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
deleted by creator
Yeah delete your comment idiot.
we need context. blend the gender stuff out.
-
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?
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.
Or maybe his reaction is, still not pardonable, but more understandable with the context?
There isn’t acceptable context for how he kicked her while she was on the ground nor for hitting her at the end.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Without context anyone is just guessing.
There is no justification here for how he assaulted her. It’s not white knighting to know that he is in the wrong.
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.
-
This facebook post is the only source of the context here. No news stories or anything so far.
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.
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.
Don’t assume a noisy few are the majority.
That guy is a peice of shit.
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
Fuck that guy.
I wouldn’t.
Don’t.
And now he’s in jail, right?
Close - running for public office, I’d imagine.
In Kentucky?? They just put guys like him on the ballot.
i hope not, I’m from Kentucky, are you being hyperbolic or serious?
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.
I hope those siblings are alright
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.
The kick will be the hardest act for his lawyer to explain.
The kick is assault.
Are you a moron?
Velma, is that you?
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
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.
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.
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!
What? I can’t tell if you’re joking
He knows these people and gave you their full history! How is he joking
He could be lying?
is this reddit? do i really have to add /s at the end . lol
Yep. Lemmy is very downvotey.
Am I missing something here? They both seem like shitty ppl, but it seems like everyone just hates the guy.
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?
Likely she can tell he’s about to get violent and tries to stop him grabbing his drink
You can tell that from the video? Because to me it looks like grabbing his drink is what sets off the whole thing.
So maybe she’s right? Lmfao.
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.
she learned a valuable lesson about choosing to grab someone’s drink
Why are you blaming her for him assaulting her? Grabbing a drink isn’t assault.
What is she supposed to learn here?
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.
You already assigned blamed to her, why would I do it again?
Such a stupid comment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The law makes specific vs general intent very clear
Her touching his drink would be general. His exacting harm would be specific.
There’s zero things that are “dick moves” 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
…yes, all of which are included in “after that”.
Not returning your shopping car should be executed. Shows you can’t be trusted in society.
-
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.
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
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?
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
-
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.
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.
I have literally already done that, in this thread.
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.
Grabbing a drink isn’t 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.
#7 was not justified.
#7 justified #8.
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.
-
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.
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.
The fuck are you on about? You’ve never been assaulted and it shows.
“Put their pride aside” my ass.
Bro what the fuck is wrong with you?
Of course it’s a baby account. Coward.
Yeah bro! Btches should be seen and not hear, amiright?
He’s stronger he can walk away instead of literally kicking her while shes down
I found the trash from KY.
Defense versus offense. He deflected and that should have been it. Kicking her while she’s down was antagonistic and intended to harm.
Right! The kick was uncalled for but the rest of the time, she was attacking him or threatening him with a bottle.
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.
deleted by creator
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?
All of it lol. It’s like you attended the Hating Women School of Law.
I guess they don’t teach this: a man being a piece of shit and getting blamed for it is NOT at attack on you.
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?
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.
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.
I’m sorry where do you see her attacking him?
If someone grabs a bottle in an altercation, you don’t wait for them to use it.
She doesn’t advance with the bottle once she has it. She’s grabbing it for defense.
He was leaving and she advanced and grabbed the bottle. If she was trying to defend herself, she wouldn’t go towards him.
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.
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.
If you’re this woman’s lawyer, she’s going to go to jail.
She attacks first and comes back a few times.
I see her trying to grab a drink from him, possibly it is hers and he’s taking it away, or possibly she is being the aggressor. We can’t know from the footage but her friend’s 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.
Are you watching the same video i am? He throws a drink in her face to start the whole thing
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).
Looks like we watched the same video but have different judgment about when the “attack” started.
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.
deleted by creator
Looked like he was trying to put her on the ground with it.
Seems like two lovely people…
She never did anything in that whole video shut up
Two?
