The Ray Rice Debacle

[soxhop411]

Eye on Football ‏@EyeOnNFL  4m
Report: Nike terminates endorsement deal with Ray Rice http://cbsprt.co/1BpO1xv  | http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/ray-rice-presser-friday.jpg … via @cbssports
 

 
Apparently, it takes seeing the act of a man knocking a woman out cold to elicit action. A day after TMZ released the surveillance footage of Ray Rice punching his soon-to-be wife Janay Palmer in the face, Rice has been cut by the Ravens and suspended indefinitely by the league that originally felt two games was a sufficient punishment.
The Ravens have also announced a jersey-exchange program, Baltimore-area Dick's Sporting Goods are clearing Rice jerseys off the shelf, EASports will erase Rice from existence in Madden NFL 15, and now Nike has reportedly terminated its endorsement deal with the former running back.

darren rovell         @darrenrovell


Nike has terminated its endorsement contract with Ray Rice

 

[CSteinhardt]

I really feel like most of this is mistargeted.
 
Domestic violence is a criminal act, and the vast majority of the many perpetrators are not NFL players and don't commit their crimes someplace that leaves videotapes that can be shown on television. The appropriate punishment for Ray Rice was not a longer suspension -- it was a jail term. And if you're outraged at what you see on tape, the proper target of your anger should be the prosecutor and district attorney involved, as well as those making similar decisions many other places around the country. Most cases like this are very difficult to prove, and having the punishment be so light in an open and shut case like this one makes it that much harder to convince a reluctant victim to come forward. This was exactly the sort of high-profile case where the legal system needed to demonstrate that the state of New Jersey will protect victims of domestic violence, and failed to do so. The NFL shouldn't have had the choice of determining whether Ray Rice was eligible to play after Thursday, because he shouldn't have been at liberty to do so.
 

And, unlike threatening to boycott the NFL, these are targets where a locally organized campaign will have an effect, either through influencing the use of prosecutorial discretion in similar cases or through electing different officials (most places seem to elect a DA directly; in New Jersey, apparently county prosecutors are appointed, but you can vote for the people who appoint them). In a local race on that scale, relatively small amounts of money and effort can make a substantial difference.
 
As for the NFL, they're the wrong people to be judge and jury here, and that's been an underlying problem all along with NFL discipline.  I don't believe that private companies should be in the business of trying to replace the justice system.  If you commit a crime, and you serve the sentence that society has given you for the crime, you should then be able to pursue a career afterward.  If a punishment is considered not severe enough for the crime, the solution is increasing the punishment in the legal system, not tacking on things haphazardly and arbitrarily.  The problem here is really that the justice system screwed up, the public understands that, and put pressure on the NFL to effectively get around double jeopardy.  And the end result is that it's a somewhat more fair outcome, but only somewhat -- justice still isn't done, and there's now this horrible precedent that the NFL now needs to make its own determination every time a player is accused of a criminal act.  What happens if the NFL disagrees with a jury of a player's peers and concludes they're guilty after an acquittal?  Or, disagrees and concludes a convicted player should have been found not guilty?
 
I know the NFL's a target here because it's easy to criticize and because the only side that can still take action, but it's the wrong one. 
 

 

[moondog80]

 
 
 
Ah, that makes a little more sense.  If that's the best the ESPN talking heads can come up with it shows how fucked the NFL is.  So yes, Greenberg, let's focus on the consumers who still pay to watch boxing instead of the complete incompetence of the enterprise that 95% of your entire show relies upon.

What about it though? Is it OK to ask for Roger Goddell's head while watching boxing (and baseball and basketball...) and not purging your music/movie/literature library of all the domestic abusers who show up there?

 

[Fred in Lynn]

I really feel like most of this is mistargeted.
 
Domestic violence is a criminal act, and the vast majority of the many perpetrators are not NFL players and don't commit their crimes someplace that leaves videotapes that can be shown on television. The appropriate punishment for Ray Rice was not a longer suspension -- it was a jail term. And if you're outraged at what you see on tape, the proper target of your anger should be the prosecutor and district attorney involved, as well as those making similar decisions many other places around the country. Most cases like this are very difficult to prove, and having the punishment be so light in an open and shut case like this one makes it that much harder to convince a reluctant victim to come forward. This was exactly the sort of high-profile case where the legal system needed to demonstrate that the state of New Jersey will protect victims of domestic violence, and failed to do so. The NFL shouldn't have had the choice of determining whether Ray Rice was eligible to play after Thursday, because he shouldn't have been at liberty to do so.
 

And, unlike threatening to boycott the NFL, these are targets where a locally organized campaign will have an effect, either through influencing the use of prosecutorial discretion in similar cases or through electing different officials (most places seem to elect a DA directly; in New Jersey, apparently county prosecutors are appointed, but you can vote for the people who appoint them). In a local race on that scale, relatively small amounts of money and effort can make a substantial difference.
 
As for the NFL, they're the wrong people to be judge and jury here, and that's been an underlying problem all along with NFL discipline.  I don't believe that private companies should be in the business of trying to replace the justice system.  If you commit a crime, and you serve the sentence that society has given you for the crime, you should then be able to pursue a career afterward.  If a punishment is considered not severe enough for the crime, the solution is increasing the punishment in the legal system, not tacking on things haphazardly and arbitrarily.  The problem here is really that the justice system screwed up, the public understands that, and put pressure on the NFL to effectively get around double jeopardy.  And the end result is that it's a somewhat more fair outcome, but only somewhat -- justice still isn't done, and there's now this horrible precedent that the NFL now needs to make its own determination every time a player is accused of a criminal act.  What happens if the NFL disagrees with a jury of a player's peers and concludes they're guilty after an acquittal?  Or, disagrees and concludes a convicted player should have been found not guilty?
 
