Lord Jim wrote:
Nor have I seen anyone come forward to suggest that Ray Rice has a history of being an abusive or violent person; quite the contrary.
I'd guess most people are not supporting Ray Rice because instead of pushing her away or covering himself when she came at him, he punched her and knocked her out cold. Then he dragged her out of the elevator and let her lay there.
He could have killed her.
Of course, nobody has come forward to suggest that he is an abusive or violent person so he probably isn't.....
Guinevere wrote:You really think brutality on the job correlates to brutality outside the job, and so it should be excused?
Whaaa? Where did you get that from? (I did use the word "ironic" and not the word "excusable.") If anything, I was agreeing with rubato, and BSG:
bigskygal wrote:
rubato wrote:The existence of the NFL is based on brutal exploitation . . .
Turn it off.
yrs,
rubato
Guinevere wrote:I think brutality is the wrong word, anyway. Football is a sport, it has rules and standards, and it far more than mere brute force exerted upon a funny shaped "ball." Certainly its physical, but its something more than mere brute force.
Fair point...though in truth I was thinking more of opposing players than the ball, but yeah, I was thinking about pro football in general and ignoring or forgetting about the fact that Ray Rice himself was a running back, not a defensive tackle or some other more "brutal" position; you got me there, and I apologize for that.
Guinevere wrote:And regardless, that does not begin to excuse the behavior exhibited by Rice or the Ravens or the NFL during this entire incident.
Agreed.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
Of course, nobody has come forward to suggest that he is an abusive or violent person so he probably isn't.....
Look, I'm not trying to excuse what Rice did. Even if she was wailing on him, even if she spat at him, even if they were both loaded (which I believe they have both said was the case) there's absolutely no excuse for what he did. He's a highly physically developed professional athlete; he has a responsibility to restrain his physical power in any situation. (let alone against a woman a fraction of his size and strength)
I not only think based on the full video that he should have been suspended for at least a year, but that he should have been criminally prosecuted and spent at least six months of that year in Stoney Lonesome.
But I would feel that way whether or not there was any pattern of abuse. Even if this was just a one off isolated incident, it is sufficiently grievous in my view to merit serious punishment. He cold-cocked her; he put her out with one punch. She was unconscious for several minutes, and his behavior towards her after he knocked her out is even more disgusting than the punch itself.
All I'm saying is that these supposed experts don't know anything more about this specific situation than I do, and I think that all of this public analysis and demeaning of her attitude amounts to additional abuse.
I stand by that.
She certainly views it that way:
“I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare,” she wrote in an Instagram post. “Feeling like I’m mourning the death of my closest friend. But to have to accept the fact that it’s reality is a nightmare in itself. Nobody knows the pain that the media and unwanted attention options [opinions] from the public has caused my family. To make us a relive a moment that we regret everyday is a horrible thing.
To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his a** off for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific. THIS IS OUR LIFE. What don’t you all get. If your intentions were to hurt us, embarrass us, make us feel alone, take all happiness away, you’ve succeeded on so many levels. Just know we will continue to grow & show the world what real love is! Ravensnation we love you!”
- See more at: http://madamenoire.com/467381/baltimore ... 3oOrj.dpuf
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm actually going to go a little further and say that I believe it is more likely than not that physical abuse is not a regular feature of their relationship. Here's my reasoning for that:
Women in chronic, classic abusive relationships, from both my personal knowledge (I've known several over the years) and those I've seen in the media who have talked about it, generally try to do everything they can to avoid provoking the violence and abuse that they know will come. They may blame themselves for it anyway, but they try to be as "pleasing" and accommodating as possible.
If you watch that video, even from before they get on the elevator, they're having some sort of an argument, and she is clearly in his face and not intimidated by him. If she had any idea that what was coming would happen, even if she was loaded, I think it's highly unlikely she would have behaved that way.
Again, that does not excuse what he did. But the theory that this was a one off uncommon event has at least as much going for it (if not more) as the theory of those who want to pigeon-hole her into some classic chronically abused spouse role.
