his sake as well as for mine.
> 
> I know, I know . . . "it's not fair". I gotta rate that one of the biggest "va-clang's" that I come across on this forum.


:iagree:



GettingIt said:


> 4. Finally: if you wish to have a discussion about how women abuse "female privilege," trying to do it with a back-drop like the Rice debacle is a non-starter. You're not going to win any converts, because some social scourges are just going to trump others every singe time.
> 
> 
> ETA: I don't drive an Expedition or a mini . . . . just a minivan!


:iagree:


I appreciate this comment GettingIt. Like a few others in this thread, it's a voice of reason and common sense. Forget the gender war and forget the double standards and just use logical thoughts. Bravo.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tricky... if I'm hitting someone out of emotional knee-jerk retailiation, there isn't a dial-up the appropriate punch setting. It's just a punch as quickly as I can get to it. If it knocks her out it knocks her out, but that wasn't my intention. If that means I'm going to jail so be it.
> 
> A long time ago I was pursued by an old man to my doorsteps returning from walking my dog. I was using one of those retractable leashes, and during the walk my dog suddenly sprinted after this kid playing in their driveway before I hit the lock and began reeling him in (had never done that before). Kid runs inside and I go about my walk. Getting back to my place, an old man starts cussing about me scaring his kid in his yard, saying my dog should be put down... a hostile mess. I responded hostile in kind naturally - even though I didn't mean to scare the kid. If dude came at me without shouting and cursing, he would have gotten a sincere apology. Anyhow, after I said something back to him, he actually stepped up to me and pushed me. I said "don't f-ing push me, get the f off my property", and he said something and pushed me again. I pushed back lost his footing on the steps, he fell down (there was a big stoop by the door, and then 3 maybe 4 steps to the sidewalk). He broke his hip or something when he hit the sidewalk. Plenty of witnesses (my sister, my wife, my neighbor and a neighborhood teen). I called an ambulance. A neighbor got his wife and she called the police. The police interviewed me and a bunch of people but I wasn't picked up. The old man later threatened to sue in a letter, but that was the last I heard from him.
> 
> He pushed me twice. I pushed him one good time and he wound up with a broken hip. Equivalent?


I'm not sure what you're argument is DvlsAdvc8 and that's probably my fault. Normally though I completely get where you're coming from and also agree. So this one's puzzling me.

What do you think of the RR/JR video and what do you think should happen? Is RR getting too much heat? Is JR not getting enough? What should they each get?


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

I was listening to On Point (NPR) tonight and one caller had a really good point that hasn't been discussed. She asked what good does it do to kick this kid out? He won't get better. She'll continue to be abused. And they'll be broke. While the NFL continues its tax-exempt status and earns billions and billions of dollars, despite proof that football stars are much more likely to beat and rape women than the general population. Why not, instead, someone step in and FORCE - since the NFL won't do it - the NFL to institute a 'system' in which every single player who exhibits this kind of behavior off the field is force to attend intense, in-depth educational and therapy sessions? Instead of kicking them out (unless the police charge them, and we all know the NFL will step in and prohibit that), why not FIX them? That way, they can continue to play but their families and women they meet will be safer. It would be chump change to the NFL.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tricky... if I'm hitting someone out of emotional knee-jerk retailiation, there isn't a dial-up the appropriate punch setting. It's just a punch as quickly as I can get to it. If it knocks her out it knocks her out, but that wasn't my intention. If that means I'm going to jail so be it.
> 
> A long time ago I was pursued by an old man to my doorsteps returning from walking my dog. I was using one of those retractable leashes, and during the walk my dog suddenly sprinted after this kid playing in their driveway before I hit the lock and began reeling him in (had never done that before). Kid runs inside and I go about my walk. Getting back to my place, an old man starts cussing about me scaring his kid in his yard, saying my dog should be put down... a hostile mess. I responded hostile in kind naturally - even though I didn't mean to scare the kid. If dude came at me without shouting and cursing, he would have gotten a sincere apology. Anyhow, after I said something back to him, he actually stepped up to me and pushed me. I said "don't f-ing push me, get the f off my property", and he said something and pushed me again. I pushed back lost his footing on the steps, he fell down (there was a big stoop by the door, and then 3 maybe 4 steps to the sidewalk). He broke his hip or something when he hit the sidewalk. Plenty of witnesses (my sister, my wife, my neighbor and a neighborhood teen). I called an ambulance. A neighbor got his wife and she called the police. The police interviewed me and a bunch of people but I wasn't picked up. The old man later threatened to sue in a letter, but that was the last I heard from him.
> 
> He pushed me twice. I pushed him one good time and he wound up with a broken hip. Equivalent?


I don't understand what you mean to say here? Maybe you wanted to illustrate the bad outcome of lack of control and mastery? This is what you could have done. It would have taken a completely different mindset though. 

This man was doing what men do - protecting his child. The child was upset frightened and came to his father, what man would not be spurred into action? You could have saved his face by allowing him a show of courage and protection. He was no danger to you. Mastery of the situation would have made this obvious. 

He should never have beed given the chance to come to you. Out of concern, you should have It would have contacted the family, ask about the child, reassure them that the dog was behaving unusually and assure them that you would keep hold of it in the future. That would have defused the situation and controlled the outcome. That would have taken a sense of confident and a feeling of control of the environment. 

Being approached by the man still gave you the chance controlling the man and the situation. He was vulnerable because he was apparently no match for you and he was angry and not acting reasonably. He should never have had the chance to push you once let alone twice. A real sense of strength and confidence would have you getting the upper hand by superior strategy. 

A physical altercation with a frail man on your front steps that resulted in him breaking his hip in front of neighbors and children, well.... If he was frail enough to break his hip in a fall. I completely miss the object lesson of your story. Are you proud or ashamed? Is it a comment on your social environment and your community. Is there a lot of street fighting? 

Even after breaking his hip, did you show any kindness or sorrow about the outcome? Doesn't sound that way. Kicking him while he is down? If the father was a 6'2" 200lb man in no mood to talk, someone would have had a good azz wiping and we would be deprived of a really good story. 

Just like this man knocking out a woman. I'll bet he would not take a shot like that with one of his trash talking equally as violent and cowardly buddies on the football squad.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

If he were smart, he would not have gotten into the elevator with her. He would not have let himself give her a roundhouse punch and upon knocking her out, drag her along the floor and kick her in the side. If he knew what it was like to be a man, he would have controlled himself and his environment. He has no sense of masculinity, he apparently never learned. True to form he hides behind the very woman he abused by letting her speak for them like a little boy. He should hide but in shame not fear.

What a completely different man he would have to be to have been front and center, admitting to his coach what he did and taking control of the outcome. He could have been clear that he knew what he did was wrong, preempt the fallout by getting into therapy and handle the publicity. He would be a man who made a mistake by a momentary loss of control. But his actions show that he is exactly what his actions reveal - he a cowardly, impulse driven person who can't handled his own sh!t. 

He would still have his job if he were a different sort of man.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tricky... if I'm hitting someone out of emotional knee-jerk retailiation, there isn't a dial-up the appropriate punch setting. It's just a punch as quickly as I can get to it. If it knocks her out it knocks her out, but that wasn't my intention. If that means I'm going to jail so be it.
> 
> A long time ago I was pursued by an old man to my doorsteps returning from walking my dog. I was using one of those retractable leashes, and during the walk my dog suddenly sprinted after this kid playing in their driveway before I hit the lock and began reeling him in (had never done that before). Kid runs inside and I go about my walk. Getting back to my place, an old man starts cussing about me scaring his kid in his yard, saying my dog should be put down... a hostile mess. I responded hostile in kind naturally - even though I didn't mean to scare the kid. If dude came at me without shouting and cursing, he would have gotten a sincere apology. Anyhow, after I said something back to him, he actually stepped up to me and pushed me. I said "don't f-ing push me, get the f off my property", and he said something and pushed me again. I pushed back lost his footing on the steps, he fell down (there was a big stoop by the door, and then 3 maybe 4 steps to the sidewalk). He broke his hip or something when he hit the sidewalk. Plenty of witnesses (my sister, my wife, my neighbor and a neighborhood teen). I called an ambulance. A neighbor got his wife and she called the police. The police interviewed me and a bunch of people but I wasn't picked up. The old man later threatened to sue in a letter, but that was the last I heard from him.
> 
> He pushed me twice. I pushed him one good time and he wound up with a broken hip. Equivalent?


Yep it is. I wouldn't have arrested you either. Still not the same a a woman 1/2 your size spitting on you and slapping your arm. You were defending yourself on your property...Had you punched him over and over rendering him unconscious or started kicking him when he was knocked down then yep off to jail we go.

Bad decision making has consequences


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

turnera said:


> I was listening to On Point (NPR) tonight and one caller had a really good point that hasn't been discussed. She asked what good does it do to kick this kid out? He won't get better. She'll continue to be abused. And they'll be broke. While the NFL continues its tax-exempt status and earns billions and billions of dollars, despite proof that football stars are much more likely to beat and rape women than the general population. Why not, instead, someone step in and FORCE - since the NFL won't do it - the NFL to institute a 'system' in which every single player who exhibits this kind of behavior off the field is force to attend intense, in-depth educational and therapy sessions? Instead of kicking them out (unless the police charge them, and we all know the NFL will step in and prohibit that), why not FIX them? That way, they can continue to play but their families and women they meet will be safer. It would be chump change to the NFL.