I know the NFL's a target here because it's easy to criticize and because the only side that can still take action, but it's the wrong one. 
 

Since his fiance wasn't cooperating with charges against Rice, what was the evidence you expected the prosecutors to go forth with? Hopes and prayers?

As for the test, I'm disturbed by your willingness to so easily become untethered to a legal system that has been in place for 230-odd years because you don't like the outcome. What's so hard about just applying the law?

 

[Average Reds]

For all of those insisting that Goodell should have given Rice a lifetime ban or a year long ban initially instead of the 2 game suspension, can you answer this - has any player ever been banned from the NFL or given a year-long suspension for domestic violence?
 
The only difference here is there was video evidence. I agree that the NFL should have stricter punishments for criminal acts, especially violent criminal acts like domestic violence. It looks like this incident was the springboard for those changes to start happening (finally).
 
I just don't understand the sentiment that Goodell should lose his job over this incident. Why haven't we had people calling for his job in the past when other domestic violence offenders got off with a much lesser penalty?

 
 
The issue isn't that Rice needed to be suspended for a year or more, it's that the NFL (and Goodell specifically) has demonstrated an almost unbelievable callousness towards the subject of domestic violence at every step of the process.
 
To be more specific, the reason I feel Goodell should lose his job is three-fold:

1. He demonstrated an offensive level of ignorance about DV in his initial handling of the situation.  Not just the light suspension, but the process by which he inserted himself into the investigation (conducting an interview with Janay Palmer Rice with her husband present) and the rationale for the suspension itself.
2. He followed that up by orchestrating (either directly or indirectly) a thinly veiled attempt to smear the victim of the assault.  (Leaking to selected reporters the same narrative that Rice's lawyer was pushing, which is that Janay Palmer Rice Palmer was the instigator.)
3. When the optics of the actual act were released and proved that the leaked account of what happened was a bold-faced lie he has thrown anyone and everyone under the bus while covering up his involvement in the process along the way.

Goodell has destroyed his credibility and is not an effective leader.  NFL owners have yet to come to that conclusion but they will eventually.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

As for the rest (of what you wrote)...

 

[glennhoffmania]

What about it though? Is it OK to ask for Roger Goddell's head while watching boxing (and baseball and basketball...) and not purging your music/movie/literature library of all the domestic abusers who show up there?

 
To me those are two different questions.  My issue with Goodell isn't just that he gave Rice two games at first.  It's that he showed total incompetence throughout the whole ordeal as well as a complete lack of judgment.  I don't watch football to show my support for the NFL with my entertainment dollars.  I watch it because it's what I like to do.  Rice, Goodell, Kraft, and whoever else did or said something stupid isn't going to change my desire to watch the game as a whole.  But it certainly changes my perception of those involved and I think there should be consequences when people fuck up.
 
If the standard for watching or listening to something is that everyone involved must be good citizens then we'll all be very bored.  I'm not going to hold every NFL player (or actor or baseball player) accountable for the incompetence and shittiness of a few.  But I think we're still allowed to pass judgment on very visible, high-powered people who abuse their position and screw things up for the good guys.

 

[Average Reds]

Some legal input may be useful in regard to the following reply, and I apologize if it has been covered already:

Rice entered plea bargain with prosecutors. Was this video among facts of the case that were agreed would not be disseminated, at least by Rice and the prosecutors?

Edit: Apparently not a plea bargain, which he rejected. Will be no charges if he completes this program. No findings were made pending the outcome of participation. Question stands.

 
They (the prosecutors) don't have the ability to order the video to be suppressed.  A little thing called the first amendment prevents that.
 
This doesn't mean that they can't or won't agree to not to disseminate the information.  That's perfectly legitimate.  But they have no control over anyone else.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Since his fiance wasn't cooperating with charges against Rice, what was the evidence you expected the prosecutors to go forth with? Hopes and prayers?

As for the test, I'm disturbed by your willingness to so easily become untethered to a legal system that has been in place for 230-odd years because you don't like the outcome. What's so hard about just applying the law?

He's arguing that punishing Rice is the job of the state, not the NFL.

As to your first point, I don't know, maybe the video of him punching her in the face?

 

[redsahx]

 

If Goodell didn't see the video it's because he didn't want to. That's not leadership, it's an attempted white washing of the situation so it would not reflect badly on the league.

 
Since Goodell is doubling down on insisting he didn't see the video, my theory is that your first sentence is actually what happened. The NFL had the means to access the video obviously, and I think the league must have gotten possesion or had hired sources scout it out for them. Perhaps Goodell relied on some second hand accounts to tell him what happened and decided that was good enough (it wasn't) then resorted to the lazy formula of "well they are still a couple and the prosecutor has reached an agreement and he has never been in any trouble etc. etc."

The only possible way Goodell might be able to save himself at this point is just to flat out admit he was lazy and humbly throw himself to the mercy of the public.

 

[Average Reds]

Since his fiance wasn't cooperating with charges against Rice, what was the evidence you expected the prosecutors to go forth with? Hopes and prayers?

As for the test, I'm disturbed by your willingness to so easily become untethered to a legal system that has been in place for 230-odd years because you don't like the outcome. What's so hard about just applying the law?

 
They had plenty of evidence to prosecute Rice without the cooperation of his then fiancee.  They chose not to for a variety of reasons that have been covered elsewhere in the thread.  But a lack of evidence wasn't the reason.
 
