Planet Rugby Forum

rugbot 2.0 wrote:

douche_chill wrote: Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

Did you see the fúcking video?

douche_chill wrote:

rugbot 2.0 wrote:

douche_chill wrote: Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

Did you see the fúcking video?

Yea he punches her...

God wrote:Chris Berman will be the play-by-play man for Armageddon. That will be part of the suffering.

douche_chill wrote:

rugbot 2.0 wrote:

douche_chill wrote: Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

Did you see the fúcking video?

Yea he punches her...

douche_chill wrote:Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

douche_chill wrote:

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

What? You think his wife is happy about the punishment?

douche_chill wrote:

rugbot 2.0 wrote:

douche_chill wrote: Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

Did you see the fúcking video?

Yea he punches her...

CrazyIslander wrote:The problem with sacking Rice is that its indirectly punishing his wife and child with t.he loss of incom and a quality of life

The Native wrote:

douche_chill wrote:

rugbot 2.0 wrote:

douche_chill wrote: Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

Did you see the fúcking video?

Yea he punches her...

No surprise that a dumb cunt like you would be thinking that way.

The Native wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:The problem with sacking Rice is that its indirectly punishing his wife and child with t.he loss of incom and a quality of life

That's still his fault. He punches her, he loses his income, they suffer, maybe he learns his lesson.

On the other hand, he punches her, he doesn't lose his income, she still suffers and he more than likely doesn't learn his lesson.

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

What? You think his wife is happy about the punishment?

She's the victim of domestic abuse, her I feel desperately sorry for. Him, not so much. If you don't want to lose your job, maybe don't spit on and punch your partner?

The Native wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:The problem with sacking Rice is that its indirectly punishing his wife and child with t.he loss of incom and a quality of life

That's still his fault. He punches her, he loses his income, they suffer, maybe he learns his lesson.

On the other hand, he punches her, he doesn't lose his income, she still suffers and he more than likely doesn't learn his lesson.

CrazyIslander wrote:

The Native wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:The problem with sacking Rice is that its indirectly punishing his wife and child with t.he loss of incom and a quality of life

That's still his fault. He punches her, he loses his income, they suffer, maybe he learns his lesson.

On the other hand, he punches her, he doesn't lose his income, she still suffers and he more than likely doesn't learn his lesson.

Theres no doubting whose fault it is but the punishhment is indirectly dished out on the victim (wife) and child. People can sit on their high horses and point their fingers then move on with their lives. But for that family their main source of income and a bright future is gone. If the wife is willing to move on then let them be. Sh holds all the aces, she can divorce him and get child support alimony etc later. That way they still can have a quality of live. Its tough out there.

The Native wrote:douche_chill, you're someone that feels sorry for someone guilty of spousal abuse. You're virtually condoning what he did by your attitude confirming what many on the bored already thought of you.

douche_chill wrote:

The Native wrote:douche_chill, you're someone that feels sorry for someone guilty of spousal abuse. You're virtually condoning what he did by your attitude confirming what many on the bored already thought of you.

What about the victim? She married him, she presumably loves him. The man she recently married has had his career, legacy, reputation and the thing he loves to do taken away from him with no realistic chance of redemption. She is devastated by this, do you care about the victim in this situation or not?

douche_chill wrote:What do you do for a living? Let's say you're very successful, earning millions at the top of your field and you do this. Should you banned from ever working in the same industry or even related fields? I can understand if it's a field where moral integrity is particularly important but he's a running back, this is completely irrelevant to what he does. Except apparently this is such a heinous crime he should never be allowed to do the thing he's good at and worked his whole life for ever again. The victim has forgiven him but we are all so high and mighty that we decide he gets no chance at redemption.

If people really cared about the victim they would not be so happy to punish her. It's not about her though is it, people are just happy to have another chance to be morally outraged, never mind stopping to think about the effect it has on people actually involved.

douche_chill wrote:I hope any NZ'ers in here who agree with the punishment boycott radio sport for rehiring Tony Veitch. How dare those fukcers give him a second chance.