This question on NPR you mention sounds like blame shifting and class envie which I doubt you subscribe to tunera. Ray Rice is not a victim and the NFL, Ravens did not punch Janey in the face and they are just not responsible for it at all. The NFL is responsible for knowing about it and not acting sooner to protect it's self.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

No, it's not that. It's a case of NFL has these guys being as tough and aggressive as they can possibly be, every day, and then they just expect them to turn it off when they leave the field. Well, cops and soldiers will tell you it's not that easy. It doesn't come naturally to a lot of people, they can't just 'leave the job at the door' when they go home. So why not include as part of being in the NFL having to attend some education? Teach them how to leave it at the door, teach them how to destress in a healthy way, and even educate them about the likelihood of domestic violence and other issues? It can't hurt, and it just might reduce this problem. And just like we should be helping drug addicts with helping them lose the addiction instead of throwing them in prison, why not help these guys lose the proclivity to hit instead of just throwing them out? I'd have been just as accepting of them sending him to comprehensive help as kicking him out of football. And I don't even like football. I just don't like throwing away a life when you could just as easily have FIXED that life and let everyone benefit.


----------



## oregonmom (Jan 6, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tricky... if I'm hitting someone out of emotional knee-jerk retailiation, there isn't a dial-up the appropriate punch setting. It's just a punch as quickly as I can get to it. If it knocks her out it knocks her out, but that wasn't my intention. If that means I'm going to jail so be it.
> 
> A long time ago I was pursued by an old man to my doorsteps returning from walking my dog. I was using one of those retractable leashes, and during the walk my dog suddenly sprinted after this kid playing in their driveway before I hit the lock and began reeling him in (had never done that before). Kid runs inside and I go about my walk. Getting back to my place, an old man starts cussing about me scaring his kid in his yard, saying my dog should be put down... a hostile mess.* I responded hostile in kind naturally - even though I didn't mean to scare the kid. If dude came at me without shouting and cursing, he would have gotten a sincere apology.*Anyhow, after I said something back to him, he actually stepped up to me and pushed me. I said "don't f-ing push me, get the f off my property", and he said something and pushed me again. I pushed back lost his footing on the steps, he fell down (there was a big stoop by the door, and then 3 maybe 4 steps to the sidewalk). He broke his hip or something when he hit the sidewalk. Plenty of witnesses (my sister, my wife, my neighbor and a neighborhood teen). I called an ambulance. A neighbor got his wife and she called the police. The police interviewed me and a bunch of people but I wasn't picked up. The old man later threatened to sue in a letter, but that was the last I heard from him.
> 
> He pushed me twice. I pushed him one good time and he wound up with a broken hip. Equivalent?


I'm not trying to pick on you here even though I'm sure it seems that way  I just don't get the bolded either. The world is full of hostile people that say hostile things, why do you have to respond with the same hostility? Why not try and respond respectfully first and see if the situation diffuses? That doesn't mean lay down and be a doormat, you can be firm without being hostile. As per your other comment back to me, you said most people have already been "gotten to" by that point so handling things in a respectable manner isn't likely. I disagree. Get a longer fuse and attempt to snuff it out instead of accepting it is lit and there is nothing left to do but explode. I'm not saying I don't get pissed off, I certainly do. Just because I'm angry or feel like I'm being attacked doesn't mean I have to respond aggressively, either physically or verbally. Maybe that is just my hippie side coming out tho haha 

I remember an old dude, over 80, getting in my face one day when I was still in my early 20's. I was playing golf with my (now) H and another friend who could just crush the ball. We had been waiting on him and his equally old buddy for a long time already and we were getting really angry they wouldn't let us play thru, that's the proper etiquette. The last hole our friend just unleashes one that had to of gone 315 yards. Old dudes were not in danger of getting hit, close enough it was rude, but he just hit it perfect and normally it wouldn't have been close. I'm on the opposite side of the hole and 75 yards back from the two guys and this old dude comes up to me and starts cussing me out for hitting into him (even tho it obviously wasn't me, I'm standing at my ball!) and us punk kids have been pushing him instead of slowing down, blah blah blah, a bunch of BS. I was really angry, I could feel adrenaline just pounding thru me, but once he was done with his little tirade I said proper golf etiquette is to let faster groups play thru and I obviously didn't hit the ball you are so angry about so why are you coming at me? He let off some more nonsense and cussing and told me to go talk to my friends about being a$$holes. I told him I would not he could go talk to them himself and I'm sure my boyfriend would like to talk to him about cussing me out too. He muttered something else and walked off. I'm sure even in my 5'6" 125 lb frame I could have laid the dude out. I certainly could have cussed at him back even more colorfully than he dished it to me. But what was the point? To feel like I won, or that I wouldn't be disrespected? I do feel like I won, and I think he got that I wouldn't be disrespected. My H and I still laugh about it 10 years later and he has said that old dude didn't know what he was stepping into with me. I've noticed when people come at you in anger, they want you to respond with anger. When you don't, they don't have anywhere else to go, and you end up being the one telling a funny story while they steam with anger and resentment. Yeah, I'd say I still won.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

If a PLAYER got a grade 3 concussion that dropped him like he was dead there would be screaming for all kinds of new rules, new fines, new helmets and a foundation for traumatic brain injury research. But it was a just a girl who got one punch bounced off the steel elevator and knocked out.

So it's cool, for the NFL. No worries. 

I will bring a sign to the next NFL game I go to for when a player is concussed. It will say

Get the f^ck up, you Mary, my girlfriend can take a harder shot


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Runs like Dog said:


> Get the f^ck up, you Mary, my girlfriend can take a harder shot


Ya know, it really burns when wine comes out your nose . . . thanks for the snootful. :rofl:


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*I understand that the reason NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is so well insulated is that he is making all of the NFL owners mega-millions of dollars.

So what harm is a "little innocent head knocking" on the fairer sex, so long as" the man" continues to help to fill up Jerry Jones and all of the other NFL owner's coffers?

They can't make seem to make enough money! It greatly makes me wonder that whenever they die, if they plan on taking those added revenues on up to heaven or down to hell with them?*


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

oregonmom said:


> I'm not trying to pick on you here even though I'm sure it seems that way  I just don't get the bolded either. The world is full of hostile people that say hostile things, why do you have to respond with the same hostility? Why not try and respond respectfully first and see if the situation diffuses? That doesn't mean lay down and be a doormat, you can be firm without being hostile. As per your other comment back to me, you said most people have already been "gotten to" by that point so handling things in a respectable manner isn't likely. I disagree. Get a longer fuse and attempt to snuff it out instead of accepting it is lit and there is nothing left to do but explode. I'm not saying I don't get pissed off, I certainly do. Just because I'm angry or feel like I'm being attacked doesn't mean I have to respond aggressively, either physically or verbally. Maybe that is just my hippie side coming out tho haha
> 
> I remember an old dude, over 80, getting in my face one day when I was still in my early 20's. I was playing golf with my (now) H and another friend who could just crush the ball. We had been waiting on him and his equally old buddy for a long time already and we were getting really angry they wouldn't let us play thru, that's the proper etiquette. The last hole our friend just unleashes one that had to of gone 315 yards. Old dudes were not in danger of getting hit, close enough it was rude, but he just hit it perfect and normally it wouldn't have been close. I'm on the opposite side of the hole and 75 yards back from the two guys and this old dude comes up to me and starts cussing me out for hitting into him (even tho it obviously wasn't me, I'm standing at my ball!) and us punk kids have been pushing him instead of slowing down, blah blah blah, a bunch of BS. I was really angry, I could feel adrenaline just pounding thru me, but once he was done with his little tirade I said proper golf etiquette is to let faster groups play thru and I obviously didn't hit the ball you are so angry about so why are you coming at me? He let off some more nonsense and cussing and told me to go talk to my friends about being a$$holes. I told him I would not he could go talk to them himself and I'm sure my boyfriend would like to talk to him about cussing me out too. He muttered something else and walked off. I'm sure even in my 5'6" 125 lb frame I could have laid the dude out. I certainly could have cussed at him back even more colorfully than he dished it to me. But what was the point? To feel like I won, or that I wouldn't be disrespected? I do feel like I won, and I think he got that I wouldn't be disrespected. My H and I still laugh about it 10 years later and he has said that old dude didn't know what he was stepping into with me. I've noticed when people come at you in anger, they want you to respond with anger. When you don't, they don't have anywhere else to go, and you end up being the one telling a funny story while they steam with anger and resentment. Yeah, I'd say I still won.


Great example. You had options and chose the better one. Ray did not. You did win


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

So he immediately went to the cops to admit what he did. he stood before a judge, admitted it. he accepted the punishment, went to his anger management classes, told the NFL about it, sent them video proof, sent them all the legal paperwork, AND the woman married him almost the next day.

And CNN has their own graphic, theme music and wall to wall to wall to wall to wall coverage calling for him to dropped head first into an industrial shredder.

Well ok then.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

meh, to me this is no different than Jerry Sandusky. NFL felt - until now - that it was in their best interest (meaning money) to look the other way. Until they could no longer afford to. The musical chairs episode just happened to land on this guy, when it could have been any number of guys. The number of fighting, domestic abuse and other issues for this relatively small group of people is astounding: 730 records of DUIs, battery, assult, guns, domestic violence, attempted murder and murder(!)...since 2001.

And of the 84 arrests between 2000 and 2013 for domestic violence, no player received more than a one-game suspension.


