Wow - This guy is dunzo at FSU
- Thread starter Crimson Commodore
- Start date
I don't think that Big Ralph used a closed fist. Either way, neither is excusable as one of the commentators suggested that there are 2 sides to every story....which the video is pretty much irrefutable, so that is a dumb comment.
I think I read somewhere that Florida and Florida State have some of the highest and battery incidences of any campus in the US. This guy obviously was mentored well by Jameis Winston.
I think I read somewhere that Florida and Florida State have some of the highest and battery incidences of any campus in the US. This guy obviously was mentored well by Jameis Winston.
The reports with Johnson are that victim had pretty significant bruising and swelling as well as some minor cuts/bleeding.
I believe the police report with Green said that the victim had no visible signs of injury and the victim called it a slap. I think that if he hadn't been screaming and making a commotion when the police arrived, he may have just been told to go home.
So community service sounds about right, with perhaps a few game suspension added on by Wilson.
Last edited:
The fact that FSU, of all schools, kicked the 4-star recruit off of the team tells me one thing: FSU is deep at the quarterback position.
If you watch the 5 minute video, she gets up to the bar and he is behind her. He pushes and she says something to him. Then he pushes up to the bar, obviously pissing her off, and she raises her right fist in a threatening manner. He grabs the right arm below the wrist (her hand still in a fist) and she swings at him with her left hand. I can't tell if she hits him or not, then he whacks her.
It was probably unnecessary to grab her right arm as I didn't see that as much of a threat. But it was unnecessary for her to swing at him first and maybe hit him. Can't condone his conduct because he pushed and overreacted by grabbing her. But this does raise the issue of when can you hit a woman. I, for one, am of the opinion if a woman starts something and swings at you (or hits you), she waives the domestic violence or "never hit a lady" defense (mothers excluded).
It was probably unnecessary to grab her right arm as I didn't see that as much of a threat. But it was unnecessary for her to swing at him first and maybe hit him. Can't condone his conduct because he pushed and overreacted by grabbing her. But this does raise the issue of when can you hit a woman. I, for one, am of the opinion if a woman starts something and swings at you (or hits you), she waives the domestic violence or "never hit a lady" defense (mothers excluded).
You serious Clark? The answer is never. Unless you get in the octagon with Ronda Rousey. Then you are free to try and hit her while she beats the ever loving shit out of your misogynistic ass.
Does this apply to children also? How about a disoriented person with Alzheimers? You might want to rethink your logic tough guy.
Last edited:
I know what you're trying to say but it actually is a pretty naive point of view. If a woman hits you then you should back off and call the authorities. Notice the guy hit the girl and she did nothing? Now she is pressing charges and he is going to get some court time. Don't act like in that type of scenario you would've ended up dying. Having the notion that once you're hit you should be allowed to hit a female back is misguided. I get it, you don't think it should be overlooked when they're violent but allow the law to handle that.
Good example. If a 5'7" 165 lb. man is in a bar and a drunk Ronda Rousey starts beating on him, according to you, he should NEVER strike back. I at least qualified my example to a woman who starts something and hits first. That a woman is safe from retaliation in every situation, regardless of the circumstances, is very sexist.
Technically, you are absolutely correct regardless of the sex of the other person. That is the legal, logical and correct way to handle that type of situation. But I don't think it naive to know that in the heat of a confrontation one does not always think or act logically. As I said, I don't condone that guy's action (he probably shouldn't have grabbed her fisted arm, and his hit was way out of proportion to the situation) but she swung at him, and I'm not sure he didn't assume another punch was coming. No, I wouldn't be afraid of dying in that scenario, but it is naive to think she couldn't have done some damage by scratching his eye, damaging the eye orbit, breaking his jaw, knocking out teeth, causing him to fall and strike his head on the ground, etc. The man should not have to stand there and take it, and retaliation or self defense should be in proportion to the aggressive act. In this case, the bar was packed (that's what started the problem) and I don't think he could have quickly walked away. The woman should be responsible enough to know that, when she acts aggressively and attempts to strike someone, she contributes to the situation and is assuming a risk.
Last edited:
lol, what is this nonsense? Seriously, some drunk bar skank acting like a skank starts talking trash because he barely bumps into her and she starts talking all bar skanky like and he mouthes back and she takes a swing and then she got dealt with. I have to be honest I really don't have a problem with what happened. I hope she learned to be more polite next time she is out in a public place.
