Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Would love to see Federer win. I hate D-JOKE. He's a whiner, cheater and I hear he hits chicks in the face at bars too. Well now you've gone done it darn it! Half the thread is now rooting for him! Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Using this as a guiding principle and with all factors included, Johnson should not have thrown a punch. I will say if you entire argument defending Johnson is legal you are correct. In a strict legal sense, any unwanted touching can be considered assault. Someone even posted a definition where the perceived threat of violence can be considered an assault. That's basically been my contention this whole time, granted with a view regarding the "moral" side too. From a legal notion, from viewing the situation, my opinion is that there is at least a relatively 50/50 argument that he should've been completely within his rights to do what he did. I've stated repeatedly that I think from a moral perspective, what he did was wrong. I'm still a believer that notions of chivalry are not inherently some form of "soft misogyny" and that as a society I'm absolutely supportive of the notion that while we should not be hitting anyone, men should ESPECIALLY not be hitting women. However, I've also stated that despite feeling like it's wrong, I can understand WHY someone would react this way. The example I've used repeatedly is a man punching another man in a bar who calls his wife a C-word. I think that is not morally okay, as I don't believe it's acceptable to react to words with physical force, unless those words themselves are threatening physical force. Even if something makes you ridiculously angry, if it's words the proper response is to, at best, respond back with words. But I can completely understand a person having the reaction to slug a guy in their face if they call their wife that word. Even if it's wrong, the action of the person is one that I think an average person should be able to reasonable assume is at least a decent chance of happening. (As an aside...I'd be far more understanding of the husbands action in that case than I am of Johnson's. The example is not to compare the two in terms of how good/bad they are, but rather to provide an example of how it's possible to view something as morally wrong to some degree and yet still find it an understandable and not entirely irrational response) Similarly, if someone gets punched in the face in a true act of aggression, I think it's reasonable to assume that there's at least a decent chance that they're going to throw a punch back. Doesn't make throwing that punch "right" from a moral sense, doesn't make it commendable, but it makes it something that I'm not going to sit there and be shocked or outraged that someone would ever even think of doing. Morally, I don't see his action as being defensible to really any degree. Legally, I think there's a reasonable debate about it being defensible. And BECAUSE there's a reasonable question about it's legitimacy from a legal perspective, it makes the level of how bad it is on a moral level to me slightly lower. IE, morally I'd view him very differently if he had decked her because of her initial block of his push to get to the bar, because in that case he'd be clearly both morally and legally wrong. My issue is that for many, especially for the football team and in the media, it simply seems they're treating him on a moral level in a way equivalent to how they'd treat him if he did what I described above instead of what happened. Both instances would still be wrong, but I don't buy a notion of this black and white "It's either the worst thing EVER or it's okay" binary notion. It's possible for him to be wrong and yet not to the level or degree it seems some are treating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Both are reasonable arguments and neither are slam dunks, despite people trying to act like it is (really in either direction). In my,(at times unfortunate),real world experience in this type of thing,no. There's nothing reasonable about the second argument. My far too many experiences in the bar world,(bouncer,tender,manager,ect),and in other real world circumstances have shaped my perspective in this area,(like many others),and from that perspective,he was way,way out of line. As I stated earlier,I would have thrown them both out,(and have in my experience),but what he did was bull****. And that is that. Nothing has been said or is going to to be said to change that. So there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The absolute best answer about a fight, ANY fight, is to just not get into it. Be a nice person, be humble, be deferential in conflict and try to extricate yourself, and avoid physical conflict unless there's little other reasonable options for your safety. Even if someone seemingly poses little to no threat there are a multitude of ways in which the situation can quickly spiral into a situation where there absolutely is a severe threat posed. No matter how well trained or well experienced a person is there is always the potential for a physical situation to go badly. Always. So far and away, the best option is to never actually have to get into a physical confrontation. I'm living my life like this now. As long as the children and ladies of my extended family are ok I'll continue to not instigate and extricate, because I feel a better person for it. Not getting into it is the way to win from a mental perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 That's basically been my contention this whole time, granted with a view regarding the "moral" side too. I can agree with a lot in this post. I guess the difference here and it may shade my "legal" understanding of it is the fact that he grabbed and held her before she tried to knee or belt him. In my view, I see that as the first use of force. That puts him in the legal and moral wrong. He initiated contact and created a scenario where it became physical. When you are being grabbed by someone bigger, stronger, and is yelling and cursing (back) at you, it's a very natural and reasonable response to want to break away and feel frightened. This, takes away his legal argument in my view. Now, I've said several times that he could press charges and would be within his rights to do so. I just don't think it would hold up or amount to anything. I think her case is much stronger from both a legal and moral POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I just grabbed the nearest ones, ZRagone. Nontheless, you have several times defended the guy's right to hit her. You said if guy's don't have the right to hit woman they should not be in the military or other combat roles. You also seem to ignore that the woman's punch only occurred after she was pushed twice (which I would ignore too) and she was grabbed and forcibly restrained (which I would not). Dude at no point was she pushed. She was bumped, which happens in every club or bar I have been in. He bumped into her because the woman in front of him bumped into him. He had his back to her the whole time. After he bumped into her again, She turned around, put her left arm in his chest (Battery), raised her right first (Assault), he grabbed her arm (Self Defense), She knee'd him in the leg missing his groin (Battery), and punched him in the face with a glancing blow (Battery). She was the aggressor the whole time, he was on the defensive the whole time. He had a drunk crazy woman attacking him in a confined space and he ended the threat with one solid punch (Self Defense). Stopped her in her tracks but did not cause an excessive amount of damage to her. He popped her one time, he did not continue to punch her after the one shot. Let's also be clear about something, there is nothing in the law that says anything about how in shape someone is. Here is the law for Battery 03 Battery; felony battery.