Steven A. Smith suspended for controversial comments regarding Ray Rice domestic violence case

[Rich Cannon]

Not sure if anyone posted this but on July 25, 2014 Steven A. Smith made some rather controversial comments regarding the Ray Rice domestic violence case on Espn’s First Take. Now Smith faces his own suspension from Espn. His own colleague Michelle Beadle from the show Sports Nation fired right back with some words of her own. I’m sure no one here condones domestic violence, there’s no question the NFL got it wrong with such a simple slap on the wrist suspension that Ray Rice received. Thoughts on these comments from Steven A. Smith and Michelle Beadle http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/espn-suspends-stephen-a--smith-over-ray-rice-domestic-abuse-commentary-213719386.html

[PrincetonTiger]

Wow

[Rich Cannon]

Wow

yea i know smh

[IcEWoLF]

Ahaha, ESPN, anything to get their ratings up!

[Shane Bond]

This is becoming hilarious.

[Poster X]

A week... it is clear the people who run ESPN are the same as those running the NFL.

[BOTT]

From what I read on the link I'm not sure what Steven A said was all that wrong. Woman need to be careful around some men because, this just in, men can get violent. I don't see that as condoning violence against woman, that's just using your head. Of course if you have to be that careful the woman should get a better man

[Bluefire4]

Stephen A= 1 week

Ray Rice= 2 weeks

[John Dee]

ESPN has turned into nothing more than the National Enquirer on TV.    They are so over the top and LOUD it is un viewable anymore.   And has been for some time.

 

The network really needs to concentrate on SPORTS instead of EVERY single talking head jumping on their little soap box and preaching the truth.   

 

It is just ............      annoying.  

 

Just stick to sports...          These are the last people on the face of the Earth who should profess to be the "moral compass" of a nation. 

[CardiacColts]

I have a few thoughts on the topic. I'm going to attempt to refrain from addressing the issue, so much as addressing ESPN's handling if the issue. On one side, I get where Smith was coming from. I think (hope) he was simply suggesting that people should do what they can to keep themselves safe and avoid confrontation. While I don't agree with him in this instance, I can see where such logic can be applied. A perfect example is when I am waiting to turn out of my neighborhood and I see a car coming with their right turn signal on. Theoretically, I could go right then. That leaves the chance that the driver doesn't turn and hits me anyways. Therefore, I wait until I see deceleration to make my turn safely.

Conversely, I get where Beadle is coming from. She is suggesting that people should not have to alter their own decisions in fear of any other person. I would agree with her. That line of thinking is what leads to tyranny, such as the political leaders in Turkey saying that honorable women should never laugh out in public. Heaven forbid that laughter offends some insecure man and leads to him taking out his embarrassment on a laughing woman.

Obviously there are people on both sides of this fence. I think people should live there lives and make there own choices. People should also be able to live without fear of physical repercussions for choices they make, unless such choices are to inflict harm unto others.

What bothers me, purely philosophically, is how ESPN handled the situation. They tend to be the ultimate reactionary machine. They are so afraid of being sanctioned by the NFL that rather than provide a healthy forum for an explanation and N apology, they jump right to suspending Smith. I am no Steven A. Smith fan, however, he has established himself as someone deserving of an opportunity to explain himself.

It reminds me of how ESPN cut ties with my favorite show of all time, Playmakers, out of fear of the wrath of the mighty NFL. ESPN conducts itself as the NFL's obedient little lap dog. The NFL felt that playmakers was too controversial presenting issues in the modern NFL, such as gay players, drug abuse, steroids, health issues (O lineman told if he lost weight to save his life he would lose his job), and even domestic abuse, so they strong-armed ESPN to get rid of the show for good after one season. Obviously the show was a work of complete fiction and NONE of these things could ever occur in the NFL today. So much for transparency . Seriously though, I wish ESPN would make their own decisions regarding touchy subjects.

[Rant Over]

[JPPT1974]

I rarely watch ESPN these days. But really serves Mr Smith right! 

 

Never, ever, take lightly domestic violence. Or for granted for that matter. As if you or someone you love has suffered through this, report it to the police ASAP! Please right away! 

 

Never provoke violence or hurt innocent people. Tell someone about it!

[CardiacColts]

I rarely watch ESPN these days. But really serves Mr Smith right!

Never, ever, take lightly domestic violence. Or for granted for that matter. As if you or someone you love has suffered through this, report it to the police ASAP! Please right away!

