Remy returning to the booth
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
You don't think that knowing about a son's history of beating women and getting away with it makes it more likely that the Remys spoke about the incident and likely tried to do what they could to protect their son together than that Phobe Remy went rogue? When your son has a recurring problem on this level, is independent action more likely? Do you think they didn't sit down and say, "We have to do what we can to protect him"?Savin Hillbilly said:
You don't think that enabling a son in one context through the use of influence makes it more likely that Remy would have enabled him in another?
I'm saying that claiming that you simply can't grasp how people could draw reasonable inferences from indirect evidence either means that you're being willfully obtuse or that you're falling back on the proposition that no one can definitively know anything. I'm actually trying to give you the benefit if the doubt.
How about I just take the guy's own statement saying that he enabled all of his kids (at least two of whom have sheets) at face value while you keep pretending that his influence on his son's actions was sufficiently similar to the cops' to warrant comparison?
ForKeeps said:
Well not begging the Martell's to drop the restraining order would be a good place to start. I guess that happened after it got to 9 though. Yeah you're right, the Remys did a bang-up job dealing with their son's insatiable desire to harm women.
People are acting like Remy's son drove drunk or something. He has a decade+ history of brutally abusing women and his parents tried to convince the woman that he would eventually murder not to press charges.
There is certainly some blood on their hands here.
There is certainly some blood on their hands here.
If I'm a parent and my son turns out to be a disgusting punk of a man who tortures women, and breaks the law over and over again, I don't want him interacting freely with society.
Prison, mental hospital, whatever. I would actually prefer he get his act together under watchful eyes somewhere where he can't keep harming people, and hopefully turning his life around somehow.
I most certainly wouldn't be asking the Martels to do me any favors.
I love my kids but at some point you can't keep acting like they shouldn't reap what they sow.
Prison, mental hospital, whatever. I would actually prefer he get his act together under watchful eyes somewhere where he can't keep harming people, and hopefully turning his life around somehow.
I most certainly wouldn't be asking the Martels to do me any favors.
I love my kids but at some point you can't keep acting like they shouldn't reap what they sow.
I wouldn't have a problem with the Red Sox firing him. I think they should have done it after the steroid issue. But punishment is about a lot of factors, most if which aren't really in play here. I'm more reacting to those who are simply horrified by the notion that parents might bear some level of moral culpability for raising a man who enjoys beating women and then still intervened and enabled him to finally kill one.
Edit: This was a response to Joe and I think your question was perfectly legitimate.
Edit: This was a response to Joe and I think your question was perfectly legitimate.
Myt1 said:
Should the Eagles have fired Andy Reid after his son was found to have been using heroin and steroids on team property? Just want to see where you stand on these sort of things.
And even if you were and even if doing so were understandable, that wouldn't absolve you. That's what I'm saying.StuckOnYouk said:
I can pretty much guarantee that Remy feels a substantial degree if moral responsibility that people in this thread are trying to expunge.
StuckOnYouk said:
See, this is what I mean. They have no control over sending him to prison. And I think getting someone involuntarily committed is probably a lot harder than you're imagining. The restraining order thing is a fair point by you guys, but even that is ultimately not in their control, it's not like they could force a restraining order even if they had wanted her to get one.
Really I don't see any option that would actually affect him other than just cutting him off completely. And, ignoring how hard that must be to do as a parent regardless of how shitty your kid is, can you really expect that to actually have a positive result? There's a good chance you would think doing that would be giving your kid his own death sentence.
Again, I don't claim to have answers. But this "well they HAVE to have been able to do something!" thing is just an emotional response imo.
I wouldn't have had much of an issue with them doing so or not hiring his son in the first place.Corsi said:
I think that the aggravating factor of dealing makes the Remy situation even more problematic.
Two questions: 1) Doesn't Remy have a long-term contract, so that NESN just "telling him no" might not be an option, and 2) wasn't Jared Remy fired from the Red Sox for steroid use? Is there any indication he remained on it and that was a factor in his repeated rage attacks?
I don't remember if Remy was working the Toronto series that week or not; if so, he was on the road when the first assault occurred and might not have found about it until Phoebe and Jenn had already spoken. But even if we're safe in assuming that the Remys spoke before Phoebe spoke to Jenn, we don't know how that conversation went. Any of at least three scenarios are possible:Myt1 said:
1) Phoebe and Jerry agreed that they should try to talk Jenn out of proceeding against Jared in court.
2) It was Jerry's idea and he pressured Phoebe into it against her better judgment.
3) It was Phoebe's idea, Jerry tried to talk her out of it, and she did it anyway.