----------



## BradWesley (May 24, 2013)

arbitrator said:


> *I understand that the reason NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is so well insulated is that he is making all of the NFL owners mega-millions of dollars.
> 
> So what harm is a "little innocent head knocking" on the fairer sex, so long as" the man" continues to help to fill up Jerry Jones and all of the other NFL owner's coffers?
> 
> They can't make seem to make enough money! It greatly makes me wonder that whenever they die, if they plan on taking those added revenues on up to heaven or down to hell with them?*


Of course the owners love Goodell, and for what he has done for them, paid him $44.2 MILLION dollars in 2013.

Not bad huh?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Money might be talking, sponsors are about to jump ship. The taint of both Rice and Perterson is proving to be too much even for money making. 

Hopefully they will both be fired. That will send a message to the cowards among the ranks of football players. Children and women are off limits, if they want to hit anything then it should be someone at lest 1" taller and 2 lbs heavier than themselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> 2. Yeah, women do physically assault men. It shouldn't be tolerated. Dvls, you mentioned a woman hit you with an ashtray and broke your tooth. Did you press charges? That would be an appropriate response. If you didn't do that, did you at least drop her as a friend/acquaintance after telling he to stay away from you? That would have been an appropriate response. Or did you just suck it up--maybe secretly embarrassed, maybe secretly repressing the urge to hit her hard enough to chip her tooth right back? Also a "socially acceptable" response . . . except that it left you seething with resentment.


I grew up in a bad neighborhood near Baltimore - probably not much different than where most of these players come from. Violence of every kind was life. Nobody calls the cops on women much less presses charges... the very concept is laughable. It never even occurred to me. I absolutely wanted to deck her. Anyone who will hit me full force with an ashtray isn't worthy of any kind of chivalrous protection. I didn't hit her because that's exactly what she wanted so she could have ME taken to jail. I realize we have a cop or ex cop who says differently, but from what I've seen, violence from women is rarely taken seriously regardless. Wrong as it may be, calling the cops on a woman is often viewed as an even more p*ssy thing to do than hitting back. I picked her up and dropped her outside my door, where she spent the next hour or so shouting and kicking my door until my neighbor lady threatened to call the cops.



GettingIt said:


> 3. I don't care what your gender or what your size, if you are in the position to gravely injure or kill someone with your bare hands, _then you do bear the extra burden to make sure you don not remain in a situation where you lose control._ Most women couldn't kill their husbands in that manner--a lot of men (maybe most?) could do so to their wives. Losing awareness of that fact is not an option--for your sake, as much as hers.


Yet, that same standard doesn't seem to apply any longer when it's a weak man vs a strong man, socially speaking - not legally. It's generally thought the weak man shouldn't have started a fight with someone who could obviously kick his ass. There's no shock at all when it happens.



GettingIt said:


> If I thought that my husband would respond my VERY WORST physical attack (no weapons--just my hands, my spit, and my words) by beating me up beyond what was needed for him to escape or protect himself until I calm down . . . then I 'd leave him in a heartbeat, for his sake as well as for mine.


See, I'd say your "very worst physical attack" was upon you to control... and given inability to control it, who are you to say he should control his response?



GettingIt said:


> 4. Finally: if you wish to have a discussion about how women abuse "female privilege," trying to do it with a back-drop like the Rice debacle is a non-starter. You're not going to win any converts, because some social scourges are just going to trump others every singe time.


More of the same. Women don't need to control themselves, it's on men to control their response. Here I thought it somewhat common sense not to become physically abusive with someone so obviously stronger. It's not even about proportional retaliatory force. So much as slapping a woman back comes with this abuser social stigma. I think its wrong - don't want to be hit, don't hit. Because the moment you hit, you're the attacker, not a victim.

I seek no converts.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Lots of misandry on this thread. Rice shouldn't have clocked her, but she is at least somewhat culpable. And she is not a victim.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I grew up in a bad neighborhood near Baltimore - probably not much different than where most of these players come from. Violence of every kind was life. Nobody calls the cops on women much less presses charges... the very concept is laughable. It never even occurred to me. I absolutely wanted to deck her. Anyone who will hit me full force with an ashtray isn't worthy of any kind of chivalrous protection. I didn't hit her because that's exactly what she wanted so she could have ME taken to jail. I realize we have a cop or ex cop who says differently, but from what I've seen, violence from women is rarely taken seriously regardless. Wrong as it may be, calling the cops on a woman is often viewed as an even more p*ssy thing to do than hitting back. I picked her up and dropped her outside my door, where she spent the next hour or so shouting and kicking my door until my neighbor lady threatened to call the cops.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds to me like you're plain ol' pissed off at the reality of a gendered society. Meh, good luck with that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I'm not sure what you're argument is DvlsAdvc8 and that's probably my fault. Normally though I completely get where you're coming from and also agree. So this one's puzzling me.
> 
> What do you think of the RR/JR video and what do you think should happen? Is RR getting too much heat? Is JR not getting enough? What should they each get?


I misunderstood the situation as told by a friend before the video was even released. I understood her to have spit and hit him in the elevator, and the punch that laid her out was a snap moment of passion. It wasn't. Ray wanted the elevator confrontation. So circumstances not being what I thought they were, I agree Ray's behavior was inexcusable and over the top. I do think he's being made a pariah though, and I don't believe an indefinite suspension and release from the team is an appropriate punishment for a single incident with no history.

I've been following my original premise in the rest of the discussion, that a woman should not pursue, shout, curse, hit and spit at a man and expect him to just take it without response by assuming that because she's a woman, he can't hit back. I believe the greater balance of fault lies with the person who takes things physical. That a person who starts a fight isn't a victim.

With all this attention on domestic violence, I feel the role of women aggressively pursuing such violence is being entirely ignored. It's a script I've seen way to much having come from bad neighborhoods and seen ghetto women act outrageous and violent - behavior that is often just laughed off as drama, but which triggers a lot of retaliatory violence from men - only then, its no longer called drama, but "domestic violence". I can only conclude these women are willing to do this because they feel protected by the social mores that men won't hit back.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Sounds to me like you're plain ol' pissed off at the reality of a gendered society. Meh, good luck with that.


I'm not actually pissed at anything. To me this is really simple: don't hit, don't get hit. Certainly don't cry victim when you take a fight physical with a physically superior opponent.

We expect men to have self-control. I'm saying we should expect no less of women. Same standard. Revolutionary. There is no reason for gender to even figure. Don't hit, don't get hit.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not actually pissed at anything. To me this is really simple: don't hit, don't get hit. Certainly don't cry victim when you take a fight physical with a physically superior opponent.
> 
> We expect men to have self-control. I'm saying we should expect no less of women. Same standard. Revolutionary. There is no reason for gender to even figure. Don't hit, don't get hit.


I agree with the don't hit first for both genders . . . but what do you propose *gets done* about the second half (don't get hit)? Specifically, how should a law be changed/made to make it okay for the gender with the superior physical strength to use personal judgment for when/how hard to hit a woman back. 

So in the scenario when a woman starts to girl hit her boyfriend because she just found about his affair and he hauls off and punches her and breaks her jaw. Okay, so he didn't mean to break her jaw, but he seriously misjudged how delicate a woman's facial bones are. Or maybe he was just extra ticked off because she went through his cell phone and found that he'd been sexting that other woman. Are you saying there should be a law decreeing that since she hit him first then there is no repercussions for him? 

Good luck with that happening in a society when men love their sisters, wives, and daughters. I'd guess that most men in our society don't want other men deciding how to physically "punish" women. 

Now, if you're suggesting that everyone--men and women alike--should be better schooled on good social behavior, and the proper way to treat another human being, then I'm on board for that. Teach your children well, and also teach them that we live in a society that has laws that might not always seem fair but that need to be respected for the overall good and safety of its citizens. 

I'll teach my son to walk away from women who are abusive, same as I'll treat my daughter not to get drunk and pass out at a frat house party. It's called personal responsibility.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

GI - great post. That is the problem, really. Everyone is immediately considered a victim. I don't think there is ever going to be consensus on this....


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> GI - great post. That is the problem, really. Everyone is immediately considered a victim. I don't think there is ever going to be consensus on this....


Laws can't be uniformly fair when people aren't uniformly the same. By default, laws usually seek to provide the most protection to the most vulnerable. In the case of brute strength, women are the vulnerable class. 

Although I see why some men want to kvech about this fact, I have yet to see any of them pony up with what they'd like to see DONE about it legally. Like, how do you pass a law that gives men leeway to decide when and how much to hurt a woman when she hits him first? How would the courts handle that? 

Plus, on one hand we have the complaint that women shouldn't be allowed to physically abuse men (which I agree with), but when you suggest that they call the cops, they say they can't do that because it's not manly and they will be ridiculed. So again, what is to be DONE? 

To me, it seems like the only thing that gets done is a lot of commiserating on forums and chat rooms with like-minded individuals. I was recently banned from one such forum for (respectfully) asking the same things I'm asking here: Yes, it's not equal and its not fair, but what do want to see DONE??? What does a society which sanctions men deciding when and how hard to hit women back look like? Is it really better than the situation we have now? How is the law upheld--particularly when most of society finds it abhorrent? 

Sometimes I feel like I'm really missing something about the whole, "Hit, get hit," philosophy. I mean, I'm sure the thought of being able to pop a woman back satisfies something deep inside some men, but hey, we all have our little crosses to bear. I sort of feel like it's sitting around wishing the grass was purple instead of green.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

this reminds me of an incident some years ago.

