Ex-FSU QB punches woman, self defense?

[hawknation2015]

That's not an accurate characterization of what happened here, and it certainly sends the wrong message about whether someone should put their hands on a woman who is posing no serious threat to them.

I would point out that nobody knows what was said, so there is a lot of important information missing.

I never said it was okay for the guy to hit her. He was expelled and should be charged by police as well. I just hate it when a person is allowed to get away with inciting violence as if it doesn't matter, when it definitely matters. Less inciting of violence = less violence. As a society we need to grow up and realize this isn't a single gender issue.

I should have said that it is not an accurate representation of what we saw happen here in the video. If she did incite violence by using fighting words, then might change my impression of her culpability.

As it stands, it appeared to me that she was merely trying to protect herself from a much bigger man, who looked like he was pushing/elbowing her to get to the bar and then wouldn't let go of her arm. She exerted about 1/100 of the force that he did in grabbing her arm and punching her in the face.

The reality is most violence is committed by men. That's not a "gender double standard." It's a social reality. Do women sometimes use violence against men? Yes, but it much more rare. Violence against women remains a problem that has to be taken seriously.

As does violence by women. Don't have 2 standards.

Some men (and women) are assholes. Just like rattlesnakes are rattlesnakes. Escalating things with either one is almost always a poor choice. The good choice? get the **** away.

When that happens, it is wrong. But I refuse to equate the two. Not when there are over 4 million women every year in the U.S. who are battered by a male partner, including around 20 every minute.

Blaming the victim here just breeds another generation of men who think it is OK to grab a woman and punch her in the face under these circumstances.

 

[Scottemojo]

For hating religion, you sure are a preachy one, HN.

I could have predicted like clockwork you would drop statistics into a discussion about a single incident. This is not, nor was ever, about all the millions of other incidents, it was about the one captured on video. The two were not lovers or even acquaintances, so why you want to make this about domestic abuse I don't know anyway. The word agenda springs to mind, Pastor HawkNation.

2 persons were getting liquor in a bar, one much bigger and stronger than the other, and that bigger person was being a jerk. The weaker person faced a decision about escalating or ignoring, but chose to escalate. The jerk acted like a jerk.

Was it self defense? Of course not, he started it, not her. Her reaction was self defense though. But if she was worried about the short term health of her face, self defense should have taken a back seat to just let the jerk have his way. No attempt to swing at him, or put a knee in his "midsection" to keep him away, just let him get his drink and tell security at the bar about him. No doubt the bouncers are bigger than the QB is.

 

[hawknation2015]

For hating religion, you sure are a preachy one, HN.

I could have predicted like clockwork you would drop statistics into a discussion about a single incident. This is not, nor was ever, about all the millions of other incidents, it was about the one captured on video. The two were not lovers or even acquaintances, so why you want to make this about domestic abuse I don't know anyway. The word agenda springs to mind, Pastor HawkNation.

2 persons were getting liquor in a bar, one much bigger and stronger than the other, and that bigger person was being a jerk. The weaker person faced a decision about escalating or ignoring, but chose to escalate. The jerk acted like a jerk.

Was it self defense? Of course not, he started it, not her. Her reaction was self defense though. But if she was worried about the short term health of her face, self defense should have taken a back seat to just let the jerk have his way. No attempt to swing at him, or put a knee in his "midsection" to keep him away, just let him get his drink and tell security at the bar about him. No doubt the bouncers are bigger than the QB is.

Hating religion? Not at all, you impugn a lot of false motives on people. I fail to see what your false, defamatory statement has to do with this situation. You can avoid hitting a woman without subscribing to any particular religion. I suggest you knock off the defamatory statements.

It's very easy for you to tell a woman that she should let a man elbow and grab her without saying anything to him. Easier said than done. Anyway, unreasonable behavior is not sufficient to justify expulsion or a criminal charge, which was my original point.

 

[Scottemojo]

For hating religion, you sure are a preachy one, HN.

I could have predicted like clockwork you would drop statistics into a discussion about a single incident. This is not, nor was ever, about all the millions of other incidents, it was about the one captured on video. The two were not lovers or even acquaintances, so why you want to make this about domestic abuse I don't know anyway. The word agenda springs to mind, Pastor HawkNation.

2 persons were getting liquor in a bar, one much bigger and stronger than the other, and that bigger person was being a jerk. The weaker person faced a decision about escalating or ignoring, but chose to escalate. The jerk acted like a jerk.

