Woman Punched in Front of Her Kids by Husband

[Giants Fan 85]

What if she did ... and we could see it in the video ... what if she full on clocked him before he hit her ... how much would that really change things? Not much.

 

I'm guessing most of you have experienced very few blows to the head. I've never been knocked out, but I've taken enough that I can anticipate a punch coming, and take a full blow without taking much actual damage, but most people can't take a punch. Most people, any blow to their face or head and they get a shot of adrenaline and it's fight or flight. He is not really making a decision as much as a reaction.

 

It happens. You don't know how someone like that is going to respond. She obviously has made some poor decisions.

[naomi 356]

Honestly Nikki, and Shotsup, GF, good night.

[shotsup 832]

Honestly Nikki, and Shotsup, GF, good night.

 

am I wrong ?

[nikki2200 4]

Honestly Nikki, and Shotsup, GF, good night.

 

Nights Naomi. If I don't want to sleep until the afternoon... it's time.

[Giants Fan 85]

OK nite. And if you date violent men, don't provoke them because we loves you.

 

[Giants Fan 85]

Better yet ... don't date violent men.

[Giants Fan 85]

am I wrong ?

 

[naomi 356]

am I wrong ?

Not to me. Just saying good night.

[jerryskids 6,825]

That's not assault.

 

This.

 

Nobody is arguing that she handled the situation perfectly. Although it is interesting that some people are saying she should have known he was capable of violence, and others are saying she shows no fear that he will hit her. Regardless, it doesn't matter. His response to a disagreement was to assault her.

 

Also to Meph if you are still reading this: I know exactly the point you are making, and I agree with you in principle. I just think this is a bad specific case to make your general point.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Also to Meph if you are still reading this: I know exactly the point you are making, and I agree with you in principle. I just think this is a bad specific case to make your general point.

I shoulda' typed 'dat 7 pages ago!

mmmmhmmmmm... 'dat right 'dere is jerry... vintage jerry... he's one smaht futhamuka'.

[rholio 339]

What's your point? Let's say she could have handled the situation better (I'm not really sure how, short of never coming in to the room at all, but that's beside the point). That in no way, shape, or form justifies what he did. So it's completely beside the point. It doesn't matter. The only thing that would justify what he did is if she came at him with a knife or something. She definitely did no such thing.

 

So it's focking stupid to say "oh she started the argument." Like by starting an argument with a man who is twice her size, a woman should expect that she will get punched in the face?

 

I'm done with this thread. You are all either trolling or the biggest focking dumbass misogynists in the world. Either way there is no further need to respond to anything you post.

 

What's your point? Noone has defended the guys actions... everyone has said the guy wasn't justified in striking her. What you can't seem to wrap your little brain around, is the idea that SHE wasn't justified in striking him as well.

 

They both messed up... what's so hard about that? A guy should never hit a woman, unless it's a legitimate case of self defense. This wasn't... he got mad and reacted by punching her in the face... horrible behavior. The thing that made him mad? Her punching him in the face.... again, horrible behavior.

 

So, she started the argument, she started the physical contact, and she is blameless because... hmm, that's the part where you lose us 'dumbass misogynists'.

[gocolts 300]

OK. I'm finally going to type some stuff about this because I am drunk and can't sleep.

 

Pages and pages ago I said something about being glad my BF doesn't punch me in the face every time I punch him in the arm. There was a reason for that.

 

If my BF says something to intentionally piss me off, I will punch him in the arm. His usual response is, "Don't hurt yourself."

 

Why is this acceptable? Why is it acceptable for me to "assault" my BF after he makes a light-hearted joke? Because he is two focking times bigger than I am and I know, and he knows, that there is absolutely nothing I could do to cause physical harm to him, unless I had a weapon.

 

You know that thing guys do? That thing where they make a muscle and ask a girl to hit them as hard as they can? And the girl does and they don't even flinch? You know why that happens? Because a normal sized woman could never do anything to harm a normal sized man with her hands, unless it involves the nut region.

 

The woman in the video was smaller than I am. And as tough as I like to think I am, I know I could never ever in a million years ever harm a man by punching him, unless he was a 90 pound AIDS patient.

