Lemmy is never ever beating the misogynist allegations what the fuck is this dumpsterfire of a thread, she rejected him and the dude is just looking for excuses to take his anger out on her. That woman is a badass, all you people wanting her to just be still, demure and silent until the attacker leaves are the problem.
There's always some garbage in any community. It looks like, overall, people are alright. Most of Lemmy I've interacted with are great people, but there obviously are horrible people here too. There's no way to avoid it really. You can block/ban them, but they can always make new accounts somewhere.
Yeah it wasn't like this when I made my comment glad to be shown somewhat wrong, there is some hope lemmitors might be able to beat the allegations eventually
Hexbear is the most trans-inclusive and minority respectful internet community I've ever been to. I keep seeing people talking about it like it's the gateway to hell but it's usually a pretty friendly place when I've gone there, they just have... unorthodox politics and don't back down when pressed. First time I went there I was a little disappointed to find it wasn't full of demons gnawing on the bones of the innocent but was actually just a pretty chill place. And their news megathread has a lot people from 3rd world countries posting world news I don't see other places which is mainly why I keep checking in there.
Yeah I go there regularly, I mostly like it. I'm just slightly miffed that I got banned from some comms here due to (I assume) some extremely mild comment (IIRC it was a single mod going over all the communities they managed banning me for "being a lib"). I couldn't even find the "offending" comment, which was not a big surprise because I fucking despise neo liberalism and aren't a fan of liberalism either.
I did comment in support of Ukraine once or twice in the timeframe of the bans, so... (and these were comments outside of .ml/hexbear) I'm not entirely sold on them. They have good shitposts and world news thread though, especially if you're trying to get some informations from outside the Western sphere of influence
Reaches for bottle before drink thrown in face, reaches for bottle a second time but does nothing with it.
Those are the actions both parties took. You're out of your mind to think context is even needed. At no moment was she stopping him from leaving he initiated and continued. Are you brain dead?
And there is not a fair judgement without understanding of the context.
I may illustrate with two different possible contexts, most likely none apply here, the point is to show you that your judgement may not be the exact same:
A: They are from the same family and she comes-out to him as a lesbian, and that her actual partner she plans to marry has an other ethnical origine. The anger and violence of the guy is their based on homophobia and racism which adds to the physical aspect.
B: He was a soldier in some military conflict and has traumas. Some flashbacks make him violent. He would need meds but can't afford them anymore due to life cost rising. In this scenario, the violence is not even related to his victime.
According to her friend, it was their second date and she told him she didn't want to se him anymore. Someone else posted the article with her friend's version of the story, yesterday with two links. Here is the one without a paywall :
Not siding with him, it seems likely he was in the wrong. But regarding your comment. Hypothetically, let's say he is the recipient of constant abuse. Both verbal and physical, and this was him finally snapping and giving it back. Let's say he has been on the receiving end of his fair share of kicks whilst down. Let's say he previously never wanted to fight back because he isn't violent.
I am not saying that is what happened. But i am saying you cant say "there isn't acceptable context" when it took me 5 seconds to think of some.
Why is it my favorite side? I don't know these people don't put anything on me.
Context will only clear up one thing, why did she put her hand on the glass and if you could argue it was simple battery. Which would be unlikely because most judges find frivolous charges like that unnecessary without some kind of history of actions or whatever. Putting your hand on someone's glass in an isolated situation is not simple battery.
On the flip side responding with violence because a hand was put on your glass is likely assault. Escalation, specific intent to harm and multiple violent interactions require zero context. We don't need to know anything for that.
If he was afraid for his life his body language and the rest of his actions didn't support that. She never prevented him from leaving.
If you think in any situation his reaction is understandable you're being completely stupid, there's no reason to put your hands on someone like this in this situation.
Yes you absolutely can. He assaulted her. Anyone in this thread leaning away from that is defending this situation and looking for justification for his actions.
Once more, the context, the full story, may not make things better for him.
He may deserve a stricter punishment than you would be willing to give him without the context.
Understanding is not defending him. It is defending the research of a fair judgement.
I especially invite you to think about the fact he could be reacting judgementaly to that she says, without taking the time to understand fully. As you are reacting now. And that it would be very wrong of him.
The only action that needs context is touching the bottle. None of his actions could be justified no matter what.
Context is she was breaking up with him. Add or remove that, the situation is outlandishly disgusting behavior and you're literally trying to justify it. Doing anything but calling it what it is, misogynistic and assault is justifying it.
Notice the whole crowd defending his actions are also trying to claim it isn't misogynistic? Interesting.
They both suck. She initiated the physical confrontation. He went too far. She went back for more grabbing a weapon (the bottle) when it was clear she was out matched. A night in the drunk tank would be good for both of them.
You're outside your mind thinking she initiated anything. At no moment was he unable to leave. Every action he took was aggressive every action she took was preventative.
If I see someone reach for a drink and then instantly it is thrown in their face, it's clear what they expected and why they went for the drink.
Guys a piece of shit for sure but if you are in a self defense scenario please do not react the same way this lady did, it will be hard for the courts to see her as a victim after she grabs a weapon to confront the aggressor as he is trying to leave. If you do want to fuck someone up for slighting you/splashing beer in your face, consider learning some sort of self defense/martial art. Untrained men vastly overestimate how well they would perform in a fight and a smaller, weaker person would be able to overcome them with a few years practice
It's better to just not get into a bar fight at all. That woman could have easily hit her head and got brain damage. Not worth it to tell off some asshole.
Missing a lot of context and no idea whose drink was at the beginning (was he grabbing her drink? was she trying to grab his?), but I'd say he was wrong for kicking her (not self defense) and wrong for using potentially deadly force when he pushed her violently to the ground at the end (not an appropriate response to her threatening him with the beer bottle). Pushing somebody like that in self defense and then retreating, is fine in an open field. In a cluttered area like this, high risk of concussion (which looks to have happened here).
Watching throughout the video, there are two glasses on the table, and he grabs the one closer to him. Hers appears to be empty at this time.
not an appropriate response to her threatening him with the beer bottle
In a physical altercation, a beer bottle is considered a deadly weapon. We've seen too many Hollywood-style, sugar-glass bottles being broken over people's heads to really think of them that way, but the reality is that the shattering of a glass bottle in a fight can easily cause severe lacerations to the face, eyes, neck, etc. He had already shown that he was retreating from the altercation when she picked up the bottle and confronted him. That final shove was the most defensible act of the entire altercation.
The kick will be the hardest act for his lawyer to explain.
Battery, but that's a fairly minor distinction. I will admit that the kick really pissed me off.
But, the kick came as she was getting back up from being justifiably shoved away after having lunged over the table and striking him unjustifiably. He could argue he believed she was getting up to continue striking him, and that the kick was only to keep her from further attacking him while he retreated. If he shuts up and lets his lawyer explain that, it probably won't be considered unjustifiable. It would probably be considered reasonable doubt. The kick will be hardest to explain, but it is certainly possible.
It certainly did. That's what "questionable" means here. It means that before applying the legal precedent of "innocence until proven guilty" and "benefit of a reasonable doubt", my immediate, snap judgment was to be pissed off at the kick. Only after closely considering the circumstances of the kick did I arrive at the conclusion of "questionable". I, personally, don't think the kick was necessary at that moment. But, in this context, I can't definitively conclude that. I provided a hypothetical mindset where his actions would be reasonable. If those circumstances were present in his trial, I would have to afford him reasonable doubt and acquit.
On the other hand, if she's the one on trial, I would have to afford her reasonable doubt, and conclude that the kick was unjustified. I don't think that kick would significantly affect the outcome of her trial, but I would consider it in her favor regardless.
Lmfao trying to change the definition of a word so you can backtrack, nah man. Fuck off. You were practically spitting on this woman's actions with your words in this thread and acted like her touching a bottle twice was ASSAULT!!! You wrote page after page of text to justify his actions.
You're disgusting and now you're pathetic too. Shut the fuck up.
I am, indeed, "spitting on this woman's actions", regardless of my anger toward him. I found one minor and one potential fault in his actions. I found several serious faults in hers. I have carefully, and dispassionately evaluated the scenario, and I have found considerable fault on her part.
I am continuing to discuss it only to ensure that I have thoroughly explored all reasonable possibilities.
