Ray Rice's Domestic Abuse Presser Sends Wrong Message (3 Viewers)

[Tom Servo]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

TBH, there were Ray Rice Truthers out there who said we couldn't know for sure what happened in there. They've been humiliated into relative silence.

 

[Doug B]

He said he punched her. And we saw her knocked out. It doesn't matter what people were arguing. Those were the unargued facts.

See post #990. And tim's and Tobias's recent posts on this page are also on point. It's not really about Ray Rice's actions anymore.

 

[dgreen]

I'm sure you guys have covered this already but damn if I'm reading 20 pages...so hopefully someone can explain to me why does this video coming out now change anything for Ray Rice?

What I mean is...we all know Ray knocked her out...there was no debate on this. Two games were handed down (light penalty...but that's what was defined at the time that this happened)...but why does this video change anything? What happened in the video that we didn't already know...except maybe his fiance striking him first and confronting him aggressively?

And no...I'm not trying to get into "she got what she deserved" or "she's to blame". What I'm asking is how did this video show anything different than what we ALL already knew? He knocked her out...penalty handed down. Video comes out...oh crap...he knocked her out. Now ban him indefinitely...huh?

I don't get the focus on whether Goodell / NFL actually SAW the tape or not. They were told what happened or they would have been "shocked" by what they saw on the tape. They knew everything they know now and decided two games was appropriate.

Well obviously the focus is because they lied about it. It's not the crime that brings you down, it's the cover-up.

But you guys are wrong that seeing the tape doesn't change what people know about what happened. If you read back through this thread to before the tape was released you'll see posts from several people saying that we don't really know what happened because we didn't see it and discussing all kinds of possibilities about how she might have provoked him, or attacked him and forced him to defend himself, or whatever. Now we know that's not true. He spit on her twice and shoved her and then when she came towards him he smacked the hell out of her. Oh, and he also seemed to show zero remorse or shock at what he'd done. Of course that changes things. There's no more possibility of mitigating factors.

Sorry, I phrased it wrong. For those "in the know" (i.e. not us on message boards speculating) the tape doesn't offer anything they weren't already told (if we are to believe what has been presented to us thus far). However, there seems to be this hurdle of "did they see the video or not" that I don't get. What does it matter if they were TOLD all that information by Rice. Yes, there is a detail or two with the spitting, hitting with closed fist or open hand etc. We already knew that his actions knocked her out and he dragged her off the elevator with little/no remorse being shown. That's plenty to go after Goodell and the NFL by itself. All this other stuff is just bringing more gas to an out of control bonfire.

Yeah, it's like Pro Lifers who show pics of aborted babies as if the Pro Choicers thought it was going to look pretty. We now KNOW what it looks like when an NFL player punches a woman, but I'm not sure what people were expecting it to look like.

I get that the video adds some details, but I always assumed the punch itself wasn't going to look pretty.

 

[Johnny Bing]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

The other angle, and may explain why Rice's suspension was light originally, is we don't know what version Rice and his wife told the NFL. Maybe their version was she attacked him violently and in the scuffle he hit her in defense. Which the tape clearly does not show to be true, and would explain why the suspension was light in the first place if she took all the blame rather than him. Keep in mind, she has a life style to lose, so I'm sure when she met with Goodell their version was significantly different than what the tape reflected.

So it didn't take the video to show he hit her, but the video may have shown a totally different story than what the Rice family sold to the NFL.

 

[Doug B]

... Aside from that, it changes very little about what the NFL, prosecutors, DAs, Rice etc knew about the events.

The ball has bounced way beyond all that now.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

exactly which is why it seems a lot more plausible that the NFL never saw the video than they saw it and are trying to cover things up. my guess is they preferred not to see the video which is why their excuses for not getting a copy are the lie, not that they had seen it and buried it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Espn hd right now has that old guy former gm of the colts... looks like a ghoul from fallout 3

 

[Todd Andrews]

The independent investigation is a sham joke. It reports to Goodell's two butt buddies Mara and Rooney, who Goodell has helped in the past (If you think the penalties against the Redskins and Cowboyss werent done for Mara, the head of the competition committee, you are incredibly naive. And Rooney's qb was saved by Goodell with a six game suspension after multiple rape accusations, the details of which were bad).

i guess I'm incredibly naive then, because I am doubtful you're correct about either instance .

