Gugny Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Goodell saw the video before he suspended Rice. We knew that already. A bell hop said that. There is another source (albeit, pft) saying that Goodell had NOT seen this video.
millbank Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Coach Harbaugh will meet with media after practice today at 8:00 pm Timing right in middle of nationally broadcast game. . Writing on the wall...perhaps Edited September 8, 2014 by millbank
Alphadawg7 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I like your posts regarding football and the Bills but man you're so far off base with your 2 posts on this page it's almost offensive. Look, I am not defending Ray. I think the Ravens should cut him. I am defending the NFL only...its getting twisted to look like I am defending Rays actions.
Fingon Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 What's the standard NFL punishment for someone convicted of assault?
dwight in philly Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) the NFL should just amend the punishment..they arent a court of law.. suspend him for the year, then review his eligibility next year.. not brain surgery Edited September 8, 2014 by dwight in philly
Deranged Rhino Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Actually I am the only one basing my opinion on the visual facts of the matter. Incorrect. And that's just the first sentence. You're not basing your opinion on visual facts, but on what you assume Ray Rice intended. That's why everything else you've stated (about the incident) is so silly. I am the only one that sees he slapped her, not straight Mike Tyson punched her. I am the only that sees her on one foot which is behind her torso at the moment of impact from the slap/shove. I am the only one who see that Rice did NOT wind up a punch and reacted to her charging him. I am the only one watching her slam her head into a steel bar on the way down and then see her head bounce on the ground again when she hits the floor as the CLEAR reason for the knock out. Forgive me, all of this is speculation based on your (uninformed) analysis of an event. Are you a professional boxer? Have you trained in any martial art of hand to hand combat? What are your bonafides to make such a detailed, and thoroughly laughable analysis? Everyone else just has decided he went all Mike Tyson and tried to knock her out. Look, I don't want this to turn into something that looks I am defending him. He's a piece of crap and I can't stand him. I am presenting what the NFL sees, not the courts of class and public opinion. NFL is ruling from an authoritative position on the manner based on laws, rules, and standards. There are no criminal charges...they still got married...she accepted partial blame for incidents leading up to this point...he has no prior history of violence...alcohol was a factor...she hit her head after an altercation. The NFL has to rule on those facts, not public opinion. Ravens themselves need to be responsible for making character decisions, and I fully support that action. Spin, spin, spin, spin. You're like a washing machine now. You lead with speculation (that you see as fact) and buffet it with pure PR spin. Be honest, are you Roger? I knew someone was going to reply with this childish response...I do not, and actually never have had Ray Rice on any fantasy team...but thanks for contributing What? You mean someone (me) who speculates about your intent with no information whatsoever got it wrong? But I thought intent was easily able to be determined by third parties? Shocking... Edited September 8, 2014 by GreggyT
NoSaint Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 What's the standard NFL punishment for someone convicted of assault? in domestic cases the last decade or so 1 person got 3 games, everyone else has been 2 or fewer.
billsfan1959 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 So you can say without a shadow of a doubt this guy intended to knock her out? To the point you want his career taken away? Seriously? 1. Did he wind up a punch? No 2. Did he lean into a punch? No 3. Did he even punch her? No, he slapped her 4. Was she off balance making any amount of force possible to push her like that into the wall? Yes 5. Was she aggressive at the moment of occurrence? Yes 6. Were they drunk? Yes 7. Did she slam her head? Yes - twice (steel bar and floor) 8. Did she accept a role in the events leading to this? Yes 9. Did they still get married? Yes 10. Were charges filed? No Again, he's a piece of crap, I get it and I can't stand him or people who put their hands on women. But to say he meant to maliciously knock her out is completely contradictory to what is seen on the video. It is much more plausible that his intent was NOT to knock her out. It is much more plausible that this escalated out of control and an accident occurred. Now you have to look at his history to see if there is anything there suggesting more intent. And his history is clean as far as what is publicly known, so there is nothing there to suggest a violent behavior is in his character. Again, I am defending the NFL only here...not Rice. They have to make decisions based on what is known. What I stated is known facts they had at their disposal for making a ruling. IMO, this is not a gray area, it is pretty much black and white. There are certain things that, as a man, you NEVER do. At the top of that list is to strike a woman, particularly your intimate partner. I don't care if it is a mere slap or a wind up, Mike Tyson, upper cut. There is no fine line or matter of degrees: YOU DO NOT DO IT.
