You are a retard if you ever hit a woman.

[User-E]

I have mixed feelings about this.

To me, she is definitely the aggressor here and I'm not surprised he retaliated by hitting back.

I've talked to men who have been severely physically abused by their SO's, beaten black and blue while refusing to hit back out of fear of being arrested or losing access to their kids.

My son was physically bullied by a girl in his class when he was young, and it was horrible watching him go through it, knowing he couldn't fight back, watching her laugh and mock him because she knew she could get away with it.

 

[cristycurves]

Peace, watch it again. If that's too diffuse for you, read my initial post where I break what happened down.

Did he grab her arms? Yes...After she pushed him away with her left arm, and clearly made a fist with her right.

Cristy, so it's OK that he faces charges, yet she, by the definition, assaulted him twice and she suffers no consequences ?

I'm only replying because you asked me the question. Obviously we see things differently and so be it. However, I don't think you need to give anyone a blow by blow, excuse the pun. The video is very clear and easy to understand. Yes he most absolutely should face charges, she raised a fist, he threw a punch, big difference between raising a fist and a punch in the face. Either way, The fact remains, hes a guy, she the girl, end of story for me. To begin with what kind of kind pushes his way in between a girl at a bar anyways, that in itself is the move of an asshole!

 

[Blank_Dave]

Losing a lot of respect for you in this thread Dave. {Thumbsdown/} Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Never cool to hit a chick unless you literally fear for your life. Too many less intense options available to men to ever condone hitting a chick.

You think I care? And I am not in the wrong!

My problem here is not that he hit her. I agree, he shouldn't have done it, but he did. My problem is she threatened him, and she hit him. And almost no one feels she has done wrong. She started it, she escalated it. Except Maurice and myself, no one, not one single person has said what she did was wrong. She threatened to hit me, which is by definition assault. She then punches him in the face, again assault. Now why is he facing criminal charges, and she is not? That is the basis of my grievance. Why is he being punished for his poor behavior and she is not.

Now Cristy seems to hold the notion that she's a girl and she doesn't hit very hard, so it doesn't count.

Here's the Wikipedia definition "In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person." Here's Dictionary.com's "noun 1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: 2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner. 3. Military. the stage of close combat in an attack. 4. rape[SUP]1[/SUP]. verb (used with object) 5. to make an assault upon; attack; assail."



Now show me in those definitions where one would draw the line on a punch in the face being and not being assault. Or please show me where it says "except when done by a girl." I will also point out police offers have arrested, charged and gotten convictions against people for Assaulting an Office from being poked in the chest with a finger.

Cristy has also gone on about the behavior of a gentleman. That is complete and utter bullshit. Why? Because you can set that mark, that standard to what ever high you damned well please. A gentleman should do this, a gentleman should do that. At no point does she ever, ever bring up the behavior of a lady. Should a lady be cutting in front of someone? Should a lady threaten to hit someone? Should a lady punch a person in the face?

Cristy said "men aren't supposed to hit women, period, end of fucking sentence!" That is prime bullshit right there. And I'll tell you why. People aren't supposed to hit people, period, end of sentence! I do not care what your excuse is, how big you are, what gender you are; or how big or what gender they are; you have no reason to put your hands on or threaten another person.

Just because men are generally bigger and stronger, doesn't change the fact women can be just as aggressive and violent as men. Plus women know they are "smaller and weaker" and will often use weapons.

"Any GENTLEMAN will walk away from a confrontational woman, call police, do something, other than hit back." Walk away? Watch a lot of your fight videos, the aggressor often simply pursues the victim. Call the police? Why? So the police can laugh at you when they arrive? This has been an often reported experience by the victims when police respond to female on male domestic violence. Of course you might also get..."He pushed me" (/bats eyelashes) Doesn't matter if you're sporting a black eye and a bloody lip, because it will be you going out of the house in cuffs. Then finally the magical "do something". I love that one.