Yes, but it is a well-established that your judgment and critical reasoning ability are doo.......... doo.......

 

[Tom Servo]

Prosecutor explains decision in the Ray Rice case.

Rice was charged with third-degree aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. Third-degree charges — especially for someone like Rice with no criminal record — carry a presumption of no incarceration.
To result in a second-degree aggravated assault charge, a crime has to involve “serious,” or permanent, bodily injury. There is no first-degree charge of aggravated assault.
“People need to understand, the choice was not PTI versus five years’ state prison,” McClain said. “The choice was not PTI versus the No Early Release Act on a 10-year sentence. The parameters as they existed were: Is this a PTI case or a probation case?”

In looking at the case, Rice had no prior criminal history, no history of domestic violence and a long-established career that included public service. He also entered into therapy voluntarily, although likely at the direction of his lawyer, McClain said. Probation would have been about two years — twice as long as the 12-month PTI program Rice was given. But, in either case, Rice would be able to clear his record if he had no more problems, he said.
Still, McClain admits he was “on the fence until very late in the deliberative process.” Then, he asked himself one question: “If this wasn’t Ray Rice. If this wasn’t a public figure. If this were some relatively anonymous person who had all the attributes that he had, where the situation was just the same as was present here, what would you do?”
The answer, he said, was PTI.

We can talk all day about whether the sentence is fair or not, but this is what the prosecutor had as far as options.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Prosecutor explains decision in the Ray Rice case.

Rice was charged with third-degree aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. Third-degree charges — especially for someone like Rice with no criminal record — carry a presumption of no incarceration.
To result in a second-degree aggravated assault charge, a crime has to involve “serious,” or permanent, bodily injury. There is no first-degree charge of aggravated assault.
“People need to understand, the choice was not PTI versus five years’ state prison,” McClain said. “The choice was not PTI versus the No Early Release Act on a 10-year sentence. The parameters as they existed were: Is this a PTI case or a probation case?”

In looking at the case, Rice had no prior criminal history, no history of domestic violence and a long-established career that included public service. He also entered into therapy voluntarily, although likely at the direction of his lawyer, McClain said. Probation would have been about two years — twice as long as the 12-month PTI program Rice was given. But, in either case, Rice would be able to clear his record if he had no more problems, he said.
Still, McClain admits he was “on the fence until very late in the deliberative process.” Then, he asked himself one question: “If this wasn’t Ray Rice. If this wasn’t a public figure. If this were some relatively anonymous person who had all the attributes that he had, where the situation was just the same as was present here, what would you do?”
The answer, he said, was PTI.

We can talk all day about whether the sentence is fair or not, but this is what the prosecutor had as far as options.

Based on what I know I have no problem with the prosecutor's call here. We need to give them discretion and latitude and save our outrage for truly egregious mistakes in judgment (the Duke Lacrosse case comes to mind).

Like I said before, the NFL does not have any of the same cost/balance decisions to make. It's a straight up business decision- what does the consumer want, or maybe more accurately what will the consumer tolerate?

 

[The Commish]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

It may have changed everything for you, but not for the people that mattered. If we are to believe what people "in the know" are saying Rice's account of the story to them was pretty much in line with what the video showed. It's not that hard to understand. His actions were in question by us, so? I guess there is a small point to be made about his "defenders". That rock has certainly been removed as an option for them to hide behind. Aside from that, it changes very little about what the NFL, prosecutors, DAs, Rice etc knew about the events.

As far as the NFL is concerned, the "people that matter" are the fans. They don't give a #### about justice and morality. They care about selling the product. If the video changes the public's feelings about Rice did then it's gonna change the NFL's approach to Rice as well.

I thought the NFL only cared about the NFL and "protecting the shield". The fans DO care about justice and morality so it's particularly odd that you'd suggest they don't care about it (morality) if the fans do care and the NFL cares what the people think. Seems a tad illogical.

ETA: To avoid the hijack that I assume is coming, if you want to change my phrasing from "people that mattered" to "people involved first hand" feel free.