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:What do you do for a living? Let's say you're very successful, earning millions at the top of your field and you do this. Should you banned from ever working in the same industry or even related fields? I can understand if it's a field where moral integrity is particularly important but he's a running back, this is completely irrelevant to what he does. Except apparently this is such a heinous crime he should never be allowed to do the thing he's good at and worked his whole life for ever again. The victim has forgiven him but we are all so high and mighty that we decide he gets no chance at redemption.

If people really cared about the victim they would not be so happy to punish her. It's not about her though is it, people are just happy to have another chance to be morally outraged, never mind stopping to think about the effect it has on people actually involved.

It is a field where moral integrity is important though, or at least it should be. Sport, whether you think it should be or not, is inexorably linked with society and politics. Now whether he should be banned forever I'm not so sure about. I'd say a good couple of years at least, then if a team wants to take a chance on a person like that then fair enough. Still, he's 27 and coming off an absolutely dreadful year. No guarantee that a team would touch him after a couple of years.

As for saying the victim has forgiven him, well she might have or she might not have. Everything she's said and done so far reads exactly like a classic abuse victim to me. And Christ, how is this punishing her? Her abusive scumbag husband loses his job? They should have a few million stashed away already, they've presumably got property, she could always go get a job herself if she doesn't have one already.

Bowens wrote:

douche_chill wrote:I hope any NZ'ers in here who agree with the punishment boycott radio sport for rehiring Tony Veitch. How dare those fukcers give him a second chance.

Wrong, like you are about everything else. Unless Rice f**k up again, he'll be an NFL player once more come 2015. Probably after going on Oprah and crying.

douche_chill wrote:

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:What do you do for a living? Let's say you're very successful, earning millions at the top of your field and you do this. Should you banned from ever working in the same industry or even related fields? I can understand if it's a field where moral integrity is particularly important but he's a running back, this is completely irrelevant to what he does. Except apparently this is such a heinous crime he should never be allowed to do the thing he's good at and worked his whole life for ever again. The victim has forgiven him but we are all so high and mighty that we decide he gets no chance at redemption.

If people really cared about the victim they would not be so happy to punish her. It's not about her though is it, people are just happy to have another chance to be morally outraged, never mind stopping to think about the effect it has on people actually involved.

It is a field where moral integrity is important though, or at least it should be. Sport, whether you think it should be or not, is inexorably linked with society and politics. Now whether he should be banned forever I'm not so sure about. I'd say a good couple of years at least, then if a team wants to take a chance on a person like that then fair enough. Still, he's 27 and coming off an absolutely dreadful year. No guarantee that a team would touch him after a couple of years.

As for saying the victim has forgiven him, well she might have or she might not have. Everything she's said and done so far reads exactly like a classic abuse victim to me. And Christ, how is this punishing her? Her abusive scumbag husband loses his job? They should have a few million stashed away already, they've presumably got property, she could always go get a job herself if she doesn't have one already.

She claims she has and she went on to marry him, but do you know better? I said in a previous post how this is punishing her so I wont repeat, read what she said if you want to know the effect it's had on her.

douche_chill wrote:

Bowens wrote:Wrong, like you are about everything else. Unless Rice f**k up again, he'll be an NFL player once more come 2015. Probably after going on Oprah and crying.

What am I wrong about? Your post isn't very clear. He is banned indefinitely...

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:

Dumbledore wrote:

douche_chill wrote:What do you do for a living? Let's say you're very successful, earning millions at the top of your field and you do this. Should you banned from ever working in the same industry or even related fields? I can understand if it's a field where moral integrity is particularly important but he's a running back, this is completely irrelevant to what he does. Except apparently this is such a heinous crime he should never be allowed to do the thing he's good at and worked his whole life for ever again. The victim has forgiven him but we are all so high and mighty that we decide he gets no chance at redemption.

If people really cared about the victim they would not be so happy to punish her. It's not about her though is it, people are just happy to have another chance to be morally outraged, never mind stopping to think about the effect it has on people actually involved.

