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
It is not misandry to say that a man should not grab a drink out of a woman’s hands.
It is not misogyny to say that a woman should not grab a drink out of a man’s hands.
It is not misandry to say that a man should not lunge over a table and strike a woman who has thrown a drink in his face.
It is not misogyny to say that a woman should not lunge over a table and strike a man who has thrown a drink in her face.
I’m going to invite you to withdraw your denigrating comments about “moronic” and “misogyny”, and participate in the discussion calmly and rationally.
The entire problem with your … breakdown is intent.
I don’t believe I discussed intent so far at all. The closest I came to discussing intent was pointing out that the first physical act was initiated by her, not him. He committed the second physical act: throwing the drink at her. If I’m going to look for evidence of intent, I’m going to point out that in throwing the drink, no part of his body came into contact with her. He did not strike her. He did not throw the glass itself. He threw the liquid only. Even if his actions were deplorable and unreasonable, I know he demonstrated significant restraint at this time, which contradicts your claim that his intent was to exert force and cause harm.
Other indications of his intent: Right after the kick, he backed away, retreating from the altercation. Right after the final shove, he again backed away, retreating from the altercation. Again, he demonstrates significant restraint at these times. Again, these contradict your claim that his intent was to exert force and cause harm.
If we’re looking at evidence of her intentions, we have the initiating act of physical contact. After the thrown liquid, we have her throwing the first punch. As he is gathering his things and attempting to leave, we have her approaching him, beer bottle in hand.
I started this comment by reversing the genders. I’m going to ask you to do the same in this video. A man (the size and shape of Mark Zuckerberg) grabs a glass in a woman’s hands. She (A woman with the same stature and physicality of Brienne of Tarth) immediately throws the drink in his face. Mark reaches over the table and starts punching Brienne. She shoves him, he trips and falls. He attempts to get back up; she kicks him back to the ground. While he is on the ground, she attempts to leave. Mark picks up a beer bottle and approaches her again. Brienne throws him across the room by his scrawny neck, and walks away from the scene.
Now, instead of giving her a medal or buying her a beer, you have to now argue that Gwendoline Christie is a violent scumbag, Zuck is a victim of her wrath, and everyone who sees it differently is inherently misandrist. Can you do that? Can you make her out to be the bad guy here?
You’re so fucking weird. Stop looking at their genders you stupid misogynistic moron.
The law that you wanna quote so fucking hard with 0 expertise is all about intent.
Her intent was not violent. His was. His actions were harmful and disgusting. Period. Worst case scenario she will get simple battery depending on that initial conversation but due to his actions probably not because her intent appears to be completely non-violent. That’s what the law sees, intent.
You defending these actions exposes how your little pea brain works you sexist idiot. Fuck off.
Stop looking at their genders you stupid misogynistic moron.
Classic.
The law that you wanna quote so fucking hard with 0 expertise is all about intent.
Actually, it’s not. The primary issue to consider is “justification” not “intent”. The use of force is generally unlawful unless justified in defense of self or others. A person is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop another’s use of unjustified force. Provocation and instigation also play a role: A use of force is not always unlawful if the other party has acted to deliberately provoke the response. Look up “fighting words” to get you into the right area of study.
Here, she initiates the physical altercation by unjustifiably grabbing the glass. Provoked, he splashes her. She unjustifiably strikes him. He justifiably shoves her. He kicks her, putting her back on the ground.
The kick is questionable. It’s either an unjustified attack while she’s on the ground, or it’s a justified attempt to keep her from getting up and striking him further. Since this would only matter if he’s the one on trial, and if he’s the one on trial, we owe him the benefit of a doubt, we have to call this one justified.
Either way, he immediately retreats after the kick, ending the threat to her, and making her next actions unjustifiable. She gets back up, grabs a beer bottle, and confronts him again. He justifiably shoves her away.
She initiated everything. Everything he did was a reaction to her instigating actions. Was he asking for the glass to be pulled from his hands? Was he asking her to linge across the table and strike him? Was he asking to be threatened with a beer bottle? The only way his intent was at all relevant is if his intent was for her to start shit.
Based on the prevailing opinions in this conversation, we need much more focus on the laws governing use of force. Clearly, too many people have been denied any formal instruction or training on the subject.
Shut up. You’re just so stupid and nobody takes you seriously. I cannot believe you think she initiated anything or his actions were close to justified.
Means nothing. They’re on a date. If they were strangers that would matter. Your understanding of humans, the law and interactions are embarrassing as fuck.
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
It is not misandry to say that a man should not grab a drink out of a woman’s hands. It is not misogyny to say that a woman should not grab a drink out of a man’s hands.