There was a major league pitcher named chuck finley. A big star.
His wife at the time was an actress named Tawney Kitaen.
For whatever reason (I think she caught him cheating?) she started wailing on him and he didn't fight back.

Can you guess why? This guy, a major league baseball player about 6'-6" 230 lbs is getting his @ss whupped by a 5'-8" 130 lb woman. One light punch from the guy could have knocked her out.

But he knew if he tried to defend himself, he would be the bad guy.
This time this was truly not fair.

His picture in the papers the next day looked like had been worked over real good by some giant twice his size.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

jorgegene said:


> this reminds me of an incident some years ago.
> 
> There was a major league pitcher named chuck finley. A big star.
> His wife at the time was an actress named Tawney Kitaen.
> ...


I wonder if his guy friends were kind . . . or if they made fun of him mercilessly. And his picture in the paper must have been salt in his already considerable wounds. 

Did his wife get arrested for spousal abuse? Did he press charges? Seems like he'd have a case.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> I agree with the don't hit first for both genders . . . but what do you propose *gets done* about the second half (don't get hit)? Specifically, how should a law be changed/made to make it okay for the gender with the superior physical strength to use personal judgment for when/how hard to hit a woman back.
> 
> So in the scenario when a woman starts to girl hit her boyfriend because she just found about his affair and he hauls off and punches her and breaks her jaw. Okay, so he didn't mean to break her jaw, but he seriously misjudged how delicate a woman's facial bones are. Or maybe he was just extra ticked off because she went through his cell phone and found that he'd been sexting that other woman. Are you saying there should be a law decreeing that since she hit him first then there is no repercussions for him?


No repercussions? Certainly not. But for him to be considered an abuser and her a victim of domestic violence is where I lose it. Can a man hit his gf if he finds out she's having an affair? No. So the woman can't hit the man she finds out is having an affair. Starting a physical fight is starting a physical fight. If my contractor cheats me on a bill, can I hit him? What if he's bigger than me and I probably can't do much damage? If I hit him, can he hit me back? We'd most certainly place most of the blame on the person who hit first wouldn't we? But when it's a woman, we don't do that.

Good luck with that happening in a society when men love their sisters, wives, and daughters. I'd guess that most men in our society don't want other men deciding how to physically "punish" women. 



GettingIt said:


> we live in a society that has laws that might not always seem fair but that need to be respected for the overall good and safety of its citizens.


I believe in fairness whether it exists in reality or not. The person who starts the fight is most to blame, and they are not a victim when they get hit back. If you hit someone, you should generally assume you'll be hit back... and imo, thinking that "Hey, I only jabbed him... so he only has a right to jab me back... no uppercuts", is just foolish entitlement thinking. Guys don't think this when they pick fights with other guys, so I'm not sure what gives women the expectation that they can hit with impunity - except abuse of chivalry. Are we to think that if these women were stronger they wouldn't be hitting? Riiight (sarcasm).

It makes more sense to me to concern ourselves primarily with the person who starts the physical altercation, than the person who responded to it. IMO, to call these women victims is to all but absolve them of their wrong doing, divert all our attention to these evil men and THEIR domestic violence - to hold the men who respond to them to a higher standard than we're willing to hold women to. I think that's wrong.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No repercussions? Certainly not. But for him to be considered an abuser and her a victim of domestic violence is where I lose it. Can a man hit his gf if he finds out she's having an affair? No. So the woman can't hit the man she finds out is having an affair. Starting a physical fight is starting a physical fight. If my contractor cheats me on a bill, can I hit him? What if he's bigger than me and I probably can't do much damage? If I hit him, can he hit me back? We'd most certainly place most of the blame on the person who hit first wouldn't we? But when it's a woman, we don't do that.
> 
> Good luck with that happening in a society when men love their sisters, wives, and daughters. I'd guess that most men in our society don't want other men deciding how to physically "punish" women.
> 
> ...


Ok, I think I get it. You're just really bothered by the fact that women get away with hitting men, but men can't get away with hitting them back, but you don't think much can be actually done about it because of popular social mores. Is that accurate? 

Must be a terribly frustrating pet peeve. Ever consider just "letting it go" and avoiding being around people who don't treat you nicely, and avoiding getting sucked into stories about dysfunctional couples and how that turns out badly for the man? There's something to be said for knowing your triggers and limiting your exposure to them. No one is attractive when they are triggering.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Laws can't be uniformly fair when people aren't uniformly the same. By default, laws usually seek to provide the most protection to the most vulnerable. In the case of brute strength, women are the vulnerable class.


Why is the vulnerable class hitting first? That's no kvech. That's often the fact. Personally, I don't care how vulnerable you are when YOU start the conflict. That should have informed you to not start the fight.



GettingIt said:


> Although I see why some men want to kvech about this fact, I have yet to see any of them pony up with what they'd like to see DONE about it legally. Like, how do you pass a law that gives men leeway to decide when and how much to hurt a woman when she hits him first? How would the courts handle that?


I'd like to see it handled exactly as man vs man fights are. The last fight I was in didn't see me charged with anything - I wasn't able to lay him out, but I definitely owned the fight. He started the confrontation, verbally harassed me and pursued me when I withdrew; he threw the first punch and I took him down. He didn't hurt me at all. I stopped when it was evident I broke/bloodied his nose and had him pinned helpless. Should it be different if I knocked him out? I don't think so.



GettingIt said:


> How is the law upheld--particularly when most of society finds it abhorrent?


What is confusing about it? Maybe not having practical imunity would mean such women don't hit men in the first place. I'm certainly not going to pick a fight with a bigger dude.



GettingIt said:


> Sometimes I feel like I'm really missing something about the whole, "Hit, get hit," philosophy. I mean, I'm sure the thought of being able to pop a woman back satisfies something deep inside some men, but hey, we all have our little crosses to bear. I sort of feel like it's sitting around wishing the grass was purple instead of green.


Nope. Hit, get hit, is about consequences and fairness. When it comes to men and women, we blame the man for ending a fight the woman started... instead of acknowledging that a woman shouldn't start a fight with a man. In fact, her role is entirely dismissed even if he responds with equivalent force - he's still an abuser, and she's a victim. That's retarded imo.

Slap her back, and he's still going to jail. As a guy, you just have to take whatever she can dish. That's how it is because its assumed she can't dish much, and she's some kind of child-like thing that can't be expected to control herself or face the consequences of picking a fight with a physically stronger opponent.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Ok, I think I get it. You're just really bothered by the fact that women get away with hitting men, but men can't get away with hitting them back.
> 
> Must be a terribly frustrating pet peeve.


Yes, special privilege and entitlement bother me and everyone always freaks over such opinions. ie - Why in this day and age is it still generally expected that the man pay the check?

Most of these norms are stupid imo.

This is no trigger for me. It's just an interesting discussion. The less popular my opinion, the more interesting to me it is. I've never hit a woman. I'm subject to the same social norms everyone else is. I just don't think it should be any different from a weak man picking a fight with a strong man and getting his ass kicked. Seems common sense not to hit people, especially those who can hit you back harder.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *Why is the vulnerable class hitting first?* That's no kvech. That's often the fact. Personally, I don't care how vulnerable you are when YOU start the conflict. That should have informed you to not start the fight.


'Cuz sometimes people do stoopid things. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd like to see it handled exactly as man vs man fights are. The last fight I was in didn't see me charged with anything - I wasn't able to lay him out, but I definitely owned the fight. He started the confrontation, verbally harassed me and pursued me when I withdrew; he threw the first punch and I took him down. He didn't hurt me at all. I stopped when it was evident I broke/bloodied his nose and had him pinned helpless. Should it be different if I knocked him out? I don't think so.
> 
> What is confusing about it? Maybe not having practical imunity would mean such women don't hit men in the first place. I'm certainly not going to pick a fight with a bigger dude.


I'm not confused. I just don't see such a law ever getting societal support. Nobody wants men being able to decide how hard to hit a woman back. Mostly because they could end up hurt, disfigured, or dead. Women still run the risk of getting hit back when they hit; but if you're asking the law to condone it, well, it won't happen, IMO, because society doesn't want it. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nope. Hit, get hit, is about consequences and fairness. When it comes to men and women, we blame the man for ending a fight the woman started... instead of acknowledging that a woman shouldn't start a fight with a man. In fact, her role is entirely dismissed even if he responds with equivalent force - he's still an abuser, and she's a victim. That's retarded imo.
> 
> Slap her back, and he's still going to jail. As a guy, you just have to take whatever she can dish. That's how it is because its assumed she can't dish much, and she's some kind of child-like thing that can't be expected to control herself or face the consequences of picking a fight with a physically stronger opponent.


Like I've said, sometimes life isn't fair--not that you have to like it, for sure. I'm just sort of fascinated by the energy you put into being upset about this.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> I'm just sort of fascinated by the energy you put into being upset about this.


Don't mistake me for being upset. I put this level of energy into pretty much everything I do. Notice every single other controversial discussion I'm involved in. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Saw this in my newsfeed today, found it somewhat relevant to the discussion: 

Emma Watson and HeForShe: Points to flaws in man-hating - CSMonitor.com



> I have seen empowerment turn to entitlement in girls and women, making it often excused and accepted for girls to strike boys with no correction coming from a parent or teacher.
> 
> When one little girl routinely hit one of my sons as hard as she could, I went to speak to her mother and father.
> 
> They both laughed at me, even after I told them he had come home bleeding twice because of their daughter. He was two years younger than she was.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Don't mistake me for being upset. I put this level of energy into pretty much everything I do. Notice every single other controversial discussion I'm involved in. lol


Well, you seem sort of upset--or at least full of umbrage--to me, but sometimes it is hard to tell when not conversing face to face. 

