[larkin]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is worth emphasizing, no?

Seriously. And are all the defenders of assault and battery on the thread 10 years old, now?

She didn't do anything; he cornered her, she flailed a bit but hardly laid a hand, and he punched her in the face. If it were a man it would still be assault and battery.

Let's repeat for the cheap seats - you threaten and hit first, it's a felony. There's no such thing as "provocation."

[followthehippos]

As far as can be observed if you want to approach the video without filling in the blank was this. She was telling him to leave in a demanding way, being aggressive. He then begins getting aggressive back. If you're argument is that whoever got aggressive first is to blame that falls on the woman's shoulder. But, wait, you've said ultimately whoever is at fault is whoever is bigger of the two. So in reality, it doesn't matter that he was aggressive, because, as you've already established, if he was smaller you wouldn't put the blame on him. So, I don't really understand the point of your arguments other than you have personal life experiences that are making you respond to this whole issue with a 'chip' on your shoulder (or whatever it is or whatever you want to call it).

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're right, my analysis was an assumption. Allow me to correct myself. When the video started we know that she was being abusive to him.

By telling him to leave? That's abusive?

	I didn't say that. I said they are both to blame for each acting in a fashion to escalate tension. Each could have chosen to back down at some point in time,

Agreed.

	but I highly doubt in the heat of the moment such breaks occur mentally.

Irrelevant.

	Generally it happens so quickly that you respond irrationally.

Irrelevant if either chose to de-escalate.

	What I'm saying is the man did respond more physically to her and deserves blame. But, we cannot ignore the abuse he has received from her. Both physical abuse and emotional abuse are damaging to an individuals psych. However, I'm not perceiving his actions as intent for abuse.

The verbal is irrelevant. The physical is relevant. If someone says to you that you need to leave, it's neither legal or ethical (unless your ethical system surrounds the right to enact violence on people when they verbalise something) to enact violence on someone. She too enacted violence on him of which she needs to take ownership for.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	She didn't do anything; he cornered her, she flailed a bit but hardly laid a hand, and he punched her in the face. If it were a man it would still be assault and battery.

You've lost all credibility in regards to rational thought/perception.

She specifically walks into the room, turns off (the Playstation?) and puts herself in between him and the TV/Playstation (which happened to be in a corner, as many TV stands are designed for) while he was packing up his stuff to move out, and then told him to leave, without the TV/Playstation he ostensibly purchased. When he refuses to comply with her demands, she reacts physically.

She hit him first. MULTIPLE TIMES. The fact that he managed to block the first few is irrelevant. Game over.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you're argument is that whoever got aggressive first is to blame that falls on the woman's shoulder.

No, the argument is, as it always is, that whoever got physical first is to blame. Specifically, physical in a "harmful or violent" way. That's felony battery.

Originally Posted by Intellijent

You've lost all credibility in regards to rational thought/perception. She specifically walks into the room, turns off (the Playstation?) and puts herself in between him and the TV/Playstation (which happened to be in a corner, as many TV stands are designed for) while he was packing up his stuff to move out, and then told him to leave, ostensibly without the TV/Playstation he purchased. When he refuses to comply with her demands, she reacts physically. [...] She hit him first. MULTIPLE TIMES. Game over.

Please. Feel free, as above, to look up the definition of felony battery. You can't just push someone who's already guilty of misdemenor assault away. You have to do damage.

Again, the only thing that's relevant is the physical. They both can say whatever provocative they want. He can claim she has his playstation and she can claim it's her TV. You call the cops or sue to resolve that shit. What you don't do is punch someone in the face.

[followthehippos]

@Distance: In your mind all that is relevant is the physical aspect. Yelling, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, ect ect, so on and so forth, are all irrelevant. I understand that, I completely disagree though. We are not just physical beings. We are emotional, intellectual, physical, and as many would say, spiritual beings. Hence, I disagree that only the physical matters. I think emotional and spiritual damage can have a larger toll on someone than physical damage. I find it rather silly to only provide value to one of those aspects, but, whatever.

---------- Post added 03-07-2012 at 06:03 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, the argument is, as it always is, that whoever got physical first is to blame. Specifically, physical in a "harmful or violent" way. That's felony battery.