Was it self defense? Of course not, he started it, not her. Her reaction was self defense though. But if she was worried about the short term health of her face, self defense should have taken a back seat to just let the jerk have his way. No attempt to swing at him, or put a knee in his "midsection" to keep him away, just let him get his drink and tell security at the bar about him. No doubt the bouncers are bigger than the QB is.

Hating religion? Not at all, you impugn a lot of false motives on people. I fail to see what your false, defamatory statement has to do with this situation. You can avoid hitting Any Person without subscribing to any particular religion. I suggest you knock off the defamatory statements.

It's very easy for you to tell Any Person that she should let Any Person elbow and grab Them without saying anything to The person Who Started It. Easier said than done. Anyway, unreasonable behavior is not sufficient to justify expulsion or a criminal charge, which was my original point.

FIFY, it isn't a gender issue. Equality for all includes violence. The gender of the alleged instigator and victim mean nothing. Perhaps you disagree, and think there should be two standards. You are the one who brought DV into a conversation not about DV, then tried to spin it as outrage over man on woman violence, as if somehow woman on man violence is not just as repugnant. If you somehow think it is more OK for a woman to hit a man, you are totally sexist. Wrong is wrong.

 

[hawknation2015]

FIFY, it isn't a gender issue. Equality for all includes violence. The gender of the alleged instigator and victim mean nothing. Perhaps you disagree, and think there should be two standards. You are the one who brought DV into a conversation not about DV, then tried to spin it as outrage over man on woman violence, as if somehow woman on man violence is not just as repugnant. If you somehow think it is more OK for a woman to hit a man, you are totally sexist. Wrong is wrong.

The statistics show very clearly that the amount of violence against women makes it a gender issue -- and that's both domestic violence and crimes committed by strangers. It's a much more serious problem than the other way around. To bury your head in the sand on that point is to be in denial of reality.

And no, of course I never said it was "OK for a woman to hit a man." Stop being an idiot.

Two things can both be bad, while one is a more serious problem in our society than the other. Dying of cancer and dying from a lightning strike are both bad. Does that mean I should spend as much of my time and resources raising money to prevent lightning strikes? No, because one is a more serious problem than the other, even though they are both bad things.

 

[Scottemojo]

FIFY, it isn't a gender issue. Equality for all includes violence. The gender of the alleged instigator and victim mean nothing. Perhaps you disagree, and think there should be two standards. You are the one who brought DV into a conversation not about DV, then tried to spin it as outrage over man on woman violence, as if somehow woman on man violence is not just as repugnant. If you somehow think it is more OK for a woman to hit a man, you are totally sexist. Wrong is wrong.

The statistics show very clearly that the amount of violence against women makes it a gender issue -- and that's both domestic violence and crimes committed by strangers. It's a much more serious problem than the other way around. To bury your head in the sand on that point is to be in denial of reality.

And no, of course I never said it was "OK for a woman to hit a man." Stop being an idiot.

Two things can both be bad, while one is a more serious problem in our society than the other. Dying of cancer and dying from a lightning strike are both bad. Does that mean I should spend as much of my time and resources raising money to prevent lightning strikes? No, because one is a more serious problem than the other, even though they are both bad things.

Stop tilting windmills. Who the hell actually said women hitting men is just as serious a societal problem as the other way around. NOBODY DID. You would be hard pressed to find very many sane people who ever would say that woman on man violence is as common as vice versa. But holy hell, after reading the sermons you write, you would think everyone does. Not only that, if someone expresses that the victim could have not escalated the situation, you drop this preachy garbage on them:

Blaming the victim here just breeds another generation of men who think it is OK to grab a woman and punch her in the face under these circumstances.

What a crock of shit. First, I can't even figure the astronomical odds against some posts in a forum breeding a generation of of lady punchers, specifically lady face punchers. Circumstantial lady face punchers. Your words, not mine.

Second, and while I was mocking you in the previous paragraph for your silly sanctimonious words, on this I am not, saying she could have avoided escalating things is not blaming the victim, it is a goddam fact. Saying she deserved it would be blaming the victim. Not one single person has said she deserved it. His guilt in an assault does not give her sainthood. She is not Anne Frank hiding from the Nazis, she is a woman who chose to react to a bully in a bar with a knee to the midsection and a feeble swing. Perhaps some choice words. Deserving of a black eye? Of course not. A wise choice? Hardly.

Oh the LULZ you give me. Acting like somebody saying she could have avoided escalating things will lead to a next generation of lady face punchers.