— (1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person: 1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or 2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person. ( Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered. Here is the law for assault 784.011 Assault.— (1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. (2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Clearly raising her fist like she did in the aggressive manner she did, created enough fear that Johnson thought that violence was imminent. If you want to say the bump was assault on his part, then everyone in the club was assaulting everyone else. Self Defense Law 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Clearly once she raised her fist he was justified in defending himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 And to think someone just told me that no one was vigorously defending Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Nobody can realistically look at that video and claim self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I can agree with a lot in this post. I guess the difference here and it may shade my "legal" understanding of it is the fact that he grabbed and held her before she tried to knee or belt him. In my view, I see that as the first use of force. That puts him in the legal and moral wrong. He initiated contact and created a scenario where it became physical. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking this view, and given the political realities of this case I'm not surprised that's the stance the DA in this case is taking either. I think it's an entirely legitimate stance to take. Where I seemingly part with others is that I can recognize that as A legitimate stance to take, not that it's the ONLY legitimate stance to take. I think there's an equally legitimate legal argument to be made that the first action of illegality, the first action that escalated it beyond a standard night at a bar into the realm of assault, was her ****ing her fist back in a threatening manner. As I've pointed out and even quoted, various legal definitions use that exact action as an example of what can constitute an "assault". Everything prior to that point was standard action at a bar/club, it was at the point of her threatening putting up her fist that one can reasonable suggest that one of them committed an actual "assault". And as such, I think there's an entirely reasonable and legitimate argument to be made that it was she that initiated the first instance of assault. Now, personally, I am of the opinion that the second argument is more correct than the first legally...but that the actual notion of "self defense" as it relates to the punch is more 50/50. But I'm not sitting here outright dismissing the first opinion as completely unreasonable or trying to suggest that anyone pushing said opinion hates women, wants to hit women, is a misogynist, doesn't get laid, etc as if the second argument is just completely and utterly ENTIRELY out of line. I've also said (actually, check that, not positive if I said it here or on another forum) that I fully expected the prosecutor not to push this and that if I was a DA, especially in a state where it was an elected position, there would be no chance I'd press charges against her independent of Johnson choosing to press charges. At this point in the news cycle it would be absolute political suicide regardless of what the DA's opinion on the actual legality of it would be, additional there's a good chance that it'd be more difficult than it's worth to actually get a conviction with a jury because of the fact that, right or wrong, I think a majority of our culture believes "you don't hit a women" as a general absolute and would not convict even if the law was clear that she was in the wrong. But there's a difference between talking the reality, nitty gritty of an actual trial situation and the hypotheticals regarding legality in a more academic sense. It's kind of like the difference between talking on an academic level about policy (take Ron Paul's "Get rid of the fed" type of talk) and talking about policy in a realistic and tangible way (I.E. in terms of things likely to ever have an even moderate chance of ever being passed). Dude at no point was she pushed. Gotta disagree here. There's a pretty clear instance of her being pushed to at least a certain degree after he initially grabbed her hand. Whether that push, and specifically the grab, was justified is a whole other debate. But I disagree with a notion that he didn't push her at any point. Even before that, one could perhaps technically call what he did (and what SHE did as well) on his path to the bar a "push", but to present said push as anything other than the most routine and common of barroom movements would be a bit disingenuous Nobody can realistically look at that video and claim self defense. Statements like these are so utterly worthless and part of why the discourse in this country has become so ridiculous dumbed down. Numerous people have looked at the video and have claimed self defense is possible to varying degrees of plausibility. Many of them have articulated actual arguments that are clearly spelled out, some of which actually have supporting evidence, etc. Rather than actually explain why they're wrong, indicate why their arguments are incorrect or "unrealistic", or put forth your own argument for why it clearly can't be self defense you instead make a pointless one liner just declaring it so as if anyone should actually care about it and as if that somehow is a legitimate argument. It isn't. It's perfectly fine if someone wants to say it's not self defense. It's even perfectly fine for someone to say it's completely unrealistic to say it's self defense. But at least take the time if you're going to make such comments to actually address the actual statements and claims people have made to the opposite of you unless you fully just expect no one to actually care about your opinion on it other than those that simply agree with you 100% and want to feel good that they can emptily convince themselves they're right due to a mob mentality rather than any kind of any actual articulated argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 God, I love it when you dudes start quoting statutes. It's magical. How the hell is Larry not on this page yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 ZRagone - I don't disagree with you about my post however, I've made my opinion fairly clear in this thread over the previous few days. I don't need to expand on it in further detail. I don't care what kind of situational gymnastics have to be performed to claim self defense. Looking at the video, anyone with any measure of common sense can see that it was not self defense. It's a waste of time to claim otherwise in order to defend this creep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I'm an attorney; it's not self defense. You all owe me $500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCkSoULjA Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 First time looking at this thread in a couple days. I still can't get over the fact I made the first sarcastic reply to this thread expecting 100% of responders to equally shame the OP for such a stupid perspective, and here we are 15 pages later... HA I didn't expect 15 pages but I did expect a few. She started throwing punches and then shes shocked when she gets hit back, THATS the problem I have. Woman play that card all the time and some fall for the trap and this is the concequences for taking the bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 HA I didn't expect 15 pages but I did expect a few. She started throwing punches and then shes shocked when she gets hit back, THATS the problem I have. Woman play that card all the time and some fall for the trap and this is the concequences for taking the bait. ****es, man. Always trapping backup college QBs into potentially breaking their jaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCkSoULjA Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 ****es, man. Always trapping backup college QBs into potentially breaking their jaw. Has nothing with being a football player this can happen to the regular joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 God, I love it when you dudes start quoting statutes. It's magical. How the hell is Larry not on this page yet? Out with Micky and Minnie. Give it time. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 And to think someone just told me that no one was vigorously defending Johnson. It's hard to keep straight who is talking about whom through the thread. Some people are definitely accusing people of defending Johnson that are not actually defending Johnson. It doesn't help that apparently some people actually are defending Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Dude at no point was she pushed. She was bumped, which happens in every club or bar I have been in. He bumped into her because the woman in front of him bumped into him. He had his back to her the whole time. After he bumped into her again, She turned around, put her left arm in his chest (Battery), raised her right first (Assault), he grabbed her arm (Self Defense), She knee'd him in the leg missing his groin (Battery), and punched him in the face with a glancing blow (Battery). She was the aggressor the whole time, he was on the defensive the whole time. He had a drunk crazy woman attacking him in a confined space and he ended the threat with one solid punch (Self Defense). Stopped her in her tracks but did not cause an excessive amount of damage to her. He popped her one time, he did not continue to punch her after the one shot. Let's also be clear about something, there is nothing in the law that says anything about how in shape someone is. Here is the law for Battery Here is the law for assault Clearly raising her fist like she did in the aggressive manner she did, created enough fear that Johnson thought that violence was imminent. If you want to say the bump was assault on his part, then everyone in the club was assaulting everyone else. Self Defense Law Clearly once she raised her fist he was justified in defending himself. i think the people (relatively) on your side of this discussion wish that you would clam the hell up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I'm an attorney; it's not self defense. You all owe me $500. If that's any indication of your billable hours then no one on this board could afford you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 If that's any indication of your billable hours then no one on this board could afford you! I'm counter suing our man for his own fee to pay him with. It's that cunning a plan it might just work! Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 How the hell is Larry not on this page yet? As soon as he finds out that there was hidden footage shot on another cell phone of the FSU player going up to the bar to order a drink and the bartender says to him, "Hey man, tonight we have Blue Moon pint drafts on sale for $3 and our new house beer that's a brown ale and similar to Newcastle. Would you like to try one?" Only wanting a Bud Light, the FSU player becomes outraged at the fact the bartender had the nerve to attempt to sell him a drink he does not want and having had to sit through the 20 second sales pitch. Being the victim of a rude bartender who clearly just wants him to spend more money, makes him angrier and angrier. Then he walks away swearing he will hit the next person that even so much bumps into him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I'll just post it in here, no need for two threads about the same topic. Un-****ing believable....What in the blue hell is wrong my my Noles? Dalvin Cook, FSU RB was suspended indefinitely after hitting a woman multiple times outside a bar. Here is a link to the article from the ESPN website: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13234576/dalvin-cook-florida-state-seminoles-faces-battery-charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 This thread is pathetic. PATHETIC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I'll just post it in here, no need for two threads about the same topic. Un-****ing believable....What in the blue hell is wrong my my Noles? Dalvin Cook, FSU RB was suspended indefinitely after hitting a woman multiple times outside a bar. Here is a link to the article from the ESPN website: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13234576/dalvin-cook-florida-state-seminoles-faces-battery-charge Well that one sure sounds cut-and-dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I hope during their argument she didn't make a fist at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.