If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Ray Rice's punishment for beating up his girlfriend: Marriage?   (espn.go.com) divider line 34
    More: Strange, Ray Rice, Steve Bisciotti, Brandon Spikes, Press of Atlantic City, Ravens, New England Patriots, ESPN NFL, punishments  
•       •       •

685 clicks; posted to Sports » on 29 Mar 2014 at 6:09 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-29 04:11:02 PM  
Hey diddle, diddle. It'll help get acquittal.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-29 05:52:16 PM  
Yesterday we had an article about a couple who reconciled after he shot her and blew her up.
 
2014-03-29 06:19:07 PM  
Ah... the complexity of human relationships.
 
2014-03-29 06:22:39 PM  
So he got a lifetime sentence?
I'll bet he's steamed.
 
2014-03-29 06:37:43 PM  
And now they can' t make her testify against him.
 
2014-03-29 06:43:36 PM  
Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.
 
2014-03-29 06:44:27 PM  
Brandon Spikes, I don't know you but I REALLY like you now. Maybe the culture of the NFL would be different if men would actually make statements like this against their fellow players, instead of brushing this kind of crap under the rug.

Granted, this was apparently a case where both got physical, but it's much worse when there's such a physical disparity between two people.
 
2014-03-29 06:49:39 PM  
That being said...

If you lay with dogs, you get bit. Frankly, I don't give two shiats about what happens to this woman now. She's in it for the cash.

I have a hard enough time feeling sorry for people who truly fear they have nowhere else to go (when, if you're a woman, you have options that aren't available to everyone)... this woman not only CAN do it, but likely could be (modestly) set for life because she was abused by a millionaire.
 
2014-03-29 06:50:48 PM  

www.champcomedyblog.com


OH OHHHHHHHHHH YOU SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE JAIL TIME, YOU LOSER.

 
2014-03-29 07:01:12 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.



first thing i thought of to, but not necessarily;  some states have recently adopted variants of "unless the spouse is the victim" exceptions to the spousal privilege.

/and spousal privilege similarly tends to not apply if children of the marital unit are victims, which is not the case here. point is, aside from teh federal vs. state distinctions, the marital privilege doctrine is evolving fairly quickly.
 
2014-03-29 07:16:36 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: And now they can' t make her testify against him.

Anderson's Pooper: Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.



Everyone knows a husband and wife can't be arrested for the same crime.
 
2014-03-29 07:20:20 PM  
Girl got paid.  She probably has a diamond twice as big as Kobe's wife and a prenup that guarantees Ray will be living under a highway overpass when they inevitably divorce.
 
2014-03-29 07:21:02 PM  

puffy999: Maybe the culture of the NFL would be different if men would actually make statements like this against their fellow players, instead of brushing this kind of crap under the rug.


What culture is this?
 
2014-03-29 07:35:35 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: puffy999: Maybe the culture of the NFL would be different if men would actually make statements like this against their fellow players, instead of brushing this kind of crap under the rug.

What culture code is this?

 
2014-03-29 07:40:59 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: And now they can' t make her testify against him.


Wrong. Only applies for the time they are married. Anything prior is fair game.
 
2014-03-29 07:42:43 PM  

rickythepenguin: Anderson's Pooper: Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.


first thing i thought of to, but not necessarily;  some states have recently adopted variants of "unless the spouse is the victim" exceptions to the spousal privilege.

/and spousal privilege similarly tends to not apply if children of the marital unit are victims, which is not the case here. point is, aside from teh federal vs. state distinctions, the marital privilege doctrine is evolving fairly quickly.


According to many Twitter posts, New Jersey is one of the states with such a statute. I don't know personally, but I've seen come up all day from many sources and no one refuting it.
 
2014-03-29 07:42:55 PM  

rickythepenguin: Anderson's Pooper: Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.


first thing i thought of to, but not necessarily;  some states have recently adopted variants of "unless the spouse is the victim" exceptions to the spousal privilege.

/and spousal privilege similarly tends to not apply if children of the marital unit are victims, which is not the case here. point is, aside from teh federal vs. state distinctions, the marital privilege doctrine is evolving fairly quickly.


Its well settled that it only applies, if at all, during the marriage. Not before. Not after.
 
2014-03-29 07:59:46 PM  

Por que tan serioso: CigaretteSmokingMan: And now they can' t make her testify against him.

Wrong. Only applies for the time they are married. Anything prior is fair game.


IANAL but IIRC Florio is and he implies otherwise: Link
 
2014-03-29 08:15:50 PM  

Por que tan serioso: rickythepenguin: Anderson's Pooper: Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.


first thing i thought of to, but not necessarily;  some states have recently adopted variants of "unless the spouse is the victim" exceptions to the spousal privilege.

/and spousal privilege similarly tends to not apply if children of the marital unit are victims, which is not the case here. point is, aside from teh federal vs. state distinctions, the marital privilege doctrine is evolving fairly quickly.


