Off field violence in the NFL

[cdawnb]

I'm not saying the company doesn't have the right to suspend or fire players...I'm saying the public outcry over this is focused on what the NFL is doing instead of what the justice system has failed to do.

Ah, I get you now. Sorry for the confusion.

[Shryke]

I'm not saying the company doesn't have the right to suspend or fire players...I'm saying the public outcry over this is focused on what the NFL is doing instead of what the justice system has failed to do.

I really wonder if it's because people just don't expect the justice system to work for shit like this.

Meanwhile the two men making headlines are so obviously guilty that no one can understand why a private organization with nothing stopping it from doing something about the situation is trying to ignore it.

[sj4iy]

Ah, I get you now. Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear in my first post.

[sj4iy]

I really wonder if it's because people just don't expect the justice system to work for shit like this.

If true, then I would say people are focussing their attention on the wrong thing. That is the travesty that people should be protesting.

My mom and older brother were victims of domestic abuse. My sister and I were victims of physical abuse at the hands of that same brother. His children were victims of physical abuse at his hands, as well. In every case, there was nothing that could be done. The law tries to stay out of these things, and the abuse gets perpetrated from on generation to the next. That's why I don't give a damn what the NFL does. I want people to not feel trapped. To feel like there is a way out. You know why they don't? Because they think "I'll ask for help, they'll tell me they can't help me and then I'll be in a worse situation than I was before". That's what victims really need...not ESPN debating on whether they spanked their kids or not.

[Shryke]

If true, then I would say people are focussing their attention on the wrong thing. That is the travesty that people should be protesting.

My mom and older brother were victims of domestic abuse. My sister and I were victims of physical abuse at the hands of that same brother. His children were victims of physical abuse at his hands, as well. In every case, there was nothing that could be done. The law tries to stay out of these things, and the abuse gets perpetrated from on generation to the next. That's why I don't give a damn what the NFL does. I want people to not feel trapped. To feel like there is a way out. You know why they don't? Because they think "I'll ask for help, they'll tell me they can't help me and then I'll be in a worse situation than I was before". That's what victims really need...not ESPN debating on whether they spanked their kids or not.

I think most people think that if the law isn't gonna do anything, at least the NFL should have some fucking shame and act.

[Castel]

I think most people think that if the law isn't gonna do anything, at least the NFL should have some fucking shame and act.

Or most people feel as if they can't actually influence local law enforcement, at least quickly, while the NFL and other such organizations are national and easier to push.

[MisterOJ]

Sorry, double post.

[MisterOJ]

I honestly don't know what folks expect the prosecutors to do to Ray Rice. Yes, there is video evidence, but when the victim is willing to get up and testify on behalf of the defendant, there is no way in hell a jury is going to find him guilty. It would be a waste of time and taxpayer money to take a case like that to trial.

[BLU-RAY]

I was under the impression that prosecutors were instructed to pursue cases of domestic violence even without the cooperation of the victim precisely because that tends to lead to it getting swept under the rug?

And the evidence in Rice's case is incontrofuckingvertible

[sj4iy]

I was under the impression that prosecutors were instructed to pursue cases of domestic violence even without the cooperation of the victim precisely because that tends to lead to it getting swept under the rug?

And the evidence in Rice's case is incontrofuckingvertible

This. Most victims refuse to press charges, but that doesn't stop the domestic violence. There's absolutely no reason that the prosecutors couldn't have pursued the case even without her cooperation when there was video evidence clearly showing him punching her out. If she had hit her head just right on that railing, she could have died. And if he's willing to punch her on an elevator in a public place, what do you think he does in the privacy of their home?

[MisterOJ]

I was under the impression that prosecutors were instructed to pursue cases of domestic violence even without the cooperation of the victim precisely because that tends to lead to it getting swept under the rug?

And the evidence in Rice's case is incontrofuckingvertible

It is until both people in said video get on the stand and say something like, "I know what you saw in the surveillance video, but now let me tell you the whole story..." and proceed to paint a different picture. If both participants are on the same page and adding context to the video evidence (which may or may not be true) - think about how that is going to play to a jury. It's easily enough to raise "reasonable doubt" which is all it takes to acquit.