None of these options seems even slightly implausible on its face, and I'm unaware of any reported evidence making one more likely than the other. The only thing we know, if media accounts can be trusted, is that it was Phoebe who actually made the request and the promise.
Perhaps I'm more willing to believe that Phoebe might have made the decision on her own because I assume that, as the wife of a man who spends large portions of every year on the road, she would have been used to handling her kids' problems on her own. Also because of this, which Martel's mother said to reporters when the story first broke: "Every time Jennifer had problems she would call them." Given Jerry Remy's lifestyle, it seems likely that "them" most often meant Phoebe. It's not even clear, if you read that Globe story, who initiated the conversation in which Phoebe asked Martel not to press charges.
In short, there are a lot of different possible storylines here, in some of which Jerry Remy is highly culpable, in others, not so much.
Sure it does. It makes scenario 2 above entirely plausible. But it doesn't thereby render scenario 3 implausible.
You can't "expunge" somebody else's feeling of moral responsibility. I have no doubt Remy feels that responsibility, and he has said so. Any parent in that situation would, if they weren't a sociopath. How responsible he really is, in light of the facts, is a different question entirely, and one that we don't know enough to answer.
1. Probably has a long term contract but my guess would be that they could get out of it. I haven't seen it, but given the context of his job and the sophistication of their lawyers, I'd be a bit surprised if this were much if a legal hurdle.
2. Yes and for dealing. And that wouldn't shock me at all.
2. Yes and for dealing. And that wouldn't shock me at all.
I have no interest in debating Jerry's guilt regarding his son's actions.
I just want to say that I wish he would not come back to his on-air position with the Sox. I feel for the guy. I am thankful for what he has offered as a Sox announcer over the years especially as it pertains to the 2003 and 2004 seasons. I wish him peace and a happy life, especially in relation to his other children and grandchildren.
I just don't want to watch him doing broadcasts. His presence on-air can not, for me as a viewer, ever fail to be associated with his son's actions. If the Sox/NESN want to continue to employ him it should be in some other capacity.
I just want to say that I wish he would not come back to his on-air position with the Sox. I feel for the guy. I am thankful for what he has offered as a Sox announcer over the years especially as it pertains to the 2003 and 2004 seasons. I wish him peace and a happy life, especially in relation to his other children and grandchildren.
I just don't want to watch him doing broadcasts. His presence on-air can not, for me as a viewer, ever fail to be associated with his son's actions. If the Sox/NESN want to continue to employ him it should be in some other capacity.
I'm not trying to be too harsh on the Remy' since I don't know all the particulars of them trying to raise Jared.ForKeeps said:
But when your son is terrorizing and has been a monster for years, you don't ask the victim's family for favors. If Jerry and or his wife really did that it is just inexcusable and something I can't get past.
And yes I know there are many parents who might defend their own flesh and blood at all costs but it's nauseating to me.
I'm not looking to assign him a percentage. A lack of perfect certainty doesn't preclude us from drawing reasonable inferences when we're not trying him of a crime.Savin Hillbilly said:
It seems that you've moved off not being able to even grasp people thinking that putting any blame on them was at all conceivable. That's really all I was going for.
This may sound a bit counterintuitive, but is it possible that Phoebe (and Jerry?) felt that if Jen filed the restraining order, that would/could be the impetus for Jared to really go off the rails and truly do something horrifying?
Savin Hillbilly said:
I don't think anyone is trying to do this (actually) - the argument is about whether individuals or society should *assign* blame to Remy for his role/actions/failure to act.
The bottom line is that Jared is responsible. Sure, Jared does not live in a vacuum, but he's the one who repeatedly stabbed his wife. If anyone wants to open the "maybe some of the blame should rest with X" box, then we have to look at *all* of the possible factors, not just those which are employed by the Sox. (For example, if Jared is the "product" of Remy's parenting, shouldn't we also blame whomever taught Remy to parent, i.e., his parents? Or did Remy read Benjamin Spock's book? Should some blame be laid there? Etc.)
***
To throw a bone to Myt1, I don't think it's wrong to want to condemn people who enable domestic violence. However, from inside the situation, it's very difficult to judge what's "enabling" or what's calming the situation down or what's allowing a transition to something more stable. There are no clear cut "Do X to enable, do Y to diffuse" paths of action. IF Jared's mother had said something like "Jared you should go over there and knock some sense into that girl," then I'd be *much* closer to the position he's staking out in this thread. IF she said, "Jen, we're all trying to calm the situation down, and Jared losing his job won't help," then we're in a much grayer area. And even if we assign blame, it's almost undoubtedly a product of weakness, not malice, on the parent's part.
