• 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!

Raven ray Rice suspended 2 games

The NFLPA being held hostage by marketing executives.
 
Henrin said:
If she hit him first he has the right to defend himself. Just because he knocked her the hell out doesn't affect anything. She shouldn't have started a fight with someone she wasn't capable of beating.
Click to expand...
No sane person could watch that video and claim that Ray Rice was acting in a "defensive" manner. The guy went on full out OFFENSE. There was nothing defensive about it at all.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
No sane person could watch that video and claim that Ray Rice was acting in a "defensive" manner. The guy went on full out OFFENSE. There was nothing defensive about it at all.
Click to expand...

To me it looked like maybe outside the elevator she slapped him in the face. Inside the elevator he came up to her, he did or said something, she reacted by hitting him or moving to hit him, and he hit her. He then backed away and she advanced towards him, at which point he swings again and moves away. It actually appears that she was knocked out by hitting the wall of the elevator or maybe the handrail. Rice did seem to take a "defensive posture" before she started advancing and it is absurd to say someone backing away is going "full out offense" as that is the exact opposite. What I see is two people who got into a physical altercation and one of them knocked the other into something.

Honestly, the video showed pretty much what I expected to see from the reports a few months back. Presenting this as a case of a man abusing a woman is incredibly simplistic and, honestly, kind of sexist. Were it a man he inadvertently knocked out, even a man weaker and smaller than his fiancé, the reaction would be completely different and few here would be talking about it at all (unless the other guy was, like, a midget or something), let alone calling it abuse. Alternatively, if they were in a physical altercation and she hit him in such a way that he was inadvertently knocked unconscious in the same manner, there might even be a large number of people mocking him for it.
 
AJiveMan said:
If so, I'd be afraid, very afraid for my life.
Click to expand...

If I were Mrs. Rice, I would be very afraid at this point too, since her husband will be home a lot more often now.
 
Demon of Light said:
Were it a man he inadvertently knocked out, even a man weaker and smaller than his fiancé, the reaction would be completely different and few here would be talking about it at all (unless the other guy was, like, a midget or something), let alone calling it abuse.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't a man Rice knocked out, was it. It was a woman, his then-fiancee, now wife. And I doubt his deliberate and brutal punch was "inadvertent." I saw the video too. Rice's punch sure looked intentional to me.
 
Demon of Light said:
To me it looked like maybe outside the elevator she slapped him in the face. Inside the elevator he came up to her, he did or said something, she reacted by hitting him or moving to hit him, and he hit her. He then backed away and she advanced towards him, at which point he swings again and moves away. It actually appears that she was knocked out by hitting the wall of the elevator or maybe the handrail. Rice did seem to take a "defensive posture" before she started advancing and it is absurd to say someone backing away is going "full out offense" as that is the exact opposite. What I see is two people who got into a physical altercation and one of them knocked the other into something.

Honestly, the video showed pretty much what I expected to see from the reports a few months back. Presenting this as a case of a man abusing a woman is incredibly simplistic and, honestly, kind of sexist. Were it a man he inadvertently knocked out, even a man weaker and smaller than his fiancé, the reaction would be completely different and few here would be talking about it at all (unless the other guy was, like, a midget or something), let alone calling it abuse. Alternatively, if they were in a physical altercation and she hit him in such a way that he was inadvertently knocked unconscious in the same manner, there might even be a large number of people mocking him for it.
Click to expand...
It's only absurd if you ignore the context.

This was the man's fiance. It's not like he was being confronted by a stranger so he knew that the only danger she presented to him in that moment was what she could inflict with her bare hands, which as witnessed in the video, was minimal. Also, he could have easily restrained her given his tremendous size and strength advantage. Also, when you say he "appeared to be backing away" looked more like he was maneuvering into position to land a devastating left hook to the jaw.
 
Ocean007 said:
But it wasn't a man Rice knocked out, was it. It was a woman, his then-fiancee, now wife. And I doubt his deliberate and brutal punch was "inadvertent." I saw the video too. Rice's punch sure looked intentional to me.
Click to expand...

What seems to have knocked her out is that she fell onto the railing. There is no reason to believe that was intentional from looking at the video. Her being a woman should not mean she is free to attack a man with impunity or that we should not analyze this rationally.

Jack Fabulous said:
It's only absurd if you ignore the context.