 

And the woman in that video didn't even get a good punch off. She was haplessly waving her arms and taking half-assed shots at him. And that was all AFTER he backed her up into a corner and was the first one to exhibit aggressive behavior. So while she may have been the first one to strike him.... First of all, she didn't really give it a good effort, and Second of all, even if she did, the likelihood of her actually harming him in any way was nil.

 

However him full on punching her in the face????? He could have broken her jaw. At a minimum she got a bloody lip and a huge bruise on her face out of it.

 

Men are biologically bigger, faster, and stronger than the average woman, and certainly the small woman in this video. It's a biological fact. The use of force was not justified. The man was in no imminent danger from a 90 pound woman swatting at him. He wasn't defending himself. He was not scared. He thought it was OK to hit her, which he probably wanted to do in the first place because he was pissed off, because she "hit" him first.

 

And for all those people that are saying she obviously wasn't scared that he would hit her because it didn't seem like he had done it before. I agree. It didn't seem like he had done it before. Does that mean you get a free pass the first time you punch a woman in the face because you never did it before??? What kind of nonsense is that?

 

What if it was a child (which this woman was barely bigger than)? What if a child was throwing a temper tantrum and hit their 200 lb 25 year old father? Would it be OK for him to wind up and punch the kid in the head?

 

What if it was an 80 year old grumpy old man that got pissed off and swatted a 200 lb 25 year old guy with his cane? Would it be OK for him to wind up and punch the guy in the head?

 

The issue here is whether or not the response was appropriate for the situation. And I don't see how anyone in their right mind could possibly think the response was appropriate or necessary or not excessive. It's like stabbing someone because they stepped on your toe. Oh and they stepped on your toe because you were being a total jackass in the first place.

:thumbsup: Judging by the posts here, it would be fine to just drill the kid in the mouth.

[Mephisto 15]

You see, this is the funny thing about women who constantly and consistently excuse women's poor behavior. They justify it with nonsensical BS like because they can't inflict harm, then their assaults are okay.

 

However, the bottom line for intelligent people in this argument is that an ASSAULT is a physical attack on another person (FYI... an attack on a television is only an assault on the television.)

 

So, it matters not how much damage a person can do or the size of the combatants. If you physically attack someone - you've committed an assault. And every time Nikki punches her boyfriend in the arm... she's being violent and committing an assault. And none of the other BS that is used to obfuscate that issue changes those realities.

 

The only person whose violent actions are being DEFENDED and excused and justified and rationalized in this thread - are the WOMAN'S! Not the man's (at least not by anyone who could truly be considered replying seriously).

 

But "good" women and the mangina's who will continue to defend their actions no matter what have gotten pretty good over the years at distracting people from facts and realities in favor of their protected status in this society. It allows them to get away with the things that they do.

[jerryskids 6,825]

 

However, the bottom line for intelligent people in this argument is that an ASSAULT is a physical attack on another person (FYI... an attack on a television is only an assault on the television.)

 

 

Wrong. I'll post it again:

 

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

 

 

[Mephisto 15]

*chick swings*

guy "What are you doing?"

chick "I'm defending myself."

*chick swings*

guy "Don't start that ###### again."

*Chick punches guy in face*

*Guy punches chick in face*

 

IF you have to explain you're defending yourself, to the person you're supposedly defending yourself from, here's a hint sunshine... you're not defending yourself, you're assaulting another person.

 

She started the confrontation. He escalated the confrontation. She escalated the confrontation. He escalated the confrontation. Either one could have stopped at any time, both were too stupid to do so.

 

BUT SHE WAS A WOMAN AND WAS SMALLER!!! NONE OF THOSE FACTS COUNT!!*(%@%&!($@

[Mephisto 15]

Wrong. I'll post it again:

 

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

 

 

Wrong? I'm not going to debate who caused apprehension in whom and when anymore because you have the fall-back "size" excuse. Battery is probably more appropriate, but we've discussed ad nauseum what we perceive took place and have a wide variety of disagreements about it.

