MisterOJ Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 OK, I looked up the actual New Jersey law. it defines serious bodily harm as: Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Again, if the victim gets up on the stand and says Rice did not hit her nearly hard enough to create a substantial risk of death - what evidence is there to refute that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 A video of her being knocked unconscious and her head bouncing off a rail. Seriously do you have any doubt that's what happened? If you don't, and I certainly don't from watching the video, how does her getting up and clearly lying on the stand provide anything approaching 'reasonable' doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 A video of her being knocked unconscious and her head bouncing off a rail. Seriously do you have any doubt that's what happened? If you don't, and I certainly don't from watching the video, how does her getting up and clearly lying on the stand provide anything approaching 'reasonable' doubt? I don't have any doubt. I think the video speaks for itself. I think Ray Rice knocked his wife out and should be held accountable for that. But what I think and what can be proven in a court of law are two totally different things. The video is a crucial piece of evidence. But if the victim is willing to get on the stand and testify in favor of the defense, the video, by itself, isn't enough to guarantee a conviction. Far from it. It sucks, but that's the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 And I'm saying for it not to be sufficient for assault to be proven in a court of law there needs to be a plausible alternative explanation of a video of him punching his wife. That she was 'pretending' to be knocked out is ridiculous and not a remotely 'reasonable' doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted September 17, 2014 Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 Which is the main reason why people are asking the NFL to do something about it. The law typically does not work for domestic abuse cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 And I'm saying for it not to be sufficient for assault to be proven in a court of law there needs to be a plausible alternative explanation of a video of him punching his wife. That she was 'pretending' to be knocked out is ridiculous and not a remotely 'reasonable' doubt. So, if you were prosecuting this case, would you stand up on cross examination and call the victim a liar to her face in front of the jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 It doesn't need a jury trial. It's a misdemeanor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 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. What context could possibly be added to change what happened? They are in an elevator -> They get into an argument -> He knocks her out cold I don't see a single thing victim could say to change that. Even if she threw the first punch, he should be held accountable for his reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I think several of you are not appreciating the issues with bringing shit like this to trial when your victim is going to be denying that a crime occurred. Juries and Judges are provably incredibly biased in a ton of ways. Trying to prosecute a guy for DV charges when the victim is testifying for the defendant is fighting against some serious cultural currents. Obviously they should do it anyway, but it's still a tough fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannisaurus2 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Why such matters would be left up to 12 (or so) non-specialized random people to decide even with clear-cut evidence is something I don't get and I am really glad we don't have that jury BS over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Orys Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The NFL is just an organization. An entertainment organization nonetheless. They should treat the players like any business would treat their employees. The fact that someone who tosses a ball around for a living doesn't face similar institutionalization as the average American is disgusting to me. The NFL and the Judicial Branch are two separate entities and they should remain that way. If you would hope for a hero or a good person, spend your Sundays in church. If you holding the currently popular view makes you moral or think it is your place to judge another person's shortcomings... church would do you much more good than a Viking's game. You are moral based on what you do (not your opinions of what others do). If you wear a robe and sit a bench and people call you "your honor" it is your place to judge (according to the law). "Asking for someone to be a decent human being and a good neighbor in society is asking TOO MUCH. Go back to church and stop reminding me how the world works" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaurung Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 And I'm saying for it not to be sufficient for assault to be proven in a court of law there needs to be a plausible alternative explanation of a video of him punching his wife. That she was 'pretending' to be knocked out is ridiculous and not a remotely 'reasonable' doubt. Her "pretending" to be knocked out would indeed be ridiculous, but I don't think it would come to that. You don't necessarily have to be hit hard to be knocked unconscious, particularly if the victim is drinking. So the fact that she is knocked out doesn't necessarily distinguish it from any other punch. Though this is of course nonsense as well. IMO a blow to the head should always be considered risk for bodily injury, permanent disfigurement, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Prosecuting Rice without (and potentially even with) the willing participation of his Wife would be difficult. Part of the problem is the length and nature of the conflict. The video we have shows they were "fighting" before they even got into the elevator. It looks like Rice spit on her before they got into the elevator, and his then-fiancee responded by "swatting" him in the face. I am not 100% on what happens when they get into the elevator because the video feed is of poor quality, but what is clear is that at the time he punches her and knocks her out, he is backing up and she is aggressively moving towards him, and it looks very much like she might have been intending to hit him. Plausible self-defense claim? Probably enough to beat "beyond a reasonable doubt" even with the Wife testifying as a hostile witness. If she wouldn't cooperate, she might very well testify that the conflict was mutual, that she was aggressively moving towards him, and that her intention was to hit him. In which case, no jury is going to convict. Don't take this as a defense of Rice's behavior or general attitude. His response to having knocked his then-fiancee out cold is... disturbing, to say the least. He just doesn't seem to give a fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Prosecuting Rice without (and potentially even with) the willing participation of his Wife would be difficult. Part of the problem is the length and nature of the conflict. The video we have shows they were "fighting" before they even got into the elevator. It looks like Rice spit on her before they got into the elevator, and his then-fiancee responded by "swatting" him in the face. I am not 100% on what happens when they get into the elevator because the video feed is of poor quality, but what is clear is that at the time he punches her and knocks her out, he is backing up and she is aggressively moving towards him, and it looks very much like she might have been intending to hit him. Plausible self-defense claim? Probably enough to beat "beyond a reasonable doubt" even with the Wife testifying as a hostile witness. If she wouldn't cooperate, she might very well testify that the conflict was mutual, that she was aggressively moving towards him, and that her intention was to hit him. In which case, no jury is going to convict. Don't take this as a defense of Rice's behavior or general attitude. His response to having knocked his then-fiancee out cold is... disturbing, to say the least. He just doesn't seem to give a fuck. Yeah, I found the original post-punch video far more disturbing simply because he's just nonchalantly dragging an women he just punched unconscious around. That is really really fucked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolverine Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 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 agree with this. Talking more with my wife, who has been a child protection worker for 8 years, little is done criminally with many of these abuse cases. In her 8 years of doing assessments and case management she only had one case where physical child abuse was charged criminally. Otherwise case plans were worked out and often children were removed, but the perpetrator was still not charged criminally. I think the public is unaware of how infrequently people are charged and prosecuted in these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolverine Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yeah, I found the original post-punch video far more disturbing simply because he's just nonchalantly dragging an women he just punched unconscious around. That is really really fucked up. I do and don't understand why the second video made such a big deal. Everyone knew what happened after the first one and they (Ray Rice and his wife) were not denying what happened after the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 ANOTHER NFL player accused of domestic violence. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-09-17/johnathan-dwyer-domestic-violence-arrested-arizona-cardinals-nfl-suspension-running-back-update-fantasy?eadid=SOC/Twi/SNMain ANOTHER running back. STOP. IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Why such matters would be left up to 12 (or so) non-specialized random people to decide even with clear-cut evidence is something I don't get and I am really glad we don't have that jury BS over here.Just curious, but where.do you live, and what system do you have instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.