 

[hawknation2015]

FIFY, it isn't a gender issue. Equality for all includes violence. The gender of the alleged instigator and victim mean nothing. Perhaps you disagree, and think there should be two standards. You are the one who brought DV into a conversation not about DV, then tried to spin it as outrage over man on woman violence, as if somehow woman on man violence is not just as repugnant. If you somehow think it is more OK for a woman to hit a man, you are totally sexist. Wrong is wrong.

The statistics show very clearly that the amount of violence against women makes it a gender issue -- and that's both domestic violence and crimes committed by strangers. It's a much more serious problem than the other way around. To bury your head in the sand on that point is to be in denial of reality.

And no, of course I never said it was "OK for a woman to hit a man." Stop being an idiot.

Two things can both be bad, while one is a more serious problem in our society than the other. Dying of cancer and dying from a lightning strike are both bad. Does that mean I should spend as much of my time and resources raising money to prevent lightning strikes? No, because one is a more serious problem than the other, even though they are both bad things.

Stop tilting windmills. Who the hell actually said women hitting men is just as serious a societal problem as the other way around. NOBODY DID. You would be hard pressed to find very many sane people who ever would say that woman on man violence is as common as vice versa. But holy hell, after reading the sermons you write, you would think everyone does. Not only that, if someone expresses that the victim could have not escalated the situation, you drop this preachy garbage on them:

Blaming the victim here just breeds another generation of men who think it is OK to grab a woman and punch her in the face under these circumstances.

What a crock of shit. First, I can't even figure the astronomical odds against some posts in a forum breeding a generation of of lady punchers, specifically lady face punchers, but that generation would also be bound to a code of only being lady face punchers under very specific circumstances. Your words, not mine.

Second, and while I was mocking you in the previous paragraph for your silly sanctimonious words, on this I am not, saying she could have avoided escalating things is not blaming the victim, it is a goddam fact. Saying she deserved it would be blaming the victim. Not one single person has said she deserved it. His guilt in an assault does not give her sainthood. She is not Anne Frank hiding from the Nazis, she is a woman who chose to react to a bully in a bar with a knee to the midsection and a feeble swing. Perhaps some choice words. Deserving of a black eye? Of course not. A wise choice? Hardly.

Oh the LULZ you give me. Acting like somebody saying she could have avoided escalating things will lead to a next generation of lady face punchers.

Oh, this is easy. Let me clarify for you that I was referring to the hundreds of posts on social media defending this player's actions in punching this woman in the face.

 

[Scottemojo]

FIFY, it isn't a gender issue. Equality for all includes violence. The gender of the alleged instigator and victim mean nothing. Perhaps you disagree, and think there should be two standards. You are the one who brought DV into a conversation not about DV, then tried to spin it as outrage over man on woman violence, as if somehow woman on man violence is not just as repugnant. If you somehow think it is more OK for a woman to hit a man, you are totally sexist. Wrong is wrong.

The statistics show very clearly that the amount of violence against women makes it a gender issue -- and that's both domestic violence and crimes committed by strangers. It's a much more serious problem than the other way around. To bury your head in the sand on that point is to be in denial of reality.

And no, of course I never said it was "OK for a woman to hit a man." Stop being an idiot.

Two things can both be bad, while one is a more serious problem in our society than the other. Dying of cancer and dying from a lightning strike are both bad. Does that mean I should spend as much of my time and resources raising money to prevent lightning strikes? No, because one is a more serious problem than the other, even though they are both bad things.

Stop tilting windmills. Who the hell actually said women hitting men is just as serious a societal problem as the other way around. NOBODY DID. You would be hard pressed to find very many sane people who ever would say that woman on man violence is as common as vice versa. But holy hell, after reading the sermons you write, you would think everyone does. Not only that, if someone expresses that the victim could have not escalated the situation, you drop this preachy garbage on them:

Blaming the victim here just breeds another generation of men who think it is OK to grab a woman and punch her in the face under these circumstances.

What a crock of shit. First, I can't even figure the astronomical odds against some posts in a forum breeding a generation of of lady punchers, specifically lady face punchers, but that generation would also be bound to a code of only being lady face punchers under very specific circumstances. Your words, not mine.

Second, and while I was mocking you in the previous paragraph for your silly sanctimonious words, on this I am not, saying she could have avoided escalating things is not blaming the victim, it is a goddam fact. Saying she deserved it would be blaming the victim. Not one single person has said she deserved it. His guilt in an assault does not give her sainthood. She is not Anne Frank hiding from the Nazis, she is a woman who chose to react to a bully in a bar with a knee to the midsection and a feeble swing. Perhaps some choice words. Deserving of a black eye? Of course not. A wise choice? Hardly.

