What made you go WTF today?

[Enoch the Red]

Look, what I'm saying is that your response to that particular post of Steely's doesn't make sense. Obviously he should have shot her dead at the first sign of aggression, but that's not the point. If the roles were reversed, he would still be twice as strong as she is etc. Therefore, if one's position is that relative strength and the possession of a functioning brain should influence one's actions in a situation such as this one, rather than the facts of who started it etc, then it doesn't really matter if the roles are reversed.

So, how quickly and accurately does one have to size up their opponent before they get a pass on self-defense? If your opponents first blow falls short, do you have to wait for a second to see if they are actually capable of landing a punch? If he had only been one and a quarter her physical strength can he slap her? If their strength was roughly equal could he have hit her as hard as physically possible? At three times the physical strength does he have to politely ask for another blow? Do you realize how ridiculous applying this self-defense matrix is when you suddenly find yourself in a violent confrontation with someone you know nothing about? The human brain simply does not work that way.

You could apply the same crazy what-if logic to the choice of responding to her aggression with your own violence - what if she was carrying a knife and takes a punch in the face as provocation to use it, what if she had an especially large and violent boyfriend with her, which was why she felt able to pick fights with random dudes etc etc. And any way, he *did* turn his back and walk away, and he didn't hit her so hard that any risk hypothetical she might have posed (if she was completely batshit insane rather than just drunk and ornery) before he hit her didn't apply after he hit her.

The physical differences between a man and a woman will almost always make this an irrelevant comparison. If a woman wants to stop a man doing something she doesn't want him to with force, she almost always has to use as much force as she's physically able to (unless she's trained or very strong, obv), a man in the same position has a bunch of other options.

Sure, the situation could have unfolded in a thousand different ways. That doesn't mean that he was wrong to defend himself when faced with what still looks like unprovoked aggression. In a perfect world should he have shrugged it off and walked away? Absolutely. Does defending himself from an out-of-control woman make him a criminal? I don't think so.

[Aimless]

Look, I agree with your reasoning that he should have shot her dead when she was rude to him, I was just trying to explain why I believe one specific objection of yours was kinda wrong

[Enoch the Red]

Look, I agree with your reasoning that he should have shot her dead when she was rude to him, I was just trying to explain why I believe one specific objection of yours was kinda wrong

Well, that was productive! Thanks for contributing.

[Aimless]

Well how far do you believe he should have let her get before neutralising the threat? You can place an X somewhere on the line that begins with her raising her hand in anger and runs through the groin-kick, the failed punch, the broken bottle in his face, the punch from her big angry boyfriend and finally ends with the two of them shooting him in the head. And then we can have a discussion about why you'd draw the line there and not earlier because obviously drawing the line anywhere but where we'd draw it is ridiculous, downright absurd.

Look man, you can't have it both ways. I know very well you don't think he should have shot her, but that's basically the position you'd end up with if you followed your own arguments to their logical conclusion. That's perhaps a signal that those arguments are not very relevant to the actual problem in this situation. The main problem here is that he may be disproportionately punished for a natural reaction leading to an injury for which the blame is, from several ethical perspectives, shared with the injured party. In the process he has become a possible victim as well. And it's arguable whether or not his disproportionate punishment will have any impact on men's violence towards women in general. It's not about self defense so much as it is about fair punishment

[Enoch the Red]

Well how far do you believe he should have let her get before neutralising the threat? You can place an X somewhere on the line that begins with her raising her hand in anger and runs through the groin-kick, the failed punch, the broken bottle in his face, the punch from her big angry boyfriend and finally ends with the two of them shooting him in the head. And then we can have a discussion about why you'd draw the line there and not earlier because obviously drawing the line anywhere but where we'd draw it is ridiculous, downright absurd.

There is a blindingly obvious difference between lethal force and the method and manner of force he used. He didn't hit her multiple times, he didn't continue to hit her after he stopped her aggressive actions. He got out of the situation. He did not beat on her, he incapacitated her and immediately stopped. It did not strike me as particularly vindictive, nor did he seem out of control. He grappled with her to stop her from hitting him, got hit in the process, and then used an appropriate level of force in order to quickly get out of harms way. You disagree that the level of force was appropriate, and from way up there on your saddle that is a luxury you are afforded.