Corsi said:
This post is awesome.
So Phoebe is sitting around, she gets a call from Jen that says she's thinking about a restraining order against Jared - who Phoebe knows has beat up like 27 women in the past 3 months - and she says to herself, "The only way I can possibly prevent Jared from murdering this girl is to vociferously argue with her that getting a restraining order against him would ruin his life."
Rovin Romine said:
I don't think we should hold Jerry accountable for his son's actions, but I don't think we need to create a historical picture of his parenting abilities to create a scenario in which he (or his wife) is accountable. If Jen called them and said she was going to take out a restraining order, they convince her not to, and then their son ends up going over and killing her, that's a direct action on their part that's very proximal to the actual killing and says nothing about their ability (or inability) to raise a kid.
Jnai said:
Where did the "ruin his life" story originate? I know it's been reported, but what was the source of that? And let's not exaggerate the number of women he beat up to make a point.
Again, I'm not entirely familiar with how well restraining orders work, but would one really have prevented Jared from murdering her, if that was his desire? I can definitely see a situation where his mother would feel that filing a restraining order would exacerbate the issue, rather than solve it.
Jnai said:
Okay, so the quote is from Jennifer's mother. I'm not doubting its veracity, but I can still envision a scenario where Phoebe doesn't want an order filed because it could make the situation even worse.
Jnai said:
Well, I'd disagree. I'd be more inclined to agree if:
a) Jen really wanted a restraining order and the Remys somehow actually forced/coerced her into not getting one, AND,
b) The restraining order would have prevented the murder. (It's hard to get a clear picture on restraining orders in the broad sense - it's obvious they have a deterrence effect in some situations, it's also obvious they have no deterrence effect at all in others.)
There's sort of a c), which is whether the Remys could have foreseen the murder/violence. It's a "sort of" because there's an argument to be made that you take your victim as you find them, i.e., that the Remys should have known the possibility of violence was enough. That's the rule when assigning tort and criminal liability to someone acting in an obviously bad way. You throw a brick into a crowd at head level "just for laughs" and you're responsible if it hurts or kills someone. But our law and our society in general does not work that way for third parties. Jared's not a brick (fixed outcome): he's an independent thinking agent who makes his own choices.
Then why aren't the victims parents being vilified, for not convincing their daughter to not listen to the Remy's? We have a situation where all participants are adults and can make their own choices. One area not explored is how easy it is for abusive women to take back their abuser.Jnai said:
Myt1 said:
Most 61-year olds who have been at the same job for 25 years do find it difficult to change careers. That's not in anyway a reflection of a sense of entitlement. It would be understandable -- and I bet Remy would understand -- if NESN had short-circuited the whole thing and told him they were moving in a different direction.
But even if you find one or both Remy parents to be at the maximum level of moral culpability for their shitty parenting skills, their lifetime of enabling, and their interference at the end, what do *you* think the appropriate Jerry Remy move is today?
What he did?
What he did, but with a better apology?
Retire from NESN?
Foulkey Reese said:
Here's a whole slew of stories of individuals having protection orders filed against them and then still killing their victims shortly after: http://www.dvmen.org/dv-14.htm
It's actually not all that crazy from a certain standpoint. Women who get restraining orders actually are more likely to be seriously injured or killed. Now, there's a really big noisy selection issue there, but it's still true so far as it goes.Corsi said:
It's just probably a less likely motivation than the alternative.
Retire. I thought the apology was mostly fine in an almost worst case scenario. I don't know if he's contesting custody but if so, he should drop it.joe dokes said:
Dude, you know I'm a fan of yours, but did you really just drop the Eric Stratton defense without at least linking the YouTube?Rovin Romine said:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw
Just to be clear, we're all in agreement that completely independent of the murder stuff, Remy's time has passed and should go in favor of backing the Brinks truck up to Eckersley, no?
If Jared's last name was Smith, I wonder if he's in jail right now but for assault and not murder. I get that Jerry feels enormous pain and guilt, but I am conflicted about this move. I'm kinda surprised the Sox are ok with this, but maybe they can't really do much about it, lest they look like jerks as well. I doubt people will forget what Jared did for awhile and I expect this to be the case for a long time. It's not about denying Jerry employment, but the nature of his job is to be a friendly voice and face of the team and connect to the casual fan. Many will be ok with it, but enough won't where I doubt Jerry is the announcer. Jerry seems hesitant and that will be enough to make him concede it's not possible to be RemDawg and be the announcer he's been for the last 12 years with Orsillo beside him. Love to know what Orsillo thinks--he might have the toughest job.