Here, questionable does, indeed, mean that I'm pissed off about the kick. As I said, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to condemn him for the kick. "Questionable" arises from one hypothetical possibility that would make my anger inappropriate. Legal doctrine requires the assumption of that hypothetical possibility until conclusively proven otherwise.
Oh, hi. Last time I've seen your comments you got banned so I thought that maybe you changed accounts. This person just gives off the same vibe (attacking blindly everyone expressing opinion that deviates from theirs).
If you care about my opinion on the video (haha, I'm sure you don't) I see a drunk, disgusting man and a lady that vastly overestimates her fighting abilities. His behavior is inexcusable but what the fuck is she doing? If this was a bear she would be dead.
Yeah, agreed. I don't know why she was trying to grab the glass, maybe it was a dick move or maybe there's context we can't see, but everything after that was unnecessary and on him.
Thereās zero things that are ādick movesā that justify the use of potentially deadly force. She could have fallen and hit her head and gotten a traumatic brain injury and blows to the chest can cause your heart to stop. The very early could have been a snuff video
He dumped the drink on her. Questionable. She had instigated the physical altercation, but this could be considered an unjustified escalation.
She lunged at him. Escalation: Assault by battery.
He shoved her away while she was attacking him; she fell over backward. Even if the beer-dumping was unjustified, he was now justified in using physical force to stop her physical attack.
She tried to stand back up; he kicked her back to the ground. Questionable. He was certainly justified in initially shoving her away, which caused her to fall to the ground; if he reasonably believed she was getting back up to continue her battery, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.
He retreated, and grabbed his things. De-escalation.
She picked up a beer bottle and threatened him with it. Escalation: Assault with a deadly weapon. (This also demonstrates the reasonableness of his belief that she would continue her battery in #5.)
He shoved her away while she was threatening him. Completely justified by her latest assault.
He retreated while she was on the ground. De-escalation.
Grabbing a drink isnāt assault. Nor is it battery. It is, at most, petty theft.
Common misconception. You should read the legal definitions of both "assault" and "battery". I would guess that you're conflating the "aggravated" variants for the simple variants. Grabbing a glass from someone's hand does, actually, meet the criteria of simple assault and simple battery.
Assault: "Assault is generally defined under common law as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such contact."
Battery: "Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent."
Basically, "assault" is merely making someone think you're going to touch them without consent, and "battery" is merely touching someone without consent. Grabbing the drink meets the legal definitions of both. Throwing a drink on someone also meets the definition of both.
"Petty theft" (Petty Larceny) applies to simply taking something without consent. When any level of force is used against a person in the process of the taking, it is not "theft" or "larceny". It is "robbery". The use of force in the taking is the defining difference between theft/larceny and robbery.
Whether her intention was assault and battery or robbery, she initiated the physical altercation. He might not have been justified in throwing the liquid at her, but she certainly provoked that response with unjustifiable use of force.
I stand by my analysis. She committed simple assault and battery in #1.
#1 might not justify #2. He might get charges of disorderly conduct for #2.
#2 certainly does not justify #3. She committed assault and battery in #3. Simple or aggravated is an open question.
#3 certainly justified #4.
#5 might not have been justified. It's an open question.
There's no reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or even offensive contact there. If you clipped the rest of the video off, and showed a jury just the video up to the grabbing of the drink, none of them would agree that it creates a reasonable apprehension.
But you're proving that you're a misogynistic shitstain, so there's that.
I invite you to go through each and every action and reaction yourself. Characterize them how you wish, and we can reasonably discuss those where we disagree.
Following the strict, technical definition of assault, yes, reaching for the drink was assault. Grabbing the drink was technically battery. Subsequently throwing the drink at her may or may not also be considered assault and battery, depending on how "provocation" and/or "instigation" come into play. Let's say it is. Let's say that the thrown drink was battery. He's guilty, he's an asshole, but his guilt was in responding to her attack. His actions did not justify her previous actions, nor her subsequent actions.
If you unjustifiably initiate a physical altercation, you are not justified in using force until you have first attempted to retreat from the altercation, or have been stopped, and excessive force is continuing to be used against you. She instigated the altercation: grabbing the drink. He responded, throwing the drink. She was not stopped, and had made no attempt to retreat. She continued the altercation by lunging over the table and striking him multiple times. He was justified at this point in shoving her away from him, which he did. She fell to the ground. Then she got back up on her feet.
The "questionable" conclusion depends on whether it was reasonable to believe she was rising to continue the attack. If she's the defendant on trial, then she is entitled to the evidence being viewed in her favor. If she's on trial, the kick was an unjustified continuation of his initially-justified force, and her subsequent actions can be viewed from that perspective.
If he's the one on trial, he is entitled to the evidence being viewed in his favor. If he's on trial, the kick was to put her back on the ground, stopping her from continuing to strike him.
You're a complete idiot and talking to you is a waste. You wrote an entire essay defending the straight assault of this woman.
This man was never in danger.
The entire problem with your moronic breakdown is intent. His intent from the start is to exert force and harm. Her intent is unclear, she might be being rude, she might be trying to prevent him from excessive drinking. You don't know. You do know his intent is violence.
Fuck off idiot go be misogynistic and stupid somewhere else
Well I think it's her drink. She later grabs the bottle from among her stuff on the table, where it would be placed had she poured the glass with her likely dominant right hand. Conjecture obviously, but her grabbing the bottle later also kind of shows she thinks of it as hers. And why else would she grab at the glass?
Also as you can see in the screenshot in the post body this is her rejecting him after their second date, so that is another indicator for a retaliatory motive on his part. Which would also explain the absolutely reckless level of violence he employs, literally kicking her when down and slamming her head into that bench at the end.
He escalates it unecceserily at every fucking point.
She could have accepted whatever he said to her and let that be the end of it. Instead, she tries to grab his beer out of his hand.
She could have accepted the beer to the face and let that be the end of it. Instead, she lunges at him and tries to put her hands on him.
She could have walked away after getting shoved and kicked and let that be the end of it. Instead, she gets back in his face and starts brandishing a beer bottle.
Both of these people suck. Both had an opportunity to put their pride aside and walk away, but chose not to take it.
The man isn't blameless either, let me be clear about that, but saying that he did every wrong and she did every right doesn't accurately reflect what happened either.
How can you make a judgement on both of them. Only one of them did anything. Yeah, she grabbed a bottle, but I don't blame her. He already followed up with a kick after she was down. How is she supposed to know if he'll walk away. She needs to stand her ground or risk being totally dominated.
The only way you can possibly make a judgement about her is if you just hate women with hair dye. In which case, you're a horrible bigot.
There is nothing in the video to assume she did anything wrong your ability to read people is absolutely shit.
Likely she can tell he's about to get violent and tries to stop him grabbing his drink, which he throws in her face, then pushes her, kicks her, pushes her again.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
If you think so then hopefully she learned a valuable lesson about choosing to grab someone's drink, causing them to spill it everywhere. Not a good idea to do that to someone you think is going to get violent.
You watched a video of unjustified totally disgusting assault because a woman told a guy she didn't wanna date and your response is "hope she learned something"
I'm saying it's a bad idea to try and snatch someone's drink when you think they're going to get violent. Or really, it's bad in any situation where you're not a bouncer.
If you want to read into that and assign blame to the woman in the video then that's entirely on you.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
From your own words:
and tries to stop him grabbing his drink
...
Likely she can tell heās about to get violent
He hadn't yet committed a violent act. There was no indication from his posture or body language that he intended to commit any violent act. Any potential violence from him wasn't yet "imminent", which is a requirement for the use of force in self defense. Taking the glass wasn't justified; it was instigating.
Escalation is irrelevant. Talk to me about justification. Start with her grabbing of the glass. Proceed to the throwing of the drink. Proceed to her standing up and striking him. Talk to me about any issue of justification of at least these three acts.
Her initial grabbing of the glass was unjustified. There's an image of a post (supposedly) made by her where she discusses the incident. Her statement confirms that her grabbing of the glass was not justified.
He did escalate, after her provocation. He threw the contents of his glass in her face. Unjustified, but provoked: his conduct would likely be excused.
