There is nothing in the video to assume she did anything wrong your ability to read people is absolutely shit.
Likely she can tell he’s about to get violent and tries to stop him grabbing his drink, which he throws in her face, then pushes her, kicks her, pushes her again.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
Yep! Already covered that. We already agreed that the throwing of the drink in her face, while provoked, was unjustified. We already agreed that it was a misdemeanor offense.
4th degree assault is a misdemeanor. $500 fine.
Prosecutors always initially overcharge to scare defendants into a plea deal. 4th degree assault just doesn’t fit the circumstances. Even Menacing is a bit of a stretch, but I expect he’ll plead down to Menacing just to make it go away. Class B misdemeanor. $250 fine.
Her grabbing the drink was not justified. His throwing the drink was not justified. Her striking him in the face was not justified. His pushing her away was justified. The kick was questionable. The brandishing of the beer bottle was not justified. The shove was justified. His two attempts at retreat despite her continued attacks are rather damning to a 4th Degree Assault charge; he only used physical force against her when she posed a threat.
He escalates it unecceserily at every fucking point.
She could have accepted whatever he said to her and let that be the end of it. Instead, she tries to grab his beer out of his hand.
She could have accepted the beer to the face and let that be the end of it. Instead, she lunges at him and tries to put her hands on him.
She could have walked away after getting shoved and kicked and let that be the end of it. Instead, she gets back in his face and starts brandishing a beer bottle.
Both of these people suck. Both had an opportunity to put their pride aside and walk away, but chose not to take it.
The man isn’t blameless either, let me be clear about that, but saying that he did every wrong and she did every right doesn’t accurately reflect what happened either.
Yeah, agreed. I don’t know why she was trying to grab the glass, maybe it was a dick move or maybe there’s context we can’t see, but everything after that was unnecessary and on him.
There’s zero things that are “dick moves” that justify the use of potentially deadly force. She could have fallen and hit her head and gotten a traumatic brain injury and blows to the chest can cause your heart to stop. The very early could have been a snuff video
He dumped the drink on her. Questionable. She had instigated the physical altercation, but this could be considered an unjustified escalation.
She lunged at him. Escalation: Assault by battery.
He shoved her away while she was attacking him; she fell over backward. Even if the beer-dumping was unjustified, he was now justified in using physical force to stop her physical attack.
She tried to stand back up; he kicked her back to the ground. Questionable. He was certainly justified in initially shoving her away, which caused her to fall to the ground; if he reasonably believed she was getting back up to continue her battery, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.
He retreated, and grabbed his things. De-escalation.
She picked up a beer bottle and threatened him with it. Escalation: Assault with a deadly weapon. (This also demonstrates the reasonableness of his belief that she would continue her battery in #5.)
He shoved her away while she was threatening him. Completely justified by her latest assault.
He retreated while she was on the ground. De-escalation.
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.
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.
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?
Am I missing something here? They both seem like shitty ppl, but it seems like everyone just hates the guy.
There is nothing in the video to assume she did anything wrong your ability to read people is absolutely shit.
Likely she can tell he’s about to get violent and tries to stop him grabbing his drink, which he throws in her face, then pushes her, kicks her, pushes her again.
Where in that do you read her doing anything wrong?
You can tell that from the video? Because to me it looks like grabbing his drink is what sets off the whole thing.
So maybe she’s right? Lmfao.
“He’s going to get violent if I take his glass, so I need to take his glass.”
That argument is a condemnation of her actions, not a justification.
Here’s your update:
https://www.wlky.com/article/louisville-man-charged-with-assault-after-bar-surveillance-video-goes-viral/73652687
Fourth degree assault. Gee! Look at that.
Yep! Already covered that. We already agreed that the throwing of the drink in her face, while provoked, was unjustified. We already agreed that it was a misdemeanor offense.
4th degree assault is a misdemeanor. $500 fine.
Prosecutors always initially overcharge to scare defendants into a plea deal. 4th degree assault just doesn’t fit the circumstances. Even Menacing is a bit of a stretch, but I expect he’ll plead down to Menacing just to make it go away. Class B misdemeanor. $250 fine.
Her grabbing the drink was not justified. His throwing the drink was not justified. Her striking him in the face was not justified. His pushing her away was justified. The kick was questionable. The brandishing of the beer bottle was not justified. The shove was justified. His two attempts at retreat despite her continued attacks are rather damning to a 4th Degree Assault charge; he only used physical force against her when she posed a threat.
Lol mr lawyer at it again 🙄
It looks like she is initially just trying to grab the glass.
He escalates it unecceserily at every fucking point.
Dude has anger issues and is a danger to those around him.
She could have accepted whatever he said to her and let that be the end of it. Instead, she tries to grab his beer out of his hand.
She could have accepted the beer to the face and let that be the end of it. Instead, she lunges at him and tries to put her hands on him.
She could have walked away after getting shoved and kicked and let that be the end of it. Instead, she gets back in his face and starts brandishing a beer bottle.
Both of these people suck. Both had an opportunity to put their pride aside and walk away, but chose not to take it.
The man isn’t blameless either, let me be clear about that, but saying that he did every wrong and she did every right doesn’t accurately reflect what happened either.
Yeah, agreed. I don’t know why she was trying to grab the glass, maybe it was a dick move or maybe there’s context we can’t see, but everything after that was unnecessary and on him.
There’s zero things that are “dick moves” that justify the use of potentially deadly force. She could have fallen and hit her head and gotten a traumatic brain injury and blows to the chest can cause your heart to stop. The very early could have been a snuff video
She grabbed his drink. Assault. Unjustified.
He dumped the drink on her. Questionable. She had instigated the physical altercation, but this could be considered an unjustified escalation.
She lunged at him. Escalation: Assault by battery.
He shoved her away while she was attacking him; she fell over backward. Even if the beer-dumping was unjustified, he was now justified in using physical force to stop her physical attack.
She tried to stand back up; he kicked her back to the ground. Questionable. He was certainly justified in initially shoving her away, which caused her to fall to the ground; if he reasonably believed she was getting back up to continue her battery, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.
He retreated, and grabbed his things. De-escalation.
She picked up a beer bottle and threatened him with it. Escalation: Assault with a deadly weapon. (This also demonstrates the reasonableness of his belief that she would continue her battery in #5.)
He shoved her away while she was threatening him. Completely justified by her latest assault.
He retreated while she was on the ground. De-escalation.
Grabbing a drink isn’t assault. Nor is it battery. It is, at most, petty theft.
So no, he actually started the physical altercation, which means that all of your assertions are false.
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.
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’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.
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.
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?