Look man, you can't have it both ways. I know very well you don't think he should have shot her, but that's basically the position you'd end up with if you followed your own arguments to their logical conclusion. That's perhaps a signal that those arguments are not very relevant to the actual problem in this situation. The main problem here is that he may be disproportionately punished for a natural reaction leading to an injury for which the blame is, from several ethical perspectives, shared with the injured party. In the process he has become a possible victim as well. And it's arguable whether or not his disproportionate punishment will have any impact on men's violence towards women in general. It's not about self defense so much as it is about fair punishment

That may be a particularly compelling argument if you are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing lethal force from any other type of self-defense. There is a granular continuum of force, and it does not ramp up immediately to gut shooting a person and leaving them for dead.

[Veldan Rath]

White females are a protected class, feminists rejoice!

Well, white ones anyway.

Take gender out of the equation, would you guys be so squeamish if it was a slight/small build white male that got his face pushed in?

[GGT]

Seems to me the "protected class" has been football players....who get special training, and learn how to be aggressive as second nature/instinct, but take that to social situations they shouldn't. When it comes from a college/university, maybe they should have stricter rules for their athletes for off-campus activity (especially in bars where alcohol is flowing). Professionals have personal managers for help "socializing", but even they can get into deep trouble with violence and domestic abuse.

[Aimless]

There is a blindingly obvious difference between lethal force and the method and manner of force he used. He didn't hit her multiple times, he didn't continue to hit her after he stopped her aggressive actions. He got out of the situation. He did not beat on her, he incapacitated her and immediately stopped. It did not strike me as particularly vindictive, nor did he seem out of control. He grappled with her to stop her from hitting him, got hit in the process, and then used an appropriate level of force in order to quickly get out of harms way. You disagree that the level of force was appropriate, and from way up there on your saddle that is a luxury you are afforded.

That may be a particularly compelling argument if you are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing lethal force from any other type of self-defense. There is a granular continuum of force, and it does not ramp up immediately to gut shooting a person and leaving them for dead.

What I have a problem with are the arguments you've used and also the apparent unfairness of the situation where one party--arguably the aggressor--gets off scot free while the other basically will get his life ruined. You're correct in that there's a difference between lethal force and force that isn't lethal but what should he have done, waited until she broke a bottle and sliced open his throat and THEN used lethal force?? Come on.

[Enoch the Red]

What I have a problem with are the arguments you've used and also the apparent unfairness of the situation where one party--arguably the aggressor--gets off scot free while the other basically will get his life ruined. You're correct in that there's a difference between lethal force and force that isn't lethal but what should he have done, waited until she broke a bottle and sliced open his throat and THEN used lethal force?? Come on.

If she was escalating her level of violence, sure it may have become necessary for him to do the same. What you seem to be intentionally ignoring is that he was pretty well matching the type of force she was using.

[Flixy]

Though not the force of the force But it's un a bar, tempers can go up, and let's be honest, not being sober doesn't help judging exactly the amount of force you'd need, and it's especially easy to be a sober armchair quarterback. To be honest I'm kinda surprised how big a deal this has been made. Someone starts a fight, throws a (poor) punch, gets a better one back. Damage is apparently a little bruising and swelling. Am I crazy or is that just something that (unfortunately) happens in bars often, and something the police generally does not get involved in? I mean break up the fight, sure, but even then I think they'd usually let both go after some cooling off. I don't get why he's being charged, and on top of that might lose his career over this. Could he have used less force? Yes, sure. But let's face it, had this been a scrawny guy with just as much strength as this girl, people would say yes, the football dude could have used less force, but that's what you get for picking a fight with someone twice his size. And as a scrawny guy myself, I find that annoying.

[Loki]

Again, it's ridiculous to require someone to use the same "force of the force". According to this logic, a trained martial artist should simply block indefinitely because any punch they throw will be significantly more powerful than ones they take. It is not the job of someone being attacked to perfectly match the amount of force being used; it's their job to defend themselves. They're in the wrong only if they escalate (i.e. respond to a punch with a drawn knife). I don't think how silly you guys sound. No sane person under attack would do what you're suggesting. And the only reason a decent number of men wouldn't retaliate in the situation mentioned is because of pure sexism.

[Ominous Gamer]

A trained martial artist, of all people, would know how to control the strength of their punches Sorta like how a quarterback should be able to control the speed and force behind a throw.

Responding with the appropriate amount of force has long be a part of self defense laws. Its not just a punch for a graze, but how many punches, for how long? What if he hit her twice, or 3 times? It was after all, still just a fist fight. Why risk only dazing her? Why not lay her out unconscious?

As soon as he saw that his elbowing wasn't going to allow him to get his way he should have backed off, but doubling down by grabbing her and committing to the situation (and then again when she responds to being grabbed) is what got him in hot water, both legally and personally. Its silly you can't recognize that.

[Wraith]

Whenever one becomes involved in a violent situation, before taking any action, one should always spend several hours discussing the situation on the internet, review camera feeds and other accounts of the altercation carefully to ensure you have a gods-eye view of the whole event, maybe take a nap to ensure that you are perfectly calm when making your decision, and most importantly you should use your hindsight of the event and all the resulting future actions to ensure that you choose the best possible reaction. It's the only way to avoid a mistake such as meeting like with like.

[Aimless]

Or one can hopefully remember not to respond to words by grabbing someone's arm, esp if one is a young black man with a lot to lose

[Veldan Rath]

Seems to me the "protected class" has been football players....who get special training, and learn how to be aggressive as second nature/instinct, but take that to social situations they shouldn't. When it comes from a college/university, maybe they should have stricter rules for their athletes for off-campus activity (especially in bars where alcohol is flowing). Professionals have personal managers for help "socializing", but even they can get into deep trouble with violence and domestic abuse.

Yeah, this guy looks real protected...

[Loki]

A judge on Friday released three siblings who have spent two weeks in juvenile detention for refusing to meet with their estranged father...

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-releases...204510081.html

[Enoch the Red]

Or one can hopefully remember not to respond to words by grabbing someone's arm, esp if one is a young black man with a lot to lose

Grabbing someone who has made a fist and pulled back their arm as though to throw a punch is not someone who is just saying words.

[Steely Glint]

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...son_incid.html

Not happy about the woman walking out of this scot free, especially if the racial epithets part is true.

Well, I say 'not happy', I don't actually care but it's clearly not a just outcome.

Do not read the comments.

[Aimless]

I took it as a given that that's what she was barking at him

[Loki]

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...son_incid.html

Not happy about the woman walking out of this scot free, especially if the racial epithets part is true.

Well, I say 'not happy', I don't actually care but it's clearly not a just outcome.

Do not read the comments.

We can't have black men hitting white women!

[Steely Glint]

Look, it's clearly nothing to do with ra... oh wait Florida nevermind.

[Loki]

Does the prosecutor think that anything but an all-white jury would take him seriously?

[Timbuk2]

Woman driver smashed her Mini into the back of a van while pleasuring herself with a sex toy at the wheel

The Mini driver lurched forwards and hit the vehicle in front of her after apparently getting distracted at the wheel.
The driver of the van, who was delivering fish to restaurants, initially worried that he would be sacked for his involvement in the accident.
But when bosses at his company, M&J Seafood, checked video footage they saw that the other motorist had been using a vibrator.

The film, captured using the van's rear camera, showed the woman - said to be in her 30s - hurriedly doing up her trousers in the aftermath of the crash.
The van driver, who works for M&J in Cirencester, Gloucestershire, was relieved to discover he was not at fault for the bizarre incident.
A source said: 'A driver was called into the office and feared he was getting the sack. He'd been on his first shift after looking for work for ages

'The bosses told him it wasn't his fault and then said, "Have you seen this?"
'They all had a good laugh. Apparently the lady was pretty fit.'

The company has refused to release the video footage or identify the driver involved in the crash.

A spokesman said: 'The matter is in the hands of our insurers.'
The firm is owned by catering giant Brakes, and specialises in delivering fresh and frozen seafood to restaurants, pubs and canteens.

[RandBlade]

Was curious if there was a Victoria 3 game announcement or anything like that so Googled "Victoria 3" (not "Victoria III" that I'd normally do.

Google after about 4 entries showed "Images for Victoria 3" one of which is an in-game image from the Victoria game series, the rest are soft pornographic CGI images of women.

All the top text articles linked are about the game series.

Tim - I used to work at a restaurant that had seafood delivered by M&J Seafood. Never heard of that happening though!

[Ominous Gamer]

Victoria 3.0 is a popular morphing addon for a modeling program, combine that with victoria secret and google's inferior image searching and tada.

[RandBlade]

Never heard of that. Strange that it never came up on the links though.

Old and may have come up on this thread last year but apparently ISIS play Vic II: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=527340

[Aimless]

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics...om-nnn-ebaby-o

[GGT]

My verbal skills have taken a new twist, where words get twisted or reversed, kinda like pig latin. When I meant to say something like "Do you want a popsicle" it comes out as "Do you pont a wapsicle". I'm getting worried because it's happening more frequently. WTF does that mean?

[wiggin]

I got a call out of the blue from a very well ranked university asking if I wanted to apply for a faculty position in their engineering school.

They must be getting desperate.

[Timbuk2]

Thought you were closer to the chemistry sciences.