Never provoke violence or hurt innocent people. Tell someone about it!

I agree that domestic violence should never be taken lightly, but do you feel that a 1 week suspension does anything? It feels to me like a move to appease individuals with such strong feelings, as well as the NFL. I would rather see them keep him in his slated spots, but turn them to special segments regarding domestic violence awareness. That way the perception and focus would remain with the issue rather than the controversy surrounding him being suspended. Just a thought.

[Poster X]

From what I read on the link I'm not sure what Steven A said was all that wrong. Woman need to be careful around some men because, this just in, men can get violent. I don't see that as condoning violence against woman, that's just using your head. Of course if you have to be that careful the woman should get a better man

Really? If someone is so violent they need to get help... and those around them shouldn't have to change their behavior in the name of placation. Stephen A. Smith, and his co-host are both prone to making stupid comments.

[Nadine]

I can see Steven's point.  I don't think he meant that women are responsible for provoking.

And I believe that Rice has almost all the responsibility here

But yes, to protect your life, a woman should not provoke a man who is inclined to knock out someone far smaller and weaker than him

That's advice that anyone would give.

 

I don't think Smith needs to lose his job over this.  He's a talking head, he just talks nonstop and what he said here......didn't upset me.

 

I can see though if you are a victim of abuse how this might enrage you.  But posting while raging is not fair.

[Nobody]

I don't think what he said is bad.

And to Beadles- yeah. You can provoke your own beating. So can I or anyone if you hit someone.

[BOTT]

Really? If someone is so violent they need to get help... and those around them shouldn't have to change their behavior in the name of placation. Stephen A. Smith, and his co-host are both prone to making stupid comments.

"Should" has nothing to do with it. My neice "should" be able to attend frat party unaccompanied, but I would highly advise her not to. She has to live in the real world, not the one we hope it to be.

[NFLfan]

Really? If someone is so violent they need to get help... and those around them shouldn't have to change their behavior in the name of placation. Stephen A. Smith, and his co-host are both prone to making stupid comments.

Have you ever avoided going somewhere because you believed the neighborhood was not safe? Is that any different?

[Rich Cannon]

I can see Steven's point.  I don't think he meant that women are responsible for provoking.

And I believe that Rice has almost all the responsibility here

But yes, to protect your life, a woman should not provoke a man who is inclined to knock out someone far smaller and weaker than him

That's advice that anyone would give.

 

I don't think Smith needs to lose his job over this.  He's a talking head, he just talks nonstop and what he said here......didn't upset me.

 

I can see though if you are a victim of abuse how this might enrage you.  But posting while raging is not fair.

Maybe he could have phrased it a little better

[Rich Cannon]

I have a few thoughts on the topic. I'm going to attempt to refrain from addressing the issue, so much as addressing ESPN's handling if the issue. On one side, I get where Smith was coming from. I think (hope) he was simply suggesting that people should do what they can to keep themselves safe and avoid confrontation. While I don't agree with him in this instance, I can see where such logic can be applied. A perfect example is when I am waiting to turn out of my neighborhood and I see a car coming with their right turn signal on. Theoretically, I could go right then. That leaves the chance that the driver doesn't turn and hits me anyways. Therefore, I wait until I see deceleration to make my turn safely.

Conversely, I get where Beadle is coming from. She is suggesting that people should not have to alter their own decisions in fear of any other person. I would agree with her. That line of thinking is what leads to tyranny, such as the political leaders in Turkey saying that honorable women should never laugh out in public. Heaven forbid that laughter offends some insecure man and leads to him taking out his embarrassment on a laughing woman.

Obviously there are people on both sides of this fence. I think people should live there lives and make there own choices. People should also be able to live without fear of physical repercussions for choices they make, unless such choices are to inflict harm unto others.

What bothers me, purely philosophically, is how ESPN handled the situation. They tend to be the ultimate reactionary machine. They are so afraid of being sanctioned by the NFL that rather than provide a healthy forum for an explanation and N apology, they jump right to suspending Smith. I am no Steven A. Smith fan, however, he has established himself as someone deserving of an opportunity to explain himself.

