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.
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?
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.
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.
Feelings are clearly running high in this thread but I’m going to stand by the argument I’ve made elsewhere, instead of the knee jerk reactionary shit.
If you can’t flip the gender roles this exchange and make the same conclusions, you’ve come to the wrong conclusion.
She initiated indirect physical contact. She initiated direct physical contact. She initiated escalation to potentially deadly force. And in her face book post she at least confirms the first two parts, with video evidence to corroborate. She needs a real lawyer because the argument that because she is smaller and physically weaker will end up with her catching charges.
She initiated this. She said she initiated this. The video evidence says she initiated this. She took the first step up each element of the escalation ladder (indirect use of force -> direct use of force -> use of deadly force). She made no efforts to de escalate.
If you want her to win, she needs a fucking lawyer. Because even a basically competent lawyer is going to be able to present her own words, her Facebook post on this, and be able to show that she knew she was the party to step up the escalation ladder.
She needs a lawyer and to press charges because if she doesn’t, he will. And with the evidence as presented here, he’d have a pretty solid case for self defense. Yes he used far to much force and went to far. But he at no point initiated this. Each turn of the wheel has him responding to her escalation. He tried two times to leave the situation. The first time unsuccessfully because she was brandishing a weapon. These are material facts that she acknowledged in her Facebook post, and which can be plainly seen in the video. It doesn’t matter if we think his use of force in response is excessive, if she keeps stepping up the escalation ladder.
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.
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 “brandishing a weapon”
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.
But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you[r] entire critique would no longer stand.
If a 150kg/2m woman was womanhandling a 60kg/1.4m man after he rejected her, very likely ending in a traumatic brain injury? Yes my critique would still fucking stand! What the fuck is wrong with you?
I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else’s drink, really under any circumstances.
Well you keep assuming that it’s his drink in this video. Pretty big fucking assumption right there. What if it’s her drink? If that was the case he tries to steal her beer, and then proceeds to beat her for trying to get it back. Even it was his, you are still defending the use of disproportionate, potentially lethal violence in self-defence.
Again. Lets switch up the gender roles.
If you want it to be a fruitful thought exercise equalise their genders, keeping in mind that the bigger and more aggressive person here has just been rejected.
The woman, remaining seated, both fe[e]t remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.
Ignoring the potential theft of a beer before, throw in the face of a beer before, and that afterwards he got up and literally kicked her while down, before slamming her head into a wooden bench. Absolute paragon of virtue over here. /s
If you think this was appropriate and measured self-defence you have a problem. You constantly excuse or ignore his escalations, while condemning hers.
I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence.
Uhu.
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.
Then why are you constantly giving the man a pass? In your post above you counted 1/3 “escalation points” for the man and woman respectively, ignoring three from the man, explaining them away as self-defence. But if look at it all in sequence (and again, just grant your count of her escalations, which I have arguments about) they both escalate:
Beer grab (she escalates)
Beer throw (he escalates)
Slap (she escalates)
Shove and slap (he escalates)
Kick (he escalates again without additional provocation)
Bottle grab (she escalates)
Throat punches head into bench (he escalates)
However, the possibility of it being her beer, the fact she doesn’t charge him with the bottle, on the contrary he charges her to deliver the throat punch, plus the provided context of this being her rejecting him, all paint a picture of this being retaliatory violence. You completely ignore all that and then have the gall to accuse others of sexism?
If a 150kg/2m woman was woman handling a 60kg/1.4m man after he rejected her, very likely ending in a traumatic brain injury? Yes my critique would still fucking stand! What the fuck is wrong with you?
Because its actually irrelevant in both the eyes of the law and the moral nature of the use of violence. Women don’t get a pass on domestic abuse because they typically weigh less then men and potentially have less physical strength. And I actually think this is our key point of disagreement. And thats the common theme I see from the people trying to use accusations of misogyny to veil what amounts to a hall pass for violence for one particular gender, that because women are typically smaller, there is a degree of violence or aggression which is acceptable from them (eg, giving her a pass on escalating to physical violence by stepping up and slapping him).
And I’m just going to keep repeating how damaging that point is to a broader effort towards equality, because its basically reactionary in its formulation.
Well you keep assuming that it’s his drink in this video.
Well you keep making the opposite assumption. I think we could both agree that the man in the footage has physical control of the drink to begin with. The man picks the drink up off the table. She goes to take the drink from him. He pulls it back and throws it into her face. Can we agree on that sequence?
This is the distance he has to reach to get to the drink (1s). I would estimate his forearm is ~6 inches over the table.
This is the distance she has to reach to attempt to grab the drink from him. She’s moved her torso forwards, and has extended her arm. I would estimate her fully extended forearm to be ~18 inches. Call it another 6-8 inches for the lean in. She’s reaching about 24 inches (60cm) away to get to the same position on the table.
Second. He reaches for the drink with his dominant hand (right). She reaches for the drink with her non-dominant left hand (when physical contact is initiated, she slaps him with her right hand, and she later picks up the weapon into her right hand). So if this was her drink, she wouldn’t have been able to pick it up comfortably.
Third, here she is saying in her own words it wasn’t her drink:
So, very conclusively and supported by physical evidence and confirmed by the parties: it wasn’t her drink. And, to go further, she confirms that she reached out with the intention of spilling the drink.
If you want it to be a fruitful thought exercise equalise their genders, keeping in mind that the bigger and more aggressive person here has just been rejected.
That genuinely doesn’t play into it. Not in the eyes of the law, and, at least for probably the most hazardous moment where she is falling backwards over the bench. She’s falling backwards not because he’s so much stronger. She falls backwards because the bench was right behind her knees and it knocked her off balance, after she gets up to strike him/ lay hands on him.
First physical contact is made here at 5:01.
Her left hand grabs his right forearm, and she’s raising her right hand into striking position.
At 5:07, she’s now striking him across the face. He’s raise his right forearm into a defensive posture.
At 5:10, he’s now pushing her back with both arms.
At 5:21, his push causes her to fall backwards because of the bench behind her knees.
In this initial foray, it wasn’t his strength that caused her to go to the ground, it was the awkward position of the bench behind her knees after she stood up to hit him. The post she made about this is very bad for her. She basically confirms what the video evidence suggests. That she initiated this by making physical contact with the intention to spill his drink. The video evidence then speaks for its self because she then proceeded to escalate the situation by a more extreme form of physical violence by moving in to strike him. And I think it would be good for both of us to maybe track this story, because in the bit of searching I did, I think I’ve identified both parties (Amber Marie Mitchell, Nathan Seale) , the bar (Nachbar) and the local police department (Louisville PD) associated with it, and the FB post which boosted this into the national spotlight. We’ll be able to follow up, because with almost certainty, this will be going to court.
I think we’re in well enough agreement on this layout of events (I copied from your response). I want to mark these up with where they sit in the escalation ladder. I also think it would be good to put the deescalation point in. I’m offering the point of charity that the throat punch should be considered assault with a deadly weapon. It absolutely could have killed her. I don’t know that court or precedent agrees with that, but I’m offering it as a point of charity. I’m adding emoji’s for each parties actions for visual clarity.
Shove and slap (he escalates) [direct physical contact] 🗿
Kick (he escalates again without additional provocation) [direct physical contact] 🗿
Grabs bag, tries to leave (he de-escalates) 🗿
Escalation into use of potentially deadly force.
Bottle grab (she escalates) [assault with a deadly weapon] 🩷
Throat punches head into bench (he escalates) [assault with a deadly weapon] 🗿
Leaves (he de-escalates) 🗿
The escalation ladder (and I think we both agree): indirect physical contact, physical contact, use of (potentially) deadly force. And the point, which people wanting to make accusations of misogyny and sexism, she is the person who escalated the situation at each turn where the level of violence stepped up. She’s in the wrong here. Very clearly. And we don’t have to continue to argue about this, because now that we have the names, the locations, the parties involved, we can follow up on this in a few weeks or months because I’d be shocked, floored even, if this doesn’t go to court. If she’s right, she’s got assault and battery and needs to get paid. If he’s right, well, he’s got assault and battery, and needs to get paid. Someone here is right. If she hasn’t filed charges yet, he should.
You completely ignore all that and then have the gall to accuse others of sexism?
We’ve settled the matter that its not her beer. And I’m calling it sexism because it is. Since the beer matter is settled, the only thing left of your argument is that because she is a smaller person, she should be allowed to use a degree of violence that he shouldn’t. And thats patent sexism. You have to be able to go through the process that we just went through, thoughtfully mark up the actions, gather additional forms of evidence, and then layout the pattern of the interaction, which we’ve done here. At every turn she escalates the situation into a greater degree of physical violence. And thats unacceptable. No gender or sex gets a pass on that. If you are escalating things into physical violence, you are in the wrong. It doesn’t matter if you are a physically weaker person.
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.
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
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?
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?
🦆 🐑
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.
Hey thanks for confirming I don’t have to take any of your comments seriously ever again.
Feelings are clearly running high in this thread but I’m going to stand by the argument I’ve made elsewhere, instead of the knee jerk reactionary shit.
If you can’t flip the gender roles this exchange and make the same conclusions, you’ve come to the wrong conclusion.
She initiated indirect physical contact. She initiated direct physical contact. She initiated escalation to potentially deadly force. And in her face book post she at least confirms the first two parts, with video evidence to corroborate. She needs a real lawyer because the argument that because she is smaller and physically weaker will end up with her catching charges.
She initiated this. She said she initiated this. The video evidence says she initiated this. She took the first step up each element of the escalation ladder (indirect use of force -> direct use of force -> use of deadly force). She made no efforts to de escalate.
If you want her to win, she needs a fucking lawyer. Because even a basically competent lawyer is going to be able to present her own words, her Facebook post on this, and be able to show that she knew she was the party to step up the escalation ladder.
She needs a lawyer and to press charges because if she doesn’t, he will. And with the evidence as presented here, he’d have a pretty solid case for self defense. Yes he used far to much force and went to far. But he at no point initiated this. Each turn of the wheel has him responding to her escalation. He tried two times to leave the situation. The first time unsuccessfully because she was brandishing a weapon. These are material facts that she acknowledged in her Facebook post, and which can be plainly seen in the video. It doesn’t matter if we think his use of force in response is excessive, if she keeps stepping up the escalation ladder.
I love you fuckin idiots that think you know the law.
Google specific and general intent. Learn something.
Specific intent to cause harm is a massive fucking problem
Battery with general intent is a misdemeanor.
That describes both her grabbing of the glass, and his splashing her with the contents. General intent, not specific intent.
That describes her lunging across the table and hitting him. A specific intent to cause harm.
I agree with the parent comment: if you raise this “general intent vs specific intent” argument as this woman’s lawyer, she’s going 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.
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.
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.
If a 150kg/2m woman was womanhandling a 60kg/1.4m man after he rejected her, very likely ending in a traumatic brain injury? Yes my critique would still fucking stand! What the fuck is wrong with you?
Well you keep assuming that it’s his drink in this video. Pretty big fucking assumption right there. What if it’s her drink? If that was the case he tries to steal her beer, and then proceeds to beat her for trying to get it back. Even it was his, you are still defending the use of disproportionate, potentially lethal violence in self-defence.
If you want it to be a fruitful thought exercise equalise their genders, keeping in mind that the bigger and more aggressive person here has just been rejected.
Ignoring the potential theft of a beer before, throw in the face of a beer before, and that afterwards he got up and literally kicked her while down, before slamming her head into a wooden bench. Absolute paragon of virtue over here. /s
If you think this was appropriate and measured self-defence you have a problem. You constantly excuse or ignore his escalations, while condemning hers.
Uhu.
Then why are you constantly giving the man a pass? In your post above you counted 1/3 “escalation points” for the man and woman respectively, ignoring three from the man, explaining them away as self-defence. But if look at it all in sequence (and again, just grant your count of her escalations, which I have arguments about) they both escalate:
Beer grab (she escalates)
Beer throw (he escalates)
Slap (she escalates)
Shove and slap (he escalates)
Kick (he escalates again without additional provocation)
Bottle grab (she escalates)
Throat punches head into bench (he escalates)
However, the possibility of it being her beer, the fact she doesn’t charge him with the bottle, on the contrary he charges her to deliver the throat punch, plus the provided context of this being her rejecting him, all paint a picture of this being retaliatory violence. You completely ignore all that and then have the gall to accuse others of sexism?
Because its actually irrelevant in both the eyes of the law and the moral nature of the use of violence. Women don’t get a pass on domestic abuse because they typically weigh less then men and potentially have less physical strength. And I actually think this is our key point of disagreement. And thats the common theme I see from the people trying to use accusations of misogyny to veil what amounts to a hall pass for violence for one particular gender, that because women are typically smaller, there is a degree of violence or aggression which is acceptable from them (eg, giving her a pass on escalating to physical violence by stepping up and slapping him).
And I’m just going to keep repeating how damaging that point is to a broader effort towards equality, because its basically reactionary in its formulation.
