Apparently the video outside the elevator was under the jurisdiction of the hotel and the NJSP. The video in the elevator was under the jurisdiction of the AC Police. It’s possible that one agency cooperated and the other didn’t, or the people requesting the videos didn’t know enough to ask both.
It’s at least plausible.
Ok, so we are back to the “he is way bigger so she can wail at him all she wants but he can’t hit back” bs. No, sorry if she hit first he has every right to defend himself. Being small and weak is not a free pass to assault someone.
If she can’t actually hurt you then hitting her is not defending yourself. The same principle applies regardless of gender, If a tiny weak man hits a huge strong man or woman. “I am allowed to hit back” is not a legal right.
You guys are going way too far with this. The original point was merely that “a jury could reasonably (if not sensibly) conclude that there is reasonable doubt that Rice was the aggressor in the “fight””, and hence defending himself. Nobody thinks he was defending himself. It’s by no means certain that he would have been convicted, though.
No one is making such an implication, but in this case, for this one incident in this elevator, clearly Janay did no wrong. You can’t even say she started it. She entered the elevator and stood by the door when Rice walked up and antagonized her.
a) Michael Vick’s new BFF. After this he’ll basically be forgotten.
b) Takes a lot of pressure off the various potheads and dopers and the folks voting for the new looser rules on that stuff.
Exactly, mhendo, don’t be naive - we can’t afford not to sit in judgment of battered women. GOOOO football!
I was also criticizing your implication that the fact that she chose to marry her abuser somehow sheds light, or complicates in any way, an analysis of this confrontation. This might be a complex situation, but not because she stayed with her abuser. That’s depressingly common, and in no way excuses his behavior.
Well yes i obviously don’t think he was defending himself in this case, i watched the video. The idea that just because he is an NFL player and she a small woman means she can hit him and he can’t fight back is utterly ridiculous though. Anybody hitting you can cause damage, specially if they are going for your face.
I’ve been in situation where a woman was hitting me. I grabbed her hands and moved her aside until I could get away. But even that doesn’t apply here. Nowhere in that elevator video is there an indication that Janay hit Ray first.
Here’s the thing. Every major business does. Domestic Abuse is widespread, and includes all races/socioeconomical classes/genders/religious/etc. group you care to mention. There are doctors/hospital adminstrators/nurses who beat their spouses. There are construction workers/real estate agents/owners of buildings who beat their spouses. There are mail room workers/stock brokers/CEO’s who beat their spouses. There are police officers/mayors/policitians who beat their spouses. Domestic abuse is, sadly, everywhere. And rare indeed is the company that fires people over it.
I don’t mean to talk you out of boycotting the NFL because they don’t handle domestic abuse cases very well at all. That’s up to you. All I’m saying is that I think holding a corporation responsible to punish every one who works for them will keep you very, very busy indeed.
Anyone can defend themselves (“fight back”). But there are nearly zero (and perhaps absolutely zero) situations in which an appropriate physical defense for an extremely strong man being attacked by a small, unarmed woman is a full-force punch to the head.
Wow. There are actually people defending his behavior.
I want to use the :smack: emoticon here, but it would be too close to home.
I walked away from being a fan of football about 3 years ago. I grew to disdain the neanderthal actions of the players, both on and off the field, and the similar behavior of the fans in the crowd. Went from being a season ticket holder 3 years ago to not watching a single game all last season.
And before someone chimes in saying football doesn’t miss me, I’ll have you know they do. They send me multiple letters each year and phone calls as well, trying to lure me back, in the form of appeals to “rejoin” the ranks of season ticket holders. So there.
Where are you seeing people defending his behavior?
True, but the corporation I work for does not encourage and reward violence and aggression as apart of my job. The NFL does.
As The Kinks say
*Well the Roman promoters really did things right
They needed a show that would clearly excite.
The attendance was sparse so they put on a fight
And threw the Christians to the lions, sold out every night
Give the people what they want
Give the people what they want
Blow out your brains and do it right
Make sure it’s prime time and on a Saturday night*
Do we really want private enterprise dictating what’s socially acceptable? Is it okay for Chick-fil-A to fire employees for adultery? Abortion? Hate to trot out the slippery slope argument here, and there isn’t some argument for abuse not being wrong, but fundamentally I don’t want businesses taking action against employees for what happens in their personal life.
The NFL is a bit of a special case due to it’s public nature and I don’t disagree with what the Ravens did as an employer, but the NFL institutionally banning someone for family issues strikes me as something that crosses the line. Will they ban people for not paying child support?
This is the job of the police, courts and various public services to correct this social issue. Not the NFL.
It speaks to intent. IANAL, but I’m sure there’s a distinction between hitting someone unprovoked and hitting someone back. Basically the distinction between the degrees of murder and manslaughter. Aggravating factors do matter and are a defense, if not a complete get out of jail free card.
The Michael Vick mess did it for me. Looks like I made the right choice.
Indeed. But I’m a little conflicted as well. Sometimes the behavior is both public enough and abhorrent enough that it can cost the employer customers and I think we would be hard pressed to argue that the employer can’t take employment actions in those cases.
But the thought of most corporations having that kind of power over their employees makes me downright uncomfortable. And powerful and authoritarian organizations like the NFL exercising it worry me most of all. The fucking league will champion the howling mob in almost any instance where a nickle is at stake.
The impliation was in your imagination, versus in anything I said.
(I commented about women staying with their batterers in the general sense, not about this incident.)