[jerryskids 6,825]

Wrong? I'm not going to debate who caused apprehension in whom and when anymore because you have the fall-back "size" excuse. Battery is probably more appropriate, but we've discussed ad nauseum what we perceive took place and have a wide variety of disagreements about it.

I see you edited it, good. Assault is by definition a subjective crime, so you always have that fallback position.

[rallo 136]

Messed up on both sides, i don't think that anyone can argue that.

 

Does anyone feel like she had rehearsed this scenario... there's a point right after she strikes him for the first time and the dialogue goes:

 

Guy "what are you doing?"

 

girl "I'll hurt y... i'm PROTECTING myself"

 

 

 

That leads me to believe that she was COACHED into this... she knew how he was going to react (i have to believe that they have had physical confrontations before). A little strange that she wouuld correct herself as such while TAPING the whole event...

[IGotWorms 4,058]

That leads me to believe that she was COACHED into this... she knew how he was going to react (i have to believe that they have had physical confrontations before). A little strange that she wouuld correct herself as such while TAPING the whole event...

 

But it seems pretty clear from the end of the video that it was the guy who was doing the taping.

[penultimatestraw 473]

You see, this is the funny thing about women who constantly and consistently excuse women's poor behavior. They justify it with nonsensical BS like because they can't inflict harm, then their assaults are okay.

 

However, the bottom line for intelligent people in this argument is that an ASSAULT is a physical attack on another person (FYI... an attack on a television is only an assault on the television.)

 

So, it matters not how much damage a person can do or the size of the combatants. If you physically attack someone - you've committed an assault. And every time Nikki punches her boyfriend in the arm... she's being violent and committing an assault. And none of the other BS that is used to obfuscate that issue changes those realities.

 

The only person whose violent actions are being DEFENDED and excused and justified and rationalized in this thread - are the WOMAN'S! Not the man's (at least not by anyone who could truly be considered replying seriously).

 

But "good" women and the mangina's who will continue to defend their actions no matter what have gotten pretty good over the years at distracting people from facts and realities in favor of their protected status in this society. It allows them to get away with the things that they do.

Both actions have been rationalized in the name of who "started it". Although this does not explicitly diminish their importance, implicitly it shifts the blame for the conflict. In your case, you were quick to point out the woman's role, sometime angrily, even though the situation is open for interpretation.

 

The reality of the threat (or lack thereof) posed by the woman is relevant to most of us, and to the law as well:

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

 

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

 

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

 

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.

 

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.

Denying the meaning of "assault" doesn't change the legal definition of the term. Nikki's BF and the dude in the video likely do not fear injury from their partners.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Both actions have been rationalized in the name of who "started it". Although this does not explicitly diminish their importance, implicitly it shifts the blame for the conflict. In your case, you were quick to point out the woman's role, sometime angrily, even though the situation is open for interpretation.

 

The reality of the threat (or lack thereof) posed by the woman is relevant to most of us, and to the law as well:Denying the meaning of "assault" doesn't change the legal definition of the term. Nikki's BF and the dude in the video likely do not fear injury from their partners.

I disagree. Have you seen Nikki's hands?

[nikki2200 4]

Both actions have been rationalized in the name of who "started it". Although this does not explicitly diminish their importance, implicitly it shifts the blame for the conflict. In your case, you were quick to point out the woman's role, sometime angrily, even though the situation is open for interpretation.

 

The reality of the threat (or lack thereof) posed by the woman is relevant to most of us, and to the law as well:Denying the meaning of "assault" doesn't change the legal definition of the term. Nikki's BF and the dude in the video likely do not fear injury from their partners.

 

My boyfriend isn't a huge pvssy, so I guess that's why he isn't afraid of me hurting him.

[Mephisto 15]

The reality of the threat (or lack thereof) posed by the woman is relevant to most of us, and to the law as well:Denying the meaning of "assault" doesn't change the legal definition of the term. Nikki's BF and the dude in the video likely do not fear injury from their partners.

 

Firstly, I did not "deny" the meaning of any word. I did, however, improperly use the term "assault" when I should have been speaking of "battery."

 

And second, you can argue until your lips fall off, there is no shot that the woman in that video had any fear about what she was doing any more than the man did. You claim that because of her size, but her actions from the very outset of that video up until she got punched in the face were clear. She had no fear.

