Florida State QB DeAndre Johnson hits Woman VIDEO

[Hersh]

Agree with this.

There's a difference between saying a reaction was understandable and a reaction was wrong.

A guy calls your wife a **** to both of your faces, it's understandable in my mind if you punch him.

Does it "right", doesn't make it something I'd endorse as a good thing, doesn't make it something is condone as appropriate behavior, but it's something I could reasonably understand why such a reaction would occur and would have a hard time blaming you for taking the wrong action.

I personally think it's wrong to punch anyone, especially a woman, unless you or someone else is significantly in harms way. But I find it completely understandable if someone punches a person who punched them, as its a reasonably assumed reaction to such an instance.

I do. I also know this isn't actually about that, it's just an excuse for people who don't want to admit it's singularly about gender. That is evidenced by the notion that If a physically comparable, or even weaker, male was in place of the female In this case the reaction would be different. As some have even admitted here in the past few posts.

Which is a clear indication that it's not about "threat posed" or "strength" but is singularly about gender.

 

Of course it's about gender because by and large women are physically weaker thus less of a threat. If it was a man of similar size as the woman, he could be significantly stronger.

 

However, it's also because the VIDEO showed she didn't know how to even throw a punch and thus wasn't a threat. That was a weak as swing. All that plays a part as well.

[Jumbo]

K, my thoughts and condolences are with you--tragic.  I have also been in the situations you've described, personally and professionally.

[PCS]

Same here and my thoughts and condolences are with you as well K. 

[PokerPacker]

I don't know, perhaps you can show me some overwhelming statistics about these cases? Also, maybe some statistics about how many men a year die from domestic violence compared to women?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

About 50 percent of violent relationships are reciprocal, meaning both partners are involved. So what about the other 50 percent? 70% of non-reciprical domestic violence is perpetrated by women.

It's worth going through the link beyond the couple statistics I cherry-picked so you can get a clearer picture. The study has some interesting statistics related to domestic violence and it does acknowledge that men tend to do more damage. Also has interesting stuff like how the reciprocally violent relationships tend to result in worse injuries than the non-reciprocal.

Going back to my point of "don't hit people if you don't want to be hit":

"A recent meta-analysis found that a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence."

Further, I did not say anything about not caring about men in domestic violence situations, did I? Again, here's your leap in logic reaction coming into play. Of course I care about men being victims of domestic violence...those situations happen a hell of a lot less, however.

There seem to be a quite a number of people who don't care that she threw the first punch. Each party is guilty of throwing punches, but people are quick to dismiss the girl's violence because she's a girl.

I want to reiterate that my very first statement that drew the ire of some was that I did not sympathize with the girl. I did not cheer Johnson on, I merely have no sympathy for someone who gets punched after they throw the first punch.

[Gamebreaker]

I would be interested in taking a poll to find out the ages of all the posters defending Johnson.

 

I'd be interested in knowing exactly how many posters do you think are defending him. 

[Kosher Ham]

The one thing that seems to really be the crux of those that are saying he was wrong but they understand how it happened...

But he's a man.

Forgive me, I skipped the last two pages.

 

Why is athlete even being presented as a point ? That has zero relevance to the points that some are making.

 

Both are wrong, Women should not hit men and men should not hit women. It's really that simple.

You attack someone or threaten them, realize there may be consequences. If not aware of that possibility...you're an idiot, as this young woman seems to be. It doesn't matter male or female. Myself in fight, I have been in have always tried to diffuse the situation, unfortunately...that does not always work. (I've never hit a female however)

 

He had an option, and Burg...your lame point about her being grabbed when she raised her fist is completely absurd in a crowded bar.

Music blaring, everyone's trying to get their party on...most people ignore the little rub when at the bar. Statements about her blocking the bar are equally as ridiculous.

 

From what I see she did initiate, that rub when he is stepping up is a silly thing to throw your hands up. His response was to diffuse...she tried to kick and punch him.

 

So in my estimation, he's a jackass for even entertaining her being upset over that slight bump, and she's a jackass for escalating it.

[Destino]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

About 50 percent of violent relationships are reciprocal, meaning both partners are involved. So what about the other 50 percent? 70% of non-reciprical domestic violence is perpetrated by women.

It's worth going through the link beyond the couple statistics I cherry-picked so you can get a clearer picture. The study has some interesting statistics related to domestic violence and it does acknowledge that men tend to do more damage. Also has interesting stuff like how the reciprocally violent relationships tend to result in worse injuries than the non-reciprocal.

