Woman Punched in Front of Her Kids by Husband

[TD Ryan2 316]

Meph isn't trying to win anything. There is nothing to win in this thread.

 

All I've done is point out that the woman should be held as accountable for her domestic violence as the male and this upset all of the misandrists in this thread.

This is where I'd lobby for degrees of domestic violence. While I agree that she too is guilty, it's to a lesser degree - she didn't cave in the side of his Haid.

[Mephisto 15]

That's where he's losing everybody. First off, she didn't start the episode--he did. He is the one that violently kicked the television directly behind her. That escalated the incident from a verbal battle to a physical altercation.

 

Meph's contention that she started it by entering the room is ludicrous. Or that she "badgered" him into hitting her.

 

Second, even if she did start it (which she didn't), he did not respond in kind. She posed absolutely no threat to him and yet he decked her like you would an out of control drunk in a bar fight. This is why you don't hit women even if they "started it".

 

I really have to question the sanity of anyone that can't see this.

 

This has been argued before and is wrong. But it's okay if you want to disagree for the simple sake of disagreeing.

 

I urge you to look up root cause analysis. The escalation of the situation started the moment she came into the room and started challenged what he was taking and why.

 

You can't have even watched the video, because he didn't "deck" her. That's why morons like you don't even belong in such a grown-up discussion. An out of control drunk in a bar fight? Seriously. Did you even watch the video? And, if you did, have you ever seen an out-of-control drunken bar fight?

[naomi 356]

There was nothing wrong with Meph's first post, in of itself, under the understanding that it's 'snapshot' perception, which is something he talked about later.

 

He has preached a little about people having blinders on, and not being neutral in how they interpret how things went down. For him to give his 'cold analysis' that she attacked the guy therefore his punch was a return attack, and not add in that's how he (a fallible human being) sees it, when there's a possibility her actions were rooted in defense, is a lack of the neutrality he speaks about people lacking.

 

We can all get the point that you should expect retaliation if you attack someone. But doesn't it get a little grayer when the 'attacks' one of the parties is experiencing happens when they approach the other party, and showed their self to be violent in the other parties space?

 

If I'm the one on the approach, and getting swatted, slapped, feebly punched away...I don't think I'm going to look at punching that person in the face as provoked by what they're doing. It's me notching up my own aggressive efforts because I've been met with some resistance.

 

It's fine for Meph to interpret she was on the attack in the sense that it invites retaliation like she got. To say that's factually evident from the video while advocating for other people to be more neutral...that doesn't jive.

That's not winning.

[Mephisto 15]

This is where I'd lobby for degrees of domestic violence. While I agree that she too is guilty, it's to a lesser degree - she didn't cave in the side of his Haid.

 

 

They already have that.

 

First degree is "When a Man Commits It"

 

Second degree is "When a Woman Commits It"

 

Needless to say, the penalties for First Degree DV are far more severe.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Feel free to point out where I've made any assumptions (serious ones, not my mocking claim of misandry) about what someone has written. I do make apologies for my mistakes.

 

At the same time, feel free to coherently point out where my message and "tone" are incongruent.

 

(Whatever it is you mean by tone, you know, because I gather you have a camera on me right at this very moment and can "see" my tone. And yes, I know that your assumptions about what my alleged "tone" is will trump whatever I claim is my actual "tone" or mood as I discuss this topic with the group.)

Do you think there is a conspiracy among those who suggest you come across as angry and/or woman-hating?

[TD Ryan2 316]

They already have that.

 

First degree is "When a Man Commits It"

 

Second degree is "When a Woman Commits It"

 

Needless to say, the penalties for First Degree DV are far more severe.

Ok - I didn't know that.

Maybe they actually got something right here then - id give him the DV1 and her the DV2.

If he had just walked away it would onle be a DV2 for her.

If she had hit him hard enough to injure then a DV1 for her.

[penultimatestraw 473]

They already have that.

 

First degree is "When a Man Commits It"

 

Second degree is "When a Woman Commits It"

 

Needless to say, the penalties for First Degree DV are far more severe.