So in closing because I'm starting to ramble, let me sum my feelings up:

• We hear a lot about how a Gentleman should and shouldn't act. Why do we not hear how a Lady should and shouldn't act? Should those standards not be relatively universal?
• No one has the right to threaten or attack another person. No one
• Do not take a swing at someone unless you're willing to face the consequences, which might include the person returning the favour with interest.

Or simply put

What's good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[Blank_Dave]

I'm only replying because you asked me the question. Obviously we see things differently and so be it. However, I don't think you need to give anyone a blow by blow, excuse the pun. The video is very clear and easy to understand. Yes he most absolutely should face charges, she raised a fist, he threw a punch, big difference between raising a fist and a punch in the face. Either way, The fact remains, hes a guy, she the girl, end of story for me.

I see selective vision is also affecting you, Cristy. Watch the video again. She raised her fist. He pulls her arms down. She then hits him with her left hand. He then punches her.

You show your double standard yet again. Why should she not face charges? She threatened violence, and she hit him first. Oh right, because she's a girl.

To begin with what kind of kind pushes his way in between a girl at a bar anyways, that in itself is the move of an asshole!

Well...According to the report Candyman posted, she pushed in front of him. But she's a girl so that kind of obnoxious behavior is ok.

 

[peace]

Dave....re No one has the right to threaten or attack another person. No one...I concur. I have seen some nasty manipulative abusive people out there....both women and men.

:great:

 

[cristycurves]

I see selective vision is also affecting you, Cristy. Watch the video again. She raised her fist. He pulls her arms down. She then hits him with her left hand. He then punches her.

You show your double standard yet again. Why should she not face charges? She threatened violence, and she hit him first. Oh right, because she's a girl.


Well...According to the report Candyman posted, she pushed in front of him. But she's a girl so that kind of obnoxious behavior is ok.

Lol, Dave, well, I think I see very clearly, I see steam coming out of your ears! Take your argument in front of a judge is all I can say and once again and as you said"she raised her fist"(that is *no* contact) threatening perhaps but still *no* contact-he then grabs her arms-*physical contact*, which is considered *assault*-but then again and as you said I have double standards-LOL!!

 

[oldguyzer]

Actually, quite the interesting argument here. The law states contact has to be made to justify contact back. unless the threat is significant and threatening to life. Her raising her fist is threatening, but not life-threatening, and he should not have held her arms. She "hit" first, yes, after that intial contact.

Either way, still not cool on either side, and there never will be a "right" when emotions are involved (emotions including sexism). I have been hit by women before in arguments, and always back off, but if I felt severely threatened I can't predict really: I have a feeling instinct would kick in and I'd floor the person. Fortunately, I've never been that threatened by a woman, only a man.

 

[Canada-Man]

part 1





part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3L2dhCTGGc

 

[Oilcan]

It's the same double standards that are used in sorts of situations.

Be definition...equality should mean that each individual will be treated the same way under the law based on their actions, right?


But white on black crime can be a "Hate crime" with stiffer penalties wile the exact same black on white crime would just be a crime.

But parental rights aren't divided equally between mothers and fathers. Mothers tend to get the nod way more than 50% of the time.

Any individual who strikes or threatens to strike another (not in self defense) is breaking the law and should be punished accordingly...but very often, a woman striking or threatening a man is seen as less severe than a man striking or threatening a woman.

Anyone who applies for a job, should have to demonstrate that they are able to perform that job. But we allow for extra points for some ethnicities on written exams and "assistance" in physical exams for females.

Affirmative action, even with the best of intentions will still show preference to a minority applicant over a Caucasian applicant even though people would scream bloody murder over a Caucasian applicant being shown any preferential treatment or consideration for a position.



But people will argue that you have to look at the past and other circumstances.....slavery, racism, sexism, bigotry and all manner of sins from the past are used excuses for this modern day reversal. By this standard, anyone can claim special treatment. We'll never get over any of the race, gender or religious wars if we keep doing this. Look at each situation separately and don't bring history into it. Look at each participant as a bag of biological material rather than as a race, creed, color, gender, religious belief, etc. Judge each on their actions. That is the only way to get past all the BS.



