I can't find where I had read that about NJ, so I'm likely wrong there, but for some reason I was thinking that there was an "automatic" charge for all parties in DV cases if they hit the other person. These articles quote the police report and grand jury findings. It says the police looked at the surveillance tape and charged both with simple-assault and a grand jury later amended the charges. Reading over them again I think you're right that they got it wrong initially since it says they looked at the tapes.

 

Video shows Ray Rice's fiancee out cold after incident | Ravens - WBAL Home

 

Ray Rice indicted on aggravated assault charge in New Jersey - Baltimore Sun

 

Gotcha. I remember early reports were an "altercation" and things like that, but not much else. In fairness to the authorities, they could have seen tape where she was going nuts on him just before the part we've seen.

 

Regardless, as quick as the charges were dismissed, you know someone goofed big.

But the players still have a grievance process.

 

How could the players' union possibly stand up for a player caught beating his wife? What will that defense sound like? She had it coming? In my opinion, this issue is such that the NFL (read: Goodell) can do whatever he wants and the Union won't risk the back-lash that comes with trying to defend one of these cowards.

How could the players' union possibly stand up for a player caught beating his wife? What will that defense sound like? She had it coming? In my opinion, this issue is such that the NFL (read: Goodell) can do whatever he wants and the Union won't risk the back-lash that comes with trying to defend one of these cowards.

 

 

The union has to defend him. They might not like it but it's their job to see to it that he was dealt with fair and equitably. I foresee their argument will be that he was punished with a 2 game suspension and then unfairly punished further by the league. Don't shoot the messenger; I agree with you but that's not how the grievance process works.

The union has to defend him. They might not like it but it's their job to see to it that he was dealt with fair and equitably. I foresee their argument will be that he was punished with a 2 game suspension and then unfairly punished further by the league. Don't shoot the messenger; I agree with you but that's not how the grievance process works.

 

Sorry, you're talking about this situation specifically? I agree they have a case to be made, and I understand how the grievance process works, but I also understand they can't and won't win the battle of public opinion and have to be careful not step in a snake pit right now. I agree with you 100% they (or even I) could make a great case for this was botched royally by the League (and the team).

 

My point was more global, moving forward, if the new Goodell rule stays in place with 6 games on the 1st offense, and apparently that doesn't have to be bargained, they won't be able to lay in front of the bus for their players on this issue unless a true miscarriage of justice hasn't taken place.

 

Look at the Mike Vick case and his dog issue, the Union was fairly quiet on that one as it unfolded. In fact, Gene Upshaw, then the head of the Union, was taken to task by many Union folk around the Country when he uttered this somewhat famous phrase on the Vick issue at the time, "In a statement earlier this week, Upshaw said the criminal conduct to which Vick will plead guilty 'cannot be condoned under any circumstances.' 'Speaking personally, as I have previously stated, the practice of dogfighting is offensive and completely unacceptable,' Upshaw said. 'I can only hope that Mr. Vick, who is a young man, will learn from this awful experience.'

 

That sums up my point on how I think the Union will have a tough stance on this moving forward.

Edited September 9, 201412 yr by MentschTrachtGottLacht