Yes, women are on the same level as a child and the mentally ill. lol. at your logic fail. move along white knight.
Yes, of course it applies to Alzheimer patients and children. The term "woman" is always inclusive of those. I obviously intended to include anyone in a wheelchair, double amputees, cancer patients who have had chemotherapy in the last 14 days, all mentally handicapped individuals, all individuals earning less than the federal poverty level, barnyard animals (excluding bulls), kittens, puppies and anyone speaking English with a foreign accent. Thank you for your contribution pointing out the need for that clarification.
Between the 2 mouth breathers, Vididiot and sparkeyreturns, I can't tell which is the bigger moron? Your hypothetical scenarios aside, the correct answer is still to never strike a woman. Period. It's not hard to understand, but you are both trying pretty hard to defend terrible decision making and outright misogyny. Good on ya. It doesn't matter if she hits you first. Walk away. It's a very black and white issue. Your moms must be so proud of you both.....
Yes, ignore hypotheticals. There is one question and one answer to everything. All black and white, no gray. You have the answer and prove it by name calling and throwing insults. Anyone disagreeing with you is a misogynist. I'll bet you throw things at the TV screen.
I'm the bigger moron. Secondly, you misused the misogyny as in no way can it be used for this scenario or from what I have posted. Hell, the other guy is the one who compared women to the mentally ill and children.
He is now claiming she called him that certain word that starts with an "n".
Here's a tip - "Folks don't make good decisions after a few drinks."
You may quote me.
Here's a tip - "Folks don't make good decisions after a few drinks."
You may quote me.
"Some drunk bar skank" took a "swing"? Really, was that......that was a.....that was a swing to you? Are you kidding me? She took a swipe at someone who was holding her arm and wouldn't get away. That's someone in defense. You act like she was threatening to take him down or something. You obviously are OK with abuse because nothing in that video shows she was the one causing physicality. Your bias against women is proven by you calling her a bar skank without knowing what was happening. You have no clue what might have ensued before the camera. She was also surrounded by other African Americans so I find it highly unlikely she called him that name at all.
Last edited:
Just think, had he stopped when she took a swing at him she might be the one arrested and he would still a QB although opposing fans would be questioning his manhood.
This is FSU, he will still be a QB
This is FSU, he will still be a QB
Both of you should drop your shovels and quit digging. The hole is plenty deep.
The people who have their mindset like them are the ones that beat women. They just don't get it and I assure you, there's nothing we can say to convince them differently. I blame it on their upbringing.
Seriously? You think that because I believe a guy like Hope Solo's nephew (he had "visible injuries" according to police) has a right to fight back that I am a potential woman beater? I said I don't condone what the FSU QB did, but that in certain circumstances a man has a right and maybe the necessity to strike back. It's Bozos like you who see the world only in absolutes and refuse to recognize there can be gray areas or exceptions who are socially and educationally deprived. Go back and read the posts from your name calling red-on-the-head buddy. You have a lot in common. You cannot participate in a debate where there is a reasonable difference of opinion without stooping to slurs.
Last edited:
I am one of the most anti-violent person in the world. So much so that I made a decision at the age of 12 to stop hunting because I dont like hurting animals( I also will not eat any type of beef), I am also anti-war, so punching men or women is not on my to do list. You seriously maybe the king of the White Knights. Congrats!
Agreed. I would hate not to get invited to Peegs Christmas party because of this thread.
You STILL don't get it. It's not about a man having a right to fight back against a woman or a woman having the right to fight back against a man. That's what you're trying to explain but NEITHER get to fight. This also has nothing to do with self defense on the part of the guy because the FSU player was always the aggressor. Up until the point where he grabbed her it was a worthless verbal spat. Once he grabbed her he turned it into a battery situation, not her. She wasn't making a fist, she looks like she was pointing backwards with her thumb either at the guy behind her or the guy behind the bar. She very well could've known them and was saying she would tell them about his attitude. She brought her leg up to separate him from her and he still wouldn't let go. Her swiping at him was another attempt to get him off her. At no point was she trying to overtake him and at no point did he feel threatened, restrained or unable to walk away from the situation like she was restrained and man handled. You being blind to these facts are exactly why you both are looking incredibly ridiculous right now. Your explanations are what I hear every single day in my line of work and it's something you need to seriously reconsider. He was 1000000% guilty and was properly charged as such.