Going back to my point of "don't hit people if you don't want to be hit":

"A recent meta-analysis found that a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence."

 

 

The counter point is absolutely going to be that not a lot of men die from domestic violence.  It's a fair point and a major problem that we face in America.  Men should not be killing their intimate partners, which goes without saying, but we should also be far more cautious with how we define violence and our reaction to justify it.  It's far too common and it's not hard to see why people think men don't take the topic seriously enough.  This thread, for instance.   

 

I will say however, that there is something ghoulish about diminishing domestic violence when males are the victims because it doesn't end in death.  It's a bit like saying "We don't care because it's very unlikely that this abuse will result in your death.  Have a great day!"  This report (skip to page 52) was interesting. It claims that domestic violence in the US is pretty evenly split between male and female victims.  I would have never guessed that.  

[PokerPacker]

The counter point is absolutely going to be that not a lot of men die from domestic violence. It's a fair point and a major problem that we face in America. Men should not be killing their intimate partners, which goes without saying, but it's still far too common and it's not hard to see why people think men don't take the topic seriously enough. This thread, for instance.

Yes, I am sure that will be the point that comes back, and it is not a trivial point. There is a lot of focus on that point in society.

Another source that may be kind of eye-opening on domestic violence is Erin Pizzey, who started the first battered women shelter. I've only just become aware of her, but she seems a most interesting individual. Here's an interview where she discusses a lot of her work and observations having been so deeply connected through the shelters. http://whiteribbon.org/domestic-violence-law/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-domestic-violence/

A couple things that stood out was her claim that 60% of women who showed up to her shelters were as violent as the men they left (or the sole aggressors). Seeing this, she tried to start a shelter for men, but nobody wants to fund them. Talks about how women's advocacy groups train the police in dealing with domestic violence cases (hint: it's always the man!).

 

I will say however, that there is something ghoulish about diminishing domestic violence when males are the victims because it doesn't end in death. It's a bit like saying "we'll care if she kills you, until then please stop bothering us." This report (skip to page 52) was interesting. It claims that domestic violence in the US is pretty evenly split between male and female victims. I would have never guessed that.

Indeed. And it goes beyond just the physical damage, as well. There is a lot of emotional damage that comes with it. I encourage you to look at this story posted by an ex-marine describing his ordeals coming home and suffering through domestic violence: When A Girl Hits You. Some of the comments are also worth perusing (other not-so-much) where some other men open up and share their stories of domestic violence.

For that report you linked (haven't looked yet, I just noticed it in the text in my reply as you must've edited it in or something before I hit the quote button), I had read some people mentioning statistics about it being almost 50-50, but I didn't find the actual reports for that. I did see a there was a 2010 study in England reporting a 40-60 split. The actual numbers are rather interesting, are they not, based on what you hear about in media coverage and such? Yes, men can be violent, everybody knows that, but we rarely hear about how violent women can be. And often when we do, people laugh about it (as shown in that video I posted so many pages back). People can be ugly to each man or woman, and nobody should be putting their hands on somebody else.

[No Excuses]

All I've gotten out of this thread is that there a ton of dudes who are really bitter about women demanding equality. It's also cute how they won't actually hit the girl in the video but totally understand why she got her dose of #manjustice. Yeah yall are real gentleman (PS: no one believes you won't hit her)

Not really sure if this correlates with age. I would probably say sexual frustration and socioeconomic backgrounds are major contributors.

[Hersh]

The one thing that seems to really be the crux of those that are saying he was wrong but they understand how it happened...

But he's a man.

Forgive me, I skipped the last two pages.

 

Why is athlete even being presented as a point ? That has zero relevance to the points that some are making.

 

 

The reason it is relevant is that people are claiming that she was a threat. So some context needs to be provided. She=drunk girl at bar.

He= D-1 athlete (which equates to physically strong/in shape)

 

"Oh, but she made a fist...OOOOOOO, big scary threat!!!!"

 

There is no way that particular dude felt threatened by that particular girl.

[SiCkSoULjA]

All I've gotten out of this thread is that there a ton of dudes who are really bitter about women demanding equality. It's also cute how they won't actually hit the girl in the video but totally understand why she got her dose of #manjustice. Yeah yall are real gentleman (PS: no one believes you won't hit her)

Not really sure if this correlates with age. I would probably say sexual frustration and socioeconomic backgrounds are major contributors.

 

What ive gotten out of this thread is that its totally fine for woman to hit men and get suprised when they get hit back. Everyone agrees that hey Johnson should have handled this differently, was he wrong yes. When you hit someone you better expect to get hit back its very simple, She hit him and then her reaction is why did he just hit me? Well **** you just hit him.

 

I am very confident I would have handled the situation differently, but I understand his point of view that doesn't mean that its right. Now if she used racial slurs like its being reported then hey I don't know what may have happened.

[Hersh]

There seem to be a quite a number of people who don't care that she threw the first punch. Each party is guilty of throwing punches, but people are quick to dismiss the girl's violence because she's a girl.

I want to reiterate that my very first statement that drew the ire of some was that I did not sympathize with the girl. I did not cheer Johnson on, I merely have no sympathy for someone who gets punched after they throw the first punch.

 

It's not that people don't care that she threw the first punch, it's that her punch wouldn't have hurt a fly. Hell, the way she raised her first, dude could see she wasn't an actual threat. It's not like that guy had never been in a fight.

 

I'm sure there are some that think she wouldn't even have thrown a punch if she hadn't been grabbed but that doesn't matter since the sequence occurred as it did.

[No Excuses]

It's not that people don't care that she threw the first punch, it's that her punch wouldn't have hurt a fly. Hell, the way she raised her first, dude could see she wasn't an actual threat. It's not like that guy had never been in a fight.

 

I'm sure there are some that think she wouldn't even have thrown a punch if she hadn't been grabbed but that doesn't matter since the sequence occurred as it did.

 

Bolded part is all there is to it. But I guess to some real defenders of #mensrights, that weak flailing of arms was a real escalation of violence, worthy of a knucklesmeetface party.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

This is like the thread that won't die. 

 

People are STILL (lamely trying) to defend this whilst hiding behind the 'well yeah, he could of handled it differently BUT .....' ?

 

People seriously NEVER fail to amaze you. And NOT in a god way. 

 

Hail. 

[Burgold]

What ive gotten out of this thread is that its totally fine for woman to hit men and get suprised when they get hit back. Everyone agrees that hey Johnson should have handled this differently, was he wrong yes. When you hit someone you better expect to get hit back its very simple, She hit him and then her reaction is why did he just hit me? Well **** you just hit him.

 

I am very confident I would have handled the situation differently, but I understand his point of view that doesn't mean that its right. Now if she used racial slurs like its being reported then hey I don't know what may have happened.

 

 

I really don't have a problem with him filing assault charges also. Even now, after he swung back. She is not entitled to strike him. I do think that the grabbing and restraint was the first physical act (because I discount the bump... she overreacted big time there) Now, she certainly is within her rights to file against him. He assaulted her and damaged her.

 

Where, I think the difference lies is twofold:

 

1) Who escalated the incident and made it a physical confrontation

2) What should the actors have done or done differently in this situation.

 

It's in 2 that the notions of chivalry come into play. He could have been the bigger man. If he apologized after bumping her or simply walked away when she wouldn't let it go there would have been no blows. Had he not grabbed and restrained her, I think there's a 90% chance that there would be no fists ever thrown at all.

 

I've never really been a proponent of stand your ground thinking.  What I'm reading is the George Zimmerman defense. The QB felt threatened/endangered and so had a right to defend himself using any force he found fit. He could even declare he felt his life was endangered and would have the right to pull out a gun and shoot her. After all, she did strike him twice (knee and fist) 

 

Do you really want to argue that George Zimmerman was right? Trayvon had no gun or knife. He got into an altercation. Martin balled up his fist and hit Zimmerman and that gave him the legal right to use his gun. Should the QB have done that? She struck him. He has the right to defend himself?

 

It's hyperbolic example, but a fair one.

[rictus58]

The reason it is relevant is that people are claiming that she was a threat. So some context needs to be provided. She=drunk girl at bar.

He= D-1 athlete (which equates to physically strong/in shape)

 

"Oh, but she made a fist...OOOOOOO, big scary threat!!!!"

 

There is no way that particular dude felt threatened by that particular girl.

He ALSO = Drunk at the bar. Who knows what's going through a drunk guys head.

I'll ask again. Would Johnson have been justified in his actions if the girl was instead a 5'6" male?

[Hersh]

He ALSO = Drunk at the bar. Who knows what's going through a drunk guys head.

I'll ask again. Would Johnson have been justified in his actions if the girl was instead a 5'6" male?