This was the man's fiance. It's not like he was being confronted by a stranger so he knew that the only danger she presented to him in that moment was what she could inflict with her bare hands, which as witnessed in the video, was minimal. Also, he could have easily restrained her given his tremendous size and strength advantage. Also, when you say he "appeared to be backing away" looked more like he was maneuvering into position to land a devastating left hook to the jaw.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are first and foremost interpreting it as an interaction between a man and a woman, rather than an interaction between two people. You are thus interpreting it in terms of domestic abuse, rather than in terms of a fight. Were this him just hitting her for "being mouthy" it would be one thing, but that was not the case here. Outside the elevator she appears to slap him and she looks like she is moving to slap him again in the elevator before he hits her.
 
Demon of Light said:
The problem is that you are first and foremost interpreting it as an interaction between a man and a woman, rather than an interaction between two people. You are thus interpreting it in terms of domestic abuse, rather than in terms of a fight. Were this him just hitting her for "being mouthy" it would be one thing, but that was not the case here. Outside the elevator she appears to slap him and she looks like she is moving to slap him again in the elevator before he hits her.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight...

You are telling me that the proper context to view this situation is NOT as an interaction between a man and a woman who were engaged and now married, BUT INSTEAD, no differently than if it were two male strangers who had gotten into a fist fight??

Sorry, but I refuse to let go of logic, reason, and moral decency in order see it that way.
 
How does Janay Rice know that Ray Rice has been cheating on her?

He comes home with lipstick on his knuckles.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So let me get this straight...

You are telling me that the proper context to view this situation is NOT as an interaction between a man and a woman who were engaged and now married, BUT INSTEAD, no differently than if it were two male strangers who had gotten into a fist fight??

Sorry, but I refuse to let go of logic, reason, and moral decency in order see it that way.
Click to expand...

I am saying you should think of it as a physical altercation between two people and not bring in preconceptions about gender.

The Man said:
How does Janay Rice know that Ray Rice has been cheating on her?

He comes home with lipstick on his knuckles.
Click to expand...

Okay, that did make me LOL.
 
Demon of Light said:
I am saying you should think of it as a physical altercation between two people and not bring in preconceptions about gender.
Click to expand...

If you can't understand the difference between what happened with Ray Rice and his fiance and a guy decking some random person in an act of "self defense", I can't help you.
 
Ray Rice should have killed the woman instead of just punching her out.........that way the NFL and the Ravens would have welcomed him back.......and built a statue of him outside the stadium...
 
northwinds said:
Ray Rice should have killed the woman instead of just punching her out.........that way the NFL and the Ravens would have welcomed him back.......and built a statue of him outside the stadium...
Click to expand...

You're saying that Ray Lewis killed someone? Prove it.
 
northwinds said:
He was involved in a double homocide........and was convicted for it......
Click to expand...

No he wasn't. He pled guilty to obstruction of justice, not to homicide. You say he committed murder, prove it or shut up. Thanks.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
If you can't understand the difference between what happened with Ray Rice and his fiance and a guy decking some random person in an act of "self defense", I can't help you.
Click to expand...

Simple question: can you define the difference between them without making any insinuation that women are inherently weaker than men and thus should never be treated with violence by a man regardless of their own violent treatment of said man?
 
The Man said:
No he wasn't. He pled guilty to obstruction of justice, not to homicide. You say he committed murder, prove it or shut up. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Obstruction of justice in a double homocide means he was involved in a double homocide........what happened to his white suit from that night?
 
Demon of Light said:
I am saying you should think of it as a physical altercation between two people and not bring in preconceptions about gender.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You don't see a difference of degree between equally matched man versus man and a pro football player versus a woman? What if he'd punted a child- is that still just a "physical altercation between two people"? F*cksakes, of course assault is predicated on the physical differences between the parties. It'd be a travesty otherwise.
 
Demon of Light said:
Simple question: can you define the difference between them without making any insinuation that women are inherently weaker than men and thus should never be treated with violence by a man regardless of their own violent treatment of said man?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Ray Rice KNOWS his fiance and her capabilities. ESPECIALLY her capabilities IN THAT MOMENT. He knows she isn't armed, he knows she can't physically hurt him, and most importantly, he knows he can knock her ass out cold with very little effort.