Distance has not stated that. Distance feels sympathy for whoever is smaller of the two. She has already stated that if the woman was larger that she would feel sympathy for the man instead. (unless I'm completely misunderstanding)

[Uriel]

*male kicks side of TV as an intimidation tactic and/or out of frustration*

Question: Don't the rules of body language suggest that when you are faced with a physically violent threat, you pull your body tighter and closer to yourself?

*female spreads arms across the TV and faces the violent threat instead, in full view of the recording camera*

The whole thing stinks of "I'm going to engage in passive aggressive emotional manipulation in order to push your buttons enough for you to hit me in front of a camera, so I can come off as a victim and you a monster."

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Distance has not stated that. Distance feels sympathy for whoever is smaller of the two.

Distance feels sympathy for neither of them. Distance wants to eliminate the both of them from the gene pool in order to maximize livingspace for the worthy.

[Uriel]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's repeat for the cheap seats - you threaten and hit first, it's a felony. There's no such thing as "provocation."

Unfortunately.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The whole thing stinks of "I'm going to engage in passive aggressive emotional manipulation in order to push your buttons enough for you to hit me in front of a camera, so I can come off as a victim and you a monster."

Pro tip - you know what's the best response to that kind of manipulation? Not punching them in the fucking face.

[Uriel]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pro tip - you know what's the best response to that kind of manipulation? Not punching them in the fucking face.

Pretend you're a male and put yourself in Sean's position.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Distance feels sympathy for neither of them. Distance wants to eliminate the both of them from the gene pool in order to maximize livingspace for the worthy.

This is the most accurate depiction of my views.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pretend you're a male and put yourself in Sean's position.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't punch them in the face. This is the minimum that's expected of you as a human being.

[Uriel]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm pretty sure I wouldn't punch them in the face. This is the minimum that's expected of you as a human being.

What is the best response, aside from not?

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Distance feels sympathy for neither of them. Distance wants to eliminate the both of them from the gene pool in order to maximize livingspace for the worthy.

Barbarism.

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	BThe verbal is irrelevant. The physical is relevant. If someone says to you that you need to leave, it's neither legal or ethical (unless your ethical system surrounds the right to enact violence on people when they verbalise something) to enact violence on someone.

The verbal and the psychological are relevant in cases of domestic violence.

Now if you mean the verbal isn't relevant in this video, I agree. All the important events here are physical. They both sound angry but there is no "verbal abuse" occurring. Or if there is it's very light verbal abuse.

I can't believe the people here who get all indignant about the "terrible emotional abuse" this guy his suffering. They're breaking up. It's a fight. She sounds angry and tells him to leave or she will call the cops. He talks very loud and use curse words. As far as I'm seeing the "verbal" is pretty reciprocal and none of it is abuse. She didn't exactly tell him he's a good for nothing trash who fucked the neighbor and should be put down like a dog in front of his kids.

There might have been psychological, verbal, physical abuse previously in the relationship, but this is hypothetical.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is the best response, aside from not?

Seriously? Restraining if necessary, although it in no way looked like it was. He wasn't threatened. He was angry. Get a fucking hold on your emotions.

Walking away. Calling a lawyer if you're worried about her stealing stuff.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What you don't do is punch someone in the face.

Which she did. First. On top of all the blocked/dodged strikes.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which she did. First.

Again, please. He cornered her (assault), she kind of tried to push him away, and he punched her in the face (battery.) She in no way punched him in the face.

Again, even if you could prove that she laid hands on his face while pushing him away, a.) he would already be guilty of assault, and b.) she didn't cause any physical harm, which would be required of felony battery.

So, try again with this "she did it first" nonsense, but no judge in the world would agree.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously. And are all the defenders of assault and battery on the thread 10 years old, now? She didn't do anything; he cornered her, she flailed a bit but hardly laid a hand, and he punched her in the face. If it were a man it would still be assault and battery. Let's repeat for the cheap seats - you threaten and hit first, it's a felony. There's no such thing as "provocation."

Congratulations! You've won the award for most obviously irrational statement thus far in the thread.