It is not misandry to say that a man should not lunge over a table and strike a woman who has thrown a drink in his face. It is not misogyny to say that a woman should not lunge over a table and strike a man who has thrown a drink in her face.
I’m going to invite you to withdraw your denigrating comments about “moronic” and “misogyny”, and participate in the discussion calmly and rationally.
I don’t believe I discussed intent so far at all. The closest I came to discussing intent was pointing out that the first physical act was initiated by her, not him. He committed the second physical act: throwing the drink at her. If I’m going to look for evidence of intent, I’m going to point out that in throwing the drink, no part of his body came into contact with her. He did not strike her. He did not throw the glass itself. He threw the liquid only. Even if his actions were deplorable and unreasonable, I know he demonstrated significant restraint at this time, which contradicts your claim that his intent was to exert force and cause harm.
Other indications of his intent: Right after the kick, he backed away, retreating from the altercation. Right after the final shove, he again backed away, retreating from the altercation. Again, he demonstrates significant restraint at these times. Again, these contradict your claim that his intent was to exert force and cause harm.
If we’re looking at evidence of her intentions, we have the initiating act of physical contact. After the thrown liquid, we have her throwing the first punch. As he is gathering his things and attempting to leave, we have her approaching him, beer bottle in hand.
I started this comment by reversing the genders. I’m going to ask you to do the same in this video. A man (the size and shape of Mark Zuckerberg) grabs a glass in a woman’s hands. She (A woman with the same stature and physicality of Brienne of Tarth) immediately throws the drink in his face. Mark reaches over the table and starts punching Brienne. She shoves him, he trips and falls. He attempts to get back up; she kicks him back to the ground. While he is on the ground, she attempts to leave. Mark picks up a beer bottle and approaches her again. Brienne throws him across the room by his scrawny neck, and walks away from the scene.
Now, instead of giving her a medal or buying her a beer, you have to now argue that Gwendoline Christie is a violent scumbag, Zuck is a victim of her wrath, and everyone who sees it differently is inherently misandrist. Can you do that? Can you make her out to be the bad guy here?
Another paragraph. What a dork.
You’re so fucking weird. Stop looking at their genders you stupid misogynistic moron.
The law that you wanna quote so fucking hard with 0 expertise is all about intent.
Her intent was not violent. His was. His actions were harmful and disgusting. Period. Worst case scenario she will get simple battery depending on that initial conversation but due to his actions probably not because her intent appears to be completely non-violent. That’s what the law sees, intent.
You defending these actions exposes how your little pea brain works you sexist idiot. Fuck off.
Classic.
Actually, it’s not. The primary issue to consider is “justification” not “intent”. The use of force is generally unlawful unless justified in defense of self or others. A person is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop another’s use of unjustified force. Provocation and instigation also play a role: A use of force is not always unlawful if the other party has acted to deliberately provoke the response. Look up “fighting words” to get you into the right area of study.
Here, she initiates the physical altercation by unjustifiably grabbing the glass. Provoked, he splashes her. She unjustifiably strikes him. He justifiably shoves her. He kicks her, putting her back on the ground.
The kick is questionable. It’s either an unjustified attack while she’s on the ground, or it’s a justified attempt to keep her from getting up and striking him further. Since this would only matter if he’s the one on trial, and if he’s the one on trial, we owe him the benefit of a doubt, we have to call this one justified.
Either way, he immediately retreats after the kick, ending the threat to her, and making her next actions unjustifiable. She gets back up, grabs a beer bottle, and confronts him again. He justifiably shoves her away.
Nope it’s intent.
Specific intent vs general intent. His intent was very specific. Any other arguments you present is just you being willfully ignorant.
He was never in danger, he was the danger. His intent was specific and harmful. Hers was general and unclear.
Piss off piss baby
She initiated everything. Everything he did was a reaction to her instigating actions. Was he asking for the glass to be pulled from his hands? Was he asking her to linge across the table and strike him? Was he asking to be threatened with a beer bottle? The only way his intent was at all relevant is if his intent was for her to start shit.
Based on the prevailing opinions in this conversation, we need much more focus on the laws governing use of force. Clearly, too many people have been denied any formal instruction or training on the subject.
Shut up. You’re just so stupid and nobody takes you seriously. I cannot believe you think she initiated anything or his actions were close to justified.
Absolutely scummy misogynistic cunt you are
She was the first person to initiate physical contact. That is instigation.
Means nothing. They’re on a date. If they were strangers that would matter. Your understanding of humans, the law and interactions are embarrassing as fuck.
Your mind is an empty and simple place