 

[The Commish]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

It may have changed everything for you, but not for the people that mattered. If we are to believe what people "in the know" are saying Rice's account of the story to them was pretty much in line with what the video showed. It's not that hard to understand. His actions were in question by us, so? I guess there is a small point to be made about his "defenders". That rock has certainly been removed as an option for them to hide behind. Aside from that, it changes very little about what the NFL, prosecutors, DAs, Rice etc knew about the events.

So when Goodell said Monday that the video changed his mind about the incident, that was an out and out lie? Because while you may have reached that conclusion, I haven't yet.

Given the body of work, I am assuming it was a lie, yes. That you haven't reached that conclusion yet is no surprise. Rice is on record saying he hit her. That was known by Goodell when he issued his "punishment" so I have a hard time believing him when he says he changed his mind after seeing a video of Rice hitting her.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

It may have changed everything for you, but not for the people that mattered. If we are to believe what people "in the know" are saying Rice's account of the story to them was pretty much in line with what the video showed. It's not that hard to understand. His actions were in question by us, so? I guess there is a small point to be made about his "defenders". That rock has certainly been removed as an option for them to hide behind. Aside from that, it changes very little about what the NFL, prosecutors, DAs, Rice etc knew about the events.

As far as the NFL is concerned, the "people that matter" are the fans. They don't give a #### about justice and morality. They care about selling the product. If the video changes the public's feelings about Rice did then it's gonna change the NFL's approach to Rice as well.

I thought the NFL only cared about the NFL and "protecting the shield". The fans DO care about justice and morality so it's particularly odd that you'd suggest they don't care about it (morality) if the fans do care and the NFL cares what the people think. Seems a tad illogical.

You're just misinterpreting what I said. The NFL doesn't care about justice or morality for their own sake. They care about justice and morality only because their customers care about those things. I can't think of a better example than this case- it's very clear that the NFL is reacting to the public sentiment as far as what is right and just, not some internal sense of what is right and just.

 

[Doug B]

As far as the NFL is concerned, the "people that matter" are the fans. They don't give a #### about justice and morality. They care about selling the product. If the video changes the public's feelings about Rice did then it's gonna change the NFL's approach to Rice as well.

I thought the NFL only cared about the NFL and "protecting the shield". The fans DO care about justice and morality so it's particularly odd that you'd suggest they don't care about it (morality) if the fans do care and the NFL cares what the people think. Seems a tad illogical.

ETA: To avoid the hijack that I assume is coming, if you want to change my phrasing from "people that mattered" to "people involved first hand" feel free.

They = NFL, not fans.

 

[dickey moe]

Not sure if Paul George broke his leg or his brain.

 

[Doug B]

I can't think of a better example than this case- it's very clear that the NFL is reacting to the public sentiment as far as what is right and just, not some internal sense of what is right and just.

The NFL is not supposed to be real-life Rollerball. Even if it essentially is Rollerball, it's bad business to be blatant about it.

 

[The Commish]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

It may have changed everything for you, but not for the people that mattered. If we are to believe what people "in the know" are saying Rice's account of the story to them was pretty much in line with what the video showed. It's not that hard to understand. His actions were in question by us, so? I guess there is a small point to be made about his "defenders". That rock has certainly been removed as an option for them to hide behind. Aside from that, it changes very little about what the NFL, prosecutors, DAs, Rice etc knew about the events.

As far as the NFL is concerned, the "people that matter" are the fans. They don't give a #### about justice and morality. They care about selling the product. If the video changes the public's feelings about Rice did then it's gonna change the NFL's approach to Rice as well.

I thought the NFL only cared about the NFL and "protecting the shield". The fans DO care about justice and morality so it's particularly odd that you'd suggest they don't care about it (morality) if the fans do care and the NFL cares what the people think. Seems a tad illogical.

You're just misinterpreting what I said. The NFL doesn't care about justice or morality for their own sake. They care about justice and morality only because their customers care about those things. I can't think of a better example than this case- it's very clear that the NFL is reacting to the public sentiment as far as what is right and just, not some internal sense of what is right and just.

Gotcha....and I agree. To the comments I was responding to from Tim, the video only changes what the public saw. It helps shine a light on the problem of the commissioner being judge, jury, and executioner. I say "only" with tongue firmly planted in cheek because as you state, the NFL now cares about domestic abuse where before, it's clear they didn't...or at best gave it a very little bit of consideration.