Numark3 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Just so you know alhpa, intent has to do with the intentions of Rice, not the surrounding circumstances such as if she was drunk or even wasted. The results of the punch also don't have to do with intent (meaning if she got knocked down or not). Intention is what Rice MEANT to do by a punching her. Now, what his state of mind was doesn't matter because no one knows what that was but Rice (this is called a subjective test for intent). All that matters is the actions and the manifestations, meaning the punch. And if someone punches someone, there is absolutely intent to injure, knock out, etc. So yes, I can say clearly that there was intent on Rice's part. You are the only person I have heard argue this, and this is not a bunch of people following sheep and the court of public opinion. Its just one guy, with a goofy version of what happened. and advice, this is one of those times where you should realize your opinion is far away from the norm and in the direction of something not accepted (while you aren't defending rice fully, you are defending parts of his actions. Saying stuff like she accepted her part as evidence, that he didnt intend to knock her out, etc.). You are getting close to becoming that guy that defends wife beaters, fair or not. If i had an opinion like yours, i would keep it to my self Edited September 8, 2014 by Crayola64
Alphadawg7 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Laws, rule, and standards lol. I'm willing to bet you have no authority on any of those subject matters. You are talking about intent and laws, and you fail to realize that what he did absolutely qualifies as intent under any legal definition. You are twisting what I said or misunderstanding it. When I stated "laws, rules, and standards" I mean the NFL has to make decisions in all cases about what actual laws are broken, their own league wide rules, and their standards they set for their league. I was not talking about "legal intent" in a court of law.
mitchmurraydowntown Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 He straight up clocked her in the head, what if he hit her temple and killed her? You going to say I'm sorry ?
IDBillzFan Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Let me give an example for some of you. If a bank robber admits to robbing a bank, what does video evidence that comes out later of him robbing a bank mean? Does it change anything? I get your point, but you're picking the wrong analogy. You can't equate something inanimate like a bank getting robbed to a young woman getting beaten by an NFL running back. It doesn't square. As a side note, it would not surprise me to find out Goodell got this video released so he could correct his error without eating any more crow.
FireChan Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I get your point, but you're picking the wrong analogy. You can't equate something inanimate like a bank getting robbed to a young woman getting beaten by an NFL running back. It doesn't square. As a side note, it would not surprise me to find out Goodell got this video released so he could correct his error without eating any more crow. It's hard to analogize in the NFL.