How about some productive channeling of some of that energy? You could volunteer at a men's shelter, for example. There are ways you can make a difference to men who are abused, if it's an important issue to you. Sometimes when we sit around waxing all academic and philosophical about an issue, or when we spend a lot of time on the internet honing our talking points, we lose sight of how things are going in the real world, for real people and the ways that we can actually make things better for them.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Saw this in my newsfeed today, found it somewhat relevant to the discussion:
> 
> Emma Watson and HeForShe: Points to flaws in man-hating - CSMonitor.com


I did read that article, and I agree (I think I said it earlier) that we all have the responsibility to teach our children how to treat others with respect and dignity--no matter what their gender. That includes teaching that hitting is unacceptable. 

However, I also think we need to be frank with our children about how, though it's not fair, gender makes a difference in the expectations that society places upon them. You can teach your child that hitting is unacceptable, but you should also teach your child what they should do if they are hit--and this lesson is different depending on the gender of your child.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Well, you seem sort of upset--or at least full of umbrage--to me, but sometimes it is hard to tell when not conversing face to face.


Not in the slightest. The closest I came to being upset in this discussion was the result of TAG's consistent mischaracterization of my view and seeming intent to make it personal. This isn't an emotional issue for me. What it does, is violate a principle I believe - the initiator of violence should never be thought the victim. That then plays into my view that many women take advantage (wittingly? unwittingly?) of the fact they are largely given carte blanche to hit men without expectation of retribution. I hit you, you hit me back, your fault - is entirely wrong headed imo.

As it pertains to Ray and Janay, this scenario initially seemed to fit as it was described to me by people not in Ray's camp. Janay was abusive all night. Ray left her for the room. She followed him to the elevators, passing him as the door opened. They got in the same elevator. They spit on each other in the elevator and traded blows - he retreats to the other side of the elevator and she pursues, where he lands the hit that knocked her down. Ray has maintained his "punch" was an open handed swat - which is consistent with the first of his hits. His story, and that told to the Ravens, was that she was knocked off balance by the swat and it was the metal railing that knocked her unconscious. Whether that story is true or you judge the hit to be a full blown knockout punch, is really up to one's own interpretation. I can see it both ways. Is there really any difference between the former "swat" interpretation and my own knocking down the old man who got physical with me? I don't think so.

To my thinking, ultimate fault always lies with the initiator of violence. That doesn't mean it's right to hit back, but it's definitely not the same as having started it. I've backed off my defense of Ray because the events he may have responded to were already past. At the elevator, he initiates a subsequent chain of violence by spitting on her.



GettingIt said:


> How about some productive channeling of some of that energy?


I'm not some sort of men's rights activist or abused men advocate. I'm simply pointing out what I believe to be an inequity - that in a physical altercation, the man is going to bear the brunt of social and legal punishment, even if she initiated the violence - and even if the hits were proportional. If that old man that pushed me had been a woman, and I'd pushed a woman who then fell and broke her hip, I'd almost certainly have been picked up. Nothing I do will change that, but I still think it's wrong and say so.

My own mother taught me to never hit a girl, even if I'm being hit, because no matter the circumstances that went into it, I'm going to be the one in trouble. It's a truth I've seen again and again, and it all but grants women permission to engage in intolerable behavior knowing he effectively can't do anything but take it. I think women who act violently don't deserve any special chivalrous protection.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> I did read that article, and I agree (I think I said it earlier) that we all have the responsibility to teach our children how to treat others with respect and dignity--no matter what their gender. That includes teaching that hitting is unacceptable.
> 
> However, I also think we need to be frank with our children about how, though it's not fair, gender makes a difference in the expectations that society places upon them. You can teach your child that hitting is unacceptable, but you should also teach your child what they should do if they are hit--and this lesson is different depending on the gender of your child.


See, where I come from smaller kids don't need to be taught not to hit bigger kids. They learn it pretty damn quickly when the bigger kid hits back. I'm pretty sure most parents teach their kids not to hit, but my point is that when it comes to girls hitting boys... virtually no one really cares. It's "oh, lol... it's just a girl." What is missing is that her being told not to hit isn't necessarily for someone else's benefit... but her own. You're a girl. You don't want to be hitting a boy and prompt him to hit back.

Attacking a physically superior opponent is just plain idiocy, it doesn't make you a victim when they hit back.


----------



## NewLife2017 (Aug 16, 2014)

I only watched the video feed once and that was enough. Both of them should be ashamed of their immature and violent actions. This is what I think:
1) NO ONE should hit anyone regardless of the circumstances male or female. EXCEPT in self defense or if you are fighting for your life. You call 911, bartender, manager, bouncer, etc. if at all possible to do so. There are laws in place. May not be the best laws, but laws none the less and those that enforce it. And NO, I do not think he was acting in self-defense. 
2) Her charges should NOT have been dropped. She hit him regardless if he felt it or not. It was assault.
3) It does not matter if he hit her out of reflex or had time to think about it. It was assault.
4) I am not a victim of or know a victim of domestic violence so I can't offer an educated opinion on what her situation may be. So, I am not going to speculate. But, domestic violence is a real issue and there are those that suffer in silence and in many cases die from it. 
5) Them getting married, I really have no words for that one. My only hope is there are no children involved. Both of them have issues and I imagine we will see them in the news again.
6) Spitting. This seems to be a real problem for some of the posters and I respect that. Personally, no big deal for me. It's a hateful act from a hateful person so consider the source. It will only affect you if you let it. I walked away when it happened to me and didn't acknowledge it. That seemed to make my point.
7) The NFL. It doesn't matter what we think his consequences should be or if he is being treated unfairly. They have made their decision and it will stand unless they change their position. Hopefully it will set an example and maybe it will stop another player from using violence. Right or wrong, not my call. 

What I do find appalling and really unsettling is how he treated her when she was down. He did not aid her or call for help he dragged her. That was not the actions of a remorseful man or a man that cared at all. I understand anger, but that was cold and indifferent. IMO, his actions after he knocked her unconscious may have been the catalyst for the NFL to change from suspension to termination. It was scary.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> See, where I come from smaller kids don't need to be taught not to hit bigger kids. They learn it pretty damn quickly when the bigger kid hits back. I'm pretty sure most parents teach their kids not to hit, but my point is that when it comes to girls hitting boys... virtually no one really cares. It's "oh, lol... it's just a girl." What is missing is that her being told not to hit isn't necessarily for someone else's benefit... but her own. You're a girl. You don't want to be hitting a boy and prompt him to hit back.
> 
> Attacking a physically superior opponent is just plain idiocy, it doesn't make you a victim when they hit back.


Pish, smaller kids are often bullies--I don't think it matters where you come from. Besides, IIRC, in the article, the girl was two years older and bigger than the boy. With kids, it's all over the place. 

As for parents not caring when it's girls hitting boys--maybe that is specific to where one grows up? If I found out my daughter was hitting anyone--boys included--it would not be acceptable to me. If I found out a girl was hitting my son, her parents would be getting a call. The anti-bullying programs are huge in schools these days, and they definitely cover hitting from both genders. What parents teach their kids in their own homes is another matter. I suspect plenty of dads would shame their sons for coming home and crying about being beat up by a girl on the playground. Are moms as likely to do that? Or are they more likely to make the phone call to the girl's parents? How will the girl's parents otherwise find out and stop their daughter's behavior? 

Maybe this education starts with fathers and sons? Or so you see that as putting too much of the onus on men?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

The rationalization is astounding to me. It's a rare gift to get a look into a mind that can rationalize anything, even the most indefensible. Yet they can amass followers with ease. Funny, some are the very same people who expect empathy and love from their indifferent partners. It would be fascinating if it were not frightening. But take heed, it is not often that you get an inside look. 

Anything goes if you can think your way out of it. The pride is based on how well they can strip the protagonist of dignity and humiliate them. Life is a game of winners and losers. Losers are useless afterwards and the rationalizer moves on to the next game. 

Principals don't matter, a code of ethics is virtually absent, a sense of right and wrong depends on whether it favors the rationalizer. Honor is for weaklings. Weaklings are nobodies. What is inside of these people must be ugly, empty and terrifying ...... to them. There is a name for that.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Catherine602 said:


> The rationalization is astounding to me. It's a rare gift to get a look into a mind that can rationalize anything, even the most indefensible. Yet they can amass followers with ease. Funny, some are the very same people who expect empathy and love from their indifferent partners. It would be fascinating if it were not frightening. But take heed, it is not often that you get an inside look.
> 
> Anything goes if you can think your way out of it. The pride is based on how well they can strip the protagonist of dignity and humiliate them. Life is a game of winners and losers. Losers are useless afterwards and the rationalizer moves on to the next game.
> 
> Principals don't matter, a code of ethics is virtually absent, a sense of right and wrong depends on whether it favors the rationalizer. Honor is for weaklings. Weaklings are nobodies. What is inside of these people must be ugly, empty and terrifying ...... to them. There is a name for that.


I don't think there has been much if any rationalization happening on this thread, simply analyzing and debating. What other reason is there to even have this thread, if we're all supposed to just say "man beat woman, man bad, punish man badly"?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Lon said:


> "man beat woman, man bad, punish man badly"?