You sound a bit like an armchair psychologist there, Jim...
In my opinion, Janay could very well be just as abusive as Ray Rice. She might enjoy provoking him and have many other problems we don't know about. That's how some abusive relationships can be.
All abusive relationships have many similarities. There is the build up of tension, the actual physical abuse and then the honeymoon phase. Also there can be denial from both the victim and the abuser that a problem exists.
The many similarities with all domestic violence cases is why a lot of the time those talking heads are fairly accurate when they comment on them.
You get those sterling qualifications to disregard the experts from where, LJ?
At least I've had formal training in the subject, by experts in the field. Can you say the same?
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
I'd like to point out that neither Jim nor Guin really knows anything about this particular couple; the only one of us here who's ever even met Rice is Big RR, so maybe his comments bear repeating.
Big RR wrote:I met Rice a couple of times when he was at Rutgers (at meeting the players events) and he seemed to be a genuinely nice and level headed guy--he was especially good with dealing with the kids (like my daughter) who he interacted with quite well. Maybe he was a closet abuser, but I think it is just as likely that they were drunk and he snapped--not an excuse, but a warning that he was carrying something around inside him he had to face. Hopefully for his, her, and his family's sake, he will take advantage of this opportunity and get the help he needs, leaving his aggression on the field where it belongs. After all, that is what PTI is for.
Another possibility that no one has mentioned yet is that maybe he (or both of them?) is just a mean drunk who really needs to stay off the sauce.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
Alcohol is at the root of many of the domestic violence cases I prosecute - my office offers pre-trial intervention to first time offenders just as happened in Rice's case.
When couples are likely to stay together, the best solution is to require counseling and sobriety and fix the root of the problem, rather than just to convict and fine and see them again at the next offense.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Econo--to be fair, while he seemed like a nice guy to me, the way I met him is not the optimum way to get to know anyone. He seemed like a good guy (and he was very good dealing with the children), but I can only give you my impressions, and they may well be wrong. Indeed, I am surprised at how many people are backing away from any support for him--even on his own team. It may be just distancing, as no one wants to risk being tarred with the same brush, or it may be for other reasons (and perhaps some of them knowing him much better), so who knows what he's really like? I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but I really can't blame anyone for not doing so.
BSG--I agree that PTI and counseling were the best way to handle this situation; it's not easy, but people can change and benefit from the therapy. Alcohol (and drugs) are at the root of a lot of problems.
I am *astonished* by the number of people who want to give this guy a break, even after watching him hit a woman so hard she went down. This is not a dog, who gets "one bite" rule because its an animal, this is an adult male, who should always know better.
He seemed like a good guy?
She provoked him?
He was drunk and he snapped?
Jesus Christ, no wonder this country has made little progress in deterring domestic violence in the last 20 years. All we want to do is excuse the batterer and blame the woman.
Strike my astonishment. I'm disgusted.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
I assume that is aimed at things you've heard and read in the media, because I don't see where anyone in this discussion has suggested that Rice's behavior be "excused"...
I certainly haven't. In fact I said pretty much the exact opposite:
Even if she was wailing on him, even if she spat at him, even if they were both loaded (which I believe they have both said was the case) there's absolutely no excuse for what he did. He's a highly physically developed professional athlete; he has a responsibility to restrain his physical power in any situation. (let alone against a woman a fraction of his size and strength)
I not only think based on the full video that he should have been suspended for at least a year, but that he should have been criminally prosecuted and spent at least six months of that year in Stoney Lonesome.