To assert that criticizing the prosecutors decision is tantamount to demonstrating "a willingness to become untethered to a legal system that has been in place for 230 odd years" is horseshit, plain and simple.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

You know, it's not a bad thing that we've officially decided hitting your partner is not OK in sports anymore. I've seen several Niner fans say after yesterday they're not comfortable with Ray McDonald being on the team anymore.

it seems a new ethical standard in society has been constructed, one that seems on its face to be a pretty good thing. Pointing out that we didn't think of it sooner seems like whataboutery designed to distract people.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
I really feel like most of this is mistargeted.
 
Domestic violence is a criminal act, and the vast majority of the many perpetrators are not NFL players and don't commit their crimes someplace that leaves videotapes that can be shown on television. The appropriate punishment for Ray Rice was not a longer suspension -- it was a jail term. And if you're outraged at what you see on tape, the proper target of your anger should be the prosecutor and district attorney involved, as well as those making similar decisions many other places around the country. Most cases like this are very difficult to prove, and having the punishment be so light in an open and shut case like this one makes it that much harder to convince a reluctant victim to come forward. This was exactly the sort of high-profile case where the legal system needed to demonstrate that the state of New Jersey will protect victims of domestic violence, and failed to do so. The NFL shouldn't have had the choice of determining whether Ray Rice was eligible to play after Thursday, because he shouldn't have been at liberty to do so.
 

And, unlike threatening to boycott the NFL, these are targets where a locally organized campaign will have an effect, either through influencing the use of prosecutorial discretion in similar cases or through electing different officials (most places seem to elect a DA directly; in New Jersey, apparently county prosecutors are appointed, but you can vote for the people who appoint them). In a local race on that scale, relatively small amounts of money and effort can make a substantial difference.
 
As for the NFL, they're the wrong people to be judge and jury here, and that's been an underlying problem all along with NFL discipline.  I don't believe that private companies should be in the business of trying to replace the justice system.  If you commit a crime, and you serve the sentence that society has given you for the crime, you should then be able to pursue a career afterward.  If a punishment is considered not severe enough for the crime, the solution is increasing the punishment in the legal system, not tacking on things haphazardly and arbitrarily.  The problem here is really that the justice system screwed up, the public understands that, and put pressure on the NFL to effectively get around double jeopardy.  And the end result is that it's a somewhat more fair outcome, but only somewhat -- justice still isn't done, and there's now this horrible precedent that the NFL now needs to make its own determination every time a player is accused of a criminal act.  What happens if the NFL disagrees with a jury of a player's peers and concludes they're guilty after an acquittal?  Or, disagrees and concludes a convicted player should have been found not guilty?
 
I know the NFL's a target here because it's easy to criticize and because the only side that can still take action, but it's the wrong one. 
 

 

 
I think it is fair to criticize the criminal justice system in this case (and in general in how we handle DV cases in this country).  But that does not mean that the anger towards the way the NFL and the Ravens handled this is misguided.  NFL players are public figures, and the league and the owners have every right to make decisions about what kind of individuals they want out there on Sundays wearing their team uniform.  The way the NFL hands out discipline is beyond fucked up, but if you ask me it would be nice if more owners took a principled stand against certain types of guys being NFL players so the league wouldn't have to be in the business of disciplining players for crap like this. 
 
Nobody has a God given right to a career being an NFL player. 

 

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

 
 
Since Goodell is doubling down on insisting he didn't see the video, my theory is that your first sentence is actually what happened. The NFL had the means to access the video obviously, and I think the league must have gotten possesion or had hired sources scout it out for them. Perhaps Goodell relied on some second hand accounts to tell him what happened and decided that was good enough (it wasn't) then resorted to the lazy formula of "well they are still a couple and the prosecutor has reached an agreement and he has never been in any trouble etc. etc."

The only possible way Goodell might be able to save himself at this point is just to flat out admit he was lazy and humbly throw himself to the mercy of the public.

 
It would not surprise me at all if some of the NFL lawyers (maybe the folks from Covington & Burling, who handle a lot of NFL matters) reviewed the tape and summarized it for Goodell.  For some reason (plausible deniability) they didnt want him to view the tape directly, or didnt think it was necessary.  

 

[soxhop411]

soooooo?
SportsCenter ‏@SportsCenter  9s
THIS JUST IN: Spokesman for New Jersey state attorney general says it would have been illegal to release Ray Rice video to NFL. (via @ABC)
 
https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/509395292765306881

 

[Average Reds]

soooooo?
SportsCenter ‏@SportsCenter  9s
THIS JUST IN: Spokesman for New Jersey state attorney general says it would have been illegal to release Ray Rice video to NFL. (via @ABC)
 
https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/509395292765306881

 
It may have been against policy or even the law for the state of NJ or the AC police to release the video, but once the case is closed the state does not have the power to prevent Ray Rice or the casino from releasing it.

 

[TomRicardo]

soooooo?
SportsCenter ‏@SportsCenter  9s
THIS JUST IN: Spokesman for New Jersey state attorney general says it would have been illegal to release Ray Rice video to NFL. (via @ABC)
 
https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/509395292765306881

 
So wait for the ball to be cut off Goodell, announce they are going forward with Sports Gambling then back the NFL to make sure they stay away from Round 2.
 
NJ IS BACK BABY.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
It may have been against policy or even the law for the state of NJ or the AC police to release the video, but once the case is closed the state does not have the power to prevent Ray Rice or the casino from releasing it.

 
Also, if it's true that Rice gave them an accurate description of what they would've seen on the tape, how does not seeing it themselves excuse them, even if that's true?  So Rice tells them his wife spit at him, and then he clocked her in the head knocking her out, and then he dragged her out of the elevator, and they all of the sudden changed their opinion of the incident after seeing it on video?  That doesn't make sense.

