Support NeoGAF

[pgtl_10]

If a woman hits you for no reason, then call the police. Men seem to not to understand that women will be arrested for domestic violence as well.

 

[Vermillion]

Because she punched him first? If this was a guy who kicked another guy in the groin, and then threw a limp punch, and walked out with a black eye, there's no story. The prosecutor definitely doesn't side with the guy who threw the first punch in a tiny bar scrum

1) And read the edit. I said a long time ago that I could have phrased it better, but you keep crying about misrepresentation. Your argument doesn't need to be misrepresented - definitely not intentionally.

2) So what you meant to say is that punching is never the right action unless someone punched you first?

 

[Beerman462]

She obviously wasn't controllable, seeing as she still managed to punch him in the face after he made an effort to restrain her.

The glancing blow he easily dodged? You're right he almost died.

Does an adolescent have a fully formed brain? Are they help to the same decision making standards as a 21 year old? And didn't he attempt to control the raised fist, before she kicked and punched him?

My point is that an adolescent is about as threating as this drunk female. I feel sorry for this guy if he felt threatened by her considering his size and strength.

 

[KHarvey16]

If a woman hits you for no reason, then call the police. Men seem to not to understand that women will be arrested for domestic violence as well.

Don't be silly, unless you retaliate with violence you're letting her get away with it!

 

[Nicktals]

1) And read the edit. I said a long time ago that I could have phrased it better, but you keep crying about misrepresentation. Your argument doesn't need to be misrepresented - definitely not intentionally.

2) So what you meant to say is that punching is never the right action unless someone punched you first?

2.) Correct, to a degree. It's never the right choice, but if someone swings at you first, you can swing back. Even if they're an unusually small male.

1.) Unless you edited again, I still have no idea what you're saying. Are you apologizing for blatantly misrepresenting me, or not?

 

[Nicktals]

Don't be silly, unless you retaliate with violence you're letting her get away with it!

Ahh, victim blaming at its finest. Please, let's reverse the roles again. A large, strong woman sidles up next to a scrawny blonde boy. The blonde kid turns, raises a fist, kicks her vagina, and swings at her. She punches him back, and walks away.

Prosecutors do what, do you think?

 

[Nicktals]

My point is that an adolescent is about as threating as this drunk female. I feel sorry for this guy if he felt threatened by her considering his size and strength.

And my point is that adults are held accountable for their actions. If you want to make this about strength, then make it about strength. I don't have any good information on her potential punching power. But I know that potential is only slightly limited (if at all), by her genitalia.

Her ability to do physical harm is influenced much more by her inebriation, her training, and her focus.

But again, in this case, shouldn't it be more about the difference in ability to take a punch? A lame punch attempt is still a punch attempt, whether from a man or woman. He should only be singled out if it was much more likely that she would sustain more severe injuries because of her gender.

I see no proof, or any attempt to actually prove, that.

 

[KHarvey16]

Ahh, victim blaming at its finest.

Uh...

Please, let's reverse the roles again. A large, strong woman sidles up next to a scrawny blonde boy. The blonde kid turns, raises a fist, kicks her vagina, and swings at her. She punches him back, and walks away.

Prosecutors do what, do you think?

They consider more facts than you've offered in this hypothetical to come to their conclusion. If you want to simply say the exact same scenario occurs except the genders are swapped I don't see any reason why the same conclusion isn't reached.

 

[Beerman462]

I know from video evidence that her punching power is well below his.

 

[Vermillion]

2.) Correct, to a degree. It's never the right choice, but if someone swings at you first, you can swing back. Even if they're an unusually small male.

1.) Unless you edited again, I still have no idea what you're saying. Are you apologizing for blatantly misrepresenting me, or not?

1) I'm not apologizing. I'm saying I could have worded it better, and revised the wording. Take it or don't; I don't really care.

2) Why? Self-defense is one thing. But hitting someone back just because they hit you is another. Does that apply to children, too? Or just small males and women?

 

[Nicktals]

Uh...



They consider more facts than you've offered in this hypothetical to come to their conclusion. If you want to simply say the exact same scenario occurs except the genders are swapped I don't see any reason why the same conclusion isn't reached.

I see one. Which is the entire fucking point. It's a double standard, and it's sexist. Find one case where the man who kicked another man in the groin, threw a punch, then walked away with a black eye got a prosecutor to press charges.

 

[Nicktals]

1) I'm not apologizing. I'm saying I could have worded it better, and revised the wording. Take it or don't; I don't really care.