Actually she made a face at him like she was going to hit him that is why he grabbed her arm.
What is she pointing at "over there" when the incident is at the bar? She has her thumb out, but some people make a fist that way (particularly girls). Why does she leave her fist in the air after pointing? Is she calling him out at home plate? She is talking a lot. Don't you think what she is saying to him while the fist is up has a lot to do with her intent, or what he perceives to be her intent? Do you know what she is saying to him? Is his grab of that arm, as opposed to the other arm, an indication that he thinks she is going to something with that fist? Is this the first time they encountered each other or did they have a prior altercation in this bar prior to the one in question, either on the same night or a another day? If so, what happened at that one and what was said? You are absolutely sure that at no time, from start to finish, this incident he felt threatened? In your line of work as a white knight, everything must be absolute. But in my former line of work as a prosecutor, I can tell you that he probably would be found guilty of battery because the punch was not a reasonable response to a threat, perceived or real. But up to that point, with that video and without additional evidence like the testimony of other bar patrons, you wouldn't get a conviction for anything. Don't bother saying the video is the reason charges were filed. In this type of case, most prosecutor offices will file charges based on the woman's word alone. What you don't get is that there are 2 sides to every story, and every case is fact sensitive. The woman is not always right and the man is not always wrong. I could say that up to the point where he threw the punch, she has clearly committed the crime taking the swing at him. But I don't say that because the video doesn't answer all the questions, like why her fist is up, why he grabbed her and what is the conversation. Since he is 1000000% guilty, I guess we don't need judges and juries. Just call in the white knight, and you can dispense justice, and grateful red can castrate every man. If you really believe what you say above, then argue it, don't resort to cheap slurs about someone's upbringing. If you think doing a full investigation, talking to witness and giving this guy a fair trial before convicting him is "ridiculous", then you need to take a high school civics class.
A man that was much larger than the female he encountered chose to end that encounter by punching her in the face. Before he hit her he grabbed her arm. Did you watch a different video than the rest of us? If you really were ever a prosecutor then you'd know that he was already on the wrong side of the law when he grabbed her arm. I'm all for justice and you are finally correct on something, this guy does deserve his day in court. That said, we all know how this is going to end. He will be found guilty. Finally, your passive aggressive replies that include calling me a white knight are meant as insults. We both know this. Stop playing the butthurt card since you are doing the same thing. Either be a victim or don't. You don't get to play both sides Mr. Woman Beating Apologist.
Some of you guys are making this too complicated. He initiated the confrontation and the physical contact. Anything she did was irrelevant. There is no right of self defense when you initiate the conflict. What he did was battery. Her use of the leg and the punch doesn't affect that, because he had already initiated the contact when she did that.
So you have no point relevant to the thread. You just wanted to start a hypothetical conversation about when you could hit a woman and it be socially acceptable.
Take it to the I-want-to-hit-women forum.
It's a pretty simple thing, actually. You have no right to hit anyone who is not an immediate threat to cause you serious bodily injury. If I'm certain that a female possesses the power to do that ( a professional female kickboxer perhaps who is poised to strike me and pummel my ass), and I have no reasonable ability to remove myself from the threat, I'm free to defend myself. Key word is defend.
As a 6' tall, 225-lb male, I would probably have a difficult time making a case that my 5'2, 135-lb wife was a serious enough threat to me to justify my hitting her, regardless of her intent or the circumstances. If I was a top-conditioned college football player, that gal had better be one tough female or I'm in huge legal doo-doo. As it should be. She has to be a legitimate threat. Judging by the video, I'm guessing she was not. He's toast in court and that is the way it ought to be. The fact that she was annoying him and even trying to hurt him is irrelevant. She was in no position to be a true threat to him and I'm sure he knew that.
Yes, it is. Not really worthy of a debate, especially not in the context of that video.
Obviously, Vididiot wanted to fantasize about situations in which he could hit a woman. I will be nice and say that is... um... weird.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
If Woodson does fail next year and I hope, he doesn't...
- Latest: CriticArisen
-
-
