If a 150kg/2m woman was woman handling a 60kg/1.4m man after he rejected her, very likely ending in a traumatic brain injury? Yes my critique would still fucking stand! What the fuck is wrong with you?

Because its actually irrelevant in both the eyes of the law and the moral nature of the use of violence. Women don't get a pass on domestic abuse because they typically weigh less then men and potentially have less physical strength. And I actually think this is our key point of disagreement. And thats the common theme I see from the people trying to use accusations of misogyny to veil what amounts to a hall pass for violence for one particular gender, that because women are typically smaller, there is a degree of violence or aggression which is acceptable from them (eg, giving her a pass on escalating to physical violence by stepping up and slapping him).

And I'm just going to keep repeating how damaging that point is to a broader effort towards equality, because its basically reactionary in its formulation.

Well you keep assuming that it’s his drink in this video.

Well you keep making the opposite assumption. I think we could both agree that the man in the footage has physical control of the drink to begin with. The man picks the drink up off the table. She goes to take the drink from him. He pulls it back and throws it into her face. Can we agree on that sequence?

This is the distance he has to reach to get to the drink (1s). I would estimate his forearm is ~6 inches over the table.

This is the distance she has to reach to attempt to grab the drink from him. She's moved her torso forwards, and has extended her arm. I would estimate her fully extended forearm to be ~18 inches. Call it another 6-8 inches for the lean in. She's reaching about 24 inches (60cm) away to get to the same position on the table.

Second. He reaches for the drink with his dominant hand (right). She reaches for the drink with her non-dominant left hand (when physical contact is initiated, she slaps him with her right hand, and she later picks up the weapon into her right hand). So if this was her drink, she wouldn't have been able to pick it up comfortably.

Third, here she is saying in her own words it wasn't her drink:

So, very conclusively and supported by physical evidence and confirmed by the parties: it wasn't her drink. And, to go further, she confirms that she reached out with the intention of spilling the drink.

If you want it to be a fruitful thought exercise equalise their genders, keeping in mind that the bigger and more aggressive person here has just been rejected.

That genuinely doesn't play into it. Not in the eyes of the law, and, at least for probably the most hazardous moment where she is falling backwards over the bench. She's falling backwards not because he's so much stronger. She falls backwards because the bench was right behind her knees and it knocked her off balance, after she gets up to strike him/ lay hands on him.

First physical contact is made here at 5:01.

Her left hand grabs his right forearm, and she's raising her right hand into striking position.

At 5:07, she's now striking him across the face. He's raise his right forearm into a defensive posture.

At 5:10, he's now pushing her back with both arms.

At 5:21, his push causes her to fall backwards because of the bench behind her knees.

In this initial foray, it wasn't his strength that caused her to go to the ground, it was the awkward position of the bench behind her knees after she stood up to hit him. The post she made about this is very bad for her. She basically confirms what the video evidence suggests. That she initiated this by making physical contact with the intention to spill his drink. The video evidence then speaks for its self because she then proceeded to escalate the situation by a more extreme form of physical violence by moving in to strike him. And I think it would be good for both of us to maybe track this story, because in the bit of searching I did, I think I've identified both parties (Amber Marie Mitchell, Nathan Seale) , the bar (Nachbar) and the local police department (Louisville PD) associated with it, and the FB post which boosted this into the national spotlight. We'll be able to follow up, because with almost certainty, this will be going to court.

I think we're in well enough agreement on this layout of events (I copied from your response). I want to mark these up with where they sit in the escalation ladder. I also think it would be good to put the deescalation point in. I'm offering the point of charity that the throat punch should be considered assault with a deadly weapon. It absolutely could have killed her. I don't know that court or precedent agrees with that, but I'm offering it as a point of charity. I'm adding emoji's for each parties actions for visual clarity.

• Escalation into indirect physical contact

1. Beer grab (she escalates) [indirect physical contact] 🩷
2. Beer throw (he escalates) [indirect physical contact] 🗿

• Escalation into direct physical contact

1. Slap (she escalates) [direct physical contact] 🩷
2. Shove and slap (he escalates) [direct physical contact] 🗿
3. Kick (he escalates again without additional provocation) [direct physical contact] 🗿
4. Grabs bag, tries to leave (he de-escalates) 🗿

• Escalation into use of potentially deadly force.

1. Bottle grab (she escalates) [assault with a deadly weapon] 🩷
2. Throat punches head into bench (he escalates) [assault with a deadly weapon] 🗿
3. Leaves (he de-escalates) 🗿

The escalation ladder (and I think we both agree): indirect physical contact, physical contact, use of (potentially) deadly force. And the point, which people wanting to make accusations of misogyny and sexism, she is the person who escalated the situation at each turn where the level of violence stepped up. She's in the wrong here. Very clearly. And we don't have to continue to argue about this, because now that we have the names, the locations, the parties involved, we can follow up on this in a few weeks or months because I'd be shocked, floored even, if this doesn't go to court. If she's right, she's got assault and battery and needs to get paid. If he's right, well, he's got assault and battery, and needs to get paid. Someone here is right. If she hasn't filed charges yet, he should.

You completely ignore all that and then have the gall to accuse others of sexism?

We've settled the matter that its not her beer. And I'm calling it sexism because it is. Since the beer matter is settled, the only thing left of your argument is that because she is a smaller person, she should be allowed to use a degree of violence that he shouldn't. And thats patent sexism. You have to be able to go through the process that we just went through, thoughtfully mark up the actions, gather additional forms of evidence, and then layout the pattern of the interaction, which we've done here. At every turn she escalates the situation into a greater degree of physical violence. And thats unacceptable. No gender or sex gets a pass on that. If you are escalating things into physical violence, you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if you are a physically weaker person.

You seem like you support violence as long as it goes in one specific direction.