. . . after video is released showing him punching out his wife, Janay, then dragging her limp, unconscious body from an elevator.

And all the NFL does is suspend him???

Geezus.

Welcome to the world of mauling by men: It's the kind of sadistic stuff that history has always heaped upon women in the name of:

1) triumphant testosterone;

2) male-manufactured domination; and

3) the Sky God Guy God.


Here's the actual video of the elevator knock-out:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/tmz-releases-footage-of-ray-rice-punching-wife-124132772.html


And below is the current news story regarding Rice getting Raven-cut/NFL-suspended:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/after-domestic-violence-video-is-released--ravens-cut-running-back-ray-rice-183053516.html
____


For sicko supportive Biblical verse on this kind of primitive manhandling, see:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

*****


For the OP, see: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1372546



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2014 11:12PM by steve benson.

In the days when you were a cop, would you have needed a video to make an arrest?

Or, is your need for video something new?

. . . they didn't need to see the video in order to render an appropriate opinion on the DV, with you even trying to deny that you suggested any such thing. Check the original thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1372546,1372670#msg-1372670


As to you Q about cop work, in order to make an arrest for DV involving physical violence, evidence of physical injury is required by law (at least in AZ) in order to effectuate an automatic arrest on-scene (scrapes, bruises, wounds or other observable injuries). If bruises have not yet developed on the body of the victim while the officers are on-scene, the victim can be instructed to take photos of the area(s) claimed to have been injured by violent grabbing or hitting; then, when those injuries have actually appeared over the days immediately following the DV, can be entered as evidence against the accused assailant). In other cases, DV arrests may be made without physical evidence of violence--for example, when the persons involved in the altercation refuse police orders to separate themselves from each other and/or from the premises, with each of them ordered to go to different locales, in lieu of arrest.

Thanks for asking.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2014 11:02PM by steve benson.

So, if both parties agree that the male struck the female, rendering her unconcious, would you make an arrest or not?

I mean, this is where things stood in the Rice case months ago. Facts were not in dispute.

You do really need to get a life. What's not in dispute is your contention that the 2nd video wasn't necessary for anyone to see.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2014 11:07PM by steve benson.

No, you, like Rice, are a bit too much of a coward to answer questions directly.

No, you didn't. It was a yes or no answer.

If the facts were not in dispute, but there was no video, would you make an arrest.

I am talking about no bruises, no blood, no marks, but both parties agree the male struck the female with enough force to knock her out.

Videos can provide evidence of such, which can be considered during both prosecution and sentencing.

Again, coward, would you have made the arrest under the circumstances I described?

from the original thread:

Me:

"This is all about you not needing to see the second video . and your bizarre notion that no one else needs to see it, either. The second video underscores the horrible severity of the crime, bucko.

"If you're looking for female companionship for a guy (i.e., you) who thinks he supposedly has got it altogether on this, a bit of advice: do NOT advertise these RfM posts of yours on any dating sites."
_____


You:


"Please point out where I said nobody else needs to see it.

"I said, more than once, that if you need to see it to decide that Rice needs the most severe punishment possible for the NFL, well, you might not be as much of an advocate for victim's of abuse as you think you are."
_____


Me:

"Read this dismissive reply of yours, for gawd's sake . . .


'"Did anyone really need to see video to know what it looks "like for a professional football player to knock out a woman?'

posted by: whywait
Date: September 08, 2014 04:50PM
Re: So, the guy gets a hearing for criminally clocking his wife? Got it . . .

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1372546,1372626#msg-1372626
_____


"Live by the vid, die by what you said."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2014 11:17PM by steve benson.

I recognize you are a coward when backed into a corner, but I will continue asking until either you answer to the mods delete this thread.

Would you, as a former cop, have needed the video to make an arrest?

That is a simple yes or no question. Sure even as fast as you say you type you can type either yes or no without needed an edit.

You live in a corner into which you were backed after denying what you said, as demonstrated by the excerpt provided to you, both in the OP (and then again in this thread).

Slow learner.

Would you, as a former cop, have needed the video to make an arrest?

That is a simple yes or no question. Sure even as fast as you say you type you can type either yes or no without needed an edit.

I seriously don't get what you guys are arguing about. The video of rice dragging his then GF out of the elevator was released 6 weeks ago. It was obvious he should have been arrested and given a much worse suspension. What he did was awful.

The tape released today showed how awful it was.

You both agree it was really bad. But yes. It should have been dealt with 6 weeks ago. That tape was horrible.

Did you need video 2.0 to know how horrible it was for an NFL player to strike a woman?

I recognize you are a coward when backed into a corner, but I will continue asking until either you answer to the mods delete this thread.

Would you, as a former cop, have needed the video to make an arrest?

That is a simple yes or no question. Sure even as fast as you say you type you can type either yes or no without needed an edit.

BTW, would obnoxious include typing complete gibberish, as you have been known to do to push a thread to 30 posts and get the mods to kill it?

P.S. Threads, per board policy, are allowed to go to 30 posts. Mods kill threads on their own. I am not a mod.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2014 11:24PM by steve benson.

Would you, as a former cop, have needed the video to make an arrest?

That is a simple yes or no question. Sure even as fast as you say you type you can type either yes or no without needed an edit.

If you are not backed in a corner, answer the following



Would you, as a former cop, have needed the video to make an arrest?

That is a simple yes or no question. Sure even as fast as you say you type you can type either yes or no without needed an edit.

I already answered that Q for you, Barney.

Isn't that the same as saying you would not have needed the tape?

We are talking about the power of video tape #2 in the public sphere, among the non-LE populace.

Its recent surfacing has clearly influenced both the Ravens and the NFL, who owe their existence to the paying-customer populace.

No, but the nfl was limited by the cba and ended up making an admittedly bad decision. They changed their policy over it.

That 1st video was enough. No idea why it didn't get people to act. The second video was off the charts. They couldn't help but act.

Enter the 2nd video.

I am glad that the 2nd video is available to see. I was appalled at the first one, and disgusted with the light punishment.

By this second video being shown, people can see how horrible it really is, even if they didn't want to believe how bad it was, after seeing the first video. A woman at work tried to make the excuse 'well we don't know everything...' I told her to check out the 2nd video. My god! This guy, this football player, that does strength training everyday, who weighs 100+ lbs more than this woman, slugs her like a boxer!

One doesn't have to watch the 2nd video to know it was horrible abuse. I (and many others) knew it was with the first video. But this second one can not be explained away, can not be said 'oh it might not have been that bad'. It cements it, especially for those that would make excuses for this cruel, cruel behavour.

Are you giving Bingo to this part too?

One doesn't have to watch the 2nd video to know it was horrible abuse

Isn't that what I have said from my post subject?

A reasonable person who already is aware of the facts in this case does not need to watch video 2.0 to reach the conclusion that Rice is an abuser.

This journalese of Steve's is beginning to cloy and annoy.

Try some Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder, co-founder of the Mormon Church:

"Let the blacks of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life - endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets."

So let these football heroes loose on girls in elevators all over town.

This Oliver was something close to a prophet!

Don't let the fullback getcha honey!

"Fact, Not 'Fleck': The Mormon Church's Institutional Bigotry," RfM, 2009."

Try to keep up. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2014 11:33PM by steve benson.