I didn't know about the degrees of DV, but from what I've read they have nothing to do with gender.

[Mephisto 15]

There was nothing wrong with Meph's first post, in of itself, under the understanding that it's 'snapshot' perception, which is something he talked about later.

 

He has preached a little about people having blinders on, and not being neutral in how they interpret how things went down. For him to give his 'cold analysis' that she attacked the guy therefore his punch was a return attack, and not add in that it's how he (a fallible human being) sees it, when there's a possibility her actions were rooted in defense, is a lack of the neutrality he speaks about people lacking.

 

We can disagree on whether she was acting in defense or offense. I absolutely get that. It's a matter on which not all of us (clearly) are going to agree. How much more neutral do you want me to be?

 

We can all get the point that you should expect retaliation if you attack someone. But doesn't it get a little grayer when the 'attacks' one of the parties is experiencing happens when they approach the other party, and showed themselves to be violent in the other parties space?

 

And again, we can debate degrees of "violent behavior" until the cows come home. If you want to argue that the first violent act was him kicking the television, I'm okay with that, too. I simply disagree with that. I would argue that started when she yanked the cord/controller from him.

 

Given the video, my entire argument has been predicated on the reality that the challenges started the moment she came into the room AND CHALLENGED HIM.

 

If I'm the one on the approach, and getting swatted, slapped, feebly punched away...I don't think I'm going to look at punching them in the face as a response to what they're doing. It's me notching kicking up my own aggressive efforts because I've been met with some resistance.

 

I totally agree with you there.

 

It's fine for Meph to interpret she was on the attack in the sense that it invites retaliation like she got. To say that's factually evident from the video while advocating for other people to be more neutral...that doesn't jive with me. That's not winning.

 

Be careful, because there you go again attributing something to me that I did not say. The ONLY thing I said is that one who acts in a violent manner best be aware that doing so may invite a retaliation of ANY KIND. YOU put in words like "in a sense" and "invites retaliation like she got." It's as if you can't help yourself.

 

I made no interpretation of any sort as to the nature or severity of their physically violent acts. Only that they made them and what they were.

 

This discussion isn't about winning anything. It's about breaking down a snapshot in time and taking a look at how many different points of view can come from a given scenario. Beyond that, the greater issue of how laws are applied in situations such as these and other broader issues.

 

Paring it down, they both committed domestic violence. They both engaged in child endangerment. Both should be equally and appropriately held accountable for their despicable actions.

[naomi 356]

Be careful, because there you go again attributing something to me that I did not say. The ONLY thing I said is that one who acts in a violent manner best be aware that doing so may invite a retaliation of ANY KIND.

 

I assume you'll agree that you're saying she should have expected (not that it's justified) the punch, because of what she was doing.

 

The only reason (my interpretation) I think she should have expected the punch, was already knowing what her husband is like. Knowing that he would meet her defense of self and that space with untoward aggression. She shouldn't necessarily have expected it just from doing what she was doing, that is, if she didn't know him from Adam.

 

The consistency I think you're lacking was running with thinking this is comparable (as a matter of fact) to a "I punch someone so I should understand they'll probably want to punch me back" scenerio, when you want to call others out for not objectively seeing the situation.

[Mephisto 15]

I assume you'll agree that you're saying she should have expected (not that it's justified) the punch, because of what she was doing.

 

I said it before, I'll say it again... anyone who attacks another with physical violence SHOULD have an expectation that a potential consequence may be a return of violence.

 

The only reason (my interpretation) I think she should have expected the punch, was already knowing what her husband is like. Knowing that he would meet her defense of self and that space with untoward aggression. She shouldn't necessarily have expected it just from doing what she was doing, that is, if she didn't know him from Adam.

 

Fair enough.

 

I simply believe that it should be an expectation that if you attack someone physically, you might expect to get attacked. I believe that's a normal expectation in most any violent scenario.

 

As to what her expectations are/were with respect to her deeper knowledge of what his past behavior may be or may not be is pure speculation on any of our parts.