Its well settled that it only applies, if at all, during the marriage. Not before. Not after.


I actually depends on the State.  I practice in Ohio and have seen this tactic used before. She is competent to testify in general but can't divulge private discussions between her and her spouse.  In this case there seems to be video evidence and it took place in a casino in front of cameras and witnesses so he may be hosed anyway.
 
2014-03-29 08:17:52 PM  
spousal immunity means you can't be compelled to share information that your spouse may have told you, not that you cannot be compelled to testify against them at all. But none of that matters. She was completely uncooperative with police through the entire process, so the only way they could have brought charges is if they have video evidence or another witness
 
2014-03-29 08:40:56 PM  

Lost Thought 00: spousal immunity means you can't be compelled to share information that your spouse may have told you, not that you cannot be compelled to testify against them at all. But none of that matters. She was completely uncooperative with police through the entire process, so the only way they could have brought charges is if they have video evidence or another witness


Or both (and it sounds like that may, indeed, be the case here).
 
2014-03-29 09:15:51 PM  
HE'S A GOOOD MAN OFFASER! A GOOD MAHN! it mah fault, I dhould never have caused so much trouble!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-29 09:17:58 PM  
Lost Thought 00

In some jurisdictions there are two levels:

1. Husband can prohibit wife or ex-wife from testifying about some things that went on during their marriage, most importantly private conversations. It doesn't matter if she wants to talk; he can stop her.

2. Wife can choose not to testify against husband. If she wants to get him in trouble, she can talk about anything not prohibited by the first rule. If she wants to protect him, she can keep quiet about things she is allowed to reveal.

Switch husband and wife if you like, but usually the husband is the criminal and the wife is the witness.

Example from around here: Guy went out driving drunk with his girlfriend in the passenger seat and got into a bad wreck. Prosecutors insisted she testify against him. They got married and she refused to testify. If they split up, she can probably testify against him because the incident did not happen while they were married. It's covered by rule 2, not rule 1. He has to keep her happy until the statute of limitations runs out.
 
2014-03-29 09:19:20 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: Por que tan serioso: rickythepenguin: Anderson's Pooper: Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.


first thing i thought of to, but not necessarily;  some states have recently adopted variants of "unless the spouse is the victim" exceptions to the spousal privilege.

/and spousal privilege similarly tends to not apply if children of the marital unit are victims, which is not the case here. point is, aside from teh federal vs. state distinctions, the marital privilege doctrine is evolving fairly quickly.


Its well settled that it only applies, if at all, during the marriage. Not before. Not after.

I actually depends on the State.  I practice in Ohio and have seen this tactic used before. She is competent to testify in general but can't divulge private discussions between her and her spouse.  In this case there seems to be video evidence and it took place in a casino in front of cameras and witnesses so he may be hosed anyway.


Correct. But only those conversations, acts or omissions that occur during the community are privileged. You cant get married to cover something that happened two months prior. In any state. Additionally, both parties hold the privilege, either or both can wave and neither party can assert for the other. In every state.
 
2014-03-29 10:13:53 PM  
I thought the Constitution prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.
 
2014-03-29 11:16:59 PM  
It is Baltimore. He could have killed her and got away with it. See an other famous Raven for an example.

We all know this the perfect landing spot Desean Jackson as well.
 
2014-03-29 11:25:48 PM  

VTGremlin: CigaretteSmokingMan: And now they can' t make her testify against him.
Anderson's Pooper: Yep.  Spousal immunity just kicked in.


Everyone knows a husband and wife can't be arrested for the same crime.


Rice has the worst farking lawyers.
 
2014-03-29 11:29:19 PM  
Maybe they just love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
 
2014-03-30 01:09:52 AM  
If someone decides to endure concussions for the sake of an NFL paycheck that's her decision, I just hope she retires from risking her brain that way while a reasonable quality of life is still possible.
 
2014-03-30 01:35:55 AM  
Maybe it's less about avoiding charges and more about his imagining that after he marries her the stigma from having done whatever he did in the casino goes away.
 
2014-03-30 09:07:52 AM  
You can implement all the domestic abuse programs and run all the PSA's you want, but you can't get through to stupid like this.
 
2014-03-30 09:11:48 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: Maybe it's less about avoiding charges and more about his imagining that after he marries her the stigma from having done whatever he did in the casino goes away.


This. There is absolutely no legal protection to be gained because they weren't married at the time of the incident.
 
2014-03-30 09:29:02 AM  

CodeMonkey4Life: If someone decides to endure concussions for the sake of an NFL paycheck that's her decision, I just hope she retires from risking her brain that way while a reasonable quality of life is still possible.


What you did there, I see it. And LOL'd.
 
2014-03-30 10:26:54 AM  
Her testimony isn't the key evidence. I hope the prosecutor watch the George Michael Sports Machine, "let's go to the videotape." Casinos not only have the video, they have multiple angles.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report