If the case was presented as Person A pushed their way into the bar to order. Person B took exception to the pushing. Person A threatened person B with a fist and also pushed, shoved and made rude comments. Person A also struck person B on the arm. Person B then struck Person A in the face and then scooted off.

That is the way to look at a situation. Male, female, football player, etc. shouldn't even come into the discussion.


This is a logical unbiased view of the situation. Bringing in any of that other crap is sexist, reverse-sexism or whatever. Saying that a man should treat a woman a certain way is sexist. Person A should treat person B a certain way....that is unbiased.

And don't give me that "in a perfect world" crap. Either we are all entitled to equal treatment under the law and we all have equal rights or we do not. Unequal abilities or outcomes of choices has nothing to do with equality.

:YMAPPLAUSE:

 

[User-E]

Professional or college level star athletes are held to a different standard than the general public, and I think most of them have clauses in their contracts regarding their physical conduct.

These guys train 24/7, their bodies are designed to be lethal machines, so they have to demonstrate an above average amount of self control when mingling with the public.

 

[Creepy]

I dare anyone to argue this logic.

I find it funny the people who say "you don't hit women, period!" never have a sound explanation for their way of thinking.

All the usual arguments, her being smaller, her being weaker, etc can all apply to males as well, yet not a single person here would shed a tear if a small man struck a large man and got knocked out for it.

There is absolutely no reason to defend any mentally capable adult who hits another person and expects special treatment.

You are enabling this behaviour in the name of some twisted chivalrous bullshit that have no basis in reality.

Male or female, if you don't want to get hit, don't put your hands on someone else.

 

[Blank_Dave]

Lol, Dave, well, I think I see very clearly, I see steam coming out of your ears! Take your argument in front of a judge is all I can say and once again and as you said"she raised her fist"(that is *no* contact) threatening perhaps but still *no* contact-he then grabs her arms-*physical contact*, which is considered *assault*-but then again and as you said I have double standards-LOL!!

Sorry Cristy, but there is contact, and not accidental contact, that initiated the whole stink. Look at 0:14, she pushes him away with her left, while making a fist with her right arm.

Actually, I just realized you just conceded that I am correct. Look at those definitions above for the standard for assault. Notice how they both include the threat of physical harm .

...and as you said"she raised her fist"(that is *no* contact) threatening perhaps but still *no* contact...

Oh look, there's that term "threatening," and you said it. But don't worry, I expect you to change your story/facts, as you have in the past. Now I'm sure you'll argue her threat didn't bode much harm, after all he's a football player, and she's a girl. I shall point us to another thread, about the guy doping his girlfriend to make her sleep. The judge stated doing that caused bodily harm. So, if making someone sleep and groggy the next day constitutes bodily harm, the potential of a bloody nose or split lip sure would.

I say you have double standards, because you clearly do. You have made it quite clear that men are not to hit women. At the same time you've made it clear it is acceptable for women to hit men. When I challenged you that it was acceptable for women to strike men, your response was the man would have to deal with it. There in lies your double standard. Why is it acceptable for women to hit men, but not vice versa. Address the former and not the latter, please.

Let's use Primo's example. What if the genders were reversed, would you stick to your guns?

So in this scenerio, a guy steps up to the bar. A girl tries to shoulder through to get to the bar. He steps back and bumps her. They spin to face each other. He pushes her away with his forearm, while making a fist at her. She grabs his arms and pushes them down. He frees his hand and delivers a quick punch to her chin. She hauls off and plows him in the face.

Who's the bad guy now? Who should be facing charges?

 

[Creepy]

Another fun loving man.

Oh yes she slapped him first BUT it was like feather on a face and he barely felt it. Then He slaps her taking a big swing.

Blame him?.

Why, she started hitting him. Is it too bad he is twice her size, yes it is.

LADIES don't FUCK'n swing at us men

 

[Creepy]

Then again, that could be you.

 

[thesun]

Then again, that could be you.

He did touch her first.

 

[thesun]

Ladies, if a man doesn't touch you, don't push it. If a man did or vice versa, contact the police. End of discussion.