 

Yay!! More hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what actually happened. Depends on the guy and the type of punch he threw first.

[rictus58]

Yay!! More hypotheticals that have nothing to do with what actually happened. Depends on the guy and the type of punch he threw first.

nice straight answer.

[SiCkSoULjA]

I really don't have a problem with him filing assault charges also. Even now, after he swung back. She is not entitled to strike him. I do think that the grabbing and restraint was the first physical act (because I discount the bump... she overreacted big time there) Now, she certainly is within her rights to file against him. He assaulted her and damaged her.

 

Where, I think the difference lies is twofold:

 

1) Who escalated the incident and made it a physical confrontation

2) What should the actors have done or done differently in this situation.

 

It's in 2 that the notions of chivalry come into play. He could have been the bigger man. If he apologized after bumping her or simply walked away when she wouldn't let it go there would have been no blows. Had he not grabbed and restrained her, I think there's a 90% chance that there would be no fists ever thrown at all.

 

I've never really been a proponent of stand your ground thinking.  What I'm reading is the George Zimmerman defense. The QB felt threatened/endangered and so had a right to defend himself using any force he found fit. He could even declare he felt his life was endangered and would have the right to pull out a gun and shoot her. After all, she did strike him twice (knee and fist) 

 

Do you really want to argue that George Zimmerman was right? Trayvon had no gun or knife. He got into an altercation. Martin balled up his fist and hit Zimmerman and that gave him the legal right to use his gun. Should the QB have done that? She struck him. He has the right to defend himself?

 

It's hyperbolic example, but a fair one.

Come on man Zimmerman stalked and followed that kid with a gun, denyed any advice to stand down and wait until the cops arrive he took matter into his own hands. Totally different situation. Won't entertain that any further.

[Hersh]

nice straight answer.

 

Nice ridiculous hypothetical. Try dealing with what happened instead of trying to change the people involved to justify whatever point you are trying to make.

[rictus58]

Nice ridiculous hypothetical. Try dealing with what happened instead of trying to change the people involved to justify whatever point you are trying to make.

Like the people equating a woman with the handicapped....children....elderly? My point is simple. You see it. And you fail to address it head on.

Why is it wrong to hit a woman in retaliation?

[Hersh]

Like the people equating a woman with the handicapped....children....elderly? My point is simple. You see it. And you fail to address it head on.

 

I don't have any idea what your point is this morning.

 

Anyone equating this woman with the handicapped or a child or the elderly is making a mistake. There are definitely situations where it is totally justifiable for a man to punch a woman. THIS was not one of those situations.

[ZRagone]

For all those CONTINUALLY going back to the "threat" and "strength" arguments....

 

I'll ask again (and I'm sure you'll dodge again).

 

If this was a man showing a similar amount of "threat" based on the type of punch thrown, and had a similar amount of perceived "strength" as this woman; would your attitude and belief as to how in the wrong he was, and how much action should be taken against him, still the same?

 

If no, that's fine...but at least be honest and stop putting forth the bogus "threat" and "strength" arguments and simply admit the truth. That your ONLY reason for feeling he was in the wrong is that she's a girl, and men should simply not hit women period.

 

Either is SINGULARLY about gender, or it's about "threat" and "size" and other things and thus would be the same if it was an equivalent guy.

[Burgold]

For all those CONTINUALLY going back to the "threat" and "strength" arguments....

 

I'll ask again (and I'm sure you'll dodge again).

 

If this was a man showing a similar amount of "threat" based on the type of punch thrown, and had a similar amount of perceived "strength" as this woman; would your attitude and belief as to how in the wrong he was, and how much action should be taken against him, still the same?

If all things are equal, yes, the QB would still be at fault. He would have shoved the dude. He would have grabbed and constrained him. He would have instigated the physical part of the encounter. Again, the person guilty of showing his fist is not enough in my opinion. It's like if a woman calls the police and says a guy is following her and the police ask... did he do anything? You can't be guilty of just walking in the same direction. Until you throw the punch you haven't thrown a punch. He initiated the use of force.

 

Now, legally both can be charged with assault. I have no problems with that. Even today, Johnson could charge her and sue her for assault. I don't think much would come of it, but he can charge her both criminally and even file a civil suit to that regard.

[mcsluggo]

Absolutely.  I never imagined that so many people would up and admit that horribly misogynistic bull**** in public.  I'm floored.  There is a disconnect somewhere, there has to be.

 

i am not just floored... i am utterly disgusted.