[sj4iy]

It is until both people in said video get on the stand and say something like, "I know what you saw in the surveillance video, but now let me tell you the whole story..." and proceed to paint a different picture. If both participants are on the same page and adding context to the video evidence (which may or may not be true) - think about how that is going to play to a jury. It's easily enough to raise "reasonable doubt" which is all it takes to acquit.

I just sat on a jury in a first degree murder case where there was video evidence. The defendant, his girlfriend and his ex-girlfriend all tried to say "it was self-defense!", and without the video evidence, we might have had to acquit him.

But we had the video that clearly showed him walking after the victim. There's absolutely nothing that Rice or his wife could have told a jury that would have made that video into anything other than what it was- assault. She spit on him, he cold-clocks her. That's absolutely, without a doubt, assault, no matter what they would have said to a jury.

[MisterOJ]

I just sat on a jury in a first degree murder case where there was video evidence. The defendant, his girlfriend and his ex-girlfriend all tried to say "it was self-defense!", and without the video evidence, we might have had to acquit him.

But we had the video that clearly showed him walking after the victim. There's absolutely nothing that Rice or his wife could have told a jury that would have made that video into anything other than what it was- assault. She spit on him, he cold-clocks her. That's absolutely, without a doubt, assault, no matter what they would have said to a jury.

Hard to get the victim in a murder trial to testify for the defendant, as would have happened with the Rice case. A victim on the stand saying, "Look, the video doesn't tell you the whole story of what went on..." is enough to raise reasonable doubt. Especially if the defendant has the best legal counsel money can buy. With his wife at his side, there was no way Rice was getting convicted on this. The prosecutors made the right call. It's a shitty reality, but it is what it is. They did the best they could, given the way the legal system is set up.

[ljkeane]

Exactly what reasonable doubt is going to be raised? There's a video of him clearly committing assault. There's not a great deal of wiggle room in that.

[MisterOJ]

I'm not sure about the exact assault laws work in New Jersey. But it's pretty universal that to be convicted of assault, you have to cause bodily harm.

If the victim got on the stand and said, point blank, "Ray didn't actually hurt me. When he struck me, it wasn't that hard at all. I actually just passed out because I was drunk." I haven't heard of any other evidence that suggests the victim was harmed - like photographs of bruising or a doctor's report. Absent that, the only way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was harmed is if she testified to that fact. And if she is unwilling to do so - and willing to testify to the opposite, the jury would have all the reasonable doubt it needs.

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

The video evidence has her unconscious. That is bodily harm.

[MisterOJ]

The video evidence has her unconscious. That is bodily harm.

The video shows her appearing to be unconscious. What if she testifies that she wasn't actually unconscious, but merely pretending?

[ljkeane]

The video shows her appearing to be unconscious. What if she testifies that she wasn't actually unconscious, but merely pretending?

He clearly punches her and her head bounces off a rail in the lift, she's obviously not pretending. Any doubt certainly isn't 'reasonable'. Beyond that a two minute search shows the New Jersey definition for assault also applies to attempting to cause injury so it's irrelevant anyway.

[MisterOJ]

He clearly punches her and her head bounces off a rail in the lift, she's obviously not pretending. Any doubt certainly isn't 'reasonable'. Beyond that a two minute search shows the New Jersey definition for assault also applies to attempting to cause injury so it's irrelevant anyway.

Without looking closely at the New Jersey law, I would guess that "attempting to cause harm" is no more than a misdemeanor, which would carry little or no jail time - especially for a first-time offender. The pre-trial diversion program that Rice got has much more teeth than if he had been convicted of a simple misdemeanor.

ETA: And I am not convinced that he could have been convicted on a misdemeanor assault charge, but it is possible.

[ljkeane]

It applies to both simple and aggravated assault, the difference being attempting to cause 'serious' bodily injury.