 

And in case you missed it, I don't give a fock who is to blame for what or who started it. They're BOTH focked up. They're BOTH wrong. And they're BOTH guilty of domestic violence and perhaps child endangerment.

 

I have not wavered from that position at any point in time.

 

Now shut your focking mouth up and go make me a focking sammich, b!tch. Know your place.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Firstly, I did not "deny" the meaning of any word. I did, however, improperly use the term "assault" when I should have been speaking of "battery."

 

And second, you can argue until your lips fall off, there is no shot that the woman in that video had any fear about what she was doing any more than the man did. You claim that because of her size, but her actions from the very outset of that video up until she got punched in the face were clear. She had no fear.

 

And in case you missed it, I don't give a fock who is to blame for what or who started it. They're BOTH focked up. They're BOTH wrong. And they're BOTH guilty of domestic violence and perhaps child endangerment.

 

I have not wavered from that position at any point in time.

 

Now shut your focking mouth up and go make me a focking sammich, b!tch. Know your place.

Are you going to hit me?

[shotsup 832]

I do not remember posting in this thread.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I do not remember posting in this thread.

Do you ever?

[Mephisto 15]

Are you going to hit me?

 

So your proof of my advocacy of domestic violence is a debate where I indicate that domestic violence is wrong no matter who perpetrates it?

 

I just want to be clear.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

So your proof of my advocacy of domestic violence is a debate where I indicate that domestic violence is wrong no matter who perpetrates it?

 

I just want to be clear.

Well, at least your lack of insight is consistent through the years

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

This was another one of my under-rated comments.

 

 

 

'penultimatestraw', on 19 Mar 2012 - 4:12 PM, said:
Both actions have been rationalized in the name of who "started it". Although this does not explicitly diminish their importance, implicitly it shifts the blame for the conflict. In your case, you were quick to point out the woman's role, sometime angrily, even though the situation is open for interpretation.

 

The reality of the threat (or lack thereof) posed by the woman is relevant to most of us, and to the law as well:Denying the meaning of "assault" doesn't change the legal definition of the term. Nikki's BF and the dude in the video likely do not fear injury from their partners.

 

 

 

Posted 19 March 2012 - 07:04 PM

I disagree. Have you seen Nikki's hands?

[Mephisto 15]

Well, at least your lack of insight is consistent through the years

 

Nice dodge. I'll accept that as an admission that your recollection was wrong.

Better luck next time.

[shotsup 832]

 

So your proof of my advocacy of domestic violence is a debate where I indicate that domestic violence is wrong no matter who perpetrates it?

 

I just want to be clear.

You won this thread.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

The guy gets up in the woman's face and kicks the television to physically intimidate her. Then when she fights back he punches her out of anger. I don't know how you can defend that.

 

MDC won this thread.

 

I had forgotten what a misogynist Mephisto is. Makes RLLD look like Gloria Steinem.

[MDC 7,471]

You won this thread.

This guy disagrees:

 

WOW this is still being debated ??

 

Meph lost this thread pages ago http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/#EMO_DIR#/music_guitarred.gif

[IGotWorms 4,058]

This guy disagrees:

 

 

To be fair, shotsup was probably blackout drunk when he posted that

[Mephisto 15]

 

MDC won this thread.

 

I had forgotten what a misogynist Mephisto is. Makes RLLD look like Gloria Steinem.

If calling out the domestic violence of both men and women makes me a misogynist, stamp me guilty. And stamp you stupid.

[MDC 7,471]

If calling out the domestic violence of both men and women makes me a misogynist, stamp me guilty. And stamp you stupid.

So did your ex say you hit her or what?

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Nice dodge. I'll accept that as an admission that your recollection was wrong.

Better luck next time.

Take yourself less serious. Be more self aware about how you come across to people. Don't waste time with flame wars. No one wins an on-line argument.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So did your ex say you hit her or what?

Buh, but, she abused him first!

[cyclone24 1,913]

Door...knock...punch....face...husband....kids?

[shotsup 832]

This guy disagrees:

 

 

Ha. That's hilarious.