161
This happened in Louisville, Kentucky (cdn.imgchest.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/crazyfuckingvideos@lemmy.world
258 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I have it marked up with 4 escalation points. She grabs the drink out of his hands. She steps into his space to slap him. He front kicks her. She picks up a weapon.

Ok, here are the ones you missed.

He throws the drink in her face.
He throws her back with enough force to topple over the bench and lose her glasses.
He literally has to take two steps to throat punch her with enough force to throw her several metres back when she is "brandishing a weapon" (after being attacked thrice and not advancing with it).

So it's 3 vs 4 escalation points now even if you grant the more spurious claims you are making here. Like grabbing the drink being violence meriting self-defence. And especially that last attack was entirely unnecessary, the guy was way out of her reach, could have just walked away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Like grabbing the drink being violence meriting self-defense.

    Sure. But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you're entire critique would no longer stand. And thats at the core of the issue. Does getting a drink thrown in your face give you carte blanche to escalate to physical violence?

    If a man went to grab a woman's drink, and she threw that drink into the mans face as it began to spill, who would you side with?

    I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else's drink, really under any circumstances. I actually think a woman throwing a drink into a mans face if he's trying to grab it out of her hand, I think its a pretty reasonable response.

    He throws her back with enough force to topple over the bench and lose her glasses.

    Again. Lets switch up the gender roles. A man stands up after getting a drink thrown in their face, and comes in to slap a woman who is in a seated position. The woman, remaining seated, both feat remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.

    Who would you side with in this scenario?

    I would side with the woman. You are always allowed to defend yourself. If someone stands up and comes in to slap you, and you have to push them back, it is what it is. Everyone has the right to self defense.

    He literally has to take two steps to throat punch her with enough force to throw her several metres back when she is “brandishing a weapon”

    If a man comes at a woman with a weapon, I think the woman has the right to do anything and everything within their power to defend themselves. And sometimes that might result in an excess of force being used. And a woman absolutely should not be constrained to limit that force in the moment. If a man is threatening a woman with a bottle, which is absolutely a lethal weapon, she has any and all rights to defend herself in any manner she sees fit.

    I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence. I think if you swapped the roles, we would be praising the woman for the level of restraint they showed. And materially, I suppose, this probably came from local news or was elevated in some manner because this will be going to court, and a decision about who was right and who was wrong in this scenario will be made. We can back test these evaluations.

    There is of course the potential for more evidence to be made available. Other angles, maybe more time on either side of the clip. It could dramatically change the context. But if this were the evidence being submitted to court, I think it pretty clearly supports one side over the other, and if I were the mans lawyers, I would put the exact gendered test I've done here as a test of the evidence. If a woman would be found to be justified in doing what the man here does, then what the man here has done is justified.

    No one is or should be allowed or permitted to use violence against other people. They do not get a "soft pass" on the escalation ladder because of their gender.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you[r] entire critique would no longer stand.

    If a 150kg/2m woman was womanhandling 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?

    I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else’s drink, really under any circumstances.

    Well you keep assuming that it's his drink in this video. Pretty big fucking assumption right there. What if it's her drink? If that was the case he tries to steal her beer, and then proceeds to beat her for trying to get it back. Even it was his, you are still defending the use of disproportionate, potentially lethal violence in self-defence.

    Again. Lets switch up the gender roles.

    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.

    The woman, remaining seated, both fe[e]t remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.

    Ignoring the potential theft of a beer before, throw in the face of a beer before, and that afterwards he got up and literally kicked her while down, before slamming her head into a wooden bench. Absolute paragon of virtue over here. /s

    If you think this was appropriate and measured self-defence you have a problem. You constantly excuse or ignore his escalations, while condemning hers.

    I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence.

    Uhu.

    No one is or should be allowed or permitted to use violence against other people. They do not get a “soft pass” on the escalation ladder because of their gender.

    Then why are you constantly giving the man a pass? In your post above you counted 1/3 "escalation points" for the man and woman respectively, ignoring three from the man, explaining them away as self-defence. But if look at it all in sequence (and again, just grant your count of her escalations, which I have arguments about) they both escalate:

    Beer grab (she escalates)
    Beer throw (he escalates)
    Slap (she escalates)
    Shove and slap (he escalates)
    Kick (he escalates again without additional provocation)
    Bottle grab (she escalates)
    Throat punches head into bench (he escalates)

    However, the possibility of it being her beer, the fact she doesn't charge him with the bottle, on the contrary he charges her to deliver the throat punch, plus the provided context of this being her rejecting him, all paint a picture of this being retaliatory violence. You completely ignore all that and then have the gall to accuse others of sexism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    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.

    I never made that argument, plus there are three more arguments literally in the sentence before this quote. Which you, again, ignored.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent