But didn't it only hurt them to get out of that contract? That makes no sense.

But didn't it only hurt them to get out of that contract? That makes no sense.

 

Why would it hurt them? They were going to have to potentially pay him while he was suspended.

His contract was for 5/$35, with $15 million guaranteed, signed prior to the 2012 season. So they are essentially paying him $15 million for 2 seasons, I believe. Not the end of the world, contractually, for them. Also questionable whether they would have paid much more than that anyway moving forward, as he wasn't exactly still on an upward trajectory from a performance perspective.

This is the NFL, contracts aren't fully guaranteed. If they wanted to release him for the contract, they would have done it.

Its a lot harder to cut Ray Rice the beloved face of the Ravens franchise, than Ray Rice "abuser". I mean no one even is suggesting that maybe this was just a series of completely of bad events that led to Rice doing something completely out of character. No one is saying the guy doesnt deserve some punishment, but seriously people are portraying Rice as if he has been abusing her forever, with really no evidence to support that.

Its a lot harder to cut Ray Rice the beloved face of the Ravens franchise, than Ray Rice "abuser". I mean no one even is suggesting that maybe this was just a series of completely of bad events that led to Rice doing something completely out of character. No one is saying the guy doesnt deserve some punishment, but seriously people are portraying Rice as if he has been abusing her forever, with really no evidence to support that.

 

Total strawman. No one, except you, has said this.

Total strawman. No one, except you, has said this.

 

Krush keeps referring to him as an "abuser" thats the implication of the term, sorry.

 

/shrug

Its a lot harder to cut Ray Rice the beloved face of the Ravens franchise, than Ray Rice "abuser". I mean no one even is suggesting that maybe this was just a series of completely of bad events that led to Rice doing something completely out of character. No one is saying the guy doesnt deserve some punishment, but seriously people are portraying Rice as if he has been abusing her forever, with really no evidence to support that.

 

Yeah, I've been trying to find a way to say that without sounding too insensitive. While I think that domestic violence is really, really bad in any situation, I also think there's a difference between a guy who has otherwise been a model citizen and hit his wife one time while drunk and a guy who has a history of abusing women. Just the same as I think there's a difference between a one time DUI offender and a five time DUI offender.

I have a hard time believing that this is the only time he's ever abused her, either emotionally or physically, though.

I have a hard time believing that this is the only time he's ever abused her, either emotionally or physically, though.

Based on?

This is the NFL, contracts aren't fully guaranteed. If they wanted to release him for the contract, they would have done it.

Yep. They didn't want to release him because they took a giant cap hit by doing so

Krush keeps referring to him as an "abuser" thats the implication of the term, sorry.

 

/shrug

That's one hell of a stretch, I was describing the abuser, which is a person who did the abusing, and the victim.

 

But, as was said before, it's quite certainly possible it's happened before.

Based on?

Based on him knocking her out. That reaction doesn't come from nowhere. I've been with my wife for over 10 years now, and I've never once laid my hand on her or even had the slightest urge to do so.

 

edit: this is of course pure speculation!

Edited September 9, 201411 yr by StrangeSox

The term abuser implies repeated action.

 

a·bus·er

 

someone who regularly or habitually abuses someone or something, in particular.

 

Your words, not mine. Anyone who has any experience with domestic violence knows that the term "abuser" is reserved for those who have done it multiple times. Not someone who got into a single altercation.

 

/shrug

The term abuser implies repeated action.

 

a·bus·er

 

someone who regularly or habitually abuses someone or something, in particular.

 

Your words, not mine. Anyone who has any experience with domestic violence knows that the term "abuser" is reserved for those who have done it multiple times. Not someone who got into a single altercation.

 

/shrug

Abuser and the victim. Person who abused? Is that better? It was pretty clear what was meant when talking about interviewing the abuser and the victim in the same room.

 

But thanks for the lawyer speak.

Based on him knocking her out. That reaction doesn't come from nowhere. I've been with my wife for over 10 years now, and I've never once laid my hand on her or even had the slightest urge to do so.

 

edit: this is of course pure speculation!

To me, it's more the dragging her out of the elevator that would make me skeptical, but I don't know anything about the guy. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he just completely snapped. I dunno.

Abuser and the victim. Person who abused? Is that better? It was pretty clear what was meant when talking about interviewing the abuser and the victim in the same room.

 

But thanks for the lawyer speak.

 

Sorry words have meaning. Once again, the "abuser" suggests repeated occurrence. If you wanted to appropriately talk about the situation Ray Rice would be the perpetrator and his wife would be the victim. Perpetrator does not imply repeated actions and the same point comes across. You almost never interview the perpetrator at the same time as the victim.

 

But come on, youre smarter than this and actually knew the implications of your statements. I have no problem with people thinking he is an abuser, Im just saying as of today, there is very little hard evidence to support it.

 

 

To me, it's more the dragging her out of the elevator that would make me skeptical, but I don't know anything about the guy. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he just completely snapped. I dunno.

 

Its impossible to know. Its merely speculation without some other evidence. I have no clue, but in my experience when someone is being "abused" usually other people had some sort of idea. Like her family/friends etc, generally come out and say things like "We thought something bad was going on". Its really really hard to completely cover up domestic abuse, there are a lot of signs.

 

But who knows, she could possibly be keeping it locked way inside.

Krush keeps referring to him as an "abuser" thats the implication of the term, sorry.

 

/shrug

 

How many punches do you need exactly to be considered an "abuser" in your book?

How many punches do you need exactly to be considered an "abuser" in your book?

 

Until the definition changes it needs to be more than 1 event.

 

someone who regularly or habitually abuses someone or something, in particular.

 

The word "regularly" means that it has to be common, not just 1 isolated incident.

Edited September 9, 201411 yr by Soxbadger

Really? The definition of the word abuser is key to this argument? Come on.

 

(waiting for the next /shrugs)

 

 

Based on him knocking her out. That reaction doesn't come from nowhere. I've been with my wife for over 10 years now, and I've never once laid my hand on her or even had the slightest urge to do so.

 

edit: this is of course pure speculation!

 

That actually is a fair assessment. Most people don't just start off at punching their significant other in the face as a means of conflict settlement. Abuse usually starts off at a much more subtle level and works its way up the scale over time. Today we have no idea, but it probably isn't the first time he has laid a hand on her.

Until the definition changes it needs to be more than 1 event.

 

 

 

The word "regularly" means that it has to be common, not just 1 isolated incident.

 

What a waste of time this was.

 

/shrugs

Sorry words have meaning. Once again, the "abuser" suggests repeated occurrence. If you wanted to appropriately talk about the situation Ray Rice would be the perpetrator and his wife would be the victim. Perpetrator does not imply repeated actions and the same point comes across. You almost never interview the perpetrator at the same time as the victim.

 

But come on, youre smarter than this and actually knew the implications of your statements. I have no problem with people thinking he is an abuser, Im just saying as of today, there is very little hard evidence to support it.

No, you just read too much into it. Abuser can mean exactly what I said it meant.

Really? The definition of the word abuser is key to this argument? Come on.

 

(waiting for the next /shrugs)

I'm pretty sure there's something like a Godwin's law for argument via dictionary definition

EA Sports going to remove him from their games.

 

I think the way everyone is stumbling over each other to point their finger is as pathetic as the initial 2 game suspension that was "adequate" until some visuals were added into the mix.