It reminds me of how ESPN cut ties with my favorite show of all time, Playmakers, out of fear of the wrath of the mighty NFL. ESPN conducts itself as the NFL's obedient little lap dog. The NFL felt that playmakers was too controversial presenting issues in the modern NFL, such as gay players, drug abuse, steroids, health issues (O lineman told if he lost weight to save his life he would lose his job), and even domestic abuse, so they strong-armed ESPN to get rid of the show for good after one season. Obviously the show was a work of complete fiction and NONE of these things could ever occur in the NFL today. So much for transparency . Seriously though, I wish ESPN would make their own decisions regarding touchy subjects.

[Rant Over]

Well said

[Nadine]

Maybe he could have phrased it a little better

yeah but he just runs at the mouth

I've watched him enough to not believe he is blaming the victim

[Blackhawk4]

From what I read on the link I'm not sure what Steven A said was all that wrong. Woman need to be careful around some men because, this just in, men can get violent. I don't see that as condoning violence against woman, that's just using your head. Of course if you have to be that careful the woman should get a better man

Responses like this for some reason are still amazing me. Have seen responses like this more than I would have liked to. I don't think you're really seeing the main point in this huge situation if this is your stance on it. 

 

 

Not sure if anyone posted this but on July 25, 2014 Steven A. Smith made some rather controversial comments regarding the Ray Rice domestic violence case on Espn’s First Take. Now Smith faces his own suspension from Espn. His own colleague Michelle Beadle from the show Sports Nation fired right back with some words of her own. I’m sure no one here condones domestic violence, there’s no question the NFL got it wrong with such a simple slap on the wrist suspension that Ray Rice received. Thoughts on these comments from Steven A. Smith and Michelle Beadle http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/espn-suspends-stephen-a--smith-over-ray-rice-domestic-abuse-commentary-213719386.html

 

I read some of her mentions on twitter during the day of her tweets and it was horrible. You'd be amazed with how many cruel things were said in response to her tweets. Those responses showed how many people legitimately hate women and have no problem expressing their hatred for them. It's some messed up stuff to read.

[jvan1973]

Responses like this for some reason are still amazing me. Have seen responses like this more than I would have liked to. I don't think you're really seeing the main point in this huge situation if this is your stance on it.

Would you walk up to a 6'6" 300 pound man and get in his face and not expect the incident to get violent? That is what he is trying to say. He isn't saying that the guy has a right to hit you. But why put yourself into a bad situation

[Blackhawk4]

Would you walk up to a 6'6" 300 pound man and get in his face and not expect the incident to get violent? That is what he is trying to say. He isn't saying that the guy has a right to hit you. But why put yourself into a bad situation

Why resort to violence in the first place? You're the one make a choice to hit that person if they get up in your face. They might have issues because they're in your face like that, but if you've got to resort to hitting them then maybe you're the one with bigger issues than they are. 

[jvan1973]

Why resort to violence in the first place? You're the one make a choice to hit that person if they get up in your face. They might have issues because they're in your face like that, but if you've got to resort to hitting them then maybe you're the one with bigger issues than they are.

That's exactly what i just said. But if you don't put yourself in that situation, you won't get hit. Why poke a lion if it isn't necessary

[CardiacColts]

Would you walk up to a 6'6" 300 pound man and get in his face and not expect the incident to get violent? That is what he is trying to say. He isn't saying that the guy has a right to hit you. But why put yourself into a bad situation

Well stated. I agree with your interpretation. With that being said, I believe Smith was trying to insert advice that he would give to a child or a relative in a situation in which he should have refrained. It is very common for miscommunications to occur when an individual tries to apply generalized advice to a specific set of circumstances.

What I mean is that nobody is suggesting that there was anything Rice's then fiancé could have said or done to warrant what transpired. That was clearly a bad situation from start to finish. I mention that because I really think you present a solid point; however, many will jump on that and say how could you compare a woman and her significant other to instigating or antagonizing The Mountain from GOT.

[BOTT]

Responses like this for some reason are still amazing me. Have seen responses like this more than I would have liked to. I don't think you're really seeing the main point in this huge situation if this is your stance on it. 

 

 

 

I read some of her mentions on twitter during the day of her tweets and it was horrible. You'd be amazed with how many cruel things were said in response to her tweets. Those responses showed how many people legitimately hate women and have no problem expressing their hatred for them. It's some messed up stuff to read.

I get the point, I think you missed mine

[CardiacColts]

Why resort to violence in the first place? You're the one make a choice to hit that person if they get up in your face. They might have issues because they're in your face like that, but if you've got to resort to hitting them then maybe you're the one with bigger issues than they are.