 

The consistency I think you're lacking was running with thinking this is comparable to a "I punch someone so I should understand they'll probably want to punch me back" scenerio, when you want to call others out for not objectively seeing the situation.

 

You've tried this angle a few times and I must say that I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say.

 

The concept is simple and I'm having a tough time understand what else it is you're trying to make out of it.

[naomi 356]

You've tried this angle a few times and I must say that I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say.

 

The concept is simple and I'm having a tough time understand what else it is you're trying to make out of it.

 

If you know that it's possible to make sense of her actions (where bodily violence first transpired) from a self-defense perspective, you know that offering a breakdown that ignores that possibility isn't a neutral breakdown.

[rholio 339]

Keep it up everyone, this is hilarious.

[jets24 6]

Mephisto wins this thread. Hands down.

[penultimatestraw 473]

What a tragedy, especially with those two kids right there in the room.

 

I see a video of woman barreling into a room that was first occupied by dude, who appears to be packing up stuff to leave.

 

She doesn't "barrel" into the room, she walks in after asking, "Who threw all this stuff on the floor?" He responds "No idea", then the kid chimes in "He did". Perhaps this sets the tone for what happens next?

 

She then tells him he needs to leave, in a regular speaking tone.

 

She prevents him from taking a television and a play station.

 

Nope. He grabs and throws some sh!t, including the PS controller and a CD/game. This is the first threatening act IMO. He raises his voice, cursing at her, further escalating the threat of violence.

 

She resists, presumably holding the cord of the controller, which he pulls before backing her up and kicking the TV.

 

He kicks the television in anger.

 

She threatens to call the cops if he keeps on breaking stuff, but he keeps backing her into the TV.

 

She initiates physical contact by taking not one, but two swings at him which he blocks. He asks her what she is doing and she says, "defending herself."

 

He also does something with his left hand before she takes her swings. I can't tell if he is raising his hand to threaten her or if he is just a demonstrative speaker. Here she lies back against the TV to prevent him from taking it.

 

He tries to get to the television again and she punches him in the face.

 

She feebly slaps him, which leads to his right hook.

 

He punches her in the face back.

 

I see mutual engagement domestic violence initiated by the woman and the usual level of one-way outrage at what transpired.

After watching the video far too many times, I don't see how you can suggest the woman initiates the aggressive behavior. Unless you think anything short of physical contact doesn't count. If JK's definition is correct, in the legal sense he initiated the abuse well before she actually hit him.

[nikki2200 4]

I'm sure there are many many circumstances where it is justifiable for a 200 lb man to wind up and punch a 100 lb woman in the jaw.

 

This is not one of those circumstances.

[Mephisto 15]

If you know that it's possible to make sense of her actions (where bodily violence first transpired) from a self-defense perspective, you know that offering a breakdown that ignores that possibility isn't a neutral breakdown.

 

I swear to you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I have no focking idea what that means. If you want to try again, great. If you don't, I'll completely understand.

 

I'm sure there are many many circumstances where it is justifiable for a 200 lb man to wind up and punch a 100 lb woman in the jaw.

 

This is not one of those circumstances.

 

 

Totally agree with you on that point.

 

After watching the video far too many times, I don't see how you can suggest the woman initiates the aggressive behavior. Unless you think anything short of physical contact doesn't count. If JK's definition is correct, in the legal sense he initiated the abuse well before she actually hit him.

 

Like I said... it's all in the perception of the chain of events. We disagree... and of course, it all likely gets tossed out the window if we could see something of what transpired before that excerpt.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Does anyone else get the feeling that we're going in circles here?

[jerryskids 6,825]

 

Like I said... it's all in the perception of the chain of events. We disagree... and of course, it all likely gets tossed out the window if we could see something of what transpired before that excerpt.

 

You've stated multiple times that she hit him first, and don't seem willing to objectively look at the video and acknowledge that he assaulted her with his behavior. Since "assault" is to some degree subjective, I don't expect you to change your mind. Carry on.

[Mephisto 15]

You've stated multiple times that she hit him first, and don't seem willing to objectively look at the video and acknowledge that he assaulted her with his behavior. Since "assault" is to some degree subjective, I don't expect you to change your mind. Carry on.

