Goodell needs to be fired after watching the Rice video | Page 5 | Syracusefan.com

Goodell needs to be fired after watching the Rice video

The NFL should make a statement against domestic violence and ban Ray Rice for life.

What a POS.
 
I'm all for Goodell taking into account that Ray Rice hadn't been in legal trouble before, had no apparent history of crime / violence, etc. That's exactly how the system should work for first time offenders.

But I have a difficult time imagining that he saw that video when handing down his token suspension. Because if so, then the commish's got some 'splainin' to do.

I honestly believe that Goodell did a cursory review of the situation, factoring in that Rice hasn't been in trouble before in his decision to go relatively lenient on him. And in doing so, he misjudged [1] the brutal nature of the assault, with a woman getting sucker punched in the jaw by a professional athlete built like a brick sh-thouse, and [2] the sustained public backlash he, the league, and Rice would receive for said lenient punishment. Because if Goodell had actually seen that video and still decided that a slap on the wrist would make everybody whole, then he's either a dullard [which he obviously isn't] or completely out of touch. I just find it difficult to believe that he had this video at his disposal, considered the preponderence of evidence at his disposal, and still came to the conclusion that, yeah--two games is sufficient. It doesn't even seem reasonable to me that the opposite might be true--I don't know, maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

For the record, I'm not a Goodell fan and certainly not an apologist for him or the league. He is annoying in a lot of ways, and I started disliking him a few years ago for the imbalanced way the league handled the New Orleans scandal, including going after several players on little more than hearsay / conjecture [and at least two of those players seem like they may have been unfairly targeted].
 
RF2044 said:
I'm all for Goodell taking into account that Ray Rice hadn't been in legal trouble before, had no apparent history of crime / violence, etc. That's exactly how the system should work for first time offenders.

But I have a difficult time imagining that he saw that video when handing down his token suspension. Because if so, then the commish's got some 'splainin' to do.

I honestly believe that Goodell did a cursory review of the situation, factoring in that Rice hasn't been in trouble before in his decision to go relatively lenient on him. And in doing so, he misjudged [1] the brutal nature of the assault, with a woman getting sucker punched in the jaw by a professional athlete built like a brick sh-thouse, and [2] the sustained public backlash he, the league, and Rice would receive for said lenient punishment. Because if Goodell had actually seen that video and still decided that a slap on the wrist would make everybody whole, then he's either a dullard [which he obviously isn't] or completely out of touch. I just find it difficult to believe that he had this video at his disposal, considered the preponderence of evidence at his disposal, and still came to the conclusion that, yeah--two games is sufficient. It doesn't even seem reasonable to me that the opposite might be true--I don't know, maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

For the record, I'm not a Goodell fan and certainly not an apologist for him or the league. He is annoying in a lot of ways, and I started disliking him a few years ago for the imbalanced way the league handled the New Orleans scandal, including going after several players on little more than hearsay / conjecture [and at least two of those players seem like they may have been unfairly targeted].
Expand...
the thing is ryan if he didn't see the video, to me it is because he choose not to push for the video. Others seem to have seen it months ago. And the NFL commish couldn't get his hands on it?
 
Unfortunately, self-blame is very prevalent in spousal abuse and women stay with abusers ALL the time. Which is why quoting her and having her take part in Rays press conference were insensitive and basically uneducated.

Cuseregular said:
yeah probably. And how about she still married the dude a month later!! Call me crazy but I'd think she'd be running for the hills no matter how much is retrospect she felt she played a "role" in this. But call me crazy...
Expand...
 
Alsacs said:
IMO, once they got married the prosecution felt it would be a hard case to win in a trial. By marrying the women the only real witness couldn't be compelled to testify against Rice. So the prosecution settled for diversion to get something on the record instead of relying on the video which would have been motioned to be suppressed by the defense. The Suppression hearing would have likely gone the prosecution's way, but who knows.
Expand...
Are you sure that is correct? I thought only acts after the marriage were privileged.
 