 

[Average Reds]

 
Also, if it's true that Rice gave them an accurate description of what they would've seen on the tape, how does not seeing it themselves excuse them, even if that's true?  So Rice tells them his wife spit at him, and then he clocked her in the head knocking her out, and then he dragged her out of the elevator, and they all of the sudden changed their opinion of the incident after seeing it on video?  That doesn't make sense.

 
This is why I mentioned that the NFL threw Ray Rice and his wife under the bus.  Not because Rice doesn't deserve anything that happens to him, but because I'm guessing that he was absolutely truthful with the NFL (the Ravens have already admitted he was honest with them) but the impact of the video hitting the public is backing the NFL into a corner and so they felt they had to do something.
 
We'll see.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

 
They had plenty of evidence to prosecute Rice without the cooperation of his then fiancee.  They chose not to for a variety of reasons that have been covered elsewhere in the thread.  But a lack of evidence wasn't the reason.
 
To assert that criticizing the prosecutors decision is tantamount to demonstrating "a willingness to become untethered to a legal system that has been in place for 230 odd years" is horseshit, plain and simple.

There are plenty of instances where individuals who were victimized by assault never press charges against their assailant and the assailant is let off the hook. This is not unusual in our system. What, exactly, did you want law enforcement to do if his fiancee stood by him, didn't press charges and wanted things to just go away? It would have been fruitless for the prosecution and law enforcement to pursue a case like this where the victim was uncooperative.
 
It's a weird case and seeing the video definitely makes me feel uncomfortable, but I guess I have less of a problem with how law enforcement and the NFL acted than most people if I"m looking at this objectively. The NFL and the Ravens both ultimately made the right decision, even if their hand was forced.

 

[PBDWake]

 
Also, if it's true that Rice gave them an accurate description of what they would've seen on the tape, how does not seeing it themselves excuse them, even if that's true?  So Rice tells them his wife spit at him, and then he clocked her in the head knocking her out, and then he dragged her out of the elevator, and they all of the sudden changed their opinion of the incident after seeing it on video?  That doesn't make sense.

 
I'm not really sure about this line of thought. Describing the video and seeing it are two completely different things. Obviously, 2 games was far too light for the description, but what were we all hoping for when we heard Mort describe it? 6-8 games? Then we saw the video and now he's gone for the year and we're proclaiming his career over.
 
You can describe a situation from Rice's perspective that is technically right. That Janay gave him a backhand to the head, that they were fighting, that she lunged at him and he hit her instinctively and she went down. All of that is technically a description of what happen.
 
It doesn't tell that her backhand came when he aggressively came into her space, that it obviously wasn't hard enough to do real damage, that she looked terrified and stunned after the first blow, before lunging in and getting knocked out on the second. You don't see her go down like a marionette with her strings cut. And you certainly don't get the chilling feeling of seeing Rice standing there uncaring, watching her lay there completely disinterested in her condition. There's a lot the video conveys that a description does not.
 
If Rice immediately is down on his knees checking on her and freaking out, it does a little bit in terms of demonstrating this as a freak occurrence, a one off as a result of booze, inflamed emotions, and other things. The thing is, this should be the difference between 8 games and forever instead of 2 and indefinite.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
They (the prosecutors) don't have the ability to order the video to be suppressed.  A little thing called the first amendment prevents that.
 
This doesn't mean that they can't or won't agree to not to disseminate the information.  That's perfectly legitimate.  But they have no control over anyone else.

 
This is video from a common area open to the public, not somebody's hotel room, so there would seem to be no applicable privacy regs.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

There are plenty of instances where individuals who were victimized by assault never press charges against their assailant and the assailant is let off the hook. This is not unusual in our system. What, exactly, did you want law enforcement to do if his fiancee stood by him, didn't press charges and wanted things to just go away? It would have been fruitless for the prosecution and law enforcement to pursue a case like this where the victim was uncooperative.
 
It's a weird case and seeing the video definitely makes me feel uncomfortable, but I guess I have less of a problem with how law enforcement and the NFL acted than most people if I"m looking at this objectively. The NFL and the Ravens both ultimately made the right decision, even if their hand was forced.

 
Jeez, Fl4W, the first sentence in your second 'graph tells you why they didn't need a cooperative victim to prosecute and why it would not have been fruitless.  They had a video showing him punching her in the face. They had the evidence to prosecute and they didn't.

 

[Myt1]

I really feel like most of this is mistargeted.
 
Domestic violence is a criminal act, and the vast majority of the many perpetrators are not NFL players and don't commit their crimes someplace that leaves videotapes that can be shown on television. The appropriate punishment for Ray Rice was not a longer suspension -- it was a jail term. And if you're outraged at what you see on tape, the proper target of your anger should be the prosecutor and district attorney involved, as well as those making similar decisions many other places around the country. Most cases like this are very difficult to prove, and having the punishment be so light in an open and shut case like this one makes it that much harder to convince a reluctant victim to come forward. This was exactly the sort of high-profile case where the legal system needed to demonstrate that the state of New Jersey will protect victims of domestic violence, and failed to do so. The NFL shouldn't have had the choice of determining whether Ray Rice was eligible to play after Thursday, because he shouldn't have been at liberty to do so.
 

And, unlike threatening to boycott the NFL, these are targets where a locally organized campaign will have an effect, either through influencing the use of prosecutorial discretion in similar cases or through electing different officials (most places seem to elect a DA directly; in New Jersey, apparently county prosecutors are appointed, but you can vote for the people who appoint them). In a local race on that scale, relatively small amounts of money and effort can make a substantial difference.
 