Fingon Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) in domestic cases the last decade or so 1 person got 3 games, everyone else has been 2 or fewer. Cedric Benson got 3 games for assault in 2010, and Benson was a multiple time offender. He punched some bar employee the year before that and only got a warning from Goodell. He only received a suspension for the 3 games after he was convicted of beating up an ex-roommate. I would say Ray Rice's suspension is right where it should be based on precedent. Which is most likely why the NFL instituted their new rules. Edited September 8, 2014 by Fingon
Alphadawg7 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 IMO, this is not a gray area, it is pretty much black and white. There are certain things that, as a man, you NEVER do. At the top of that list is to strike a woman, particularly your intimate partner. I don't care if it is a mere slap or a wind up, Mike Tyson, upper cut. There is no fine line or matter of degrees: YOU DO NOT DO IT. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE. How many times do I have to say that. I AGREE, I AGREE, I AGREE...NEVER hit a woman. I even beat the hell out of a former best friend who struck his girl because she threw a pencil at him, and she was crazy. Still he can't do that, and we still have never spoken again. I am talking ONLY about the NFL and its position here on making a ruling of the FACTS of the event. Nothing more...I CAN NOT STAND RAY RICE. I can't make that any clearer. I am simply stating that NFL should not take any more action given the fact that NO criminal charges are in play, and they already knew what the video showed. THE RAVENS should rule on character, not the NFL.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE. How many times do I have to say that. I AGREE, I AGREE, I AGREE...NEVER hit a woman. I even beat the hell out of a former best friend who struck his girl because she threw a pencil at him, and she was crazy. Still he can't do that, and we still have never spoken again. I am talking ONLY about the NFL and its position here on making a ruling of the FACTS of the event. Nothing more...I CAN NOT STAND RAY RICE. I can't make that any clearer. I am simply stating that NFL should not take any more action given the fact that NO criminal charges are in play, and they already knew what the video showed. THE RAVENS should rule on character, not the NFL. Again, you're speculating on what the NFL knew and when. No one knows because even their own PR has conflicting stories. If you stop speculating as fact you might find it easier not to put your foot in your mouth.
Numark3 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) You keep talking about facts, the nfl just said they never saw the video until now... http://profootballta...eo-until-today/ And criminal charges dont matter to the nfl and they have already set that precedent. Maybe you should try to re-articulate what you mean, because no one understands you and you keep saying everyone is twisting what you say Edited September 8, 2014 by Crayola64
billsfan1959 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Cedric Benson got 3 games for assault in 2010, and Benson was a multiple time offender. He punched some bar employee the year before that and only got a warning from Goodell. He only received a suspension for the 3 games after he was convicted of beating up an ex-roommate. I would say Ray Rice's suspension is right where it should be based on precedent. Which is most likely why the NFL instituted their new rules. Maybe it is time to set a new precedent?
Alphadawg7 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Just so you know alhpa, intent has to do with the intentions of Rice, not the surrounding circumstances such as if she was drunk or even wasted. The results of the punch also don't have to do with intent (meaning if she got knocked down or not). Intention is what Rice MEANT to do by a punching her. Now, what his state of mind was doesn't matter because no one knows what that was but Rice (this is called a subjective test for intent). All that matters is the actions and the manifestations, meaning the punch. And if someone punches someone, there is absolutely intent to injure, knock out, etc. So yes, I can say clearly that there was intent on Rice's part. You are the only person I have heard argue this, and this is not a bunch of people following sheep and the court of public opinion. Its just one guy, with a goofy version of what happened. and advice, this is one of those times where you should realize your opinion is far away from the norm and in the direction of something not accepted (while you aren't defending rice fully, you are defending parts of his actions. Saying stuff like she accepted her part as evidence, that he didnt intend to knock her out, etc.). You are getting close to becoming that guy that defends wife beaters, fair or not. If i had an opinion like yours, i would keep it to my self Just so you know, you misunderstand my use of the word "intent" in the previous posts. I 100% agree with everything you wrote. The point you are missing about what I am saying is there is no court of law, no criminal trial, no legal charges. The NFL is not a court of law deciding on legal definitions of words and actions. They are making opinion based decisions based on what they believe the incident to be. And in this case, I don't see any evidence suggesting he intended to knock her out. Thats what the NFL is going to base this on given there are NO criminal charges to weigh.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Just so you know, you misunderstand my use of the word "intent" in the previous posts. I 100% agree with everything you wrote. The point you are missing about what I am saying is there is no court of law, no criminal trial, no legal charges. The NFL is not a court of law deciding on legal definitions of words and actions. They are making opinion based decisions based on what they believe the incident to be. And in this case, I don't see any evidence suggesting he intended to knock her out. Thats what the NFL is going to base this on given there are NO criminal charges to weigh. Except, you know, for the part where he clocked her.
Recommended Posts