Note that the long punishments for drug offenses are, I believe, explicitly written into the collective bargaining agreement – that was done some years back when smoking pot was a bigger deal. The “personal conduct” punishments that the Commissioner deals out (like Rice’s) are totally discretionary with the Commissioner. The point is that one needn’t throw the book at someone, excessively, just because some other statute says one particular lesser offense gets a stricter punishment. Of course, in this case, it’s not “unjustifiably”.

I’m not going to watch this but thanks for posting. The man belongs in jail along with Ray McDonald and out of the nfl. The nfl spin on this going to be sick but then again a bunch old rich white guys don’t have problem with this I’m sure.

Exoneration as in Rice is Israel and Janay is Gaza.

Marcy —

I think you should be more clear about what you mean here. A lot of people, you included, are acting like the female has ZERO fault in this. That’s obviously false, and I’d like to hear you articulate exactly what you think her fault in this was, instead of just ridiculing the suggestion that she owns any of the fault and demeaning his actions — as clearly excessive as they were.

You said: “It suggests that because Rice’s then fiancée swung at him, he was justified in belting her, which led her to lose consciousness. (It’s not clear to me whether the blow itself or hitting her head on the railing knocked her out). That might explain why she issued an apology at the time, because obviously swinging at Rice and getting knocked out in response makes it all her fault.”

I really respect your writing, but there are several strawman arguments in the above, exactly the kind you call out people in government for making everyday.

“It suggests that because Rice’s then fiancée swung at him, he was justified in belting her, which led her to lose consciousness.”

Rather than ‘that certain perverse logic’ suggesting that he was justified in belting her, I think a reasonable person would think a couple things

1) that if he didn’t instigate the physical contact, on either the push or the first punch, that he doesn’t own 100% of the fault for the altercation. It’s not perverse to conclude that since he did not instigate it, he doesn’t own the full fault — that’s pretty sound logic actually. How much does she own, that’s up for debate — probably not a lot — but definitely some. Are we supposed to think women get a free pass for assaulting men? That’s the strawman implication here.

A lot of people seem to think it’s ok to put forward the idea that if a woman assaults a man, no matter how it happens or their relative size, the woman can never under any circumstances be accountable for anything that happens afterword. This is a strawman and frankly below the normal level of commentary here.

Since so one wants to put a number on it or quantify it — that’s my question: what fault does she have for assaulting him? Some, a little, a lot — this is the elephant in the room no one wants to address and people would rather play word games about that come clean and address.

Note: She was initially charged with assault in this incident (probably because she initiated the assault). Does that not mean anything to anybody? It did to the police until he decided not to press charges.

2) You say “That might explain why she issued an apology at the time, because obviously swinging at Rice and getting knocked out in response makes it all her fault.”

Another strawman. No one is saying ‘it’s all her fault’ but in the media environment we live in it’s totally beyond the pale to say it’s even a ‘little bit’ her fault without being called a misogynist.

Taking that line of argument further, how many times would she have had to hit him for you to be ok with him retaliating physically? Nobody wants to answer that, clearly there’s an answer but everyone wants to play rhetorical games and act like the white knight of chivalry and say ‘the answer is never’ when we all know that’s not true, legally or logically.

The real answer is probably until he thought he was in physical danger — which he clearly wasn’t here. But instead of that real discussion we get the strawman ‘immediately all her fault’ argument, implying that up until the moment she assaults him several times and causes real harm she has zero fault. That’s just wrong. Her fault began when she assaulted him, she owns a part of this, to suggest otherwise is in contrary to the laws governing assault and logic.

3) from the comments section: “Saltinwound on September 8, 2014 at 1:02 pm — Morally, I agree. Legally, does her taking the swing at him change anything?”

Yes, it does. But….crickets.

She was initially charged with assault (can’t find the link), if he perused it he probably could have had her convicted based on the video evidence. He was also charged with assault for using inappropriate force. No one, no one, nobody wants to have that discussion. How much force can you legally use on a woman who is attacking you? It’s a media third rail.

Instead even sites like this one that are great at cutting through other’s bs make strawman arguments putting 100% of the fault on the man — who I can’t express enough here acted totally wrongly — but that still doesn’t make that false argument hold any more water.

Ray Rice owns much of the fault for this happening. His actions were terrible and unnecessary and unforgivable. But I can’t read a site like this that calls out blatant falsehoods and let people trot out the argument that either side was 100% at fault or that saying she doesn’t own at least a tiny bit of this is ‘perverse logic.’ That just not the truth.