"man beat man, man bad, punish man badly"? 

The problem is that people have a tendency to tolerate bad behavior as long as they think it wont happen to them. In this case, if they're not women or some other group they think is powerless, they are safe. However, the bad behavior frequently spreads and effects the complacent. Then it's a big problem. 

Have you ever had a disagreement with a man? Suppose he sucker punched you because of something you said. Would you give him a pass because you said something that angered him? I'll bet you would demand he be arrested and you would sue him no matter how much your mouth got you into trouble. 

If it is ok for a man to be provoked to a point of hitting a woman, then it's ok for anyone with superior strength to brutalize a weaker opponent, man or woman. However, the weak can arm themselves with an equalizer - a tire iron or gun, or a knife might do. Oh wait, a subculture exist just like that. Care to join them?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Catherine602 said:


> "man beat man, man bad, punish man badly"?
> 
> The problem is that people have a tendency to tolerate bad behavior as long as they think it wont happen to them. In this case, if they're not women or some other group they think is powerless, they are safe. However, the bad behavior frequently spreads and effects the complacent. Then it's a big problem.
> 
> ...


If a man strikes another man for no justifiable reason, then a call to police is quite reasonable. If it is a heated argument and it comes to fighting, why should police get involved and why is it anyone else's business? The saying "it takes two to tango" comes to mind. And size doesn't matter, only willingness to participate in physical confrontation... As strange as it seems to many, fighting is a mutual consentual activity. So in cases like the Ray/Janay one, everything really depends on if it was a fight vs if it was simply battery.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Lon said:


> If a man strikes another man for no justifiable reason, then a call to police is quite reasonable. If it is a heated argument and it comes to fighting, why should police get involved and why is it anyone else's business? The saying "it takes two to tango" comes to mind. And size doesn't matter, only willingness to participate in physical confrontation... As strange as it seems to many, fighting is a mutual consentual activity. So in cases like the Ray/Janay one, everything really depends on if it was a fight vs if it was simply battery.


:scratchhead: My scenario was about a sucker punch not a fight. A verbal argument that results in one person getting in the first punch without warning is a fight? How would you characterize it if it happened to you? 

I am asking how you would react if it happened to you not someone else. You failed to answer my question. Actually you did, by an attempt to obfuscate.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> Have you ever had a disagreement with a man? Suppose he sucker punched you because of something you said. Would you give him a pass because you said something that angered him? I'll bet you would demand he be arrested and you would sue him no matter how much your mouth got you into trouble.
> 
> If it is ok for a man to be provoked to a point of hitting a woman, then it's ok for anyone with superior strength to brutalize a weaker opponent, man or woman.


I've been in plenty of such disagreements with men that turned into fights. I certainly have a big mouth, but I'm by no means a big man nor a bully and I don't start fights. Beyond right and wrong, part of the reason you don't just clock someone for something they say, is that you really have no idea how that fight is going to turn out. Hitting someone isn't as appealing when you realize you might just get your ass kicked. Having worked in a club, I've also seen more than my fair share of fights. Nobody... literally nobody, gets hit and goes "wah, I'm calling the cops and suing you!" No. Everyone hits back. The cops are always called by people not involved in the fight. And usually both guys get picked up - not just the stronger guy who won the fight.

The weaker opponent has clear recourse for their own safety: don't hit. That's the only way they keep any sort of moral superiority. Just being weaker doesn't get you a pass imo. Someone having a big mouth doesn't justify hitting them. Get your own words in. But if you hit someone, you should have every expectation that they're going to hit back... and it hopefully serves to dissuade you from hitting in the first place. Most male v male altercations end with only words being thrown, likely for that very reason.

Sentiments like yours are exactly why so many women are willing to hit at all. They have a misguided sense of privilege. They're acting on the assumption they won't be hit back and unlike all other fights, there will be no repercussions. He can't hit back. Otherwise, they'd check themselves knowing this action isn't going to end well for them. There is no excuse for starting violence. You can't claim to be a victim of what you started. Honestly, if you'd seen some of the female on male violence I saw in the club (watch the fireworks when a woman catches her man with another woman), there is absolutely no way you'd be able to consider her any sort of victim of domestic violence. I think even you would believe the guy justified to hit back. I've seen a girl sucker punch a guy and him be unable to stand up afterward (concussion, though still conscious), and she just keeps on wailing on him (even kicking!). Some women are way more violent than I think many here realize. Look around on youtube for some of these women and you will be amazed just how violent and aggressive they can be. It's a travesty to call these women victims of anything when a man retaliates with force simply because the man is stronger.

btw - A sucker punch is the first punch of a fight. Unless you lay out your opponent, they will hit back. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't have thrown that punch.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Might makes right. Being stronger physically means rules don't apply to you. You can be an @$$, and if someone does not like, the beating they get will deter them in the future. But hey, it is the weaker persons fault.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Ever been hit in the face with a big glass ashtray?


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

I think part of the reason this discussion fascinates me is because I see two things happening here:

1. Expression of values. For example, Dvls describes what he sees as "fair" behavior: if you hit, the person you hit should have the choice to hit back at their own discretion and not be held accountable to society's prevailing gender mores." Expression of that value leads to the expression of opinions about that value. For example: people who think it's okay to hit women back are not real men, or are bullies, etc. And then we have the opinion on that opinion fired right back. 

So that goes around. 

and 

2. An attempt to talk about how the "unfairness" of women being able to hit and not expect to get hit back can be rectified and legally enforced in society. So, we have the "'problem" as laid out by Dvls and others: "when men hit women back they are often labeled abusers when it was the woman who actually started it. It's not fair." Okay, but what do you propose GETS DONE about it? How do we get from this place, where society at large do not want men to be able to decide when and how hard to "punish" a woman for hitting them first, to a society where the physically stronger sex can legally use force against women? And once we get there, what does that society look like? Are women happier overall? Are men? 

I suppose my point is: how do you change something that you see as a social ill when the vast majority of society doesn't see it that way? How do you get people behind that sort of legal change? How do you convince women to get behind it and how do you convince men who have women in their lives who they love to get behind it? 

I think it's a red herring to continually bring up the "smaller than" argument--that when a smaller man sucker punches a bigger man, it's more socially acceptable for the bigger man to hit back. _Gender means something _in our society. It's always going to be a different narrative when it's a man hitting a woman. 

I do have my own personal opinion about men who hold the "it's not fair I want to be able to hit women" values but I've not even felt motivated enough to lay it out here because I'm too distracted by trying to understand what in the heck they think will ever come of their feelings of disenfranchisement.

Maybe they don't hope for anything: maybe just feeling disenfranchised is enough. But still, I can't help thinking its sort of like sitting around waxing philosophical about how much better life would be if only the grass wasn't green.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Sometimes I feel like I'm really missing something about the whole, "Hit, get hit," philosophy. I mean, I'm sure the thought of being able to pop a woman back satisfies something deep inside some men, but hey, we all have our little crosses to bear. I sort of feel like it's sitting around wishing the grass was purple instead of green.


You're not missing it from my point of view. You just haven't picked a side in the gender war aspect so you're stuck in the lonely middle where logic, decency and common sense prevail.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Thundarr said:


> You're not missing it from my point of view. You just haven't picked a side in the gender war aspect so you're stuck in the lonely middle where logic, decency and common sense prevail.


I don't know if you need to pick sides. For me, I'm not looking forward to popping some woman. But nor am I looking forward to popping some man. However if I decided I needed to pop a guy, I think by the time I get to that point I wouldn't have much hesitation left, but if it were a woman instead I would have to stop and hesitate and consider the ramifications of popping her even if I was already past the point of deciding I "needed" to. The consequences of a man losing it and popping a woman are just too great, as Rice learned the hard way. If it were some dude he got in an altercation with this would not have resulted an any kind of media frenzy like it did, he likely wouldn't have missed any games or paychecks.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

This comment relates to couples and not to random people because those are different situations. But I know that I'm stronger than my wife and I know I could restrain her if she went crazy on me. Without her having a weapon, there's just no way that I could justify defending myself by knocking her out. Well this is true with almost all couples because we men are just stronger most of the time.

Domestic violence is nuts because I can't imagine me staying with my wife if she attempted to fight me. I'd have to really deserve it to even consider it not being a deal breaker. Now partners have a way of pushing buttons so I get how a someone can lose control once but I don't understand how the guilt doesn't keep it from happening again. Actually I kind of understand that part too. It's the delusion that they have control of the other person.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Lon said:


> I don't know if you need to pick sides. For me, I'm not looking forward to popping some woman. But nor am I looking forward to popping some man. However if I decided I needed to pop a guy, I think by the time I get to that point I wouldn't have much hesitation left, but if it were a woman instead I would have to stop and hesitate and consider the ramifications of popping her even if I was already past the point of deciding I "needed" to. The consequences of a man losing it and popping a woman are just too great, as Rice learned the hard way. If it were some dude he got in an altercation with this would not have resulted an any kind of media frenzy like it did, he likely wouldn't have missed any games or paychecks.


We're bouncing around separate topics though. You're talking about some guy or some gal. I'm speaking more about domestic violence between a couple. So a lot of what I comment is geared toward a scenario like RR and JR where they are a couple and it's domestic violence. Honestly I'm not sure what I'd do if some random woman tried to fight me. I know I'd try to avoid it maybe that wouldn't be possible?

But I hope Ray is given another chance. Maybe next year a team will pick him up and hopefully he and Janay have both figured out how to keep things from escalating again.