As for the NFL, they're the wrong people to be judge and jury here, and that's been an underlying problem all along with NFL discipline.  I don't believe that private companies should be in the business of trying to replace the justice system.  If you commit a crime, and you serve the sentence that society has given you for the crime, you should then be able to pursue a career afterward.  If a punishment is considered not severe enough for the crime, the solution is increasing the punishment in the legal system, not tacking on things haphazardly and arbitrarily.  The problem here is really that the justice system screwed up, the public understands that, and put pressure on the NFL to effectively get around double jeopardy.  And the end result is that it's a somewhat more fair outcome, but only somewhat -- justice still isn't done, and there's now this horrible precedent that the NFL now needs to make its own determination every time a player is accused of a criminal act.  What happens if the NFL disagrees with a jury of a player's peers and concludes they're guilty after an acquittal?  Or, disagrees and concludes a convicted player should have been found not guilty?
 
I know the NFL's a target here because it's easy to criticize and because the only side that can still take action, but it's the wrong one. 
 

The issue is that the criminal justice system has a different standard of proof than the NFL taking action. And every dollar and hour spent trying to prosecute and deal with the motion practice on a crime that carries a max of six months in jail (and would likely lead to a suspended sentence or probation for a first time offender) is a dollar and hour that can't be spent on a murder with a cooperating witnesses.

If you really don't think that an uncooperative victim witness could have torpedoed the prosecution, notwithstanding the tape, then you lack imagination.

Those issues don't exist with regard to the NFL taking action because the protections of those accused of crimes in the criminal justice system aren't in play. Acting as if one organization needed to take different action while absolving the other from any responsibility ignores the very obvious differences between the powers of the two.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

 
Jeez, Fl4W, the first sentence in your second 'graph tells you why they didn't need a cooperative victim to prosecute and why it would not have been fruitless.  They had a video showing him punching her in the face. They had the evidence to prosecute and they didn't.

Taking the man on woman thing out of this - how many on video assaults would they normally prosecute if the victim chose not to press charges? This is an honest question, I have no idea, but my feeling is 'very few'.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

He's arguing that punishing Rice is the job of the state, not the NFL.

As to your first point, I don't know, maybe the video of him punching her in the face?

He starts out that way, but veers into complaints over the "justice system."

I know you're aware the video of him striking her was released only yesterday.

 

[Norm Siebern]

Why was the video even necessary? Rice had already stated what happened. There was already video of him dragging her off the elevator like some carrion carcass. What did the NFL think happened? That she threw herself into the elevator railing? That when a 213 pound RB, known for his force and muscle, strikes a woman, that she will not suffer physical damage? I posted about this three pages ago: The only thing the video does is force the Ravens to cut him, and force the NFL to suspend him. That was done for craven, economic, PR purposes, and on its face that is reprehensible and damning. It is more so than if he was cut originaly.
 
The only difference between Ray Rice being an employee of the Ravens on Sunday and not on Tuesday is the video. It is not because he knocked out his fiance with one punch. It is not because he engaged in crimnal behabvor. It is because the Ravens look bad. He should have been cut last March. He should have been suspended last March. But he wasnt. As a matter of fact, he was lauded, he was supported, he was "a man of character" that Harbaugh wouldnt mind "dating his daughters." The owner publicly lauded Rice. So what happened to change that? It took a video to show the Ravens what domestic abuse is? Bullshit. It took a video to hurt them financially. What the Ravens have done here is reprehensible.That is disgusting, and the Ravens will probably walk away from this with no real (as in people fired) or reputational harm done to their odious franchise.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

The issue is that the criminal justice system has a different standard of proof than the NFL taking action. And every dollar and hour spent trying to prosecute and deal with the motion practice on a crime that carries a max of six months in jail (and would likely lead to a suspended sentence or probation for a first time offender) is a dollar and hour that can't be spent on a murder with a cooperating witnesses.

If you really don't think that an uncooperative victim witness could have torpedoed the prosecution, notwithstanding the tape, then you lack imagination.

Those issues don't exist with regard to the NFL taking action because the protections of those accused of crimes in the criminal justice system aren't in play. Acting as if one organization needed to take different action while absolving the other from any responsibility ignores the very obvious differences between the powers of the two.

I can see her attempting to lie about what happened, but the video makes this a pretty hard task, no?.  Would her getting up on the stand and saying, "He's never done this before and won't do it again," really sway a jury when the prosecutor can discredit her credibility by pointing to the fact that many DV victims refuse to even bring charges out of fear, even knowing they will continue to be abused, so her testimony makes sense in that context.  
 
That's the limit of my imagination.  What else could she do?  What are the counterarguments to the above?
 
I can see the opportunity cost argument as a valid reason to not pursue as well as the "first offense usually = diversion" fairness argument.  Although, someone argued earlier that prosecuting a high profile DV case like this might send a good signal to potential offenders, victims and observers about NJ's seriousness about prosecuting DV when possible.
 

Taking the man on woman thing out of this - how many on video assaults would they normally prosecute if the victim chose not to press charges? This is an honest question, I have no idea, but my feeling is 'very few'.

I'm guessing that's correct.  But they did have the video in this case.  Though I should revise my statement to say, "possibly not fruitless,"  in light of the bolded in Myt1's post since I'm guessing he'll come back with a dozen ways she could torpedo the case that I haven't thought of.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
 
Since Goodell is doubling down on insisting he didn't see the video, my theory is that your first sentence is actually what happened. The NFL had the means to access the video obviously, and I think the league must have gotten possesion or had hired sources scout it out for them. Perhaps Goodell relied on some second hand accounts to tell him what happened and decided that was good enough (it wasn't) then resorted to the lazy formula of "well they are still a couple and the prosecutor has reached an agreement and he has never been in any trouble etc. etc."