 

[Abraham]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

exactly which is why it seems a lot more plausible that the NFL never saw the video than they saw it and are trying to cover things up. my guess is they preferred not to see the video which is why their excuses for not getting a copy are the lie, not that they had seen it and buried it.

I would bet my life that Roger didn't see the tape prior to Monday. The NFL may have had it, there may have been other people that viewed it, but no way did anyone let him near it.

 

[otello]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

exactly which is why it seems a lot more plausible that the NFL never saw the video than they saw it and are trying to cover things up. my guess is they preferred not to see the video which is why their excuses for not getting a copy are the lie, not that they had seen it and buried it.

I would bet my life that Roger didn't see the tape prior to Monday. The NFL may have had it, there may have been other people that viewed it, but no way did anyone let him near it.

if the nfl had the tape then there is no reason he should not have seen it, given his role in the disciplinary process.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

On top of the nfl Commish losing his job I think the owner of the Ravens should sell the team.

 

[Doug B]

I would bet my life that Roger didn't see the tape prior to Monday. The NFL may have had it, there may have been other people that viewed it, but no way did anyone let him near it.

IMHO, Goodell cannot credibly play that card. New Orleans Times-Picayune editorial:

The Goodell statement from March 2012 reads in part: "The violations were compounded by the failure of Coach Payton to supervise the players and coaches and his affirmative decision starting in 2010 (a) not to inquire into the facts concerning the pay-for-performance/bounty program even though he was aware of the league's inquiries both in 2010 and 2012 ...Similar language could apply to Mr. Goodell now. At best, he failed to get all the evidence available on Mr. Rice's assault of Ms. Palmer before he suspended him in late July for only two games. At worst, Mr. Goodell purposefully ignored the video and hasn't been truthful about the league's knowledge of its existence."

Hold Roger Goodell to standard he set for Saints, and fire him: Editorial | NOLA.com

 

[The Commish]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

exactly which is why it seems a lot more plausible that the NFL never saw the video than they saw it and are trying to cover things up. my guess is they preferred not to see the video which is why their excuses for not getting a copy are the lie, not that they had seen it and buried it.

I would bet my life that Roger didn't see the tape prior to Monday. The NFL may have had it, there may have been other people that viewed it, but no way did anyone let him near it.

It's difficult to suggest plausible deniability in light of his comments that he's made to other folks when he's punished them. If he didn't see it, that's on him. No legit excuse NOT to see it, but again....I don't know why it matters whether he saw it or Rice gave him a first hand verbal description. He knew Rice punched his wife to be. That's enough.

 

[Sammy3469]

I just can't believe if the NFL office received the tape that Goodell didn't at least know they had it. If he wasn't informed they had the tape then what were the NFL lawyers doing with it? Giving him plausible deniability, and if so, why? It's not like back then they'd think he'd need to deny seeing the tape 5 months later.

So much of this doesn't make sense that I think I've come to the conclusion that Goodell and the other NFL lawyers didn't really care about this issue and just wished it would go away. While Goodell would bring the hammer down on the Saints or Harrison or Gordon, it's not like they've done so in other cases. I seriously think they thought this wasn't an issue and would just go away.

 

[fatness]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck-blog/bal-nfl-investigation-into-ray-rice-video-raises-more-questions-20140911,0,3260362.story

For instance, just how independent will the investigation be with two NFL owners – New York Giants owner John Mara and Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney – overseeing it?

This is still about damage control, and the NFL has a lot of it to try and control after an Associated Press report on Wednesday charged that NFL officials were given a copy of the infamous second elevator video long before it was posted on the scandal site TMZ on Monday and well before Goodell made his decision to suspend Rice for only two games for the vicious assault.

But just as Major League Baseball found when commissioned the Mitchell Report at the height of the sport’s steroid scandal, the NFL is going to find out that trying to polish its tarnished reputation with supposedly full disclosure comes with a price.

Mueller, like George Mitchell before him, will not have subpoena power, so he’ll be depending on the voluntary cooperation of all involved. Goodell has promised to make all NFL personnel and previous investigative material available, but it will be no surprise if Mueller’s report simply produces a meticulous timeline documenting everything we already know.

The only thing that is guaranteed now that the league has decided to go down this road is that the Ray Rice scandal – now seven months old – will remain front-page news for at least several more weeks.