----------



## OnlyQueen (Oct 19, 2013)

GettingIt said:


> 'Cuz sometimes people do stoopid things.


Exactly.
When I was 12/13 and only 5'4 at the time (now I'm 5'7 and a bit more heavier), I wanted to fight a nearly 17 year-old girl that was my present height because she was talking smack about me and I was reacting with anger when getting picked on.

Needlessly to say technically I didn't land the first physical blow. I simply stuck two middle fingers and immediately she came charging at me ready to throw a fully punch. It would have hit me in the eyes but I blocked it on time and she missed. 

I know..... if I knew I wouldn't win at my shorter height and lighter weight against a stronger, older girl at the time why did I verbally instigated the fight? Because I didn't give a damn. I was pissed off that I was getting teased everyday and this girl talking bad about me was the last straw that day. I was simply angry and didn't care if the opponent was bigger nor stronger. That logic went out the window at the time.

Certain when you do stupid things, you aren't thinking logically. You simpy don't care about logic at all.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

And oh, when Ray's permanent ban from football is upheld and he's forced to be a high school coach, Janaynay will suddenly do the chick talk show circuit about what an abusive a-hole he was the whole time and how he told her if she didn't back him up publicly he'd kill her and her little dog too.

In case you were wondering.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

GettingIt said:


> I think part of the reason this discussion fascinates me is because I see two things happening here:
> 
> 1. Expression of values. For example, Dvls describes what he sees as "fair" behavior: if you hit, the person you hit should have the choice to hit back at their own discretion and not be held accountable to society's prevailing gender mores." Expression of that value leads to the expression of opinions about that value. For example: people who think it's okay to hit women back are not real men, or are bullies, etc. And then we have the opinion on that opinion fired right back.
> 
> ...



Well it's not uncommon for people to say In life "this isn't fair" and "this isn't equal" or "this isn't fair because it isn't equal". This is just one of those situations. No man or woman should put thier hands on one another and if they do their are consequences to that. Why? Because society has dictated that their must be.

So when a woman slaps a professional athlete on the shoulder and he knocks her out ....fair or being equal is out the window and he is getting arrested

Same as the example I gave earlier if a drunk guy pushed a profession MMA fighter and the fighter used that license to break every bone in his body then that MMA fighter is going to jail.

Or an old man who has popcorn thrown in his face at a movie theater that takes out his gun and shoots the aggressor.

It leans to this unwritten personal accountability thing. This concept really comes from attorneys who argue to juries that this was egregious and other options could have been used in all the scenarios above Is it fair....maybe. Is it equal......certainly not. But so is life


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: The Ray Rice / Janay Rice case / lesson*



Wolf1974 said:


> Well it's not uncommon for people to say In life "this isn't fair" and "this isn't equal" or "this isn't fair because it isn't equal". This is just one of those situations. No man or woman should put thier hands on one another and if they do their are consequences to that. Why? Because society has dictated that their must be.
> 
> So when a woman slaps a professional athlete on the shoulder and he knocks her out ....fair or being equal is out the window and he is getting arrested
> 
> ...


Though everybody would laugh if it happened in a Tarantino movie.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Just to be another devils advocate.... Feminism is high on equal and fairness, correct? So, in theory, they should be for equal and fair treatment (same as men) under the laws, in this case domestic violence and/or assault and battery. However, they don't want that. they can be construed as cake eating. A woman hits = morally/legally/socially acceptable, a man hits in self defense or when he is not the aggressor = morally/legeally/socially unacceptable. That is neither fair nor equal. That is hypocrisy.

That statment being made, I thnk bothe the people this thread stated about are seriously wrong and IMO, neither is signfiicantly better or worse than the other.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

naiveonedave said:


> Just to be another devils advocate.... Feminism is high on equal and fairness, correct? So, in theory, they should be for equal and fair treatment (same as men) under the laws, in this case domestic violence and/or assault and battery. However, they don't want that. they can be construed as cake eating. A woman hits = morally/legally/socially acceptable, a man hits in self defense or when he is not the aggressor = morally/legeally/socially unacceptable. That is neither fair nor equal. That is hypocrisy.


It can be hypocrisy. But those who advocate this "fairness" overlook what happens all to often in real life. The physically stronger person does not keep things as words. They engage verbally until they feel insulted, at which point they show the threat of physical violence, through words and body language. If his words are insulting and she attacks, then fairness dictates that he be able to use any physical force he wants in retaliation. But if her words are insulting, then his attack is defended and justified. This is what happens in many domestic violence situations. The verbal arguments is used to justify the physical attack.

Thus, there is hypocrisy on the other side as well. They want "fairness" to excuse their lack of control and proportionality. That once they are hit, regardless of the true threat or their own actions, they are justified in any response because that is only fair. Makes no more sense than an 8 year old arguing that he should be allowed to break all his sisters toys because she broke one of his.

It also excuses bullying behavior.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

I don't disagree. However, in the current US society, men are presumed guilty all the time and this rubs me the wrong way. It also makes the DA in the Rice case look bad, even though, by law and based on evidence there wasn't enough to even attempt a trial.

Bullying has been around as long as man has been around. How do you stop bullying? It is not as difficult as cnn makes it out to be....


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

naiveonedave said:


> Just to be another devils advocate.... Feminism is high on equal and fairness, correct? So, in theory, they should be for equal and fair treatment (same as men) under the laws, in this case domestic violence and/or assault and battery. However, they don't want that. they can be construed as cake eating. A woman hits = morally/legally/socially acceptable, a man hits in self defense or when he is not the aggressor = morally/legeally/socially unacceptable. That is neither fair nor equal. That is hypocrisy.
> 
> That statment being made, I thnk bothe the people this thread stated about are seriously wrong and IMO, neither is signfiicantly better or worse than the other.


If Janay had knocked out Ray that would be assault too. If everyone knew that she was stronger and could restrain him but instead chose to dropped him then it would get similar backlash as what's happened.


----------



## Rugs (Apr 12, 2013)

I have not read all pages of comments. 

I have a 13 year old son whom eats, breaths, plays, watches,....sports. 

I have cringed over the years of all the stories of players' getting no or little punishment for "bad behavior" in general:

Fighting, allegations of rape, sexual misconduct, drunk driving,.......

As a mother of a young, impressionable son, am glad this is a "big story" in the sports world. I would be very happy if he were made an example of in the sports world and banned for life. 

Youths especially may make different choices if they see there are real consequences. 

My old neighbor was a counselor for battered women. She would work endlessly for YEARS with some women and she said 99% of the women would end up back with their abusers. Defiantly an addiction that is hard to break. 

Very sad.


----------



## Rugs (Apr 12, 2013)

^^^

In addition:

The following week, there were kids throwing apples in the lunchroom at my sons lunch table and he removed himself from the table and sat somewhere else. 

He later told me he wants to be on the basketball team and did not want to be associated with the apple throwers in case they were caught.

So making bad behavior intolerable did make an impression on my son. (Favorable)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> If Janay had knocked out Ray that would be assault too. If everyone knew that she was stronger and could restrain him but instead chose to dropped him then it would get similar backlash as what's happened.


It actually has nothing to do with strength. The difference between misdemeanor assault (which is what Janay's hits on Ray were) and felony assault, is that felony assault results in serious injury or judged "likely" to cause such injury. In such cases, all aspects of a case, including the context it arises from, how the assault came about, and the consequences stemming from it are taken into consideration.

Both Ray and Janay were originally picked up on simple assault charges. Janay's were dropped when neither Ray nor Janay wanted to press charges. The knockout was deemed a "serious injury" that warranted elevation of Ray's charges to felony aggravated assault. Loss of consciousness, broken bone, even a bad scar all qualify... as does my chipped molar tooth.

Ray claims it was not a punch, but a slap - just like the first - which knocked her off balance, and that it was the incidental fact of hitting the railing while falling that knocked her out.

Whether or not you believe the story, it is plausible, and one of the reasons the prosecutor made a deal - along with all the other mitigating factors. The critical element is the knockout and the likely effect of such a strike - this is what elevates the charges from a misdemeanor. Would such a hit likely injure, or was she incidentally knocked out in the fall - police and prosecutors tend to have a lot of discretion there. The injury doesn't automatically mean felony charges - everything is taken into consideration. If one believes Rice was slapping, a reasonable person may conclude that he was not "likely to knock her out" and had no expectation that would happen - that isn't enough in and of itself to avoid the felony charge, but it is mitigating. In context with the fact the first hit is obviously a slap, and in the context of prior hits by Janay... its not unlikely that an affable character such as Rice who is extremely active in charitable community work and with as much character support as he drew (30 letters)... would not be convicted of felony assault.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Ray did in fact hit Janay with an open hand, and Janay's fall resulted in the knockout, then how exactly is that any different than my pushing that old man who pushed me, and his falling and breaking his hip? The standard is generally that such a hit "likely" results in serious injury - and I think its clear that someone has as little reason to believe an open handed strike is going to knock someone out as to believe a moderate push will break someone's hip. But technically, I could have been charged with felony assault too... for pushing someone back, with equal force, after they initiated and pursued the conflict to my door. Discretion is a good thing.

Should I have been charged with felony assault and lost my job and career indefinitely? That seems awfully severe even if you believe I'm guilty. But when the injured party is a woman, we ignore what is justice and prefer to burn at the stake. Is there enough reasonable doubt of felony assault or substantially mitigating factors in the Ray Rice case? I think there is - and so did the prosecutor. That's why a deal was struck.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Men and women should be held to the same standard and there should be no shame in having someone hit you. Men often don't report it because they'll get eyerolls and ribbing. Women often don't report it out of fear.