Having provoked the throwing of the liquid, she was not justified in striking him. She escalated anyway, unjustifiably. I believe you used the phrase "specific intent to cause harm" - she escalated to that point. Her conduct here justified a forceful response to stop her from striking him. He pushed her backward, she fell over her seat to the ground. She tried to get up to continue her attack; he kicked her back down, and attempted to retreat. That's de-escalation. Even if she had been justified, his retreat ended justification she would have had.
She escalated again, this time to unjustifiably threatening him with a deadly weapon. Again, she justified a forceful response to stop her new attack. Again, he pushed her away. Again, he retreated.
What part of my analysis of justification do you believe is flawed?
Oh my god. You're a moron I'm so over you anything you don't like is "iRrElEvaNt!"
You don't understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not. You don't understand social interactions or what classifies as battery. You don't understand shit, you are not a lawyer and you're a fuckin liar.
Shut up lmfao waste of fucking oxygen. You're just so fucking wrong.
You donāt understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not.
Yeah, kinda, sorta.
Let's try this again. The use of force against another person is generally unlawful. "Intent" does not make it lawful. "Intent" might be the difference between negligence and aggravated assault, but it does not determine legality of force.
"Justification" determines legality. Generally, speaking, all uses of force are unlawful. Generally. Use of force is only lawful in those specific circumstances where it is justified. You can use any degree of force you want, so long as the broader external circumstances specifically justify that use of force. For example, if I spin around in circles with my fists out and my eyes closed, you are justified in using some degree of force to stop me from hitting you. My intent in spinning is not relevant. Your intent to cause me harm is not particularly relevant. (It is only relevant if it exceeds the "reasonable person" standard) If you perceive a significant, unjustified threat of harm to any person, including yourself, you are justified in using a reasonable level of force to stop that harm.
The actual intentions of the actual actors is wholly irrelevant. The "intent" of a "reasonable person" in the same situation as the actors is the closest that "intent" comes to the issue.
In focusing on "intent", you are looking at the mindset of the individuals. It is not necessary to look at the mindset of either of these individuals. All we have to look at is each forceful act, and determine justifiability.
I would remind you: you are not justified in using force against either a justified use of force, or against an unjustified use of force that you have previously provoked.
With that, I am perfectly willing to explore the justification for each forceful act in that video.
He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.
Sure it looks like she started it and should have walked away, but at no time was she a real threat to him. He was taking his anger out on her, trying to hurt/humiliate her.
His lack of control makes him a danger to everyone around him.
Reading this thread, I am starting to think there are a lot of misogynists on Lemmy. I don't see any other reason for people somehow not "seeing" an obvious over balance in power and implying that somehow she deserved what he did to her.
He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.
If you want to say that, mark up the video with the escalation points. Its a 30s video, doesn't take long.
I put this lower down, but I counted four escalation points, and she owns 3/4 of them (drink grab, slap, weapon grab). He owns one of them (front kick).
I counted two de-escalation points. He grabs his phone and bag and tries to leave (at which point she's now brandishing a weapon). He leaves the situation at the very end, ending the scene. Two de-escalation points to him, none to her.
If you see things differently, mark up the video and we can have that conversation. Because what I see in this video is that she is the one with a "lack of control make(ing) themselves a danger to those around (them)". You need to put in some more effort and understand that a clear reading of a situation isn't misogyny, and that women are just as capable of violence as men, and when you lack context you need to evaluate based on the evidence you have, not the evidence you lack.
Misappropriating the real issue of misogyny in a situation where one person is clearly the aggressor doesn't support the fight against misogyny. It confuses and dilutes the potency of the issue when there is pretty clear evidence that one particular party initiated (which we agree), and then continued to escalate a situation.
He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.
The law is not interested in who has power and control. The law is interested in each individual's use of force, and whether that use of force was justified or unjustified.
She grabbed the glass. Was this justified or unjustified?
He spilled the drink on her. Was this justified or unjustified?
She lunged at him. Was this justified or unjustified?
He pushed her away; she tripped over her seat and fell to the floor. Was this justified or unjustified?
She tried to stand up, and he kicked her back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
He backed away from her and gathered his things. Was this justified or unjustified?
She picked up a beer bottle, and threatened him with it. Was this justified or unjustified?
He shoved her away from him; she again fell back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
He continued to gather his things and retreat. Was this justified or unjustified?
Unjustified.
Unjustified. These first two are tit-for-tat assaults. She instigated, he responded. At this point, both of them are disturbing the peace.
Unjustified.
Justified. You are justified in using physical force to stop a physical attack against you.
Could go either way. In her trial, this was an unjustified escalation on his part. In his trial, he was reasonably concerned she was continuing her previous attack, so he was justified in keeping her on the ground. In both cases, the defendant on trial is owed "reasonable doubt".
Obviously justified; he was de-escalating.
Completely unjustified: This would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. He was already in the process of retreating from her; she was not justified in commencing a new attack.
Completely justified by her assault. He used reasonable force to keep her from striking him with that bottle.
Obviously justified; he was again de-escalating.
Reading this thread, I am starting to think there are a lot of misogynists on Lemmy.
Which part of this analysis makes me a misogynist?
Reverse all the pronouns. Gwendoline Christie has a drink grabbed out of her hands by Mark Zuckerberg. The whole thing plays out the same.
You don't get to give her a medal and buy her a beer. You don't get to reverse your position. You have to come in here and tell me that Christie is a violent piece of shit for being so violent toward someone so much smaller than her. I have to tell you that Zuck instigated the whole thing. You have to call me a misandrist for siding with the woman.
Does anything feel a little off with your observations when nothing but the genders of the participants are reversed? Is it at all possible that I'm not the one with the problem here?
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how escalation works.
She tries to grab a glass (low impact), he responds by tossing the entire drink in her face (high impact). That was escalation. He still had the glass, she accomplished nothing, but he "retaliated" anyways.
She goes to push him (low impact), he pushes her to the ground and then follows her to kick her while she's down (high impact). The initial action here, a response to the previous escalation, also poses no threat to this guy but he once again chooses to increase the stakes by responding disproportionately.
Rinse and repeat. Literally everything that happened after the glass grab at the beginning of this was a direct response to his escalations. Sure, nothing forced her to continue to respond, but that's irrelevant here because it would never have happened if he had responded more appropriately.
She doesn't brandish the bottle at all. She picked it up and stood still, in a defensive posture. Which is fully understandable since he's assaulted her twice already.
I see her trying to grab a drink from him, possibly it is hers and heās taking it away, or possibly she is being the aggressor. We canāt know from the footage but her friendās social media story claims she was on the middle of rejecting him, so if that is the case everything I see here is defensive.
I mean I can only evaluate from what I see here in this footage. I have it marked up with 4 escalation points. She grabs the drink out of his hands. She steps into his space to slap him. He front kicks her. She picks up a weapon.
I see one, maybe two de-escalation points. He grabs his phone and bag and tries to leave. At that point she has a weapon in her right hand. I think its reasonable to not turn your back on someone brandishing a weapon. The second de-escalation point is him leaving after he pushes her to the ground.
You can make an honest argument from the evidence that the man in this footage tried to de-escalate the situation, and that the aggressor did not.
If this guy gets an even basically competent lawyer and this video is submitted as evidence, she's cooked.
I have it marked up with 4 escalation points. She grabs the drink out of his hands. She steps into his space to slap him. He front kicks her. She picks up a weapon.
Ok, here are the ones you missed.
He throws the drink in her face.
He throws her back with enough force to topple over the bench and lose her glasses.
He literally has to take two steps to throat punch her with enough force to throw her several metres back when she is "brandishing a weapon" (after being attacked thrice and not advancing with it).
So it's 3 vs 4 escalation points now even if you grant the more spurious claims you are making here. Like grabbing the drink being violence meriting self-defence. And especially that last attack was entirely unnecessary, the guy was way out of her reach, could have just walked away.
Like grabbing the drink being violence meriting self-defense.
Sure. But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you're entire critique would no longer stand. And thats at the core of the issue. Does getting a drink thrown in your face give you carte blanche to escalate to physical violence?
If a man went to grab a woman's drink, and she threw that drink into the mans face as it began to spill, who would you side with?
I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else's drink, really under any circumstances. I actually think a woman throwing a drink into a mans face if he's trying to grab it out of her hand, I think its a pretty reasonable response.
He throws her back with enough force to topple over the bench and lose her glasses.