Myt1 said:
Why should he retire? (I am not trying to be a dick. I'm just trying to break this down into small pieces here. Considering his privacy issues, if I were his friend I might have advised the same thing; but I'm curious why you think so.)
Why should they not seek custody? Its not a "contest" in the sense that anyone here starts off with the presumption. (well, actually, the father probably remains the only one presently with a legal right to custody at the moment). But as between grandparents, uncles, etc., I dont think the law has any starting hierarchy.
joe dokes said:
Not a lawyer, but I don't think one needs to be to answer this question.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that regardless of what the law says, with all else being equal the parents of the murder victim are going to be awarded custody if the alternative is placing the child with the parents of the murderer.
Corsi said:
It's entirely possible. We also know it to be factually incorrect.
And to address a question you posed later in the thread, I'm not aware of anyone arguing that a restraining order has magical powers. If someone is committing a homicide in a fit of rage, they're not going to worry about violating a restraining order.
Where the restraining order might have made a difference is that a request for one is likely to have kept Jared Remy in jail a bit longer - at least until the courts were able to hold a hearing to determine whether Remy represented a threat to anyone. There's no guarantee that this would have made a difference either, but he would have had a few days to cool off and think about his plans before acting.
Average Reds said:
I will anyway. The judge will consider what is in "the best interest of the child." It's equity, not law, so the judge will be free to consider nearly any and all factors that have a bearing. Ultimately, the child will go where the judge thinks the child will do best.
Could this be the kind of thing that could really hurt ratings? I wonder if it's plausible that Remy goes halfway through the year because ratings show that people and especially women are tuning out of Red Sox telecasts. I can't rule out feeling so uneasy that I stick with WEEI.
Spacemans Bong said:
I'll be shocked if this happens. Just read the comments on this Boston.com article -- they're overwhelmingly positive in favor of Remy. And this is coming from a website that harbors some of the most negative commenters on the planet.
http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/obnoxiousbostonfan/2014/01/red_sox_fans_will_have_final_say_on_jerry_remy.html?comments=all#comments
Listening to the Remy interview, he sounds like a completely beaten human being. I wouldn't be shocked if he doesn't get through spring training. Very sad.
Steve Buckley chimes in.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/steve_buckley/2014/01/buckley_jerry_remy_and_the_elephant_in_the_room
Steve Buckley chimes in.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/steve_buckley/2014/01/buckley_jerry_remy_and_the_elephant_in_the_room
Rovin Romine said:
I understand the standard. But judges are also human. And all things being equal, they're not going to place the child with the parents of the murderer.
Here's a better way of putting it - I can't think of an example where one spouse kills another, the grandparents fight for custody and absent extraordinary circumstances, the parents of the murderer win the case.
Average Reds said:
Just to bring a little bit of a perspective to the whole restraining order thing.
On Aug 13, Jarrod Remy pushed Jen Martel into a mirror. He was arrested for this. Martel also got a temporary restraining order at this time. I'm pretty sure this is just a civil "stay away" order.
On Aug 14, Jarrod Remy was arraigned. He pled not guilty. The DA (who knew his criminal history) said that Jarrod should be allowed out on bail. The judge issued a "no abuse" order to Jarrod. (Apparently, Jen didn't request that the temporary restraining order be renewed, per her mother) http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/16/officials-investigate-fatal-stabbing-waltham-one-person-custody/lYU4FlCQ9NWW3286u3UKoL/story.html
On Aug 15, Jarrod killed Jen.
I'm not barred in MA, so I'm guessing as to procedure in what follows:
On Aug 24, the judge probably had the option of keeping Jarrod in jail, or setting a high bond, but that would have been (as I understand it) unusual.
If Jarrod was kept in jail or a bail/bond was set, it would have required the DA to seek it, and that could have only occurred if the victim (Jen) would have stated she was in fear for her life, needed time to move, what have you. As it was, the Globe reported that the DA had been in touch with Jen and the investigating officer. In any event, the DA didn't seek for Jarrod to be held.
Without knowing the facts, I'm very skeptical that the continuance of a temporary restraining order would have made any difference in Jarrod's actions. Jailing him might have, but whether he should have been jailed or not, the failure to do so is not something that should be laid at the feet of the Remy family. Unless you believe that Jen was in possession of information that: a) could have swayed the judge into holding Jarrod and b) the Remy family knew this and again coerced Jen into not sharing that information with the DA. (Which is possible, but unlikely.)
Not really, but for some reason I find your post a good reminder that we have no fucking clue about what happened, and should maybe keep that in mind as this debate progresses.Corsi said: