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.
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.