Again. Lets switch up the gender roles. A man stands up after getting a drink thrown in their face, and comes in to slap a woman who is in a seated position. The woman, remaining seated, both feat remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.
Who would you side with in this scenario?
I would side with the woman. You are always allowed to defend yourself. If someone stands up and comes in to slap you, and you have to push them back, it is what it is. Everyone has the right to self defense.
He literally has to take two steps to throat punch her with enough force to throw her several metres back when she is ābrandishing a weaponā
If a man comes at a woman with a weapon, I think the woman has the right to do anything and everything within their power to defend themselves. And sometimes that might result in an excess of force being used. And a woman absolutely should not be constrained to limit that force in the moment. If a man is threatening a woman with a bottle, which is absolutely a lethal weapon, she has any and all rights to defend herself in any manner she sees fit.
I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence. I think if you swapped the roles, we would be praising the woman for the level of restraint they showed. And materially, I suppose, this probably came from local news or was elevated in some manner because this will be going to court, and a decision about who was right and who was wrong in this scenario will be made. We can back test these evaluations.
There is of course the potential for more evidence to be made available. Other angles, maybe more time on either side of the clip. It could dramatically change the context. But if this were the evidence being submitted to court, I think it pretty clearly supports one side over the other, and if I were the mans lawyers, I would put the exact gendered test I've done here as a test of the evidence. If a woman would be found to be justified in doing what the man here does, then what the man here has done is justified.
No one is or should be allowed or permitted to use violence against other people. They do not get a "soft pass" on the escalation ladder because of their gender.
She very clearly tries to grab a drink out of his hands as he's picking it up. He then, yes, throws it into her face after it started to spill (she's grabbing at the bottom of the glass while he's holding the top, so it sloshes out). She then aggressively steps up into him to slap him (right hand up, coming down to the left). She pushes her back, then steps, aggressively into her space (she's already on the ground) with a right front kick to her right hip, putting her on the ground again.
She gets up from this as he's trying to de-escalate by leaving the situation (he picks up his bag and phone, is heading away) and she picks up a weapon (a bottle). He then throat punch/ pushes her back to the ground, and continues to leave the situation.
She initiated the conflict, and at I'd say 3/4 escalation points where the conflict escalated, she initiated the escalation. She grabbed the glass out of his hand (initiation), she stepped into his space to slap him (escalation), he front kicked her to the ground after she was trying to get back up (escalation), she picked up a weapon as he tried to leave (escalation).
he front kicked her to the ground after she was trying to get back up (escalatjon)
Holy fuck. The dumbest and most vile shit on the planet. You're describing a woman standing up after being knocked on the ground as an "escalation" of force worthy of being kicked by someone twice the size.
Fuck you, dude. Fuck you SO hard. Worthless piece of shit.
Well switch the gender roles and see if you come to the same conclusion.
A man goes to grab a drink from a woman's hand, and as it spills she throws it into his face. He then steps into her space to slap her, and she pushes him back across a bench. She then steps into his space to kick him back to the ground. She grabs her phone and bag in an effort to leave, while the man grabs a weapon (a bottle) and brandishes it aggressively. She then throat punches him and he goes down. She continues to leave.
If you can't go through the same scenario with the gender roles reversed and land on the same conclusion, you've come to the wrong conclusion.
Good. I know these two and she's a violent piece of shit. She killed his dog and was only there to tease him about it. Last week she lit his cat on fire. He was trying to help her through tough times and this is how she acts?
206 Comments
infinitevalence@discuss.online · 112 pts · 1d
Fuck that guy.
toynbee@piefed.social · 15 pts · 16h
Don't.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 7h
I wouldn't.
skunk@lemmy.zip · 84 pts · 1d
Lemmy is never ever beating the misogynist allegations what the fuck is this dumpsterfire of a thread, she rejected him and the dude is just looking for excuses to take his anger out on her. That woman is a badass, all you people wanting her to just be still, demure and silent until the attacker leaves are the problem.
Wooki@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 21h
Don't assume a noisy few are the majority.
That guy is a peice of shit.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 22h
There's always some garbage in any community. It looks like, overall, people are alright. Most of Lemmy I've interacted with are great people, but there obviously are horrible people here too. There's no way to avoid it really. You can block/ban them, but they can always make new accounts somewhere.
skunk@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 21h
Yeah it wasn't like this when I made my comment glad to be shown somewhat wrong, there is some hope lemmitors might be able to beat the allegations eventually
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 7h
100% agree.
I see two triggers that might have caused this either he was rejected like you said or he reached a boiling point from her provoking him.
Either way it doesn't excuse his behavior in any way. He attacked her. I hope he is arrested and prosecuted.
skunk@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 6h
The picture in the post clarifies that she rejected him
marcie@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 1d
lemmy.world is the biggest cesspool here, lemmy.ml and hexbear are much better on the whole "women are human beings" front
FiskFisk33@startrek.website · 13 pts · 23h
I'm not convinced hexbear is good on any front.
buprenorffy@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 22h
Hexbear is the most trans-inclusive and minority respectful internet community I've ever been to. I keep seeing people talking about it like it's the gateway to hell but it's usually a pretty friendly place when I've gone there, they just have... unorthodox politics and don't back down when pressed. First time I went there I was a little disappointed to find it wasn't full of demons gnawing on the bones of the innocent but was actually just a pretty chill place. And their news megathread has a lot people from 3rd world countries posting world news I don't see other places which is mainly why I keep checking in there.
Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 19h
Yeah I go there regularly, I mostly like it. I'm just slightly miffed that I got banned from some comms here due to (I assume) some extremely mild comment (IIRC it was a single mod going over all the communities they managed banning me for "being a lib"). I couldn't even find the "offending" comment, which was not a big surprise because I fucking despise neo liberalism and aren't a fan of liberalism either.
I did comment in support of Ukraine once or twice in the timeframe of the bans, so... (and these were comments outside of .ml/hexbear) I'm not entirely sold on them. They have good shitposts and world news thread though, especially if you're trying to get some informations from outside the Western sphere of influence
velma@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 7h
marcie@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 21h
š¤·āāļø if you hate women you'd probably say that, they probably have the highest numbers of women as a percentage of active users
skunk@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 21h
That matches what I'm seeing to mostly
CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca · 66 pts · 1d
And now he's in jail, right?
crank0271@lemmy.world · 102 pts · 1d
Close - running for public office, I'd imagine.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 1d
In Kentucky?? They just put guys like him on the ballot.
story@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 22h
i hope not, I'm from Kentucky, are you being hyperbolic or serious?
deft@lemmy.wtf · 36 pts · 13h
Anyone who thinks he is defending himself is a fucking moron proof is in the pudding
She tries to stop him grabbing his drink, must've known something was coming. He kicks he when she's down.
What else do you idiots need? Humans are worthless
Tiral@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 8h
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 8h
Yeah delete your comment idiot.
loppwn@sh.itjust.works · -12 pts · 12h
we need context. blend the gender stuff out.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 7 pts · 11h
Throws drink in face, shoves, kicks, shoves.
Reaches for bottle before drink thrown in face, reaches for bottle a second time but does nothing with it.
Those are the actions both parties took. You're out of your mind to think context is even needed. At no moment was she stopping him from leaving he initiated and continued. Are you brain dead?
peacepath@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 8h
Of course you can't judge without context: we can't understand. We don't know their relationship, their history, nor what they say to each other.
Context may make thing even worse for the guy? Or maybe his reaction is, still not pardonable, but more understandable with the context?
Getting the context doesn't mean your favorit side will loose anything. But judging without context is accepting to deliver unfair judgements.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 7h
There isn't acceptable context for how he kicked her while she was on the ground nor for hitting her at the end.
peacepath@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5h
And there is not a fair judgement without understanding of the context.
I may illustrate with two different possible contexts, most likely none apply here, the point is to show you that your judgement may not be the exact same:
A: They are from the same family and she comes-out to him as a lesbian, and that her actual partner she plans to marry has an other ethnical origine. The anger and violence of the guy is their based on homophobia and racism which adds to the physical aspect.
B: He was a soldier in some military conflict and has traumas. Some flashbacks make him violent. He would need meds but can't afford them anymore due to life cost rising. In this scenario, the violence is not even related to his victime.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 5h
You donāt need to invent scenarios to justify his actions here. There is plenty of evidence on the video to know that he is in the wrong.
peacepath@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5h
If you take the scenario A as a justification, we clearly don't have the same idea of justice.