 

The bastardization of the words "assault", "abuse", and similar over the course of the last 30 years is a topic of another discussion.

 

He was mean. He was violent. He attempted to intimidate her. He assaulted her.

 

As for your contention that I haven't acknowledge that his behavior was reprehensible... that's another false claim. You are not one I expected to fall into line with that BS.

 

I suppose that as some of you conveniently keep "forgetting" that point and coming up with some alternative explanations for what I've written versus what I've actually written, I can objectively call your attention to the fact that you repeatedly keep doing it.

[jerryskids 6,825]

 

As for your contention that I haven't acknowledge that his behavior was reprehensible... that's another false claim. You are not one I expected to fall into line with that BS.

 

 

I didn't say that you haven't acknowledged that his behavior was reprehensible. I said that you don't acknowledge that his assault initiated the violence. There is a reason that assault is a crime; it often leads to battery (and people getting hurt), as it did in this case.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I swear to you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I have no focking idea what that means. If you want to try again, great. If you don't, I'll completely understand.

She is asking for it, Mefisto!

[shotsup 832]

WOW this is still being debated ??

 

Meph lost this thread pages ago

[naomi 356]

I swear to you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I have no focking idea what that means. If you want to try again, great. If you don't, I'll completely understand.

 

Trying again...

 

All I've done is point out that the woman should be held as accountable for her domestic violence as the male and this upset all of the misandrists in this thread.

 

Even though, you acknowledge (I think), that her actions right before the punch could be (could be) self-defense motivated?

 

When someone is an aggressor, I agree with your oft repeated statement in this thread about how they should expect to possibly be retaliated against.

 

I don't percieve someone using offensive defense as being an aggressor. Whether they helped provoke emotional strife leading up to the physical altercation is another story.

 

To you, she wasn't protecting herself there, she was just trying to injure him. That's fine. But if you're truly neutral, you acknowledge that while that's how it impresses you, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality of what happened.

[Giants Fan 85]

I think it was her that was filming, and she got what she wanted.

 

Clearly it was him filming. He goes right for the camera at the end. I'd bet dollars to donuts it cuts off right before he says, "I got it all on focking video!".

 

And I'd also bet it did not impress a judge.

 

I'm guessing Deleware by her accent, but pretty much in any state you can record hidden video in your own residence, without informing anyone. In someone else's residence it's illegal.

[Giants Fan 85]

I'm sure there are many many circumstances where it is justifiable for a 200 lb man to wind up and punch a 100 lb woman in the jaw.

 

This is not one of those circumstances.

 

Just for shiats and giggles ... since getting punched in the "focking face" does not qualify ... when is it OK? (and I agree with you, I think it was more of a slap and his response was WAY overboard, but humor me).

[braylonjetwards 0]

I'm really confused at the inability to understand Mephisto in this thread. I don't know the context, there seems to be some resentment aimed his way, but he has dance circles around most of you.

 

Let me preface by saying the acts of this man were despicable and unjustifiable. I am of the belief that it is far worse for a man to hit a women.

 

But he has put forth a simple, sound argument:

1.He is wrong

2.She is wrong

3.Both should be held accountable

 

It really is a logical way of looking at it. Ill admit at first wath my emotional response was to disagree with Mephisto. But looking at it objectively it should be easy to see he has a valid, brilliant point. For every action there is a response. Most sane men wouldn't react like this, but there's always that possibility. The point is she got physical and should be prepared for a potentially violent (unacceptable) response. Mephisto never makes a statement on who deserves more blame. He states they be held equally accountable (I'm assuming specific to their individual reactions). I get the sense his instinct Is that the man acted far worse.

[Giants Fan 85]

I'm really confused at the inability to understand Mephisto in this thread. I don't know the context, there seems to be some resentment aimed his way, but he has dance circles around most of you.

 

Let me preface by saying the acts of this man were despicable and unjustifiable. I am of the belief that it is far worse for a man to hit a women.