The only possible way Goodell might be able to save himself at this point is just to flat out admit he was lazy and humbly throw himself to the mercy of the public.

 
He wasn't lazy. The whole process was designed to return the player to the field as soon as possible and get the story out of the news for the sake of the Shield. The NFL has been making stuff disappear or spinning it their way for decades. This one got away from them.

 

[Shelterdog]

Taking the man on woman thing out of this - how many on video assaults would they normally prosecute if the victim chose not to press charges? This is an honest question, I have no idea, but my feeling is 'very few'.

I spoke to a long time Manhattan DA about this and his response is that the video shows a textbook example of misdemeanor assault and the offender-particularly one without a record-would virtually never go to prison. Maybe if a freakish injury occurred you might go to prison but barring something line that misdemeanor assault gets you some sort of non prison result.

He thinks on this case ray rice got treated by the da just about the same result an average Joe would get. I find it appalling-you can punch somebody out and not go to jail?-but that's the world we live in.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

I can see her attempting to lie about what happened, but the video makes this a pretty hard task, no?.  Would her getting up on the stand and saying, "He's never done this before and won't do it again," really sway a jury when the prosecutor can discredit her credibility by pointing to the fact that many DV victims refuse to even bring charges out of fear, even knowing they will continue to be abused, so her testimony makes sense in that context.  
 
That's the limit of my imagination.  What else could she do?  What are the counterarguments to the above?
 
I can see the opportunity cost argument as a valid reason to not pursue as well as the "first offense usually = diversion" fairness argument.  Although, someone argued earlier that prosecuting a high profile DV case like this might send a good signal to potential offenders, victims and observers about NJ's seriousness about prosecuting DV when possible.
 
I'm guessing that's correct.  But they did have the video in this case.  Though I should revise my statement to say, "possibly not fruitless,"  in light of the bolded in Myt1's post since I'm guessing he'll come back with a dozen ways she could torpedo the case that I haven't thought of.

 
My point is this - what incentive does the prosecution have to continue to pursue this case if even the victim does not want to? I get that it is a high profile individual, but given any random citizen, this case would have been thrown out just as quickly. Video evidence or not. The fiancee is a huge variable in this case which is why I have a hard time blaming either law enforcement or the NFL for their actions.
 
EDIT: having said that - the fiancee is clearly misguided and really should seek help. She is either in complete denial, scared or completely money hungry. This is obviously a toxic situation for her and for whatever reason, she is choosing to stay in it.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I spoke to a long time Manhattan DA about this and his response is that the video shows a textbook example of misdemeanor assault and the offender-particularly one without a record-would virtually never go to prison. Maybe if a freakish injury occurred you might go to prison but barring something line that misdemeanor assault gets you some sort of non prison result.

He thinks on this case ray rice got treated by the da just about the same result an average Joe would get. I find it appalling-you can punch somebody out and not go to jail?-but that's the world we live in.

 
Don't be so naive.  They need to save space in the jails for the real criminals like people who use drugs.

 

[Myt1]

I can see her attempting to lie about what happened, but the video makes this a pretty hard task, no?.  Would her getting up on the stand and saying, "He's never done this before and won't do it again," really sway a jury when the prosecutor can discredit her credibility by pointing to the fact that many DV victims refuse to even bring charges out of fear, even knowing they will continue to be abused, so her testimony makes sense in that context.  

How do you think the DA gets that fact into evidence? He can't offer it on his own. He'd probably need an expert witness and even then I don't know that it would get in to the extent that it's about victims in the aggregate and not her and as such might be unduly prejudicial by implying that Rice beat her in the past when there was no evidence of it.
 

That's the limit of my imagination.  What else could she do?  What are the counterarguments to the above?

She could say that she threatened him or assaulted him in the past, which could get in as to his state of mind during the argument. There are countless variations on that sort of thing but the biggest issue is that juries just tend not to like convicting people of crimes when the victim isn't cooperating.
 

I can see the opportunity cost argument as a valid reason to not pursue as well as the "first offense usually = diversion" fairness argument.  Although, someone argued earlier that prosecuting a high profile DV case like this might send a good signal to potential offenders, victims and observers about NJ's seriousness about prosecuting DV when possible.

I don't think it's a crime that's subject to much general deterrence especially given the light max sentence and the incongruent fact of the video tape.

 

[lambeau]

Goodell--and the prosecutor--made the elementary error of listening to Janay and Ray, while  the videotape is fairly dispositive.
Experts later explained to Goodell that it is dangerous to listen to a spouse who says she and Ray "will continue to ...show the world what true love is."
It's possible the video was summarized for Goodell by someone as jaded as the prosecutor, who didn't appreciate the impact ahd the felony.
After all, Janay still doesn't get it.

 

[Myt1]

We're dealing with this stuff a lot in MA, where we just overhauled a number of laws related to DV. For example, before this latest legislation, we still had the practice of "accord and satisfaction" in domestic disputes

 

[Average Reds]

There are plenty of instances where individuals who were victimized by assault never press charges against their assailant and the assailant is let off the hook. This is not unusual in our system. What, exactly, did you want law enforcement to do if his fiancee stood by him, didn't press charges and wanted things to just go away? It would have been fruitless for the prosecution and law enforcement to pursue a case like this where the victim was uncooperative.
 
It's a weird case and seeing the video definitely makes me feel uncomfortable, but I guess I have less of a problem with how law enforcement and the NFL acted than most people if I"m looking at this objectively. The NFL and the Ravens both ultimately made the right decision, even if their hand was forced.