The guy from TMZ would be a better choice to run the investigation than someone with business ties to the NFL who's overseen by 2 NFL owners.

 

[Sinn Fein]

For me, its better that the right person's head rolls for this, not just the highest ranking person we can pin this on.

I don't think Goodell needs to take the fall, even has the head of the organization, if an underling willfully failed to disclose the video.

 

[Sammy3469]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck-blog/bal-nfl-investigation-into-ray-rice-video-raises-more-questions-20140911,0,3260362.story

For instance, just how independent will the investigation be with two NFL owners – New York Giants owner John Mara and Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney – overseeing it?

This is still about damage control, and the NFL has a lot of it to try and control after an Associated Press report on Wednesday charged that NFL officials were given a copy of the infamous second elevator video long before it was posted on the scandal site TMZ on Monday and well before Goodell made his decision to suspend Rice for only two games for the vicious assault.

But just as Major League Baseball found when commissioned the Mitchell Report at the height of the sport’s steroid scandal, the NFL is going to find out that trying to polish its tarnished reputation with supposedly full disclosure comes with a price.

Mueller, like George Mitchell before him, will not have subpoena power, so he’ll be depending on the voluntary cooperation of all involved. Goodell has promised to make all NFL personnel and previous investigative material available, but it will be no surprise if Mueller’s report simply produces a meticulous timeline documenting everything we already know.

The only thing that is guaranteed now that the league has decided to go down this road is that the Ray Rice scandal – now seven months old – will remain front-page news for at least several more weeks.

The guy from TMZ would be a better choice to run the investigation than someone with business ties to the NFL who's overseen by 2 NFL owners.

and it's not like Mueller's law-firm is "independent" either, they helped the NFL negotiate the DirectTV deal.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Due process for players accused of domestic violence. Pitchforks and torches for people who may have been too lenient for punishing those players.

 

[Franknbeans]

Can we at least all agree that the NFL sucks at investigating?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You're not going to find many firms with good white-collar/investigations practices that haven't done some work for the NFL. Wilmer is not the NFL's preferred outside counsel. I'd wait for the report before insisting that Mueller is a patsie. It's true that often these reports are shaped in some respects by who ordered them, but they can also be pretty critical, as the Freeh report was to Penn State.

 

[Koya]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

The video released Monday has changed EVERYTHING. Apparently some of you don't remember that Rice's actions inside that elevator were very much in question and hotly debated here and elsewhere. He had many defenders who argued that we don't know what happened and tried to justify Rice's actions . All of that is gone now .

exactly which is why it seems a lot more plausible that the NFL never saw the video than they saw it and are trying to cover things up. my guess is they preferred not to see the video which is why their excuses for not getting a copy are the lie, not that they had seen it and buried it.

I would bet my life that Roger didn't see the tape prior to Monday. The NFL may have had it, there may have been other people that viewed it, but no way did anyone let him near it.

"Ignorance is not an excuse."

"On his watch"

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

Lots of people have explained why they feel that way. If you don't understand why they hold that position, you should read their posts more carefully.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You're not going to find many firms with good white-collar/investigations practices that haven't done some work for the NFL. Wilmer is not the NFL's preferred outside counsel. I'd wait for the report before insisting that Mueller is a patsie. It's true that often these reports are shaped in some respects by who ordered them, but they can also be pretty critical, as the Freeh report was to Penn State.

And the Mitchell report.

The law firm connection didn't bother me; I was more concerned with the oversight, both what exactly they'll be "overseeing" and who they chose (both old school NFL families whose teams have benefited from previous Goodell decisions).

 

[dparker713]

FWIW, NOW's overall message is to a large degree on point. This has really been pushed under the rug overall.

That said, to take action before a legal process has moved forward, without real hard evidence, is totally off base.

I don't know about that anymore. There are lots of professions these days where even the arrest would get most likely get you suspended/fired.

Sure, fired from your employer (team). But banned from the profession altogether?

If I was taped knocking out my fiance in an elevator I'd lose my license.

I mean, I'm sure a lawyer would get fired from their firm or other employer. I'm not sure why you think you'd lose your license. Nearly all the states follow the ABA on this one and I just don't think domestic abuse would qualify as an act that would adversely reflect on your fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

 

[Henry Ford]

FWIW, NOW's overall message is to a large degree on point. This has really been pushed under the rug overall.