 

But he has put forth a simple, sound argument:

1.He is wrong

2.She is wrong

3.Both should be held accountable

 

It really is a logical way of looking at it. Ill admit at first wath my emotional response was to disagree with Mephisto. But looking at it objectively it should be easy to see he has a valid, brilliant point. For every action there is a response. Most sane men wouldn't react like this, but there's always that possibility. The point is she got physical and should be prepared for a potentially violent (unacceptable) response. Mephisto never makes a statement on who deserves more blame. He states they be held equally accountable (I'm assuming specific to their individual reactions). I get the sense his instinct Is that the man acted far worse.

 

If you go back and look at the subtle humor I have posted in this thread, you will see that I actually was making both points at the same time.

 

They are obviously both behaving badly. Which one is worse? I'd say him. He can more easily escape and remove himself from the situation. She ... prolly knows she can't outrun him, and when he got up in her face, slapped at him and she is standing her ground, to defend the TV .... not very smart. Let him take the damn Playstation. Reason with him. "You take the PS, let me keep the TV so the kids can watch their shows." ... but neither one of them try and remove themselves from this bad situation, it just gets bigger and bigger, and for some people it's real hard not to hit someone when they hit you first .... it's instinctive. Only time I ever hit a girl was when she hit me first while I was driving. I backhanded her. And I didn't hit her hard ... I was gonna hit her hard .... and I slowed it down at the last second. She claimed her jaw hurt for like a week, and then she started giving me BJs again. And it was that Mexican chick. I believe she's the only girl I ever dated that occasionally physically attacked me. And I've dated the whole rainbow mind you. Everything but eskimo. Mexican girls will fock your shiat up. Friggin slash your tires, burn your house down ... don't mess with Spanish women ... unless you can handle that shiat.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm really confused at the inability to understand Mephisto in this thread. I don't know the context, there seems to be some resentment aimed his way, but he has dance circles around most of you.

 

Let me preface by saying the acts of this man were despicable and unjustifiable. I am of the belief that it is far worse for a man to hit a women.

 

But he has put forth a simple, sound argument:

1.He is wrong

2.She is wrong

3.Both should be held accountable

 

It really is a logical way of looking at it. Ill admit at first wath my emotional response was to disagree with Mephisto. But looking at it objectively it should be easy to see he has a valid, brilliant point. For every action there is a response. Most sane men wouldn't react like this, but there's always that possibility. The point is she got physical and should be prepared for a potentially violent (unacceptable) response. Mephisto never makes a statement on who deserves more blame. He states they be held equally accountable (I'm assuming specific to their individual reactions). I get the sense his instinct Is that the man acted far worse.

Almost everybody agrees with 1-3. We differ in our opinions concerning who initiated the abuse and whose actions were more deplorable.

[cyclone24 1,913]

(shaking head).....the justifications for hitting a woman on this thread are laughable.

 

"She should expect to be assaulted back?" God i hope you dont have kids or a daughter.

 

Actually..i take that back..i hope you do and she slaps the guy shes with...and try spewing that bullsh!t about "expecting" to get hit back since she hit him when shes in the hospital with her head wrapped in bandages.

 

Gluck with that.

 

 

I stand by what i said.....if you hit a woman..youre a cowardly poosay. Youre bigger, youre stronger....youre the man...walk away.

 

This candy arse defense of..."Oh well violence is violence either way"....right. Im sure if your mother was getting beat around you would have that same standpoint.

[TD Ryan2 316]

I stand by what i said.....if you hit a woman..youre a cowardly poosay. Youre bigger, youre stronger....youre the man...walk away.

I'm going to give you two examples where I've seen a woman hit and thought it was justifiable:

 

1. guy at a bar, ex gf comes in with her 4 female friends. She throws a drink at the guy and is swearing, yelling at him. He was minding his own business. He got up quietly and left the bar.

