• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ray Rice's Wife, Janay, Defends Him and Rips Media In Statment

Henrin said:
It's funny that a business has the right to associate in one case, but not in the other.
Click to expand...

Bull**** statement. A business always has the right to associate. They just can't discriminate based on race sex etc. But to say they "don't have the right to associate in one case" is just flat out false.
 
This is really great stuff Vance.
Kudos to you for your insight .
VanceMack said:
I believe in second chances and certainly in rehabilitation. But...that typically involves at least a little bit of time, and in the case of a criminal act...a real set of consequences. As I understand it, the state of Maryland has a shall issue charges law for any incident involving domestic violence. The victims doesnt have to file charges. If mandatory reporters become aware of the incident they must call the police and the police must file charges. The victim can even be compelled to give testimony (not really needed in this case). The law exists to protect battered spouses...people that are unable, unwilling, or just too terrified to file charges.

I dont think the part that completely indicts Ray Rice is him knocking her out. Sure...that was horrific and that was the criminal act. But if he had in the moment collapsed on the floor, sobbed, held her, called 911, screamed for help, SOMETHING...ANYTHING that demonstrated remorse, I would be inclined to readily accept his conversion. Instead...he dragged...kinda dragged...kicked at her...dragged some more...walked away when someone else walked up...the video is very damning.

Personally...I think the Michael Vick treatment would have been in order. Charges...some jail time...some rehab...and then if a team wanted to take a chance on him, so be it.
Click to expand...
 
roughdraft274 said:
Bull**** statement. A business always has the right to associate. They just can't discriminate based on race sex etc. But to say they "don't have the right to associate in one case" is just flat out false.
Click to expand...

How is it false?
 
Henrin said:
When did I say it was ok to drive drunk?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously kidding me here? So do share, what are your thoughts on drunk driving?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Yes, yes, I have heard that argument before. It's funny that a business has the right to associate in one case, but not in the other.
Click to expand...

Is that a joke????? One instant is holding people accountable for their actions and being unwilling to open there business to employees that are potentially dangerous to their existing employees. The other is holding someone accountable not for their actions but for their skin color. It doesn't make your existing employees any less safe. Equating the two is absolutely asinine.
 
smb said:
Is that a joke????? One instant is holding people accountable for their actions and being unwilling to open there business to employees that are potentially dangerous to their existing employees. The other is holding someone accountable not for their actions but for their skin color. It doesn't make your existing employees any less safe. Equating the two is absolutely asinine.
Click to expand...

How is he dangerous to his fellow players? Are you kidding?
 
Top Cat said:
Are you seriously kidding me here? You know damned well I can't quote you here. But you most certainly said it. I'll paraphrase. No harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

No, I never said it upstairs or downstairs. We were talking about legality, not if I was fine with people doing it or not.
 
VanceMack said:
<snip>

Personally...I think the Michael Vick treatment would have been in order. Charges...some jail time...some rehab...and then if a team wanted to take a chance on him, so be it.
Click to expand...

Blame the state of NJ for that. They charged him - indicted him - then let him plead out to participation in some "intervention" program instead of jail time because he's a first time offender. Once upon a time when I grew up in NJ, they were a lot tougher on crime.
 
Henrin said:
How is he dangerous to his fellow players? Are you kidding?
Click to expand...

Maybe not his fellow players because they can defend themselves. What about the 22 year old trainer...the woman executive assistant...the female scout...the 70 year laundry guy...etc. etc. etc.

Do you really believe the only employees on a professional football team and the only people on that team that players interact with are other players? Are you that ignorant? He has shown a propensity for violence and uncontrollable anger against people who cannot defend themselves. That makes a wide range of people in employ of the Baltimore Ravens that are forced to interact with the players to do their job less safe. Besides the fact that for as serious callous violent action as he committed there must be equal serious consequences.
 
Henrin said:
How is it false?
Click to expand...

You claimed that they have the right to associate in case but not in another. When in reality, they can always associate if they want to. If they want to keep Ray Rice, they have that right. They just chose not to.

So you're wrong.
 
Henrin said:
We were talking about legality, not if I was fine with people doing it or not.
Click to expand...

Are you or are you not of the mind that if someone drive's drunk and no one gets hurt, then no crime was committed?
 
Top Cat said:
Are you or are you not of the mind that if someone drive's drunk and no one gets hurt, then no crime was committed?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. What of it?
 
Henrin said:
Liberals saying the NFL doesn't have to associate with rice makes me think of their stance on anti-discrimination laws. :lol:
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Rice is not being discriminated against - he is being denied continued employment for his personal (criminal?) actions.
 
smb said:
Maybe not his fellow players because they can defend themselves. What about the 22 year old trainer...the woman executive assistant...the female scout...the 70 year laundry guy...etc. etc. etc.