That said, to take action before a legal process has moved forward, without real hard evidence, is totally off base.

I don't know about that anymore. There are lots of professions these days where even the arrest would get most likely get you suspended/fired.

Sure, fired from your employer (team). But banned from the profession altogether?

If I was taped knocking out my fiance in an elevator I'd lose my license.

I mean, I'm sure a lawyer would get fired from their firm or other employer. I'm not sure why you think you'd lose your license. Nearly all the states follow the ABA on this one and I just don't think domestic abuse would qualify as an act that would adversely reflect on your fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/domviolence.html

Attorneys guilty of committing domestic violence face disciplinary measures from their state bar, including, but not limited to, public censure or reprimand, [FN76]suspension, [FN77] or disbarment. [FN78] Courts justify imposing discipline on attorneys for nonprofessional misconduct as appropriate to protect the public, preserve the reputation and integrity of the legal profession, and enhance public confidence in attorneys. [FN79]

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand why so any people are asking "why did it take the video?" Or arguing that the video hasn't changed anything.

Lots of people have explained why they feel that way. If you don't understand why they hold that position, you should read their posts more carefully.

Is this a pet peeve of yours? I agree that is technically incorrect to start a sentence with "I don't understand" when actually you DO understand, but your purpose is to express disagreement. Mea culpa, but lots of people use this expression these days.

 

[timschochet]

Personally I don't think Sean Payton should have been suspended if he didn't know what was going on, and Roger Goodell was wrong about that. And regardless of the apparent double standard or hypocrisy, I don't think Goodell should be fired either so long as he did not know what was going on. IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

Convenient.

 

[timschochet]

This whole "ignorance is not an excuse" thing goes back to World War II, and the war crimes trials we had afterwards. We actually executed a Japanese general for war crimes, even though it was proven that he had no knowledge of the crimes, never would have tolerated them, and court-martialed some of his officers when he learned of them! Too bad, we said, he should have known, and so we hanged him. To me that was a miscarriage of justice. During the Nuremberg Trials, we executed an anti-Semitic journalist named Julius Streicher, pretending he was some big time Nazi, for the Holocaust. This despite the fact that it was proven that he knew nothing about the actual details of the Holocaust and played no role in it's being carried out. During the McCarthy era we blacklisted and arrested people who attended pro-Soviet meetings during World War II, even though they had no knowledge of the purpose of those meetings.

My point is that we need to be VERY careful about condemning people for ignorance, especially during times like these when the public is in an uproar and demands someone's head to roll.

 

[roadkill1292]

IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

Convenient.

And more than just a little ironic.

 

[timschochet]

IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

Convenient.

Not really. I've always believed this.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Espn hd right now has that old guy former gm of the colts... looks like a ghoul from fallout 3

http://deadspin.com/bill-polian-disagrees-with-bill-polians-insider-opinion-1633593081?rev=1410461754420&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[Tom Servo]

During the McCarthy era we blacklisted and arrested people who attended pro-Soviet meetings during World War II, even though they had no knowledge of the purpose of those meetings.

They sure weren't there for tea and crumpets.

 

[The Commish]

IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

Convenient.

Not really. I've always believed this.

You don't say....

 

[timschochet]

IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

Convenient.

Not really. I've always believed this.

You don't say....

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. I could be very well informed, but also stupid. I could be completely ignorant, but also smart. I could be both ignorant AND stupid. Take your pick. (I'm sure you will.)

 

[trogg78]

IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

Convenient.

Not really. I've always believed this.

You don't say....

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. I could be very well informed, but also stupid. I could be completely ignorant, but also smart. I could be both ignorant AND stupid. Take your pick. (I'm sure you will.)

You're the perfect example.

 

[trogg78]

Ignorance is a bad excuse for someone responsible as judge and jury. Seriously going to let commish off on ignorance?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Ignorance is a poor excuse for institutional failures because if we accepted it as an excuse, there would be a strong incentive to construct scenarios with an eye toward plausible deniability. Which is exactly what apparently happened with the Iran/Contra affair. Goodell, like Obama and Reagan is responsible for the institutional controls employed by the organization he oversees. And as the sole authority responsible for determining punishment, Goodell is certainly responsible for assessing whether reasonable steps were undertaken to secure all relevant evidence.

