Fuck that guy.

And now he's in jail, right?

Seems like two lovely people...

Close - running for public office, I'd imagine.

Am I missing something here? They both seem like shitty ppl, but it seems like everyone just hates the guy.

Right! The kick was uncalled for but the rest of the time, she was attacking him or threatening him with a bottle.

Defense versus offense. He deflected and that should have been it. Kicking her while she's down was antagonistic and intended to harm.

He's stronger he can walk away instead of literally kicking her while shes down

I hope those siblings are alright

I'm sorry where do you see her attacking him?

If someone grabs a bottle in an altercation, you don't wait for them to use it.

Looked like he was trying to put her on the ground with it.

She attacks first and comes back a few times.

Are you watching the same video i am? He throws a drink in her face to start the whole thing

I see her trying to grab a drink from him, possibly it is hers and he’s taking it away, or possibly she is being the aggressor. We can’t know from the footage but her friend’s social media story claims she was on the middle of rejecting him, so if that is the case everything I see here is defensive.

She doesn't advance with the bottle once she has it. She's grabbing it for defense.

She very clearly tries to grab a drink out of his hands as he's picking it up. He then, yes, throws it into her face after it started to spill (she's grabbing at the bottom of the glass while he's holding the top, so it sloshes out). She then aggressively steps up into him to slap him (right hand up, coming down to the left). She pushes her back, then steps, aggressively into her space (she's already on the ground) with a right front kick to her right hip, putting her on the ground again.

She gets up from this as he's trying to de-escalate by leaving the situation (he picks up his bag and phone, is heading away) and she picks up a weapon (a bottle). He then throat punch/ pushes her back to the ground, and continues to leave the situation.

She initiated the conflict, and at I'd say 3/4 escalation points where the conflict escalated, she initiated the escalation. She grabbed the glass out of his hand (initiation), she stepped into his space to slap him (escalation), he front kicked her to the ground after she was trying to get back up (escalation), she picked up a weapon as he tried to leave (escalation).

It looks like she is initially just trying to grab the glass.

He escalates it unecceserily at every fucking point.

Dude has anger issues and is a danger to those around him.

Looks like we watched the same video but have different judgment about when the "attack" started.

I mean I can only evaluate from what I see here in this footage. 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.

I see one, maybe two de-escalation points. He grabs his phone and bag and tries to leave. At that point she has a weapon in her right hand. I think its reasonable to not turn your back on someone brandishing a weapon. The second de-escalation point is him leaving after he pushes her to the ground.

You can make an honest argument from the evidence that the man in this footage tried to de-escalate the situation, and that the aggressor did not.

If this guy gets an even basically competent lawyer and this video is submitted as evidence, she's cooked.

Well switch the gender roles and see if you come to the same conclusion.

A man goes to grab a drink from a woman's hand, and as it spills she throws it into his face. He then steps into her space to slap her, and she pushes him back across a bench. She then steps into his space to kick him back to the ground. She grabs her phone and bag in an effort to leave, while the man grabs a weapon (a bottle) and brandishes it aggressively. She then throat punches him and he goes down. She continues to leave.

If you can't go through the same scenario with the gender roles reversed and land on the same conclusion, you've come to the wrong conclusion.

Did we watch the same video!?

He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.

Sure it looks like she started it and should have walked away, but at no time was she a real threat to him. He was taking his anger out on her, trying to hurt/humiliate her.

His lack of control makes him a danger to everyone around him.

Reading this thread, I am starting to think there are a lot of misogynists on Lemmy. I don't see any other reason for people somehow not "seeing" an obvious over balance in power and implying that somehow she deserved what he did to her.

He's literally trying to leave. He grabbed his phone and bag and headed for the door. Then he has to deal with someone brandishing a weapon.

He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.

If you want to say that, mark up the video with the escalation points. Its a 30s video, doesn't take long.

I put this lower down, but I counted four escalation points, and she owns 3/4 of them (drink grab, slap, weapon grab). He owns one of them (front kick).

I counted two de-escalation points. He grabs his phone and bag and tries to leave (at which point she's now brandishing a weapon). He leaves the situation at the very end, ending the scene. Two de-escalation points to him, none to her.

If you see things differently, mark up the video and we can have that conversation. Because what I see in this video is that she is the one with a "lack of control make(ing) themselves a danger to those around (them)". You need to put in some more effort and understand that a clear reading of a situation isn't misogyny, and that women are just as capable of violence as men, and when you lack context you need to evaluate based on the evidence you have, not the evidence you lack.

Misappropriating the real issue of misogyny in a situation where one person is clearly the aggressor doesn't support the fight against misogyny. It confuses and dilutes the potency of the issue when there is pretty clear evidence that one particular party initiated (which we agree), and then continued to escalate a situation.

She doesn't brandish the bottle at all. She picked it up and stood still, in a defensive posture. Which is fully understandable since he's assaulted her twice already.

The guy is the aggressor.

If you're this woman's lawyer, she's going to go to jail.

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.

Well I think it's her drink. She later grabs the bottle from among her stuff on the table, where it would be placed had she poured the glass with her likely dominant right hand. Conjecture obviously, but her grabbing the bottle later also kind of shows she thinks of it as hers. And why else would she grab at the glass?