 
I was addressing the issue of whether this case could have been prosecuted without the cooperation of the victim, not whether it should have been prosecuted.
 
There are any number of reasons that prosecutors don't go to court with cases that they are virtually certain to win.  I can't know why they made the decision not to prosecute, but (sadly) I suspect that the biggest reason they did not is that they don't have the funds to prosecute an individual who has both the means and an incentive to fight these charges to the bitter end.  If he's a suitable candidate, directing him to a pre-trial intervention program solves this problem.
 
I can say with some confidence that the decision wasn't related to a lack of evidence.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

 
I was addressing the issue of whether this case could have been prosecuted without the cooperation of the victim, not whether it should have been prosecuted.
 
There are any number of reasons that prosecutors don't go to court with cases that they are virtually certain to win.  I can't know why they made the decision not to prosecute, but I suspect that the biggest reason they did not is that they don't have the funds to prosecute an individual who has both the means and an incentive to fight these charges to the bitter end.  If he's a suitable candidate, directing him to a pre-trial intervention program solves this problem.
 
I can't say whether this was correct or not. But I can say with confidence that it wasn't related to a lack of evidence.

Fair enough.

 

[TomTerrific]

 
My point is this - what incentive does the prosecution have to continue to pursue this case if even the victim does not want to? I get that it is a high profile individual, but given any random citizen, this case would have been thrown out just as quickly. Video evidence or not. The fiancee is a huge variable in this case which is why I have a hard time blaming either law enforcement or the NFL for their actions.
 
EDIT: having said that - the fiancee is clearly misguided and really should seek help. She is either in complete denial, scared or completely money hungry. This is obviously a toxic situation for her and for whatever reason, she is choosing to stay in it.

 
Agree about law enforcement, but let's review the NFL actions you find blameless.
 
1. Conducted an investigation in which they interviewed the victim with the perpetrator present.
2. Armed with the fact that there was a videotape of the entire incident they viewed the latter part and did one of the following:
 
2a. Ignored the existence of the rest of the tape, OR
2b. Made a feeble attempt to get it ("We were told no." Meanwhile, those Masters of the Universe over at TMZ, you know, the guys with the ridiculous TV show, managed to get a copy), OR
2c. Got it, viewed it, and arrived at the conclusion they did anyway
 
3. Issued a 2-game suspension to Ray Rice, knowing he assaulted his wife (don't need the rest of the tape for that), while in the same time frame handed out a 4-game and a year-long suspensions for casual non-PED, legal in some states, drug use, thereby indirectly offering their value judgement on the severity of those acts
4. When they began to fell some heat, leaked to various media members that the "full tape" was the reason they came to the judgement they did.
 
I'm seeing a lot of incompetence, high-handedness, and duplicity in that sequence. I blame all that on the NFL.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

How do you think the DA gets that fact into evidence? He can't offer it on his own. He'd probably need an expert witness and even then I don't know that it would get in to the extent that it's about victims in the aggregate and not her and as such might be unduly prejudicial by implying that Rice beat her in the past when there was no evidence of it.
 

She could say that she threatened him or assaulted him in the past, which could get in as to his state of mind during the argument. There are countless variations on that sort of thing but the biggest issue is that juries just tend not to like convicting people of crimes when the victim isn't cooperating.
 

I don't think it's a crime that's subject to much general deterrence especially given the light max sentence and the incongruent fact of the video tape.

Thanks!  So. the prosecutor would have to show a pattern?  Perhaps getting witnesses, if there are any, who can testify that Janay has admitted to being "scared of Ray" to them?  Then the prosecution might have a way in without having to show prior physical abuse (assuming there was none) - the abuse is just an escalation of a pattern in this case.  That might allow them to bring in the expert.  
 
I can see how this could get complicated fast, though.
 
Domestic violence sucks.

 

[gammoseditor]

What I haven't seen, and there's been so much coverage on this I might have missed it, is what did Ray Rice tell the NFL happened.  Let's pretend they didn't see the tape, if he told them what happened why does it even matter? 

 

[Myt1]

Usually, prior bad act evidence is inadmissible (there are exceptions). There really are a lot of evidentiary protections for people accused of crimes. Now, combine those sorts of evidentiary difficulties with a non-cooperative witness, and a low penalty crime for a well-heeled first time offender with a lawyer who would be incentivized to file paper with the opportunity cost stuff we discussed earlier. And throw in an ADA who's eating Ramen for three meals a day to avoid defaulting on student loans and who has another couple hundred cases.

It's triage.

 

[Harry Hooper]

The [Ravens] source said that Rice admitted to the Ravens from the start that he was guilty of striking Janay and, for the most part, accurately described what they eventually saw on the video. But the brutality of the assault when seen on the security video made a different impression.
 
"His description was not too much different -- except it looks more violent when you see it," a team source said. "He's a likable guy, and he's done so many things the right way in his career, but he's paying for what he did and the fact there was a video. You can't erase the video."
 

 
ESPN

 

[gammoseditor]

 
ESPN

 
Thanks.  He's getting what he deserves, but i don't see how the NFL can justify a suspension longer than the 6 games the new policy states when he was upfront and honest about what happened.  Of course if no one signs him it doesn't matter. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

I'm still trying to understand how, under Roger's new DV policy, he suspended Rice indefinitely.  Does the policy not explicitly say that it's six games for first offenses?  What was the reason given for the exception in this case? 
 
To be clear, I am not saying that Rice should ever be allowed to play again.  I think even the six game rule is too lenient.  But I haven't seen an explanation for why, in Roger's judgment, Rice should get an indefinite suspension when he's done nothing else since the two gamer was handed down.  To me, this is just another example of how poorly Goodell has handled this, even though I have zero sympathy for Rice in this case.
 
