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.
Of course I am. You’re the only smart person here. We’re so lucky to be blessed by your high IQ comments like “Are you a moron?”, “you’re just a fuckin idiot” or “Moron shit to say”. You’re truly the ray of wisdom in this land of intellectual darkness. In the name of the whole lemmy community: thank you for being here.
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.
Yes and no. There are involuntary reactions in the face of danger (like increased blood flow, muscle tension, dilated pupils etc.) but people don’t start fighting involuntarily. Maybe you’re confusing it with startle response which is involuntary? In fight-or-flight response there’s a moment of assessment (hence dilated pupils, to let you see better) and the response is a conscious one. People don’t involuntarily get up, grab a beer bottle and advance threateningly towards danger as part of fight-or-flight.
Now you can call me a misogynist for thinking that people remain conscious in dangerous situations.
Come one, “accusing”? It’s not like being you is wrong or something.
I hope you think of me every time you see a criticism of a sexist comment on the internet just as you did here.
It’s not as much about criticizing sexism as it’s about insulting everyone with a different opinion without providing any arguments or engaging in a reasonable discussion but yes, I will definitely think of you every time I see it.
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.
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 is assault.
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.
The kick did not piss you off. You spent the last two hours doing laps in this comment section blaming her.
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.
Disgusting piece of shit lol
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
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.
No it doesn’t stop trying to change definitions. You played defense for this man’s actions and straight accused her of assault.
You keep trying to sound like you know the law and you don’t. You’ve proven that with your misunderstanding of what intent means. Shut up
Are you a moron?
Velma, is that you?
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.
Of course I am. You’re the only smart person here. We’re so lucky to be blessed by your high IQ comments like “Are you a moron?”, “you’re just a fuckin idiot” or “Moron shit to say”. You’re truly the ray of wisdom in this land of intellectual darkness. In the name of the whole lemmy community: thank you for being here.
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.
Yes and no. There are involuntary reactions in the face of danger (like increased blood flow, muscle tension, dilated pupils etc.) but people don’t start fighting involuntarily. Maybe you’re confusing it with startle response which is involuntary? In fight-or-flight response there’s a moment of assessment (hence dilated pupils, to let you see better) and the response is a conscious one. People don’t involuntarily get up, grab a beer bottle and advance threateningly towards danger as part of fight-or-flight.
Now you can call me a misogynist for thinking that people remain conscious in dangerous situations.
I don’t need to say anything when you’re inventing my arguments against you and erroneously accusing others of being me.
I hope you think of me every time you see a criticism of a sexist comment on the internet just as you did here.
Come one, “accusing”? It’s not like being you is wrong or something.
It’s not as much about criticizing sexism as it’s about insulting everyone with a different opinion without providing any arguments or engaging in a reasonable discussion but yes, I will definitely think of you every time I see it.