Oh the LULZ you give me. Acting like somebody saying she could have avoided escalating things will lead to a next generation of lady face punchers.

Oh, this is easy. Let me clarify for you that I was referring to the hundreds of posts on social media defending this player's actions in punching this woman in the face.

So hundreds of posts on social media are going to lead to a whole generation of lady face punchers? How many millions are in a generation?

 

[hawknation2015]

The statistics show very clearly that the amount of violence against women makes it a gender issue -- and that's both domestic violence and crimes committed by strangers. It's a much more serious problem than the other way around. To bury your head in the sand on that point is to be in denial of reality.

And no, of course I never said it was "OK for a woman to hit a man." Stop being an idiot.

Two things can both be bad, while one is a more serious problem in our society than the other. Dying of cancer and dying from a lightning strike are both bad. Does that mean I should spend as much of my time and resources raising money to prevent lightning strikes? No, because one is a more serious problem than the other, even though they are both bad things.

Stop tilting windmills. Who the hell actually said women hitting men is just as serious a societal problem as the other way around. NOBODY DID. You would be hard pressed to find very many sane people who ever would say that woman on man violence is as common as vice versa. But holy hell, after reading the sermons you write, you would think everyone does. Not only that, if someone expresses that the victim could have not escalated the situation, you drop this preachy garbage on them:

Blaming the victim here just breeds another generation of men who think it is OK to grab a woman and punch her in the face under these circumstances.

What a crock of shit. First, I can't even figure the astronomical odds against some posts in a forum breeding a generation of of lady punchers, specifically lady face punchers, but that generation would also be bound to a code of only being lady face punchers under very specific circumstances. Your words, not mine.

Second, and while I was mocking you in the previous paragraph for your silly sanctimonious words, on this I am not, saying she could have avoided escalating things is not blaming the victim, it is a goddam fact. Saying she deserved it would be blaming the victim. Not one single person has said she deserved it. His guilt in an assault does not give her sainthood. She is not Anne Frank hiding from the Nazis, she is a woman who chose to react to a bully in a bar with a knee to the midsection and a feeble swing. Perhaps some choice words. Deserving of a black eye? Of course not. A wise choice? Hardly.

Oh the LULZ you give me. Acting like somebody saying she could have avoided escalating things will lead to a next generation of lady face punchers.

Oh, this is easy. Let me clarify for you that I was referring to the hundreds of posts on social media defending this player's actions in punching this woman in the face.

So hundreds of posts on social media are going to lead to a whole generation of lady face punchers? How many millions are in a generation?

It's a symptom of a greater problem in our society, which is men who think this kind of behavior is defensible.

Now go ahead and resume your melodramatic freakout.

 

[Scottemojo]

No freak out, I am just making you preach.

Preach on, Oh savior from future societal ills. I bow to thee.

 

[hawknation2015]

No freak out, I am just making you preach.

Preach on, Oh savior from future societal ills. I bow to thee.

Pathetic. :1:

 

[Scottemojo]

No freak out, I am just making you preach.

Preach on, Oh savior from future societal ills. I bow to thee.

Pathetic. :1:

Come on, make one more post. You know you want to.

 

[hawknation2015]

No freak out, I am just making you preach.

Preach on, Oh savior from future societal ills. I bow to thee.

Pathetic. :1:

Come on, make one more post. You know you want to.

One more post. :th2thumbs:

 

[Hasselbeck]

Can we all at least agree that Florida State is the worst?

 

[kearly]

That's not an accurate characterization of what happened here, and it certainly sends the wrong message about whether someone should put their hands on a woman who is posing no serious threat to them.

I would point out that nobody knows what was said, so there is a lot of important information missing.

I never said it was okay for the guy to hit her. He was expelled and should be charged by police as well. I just hate it when a person is allowed to get away with inciting violence as if it doesn't matter, when it definitely matters. Less inciting of violence = less violence. As a society we need to grow up and realize this isn't a single gender issue.

You know, it is possible to just walk away.

You are doing a spectacular job of intentionally missing the point.

 

[Seahawks1983]

That's not an accurate characterization of what happened here, and it certainly sends the wrong message about whether someone should put their hands on a woman who is posing no serious threat to them.

I would point out that nobody knows what was said, so there is a lot of important information missing.

I never said it was okay for the guy to hit her. He was expelled and should be charged by police as well. I just hate it when a person is allowed to get away with inciting violence as if it doesn't matter, when it definitely matters. Less inciting of violence = less violence. As a society we need to grow up and realize this isn't a single gender issue.