So it's a matter of effectiveness is it? By this wonderful bit of logic, we can infer that had she fired a .22 caliber handgun and missed, and had he then responded by successfully firing back with a .38 it still would have been murder as opposed to self-defense.

That's quite a grasp you've got there lady!

---------- Post added 03-07-2012 at 06:19 PM ----------

The bottom line is there's no justification for the behavior of either party. They're both pathetic.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again, please. He cornered her (assault), she kind of tried to push him away, and he punched her in the face (battery.) She in no way punched him in the face. Again, even if you could prove that she laid hands on his face while pushing him away, a.) he would already be guilty of assault, and b.) she didn't cause any physical harm, which would be required of felony battery. So, try again with this "she did it first" nonsense, but no judge in the world would agree.

I already addressed the ridiculous "cornering" assertion, and your assertions that she only " pushed him" are appallingly out of touch with reality.

The fact that he is stronger than she is, is irrelevant. She struck him 4 times, and missed once. Damage caused by strikes are irrelevant (the US recognizes this from a military standpoint). To deny this is to admit complete disregard for reality. What domestic law recognizes, and what happened, are two different things. I'm done replying to this, or any similar bullshit on this thread. You have to live with yourselves.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Seablue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The verbal and the psychological are relevant in cases of domestic violence. Now if you mean the verbal isn't relevant in this video, I agree. All the important events here are physical. They both sound angry but there is no "verbal abuse" occurring. Or if there is it's very light verbal abuse. I can't believe the people here who get all indignant about the "terrible emotional abuse" this guy his suffering. They're breaking up. It's a fight. She sounds angry and tells him to leave or she will call the cops. He talks very loud and use curse words. As far as I'm seeing the "verbal" is pretty reciprocal and none of it is abuse. She didn't exactly tell him he's a good for nothing trash who fucked the neighbor and should be put down like a dog in front of his kids. There might have been psychological, verbal, physical abuse previously in the relationship, but this is hypothetical.

Yes. I find it interesting how so many members are injecting their own assumptions of what happened prior or after. Solely from what I see in the clip, the two aren't fit to be parents.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Congratulations! You've won the award for most obviously irrational statement thus far in the thread. [...] So it's a matter of effectiveness is it? By this wonderful bit of logic, we can infer that had she fired a .22 caliber handgun and missed, and had he then responded by successfully firing back with a .38 it still would have been murder as opposed to self-defense. That's quite a grasp you've got there lady!

That's quite a grap of law you've got there. Feel free to look it up. It is a matter of actual physical harm caused, as irrational as that may seem. The law was crafted with the goal of preventing actual physical harm in mind, I'm guessing. (Attempted murder, different law entirely, I'm afraid.)

Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The fact that he is stronger than she is, is irrelevant. She struck him 4 times, and missed once. Damage caused by strikes are irrelevant (the US recognizes this from a military standpoint). To deny this is to admit complete disregard for reality. What domestic law recognizes, and what happened, are two different things. I'm done replying to this, or any similar bullshit on this thread. You have to live with yourselves.

Yes, we all have to live with ourselves.

Speaking of disregard for reality, damage may be irrelevant in military law, but it's not in civil. If someone pushes you and you strike them and break their nose? Sorry, you're the aggressor.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's quite a grap of law you've got there. Feel free to look it up. It is a matter of actual physical harm caused, as irrational as that may seem. The law was crafted with the goal of preventing actual physical harm in mind, I'm guessing. (Attempted murder, different law entirely, I'm afraid.)

I sleep with a lawyer every night and have been for the last 13 years. Surprising what one can learn simply through prolonged exposure.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's quite a grap of law you've got there......... as irrational as that may seem.

As irrational is it is. The domestic violence laws are utter nonsense in the US. Arguing from legality is an appeal to the status quo.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Seablue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The verbal and the psychological are relevant in cases of domestic violence.

I should address this part of your post separately. It's reliant on the level of verbal and psychological abuse, as well as whether the emotional abuse has been witnessed. It is my understanding of domestic violence cases, that the law will side with the individual who received the most physical damage since it's the only issue they can concretely prove. He said, she said, pretty much goes nowhere in a court of law.

Just my understanding of this and if it's inaccurate, do correct me. Or maybe this is a jurisdictional difference since you live in France.