2) Why? Self-defense is one thing. But hitting someone back just because they hit you is another. Does that apply to children, too? Or just small males and women?

So we're back to equating women to children and unusually small males? And still denying that sexism is playing any role....


EDIT: And for you to say it *just* applies to small men and women, when most cases as we both know occur between two random males is, again, very blatantly misrepresenting me.

And I think it's pretty obvious that you're not apologizing. You have no idea what you're talking about, and continue to try and spin a narrative that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

[royalan]

I know from video evidence that her punching power is well below his.

Does a woman have to be as strong as a man to cause that man harm?

 

[KHarvey16]

I see one. Which is the entire fucking point.

You see one what?

It's a double standard, and it's sexist. Find one case where the man who kicked another man in the groin, threw a punch, then walked away with a black eye got a prosecutor to press charges.

Again with your nonsensical attempt to offload your burden. If you're claiming proportionality does not apply in cases of a man defending against another man, prove it. You haven't cited a single piece of evidence supporting your claim.

 

[Beerman462]

I see one. Which is the entire fucking point. It's a double standard, and it's sexist. Find one case where the man who kicked another man in the groin, threw a punch, then walked away with a black eye got a prosecutor to press charges.

I'm sorry but sexism isn't always a two way street. Women being equal in society as a whole doesn't make them equal in a bar fight.

 

[Vermillion]

So we're back to equating women to children and unusually small males? And still denying that sexism is playing any role....

See, I thought I said that neither should have hit the other. I guess I must have just been talking about the guy.

And you're probably not wrong in that positive sexism colors some of this discussion. But the logic - no one should hit anyone - is good. You'll have a difficult time proving that retaliation outside of self-defense is a good idea.

(Oh, and while I made the children example, you made the small male example first - at least in our conversation.)

 

[norm9]

Does she knee him in the balls twice? Hard to tell from the video.

I'm sorry but sexism isn't always a two way street. Women being equal in society as a whole doesn't make them equal in a bar fight.

Depends if they're trying to punch you in the face and kneeing you in the balls. If a woman is trying to fight me, I'm trying to get away. If I can't get away or if my fight or flight instincts cause me to throw a punch in self defense, I'll say "my bad" for my actions, but I'll also say she had it coming.

 

[Nicktals]

You see one what?



Again with your nonsensical attempt to offload your burden. If you're claiming proportionality does not apply in cases of a man defending against another man, prove it. You haven't cited a single piece of evidence supporting your claim.

"I don't see any reason why the same conclusion isn't reached".

I see one.

I don't need to support this claim? What do you want me to prove? That who swings first is the law of the land in small bar scrums with men punching men, resulting in a black eye or bruised balls?

Tell me how I can sufficiently prove that to you.

 

[Nicktals]

See, I thought I said that neither should have hit the other. I guess I must have just been talking about the guy.

And you're probably not wrong in that positive sexism colors some of this discussion. But the logic - no one should hit anyone - is good. You'll have a difficult time proving that retaliation outside of self-defense is a good idea.

(Oh, and while I made the children example, you made the small male example first - at least in our conversation.)

No, not positive sexism. Sexism. You want to think of women as weak, fragile, and incapable of causing harm or being regarded as a serious threat, then you're free to be sexist. Not reverse sexism, not positive sexism. Sexism. Strong women don't need your help.

The small male example was a throw back to many hours ago when I had the same conversation with someone making the exact same points who said that the strength of the woman in the video was probably equal to that of an unusually small male.

 

[KHarvey16]

"I don't see any reason why the same conclusion isn't reached".

I see one.

And...? Are you going to keep us all in suspense or are you going to tell us what it is?

I don't need to support this claim? What do you want me to prove? That who swings first is the law of the land in small bar scrums with men punching men, resulting in a black eye or bruised balls?

Tell me how I can sufficiently prove that to you.

Provide evidence that the legal doctrine of proportionality does not apply in such cases. You claim it doesn't yet provide no support. In fact all you offer is personal incredulity.

 

[Vermillion]

2.) Correct, to a degree. It's never the right choice, but if someone swings at you first, you can swing back. Even if they're an unusually small male.

2) Why? Self-defense is one thing. But hitting someone back just because they hit you is another. Does that apply to children, too? Or just small males and women?

EDIT: And for you to say it *just* applies to small men and women, when most cases as we both know occur between two random males is, again, very blatantly misrepresenting me.