Or basically what Gammo said.

 

[gammoseditor]

I'm still trying to understand how, under Roger's new DV policy, he suspended Rice indefinitely.  Does the policy not explicitly say that it's six games for first offenses?  What was the reason given for the exception in this case? 
 
To be clear, I am not saying that Rice should ever be allowed to play again.  I think even the six game rule is too lenient.  But I haven't seen an explanation for why, in Roger's judgment, Rice should get an indefinite suspension when he's done nothing else since the two gamer was handed down.  To me, this is just another example of how poorly Goodell has handled this, even though I have zero sympathy for Rice in this case.
 
Or basically what Gammo said.

 
Yeah, I asked the same thing, and I think the answer is they know nobody is going to sign him and indefinite suspension sounds better.

 

[dcmissle]

I'm still trying to understand how, under Roger's new DV policy, he suspended Rice indefinitely.  Does the policy not explicitly say that it's six games for first offenses?  What was the reason given for the exception in this case? 
 
To be clear, I am not saying that Rice should ever be allowed to play again.  I think even the six game rule is too lenient.  But I haven't seen an explanation for why, in Roger's judgment, Rice should get an indefinite suspension when he's done nothing else since the two gamer was handed down.  To me, this is just another example of how poorly Goodell has handled this, even though I have zero sympathy for Rice in this case.
 
Or basically what Gammo said.

Understand that everything, especially since yesterday morning, is about PR. The NFL is quite prepared to lose if they overstep and Rice challenges it. Which is why I believe, one way or another, that Rice will be paid for 2014 season, as he should be if he accurately described what happened, as Werder reports.

 

[DaughtersofDougMirabelli]

I'm still trying to understand how, under Roger's new DV policy, he suspended Rice indefinitely.  Does the policy not explicitly say that it's six games for first offenses?  What was the reason given for the exception in this case? 
 
To be clear, I am not saying that Rice should ever be allowed to play again.  I think even the six game rule is too lenient.  But I haven't seen an explanation for why, in Roger's judgment, Rice should get an indefinite suspension when he's done nothing else since the two gamer was handed down.  To me, this is just another example of how poorly Goodell has handled this, even though I have zero sympathy for Rice in this case.
 
Or basically what Gammo said.

 
It's a minimum of six games. Basically the Sheriff can do whatever he wants. 

 

[Harry Hooper]

Can anyone ask the Commish on the record what new info this indefinite suspension is based on, and also what further info is required before "indefinite" becomes a specified number?

 

[TomTerrific]

Maybe the lawyery types on this board can chime in on this but would Rice have a collusion case against the NFL if nobody signs him after the "indefinite" part of the suspension is removed?

 
Actually, I'm wondering why Rice doesn't have a grievance case against Goodell given that the Ravens say he essentially told the truth to them (and presumably to Goodell as well). I understand that the additional suspension he received was attributed to him lying to the NFL in the original investigation, but if he can challenge that, what happens then?
 
II don't have much sympathy for Ray Rice, but can't he seek redress under the CBA? Or can Roger basically do whatever he wants whenever he wants to?

 

[Tim Naehrings Girl]

So I have a fun game for you guys.  This is a response from a Ravins fan that i have on FB.  I don't like this person to begin with and I haven't deleted her in a kind of fun to watch the crazy thing.  I repeat  THIS IS NOT MY OPINION.  
 
I want to come up with a good answer....
 
Okay, I'm sick and tired of all of the Ray Rice bashing. So here is what I have to say in the subject:

1. I support Ray Rice. Did he make a mistake? Yes, he did. But it was almost SEVEN MONTHS ago. He went to court for it, and he and his wife are in counseling right now. That was the punishment that the judge decided on. Because it was his first offense.
The NFL reviewed the tapes back in February, and they decided on the 2 game suspension. Now that the tapes have been released to the public, there was an outrage and a demand for action. The NFL followed suit and did what the fans were demanding. Nothing more. 
If you think for a second they did not see the tapes back then, you're an idiot. Of course they saw them. The only reason the elevator tape wax released yesterday was because some asshole who used to work at the now shut-down casino wanted a payday.

2. All you people burning / throwing out your jerseys and memorabilia. REALLY?! When y'all found out about this case MONTHS ago, no one batted an eyelash. Why is everyone up in arms all the sudden?? You band wagoning assholes make me sick.

3. Everyone who is saying "a man should never hit a woman!" is correct. What is also correct, is that a woman should never hit a man. But NO ONE is saying that! Respect goes both ways! Ray's fiancé was ATTACKING him, and he resisted over and over again, and finally he snapped. And you know what?? I DON'T BLAME HIM FOR THAT! If the situation were reversed, everyone would be PRAISING the woman for "defending herself" and "standing up for herself", "YOU GO GIRL!" NO. Fuck that! If a woman is rude enough to go after anyone (man or woman, husband or stranger), that person has EVERY RIGHT to defend themselves as necessary.

4. The next person who says some ignorant ass bullshit like "if you had ever been assaulted, you wouldn't be defending him!" Guess what, motherfucker, I actually have, so pull your head out of your ass, and stop pretending like you know everything!! I have been physically, verbally, and emotionally assaulted and abused in the past. Did I deserve it? NO. Did I do anything to provoke it? NO. But THAT is the difference here! I didn't charge at, spit on, and smack, slap, and hit, and then wonder why the fuck I got knocked out.

5. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! It is THEIR personal lives. Not your. Stay the fuck out. No one comes in and studies YOUR life and airs all your dirty laundry!! Have some damn respect!

That is the end. I will not argue with anyone on this subject. So keep your opinions and your comments to yourselves.