I think we're all on the same page with that. Under no circumstances should anyone jump to violence; however, many do whether it's because they were raised in a culture of violence or because they are innately wired that way. Unfortunately, there is a reason why prisons exist and this country has more incarcerated citizens than any other nation on the planet.

It's no different than why I keep my mouth shut and mind my business when I'm out and I hear some ignorant sap spewing volatile venom at others. In many cases I could wreck them, having an extensive grappling and boxing background; however, I choose to avoid the altercation because experience has taught me that you never know quite what type of situation will transpire.

I think that this topic continuously generates so many polarizing opinions because of the escalating "snowball" effect. People think that doing what you can to protect yourself and avoid bad situations means that women shouldn't dress or act in a certain way; however, that is just a ridiculous slant some ignorant individuals choose to perseverate over to keep the debate going while distracting the central issue. All people should do what they can to avoid conflict, and no person should resort to violence. With that being said, all people, both men and women, are entitled to dress how they choose and go where they choose safely. Unfortunately, some people exercise no restraint, which means that in certain situations the rest of us need to exercise restraint to a greater extent. Just my two cents.

[Blackhawk4]

That's exactly what i just said. But if you don't put yourself in that situation, you won't get hit. Why poke a lion if it isn't necessary

Tell that to people who are abused in relationships. You going to tell them they're putting themselves in the situation and it's their fault they're getting hit and abused? When they're getting hit for no reason you can't say they put themselves in that situation when they haven't even done anything wrong. If the abused are in those situations, you really think they're in them on purpose and are trying to get abused? There are abusers that abuse to do so no matter what the victim has or has not done. Trying to give excuses doesn't change the problem. It's an issue that people try to defend this and that some accept it. There's no easy solution to solve this problem, but we can't try to make an excuse for having the problem. 

[amfootball]

The issue with Smith is the same issue we have had on these threads when this topic arises. Talking about how woman should not provoke a man to violence when the back drop is Ray Rice knocking out his finance is a completely out of place comment. There is no reason to bring that subject into play when the issue being discussed is a pro football player knocking his fiancé unconscious and it is also ridiculously obtuse to suggest people not provoke violent people. I think we all get that. It is the same as saying don't walk down a dark alley alone at night. The fact is the majority of women are abused without provoking and no one provoked or not should be knocked unconscious.

[jvan1973]

Tell that to people who are abused in relationships. You going to tell them they're putting themselves in the situation and it's their fault they're getting hit and abused? When they're getting hit for no reason you can't say they put themselves in that situation when they haven't even done anything wrong. If the abused are in those situations, you really think they're in them on purpose and are trying to get abused? There are abusers that abuse to do so no matter what the victim has or has not done. Trying to give excuses doesn't change the problem. It's an issue that people try to defend this and that some accept it. There's no easy solution to solve this problem, but we can't try to make an excuse for having the problem.

That is a completely different issue. Did you actually hear the interview? Obviously a woman stuck in an abusive situation is something different entirely

[Blackhawk4]

That is a completely different issue. Did you actually hear the interview? Obviously a woman stuck in an abusive situation is something different entirely

Yes I heard the interview. A woman is stuck in a abusive situation is very relevant to what he said. To say it's on the victim to know what not to do to provoke the attacker is an insult to the victim. There's no onus on the victim to know that when it's the attackers issue and their problem with their actions. It's the attacker's real duty to not be violent like that in the first place. They don't have to be like that and trying to put any fraction of the responsibility to the victim isn't the solution. Doing nothing wrong and still getting beat happens and it happens in a large amount in abusive relationships. Those victims who don't do anything and still get beat can't do what Smith was suggesting, and what he said applied to victims in general so they're part of the audience he was talking to. It's not on anyone else but the attacker to stop being violent. There are victims who try to do their part to avoid provoking the attacker and being hit and at the end of the day they are still assaulted. People need to stop hitting each other in the first place. How does that message get across successfully? I have no idea, but it's not impossible to try and get that message across. 

[Track Guy]

It all depends on what Stephen A. considers "provoking" in this situation. The only kind of "provoking" that justifies violence is if the woman is putting someone in imminent physical danger. Short of that there is really no excuse to react with violence. The provocation can't just be pissing the man off. If she was trying to stab his mother or something I'd say fine. But if it's just another example of domestic abuse (which I believe it probably is) than there's no point in talking about provoking anything.

