According to her friend, it was their second date and she told him she didn’t want to se him anymore. Someone else posted the article with her friend’s version of the story, yesterday with two links. Here is the one without a paywall :
She acknowledges herself as the initiator/ aggressor in her Facebook post here:
In this post she
acknowledges that she initiated the attack.
acknowledges that the drink wasn’t hers.
states why she initiated the attack (online harassment?)
claims she didn’t make physical contact (video evidence challenges/ refutes this), but this is contradicted by her earlier statement.
and acknowledges that she picked up a deadly weapon.
To those who think the woman was justified in their conduct here, you very much want her to get a good lawyer. Because her own words, along with the video, go very strongly against the narrative which people trying to set up here, that she was justified in her use of force along the escalation ladder.
And there is not a fair judgement without understanding of the context.
I may illustrate with two different possible contexts, most likely none apply here, the point is to show you that your judgement may not be the exact same:
A: They are from the same family and she comes-out to him as a lesbian, and that her actual partner she plans to marry has an other ethnical origine. The anger and violence of the guy is their based on homophobia and racism which adds to the physical aspect.
B: He was a soldier in some military conflict and has traumas. Some flashbacks make him violent. He would need meds but can’t afford them anymore due to life cost rising. In this scenario, the violence is not even related to his victime.
the point was that context maters to judge, and reality behind a video may be different than what you imagine at first. Yet sometimes you may be right instinctively.
It seems the context has since be found and she is breaking up with him ; I don’t know from where it comes, but that could explain the video. And so it is just simple and pure mysoginy. Except if some has a better source to claim otherwise.
Not siding with him, it seems likely he was in the wrong. But regarding your comment. Hypothetically, let’s say he is the recipient of constant abuse. Both verbal and physical, and this was him finally snapping and giving it back. Let’s say he has been on the receiving end of his fair share of kicks whilst down. Let’s say he previously never wanted to fight back because he isn’t violent.
I am not saying that is what happened. But i am saying you cant say “there isn’t acceptable context” when it took me 5 seconds to think of some.
As far as we can tell this man is at fault. He has assaulted this woman.
I was only pointing out that your blanket statement that there is no context in which this is justified is incorrect. And frankly the attitude is dangerous. Is there any context where the woman can pick up a glass bottle to use as a weapon? Considering the level of harm a glass bottle would cause? Perhaps the justification is she is being attacked by a man that is apparently much stronger than she is? Does that justify it? Or does it only work one way?
Again. I agree. Given all available evidence, it seems this man has unjustly assaulted this woman.
But your attitude towards this is just basic.
Man splashes drink in her face = bit of an over reaction with no context
Woman goes to attack man = dramatic escalation, but no context
Man pushes woman away = self defence
Man kicks woman whist she is down = awful. Terrible thing to do. Still no context.
Man goes to leave = should have just left
Woman grabs bottle and some words are exchanged = escalation/self defence depending on the context
Man pushes women down again and leaves. = self defence followed by de escalation.
I still think it is more likely the man is in the wrong. But given what actually happened you cant claim self defence when you started the fight.
At least thats how it looks with no context.
Would you feel the same if she had actually managed to hit him when she tried to attack him. Would him pushing her down seem more justified in your opinion? Or is there really no way you could view this any differently?
There isn’t acceptable context for how he kicked her while she was on the ground nor for hitting her at the end.
According to her friend, it was their second date and she told him she didn’t want to se him anymore. Someone else posted the article with her friend’s version of the story, yesterday with two links. Here is the one without a paywall :
https://www.themarysue.com/this-man-needs-to-go-louisville-local-warns-of-violent-man-who-allegedly-attacked-her-friend-after-she-rejected-him-on-the-second-date/
I fail to see how he supposedly attacked her first…
This blog is not a news source.
Look how non aggressive he is. He definitely didn’t stand up and b-line to kick her while she’s down
Listen man, if you want to deny her aggression that preceded all this that’s fine, but don’t act like you’re standing up for women while doing so.
