According to her friend, it was their second date and she told him she didn’t want to se him anymore. Someone else posted the article with her friend’s version of the story, yesterday with two links. Here is the one without a paywall :
And there is not a fair judgement without understanding of the context.
I may illustrate with two different possible contexts, most likely none apply here, the point is to show you that your judgement may not be the exact same:
A: They are from the same family and she comes-out to him as a lesbian, and that her actual partner she plans to marry has an other ethnical origine. The anger and violence of the guy is their based on homophobia and racism which adds to the physical aspect.
B: He was a soldier in some military conflict and has traumas. Some flashbacks make him violent. He would need meds but can’t afford them anymore due to life cost rising. In this scenario, the violence is not even related to his victime.
Not siding with him, it seems likely he was in the wrong. But regarding your comment. Hypothetically, let’s say he is the recipient of constant abuse. Both verbal and physical, and this was him finally snapping and giving it back. Let’s say he has been on the receiving end of his fair share of kicks whilst down. Let’s say he previously never wanted to fight back because he isn’t violent.
I am not saying that is what happened. But i am saying you cant say “there isn’t acceptable context” when it took me 5 seconds to think of some.
As far as we can tell this man is at fault. He has assaulted this woman.
I was only pointing out that your blanket statement that there is no context in which this is justified is incorrect. And frankly the attitude is dangerous. Is there any context where the woman can pick up a glass bottle to use as a weapon? Considering the level of harm a glass bottle would cause? Perhaps the justification is she is being attacked by a man that is apparently much stronger than she is? Does that justify it? Or does it only work one way?
Again. I agree. Given all available evidence, it seems this man has unjustly assaulted this woman.
But your attitude towards this is just basic.
There isn’t acceptable context for how he kicked her while she was on the ground nor for hitting her at the end.
According to her friend, it was their second date and she told him she didn’t want to se him anymore. Someone else posted the article with her friend’s version of the story, yesterday with two links. Here is the one without a paywall :
https://www.themarysue.com/this-man-needs-to-go-louisville-local-warns-of-violent-man-who-allegedly-attacked-her-friend-after-she-rejected-him-on-the-second-date/
I fail to see how he supposedly attacked her first…
This blog is not a news source.
Look how non aggressive he is. He definitely didn’t stand up and b-line to kick her while she’s down
Listen man, if you want to deny her aggression that preceded all this that’s fine, but don’t act like you’re standing up for women while doing so.
You’re denying basic agency to women, you misogynist.
Never developed past the first-wave of feminism?
SHE’S THREATENING HIS LIFE SOMEBODY STOP HER.
Justified response.
This is how you’re worthless brain works?
Shut the fuck up idiot.
What a dip shit you are
Now screenshot her invading his space literally 1 second before this.
Throwing a drink in someones face is harmless, threatening someone with a bottle is not.
“Invading his space”
Moron shit to say
Ok but like maybe she literally killed his dog.
That’s why context is important.
He’s probably a shithead though.
And there is not a fair judgement without understanding of the context.
I may illustrate with two different possible contexts, most likely none apply here, the point is to show you that your judgement may not be the exact same:
A: They are from the same family and she comes-out to him as a lesbian, and that her actual partner she plans to marry has an other ethnical origine. The anger and violence of the guy is their based on homophobia and racism which adds to the physical aspect.
B: He was a soldier in some military conflict and has traumas. Some flashbacks make him violent. He would need meds but can’t afford them anymore due to life cost rising. In this scenario, the violence is not even related to his victime.
You don’t need to invent scenarios to justify his actions here. There is plenty of evidence on the video to know that he is in the wrong.
If you take the scenario A as a justification, we clearly don’t have the same idea of justice.
Not siding with him, it seems likely he was in the wrong. But regarding your comment. Hypothetically, let’s say he is the recipient of constant abuse. Both verbal and physical, and this was him finally snapping and giving it back. Let’s say he has been on the receiving end of his fair share of kicks whilst down. Let’s say he previously never wanted to fight back because he isn’t violent.
I am not saying that is what happened. But i am saying you cant say “there isn’t acceptable context” when it took me 5 seconds to think of some.
He is still responsible for his actions. Previous abuse does not excuse assaulting this woman multiple times in this scenario.
Why are you playing devil’s advocate for this man?
Sorry, i wasn’t clear enough.
As far as we can tell this man is at fault. He has assaulted this woman.
I was only pointing out that your blanket statement that there is no context in which this is justified is incorrect. And frankly the attitude is dangerous. Is there any context where the woman can pick up a glass bottle to use as a weapon? Considering the level of harm a glass bottle would cause? Perhaps the justification is she is being attacked by a man that is apparently much stronger than she is? Does that justify it? Or does it only work one way?
Again. I agree. Given all available evidence, it seems this man has unjustly assaulted this woman. But your attitude towards this is just basic.
Self defense.