We won't solve any of the issues of inequity until we have a zero tolerance society. Many parents encourage their kids (especially boys) to "stand up" for themselves and kids tease each other for tattling.

Many parents comment they'll raise their kids the way they were raised 'cause it didn't hurt them, yet they can't effectively control their kids without hitting, so I'd say it DID hurt their ability to calmly enforce boundaries.

We need to make it wrong to hit ANYONE. EVER. Man/man, woman/woman, adult/child, child/child, man/woman, woman/man. Period.

Once a person reaches an age of reason - what, around 4, right? - everyone should simply be taught hitting is wrong. 

Then again so are lots of "fighting words". Instead of trying to have our kids (in the US) participating in 3 sports, a fine art, tutoring and a boy/girl club just so they can get into the best college, maybe we need to teach them to be good HUMANS first. Teach communication, setting limits, appropriate actions and reactions, because people can be provoked so learning to not scream, call names and communicate clearly and know when to give yourself a time-out is just as important as saying "no hitting".

There are no words that should carry enough force to make someone hit someone else. In the end the hitter still has to know that this is a bad situation and they need to remove themselves from it whether it's a bar or their own home.

ETA - yeah, this is utopia. All parents won't practice OR teach communicating or how to diffuse a situation, etc. But that's no reason to not try.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It actually has nothing to do with strength.


Yes it does have a lot to do with strength and accountability of the known strength over a woman. We both watched the video where she was standing in one frame and on the floor in the next. It takes a lot of speed and power to do that. I assure you that the vast majority of people who see that grainny video can still tell that is was a brutal punch and not some kind of lame open handed slap. That's probably what Ray's lawyer told him too.

Accountability is why someone with combat training has to be more responsible with their ability to harm others. It's why men in general have to be more responsible with our ability to hurt a woman.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> Yes it does have a lot to do with strength and accountability of the known strength over a woman. We both watched the video where she was standing in one frame and on the floor in the next. It takes a lot of speed and power to do that. I assure you that the vast majority of people who see that grainny video can still tell that is was a brutal punch and not some kind of lame open handed slap. That's probably what Ray's lawyer told him too.
> 
> Accountability is why someone with combat training has to be more responsible with their ability to harm others. It's why men in general have to be more responsible with our ability to hurt a woman.


Legally, it has nothing to do with strength. The difference between misdemeanor assault and felony assault is that felony assault involves "serious" injury (unconsciousness often qualifies, but many times not... alcohol for instance, makes someone very easy to knock unconscious; its all about the damage one could reasonably expect) - and the discretion of the prosecutor - that's it. It's not about strength. That she was knocked unconscious at all means it fits the felony definition - but that there are a ton of mitigating circumstances often means it isn't pursued, or in this case, pursued leniently.

What the expected outcome of such a strike is matters quite a bit in many states, and all Ray's defense would have to do is seed doubt that he struck with a closed fist with intent to do harm (although in some states, the intent doesn't matter, only the harm). That she was drunk and would easily lose balance are in his favor - again, all they have to do is show reasonable doubt. 

There is no legal value of strength that you are getting at - its myth - like a trained fighter being charged with assault with a deadly weapon for using his fists. Most statutes are interpreted such that an external object is required for such a charge. Where training/ability may come into play, is that the fighter likely knows the damage they will do with a given strike and this bolsters the case for intent.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Has anyone ever stopped long enough to think that perhaps this is the kind of clientele that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is trying to attract. He's only about two steps away from successfully turning NFL Football into WWE Wrestling! 

And what's worse, there's plenty of well-heeled idiots out there who will pay him and his minion of owners to see it!*


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

What does the behavior of the player off the field have to do with the sport and who enjoys watching it? I honestly couldn't care less what the players do off the field. I support law enforcement and the legal system handling that work. Seems to me that the NFL has disciplinary measures at all is counter to your point. It's aimed at protecting football as some kind of "wholesome" past time... which honestly, I don't get. When I think wholesome, I don't think about men pummeling each other.

You can literally hurl such a charge at anyone involved in any form of entertainment. Mel Gibson is widely known to be a totally abusive @sshole, but I feel no burden to avoid his movies or desire to see him blacklisted. Punishment is the legal system's responsibility imo.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Legally, it has nothing to do with strength. The difference between misdemeanor assault and felony assault is that felony assault involves "serious" injury (unconsciousness often qualifies, but many times not... alcohol for instance, makes someone very easy to knock unconscious; its all about the damage one could reasonably expect) - and the discretion of the prosecutor - that's it. It's not about strength. That she was knocked unconscious at all means it fits the felony definition - but that there are a ton of mitigating circumstances often means it isn't pursued, or in this case, pursued leniently.
> 
> What the expected outcome of such a strike is matters quite a bit in many states, and all Ray's defense would have to do is seed doubt that he struck with a closed fist with intent to do harm (although in some states, the intent doesn't matter, only the harm). That she was drunk and would easily lose balance are in his favor - again, all they have to do is show reasonable doubt.
> 
> There is no legal value of strength that you are getting at - its myth - like a trained fighter being charged with assault with a deadly weapon for using his fists. Most statutes are interpreted such that an external object is required for such a charge. Where training/ability may come into play, is that the fighter likely knows the damage they will do with a given strike and this bolsters the case for intent.


You focused on my word (strong) but you elluded what I was actually saying. I'll use your wording that *'its all about the damage one could reasonably expect'*. He has a physically powerful build and is atheletic and is capable of knocking out any woman. If he doesn't know that then he's dangerous. The mitigating circumstances that help him are that it's easy enough to see there are already financial consequences imposed by him being fired.

My opinion is he dropped her with a left hook that would knock out any woman and most men. That's the reasonable damage to expect if he does it again based on the the video and physics. Your opinion seems connected to his intent (aka open hand). That's an angle that matters but honestly you keep spinning words for some reason so we aren't even making to that angle.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> You focused on my word (strong) but you elluded what I was actually saying. I'll use your wording that *'its all about the damage one could reasonably expect'*. He has a physically powerful build and is atheletic and is capable of knocking out any woman. If he doesn't know that then he's dangerous. The mitigating circumstances that help him are that it's easy enough to see there are already financial consequences imposed by him being fired.
> 
> My opinion is he dropped her with a left hook that would knock out any woman and most men. That's the reasonable damage to expect if he does it again based on the the video and physics. Your opinion seems connected to his intent (aka open hand). That's an angle that matters but honestly you keep spinning words for some reason so we aren't even making to that angle.


I'm not sure why you think I'm spinning words. Understanding explanations and terms is a critical part of making sure we're coming across correctly. You've misinterpreted the meaning for "damage one could reasonably expect". It is not "damage one could possibly inflict" - which would bolster the strength position you're taking. It is not about the maximum damage one could do. It is about what damage is reasonably expected of THAT strike, not the damage you are CAPABLE of. And again, this is only mitigating... in many states, that serious injury was sustained is all that matters in terms of being able to bring a felony charge. But mitigating factors do influence prosecutors. You should also be aware that it is no easier to knock out a woman than it is to knock out a man.

Ray Rice is easily capable of breaking Janay's jaw with a punch, never mind knock her out. Janay didn't have a broken bone. She didn't have a black eye or facial contusion that would be indicative of an actual punch with a fist. We know she was hit in the face based on the turn of her head. The force of impact is distributed over a wider area with an open hand and the open hand gives more; a fist concentrates the force and does not give - doing more damage. Even a hard slap does not leave such a contusion. We can see Ray's first strike is clearly a slap. Ray claims the second is also, but with greater force, and there is no way to definitively tell from the video. So the question as far as mitigation goes is, is it reasonable to believe it is a forceful slap, and is a knockout a reasonable expectation to have for a hard slap? 

My opinion is this was a strong open handed strike just as Ray claimed and that Janay hit the metal railing, and that her having been drunk made her more susceptible to being knocked out. It's quite easy to knock out someone who has been drinking. That alone is a major influence, as without the unconsciousness, there is no felony because there is no "serious injury" (a black eye or contusion would qualify, but weren't there). These are potential elements of reasonable doubt, and mitigating factors which influence a prosecutor in how he/she proceeds. This particular prosecutor was even female, and decided to accept the equivalent of probation - so unless you're a conspiracy theorist, those mitigating factors must have been pretty compelling to her.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Bill Burr, the standup has a routine where he says "You should never hit a woman but don't say there's NEVER a reason to hit a woman."


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ...This particular prosecutor was even female, and decided to accept the equivalent of probation - so unless you're a conspiracy theorist, those mitigating factors must have been pretty compelling to her.


I'm not opposed to being a conspiracy theorist but I'm usually not one. Yes he has a few mitigating circumstances in his favor. 1: First offense that we're aware of, 2: Janay standing by his side, 3: a lot of character witnesses, 4: a heavy financial consequence already imposed, and 5: public stigma that will stay with him for a while.

As I said in a previous post, I hope he works hard and someone gives him a change next season. He's paying a higher price than most do for domestic violence.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

That's exactly my position, and I just don't believe he's your typical abuser. I think he'll do well with the program he's been ordered to take. I can even see him popping back up for domestic violence awareness. I mean really, people I know involved say his charity work in bmore is huge.

He deserved punishment, but I don't really think the perception fits who he is. Sucks to see him crucified.


----------