You’re denying basic agency to women, you misogynist.
She acknowledges herself as the initiator/ aggressor in her Facebook post here:
In this post she
To those who think the woman was justified in their conduct here, you very much want her to get a good lawyer. Because her own words, along with the video, go very strongly against the narrative which people trying to set up here, that she was justified in her use of force along the escalation ladder.
SHE’S THREATENING HIS LIFE SOMEBODY STOP HER.
Justified response.
This is how you’re worthless brain works?
Shut the fuck up idiot.
What a dip shit you are
Now screenshot her invading his space literally 1 second before this.
Throwing a drink in someones face is harmless, threatening someone with a bottle is not.
“Invading his space”
Moron shit to say
Ok but like maybe she literally killed his dog.
That’s why context is important.
He’s probably a shithead though.
And there is not a fair judgement without understanding of the context.
I may illustrate with two different possible contexts, most likely none apply here, the point is to show you that your judgement may not be the exact same:
A: They are from the same family and she comes-out to him as a lesbian, and that her actual partner she plans to marry has an other ethnical origine. The anger and violence of the guy is their based on homophobia and racism which adds to the physical aspect.
B: He was a soldier in some military conflict and has traumas. Some flashbacks make him violent. He would need meds but can’t afford them anymore due to life cost rising. In this scenario, the violence is not even related to his victime.
You don’t need to invent scenarios to justify his actions here. There is plenty of evidence on the video to know that he is in the wrong.
If you take the scenario A as a justification, we clearly don’t have the same idea of justice.
Why stop at two fake scenarios? If anything can happen why’d you plop those two out?
the point was that context maters to judge, and reality behind a video may be different than what you imagine at first. Yet sometimes you may be right instinctively.
It seems the context has since be found and she is breaking up with him ; I don’t know from where it comes, but that could explain the video. And so it is just simple and pure mysoginy. Except if some has a better source to claim otherwise.
Not siding with him, it seems likely he was in the wrong. But regarding your comment. Hypothetically, let’s say he is the recipient of constant abuse. Both verbal and physical, and this was him finally snapping and giving it back. Let’s say he has been on the receiving end of his fair share of kicks whilst down. Let’s say he previously never wanted to fight back because he isn’t violent.
I am not saying that is what happened. But i am saying you cant say “there isn’t acceptable context” when it took me 5 seconds to think of some.
He is still responsible for his actions. Previous abuse does not excuse assaulting this woman multiple times in this scenario.
Why are you playing devil’s advocate for this man?
Sorry, i wasn’t clear enough.
As far as we can tell this man is at fault. He has assaulted this woman.
I was only pointing out that your blanket statement that there is no context in which this is justified is incorrect. And frankly the attitude is dangerous. Is there any context where the woman can pick up a glass bottle to use as a weapon? Considering the level of harm a glass bottle would cause? Perhaps the justification is she is being attacked by a man that is apparently much stronger than she is? Does that justify it? Or does it only work one way?
Again. I agree. Given all available evidence, it seems this man has unjustly assaulted this woman. But your attitude towards this is just basic.
Self defense.
The order of events.
Man picks up drink. = normal with no context
Woman tries to take it = odd with no context
Man splashes drink in her face = bit of an over reaction with no context
Woman goes to attack man = dramatic escalation, but no context
Man pushes woman away = self defence
Man kicks woman whist she is down = awful. Terrible thing to do. Still no context.
Man goes to leave = should have just left
Woman grabs bottle and some words are exchanged = escalation/self defence depending on the context
Man pushes women down again and leaves. = self defence followed by de escalation.
I still think it is more likely the man is in the wrong. But given what actually happened you cant claim self defence when you started the fight.
At least thats how it looks with no context.
Would you feel the same if she had actually managed to hit him when she tried to attack him. Would him pushing her down seem more justified in your opinion? Or is there really no way you could view this any differently?
AGAIN! i am on her side. I am just not on yours.