[Poster X]

Would you walk up to a 6'6" 300 pound man and get in his face and not expect the incident to get violent? That is what he is trying to say. He isn't saying that the guy has a right to hit you. But why put yourself into a bad situation

No one should walk up into anyone's face, but if it should happen the person who is being walked up to should also have self control should they not? For Pete sake.

[NFLfan]

I think we're all on the same page with that. Under no circumstances should anyone jump to violence; however, many do whether it's because they were raised in a culture of violence or because they are innately wired that way. Unfortunately, there is a reason why prisons exist and this country has more incarcerated citizens than any other nation on the planet.

It's no different than why I keep my mouth shut and mind my business when I'm out and I hear some ignorant sap spewing volatile venom at others. In many cases I could wreck them, having an extensive grappling and boxing background; however, I choose to avoid the altercation because experience has taught me that you never know quite what type of situation will transpire.

I think that this topic continuously generates so many polarizing opinions because of the escalating "snowball" effect. People think that doing what you can to protect yourself and avoid bad situations means that women shouldn't dress or act in a certain way; however, that is just a ridiculous slant some ignorant individuals choose to perseverate over to keep the debate going while distracting the central issue. All people should do what they can to avoid conflict, and no person should resort to violence. With that being said, all people, both men and women, are entitled to dress how they choose and go where they choose safely. Unfortunately, some people exercise no restraint, which means that in certain situations the rest of us need to exercise restraint to a greater extent. Just my two cents.

That is very well said. I am a woman and I am careful about who I allow into my life. If someone shows any violent tendencies, I show him the door. However, that does not mean that I believe women or men provoke violent acts. I believe people should dress and act as they wish as long as they don't hurt others when doing so.

 

Stephen A. talks way too much and I think he used the wrong words to say that women should protect themselves against violent men. For me, that means staying away from such men if at all possible.

[jvan1973]

No one should walk up into anyone's face, but if it should happen the person who is being walked up to should also have self control should they not? For Pete sake.

i clearly said the person had no right to hit the person. But it happens. So to avoid that, you might want to stay out of their face.

[Jules]

I'd kick him off for good. Just like Sterling should be banned forever from ANYTHING in sports due to his racist comments.

 

I am sick and tired of people making excuses for stupid big mouthed men at times just because they are MEN. This country already treats women as stupid sex objects to make money then they throw it back in our faces if a guy gets mad or turned on.

[DougDew]

Oh c'mon people.....

 

please realize how the media and social media use sports figures to deliver their PC dogma about the issue at hand:

 

Rice = Domestic violence

Irsay = Class warfare

Manziel = Privlege

Incognito = Bullying

 

Redskins = Sensitivity

 

Sterling = Race/civil rights.

 

Say the wrong thing about the PC view of the issue and watch extorted corporations and social media bullies explode like a pack of trained pavlovian dogs.

 

Its one of the more hilarious aspects about our modern society.

[Patagonia Chris]

I wish they'd just cancel his god awful tv show and finally put the wrap on his and Bayless's long dead careers.

[Jules]

Oh c'mon people.....

 

please realize how the media and social media use sports figures to deliver their PC dogma about the issue at hand:

 

Rice = Domestic violence

Irsay = Class warfare

Manziel = Privlege

Incognito = Bullying

 

Redskins = Sensitivity

 

Sterling = Race/civil rights.

 

Say the wrong thing about the PC view of the issue and watch extorted corporations and social media bullies explode like a pack of trained pavlovian dogs.

 

Its one of the more hilarious aspects about our modern society.

 

 

It's not a PC conspiracy theory.......

 

Those are all REAL issues that have always been here for some time. The media does an excellent job though of making people think it is nothing but silly pc nonsense at times and they further divide the masses against one another.

 

In reality they are just making money and headlines off of the exploitation of people's REAL suffering......

[Blackhawk4]

Oh c'mon people.....

 

please realize how the media and social media use sports figures to deliver their PC dogma about the issue at hand:

 

Rice = Domestic violence

Irsay = Class warfare

Manziel = Privlege

Incognito = Bullying

 

Redskins = Sensitivity

 

Sterling = Race/civil rights.

 

Say the wrong thing about the PC view of the issue and watch extorted corporations and social media bullies explode like a pack of trained pavlovian dogs.

 

Its one of the more hilarious aspects about our modern society.