Do you really believe the only employees on a professional football team and the only people on that team that players interact with are other players? Are you that ignorant? He has shown a propensity for violence and uncontrollable anger against people who cannot defend themselves. That makes a wide range of people in employ of the Baltimore Ravens that are forced to interact with the players to do their job less safe. Besides the fact that for as serious callous violent action as he committed there must be equal serious consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Shouldn't the state of NJ be held accountable for a dangerous person being let loose with no punishment whatsoever?
 
roughdraft274 said:
You claimed that they have the right to associate in case but not in another. When in reality, they can always associate if they want to. If they want to keep Ray Rice, they have that right. They just chose not to.

So you're wrong.
Click to expand...

What you think the purpose behind anti-discrimination laws are? Is it to perhaps get businesses to interact and commence in commerce with protected classes?
 
Top Cat said:
So it's ok with you if someone drives drunk. That was my point.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what it means at all. There is plenty of things I have a problem with, but I don't want to be illegal.
 
Henrin said:
What you think the purpose behind anti-discrimination laws are? Is it to perhaps get businesses to interact and commence in commerce with protected classes?
Click to expand...

You are changing the subject.

You made the following claim

"It's funny that a business has the right to associate in one case, but not in the other."

Anti discrimination laws do not tell anyone that they aren't allowed to associate with anyone. Only that you aren't allowed to discriminate on certain factors.

So please stop changing the subject.
 
tres borrachos said:
I agree with this.

Shouldn't the state of NJ be held accountable for a dangerous person being let loose with no punishment whatsoever?
Click to expand...

The ADA or DA should be investigated in Atlantic County - who is btw Prosecutor Jim McClain. There was a video of an assault and he decided to brush it under the rug. They cut a deal very quick. It's certainly curious.
 
roughdraft274 said:
You are changing the subject.

You made the following claim

"It's funny that a business has the right to associate in one case, but not in the other."

Anti discrimination laws do not tell anyone that they aren't allowed to associate with anyone. Only that you aren't allowed to discriminate on certain factors.

So please stop changing the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm not changing the topic. I was taking note of an inconsistency in principle that liberals all seem to share. If a man is a felon they have no problem with a business having their first amendment rights protected, but if the individual is a protected class their first amendment rights go out the window.
 
Ockham said:
The ADA or DA should be investigated in Atlantic County - who is btw Prosecutor Jim McClain. There was a video of an assault and he decided to brush it under the rug. They cut a deal very quick. It's certainly curious.
Click to expand...

I agree. I know everyone is concerned/focused on the NFL's punishment, but shouldn't this have been a justice system punishment being far more important? The NFL can't control his behavior and prevent future occurrences; the justice system can.
 
notquiteright said:
I wonder how warped a CON must be in their hatred of the media to twist logic around to make the 'guilty' party in this train wreck not the man caught on tape, but rather the media for reporting it. :roll:

Nevermind Rayray was caught on tape assaulting a woman- knocking her out- the media is responsible for ending Ray's career.... :doh

You SERIOUSLY think 'the media' wouldn't report this? You SERIOUSLY think NO ONE would mention the video exists and what it shows? I can hear the same ranters now changing sides if the media ignored the attack...

Let's get real....
Click to expand...

The news media reported the incident and all the outcry and outrage that built up after it, much of it fed by news reports, that finally led to the ridiculous and excessive outcome that hurts even the woman it was supposedly protecting. No, they didn't have to. God knows they can ignore important news when they want to.

donsutherland1 said:
The NFL claims that it had not seen the tape in question when it dealt with his case. His coach said that the tape 'changed everything.' While the NFL and Ravens might not have done their due diligence, it is all but certain that Rice never informed either of the parties of the true magnitude of what had happened. Had he done so, his punishment might have been lengthier, but the situation would have been behind him. Almost certainly, he withheld vital details and has now wound up in a worse position than would otherwise have been the case.
Click to expand...

I'm calling BS on the coach. He's trying to get our from in front of the blowtorch over why his initial assessment of punishment was so "lenient".

jamesrage said:
As much as any other abuse victim.She loves her abuser and there is possibly all sorts of other reasons she might be defending him. It doesn't make the team and NFL wrong for booting her husband.
Click to expand...

No, what makes the NFL wrong is the fact that the punishment is so excessive. And they made it excessive because they are cowards, mau maued by the screeching, sanctimonious protectors of women out there.

rocket88 said:
Wait a second. You're blaming everybody but Ray Rice. And I'm copping ?

Sure the backlash had plenty to do with it. That's called a business repairing it's image with its consumers.
Click to expand...

There was never any question that Rice deserved to be punished. What we are talking about is excessive punishment, a lynching ginned up by an angry mob in which you guys so willingly participate. Even the person he punched is saying, "Stop this."

roughdraft274 said:
When it comes to how the NFL deals with their business, it doesn't count. For anything.

If they don't want to associate with domestic abusers, they don't have to.
Click to expand...

Most likely they'd lose half the players in the league if they fired every abuser. They need to come up with a punishment that better fits the crime and have the strength of character to stick with that rather than trying to appease all these grievance groups and busybodies. Like I said, if he were just some ordinary guy who punched out his wife for the first time he'd get a fine and probably be sent to counseling or something. I call for punishment in line with what ordinary guys would get. What is happening is an injustice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom