Paul George says stupid things in defense of Ray Rice

[Moranis]

He obviously never should have said anything, but I think some of his underlying points aren't off base or all that out of whack.

Come on you're better than that. His underlying points are "don't ask for it" and "its okay if you didn't start it".

Care to defend those? I suppose you can back into saying "violence and escalation can be mutual", but that's not what he said. Even beyond that, even when a woman escalates an argument you don't hit her with a left jab to the head.

And people wonder why battered women are so scared they won't be believed.

I think your taking what he said off context. It's not like he is saying "good she deserved it"

From what i read, he sounds like he is saying it's their business.  She has forgiven him.  The one person that has the right over everyone else to not forgive him, put him to jail, punish him has forgiven him.  So why is everyone else pressing the issue? 

Even the wife has stated , why is everyone else getting too involved in this, ruining their lives.

I understand even though she says its ok,  it's still not, thats why he is publicly being shamed/suspended/being dropped from contracts right now. But for some cultures or upbringing privacy, my business, our business as long as it doesn't effect/involve society takes priority

I read the whole sequence before they were deleted. He was saying the punishment was too harsh (nope), it wasn't our business (somewhat true), and that she was culpable in it (nope).

Anyways when you value privacy and others affairs over the safety of women, you get a lot of beaten and dead women. Which is a choice we're making is society everyday.

edit: oops reading on my phone and I missed who I was replying too.

You don't think an indefinite suspension for something that has absolutely no effect on your ability to do your job is too harsh?  Frankly you could argue 2 games is too harsh.  If the exact same thing happened to me, I would not have been disciplined at my work at all, and I'm a lawyer.  Conduct that happens outside of my office is not discipline worthy unless said conduct affects my ability to do my job.  I get that I'm not a public figure like Rice is, but the NFL being the morality police is a bit rough. 

[Fafnir]

I don't think you get it. All i get by your replys is that you are mr perfect and when provoked etc. you are calm as a cucumber and thats how everyone should be.   I don't think you understand ppl are not perfect, make mistakes, emotions, rage etc.

Then you start saying inaccurate things that what i just said (trying to understand the situation deeper)  or my attidue is a way to enable violance across the world.   

Your starting things and pointing fingers. Your the aggressor in this thread so far. 

Not everyone is going to come behind you and start attacking George.  Just bc they want to try to understand deeper into the issue, does not mean they encourage to enable violance.

Of course I'm not perfect, but that doesn't really matter. We're not discussing my conduct but rather that of Ray Rice.

I'm not empathetic to his "side" of this manner like you are apparently. I am empathetic to the idea that he doesn't have the tools to control his anger and might need help, but given his utter lack of remorse I worry its not a lack of control that drives him. I fear his need for control is more important to him.

My aggression on this issue stems from the stridency of my feelings on the issue of domestic violence, especially against women. If you're uncomfortable with me pointing out that trying to shift blame to the victims for provocation is an enabler of violence all I can do is shrug. Because it flat out is a contributor to the societal attitudes that have enabled wife/woman beating across our history and present. That's clearly uncomfortable for you, the fear of violence that might be inflicted on woman's bodies is far more uncomfortable to them.

Anyways You're turning your focus to me and how I'm affecting your feelings, instead of the issue at hand. I'm not the issue and neither are you, Ray Rice and Paul George's support of Ray Rice are the issue.

[Fafnir]

You don't think an indefinite suspension for something that has absolutely no effect on your ability to do your job is too harsh?  Frankly you could argue 2 games is too harsh.  If the exact same thing happened to me, I would not have been disciplined at my work at all, and I'm a lawyer.  Conduct that happens outside of my office is not discipline worthy unless said conduct affects my ability to do my job.  I get that I'm not a public figure like Rice is, but the NFL being the morality police is a bit rough.

Your job is not as an entertainer, Ray Rice was cut because he was no longer worth the value of his contract as an entertainer.

I do agree that the NFL shouldn't be in the morality police business, but Roger Goodell chose to take the league there and his moral compass is clearly a broken one powered almost entirely by PR.

[Neurotic Guy]

I remember sometimes not using great judgment at 24 (Paul George).  It's a condition he may outgrow. 

I think Rice didn't make a bad decision, I think he actually made no decision.  He acted impulsively.  It is scary when a strong man (as many men do) reacts to his own anger by aggressing violently (over-reacting), even when the person they are aggressing against is significantly less powerful.  To me, it isn't that she's a woman, per se -- I'd feel the same if he did that to anyone with whom the power differential is significant.   Ray needs to re-train himself to react with restraint (meaning he needs to activate a thought process before/when emotions rise).  If attacked, the powerful individual should first defend (block), walk away, and then (if necessary) safely restrain the other individual.  If your anger/rage mechanism is tapped so easily, you've got a problem that will eventually result in someone being seriously hurt (perhaps a child next time).   Rice could easily have done lots more damage than was actually done in that elevator -- he, and she, are lucky.

That is not to say that I that I think it's easy for some people to control their own rage.  This is especially true if they, like millions of Americans, were either victims of, or witness to, domestic violence.  Models for how to deal with anger are important for children, and lacking such a model can have very bad results.   I definitely have some sympathy for Rice -- he probably does feel bad, and perhaps he is shocked by his own behavior.  I hope that he realizes that alcohol (which they've discussed played a big part in this) can further dull a person's ability to manage rage.  But the answer can't be as simple as stopping the drinking.  He probably has to dig deep if he's going to avoid ever losing control violently again. 

I hope he does work hard and get the right help -- some perpetrators actually do stop.  If she is committed to work with him, live with him, have their children live with him, all I can say is that I hope it never happens again.

[Roy H.]

You don't think an indefinite suspension for something that has absolutely no effect on your ability to do your job is too harsh?  Frankly you could argue 2 games is too harsh.  If the exact same thing happened to me, I would not have been disciplined at my work at all, and I'm a lawyer.  Conduct that happens outside of my office is not discipline worthy unless said conduct affects my ability to do my job.  I get that I'm not a public figure like Rice is, but the NFL being the morality police is a bit rough.

Really? 

I know that in my jurisdictions (Maine and New Jersey), we're required on our annual registration statements to list crimes we're involved in.  (Without looking, I can't remember if it's crimes we're charged with, or only convictions; I assume the latter).  That's an independent basis for discipline by the Bar, regardless of whether the conviction interfered with our ability to perform our job.  I believe that the reasoning is similar to the NFL's purported reason:  criminal convictions of lawyers can damage the confidence of the public in the entire profession.

Specifically as related to domestic violence, I believe that in Maine suspension from the practice of law is automatic upon a conviction.

[blink]

so what happened to Fafnir's last post and my reply to it?

[indeedproceed]

so what happened to Fafnir's last post and my reply to it?

I took it out of the thread. Feel free to PM me if you want more of a explanation.

[Tr1boy]

I remember sometimes not using great judgment at 24 (Paul George).  It's a condition he may outgrow. 

I think Rice didn't make a bad decision, I think he actually made no decision.  He acted impulsively.  It is scary when a strong man (as many men do) reacts to his own anger by aggressing violently (over-reacting), even when the person they are aggressing against is significantly less powerful.  To me, it isn't that she's a woman, per se -- I'd feel the same if he did that to anyone with whom the power differential is significant.   Ray needs to re-train himself to react with restraint (meaning he needs to activate a thought process before/when emotions rise).  If attacked, the powerful individual should first defend (block), walk away, and then (if necessary) safely restrain the other individual.  If your anger/rage mechanism is tapped so easily, you've got a problem that will eventually result in someone being seriously hurt (perhaps a child next time).   Rice could easily have done lots more damage than was actually done in that elevator -- he, and she, are lucky.

That is not to say that I that I think it's easy for some people to control their own rage.  This is especially true if they, like millions of Americans, were either victims of, or witness to, domestic violence.  Models for how to deal with anger are important for children, and lacking such a model can have very bad results.   I definitely have some sympathy for Rice -- he probably does feel bad, and perhaps he is shocked by his own behavior.  I hope that he realizes that alcohol (which they've discussed played a big part in this) can further dull a person's ability to manage rage.  But the answer can't be as simple as stopping the drinking.  He probably has to dig deep if he's going to avoid ever losing control violently again. 

I hope he does work hard and get the right help -- some perpetrators actually do stop.  If she is committed to work with him, live with him, have their children live with him, all I can say is that I hope it never happens again.

I agree with some of your points. Especially the last part. 

A person can change , grow etc.   If they have been punshised, regretful of their actions and want to get up but others don't let them and keep kick them down instead, thats not right either. 

[bucknersrevenge]

Janay can say until she's blue in the face that it's not anyone else's business but it became the NFL's business when they made their fight public. And that was no left "jab" by Ray. That was a windmill left CROSS that took that girl off her feet with so much force she hit the railing HARD before slumping to the ground. She can forgive him all she wants(and apparently Paul George as well) but the act itself is THE issue. And when Ray Rice is a public figure and part of a billion dollar industry, what happened is just unacceptable.

That's the trade-off. Playing in the NFL and making millions of dollars(more money than most people see in 10 lifetimes) is a PRIVILEGE. And if you cannot comport yourself in a presentable manner, you should lose that privilege. Bottom line. And I'm glad Larry blasted the kid. When you're young, and in your mid-twenties, you just don't think. And with the advent of Twitter, not thinking before you post something can have serious repurcussions. Once you hit "Post", those words are out there and you cannot get them back.

[KG Living Legend]

 Who cares? Let anybody say whatever they want. This world.

[Ogaju]

He obviously never should have said anything, but I think some of his underlying points aren't off base or all that out of whack.

Come on you're better than that. His underlying points are "don't ask for it" and "its
Care to defend those? I suppose you can back into saying "violence and escalation can be okay if you didn't start it".
mutual", but that's not what he said. Even beyond that, even when a woman escalates an argument you don't hit her with a left jab to the head.

And people wonder why battered women are so scared they won't be believed.

I agree with Moranis, and I think Fafnir misunderstands what PG means by 'if he aint tripping, I aint tripping'.  What he is saying is if she has forgiven him (if she aint tripping) then I aint tripping (then I forgive him) lets move on.

I actually give props to PG for coming out and saying what a whole lot of people feel but wont say because it aint PC right now. There are a lot of hypocrites out there.

Everyone that cheers for Kobe Bryant, Jared Sullinger, Chris Brown, and we can go on and on and on, and wants to rag on Ray Rice (because he is the disflavor of the month) is a hypocrite.
If she aint tripping, why are we tripping?

[D.o.s.]

That's not hypocrisy. What's hypocritical in this case are all the posters who say that domestic violence is bad but don't offer any indication that they think anything should be done about it.

[Moranis]

You don't think an indefinite suspension for something that has absolutely no effect on your ability to do your job is too harsh?  Frankly you could argue 2 games is too harsh.  If the exact same thing happened to me, I would not have been disciplined at my work at all, and I'm a lawyer.  Conduct that happens outside of my office is not discipline worthy unless said conduct affects my ability to do my job.  I get that I'm not a public figure like Rice is, but the NFL being the morality police is a bit rough.

Really? 

I know that in my jurisdictions (Maine and New Jersey), we're required on our annual registration statements to list crimes we're involved in.  (Without looking, I can't remember if it's crimes we're charged with, or only convictions; I assume the latter).  That's an independent basis for discipline by the Bar, regardless of whether the conviction interfered with our ability to perform our job.  I believe that the reasoning is similar to the NFL's purported reason:  criminal convictions of lawyers can damage the confidence of the public in the entire profession.

Specifically as related to domestic violence, I believe that in Maine suspension from the practice of law is automatic upon a conviction.

Ohio tends to discipline when the crimes of that of honesty and trustworthiness.  Repeated offenses show a pattern of disregard for the law, and also affect your licensure even if they are related to other crimes (like continued dui, continued assaults, etc.).  Now if the conduct is very egregious (i.e. felonious assault, a weapon, etc.) it could rise to the level as to affect the lawyer's ability to practice law and get a lawyer in trouble.  Also, if drugs or alcohol are involved it will play a role as the person may not be "fit" to practice in that situation.http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/ProfConduct/profConductRules.pdf


All that said, if I lost my license it would affect my ability to do my job and I would more than likely be fired.  If I am not disciplined by the State, I would not be disciplined by my job.  Nor would anyone else that works at my company for actions that occur outside the workplace and do not affect their ability to do their job.

Morality does not belong in the workplace.  Just my opinion, but I would not be suspending any professional athletes for actions outside of the sport unless such action affects their ability (i.e. drug use).

[Tr1boy]

He obviously never should have said anything, but I think some of his underlying points aren't off base or all that out of whack.

Come on you're better than that. His underlying points are "don't ask for it" and "its
Care to defend those? I suppose you can back into saying "violence and escalation can be okay if you didn't start it".
mutual", but that's not what he said. Even beyond that, even when a woman escalates an argument you don't hit her with a left jab to the head.

And people wonder why battered women are so scared they won't be believed.

I agree with Moranis, and I think Fafnir misunderstands what PG means by 'if he aint tripping, I aint tripping'.  What he is saying is if she has forgiven him (if she aint tripping) then I aint tripping (then I forgive him) lets move on.

I actually give props to PG for coming out and saying what a whole lot of people feel but wont say because it aint PC right now. There are a lot of hypocrites out there.

Everyone that cheers for Kobe Bryant, Jared Sullinger, Chris Brown, and we can go on and on and on, and wants to rag on Ray Rice (because he is the disflavor of the month) is a hypocrite.
If she aint tripping, why are we tripping?

well.... Just bc the other person is not tripping does not make it 100 percent ok.   And nobody is cheering for Sullinger, Brown etc. for what they did.

[D.o.s.]

You don't think an indefinite suspension for something that has absolutely no effect on your ability to do your job is too harsh?  Frankly you could argue 2 games is too harsh.  If the exact same thing happened to me, I would not have been disciplined at my work at all, and I'm a lawyer.  Conduct that happens outside of my office is not discipline worthy unless said conduct affects my ability to do my job.  I get that I'm not a public figure like Rice is, but the NFL being the morality police is a bit rough.

Really? 

I know that in my jurisdictions (Maine and New Jersey), we're required on our annual registration statements to list crimes we're involved in.  (Without looking, I can't remember if it's crimes we're charged with, or only convictions; I assume the latter).  That's an independent basis for discipline by the Bar, regardless of whether the conviction interfered with our ability to perform our job.  I believe that the reasoning is similar to the NFL's purported reason:  criminal convictions of lawyers can damage the confidence of the public in the entire profession.

Specifically as related to domestic violence, I believe that in Maine suspension from the practice of law is automatic upon a conviction.

Ohio tends to discipline when the crimes of that of honesty and trustworthiness.  Repeated offenses show a pattern of disregard for the law, and also affect your licensure even if they are related to other crimes (like continued dui, continued assaults, etc.).  Now if the conduct is very egregious (i.e. felonious assault, a weapon, etc.) it could rise to the level as to affect the lawyer's ability to practice law and get a lawyer in trouble.  Also, if drugs or alcohol are involved it will play a role as the person may not be "fit" to practice in that situation.http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/ProfConduct/profConductRules.pdf


All that said, if I lost my license it would affect my ability to do my job and I would more than likely be fired.  If I am not disciplined by the State, I would not be disciplined by my job.  Nor would anyone else that works at my company for actions that occur outside the workplace and do not affect their ability to do their job.

Morality does not belong in the workplace.  Just my opinion, but I would not be suspending any professional athletes for actions outside of the sport unless such action affects their ability (i.e. drug use).

So, commissioner Moranis, if Rice had broken his hand he'd be a fair target for a suspension?

Your continued refusal to acknowledge that a major part of any NFL player's job is to be marketable is confusing.