The women followed him to his car. At the door of the car they all started hitting him with high heeled shoes, beer bottles, fists, etc. He turtled and took the beating for 30 seconds or so. He yelled stop. He yelled leave me alone. And the women didn't - they were beating the sh!at outta' him while he turtled/covered. Then a beer bottle broke over him - it was probably the first time any of the blows REALLY caused physical damage - with that, he "unturtled" and threw an uppercut at his ex... landed square under her jaw and literally knocked her out of her shoes and 5 feet thru the air... her shoes were still right there on the ground where she stood. The women were all stunned/shocked/scared... he had lost his keys in the scuffle and just ran away... ran up the street, half drunk, half confused, half beaten. Needless to say, the cops arrived and took him into custody.

IMO, those women were over the top and deserved physical retaliation.

 

2. A friend had an GF enter his room with a large cutlery knife. She was fully intent on stabbing him and then downing a bottle of sleeping pills. He grabbed her and broke her arm/wrist taking the knife away. Fully justifiable IMO.

 

So, while I agree with you that it takes an extreme circumstance for a woman to be hit, please don't stand by your "Absolute" that a woman should never be hit by a man... it is a naive assumption on your part.

[cyclone24 1,913]

I'm going to give you two examples where I've seen a woman hit and thought it was justifiable:

 

1. guy at a bar, ex gf comes in with her 4 female friends. She throws a drink at the guy and is swearing, yelling at him. He was minding his own business. He got up quietly and left the bar.

The women followed him to his car. At the door of the car they all started hitting him with high heeled shoes, beer bottles, fists, etc. He turtled and took the beating for 30 seconds or so. He yelled stop. He yelled leave me alone. And the women didn't - they were beating the sh!at outta' him while he turtled/covered. Then a beer bottle broke over him - it was probably the first time any of the blows REALLY caused physical damage - with that, he "unturtled" and threw an uppercut at his ex... landed square under her jaw and literally knocked her out of her shoes and 5 feet thru the air... her shoes were still right there on the ground where she stood. The women were all stunned/shocked/scared... he had lost his keys in the scuffle and just ran away... ran up the street, half drunk, half confused, half beaten. Needless to say, the cops arrived and took him into custody.

IMO, those women were over the top and deserved physical retaliation.

 

2. A friend had an GF enter his room with a large cutlery knife. She was fully intent on stabbing him and then downing a bottle of sleeping pills. He grabbed her and broke her arm/wrist taking the knife away. Fully justifiable IMO.

 

So, while I agree with you that it takes an extreme circumstance for a woman to be hit, please don't stand by your "Absolute" that a woman should never be hit by a man... it is a naive assumption on your part.

 

 

No offense to you TD...but we're going in circles.

 

Of course there are life and death situations........but those are extraordinarily rare.

 

Im just talking your normal garden variety arguement where both are going at it.

[Giants Fan 85]

One time, when I was walking to get some food at 3AM in the Meat Packing District ... I walked around a corner, and got pepper sprayed.

 

They looked like girls ... and they fought like girls ... but they weren't girls ... and I was pretty much blind, but I was swingin' for the fences .... and they ran off.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Im just talking your normal garden variety arguement where both are going at it.

fair enough - we agree then.

 

And I do agree that the guy in the original video should go to jail for what he did... clearly that situation did not warrant that level of physical response.

 

and to be fair, Meph agrees with us on that as well.

It seems that a whole lot has been made over nothing here - Meph agrees with us too, he is just (circuitously) stating that the woman has/shares some blame here too.

 

/thread for me.

[Mephisto 15]

I didn't say that you haven't acknowledged that his behavior was reprehensible. I said that you don't acknowledge that his assault initiated the violence. There is a reason that assault is a crime; it often leads to battery (and people getting hurt), as it did in this case.

 

Well, duh. I don't agree that his "assault" initiated the violence.

 

I don't percieve someone using offensive defense as being an aggressor. Whether they helped provoke emotional strife leading up to the physical altercation is another story.

 

"Offensive defense"? That's called "offense". Simpler, it's called initiating the violence.

 

To you, she wasn't protecting herself there, she was just trying to injure him. That's fine. But if you're truly neutral, you acknowledge that while that's how it impresses you, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the reality of what happened.