Well you keep making the opposite assumption. I think we could both agree that the man in the footage has physical control of the drink to begin with. The man picks the drink up off the table. She goes to take the drink from him. He pulls it back and throws it into her face. Can we agree on that sequence?
This is the distance he has to reach to get to the drink (1s). I would estimate his forearm is ~6 inches over the table.
This is the distance she has to reach to attempt to grab the drink from him. She’s moved her torso forwards, and has extended her arm. I would estimate her fully extended forearm to be ~18 inches. Call it another 6-8 inches for the lean in. She’s reaching about 24 inches (60cm) away to get to the same position on the table.
Second. He reaches for the drink with his dominant hand (right). She reaches for the drink with her non-dominant left hand (when physical contact is initiated, she slaps him with her right hand, and she later picks up the weapon into her right hand). So if this was her drink, she wouldn’t have been able to pick it up comfortably.
Third, here she is saying in her own words it wasn’t her drink:
So, very conclusively and supported by physical evidence and confirmed by the parties: it wasn’t her drink. And, to go further, she confirms that she reached out with the intention of spilling the drink.
That genuinely doesn’t play into it. Not in the eyes of the law, and, at least for probably the most hazardous moment where she is falling backwards over the bench. She’s falling backwards not because he’s so much stronger. She falls backwards because the bench was right behind her knees and it knocked her off balance, after she gets up to strike him/ lay hands on him.
First physical contact is made here at 5:01.
Her left hand grabs his right forearm, and she’s raising her right hand into striking position.
At 5:07, she’s now striking him across the face. He’s raise his right forearm into a defensive posture.
At 5:10, he’s now pushing her back with both arms.
At 5:21, his push causes her to fall backwards because of the bench behind her knees.
In this initial foray, it wasn’t his strength that caused her to go to the ground, it was the awkward position of the bench behind her knees after she stood up to hit him. The post she made about this is very bad for her. She basically confirms what the video evidence suggests. That she initiated this by making physical contact with the intention to spill his drink. The video evidence then speaks for its self because she then proceeded to escalate the situation by a more extreme form of physical violence by moving in to strike him. And I think it would be good for both of us to maybe track this story, because in the bit of searching I did, I think I’ve identified both parties (Amber Marie Mitchell, Nathan Seale) , the bar (Nachbar) and the local police department (Louisville PD) associated with it, and the FB post which boosted this into the national spotlight. We’ll be able to follow up, because with almost certainty, this will be going to court.
I think we’re in well enough agreement on this layout of events (I copied from your response). I want to mark these up with where they sit in the escalation ladder. I also think it would be good to put the deescalation point in. I’m offering the point of charity that the throat punch should be considered assault with a deadly weapon. It absolutely could have killed her. I don’t know that court or precedent agrees with that, but I’m offering it as a point of charity. I’m adding emoji’s for each parties actions for visual clarity.
The escalation ladder (and I think we both agree): indirect physical contact, physical contact, use of (potentially) deadly force. And the point, which people wanting to make accusations of misogyny and sexism, she is the person who escalated the situation at each turn where the level of violence stepped up. She’s in the wrong here. Very clearly. And we don’t have to continue to argue about this, because now that we have the names, the locations, the parties involved, we can follow up on this in a few weeks or months because I’d be shocked, floored even, if this doesn’t go to court. If she’s right, she’s got assault and battery and needs to get paid. If he’s right, well, he’s got assault and battery, and needs to get paid. Someone here is right. If she hasn’t filed charges yet, he should.
We’ve settled the matter that its not her beer. And I’m calling it sexism because it is. Since the beer matter is settled, the only thing left of your argument is that because she is a smaller person, she should be allowed to use a degree of violence that he shouldn’t. And thats patent sexism. You have to be able to go through the process that we just went through, thoughtfully mark up the actions, gather additional forms of evidence, and then layout the pattern of the interaction, which we’ve done here. At every turn she escalates the situation into a greater degree of physical violence. And thats unacceptable. No gender or sex gets a pass on that. If you are escalating things into physical violence, you are in the wrong. It doesn’t matter if you are a physically weaker person.
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).
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.
She picked up a weapon and continued after him as he tried to walk away.
Just as an FYI Hexbear (who swears they don’t do this) has linked and screenshot to this thread and are encouraging each other to join in.
Cretin.
You seem like you support violence as long as it goes in one specific direction.
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.
Same conclusion. Throwing a drink into a person’s face is assault but just grabbing for a drink isn’t.
deleted by creator
Looked like he was trying to put her on the ground with it.