And I think it's pretty obvious that you're not apologizing. You have no idea what you're talking about, and continue to try and spin a narrative that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

You're the one that brought up small males. I followed that trend. The conversation is about women. We are talking about how low we are willing to go with your example. We have already mentioned women, you mentioned small males, then I mentioned children. We are talking about people that are weaker. Another man of equal strength would not fit that bracket.

 

[Mory Dunz]

I'm sorry but sexism isn't always a two way street. Women being equal in society as a whole doesn't make them equal in a bar fight.

Yes. Yes it does.

Lol do you see what you're saying?

It exactly means they should be equal in a situation like this where it's two adults in a confrontation. That'd be equality.


And what does punching power matter?
What if it's a miniscule guy and Ronda Rousey?
Should the percieved stronger person never defend himself/herself ever? I'm not even talking about here, but in general.

 

[Nicktals]

And...? Are you going to keep us all in suspense or are you going to tell us what it is?

Read the thread man. Same thing has been gone over 3 times. The reason this is getting prosecuted but no one has been able to find a similar example with 2 men involved is because of a double standard, and sexism...thinking that women are weak, fragile, and not only not equal, but not capable of being considered threatening.


Provide evidence that the legal doctrine of proportionality does not apply in such cases. You claim it doesn't yet provide no support. In fact all you offer is personal incredulity.

I don't care what the legal doctrine of proportionality says. I know what the law of battery is in florida, I saw 2 instances where it was violated, then I saw one punch, and nothing else. No one was seriously harmed. Again, if it were a guy, end of story. What reason, aside from sexism, is that not the end of the story here?

At least Jobbs has the ability to look at his cultural upbringing and relate that to why he wasn't viewing women and men as equals....I have no interest in training my brain to think that way.

 

[Vermillion]

No, not positive sexism. Sexism. You want to think of women as weak, fragile, and incapable of causing harm or being regarded as a serious threat, then you're free to be sexist. Not reverse sexism, not positive sexism. Sexism. Strong women don't need your help.

The small male example was a throw back to many hours ago when I had the same conversation with someone making the exact same points who said that the strength of the woman in the video was probably equal to that of an unusually small male.

*sigh* Positive sexism is any form of sexism that has a positive effect for women, but is still ultimately sexist. For example: chivalry, not hitting women solely because they're women, etc.

Now you know

Anyways, you still haven't given a reason for the football player to hit a woman that wasn't actually a threat based on anything in the video.

 

[Frog-fu]

So if a adolescent punches you in the groin are you free to retaliate with full force? Her age or size has no impact here. She was obviously weaker and controllable. He reacted out of pride/ego. I don't know how anyone can watch that video and interpret him as being vulnerable. He controlled the situation from the beginning to the end. He was never in risk of serious bodily injuring. He was just protecting a possible bruised ego.

The woman isn't an adolescent, she's an adult, and clearly he failed to control her because she struck him twice.

He reacted because it's natural. Less than a second passed between her punching him and his punch back. That's not enough time for pride or ego to come into play.

The law doesn't require him to have been vulnerable, it requires a reasonable belief of an an imminent threat. A raised fist satisfies that. A knee to the groin satisfies that. A punch to the face satisfy that.

It's sexist enough to equate a grown woman with a child, but to suggest neither her knee nor her punch put him at risk is absurd.

The knee to the groin could have done serious damage. The punch could have done serious damage to his eyes or nose.

The fact that neither did doesn't mean he wasn't justified in hitting her. He was, the law is on his side, and if it weren't for the fact society applies ridiculous double standards in in these type of situations, the majority of public opinion would be on his side.

 

[Nicktals]

You're the one that brought up small males. I followed that trend. The conversation is about women. We are talking about how low we are willing to go with your example. We have already mentioned women, you mentioned small males, then I mentioned children. We are talking about people that are weaker. Another man of equal strength would not fit that bracket.

Okay, fine...I'll have the same exact conversation that led to the unusually small male comment in the first place, about 20 pages ago.

If it were a man who had the ability to punch exactly as strong as this woman, what do you think would happen?

 

[KHarvey16]

I don't care what the legal doctrine of proportionality says.

It's...instrumental in understanding the legal outcome here. You need to care about it if you're interested in understanding why he isn't going to be successful in attempting to claim self defense.

I know what the law of battery is in florida, I saw 2 instances where it was violated, then I saw one punch, and nothing else. No one was seriously harmed. Again, if it were a guy, end of story. What reason, aside from sexism, is that not the end of the story here?

You're just going to ignore the whole thing about you providing evidence, huh?

 

[Vermillion]

Okay, fine...I'll have the same exact conversation that led to the unusually small male comment in the first place, about 20 pages ago.