Maeve@kbin.earth · 0 pts · 1h
According to her friend, it was their second date and she told him she didn't want to se him anymore. Someone else posted the article with her friend's version of the story, yesterday with two links. Here is the one without a paywall :
https://www.themarysue.com/this-man-needs-to-go-louisville-local-warns-of-violent-man-who-allegedly-attacked-her-friend-after-she-rejected-him-on-the-second-date/
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 3h
Ok but like maybe she literally killed his dog.
That's why context is important.
He's probably a shithead though.
Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 5h
Not siding with him, it seems likely he was in the wrong. But regarding your comment. Hypothetically, let's say he is the recipient of constant abuse. Both verbal and physical, and this was him finally snapping and giving it back. Let's say he has been on the receiving end of his fair share of kicks whilst down. Let's say he previously never wanted to fight back because he isn't violent.
I am not saying that is what happened. But i am saying you cant say "there isn't acceptable context" when it took me 5 seconds to think of some.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 5h
He is still responsible for his actions. Previous abuse does not excuse assaulting this woman multiple times in this scenario.
Why are you playing devil's advocate for this man?
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 8h
Why is it my favorite side? I don't know these people don't put anything on me.
Context will only clear up one thing, why did she put her hand on the glass and if you could argue it was simple battery. Which would be unlikely because most judges find frivolous charges like that unnecessary without some kind of history of actions or whatever. Putting your hand on someone's glass in an isolated situation is not simple battery.
On the flip side responding with violence because a hand was put on your glass is likely assault. Escalation, specific intent to harm and multiple violent interactions require zero context. We don't need to know anything for that.
If he was afraid for his life his body language and the rest of his actions didn't support that. She never prevented him from leaving.
If you think in any situation his reaction is understandable you're being completely stupid, there's no reason to put your hands on someone like this in this situation.
peacepath@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 8h
So I am being completly stupid, I am fine with it.
But while I do not understand what happend, I don't pretend I do.
What is she telling him? I have no idea, and that could (or not) be part of the explaination.
His reaction looks like anger. It may not be. But it looks like it. Yet what causes this anger? Is it understandable to be angry in such cases?
Anger should not allow us to be violent, and he is wrong to beat her. One this I totally agree. But no, I can't judge the cases.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 7h
Yes you absolutely can. He assaulted her. Anyone in this thread leaning away from that is defending this situation and looking for justification for his actions.
It's assault. It's fucking gross.
peacepath@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 7h
Once more, the context, the full story, may not make things better for him.
He may deserve a stricter punishment than you would be willing to give him without the context.
Understanding is not defending him. It is defending the research of a fair judgement.
I especially invite you to think about the fact he could be reacting judgementaly to that she says, without taking the time to understand fully. As you are reacting now. And that it would be very wrong of him.
Tiral@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 8h
Thank you. I get tired of people being white knights and such. It might be the way it looks, it might not be. Without context anyone is just guessing.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 6h
There is no justification here for how he assaulted her. It's not white knighting to know that he is in the wrong.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 8h
The only action that needs context is touching the bottle. None of his actions could be justified no matter what.
Context is she was breaking up with him. Add or remove that, the situation is outlandishly disgusting behavior and you're literally trying to justify it. Doing anything but calling it what it is, misogynistic and assault is justifying it.
Notice the whole crowd defending his actions are also trying to claim it isn't misogynistic? Interesting.
Maeve@kbin.earth · 0 pts · 1h
It certainly is, and this is why I've been volcel for four years.
collapse_already@lemmy.ml · -28 pts · 12h
They both suck. She initiated the physical confrontation. He went too far. She went back for more grabbing a weapon (the bottle) when it was clear she was out matched. A night in the drunk tank would be good for both of them.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 11 pts · 11h
You're outside your mind thinking she initiated anything. At no moment was he unable to leave. Every action he took was aggressive every action she took was preventative.
If I see someone reach for a drink and then instantly it is thrown in their face, it's clear what they expected and why they went for the drink.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 11h
He's insane for escalating so extremely, but that drink went towards his mouth before she grabbed.
slaacaa@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 17h
dxnny801@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 1d
I hope those siblings are alright
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 11 pts · 21h
This facebook post is the only source of the context here. No news stories or anything so far.
hardcoreufo@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 5h
I hope she's okay and I hope that piece of shit gets some time behind bars.
clifmo@programming.dev · -1 pts · 4h
danekrae@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 1d
Seems like two lovely people...
FiskFisk33@startrek.website · 5 pts · 23h
Two?
deft@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 13h
She never did anything in that whole video shut up
TessierAshpool@sh.itjust.works · -12 pts · 19h
Guys a piece of shit for sure but if you are in a self defense scenario please do not react the same way this lady did, it will be hard for the courts to see her as a victim after she grabs a weapon to confront the aggressor as he is trying to leave. If you do want to fuck someone up for slighting you/splashing beer in your face, consider learning some sort of self defense/martial art. Untrained men vastly overestimate how well they would perform in a fight and a smaller, weaker person would be able to overcome them with a few years practice
nullspace@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 7h
It's better to just not get into a bar fight at all. That woman could have easily hit her head and got brain damage. Not worth it to tell off some asshole.
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works · -15 pts · 23h
Missing a lot of context and no idea whose drink was at the beginning (was he grabbing her drink? was she trying to grab his?), but I'd say he was wrong for kicking her (not self defense) and wrong for using potentially deadly force when he pushed her violently to the ground at the end (not an appropriate response to her threatening him with the beer bottle). Pushing somebody like that in self defense and then retreating, is fine in an open field. In a cluttered area like this, high risk of concussion (which looks to have happened here).
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 13h
Watching throughout the video, there are two glasses on the table, and he grabs the one closer to him. Hers appears to be empty at this time.
In a physical altercation, a beer bottle is considered a deadly weapon. We've seen too many Hollywood-style, sugar-glass bottles being broken over people's heads to really think of them that way, but the reality is that the shattering of a glass bottle in a fight can easily cause severe lacerations to the face, eyes, neck, etc. He had already shown that he was retreating from the altercation when she picked up the bottle and confronted him. That final shove was the most defensible act of the entire altercation.
The kick will be the hardest act for his lawyer to explain.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 7h
The kick is assault.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 6h
Battery, but that's a fairly minor distinction. I will admit that the kick really pissed me off.
But, the kick came as she was getting back up from being justifiably shoved away after having lunged over the table and striking him unjustifiably. He could argue he believed she was getting up to continue striking him, and that the kick was only to keep her from further attacking him while he retreated. If he shuts up and lets his lawyer explain that, it probably won't be considered unjustifiable. It would probably be considered reasonable doubt. The kick will be hardest to explain, but it is certainly possible.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 6h
The kick did not piss you off. You spent the last two hours doing laps in this comment section blaming her.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 5h
It certainly did. That's what "questionable" means here. It means that before applying the legal precedent of "innocence until proven guilty" and "benefit of a reasonable doubt", my immediate, snap judgment was to be pissed off at the kick. Only after closely considering the circumstances of the kick did I arrive at the conclusion of "questionable". I, personally, don't think the kick was necessary at that moment. But, in this context, I can't definitively conclude that. I provided a hypothetical mindset where his actions would be reasonable. If those circumstances were present in his trial, I would have to afford him reasonable doubt and acquit.
On the other hand, if she's the one on trial, I would have to afford her reasonable doubt, and conclude that the kick was unjustified. I don't think that kick would significantly affect the outcome of her trial, but I would consider it in her favor regardless.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 5h
Lmfao trying to change the definition of a word so you can backtrack, nah man. Fuck off. You were practically spitting on this woman's actions with your words in this thread and acted like her touching a bottle twice was ASSAULT!!! You wrote page after page of text to justify his actions.
You're disgusting and now you're pathetic too. Shut the fuck up.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 5h
I am, indeed, "spitting on this woman's actions", regardless of my anger toward him. I found one minor and one potential fault in his actions. I found several serious faults in hers. I have carefully, and dispassionately evaluated the scenario, and I have found considerable fault on her part.
I am continuing to discuss it only to ensure that I have thoroughly explored all reasonable possibilities.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 5h
For context:
This is what you said.
You're a fucking moron.