I would feel that way whether or not there was any pattern of abuse. Even if this was just a one off isolated incident, it is sufficiently grievous in my view to merit serious punishment. He cold-cocked her; he put her out with one punch. She was unconscious for several minutes, and his behavior towards her after he knocked her out is even more disgusting than the punch itself.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guin--I'll echo Jim here, no one here wants to excuse the batterer, and certainly not me, who you seem to have quoted for two of your three statements. Yes, he seemed like a good guy (but then so do a lot of bad people as I conceded). Yes, he was drunk and may well have been provoked, but neither is an excuse. As I said a number of times, I think this guy looks like he has a problem that should be dealt with, and I think he should be getting the counseling he apparently needs. Some have criticized the PTI, but I don't thin k he necessarily belongs in jail and I am willing to trust the judgment of the prosecutorial group who know the situation better than any of us do.
If that's excusing the batterer and blaming the woman, well then I guess I'm guilty, but IMHO that's a pretty silly standard. I don't think you have to demonize the man to condemn his actions, nor do I think a failure to demonize amounts to excusing and/or endorsing those actions.
I'm not excusing his behavior, nor does the pre-trial diversion program in my office (and many other prosecutor officers) excuse the behavior. Rather, it seeks to intervene and address the root of the behavior, in hopes of preventing a recurrence. Offenders are required to stay sober (if alcohol or drugs are involved in the offense), attend anger management counseling, etc. - if they don't, they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I grew up with a violent alcoholic father and my earliest childhood memory is of myself, my brother and my mother barricaded in my brother's bedroom while my dad was on a violent drunken 'tear' - and had just hit my mother so hard that she initially thought her jaw was broken. That was the early 70s, when if you called the police, they sent him away to 'walk it off' and nothing else was done.
We HAVE come a long way since then, but YES, we have further to go. Domestic violence is as old as humankind, I'm sure. It will never go away until we begin to raise our male children differently.
eta: The State is often in a difficult position when it comes to DV offenses; often the victim is uncooperative and making a case at trial can be very difficult - not impossible, but very difficult. Some jurors still hold the opinion that DV is a 'private matter', and are unwilling to convict when the victim won't testify, despite saying during voir dire that they can be objective and apply the law as written. Prosecutors deal with the reality that the couple is likely to reconcile, if they haven't already - often within hours of the incident. So, we try to approach the cases in whatever way we can that will minimize the likelihood of a repeat offense and make the home safe for the victim.
One issue that really gets me is this: some states have passed laws that hold the victim accountable for allowing children of the relationship to witness domestic violence. Women's groups have responded to such legislation with fury - how can we criminalize victims???
Okay, I understand the sentiment - but when a DV victim allows herself to remain subject to such violence and allows her children to witness it, why isn't she accountable for what is clearly neglect of the children's best interests? The children, after all, are truly innocent - they didn't pick an abuser, or make the choice to stay with an abuser; they just get to be warped by the violence they witness and fear on a regular basis.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
bigskygal wrote:
One issue that really gets me is this: some states have passed laws that hold the victim accountable for allowing children of the relationship to witness domestic violence. Women's groups have responded to such legislation with fury - how can we criminalize victims???
Okay, I understand the sentiment - but when a DV victim allows herself to remain subject to such violence and allows her children to witness it, why isn't she accountable for what is clearly neglect of the children's best interests? The children, after all, are truly innocent - they didn't pick an abuser, or make the choice to stay with an abuser; they just get to be warped by the violence they witness and fear on a regular basis.
The abused person in a relationship - usually a woman - should not be accused of neglect for keeping the children in the home where the abuse occurs - unless one of them are physically abused. Often the woman & children leaving the home or sending the kids away is just another excuse for the abuser to resort to violence. In some situations the children will be removed from the abuser AND the mother.
You might say she is allowing psychological abuse or she is putting her children at risk, but sometimes sending the children away or leaving the home with them will cause the abuser to become more violent.
Each domestic violence situation is complicated and different and what might work for some won't work for others. The goal should be to get out of the home with the children but it isn't always doable.
A woman who is not denying that the abuse is occurring or not feeling like she deserves it might be the type that will seek help, but many are fearful of their lives if they bring outsiders into their situation and so the cycle continues.
I've worked with DV victims for almost 20 years now, Joe, so I know all the dynamics and the increased risk of harm/death at leaving, etc. as well (or far better) than you do.