OrangeXtreme said:
Rutgers must cut all ties with Ray Rice after disgusting elevator video (NJ.com: Politi)

Start with the highlight video that appears during games at High Point Solutions Stadium, the one that trumpets all the Rutgers players now in the NFL. That needs to go first, because the last thing Rutgers needs now is to put its most prominent player on display during its primetime Big Ten debut on Saturday night.

But Rutgers can't stop there. It needs to take down the photos – in the press box, in the recruiting lounge, in the locker room, in the Hale Center lobby, on its website. The university can't scrub Ray Rice from its history, but it sure can't try to celebrate it any more...
Expand...

Rutgers drops Ray Rice highlights from video of NFL alumni (PFT)
 
Crusty said:
You are an at will employee. Needs no reason.
Expand...
but that doesnt mean most people can just be fired.. union employees. civil servants, most government employees, those with a contract with an ending date, and anyone fired for about a dozen other reason that are not allowed.
 
I hear they just charged Rice's fiancé with impersonating a piñata.
 
upperdeck said:
but that doesnt mean most people can just be fired.. union employees. civil servants, most government employees, those with a contract with an ending date, and anyone fired for about a dozen other reason that are not allowed.
Expand...
Most people are not union members or government employees.In fact, most are at will employees - the vast majority.
 
Crusty said:
Most people are not union members or government employees.In fact, most are at will employees - the vast majority.
Expand...

I am in the trades unions and all of us are "at will" employees and it even states that in the agreements between the local and contractors. We don't have tenure or seniority
 
IthacaBarrel said:
But rice isn't, he is in players union and under contract
Expand...

Not really sure what is required to be fired in a for-clause employment agreement, but I would wager that knocking your gf out cold on video would probably be enough reason to be fired.
 
retro44 said:
I googled it and people were claiming the police never released those tapes, but I thought they were B.S. right from the get go.

like I said release all communications between the NFL and Ravens.

The NBA can terminate an owner over words, but the NFL CAN'T TOUCH A PLAYER AS THE PLAYER CAN GIVE A DEVASTATING KNOCKOUT TO A FEMALE.

Double standards here.
Expand...
Double standard in limiting it to females. Assault is assault. Everyone is equal.
 
Alsacs said:
IMO, once they got married the prosecution felt it would be a hard case to win in a trial. By marrying the women the only real witness couldn't be compelled to testify against Rice. So the prosecution settled for diversion to get something on the record instead of relying on the video which would have been motioned to be suppressed by the defense. The Suppression hearing would have likely gone the prosecution's way, but who knows.
Expand...
Yes, she could. That was not a marital communication. She may have refused to cooperate, in which case she could be held in contempt. They really didn't need her, with that tape.
 
Alsacs said:
IMO, once they got married the prosecution felt it would be a hard case to win in a trial. By marrying the women the only real witness couldn't be compelled to testify against Rice. So the prosecution settled for diversion to get something on the record instead of relying on the video which would have been motioned to be suppressed by the defense. The Suppression hearing would have likely gone the prosecution's way, but who knows.
Expand...
There would be ZERO grounds to suppress the tape. NONE.
In a major city, first time offender, no prior bad history, taking responsibility, actively engaged in counseling, non-cooperative victim, pretty standard deal, as it should be.
 
Crusty said:
Isn't that what we are talking about -testimony that is admissible in a court of law?
Expand...

Right now we are talking about the court of public opinion, but if it it ever came to a trial, because they weren't married at the time, the spousal privilege law isn't in affect.
 
Crusty said:
Are you sure that is correct? I thought only acts after the marriage were privileged.
Expand...
If they are married she can't be compelled to testify in court. Its why Massachusetts wouldn't let Aaron Hernandez see his girlfriend one on one so he couldn't marry her and she got contempt/obstruction of justice charges.

Rice married the victim and she could decide to testify against her husband, but if she wanted to testify against him she could on her depending on that state law.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
176,280
Messages
5,305,313
Members
6,198
Latest member
Cuseman73

Online statistics

Members online
35
Guests online
3,770
Total visitors
3,805
Totals may include hidden visitors.


P
Top Bottom