 

No, sh!t. It's not like we haven't discussed the very different impressions any number of people have gotten about the same circumstances. And to be clear, I see her, after the kick of the television, he moves to the right to go around her and she steps in front of him to prevent him. Subsequent to that, after her attempts to hit him, she casually leans back and places her elbows on the television. I stand by my statement that she isn't at all intimidated by him. The body language is clear from the moment she comes into the room.

 

 

(shaking head).....the justifications for hitting a woman on this thread are laughable.

 

"She should expect to be assaulted back?" God i hope you dont have kids or a daughter.

 

We do. And God, I have you don't have kids or a daughter. We teach ours that if you hit anyone for any reason at at any time... you better do so with the expectation of getting hit back in every single circumstance and prepare yourself accordingly. And if you don't teach your children that basic concept, you're a sh!tty parent.

 

Actually..i take that back..i hope you do and she slaps the guy shes with...and try spewing that bullsh!t about "expecting" to get hit back since she hit him when shes in the hospital with her head wrapped in bandages.

 

No, we teach them that concept beforehand. We don't wait until it happens to teach them that lesson.

 

Gluck with that.

 

Don't need luck. It's called "parenting skills" and this is a basic life lesson that all children should be taught. "Gluck" with your offspring when they're laying in the hospital wondering why they got their face punched in because you failed to teach them that lesson.

 

 

I stand by what i said.....if you hit a woman..youre a cowardly poosay. Youre bigger, youre stronger....youre the man...walk away.

 

This candy arse defense of..."Oh well violence is violence either way"....right. Im sure if your mother was getting beat around you would have that same standpoint.

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I stand by what i said.....if you hit a woman..youre a cowardly poosay. Youre bigger, youre stronger....youre the man...walk away.

 

[naomi 356]

 

 

 

 

"Offensive defense"? That's called "offense". Simpler, it's called initiating the violence.

 

 

 

No, sh!t. It's not like we haven't discussed the very different impressions any number of people have gotten about the same circumstances. And to be clear, I see her, after the kick of the television, he moves to the right to go around her and she steps in front of him to prevent him. Subsequent to that, after her attempts to hit him, she casually leans back and places her elbows on the television. I stand by my statement that she isn't at all intimidated by him. The body language is clear from the moment she comes into the room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there's a totally different spirit behind using offense to defend yourself than there is for aggression.

 

At this point, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I'm just offering another one, and neither of us have the ability to know which one (if any between us) is correct.

 

IF (hypothetical here) someone is scared for their well-being while they're being approached by someone who's demonstrated physical aggression, and they hit first...not moving forward, but from where they're at, and can only reach that other person because that person has closed in on them, they're not on the same hook as someone who is on the offensive for the simple fact of being on the offensive. There's a different spirit to it, and that matters.

 

If we define the violence in domestic violence as bodily injury or attempts to cause it, under your interpretation, I agree they're both as accountable. Under the alternative one I'm offering, the one who pressed forward is. The primary motivation for doing what she was doing would determine its recognized purpose: self-defense rather than assault.

 

Either way, they're definitely both as accountable for the domestic dispute.

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

I don't think he hit her before. After he hit her, she said something like "I can't believe you hit me". He didn't hit her multiple times, which I think a typical abuser would. And She didn't seem all that fearful to me before the hit. Why would a woman who has been abused strike 1st?

 

They both deserve a night in jail. Give him the TV and the PS. Give her the house. Call it good.

 

And for the record, I've witnessed up close and personal abuse between parents. This did not look at all like what I've seen 1st hand.

[Mookz 1,349]

One thing that should not be overlooked here is that the woman appears to be somewhat hot, and possibly of asian stock.

[cyclone24 1,913]

One thing that should not be overlooked here is that the woman appears to be somewhat hot, and possibly of asian stock.

 

 

Damn Mookz.......howd we get to 5 pages without acknowledging that?

 

And im not sure shes asian....i think her eyes are just swollen.

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

One thing that should not be overlooked here is that the woman appears to be somewhat hot, and possibly of asian stock.

 

I acknowledged that I would "hit that" on page one.