On a more fundamental level, ignorance is never a very good excuse for a failure concerned with an investigation that an office has undertaken. The reason for that is pretty simple. The office has undertaken to find the truth. To plead ignorance is to simply concede that the office conducted a failed investigation.

Goodell is also responsible for his own reaction in the days since the tape has gone public. He's the one who has claimed that there were "ambiguities" in accounts of what happened in the elevator. I don't see how we understand how the initial disciplinary decision was arrived at without understanding what those ambiguities are, particularly considering that contemporaneous media accounts (and the police report) largely described what is seen on the tape.

 

[The Commish]

When you're in a position of leadership, ignorance is never a good excuse...it's even more true when you're judge, jury, executioner and don't accept it as an excuse from others.

 

[Billy Bats]

Personally I don't think Sean Payton should have been suspended if he didn't know what was going on, and Roger Goodell was wrong about that. And regardless of the apparent double standard or hypocrisy, I don't think Goodell should be fired either so long as he did not know what was going on. IMO, ignorance IS an excuse, and it's a fairly good one.

How about intentional ignorance? I'm starting to lean to Goodell not viewing the video, intentionally.

Rice tells them what happens in the elevator. It sounds terrible to everyone. They know the video inside the elevator exists, but the only thing made public was outside the elevator. So if no one ever sees it, then we can go off of the public video.

Lawyers advise Goodell that the police won't give him the video and the Revel will, so don't ask the Revel but ask the police knowing we can't get it, then you can declare we tried.

Lawyers alert Goodell that the video arrived unsolicited and tell him exactly what's on the video blow for blow. It's terrible. They then advise him to not watch the video and he can claim he never seen it.

Goodell works for the owners and has a Ravens owner with one of the better players on his team making a lot of money and he's in trouble. Rice isn't convicted but Goodell suspends him for 2 games, without viewing the video, hoping this will all be forgotten. If this was the 52nd player on the roster, you think the hammer would've hit a little harder? Better believe it. And if that video was public it would've been a lot harsher for Rice.

He intentionally stayed away from viewing the video two times. He'll never admit that, but no one has asked him yet either.

So what's the punishment for intentional ignorance?

 

[timschochet]

Ignorance is a poor excuse for institutional failures because if we accepted it as an excuse, there would be a strong incentive to construct scenarios with an eye toward plausible deniability. Which is exactly what apparently happened with the Iran/Contra affair. Goodell, like Obama and Reagan is responsible for the institutional controls employed by the organization he oversees. And as the sole authority responsible for determining punishment, Goodell is certainly responsible for assessing whether reasonable steps were undertaken to secure all relevant evidence.

On a more fundamental level, ignorance is never a very good excuse for a failure concerned with an investigation that an office has undertaken. The reason for that is pretty simple. The office has undertaken to find the truth. To plead ignorance is to simply concede that the office conducted a failed investigation.

Goodell is also responsible for his own reaction in the days since the tape has gone public. He's the one who has claimed that there were "ambiguities" in accounts of what happened in the elevator. I don't see how we understand how the initial disciplinary decision was arrived at without understanding what those ambiguities are, particularly considering that contemporaneous media accounts (and the police report) largely described what is seen on the tape.

These are all excellent arguments, and I don't disagree, except regarding the nature of the punishment. If we are to believe President Reagan, then he was ignorant of Iran-Contra. As a result, he was forced to make a speech apologizing to the American people, and his record as President is forever tarnished by what happened there. I think that's a just punishment. I think forcing him to resign (or in the case of the Japanese general, executing him), would have been an unjust punishment.

I draw the same distinction here. Remember that, even when Goodell stated that ignorance is not an excuse, he didn't ban Sean Payton, as he very well might have done if he had evidence that Payton had deliberately done wrong. Goodell suspended Payton, and Peyton is coaching today. So, actually, in the case of Payton, ignorance WAS an excuse, as least partially. Should Goodell be punished for his ignorance on this matter (assuming he was truly ignorant)? Perhaps. Maybe he should give up part of his income this year. Should he be forced to resign over it, or fired, which in his case is the ultimate punishment? I say no. Save that for people who plan things with deliberate intent.