But, as a child who witnessed DV growing up, and who was subject to physical abuse along with my siblings, I disagree with your perspective.
If you are paying attention to research into child development, you know that many recent studies have shown a long-term debilitating impact on children who are subject to trauma in early childhood - and that includes 'just' watching your father beat the shit out of your mother in front of you on a semi-regular basis. Children who witness DV in the home of origin are very often diagnosed with PTSD.
Witnessing domestic violence IS abusive to a child, even if she or he is never hit. The psychological trauma is very real, and it is watching mommy get beat up by daddy that teaches many little boys and girls that beating up, and getting beat up, is a regular part of love/relationship.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
bigskygal wrote:I've worked with DV victims for almost 20 years now, Joe, so I know all the dynamics and the increased risk of harm/death at leaving, etc. as well (or far better) than you do.
But, as a child who witnessed DV growing up, and who was subject to physical abuse along with my siblings, I disagree with your perspective.
What part of my perspective are you disagreeing with?
I say the mother should not be charged for keeping her children at home unless they are also being beaten. That is because declaring a mother an abuser and removing the children from both parents and placing them in a shelter can be very devastating to a child.
I say leaving the home with their children will give the abuser another reason to become enraged.
I say each situation should be treated individually.
I say that the mother's goal should be to get out of that home with her children but it is in no way the easiest option.
The overall sense I got from your post is that you think mothers of children witnessing domestic violence should not be in any way held accountable for neglecting the children's well-being by staying in the abusive relationship and allowing them to continue witnessing violence, because they might face violence after leaving, or it's not easiest, or their children might be unhappier in another setting.
When children are removed from parents, it is always the State's obligation to place them with kin instead of in foster care, if at all possible. That's true, so far as I know, in every jurisdiction. Additionally, if domestic violence is the reason for removal, the State will work with the partner who is the victim of violence to help them keep their children and get away from the violent partner, rather than 'charging' the victim, or removing the children from her, too. The State will also work to address the issues of the violent partner and assist him in reunification with his family, if appropriate.
Sadly, there are many victims of domestic violence who reject the help available to them and choose to stay in the situation to which they've become habituated - or whatever.
In my opinion, it is NOT okay to keep your kids in that situation, too. It seems to me - correct me if I'm wrong - that it's your opinion that the children should stay with the mother regardless.
Maybe you - and others - feel that way because you don't know firsthand what it's like to live, as a small child, with the daily trauma of threats of violence and/or actual violence. As for me, my first allegiance and compassion goes to the children, not the 'adults'. Failure to protect these kids ensures the cycle of violence continues.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
bigskygal wrote:.....It seems to me - correct me if I'm wrong - that it's your opinion that the children should stay with the mother regardless.
That's not what I'm saying. I am focusing on the idea of whether or not the Mom should be considered an abuser or neglectful parent when she is getting beaten and the children are witnessing it.
In regards to placing the children with other relatives, even though the best type of placement is intended that's not always a good home. In fact, many relative placements are the worse possible choice - but if it's done, the Social Worker has done his/her job.
I'm saying that each DV case is unique and a mother being called neglectful and forced to give up her children is not always good and in fact can be a very bad move for those kids.
I agree with you if both parents are both neglectful of the children and/or they live in a messy unlivable home and fight daily. That happens a lot but that's not a typical DV case.
Again, the abused parent's goal should be to get away with the children ASAP, but it is rarely the easy way out or the quickest solution. In some cases it can result in a homeless single mother with children living in a car or on the street while waiting on a list to qualify for Section 8 housing (in California).
The children probably go to school and will very likely need to change schools or might not go at all for a long period in a case like that - which, in some cases can result in children being removed from the homeless parent. Children will lose their clothes and any toys or other things that they value and get comfort from. There is no simple strategy and most Social Workers are overloaded with cases and are forced to do what is easiest for themselves. Which creates even more problems in the long run...