Also as you can see in the screenshot in the post body this is her rejecting him after their second date, so that is another indicator for a retaliatory motive on his part. Which would also explain the absolutely reckless level of violence he employs, literally kicking her when down and slamming her head into that bench at the end.

What? I can't tell if you're joking

There’s zero things that are “dick moves” that justify the use of potentially deadly force. She could have fallen and hit her head and gotten a traumatic brain injury and blows to the chest can cause your heart to stop. The very early could have been a snuff video

She does hit the left side of her head against that bench when she falls around second 16, and holds it with her hand when she gets back up.

In Kentucky?? They just put guys like him on the ballot.

Not arguing he has issues, but we're missing a lot here. He should be charged by the violence, but more context could help everyone.

Not returning your shopping car should be executed. Shows you can't be trusted in society.

I found the trash from KY.

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.

LMAO

he front kicked her to the ground after she was trying to get back up (escalatjon)

Holy fuck. The dumbest and most vile shit on the planet. You're describing a woman standing up after being knocked on the ground as an "escalation" of force worthy of being kicked by someone twice the size.

Fuck you, dude. Fuck you SO hard. Worthless piece of shit.

She picked up a weapon and continued after him as he tried to walk away.

He was leaving and she advanced and grabbed the bottle. If she was trying to defend herself, she wouldn't go towards him.

Cretin.

He escalates it unecceserily at every fucking point.

She could have accepted whatever he said to her and let that be the end of it. Instead, she tries to grab his beer out of his hand.

She could have accepted the beer to the face and let that be the end of it. Instead, she lunges at him and tries to put her hands on him.

She could have walked away after getting shoved and kicked and let that be the end of it. Instead, she gets back in his face and starts brandishing a beer bottle.

Both of these people suck. Both had an opportunity to put their pride aside and walk away, but chose not to take it.

The man isn't blameless either, let me be clear about that, but saying that he did every wrong and she did every right doesn't accurately reflect what happened either.

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

Yeah bro! Btches should be seen and not hear, amiright?

Lemmy is never ever beating the misogynist allegations what the fuck is this dumpsterfire of a thread, she rejected him and the dude is just looking for excuses to take his anger out on her. That woman is a badass, all you people wanting her to just be still, demure and silent until the attacker leaves are the problem.

The direction? Towards your face 🦨💨

1. She grabbed his drink. Assault. Unjustified.

2. He dumped the drink on her. Questionable. She had instigated the physical altercation, but this could be considered an unjustified escalation.

3. She lunged at him. Escalation: Assault by battery.

4. He shoved her away while she was attacking him; she fell over backward. Even if the beer-dumping was unjustified, he was now justified in using physical force to stop her physical attack.

5. She tried to stand back up; he kicked her back to the ground. Questionable. He was certainly justified in initially shoving her away, which caused her to fall to the ground; if he reasonably believed she was getting back up to continue her battery, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.

6. He retreated, and grabbed his things. De-escalation.

7. She picked up a beer bottle and threatened him with it. Escalation: Assault with a deadly weapon. (This also demonstrates the reasonableness of his belief that she would continue her battery in #5.)

8. He shoved her away while she was threatening him. Completely justified by her latest assault.

9. He retreated while she was on the ground. De-escalation.

Feminism to me is about equal rights and equal treatment. I guess maybe you are against that, which is really your business, but if you've confused yourself to understand that feminism means that the woman is right in every situation, it does a disservice the real struggles people through for equality in this world.

If you were to swap the genders of the two people in this footage, and don't come to an identical conclusion, and I don't think you'd be OK with a man stepping into a woman face and slapping her after she throws her drink in his face (I know I certainly would have a problem with a man acting as aggressively to a woman, as this woman has to this man), you are acting as the barrier to a more equal world.

He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.

The law is not interested in who has power and control. The law is interested in each individual's use of force, and whether that use of force was justified or unjustified.

1. She grabbed the glass. Was this justified or unjustified?
2. He spilled the drink on her. Was this justified or unjustified?
3. She lunged at him. Was this justified or unjustified?
4. He pushed her away; she tripped over her seat and fell to the floor. Was this justified or unjustified?
5. She tried to stand up, and he kicked her back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
6. He backed away from her and gathered his things. Was this justified or unjustified?
7. She picked up a beer bottle, and threatened him with it. Was this justified or unjustified?
8. He shoved her away from him; she again fell back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
9. He continued to gather his things and retreat. Was this justified or unjustified?

1. Unjustified.

2. Unjustified. These first two are tit-for-tat assaults. She instigated, he responded. At this point, both of them are disturbing the peace.

3. Unjustified.

4. Justified. You are justified in using physical force to stop a physical attack against you.

5. Could go either way. In her trial, this was an unjustified escalation on his part. In his trial, he was reasonably concerned she was continuing her previous attack, so he was justified in keeping her on the ground. In both cases, the defendant on trial is owed "reasonable doubt".

6. Obviously justified; he was de-escalating.

7. Completely unjustified: This would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. He was already in the process of retreating from her; she was not justified in commencing a new attack.

8. Completely justified by her assault. He used reasonable force to keep her from striking him with that bottle.

9. Obviously justified; he was again de-escalating.

Reading this thread, I am starting to think there are a lot of misogynists on Lemmy.

Which part of this analysis makes me a misogynist?