Questionable here means you're mad? You fucking absolutely disgusting shit. Shut the absolute fuck up
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 5h
Here, questionable does, indeed, mean that I'm pissed off about the kick. As I said, my initial knee-jerk reaction was to condemn him for the kick. "Questionable" arises from one hypothetical possibility that would make my anger inappropriate. Legal doctrine requires the assumption of that hypothetical possibility until conclusively proven otherwise.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 13h
Are you a moron?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 0 pts · 7h
Velma, is that you?
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 6h
I ignored this comment because I didn't know what the hell you were talking about but now I realize you're just a fuckin idiot.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 7h
Funny seeing you in here pointing fingers at others. There are more people out there that recognize misogyny than myself.
Are you defending the guy in the video as well?
Love that I live rent free in your head <3
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 6h
Oh, hi. Last time I've seen your comments you got banned so I thought that maybe you changed accounts. This person just gives off the same vibe (attacking blindly everyone expressing opinion that deviates from theirs).
If you care about my opinion on the video (haha, I'm sure you don't) I see a drunk, disgusting man and a lady that vastly overestimates her fighting abilities. His behavior is inexcusable but what the fuck is she doing? If this was a bear she would be dead.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 6h
Flight, fight, freeze, or fawn are all involuntary reactions to being in danger.
They're not attacking people blindly. They're reacting to the blatant misogyny on display here from people defending this man's actions.
HeyJoe@lemmy.world · -19 pts · 1d
Am I missing something here? They both seem like shitty ppl, but it seems like everyone just hates the guy.
sartalon@lemmy.world · 65 pts · 1d
It looks like she is initially just trying to grab the glass.
He escalates it unecceserily at every fucking point.
Dude has anger issues and is a danger to those around him.
natecox@programming.dev · 16 pts · 1d
Yeah, agreed. I don't know why she was trying to grab the glass, maybe it was a dick move or maybe there's context we can't see, but everything after that was unnecessary and on him.
CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1d
Thereās zero things that are ādick movesā that justify the use of potentially deadly force. She could have fallen and hit her head and gotten a traumatic brain injury and blows to the chest can cause your heart to stop. The very early could have been a snuff video
Muehe@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 1d
She does hit the left side of her head against that bench when she falls around second 16, and holds it with her hand when she gets back up.
natecox@programming.dev · 8 pts · 1d
...yes, all of which are included in "after that".
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Not returning your shopping car should be executed. Shows you can't be trusted in society.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -25 pts · 1d
She grabbed his drink. Assault. Unjustified.
He dumped the drink on her. Questionable. She had instigated the physical altercation, but this could be considered an unjustified escalation.
She lunged at him. Escalation: Assault by battery.
He shoved her away while she was attacking him; she fell over backward. Even if the beer-dumping was unjustified, he was now justified in using physical force to stop her physical attack.
She tried to stand back up; he kicked her back to the ground. Questionable. He was certainly justified in initially shoving her away, which caused her to fall to the ground; if he reasonably believed she was getting back up to continue her battery, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.
He retreated, and grabbed his things. De-escalation.
She picked up a beer bottle and threatened him with it. Escalation: Assault with a deadly weapon. (This also demonstrates the reasonableness of his belief that she would continue her battery in #5.)
He shoved her away while she was threatening him. Completely justified by her latest assault.
He retreated while she was on the ground. De-escalation.
Semester3383@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1d
Grabbing a drink isn't assault. Nor is it battery. It is, at most, petty theft.
So no, he actually started the physical altercation, which means that all of your assertions are false.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -17 pts · 1d
Common misconception. You should read the legal definitions of both "assault" and "battery". I would guess that you're conflating the "aggravated" variants for the simple variants. Grabbing a glass from someone's hand does, actually, meet the criteria of simple assault and simple battery.
Assault: "Assault is generally defined under common law as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such contact."
Battery: "Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent."
Basically, "assault" is merely making someone think you're going to touch them without consent, and "battery" is merely touching someone without consent. Grabbing the drink meets the legal definitions of both. Throwing a drink on someone also meets the definition of both.
"Petty theft" (Petty Larceny) applies to simply taking something without consent. When any level of force is used against a person in the process of the taking, it is not "theft" or "larceny". It is "robbery". The use of force in the taking is the defining difference between theft/larceny and robbery.
Whether her intention was assault and battery or robbery, she initiated the physical altercation. He might not have been justified in throwing the liquid at her, but she certainly provoked that response with unjustifiable use of force.
I stand by my analysis. She committed simple assault and battery in #1.
#1 might not justify #2. He might get charges of disorderly conduct for #2.
#2 certainly does not justify #3. She committed assault and battery in #3. Simple or aggravated is an open question.
#3 certainly justified #4.
#5 might not have been justified. It's an open question.
#7 was not justified.
#7 justified #8.
Semester3383@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 17h
There's no reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or even offensive contact there. If you clipped the rest of the video off, and showed a jury just the video up to the grabbing of the drink, none of them would agree that it creates a reasonable apprehension.
But you're proving that you're a misogynistic shitstain, so there's that.
natecox@programming.dev · 11 pts · 22h
Jesus dude, you could have saved us some time and just posted "I hate women".
The mental gymnastics here to pretend that her actions are all wrong and his are at worst questionable is pretty deplorable.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 13h
I invite you to go through each and every action and reaction yourself. Characterize them how you wish, and we can reasonably discuss those where we disagree.
natecox@programming.dev · 2 pts · 13h
I have literally already done that, in this thread.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 11h
This is how I know you're a moron.
Reaching for a drink that is instantly launched in your face = assault.
pushing someone violently and kicking them when their down = qUeStiOnAbLe!?
Fuck off you idiot. You mischaracterized the entire thing
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 11h
Following the strict, technical definition of assault, yes, reaching for the drink was assault. Grabbing the drink was technically battery. Subsequently throwing the drink at her may or may not also be considered assault and battery, depending on how "provocation" and/or "instigation" come into play. Let's say it is. Let's say that the thrown drink was battery. He's guilty, he's an asshole, but his guilt was in responding to her attack. His actions did not justify her previous actions, nor her subsequent actions.
If you unjustifiably initiate a physical altercation, you are not justified in using force until you have first attempted to retreat from the altercation, or have been stopped, and excessive force is continuing to be used against you. She instigated the altercation: grabbing the drink. He responded, throwing the drink. She was not stopped, and had made no attempt to retreat. She continued the altercation by lunging over the table and striking him multiple times. He was justified at this point in shoving her away from him, which he did. She fell to the ground. Then she got back up on her feet.
The "questionable" conclusion depends on whether it was reasonable to believe she was rising to continue the attack. If she's the defendant on trial, then she is entitled to the evidence being viewed in her favor. If she's on trial, the kick was an unjustified continuation of his initially-justified force, and her subsequent actions can be viewed from that perspective.
If he's the one on trial, he is entitled to the evidence being viewed in his favor. If he's on trial, the kick was to put her back on the ground, stopping her from continuing to strike him.
Which part of that did I mischaracterize?
deft@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 10h
You're a complete idiot and talking to you is a waste. You wrote an entire essay defending the straight assault of this woman.
This man was never in danger.
The entire problem with your moronic breakdown is intent. His intent from the start is to exert force and harm. Her intent is unclear, she might be being rude, she might be trying to prevent him from excessive drinking. You don't know. You do know his intent is violence.
Fuck off idiot go be misogynistic and stupid somewhere else
Muehe@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
Well I think it's her drink. She later grabs the bottle from among her stuff on the table, where it would be placed had she poured the glass with her likely dominant right hand. Conjecture obviously, but her grabbing the bottle later also kind of shows she thinks of it as hers. And why else would she grab at the glass?
Also as you can see in the screenshot in the post body this is her rejecting him after their second date, so that is another indicator for a retaliatory motive on his part. Which would also explain the absolutely reckless level of violence he employs, literally kicking her when down and slamming her head into that bench at the end.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 7h
The law makes specific vs general intent very clear
Her touching his drink would be general. His exacting harm would be specific.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Not arguing he has issues, but we're missing a lot here. He should be charged by the violence, but more context could help everyone.
gastroglizzy@piefed.social · -14 pts · 1d
She could have accepted whatever he said to her and let that be the end of it. Instead, she tries to grab his beer out of his hand.
She could have accepted the beer to the face and let that be the end of it. Instead, she lunges at him and tries to put her hands on him.
She could have walked away after getting shoved and kicked and let that be the end of it. Instead, she gets back in his face and starts brandishing a beer bottle.
Both of these people suck. Both had an opportunity to put their pride aside and walk away, but chose not to take it.
The man isn't blameless either, let me be clear about that, but saying that he did every wrong and she did every right doesn't accurately reflect what happened either.
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
Bro what the fuck is wrong with you?
Lemminary@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 20h
The fuck are you on about? You've never been assaulted and it shows.
"Put their pride aside" my ass.
Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 20h
Of course it's a baby account. Coward.
sartalon@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Yeah bro! Btches should be seen and not hear, amiright?
shweddy@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 1d
He's stronger he can walk away instead of literally kicking her while shes down
the_q@piefed.social · 39 pts · 1d
Defense versus offense. He deflected and that should have been it. Kicking her while she's down was antagonistic and intended to harm.
Marthirial@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
I found the trash from KY.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 22h
How can you make a judgement on both of them. Only one of them did anything. Yeah, she grabbed a bottle, but I don't blame her. He already followed up with a kick after she was down. How is she supposed to know if he'll walk away. She needs to stand her ground or risk being totally dominated.
The only way you can possibly make a judgement about her is if you just hate women with hair dye. In which case, you're a horrible bigot.
deft@lemmy.wtf · -8 pts · 13h
There is nothing in the video to assume she did anything wrong your ability to read people is absolutely shit.
Likely she can tell he's about to get violent and tries to stop him grabbing his drink, which he throws in her face, then pushes her, kicks her, pushes her again.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
nullspace@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 7h
You can tell that from the video? Because to me it looks like grabbing his drink is what sets off the whole thing.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 7h
So maybe she's right? Lmfao.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4h
"He's going to get violent if I take his glass, so I need to take his glass."
That argument is a condemnation of her actions, not a justification.
nullspace@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7h
If you think so then hopefully she learned a valuable lesson about choosing to grab someone's drink, causing them to spill it everywhere. Not a good idea to do that to someone you think is going to get violent.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 7h
Such a stupid comment.
nullspace@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 7h
Well shit, if you're gonna ignore half the video then hopefully you learned a valuable lesson about the kinds of replies you'll get.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 7h
You watched a video of unjustified totally disgusting assault because a woman told a guy she didn't wanna date and your response is "hope she learned something"
Your skull is empty.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 7h
Why are you blaming her for him assaulting her? Grabbing a drink isn't assault.
What is she supposed to learn here?
nullspace@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6h
I'm saying it's a bad idea to try and snatch someone's drink when you think they're going to get violent. Or really, it's bad in any situation where you're not a bouncer.
If you want to read into that and assign blame to the woman in the video then that's entirely on you.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 6h
You already assigned blame to her, why would I do it again?
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 4h
From your own words:
...
He hadn't yet committed a violent act. There was no indication from his posture or body language that he intended to commit any violent act. Any potential violence from him wasn't yet "imminent", which is a requirement for the use of force in self defense. Taking the glass wasn't justified; it was instigating.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 2h
He escalated you dumb ass.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 1h
Escalation is irrelevant. Talk to me about justification. Start with her grabbing of the glass. Proceed to the throwing of the drink. Proceed to her standing up and striking him. Talk to me about any issue of justification of at least these three acts.
Her initial grabbing of the glass was unjustified. There's an image of a post (supposedly) made by her where she discusses the incident. Her statement confirms that her grabbing of the glass was not justified.
He did escalate, after her provocation. He threw the contents of his glass in her face. Unjustified, but provoked: his conduct would likely be excused.
Having provoked the throwing of the liquid, she was not justified in striking him. She escalated anyway, unjustifiably. I believe you used the phrase "specific intent to cause harm" - she escalated to that point. Her conduct here justified a forceful response to stop her from striking him. He pushed her backward, she fell over her seat to the ground. She tried to get up to continue her attack; he kicked her back down, and attempted to retreat. That's de-escalation. Even if she had been justified, his retreat ended justification she would have had.
She escalated again, this time to unjustifiably threatening him with a deadly weapon. Again, she justified a forceful response to stop her new attack. Again, he pushed her away. Again, he retreated.
What part of my analysis of justification do you believe is flawed?
deft@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 1h
Oh my god. You're a moron I'm so over you anything you don't like is "iRrElEvaNt!"
You don't understand that intent literally decides if things are a misdemeanor or not. You don't understand social interactions or what classifies as battery. You don't understand shit, you are not a lawyer and you're a fuckin liar.
Shut up lmfao waste of fucking oxygen. You're just so fucking wrong.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 51m
Yeah, kinda, sorta.
Let's try this again. The use of force against another person is generally unlawful. "Intent" does not make it lawful. "Intent" might be the difference between negligence and aggravated assault, but it does not determine legality of force.
"Justification" determines legality. Generally, speaking, all uses of force are unlawful. Generally. Use of force is only lawful in those specific circumstances where it is justified. You can use any degree of force you want, so long as the broader external circumstances specifically justify that use of force. For example, if I spin around in circles with my fists out and my eyes closed, you are justified in using some degree of force to stop me from hitting you. My intent in spinning is not relevant. Your intent to cause me harm is not particularly relevant. (It is only relevant if it exceeds the "reasonable person" standard) If you perceive a significant, unjustified threat of harm to any person, including yourself, you are justified in using a reasonable level of force to stop that harm.
The actual intentions of the actual actors is wholly irrelevant. The "intent" of a "reasonable person" in the same situation as the actors is the closest that "intent" comes to the issue.
In focusing on "intent", you are looking at the mindset of the individuals. It is not necessary to look at the mindset of either of these individuals. All we have to look at is each forceful act, and determine justifiability.
I would remind you: you are not justified in using force against either a justified use of force, or against an unjustified use of force that you have previously provoked.
With that, I am perfectly willing to explore the justification for each forceful act in that video.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 50m
You're so stupid. Shut the fuck up lmfao
You're not a lawyer. You've been so wrong every time you say anything. Shut the fuck up
bigfish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -15 pts · 1d
Right! The kick was uncalled for but the rest of the time, she was attacking him or threatening him with a bottle.
sartalon@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 1d
Did we watch the same video!?
He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.
Sure it looks like she started it and should have walked away, but at no time was she a real threat to him. He was taking his anger out on her, trying to hurt/humiliate her.
His lack of control makes him a danger to everyone around him.
Reading this thread, I am starting to think there are a lot of misogynists on Lemmy. I don't see any other reason for people somehow not "seeing" an obvious over balance in power and implying that somehow she deserved what he did to her.
chunes@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 1d
If you want to say that, mark up the video with the escalation points. Its a 30s video, doesn't take long.
I put this lower down, but I counted four escalation points, and she owns 3/4 of them (drink grab, slap, weapon grab). He owns one of them (front kick).
I counted two de-escalation points. He grabs his phone and bag and tries to leave (at which point she's now brandishing a weapon). He leaves the situation at the very end, ending the scene. Two de-escalation points to him, none to her.
If you see things differently, mark up the video and we can have that conversation. Because what I see in this video is that she is the one with a "lack of control make(ing) themselves a danger to those around (them)". You need to put in some more effort and understand that a clear reading of a situation isn't misogyny, and that women are just as capable of violence as men, and when you lack context you need to evaluate based on the evidence you have, not the evidence you lack.
Misappropriating the real issue of misogyny in a situation where one person is clearly the aggressor doesn't support the fight against misogyny. It confuses and dilutes the potency of the issue when there is pretty clear evidence that one particular party initiated (which we agree), and then continued to escalate a situation.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -19 pts · 1d
The law is not interested in who has power and control. The law is interested in each individual's use of force, and whether that use of force was justified or unjustified.
Unjustified.
Unjustified. These first two are tit-for-tat assaults. She instigated, he responded. At this point, both of them are disturbing the peace.
Unjustified.
Justified. You are justified in using physical force to stop a physical attack against you.
Could go either way. In her trial, this was an unjustified escalation on his part. In his trial, he was reasonably concerned she was continuing her previous attack, so he was justified in keeping her on the ground. In both cases, the defendant on trial is owed "reasonable doubt".
Obviously justified; he was de-escalating.
Completely unjustified: This would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. He was already in the process of retreating from her; she was not justified in commencing a new attack.
Completely justified by her assault. He used reasonable force to keep her from striking him with that bottle.
Obviously justified; he was again de-escalating.
Which part of this analysis makes me a misogynist?
habitualcynic@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 10h
All of it lol. Itās like you attended the Hating Women School of Law.
I guess they donāt teach this: a man being a piece of shit and getting blamed for it is NOT at attack on you.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 9h
Reverse all the pronouns. Gwendoline Christie has a drink grabbed out of her hands by Mark Zuckerberg. The whole thing plays out the same.
You don't get to give her a medal and buy her a beer. You don't get to reverse your position. You have to come in here and tell me that Christie is a violent piece of shit for being so violent toward someone so much smaller than her. I have to tell you that Zuck instigated the whole thing. You have to call me a misandrist for siding with the woman.
Does anything feel a little off with your observations when nothing but the genders of the participants are reversed? Is it at all possible that I'm not the one with the problem here?
habitualcynic@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 4h
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 2h
š¦ š
natecox@programming.dev · 22 pts · 1d
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how escalation works.
She tries to grab a glass (low impact), he responds by tossing the entire drink in her face (high impact). That was escalation. He still had the glass, she accomplished nothing, but he "retaliated" anyways.
She goes to push him (low impact), he pushes her to the ground and then follows her to kick her while she's down (high impact). The initial action here, a response to the previous escalation, also poses no threat to this guy but he once again chooses to increase the stakes by responding disproportionately.
Rinse and repeat. Literally everything that happened after the glass grab at the beginning of this was a direct response to his escalations. Sure, nothing forced her to continue to respond, but that's irrelevant here because it would never have happened if he had responded more appropriately.
gid@piefed.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 1d
I'm sorry where do you see her attacking him?
JigglySackles@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
If someone grabs a bottle in an altercation, you don't wait for them to use it.
gid@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
She doesn't advance with the bottle once she has it. She's grabbing it for defense.
JigglySackles@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
He was leaving and she advanced and grabbed the bottle. If she was trying to defend herself, she wouldn't go towards him.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
He's literally trying to leave. He grabbed his phone and bag and headed for the door. Then he has to deal with someone brandishing a weapon.
gid@piefed.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 1d
She doesn't brandish the bottle at all. She picked it up and stood still, in a defensive posture. Which is fully understandable since he's assaulted her twice already.
The guy is the aggressor.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 1d
If you're this woman's lawyer, she's going to go to jail.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 1d
She attacks first and comes back a few times.
4am@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 1d
I see her trying to grab a drink from him, possibly it is hers and heās taking it away, or possibly she is being the aggressor. We canāt know from the footage but her friendās social media story claims she was on the middle of rejecting him, so if that is the case everything I see here is defensive.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 1d
I mean I can only evaluate from what I see here in this footage. I have it marked up with 4 escalation points. She grabs the drink out of his hands. She steps into his space to slap him. He front kicks her. She picks up a weapon.
I see one, maybe two de-escalation points. He grabs his phone and bag and tries to leave. At that point she has a weapon in her right hand. I think its reasonable to not turn your back on someone brandishing a weapon. The second de-escalation point is him leaving after he pushes her to the ground.
You can make an honest argument from the evidence that the man in this footage tried to de-escalate the situation, and that the aggressor did not.
If this guy gets an even basically competent lawyer and this video is submitted as evidence, she's cooked.
Muehe@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 1d
Ok, here are the ones you missed.
He throws the drink in her face.
He throws her back with enough force to topple over the bench and lose her glasses.
He literally has to take two steps to throat punch her with enough force to throw her several metres back when she is "brandishing a weapon" (after being attacked thrice and not advancing with it).
So it's 3 vs 4 escalation points now even if you grant the more spurious claims you are making here. Like grabbing the drink being violence meriting self-defence. And especially that last attack was entirely unnecessary, the guy was way out of her reach, could have just walked away.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 1d
Sure. But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you're entire critique would no longer stand. And thats at the core of the issue. Does getting a drink thrown in your face give you carte blanche to escalate to physical violence?
If a man went to grab a woman's drink, and she threw that drink into the mans face as it began to spill, who would you side with?
I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else's drink, really under any circumstances. I actually think a woman throwing a drink into a mans face if he's trying to grab it out of her hand, I think its a pretty reasonable response.
Again. Lets switch up the gender roles. A man stands up after getting a drink thrown in their face, and comes in to slap a woman who is in a seated position. The woman, remaining seated, both feat remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.
Who would you side with in this scenario?
I would side with the woman. You are always allowed to defend yourself. If someone stands up and comes in to slap you, and you have to push them back, it is what it is. Everyone has the right to self defense.
If a man comes at a woman with a weapon, I think the woman has the right to do anything and everything within their power to defend themselves. And sometimes that might result in an excess of force being used. And a woman absolutely should not be constrained to limit that force in the moment. If a man is threatening a woman with a bottle, which is absolutely a lethal weapon, she has any and all rights to defend herself in any manner she sees fit.
I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence. I think if you swapped the roles, we would be praising the woman for the level of restraint they showed. And materially, I suppose, this probably came from local news or was elevated in some manner because this will be going to court, and a decision about who was right and who was wrong in this scenario will be made. We can back test these evaluations.
There is of course the potential for more evidence to be made available. Other angles, maybe more time on either side of the clip. It could dramatically change the context. But if this were the evidence being submitted to court, I think it pretty clearly supports one side over the other, and if I were the mans lawyers, I would put the exact gendered test I've done here as a test of the evidence. If a woman would be found to be justified in doing what the man here does, then what the man here has done is justified.
No one is or should be allowed or permitted to use violence against other people. They do not get a "soft pass" on the escalation ladder because of their gender.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 1d
Are you watching the same video i am? He throws a drink in her face to start the whole thing
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 1d
She very clearly tries to grab a drink out of his hands as he's picking it up. He then, yes, throws it into her face after it started to spill (she's grabbing at the bottom of the glass while he's holding the top, so it sloshes out). She then aggressively steps up into him to slap him (right hand up, coming down to the left). She pushes her back, then steps, aggressively into her space (she's already on the ground) with a right front kick to her right hip, putting her on the ground again.
She gets up from this as he's trying to de-escalate by leaving the situation (he picks up his bag and phone, is heading away) and she picks up a weapon (a bottle). He then throat punch/ pushes her back to the ground, and continues to leave the situation.
She initiated the conflict, and at I'd say 3/4 escalation points where the conflict escalated, she initiated the escalation. She grabbed the glass out of his hand (initiation), she stepped into his space to slap him (escalation), he front kicked her to the ground after she was trying to get back up (escalation), she picked up a weapon as he tried to leave (escalation).
chloroken@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 1d
LMAO
Holy fuck. The dumbest and most vile shit on the planet. You're describing a woman standing up after being knocked on the ground as an "escalation" of force worthy of being kicked by someone twice the size.
Fuck you, dude. Fuck you SO hard. Worthless piece of shit.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 1d
She picked up a weapon and continued after him as he tried to walk away.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 1d
Looks like we watched the same video but have different judgment about when the "attack" started.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 1d
Well switch the gender roles and see if you come to the same conclusion.
A man goes to grab a drink from a woman's hand, and as it spills she throws it into his face. He then steps into her space to slap her, and she pushes him back across a bench. She then steps into his space to kick him back to the ground. She grabs her phone and bag in an effort to leave, while the man grabs a weapon (a bottle) and brandishes it aggressively. She then throat punches him and he goes down. She continues to leave.
If you can't go through the same scenario with the gender roles reversed and land on the same conclusion, you've come to the wrong conclusion.
sartalon@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 1d
Looked like he was trying to put her on the ground with it.
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · -26 pts · 1d
Good. I know these two and she's a violent piece of shit. She killed his dog and was only there to tease him about it. Last week she lit his cat on fire. He was trying to help her through tough times and this is how she acts?
Damn it Biden!
dismay3915@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 1d
What? I can't tell if you're joking
answersplease77@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 22h
He knows these people and gave you their full history! How is he joking
TBi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19h
He could be lying?
answersplease77@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 18h
is this reddit? do i really have to add /s at the end . lol
TBi@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 17h
Yep. Lemmy is very downvotey.