Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Eh - there's a way to use that as a datapoint.
Addisions baseline behavior was arguably as reckless or moreso than Rice's. In that instance, the NFL didn't punish because as reckless as it was, the consequences were minimal.
In this case, while what Rice did was reckless, the outcome really isn't going to alter lives for more than a couple of weeks (unless it's to the good on account of 'neck pain' and an eventual windfall for the plaintiff...)
In either event, if the NFL comes down and says "We're hitting him with 4+ games because things COULD'VE been horrible and we want to set an example..." well that sure as shit doesn't square with Addison driving at stock car speeds on a public road and getting no punishment to speak of.
It's not wholly irrelevant. Moreover, your dismissal of "He did it to!" as a quasi-defense completely ignores the concept of precedent and its importance in the legal system. Hell yes what another party did and how that party was punished is relevant. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.
Precedent is essentially the foundation of our sentencing process and arguably the basis of our entire system of jurisprudence. You can't just hand-waive that.
|
Except for -KING- made a simple statement about the speed and how fortunate Rice was that no one was more seriously injured.
He made no claims about how Rice should be tarred and feathered for this. How Rice should be expelled from the NFL. It is akin to you saying you like the color blue and I start talking about the wavelength properties of the color red. The only relation between the two things is that they are both colors.