If it were a man who had the ability to punch exactly as strong as this woman, what do you think would happen?

He would get punched back. My turn - why should he be punched back?

 

[norm9]

The fact that neither did doesn't mean he wasn't justified in hitting her. He was, the law is on his side, and if it weren't for the fact society applies ridiculous doublestandards in in these type of situations, the majority of public opinion would be on his side.

ANd this is why he is fucked. Shitty situation for him with everyone else being Well I Wouldn't Have Hit Her Shes A Woman Real Men Don't Do This.

 

[Nicktals]

*sigh* Positive sexism is any form of sexism that has a positive effect for women, but is still ultimately sexist. For example: chivalry, not hitting women solely because they're women, etc.

Now you know

Anyways, you still haven't given a reason for the football player to hit a woman that wasn't actually a threat based on anything in the video.

False narrative, again. If it was a man who threw the first punch, even if he was weaker than that female, what would happen? Or find any example of a bar scrum where the person who punched first and kicked someone in the groin go the prosecution to take their case. You don't think guys weaker than her have gotten drunk and started fights with strong athletes before? They have. There is no prosecution record, because they are never prosecuted.

 

[KTallguy]

She's an idiot for trying to start a fight.

He's an idiot for continuing it.

I don't know what's right in the eyes of the law.

I don't know if this is a relevant example, but I'll offer it:

One time I was driving in a city attempting to find a parking spot. I was evidently blocking a bicyclist. He started ramming his hand down on my car as he passed it. I was incensed. Do I have the right to stick out my arm and push his bike over? Did he start it, and I'm defending my property? Or is that unproportionate force?

 

[Beerman462]

If an adult can physically control the situation sans violence they should. In this situation it was a strong male vs a female and he abused his physical superiority. If you see a situation where a female MMA fight abuses her physical superiority vs a weak male let me know. I'm sure it's quite rare.

 

[Nicktals]

He would get punched back. My turn - why should he be punched back?

Because he threw the first punch. My turn: Why did he throw the first point and what the fuck are you talking about. Punching is never right, but if someone punches you, you can punch back. That's how it works for all gender combinations except for this one.

 

[Nicktals]

If an adult can physically control the situation sans violence they should. In this situation it was a strong male vs a female and he abused his physical superiority. If you see a situation where a female MMA fight abuses her physical superiority vs a weak male let me know. I'm sure it's quite rare.

A women beating a man isn't as rare as you think when men feel they can't reciprocate without being ostracized.

 

[Jenov]

Don't be silly, unless you retaliate with violence you're letting her get away with it!

Hah, that and some of my favorites:

"She deserved it!"

"He only got charged because she has a vagina."

"She only hit him because she's a woman and knew she could get away with it."

"She could have killed him with that glass/bottle/cup!"

"She looks bigger than the guy next to her, thus stronger"

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The odds that a randomly selected man will be stronger than a randomly selected woman are pretty good.

So what

This is irrelevant. The odds that a randomly selected man will be stronger than another randomly selected man is about 50/50 but if he had punched a smaller dude no one would have given a shit, it would be considered a banal bar brawl.

It's not about muscular strength, it's about gender.

 

[Sir Blaming]

Obviously both are wrong. You don't harm someone no matter the gender.
But really, you shouldn't get yourself into trouble when you are a sport player, people love to blame someone when they have a face to point at, even if its wrong to do so.

 

[toxicgonzo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSrrKcGW9pQ

Has this been posted yet?

Manager At Manhattan Panera Bread Knocks Out A Female Employee After She Slapped Him

 

[Nicktals]

One time I was driving in a city attempting to find a parking spot. I was evidently blocking a bicyclist. He started ramming his hand down on my car as he passed it. I was incensed. Do I have the right to stick out my arm and push his bike over? Did he start it, and I'm defending my property? Or is that unproportionate force?

Depends on what injuries he sustained. To repeat, again...This guy should either be charged with attempted murder with a deadly weapon (the potential), or charged with giving a drunk individual who attempted to punch and kick him a black eye (the actual impact).

Different crimes are judged differently.

 

[Nicktals]

Hah, that and some of my favorites:

"She deserved it!"

"He only got charged because she has a vagina."

"She only hit him because she's a woman and knew she could get away with it."

"She could have killed him with that glass/bottle/cup!"

"She looks bigger than the guy next to her, thus stronger"

My favorite: Find me a court case equal to this involving a man and a man..


Glad to see you're still good at KOing the strawmen, though.