In an encounter with a stranger you know none of that.
 
With regard to the Original Post in this thread ..

.. The Ravens suspending Ray Rice from the Ravens is wrong.

Punishing Ray Rice for his crime is right.

But said punishment is to be carried out under U.S. and state law as prescribed by U.S. and state law.

If in the process of said government authorized punishment Ray Rice is prohibited from going to work (jail, prison, community service requirement) then the team can take necessary reaction to temporarily replace him without pay.

If Rice is thus unable to fulfill his obligation to the Ravens, then, once he then again is able to fulfill his obligation to the Ravens, he should be allowed to do so. If the Ravens or the NFL then decide that they want to replace him, then they must fire him, and allow him to seek employment elsewhere (with another team or league). When our rule of law justice system has not prohibited Rice from working, then the Ravens or the NFL prohibiting him from working at all, as they have done, is wrong.

What the Ravens and the NFL have done that is wrong is prohibiting Rice from earning a paycheck. That's what's wrong. In this matter, they must also release him from obligation to his contract, so that he can earn a living elsewhere in his profession (the CFL, European football, other venues currently prohibited Rice by his contract with the Ravens and the NFL).

It is simply wrong to prevent a person from earning a living because 1) he/she has committed a crime that they have paid for according to the government penal code, or 2) because his behavior, though, egregious, was not illegal.

The private sector needs to stay out of public business, and punishing Rice for his crime is public business, not private (enterprise) business.

The worse crime is preventing a person from earning a living, any time, no matter how much they make or their financial status -- if they have served their time, then the matter is finished, and no further penalties should be assessed, and if their behavior was not a crime then the matter is also finished.

Unless the NFL has a chartered clause that says "people with a criminal past" or "perpetrators of domestic violence" are not allowed to be members (etc.), then there is no prior knowledge provided perspective employees and thus no justification for penalties by the NFL.

If there is no statute to cover what "people" think is criminal behavior, the court of public opinion should have no jurisdiction over a private enterprise egregiously depriving an employee of their employment either temporarily or permanently.

If the court of public opinion finds something egregious that's not punished by law, they should put their effort into getting the behavior made illegal, not "threaten", in effect, a private concern to take action against that concern's employee.

This is a matter of principles before personalities.

Personalities may have issues with the behavior of Rice and may want him to suffer as a result.

But whether those personalities are various commoners .. or kings .., in America, the rule of law should be embraced, not the rule of this or that faction in mob-rule style.

The right thing to do is to reinstate Rice with the Ravens immediately .. and for the Ravens to ignore outcries from personalities.

It's the principle of the matter that's important.

We can't be setting irrational precedents for depriving people of their right to earn a living, to feed themselves.

And we certainly can't be doing so because this or that special interest group says to do so.

That the Ravens caved to this or that special interest group for social and economic reasons, is simply unethical.

This is not at all to say that Rice's behavior is okay; it isn't okay -- domestic violence is egregiously wrong.

But, the place to punish is solely within the U.S. rule of law justice system, not the private sector.

Again, if there's no law on the books that punishes Rice, that's not Rice's fault and there's no ethically right "make-up" punishment that the private sector has any right to arbitrarily employ that costs Rice his paycheck or ability to earn a living either permanently or temporarily.

Rice should sue the NFL.

It's time we stopped kow-towing to vigilante whiners who are simply seeking vengeance outside a court of law.

Let the U.S. justice system do its thing.

The court of public opinion .. is no court at all in this matter.

The Ravens caving to perceived or imagined public opinion in the manner they have done is a violation of Rice's employment rights.

Oh, and by the way, a surveillance video not brought into evidence and accepted as such by a court of law is in no way "evidence to indict and convict" Rice of anything, and, if anything, the plastering of this video all over the internet and media is rightly a breech of privacy against Rice and his wife, and they should sue the perpetrators.
 
Last edited:
Ontologuy said:
With regard to the Original Post in this thread ..

.. The Ravens suspending Ray Rice from the Ravens is wrong.

Punishing Ray Rice for his crime is right.

But said punishment is to be carried out under U.S. and state law as prescribed by U.S. and state law.

If in the process of said government authorized punishment Ray Rice is prohibited from going to work (jail, prison, community service requirement) then the team can take necessary reaction to temporarily replace him without pay.