You know, it is possible to just walk away.

You are doing a spectacular job of intentionally missing the point.

And you are doing a spectacular job of advertising that you are a coward who thinks it is ok to hit a woman who says mean things to you.

 

[CurryStopstheRuns]

And you are doing a spectacular job of advertising that you are a coward who thinks it is ok to hit a woman who says mean things to you.

Doesn't take a lot of courage to call someone a coward while hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

 

[Sprfunk]

Did you even watch the video? A couple of things I noticed:

1) She rudely forced her way in front of him at the bar.
2) She stuck her face rite into his.
3) As he tries to get to the bar she blocks him with her hips and butt.
4) He grabs the bar with both hands ( he is NOT elbowing anyone) as she is pushing him and adjusting her body in a blocking formation.
5) She hip checks him.
6) She holds her hand in a threating manner.
7) She puts her arm on his neck.
8.) He restrains her hand.
9) She punches him.
100 He hits her back.

It is self defense. Male or Female should not matter in this case. Woman should not be allowed to hit men and expect no recourse.

It is not rite for him to hit her, and visa versa.

Edited for 8 followed by ) is a smile 8) and that did not match my sentiment.

 

[hawknation2015]

Did you even watch the video? A couple of things I noticed:

1) She rudely forced her way in front of him at the bar.
2) She stuck her face rite into his.
3) As he tries to get to the bar she blocks him with her hips and butt.
4) He grabs the bar with both hands ( he is NOT elbowing anyone) as she is pushing him and adjusting her body in a blocking formation.
5) She hip checks him.
6) She holds her hand in a threating manner.
7) She puts her arm on his neck.
8.) He restrains her hand.
9) She punches him.
100 He hits her back.

It is self defense. Male or Female should not matter in this case. Woman should not be allowed to hit men and expect no recourse.

It is not rite for him to hit her, and visa versa.

Edited for 8 followed by ) is a smile 8) and that did not match my sentiment.

Self defense requires the use of reasonable force that is proportional to the threat of danger posed by the aggressor.

By calling this self defense, you are saying that what he did in punching her was right. When the video begins, she is already in front of him. He clearly touches her and he attempts to push his way to the bar. She turns and says something to him, presumably telling him to stop touching her, yet he continues to touch her and pushes his way forward. She never posed a threat of danger to him that warranted a punch to the face, much less a punch of that velocity. Her "punch" had barely any velocity to it, did not land, and was at least proportional to him having grabbed and refused to release her. He should have waited his turn behind her, given that she arrived at the bar first, and could have easily walked away from the situation if he felt she posed a threat to him. His punch was in no way self defense.

 

[Sprfunk]

Did you even watch the video? A couple of things I noticed:

1) She rudely forced her way in front of him at the bar.
2) She stuck her face rite into his.
3) As he tries to get to the bar she blocks him with her hips and butt.
4) He grabs the bar with both hands ( he is NOT elbowing anyone) as she is pushing him and adjusting her body in a blocking formation.
5) She hip checks him.
6) She holds her hand in a threating manner.
7) She puts her arm on his neck.
8.) He restrains her hand.
9) She punches him.
100 He hits her back.

It is self defense. Male or Female should not matter in this case. Woman should not be allowed to hit men and expect no recourse.

It is not rite for him to hit her, and visa versa.

Edited for 8 followed by ) is a smile 8) and that did not match my sentiment.

Self defense requires the use of reasonable force that is proportional to the threat of danger posed by the aggressor.

By calling this self defense, you are saying that what he did in punching her was right. When the video begins, she is already in front of him. He clearly touches her and he attempts to push his way to the bar. She turns and says something to him, presumably telling him to stop touching her, yet he continues to touch her and pushes his way forward. She never posed a threat of danger to him that warranted a punch to the face, much less a punch of that velocity. Her "punch" had barely any velocity to it, did not land, and was at least proportional to him having grabbed and refused to release her. He should have waited his turn behind her, given that she arrived at the bar first, and could have easily walked away from the situation if he felt she posed a threat to him. His punch was in no way self defense.

Watch it again. The video does not start with her at the bar. It starts with her cutting him off on the way to the bar. She purposefully stayed in his way. She stuck her butt out to block him. She used her body as a shield. He held onto the bar.
Our society has allowed women to get away with way too much. Many don't feel that laws should govern how they act. In NO way was that girl acting correctly in anything she did. You cannot hit someone, threaten someone, put your arm on some ones neck, and expect nothing to happen. I'm not saying I would hit her, but she put herself in that position. She is not the helpless victim, she is the instigator.