 

[Vermillion]

Because he threw the first punch. My turn: Why did he throw the first point and what the fuck are you talking about. Punching is never right, but if someone punches you, you can punch back. That's how it works for all gender combinations except for this one.

So basically, nothing to do with law or logic. Just because that's how it works? You realize that this isn't an argument, yes? But you tried.

Anyways, legally speaking, he has a court date set, and I see nothing about her. So I guess we'll see?

 

[KHarvey16]

Hah, that and some of my favorites:

"She deserved it!"

"He only got charged because she has a vagina."

"She only hit him because she's a woman and knew she could get away with it."

"She could have killed him with that glass/bottle/cup!"

"She looks bigger than the guy next to her, thus stronger"

Seriously.

My favorite: Find me a court case equal to this involving a man and a man.

How can you keep posting this? It's your job to show why the laws, as written, magically stop applying in that situation. "I just know, man" is not an answer.

This is basic reasoning here.

 

[Vermillion]

So what

This is irrelevant. The odds that a randomly selected man will be stronger than another randomly selected man is about 50/50 but if he had punched a smaller dude no one would have given a shit, it would be considered a banal bar brawl.

It's not about muscular strength, it's about gender.

And you're probably not wrong in that positive sexism colors some of this discussion. But the logic - no one should hit anyone - is good. You'll have a difficult time proving that retaliation outside of self-defense is a good idea.

.

 

[Nicktals]

So basically, nothing to do with law or logic. Just because that's how it works? You realize that this isn't an argument, yes? But you tried.

Anyways, legally speaking, he has a court date set, and I see nothing about her. So I guess we'll see?

Ugh. Appeal to power...What page are we on again?

 

[KTallguy]

Attempted murder with a deadly weapon ... lol.

That's blowing it way out of proportion. He was tactless and stupid for hitting her back, though.

I honestly don't know if he should be charged... really. But he'll probably get the book thrown at him because of the inherent biases in our legal system.

 

[Nicktals]

Seriously.



How can you keep posting this? It's your job to show why the laws, as written, magically stop applying in that situation. "I just know, man" is not an answer.

This is basic reasoning here.

Despite this being the 5th time I've typed this exact thing: How can I sufficiently prove this to you? It's never happened. How do you want me to prove that? I've been trying to falsify it by searching, and haven't been able to...that's the best I can do.

Attempted murder with a deadly weapon ... lol.

That's blowing it way out of proportion. He was tactless for hitting her back, though.

Now THAT I can find you examples of...

5 seconds: "Assault with a Deadly Weapon Charges
Assault with a deadly weapon is usually one of the highest assaultive offenses next to manslaughter and murder. Some states refer to this charge as assault with a dangerous instrument or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. An assault can include knowing, intentional, or even reckless conduct which results in an unwanted contact with a victim. The most basic example of knowing or intentional conduct is when one person hits another with a closed fist.



Read more: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/.../assault-with-deadly-weapon.htm#ixzz3fN1as0H5
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook"

 

[Frog-fu]

If an adult can physically control the situation sans violence they should. In this situation it was a strong male vs a female and he abused his physical superiority. If you see a situation where a female MMA fight abuses her physical superiority vs a weak male let me know. I'm sure it's quite rare.

You have an odd understanding of what control means. Failing to stop someone from kneeing and punching you is not control. It is the opposite of that. The QB could have easily controlled her if he were better positioned for it, but he wasn't, their altercation happened very fast and got violent very quickly.

Your line of thinking is not only sexist, but it places an undue burdens on victims.

And just some food for thought so you stop comparing physical ability as if it's the be-all and end-all factor to consider people's right to defend themselves: roughly half of domestic violence are carrier out by women against men.

 

[Lovely Salsa]

At a festival last year, a group of girls went past me and one of them grabbed my ass. Could I have gone up to her and grabbed her ass?

 

[KHarvey16]

Despite this being the 5th time I've typed this exact thing: How can I sufficiently prove this to you? It's never happened. How do you want me to prove that? I've been trying to falsify it by searching, and haven't been able to...that's the best I can do.

This is absolutely bizarre to me. You make a claim and then cannot find any evidence to support it. That fact then compels you to...continue making the claim?

You're obviously wrong. Stop saying it.

 

[Jenov]

My favorite: Find me a court case equal to this involving a man and a man..


Glad to see you're still good at KOing the strawmen, though.

The burden is on YOU to prove your own claim, not me. You're the one claiming that man vs man self defense proportionality case doesn't exist.