It is a field where moral integrity is important though, or at least it should be. Sport, whether you think it should be or not, is inexorably linked with society and politics. Now whether he should be banned forever I'm not so sure about. I'd say a good couple of years at least, then if a team wants to take a chance on a person like that then fair enough. Still, he's 27 and coming off an absolutely dreadful year. No guarantee that a team would touch him after a couple of years.

As for saying the victim has forgiven him, well she might have or she might not have. Everything she's said and done so far reads exactly like a classic abuse victim to me. And Christ, how is this punishing her? Her abusive scumbag husband loses his job? They should have a few million stashed away already, they've presumably got property, she could always go get a job herself if she doesn't have one already.

She claims she has and she went on to marry him, but do you know better? I said in a previous post how this is punishing her so I wont repeat, read what she said if you want to know the effect it's had on her.

I know about as much as you do. And really all you're saying is another spin on the old trope of 'why did she stay?'

Anyway, you've now moved on from feeling sorry for Rice to feeling sorry for his wife. If you'd started with that I might have had some sympathy.

The Native wrote:

douche_chill wrote:

Bowens wrote:Wrong, like you are about everything else. Unless Rice f**k up again, he'll be an NFL player once more come 2015. Probably after going on Oprah and crying.

What am I wrong about? Your post isn't very clear. He is banned indefinitely...

He's not banned indefinitely. He's suspended indefinitely. Just like Michael Vick was. And look where Vick is now. Back playing.

SecretAgentMan wrote:

douche_chill wrote:

rugbot 2.0 wrote:

douche_chill wrote: Feel kind of bad for Ray Rice, to lose everything over possibly one mistake.

Did you see the fúcking video?

Yea he punches her...

He'll still have a few bucks in the bank, so it's hardly losing everything.

Good riddance to the scumbag.

Bowens wrote:What are the details on AP exactly? Took a switch to his kid and...?

The beating allegedly resulted in numerous injuries to the child, including cuts and bruises to the child’s back, buttocks, ankles, legs and scrotum, along with defensive wounds to the child’s hands. Peterson then texted the boy’s mother, saying that one wound in particular would make her “mad at me about his leg. I got kinda good wit the tail end of the switch.”
Peterson also allegedly said via text message to the child’s mother that he “felt bad after the fact when I notice the switch was wrapping around hitting I (sic) thigh” and also acknowledged the injury to the child’s scrotum in a text message, saying, “Got him in nuts once I noticed. But I felt so bad, n I’m all tearing that butt up when needed! I start putting them in timeout. N save the whooping for needed memories!”

According to police reports, the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that “Daddy Peterson hit me on my face.” The child also expressed worry that Peterson would punch him in the face if the child reported the incident to authorities. He also said that he had been hit by a belt and that “there are a lot of belts in Daddy’s closet.” He added that Peterson put leaves in his mouth when he was being hit with the switch while his pants were down. The child told his mother that Peterson “likes belts and switches” and “has a whooping room.”

When Peterson was asked how he felt about the incident, he said, “To be honest with you, I feel very confident with my actions because I know my intent.” He also described the incident as a “normal whooping” in regards to the “welps” on the child’s buttocks, but that he felt bad immediately when he saw the injuries on the child’s legs. Peterson estimated he “swatted” his son “10 to 15” times, but he’s not sure because he doesn’t “ever count how many pops I give my kids.”

Bowens wrote:I really don't think it's that straightforward but accept some will see it that way. Have no doubt AP was carrying out the same punishment he himself experienced as a child. Not justifying it, simply saying that we shouldn't rush to vilify in the wake of Rice. Flat out punching a woman was never an accepted act, but taking a switch to your kid sadly has a long and continuing history in parts of the US (and elsewhere, I'm sure).

douche_chill wrote:I hope any NZ'ers in here who agree with the punishment boycott radio sport for rehiring Tony Veitch. How dare those fukcers give him a second chance.