If Rice is thus unable to fulfill his obligation to the Ravens, then, once he then again is able to fulfill his obligation to the Ravens, he should be allowed to do so. If the Ravens or the NFL then decide that they want to replace him, then they must fire him, and allow him to seek employment elsewhere (with another team or league). When our rule of law justice system has not prohibited Rice from working, then the Ravens or the NFL prohibiting him from working at all, as they have done, is wrong.

What the Ravens and the NFL have done that is wrong is prohibiting Rice from earning a paycheck. That's what's wrong. In this matter, they must also release him from obligation to his contract, so that he can earn a living elsewhere in his profession (the CFL, European football, other venues currently prohibited Rice by his contract with the Ravens and the NFL).

It is simply wrong to prevent a person from earning a living because 1) he/she has committed a crime that they have paid for according to the government penal code, or 2) because his behavior, though, egregious, was not illegal.

The private sector needs to stay out of public business, and punishing Rice for his crime is public business, not private (enterprise) business.

The worse crime is preventing a person from earning a living, any time, no matter how much they make or their financial status -- if they have served their time, then the matter is finished, and no further penalties should be assessed, and if their behavior was not a crime then the matter is also finished.

Unless the NFL has a chartered clause that says "people with a criminal past" or "perpetrators of domestic violence" are not allowed to be members (etc.), then there is no prior knowledge provided perspective employees and thus no justification for penalties by the NFL.

If there is no statute to cover what "people" think is criminal behavior, the court of public opinion should have no jurisdiction over a private enterprise egregiously depriving an employee of their employment either temporarily or permanently.

If the court of public opinion finds something egregious that's not punished by law, they should put their effort into getting the behavior made illegal, not "threaten", in effect, a private concern to take action against that concern's employee.

This is a matter of principles before personalities.

Personalities may have issues with the behavior of Rice and may want him to suffer as a result.

But whether those personalities are various commoners .. or kings .., in America, the rule of law should be embraced, not the rule of this or that faction in mob-rule style.

The right thing to do is to reinstate Rice with the Ravens immediately .. and for the Ravens to ignore outcries from personalities.

It's the principle of the matter that's important.

We can't be setting irrational precedents for depriving people of their right to earn a living, to feed themselves.

And we certainly can't be doing so because this or that special interest group says to do so.

That the Ravens caved to this or that special interest group for social and economic reasons, is simply unethical.

This is not at all to say that Rice's behavior is okay; it isn't okay -- domestic violence is egregiously wrong.

But, the place to punish is solely within the U.S. rule of law justice system, not the private sector.

Again, if there's no law on the books that punishes Rice, that's not Rice's fault and there's no ethically right "make-up" punishment that the private sector has any right to arbitrarily employ that costs Rice his paycheck or ability to earn a living either permanently or temporarily.

Rice should sue the NFL.

It's time we stopped kow-towing to vigilante whiners who are simply seeking vengeance outside a court of law.

Let the U.S. justice system do its thing.

The court of public opinion .. is no court at all in this matter.

The Ravens caving to perceived or imagined public opinion in the manner they have done is a violation of Rice's employment rights.

Oh, and by the way, a surveillance video not brought into evidence and accepted as such by a court of law is in no way "evidence to indict and convict" Rice of anything, and, if anything, the plastering of this video all over the internet and media is rightly a breech of privacy against Rice and his wife, and they should sue the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

What happened is between Rice, his wife, God, and law enforcement.

The NFL needs to stay out of the entire situation and do what they do best - screw sports fans by padding their pockets with money.

**** the NFL.
 
Grand Mal said:
Seriously? You don't see a difference of degree between equally matched man versus man and a pro football player versus a woman? What if he'd punted a child- is that still just a "physical altercation between two people"? F*cksakes, of course assault is predicated on the physical differences between the parties. It'd be a travesty otherwise.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "equally matched man versus man"? I certainly did not say that. Are you saying all men are equally-matched?

Jack Fabulous said:
Yes.

Ray Rice KNOWS his fiance and her capabilities. ESPECIALLY her capabilities IN THAT MOMENT. He knows she isn't armed, he knows she can't physically hurt him, and most importantly, he knows he can knock her ass out cold with very little effort.

In an encounter with a stranger you know none of that.
Click to expand...

Did I say the other person had to be a stranger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom