A victim isn't any less of a victim by suffering from sympathetic feelings towards an abuser. One very well-known example of this phenomenon being Stockholm's Syndrome, wherein the victim in a kidnapping or protracted hostage situation will develop a regard, perhaps sympathetic, heroic or romantic --in nature, for the kidnapper/captor/perpetrators. A victim is no less a victim for having a sense of allegiance to, or sexually submissive relationship with, their abuser. Even in the case that the victims become a perpetrator of crime themselves, the original abuser is no less guilty of abuse. I'm not going to show the video of 'the kiss,' because ITS IRRELEVANT. I don't question whether or not this relationship is psychotic and manipulative and sick.

To me the only thing that the images of ‘the kiss’ revealed, was that even when he is the one bringing violence unto her, she turns to him to soothe herself and comforts him in the process; all signs consistent with the behaviors of partners in an abusive relationship. Almost all domestic abusers will profusely apologize after harming their partners to disassociate themselves from culpability and shame. Often even painting themselves as victims of the ‘annoying’ or ‘aggravating’ and ‘instigative’ behaviors of the abused, ‘You just get me so worked up, you know?’ Abusers cajole a sympathetic response out of the abused in order to self-soothe, justify their actions, and win back the hope and trust within the abused that ‘bad days happen,’ and the scenario will change. Kiss, and make up!

"Kiss and make up," is not simply an idyllic turn of phrase. In some cases, it is psychologically symptomatic behavior, which highlights an underlying problem within a relationship.

'She chose to marry him... She likes the lifestyle too much to let it go!' Nah, that’s not how this stuff works. You don’t stick with someone who beats the stuffing out of you just because they buy you things. This, like all abusive relationships, is most likely nuanced with underlying emotional dependency issues and lots & lots of fear for what a person might and might not be, without their significant other. I am part of that team that puts the victims first. Being married with money in your pocket is not license for violating your partner's rights to life. Inebriation is not an excuse to violate your partner’s rights to life. Being under pressure is not an excuse to violate your partners’ rights to life. Everyone is conditioned to need and want money, it takes most of us a lifetime to be free from that fool’s errand of thinking you’ll be happy with a steady income and certain ‘securities.’ This woman did not deserve to have the NFL brush the abuse she suffered under the rug, simply because she doesn’t have the peace of mind and community support it takes, to admit that she needs help. Moreover, she is suffering, and we have now guaranteed that future women will suffer, because we are too sheepish to make change ourselves. No, she doesn’t have to leave him, maybe they both want to figure out where the love went or whatever, but she doesn’t deserve to uphold the career of her abuser and the integrity of his employers, when they clearly have no concern for her well being.

Does that not strike you as sick that we want to avoid dealing with gender equity so badly, that we would normalize abuse, even romanticize it? ‘All couples have their issues,’ ‘We don’t know the extent of the situation,’ ‘Even she said she was sorry and they are fine…’ These are the pills we are offered. I suppose we are all entitled to opinions as they say, but legally and psychologically speaking there isn’t much grey area here. So, I’m left wondering why people’s opinions are so swayed? Do we not know we have answered these questions already?

Shall we review?

'The People are many. You are the People. It’s just, not cool, to beat up the People. Especially the People among the People you love most dearly, and conned into loving you back, i.e. family. Sometimes, some of the People can make you upset. If you are struggling with the People, you should seek professional help to manage your anger and deal with your issues free from fear of prejudice, be you any gender, creed, class, color or form. There is a good reason to deal with those issues. If you transgress and violate another one of the Peoples’ rights, whether or not you are their legal spouse/guardian/representation, YOU ARE violating common law, as enforced at the state and domestic levels, and you are also violating federal law, under the Violence Against Women Act. You are going directly against the aspirations stated in the Declaration of Independence. You are violating a person’s civil rights as provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Your behavior is not excusable, lacked mercy and consideration for human life and therefore warrants punishment to the prescribed extents of the law. It should not be up to the NFL to impose a superfluous policy in any form. Their regulations should coincide with the justice system and laws of the United States of America.

Its odd to me that folks aren’t seeing what the NFL did for what it really was. This whole NFL Domestic Violence Policy is a huge part of the reason why this case, and now so many future cases within the league, and perhaps now other national leagues, won’t see justice. To head-off the liability charges and barrage of criticisms bounding toward them, the NFL assembled a crack team of lawyers and set up the Barbie Dream Castle of all domestic violence policies; all fuckery sparkles, and deluxe loopholes, and pretty pedantic language. At this point, neither Ms. Rice nor any future player’s spouse will have many options. Her only option is ending her marriage (not that it seems great to be married to someone who hurts you, but the law can’t decide that for people), and basically losing everything, or, pretending nothing ever happened. She can’t just accuse him of assault and hold him accountable for that because he’s basically facing double jeopardy, where he has to be held accountable by both the laws of the United States and the laws of the NFL. It’s a manipulative measure which puts the wives in a lose-lose position, both emotionally and legally, and could possibly convince the courts the player is suffering enough through suspension to deserve any real legal recourse.

The only folks who don’t lose are the NFL. They have protected themselves on all sides, making it possible to intimidate future complainants, protect their assets/athletes, and safeguard themselves should they simply not feel like putting up a fight for a player, and refuse him in the appeal process. A player remains in the green, that is, only suspended for an unspecified number of unpaid games (1-6), unless he is twice indicted, and convicted, of domestic assault by the same person. This warrants him a ‘lifetime ban.’ Even if a lifetime ban is imposed, the player is afforded the opportunity to, rather, expected to, formally appeal to get his spot back, making lifetime bans and the whole punitive measure, effectively meaningless.

According to USA Today's NFL Arrest Data Base, the NFL has had 157 arrests from 2012-2014, of these arrests 20 were related to charges of domestic violence, child abuse, and assault against women. Of those 20 cases, only 2 were eventually indicted and ultimately 4 charged. All jail sentences were delayed or suspended (meaning no real time was served for anyone). 2 offenders only had to pay a fine, and 6 accepted probation sentences and remained playing without interruption. Of the 22 NFL bans and suspensions from 2012-2014, only 4 are suspensions which lasted longer than 2 games. All of the offenses, however, are clearly against the laws of the United States (the ones we are all supposed to follow) ranging from racketeering and drug use to assault and DUI. There it is, folks. The glaring actuality that the NFL really has managed to sweep the criminal behavior of their employees, under the proverbial rug. That courts and law enforcement have been giving passes at an alarming rate, so many in fact, that it seems to be time for someone to audit this $hady busine$$.