FSU Criminal Investigations

[jerboski]

If this has nothing to do with domestic violence, what are we to make of your hypothetical, that is 100% about domestic violence?

Also, you seem to be overlooking the fact that the FSU QB grabbed the girl in the bar before she struck him. In other words, HE STARTED THE PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION!

Domestic violence implies an "intimate relationship", I somehow doubt these two were ever intimate... This is violence on a woman however I wouldn't classify it as domestic violence, at least according to Colorado Law

 

[jerboski]

The moral definition of self-defense is dependent on the individual, and irrelevant.

She threw a punch, and he responded by doing the same. The fact that his carried much more force is not material, from what I have read. Now, if she had thrown a punch and he had hit her on the head with a hammer or stabbed her, THEN he would not be able to claim self-defense, legally...

Would he have needed to protect himself if he hadn't of grabbed her wrist in the first place, seems hard to claim self defense when he initiated the physical contact by pushing her in the back and then grabbing her wrist

 

[kmoose]

Would he have needed to protect himself if he hadn't of grabbed her wrist in the first place, seems hard to claim self defense when he initiated the physical contact by pushing her in the back and then grabbing her wrist

No. But I don't think that matters. Legally, I don't think it would be too hard to tag her as the aggressor, based on her being the first one to show a fist, as well as the first one to throw a punch.

 

[jerboski]

No. But I don't think that matters. Legally, I don't think it would be too hard to tag her as the aggressor, based on her being the first one to show a fist, as well as the first one to throw a punch.

The argument could be made that she threw that fist because a large, football player was grabbing her wrist pushing her back so in fact she was "defending" herself

 

[Voltaire]

Scenario:

You bump into the girl in the video at a crowded bar. She cocks her fist and knees you in the balls before punching you in the face with a glancing blow.

Meanwhile, earlier in the past 24 hours, your girlfriend had just broken up with you, you had just seen the Bruce Jenner transgender special on DVR just before going out, you've had a few cosmos with your boys instead of the usual craft brews, and you decided to go out that night wearing overalls with no shirt underneath because "you need to change things up a bit." Your life is in such a strange funk that in the moment after finishing up your third cosmo you start self-identifying as a woman named Eileen.

Is it morally repugnant then for you, as a recently self-identified woman named Eileen who's wearing overalls with no shirt, to then physically teach this drunk, obnoxious chick a lesson?

 

[kmoose]

The argument could be made that she threw that fist because a large, football player was grabbing her wrist pushing her back so in fact she was "defending" herself

No, it couldn't. People have already quoted the law that states that brandishing a fist at someone is considered assault. So his grabbing her wrist was his defense against her initial assault. Him being a football player has nothing to do with it, as she probably had no clue who he was. The bottom line is that this chick should also have been charged with a crime, but she has ovaries so she skated.

 

[GoIrish41]

To point out how rules or laws like that can go wrong. I think people are having two conversations here.
1) What legally happened.
2) What morally happened.

I think legally, the kid was justified in what he did.
I think morally, both are wrong and this should have never happened.





First off, I am not overlooking this. But you're also wrong in the chain of events.

She ass blocked him, then said something and then raise her arm - clenched her fist and showed aggression towards him. SHE STARTED THE PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION.

The only way one could infer that he started it is if they 1) ignore her ass block and 2) don't view a raise hand and clenched fist as assault. Legally, this person is wrong.



What should of happened is the guy just ask her if she is getting a drink and if not, could he get access to the bar to do so. This of course would also require her being a decent human being and not a piece of trash....which is debatable if she called him a [N].

What's amusing here to me is people when faced with the potential choice of violence against women and racism...they can't compute.

I don't think he was morally or legally in the right. He grabbed her first, she took a swing and then he punched her in the face. Boxing out at the bar is pretty common technique -- I don't think that makes her a piece of trash and I certainly don't think it deserved getting socked in the jaw. Also, raising ones hand and throwing a punch are two dramatically different things. Punching someone is not an appropriate reaction to someone calling another person a name. If anyone is a piece of trash, it is the former FSU QB. Hitting a girl is really pretty low on the behavioral food chain. I'm kind of shocked that anyone would defend this guy's behavior.

 

[ACamp1900]

Scenario:

You bump into the girl in the video at a crowded bar. She cocks her fist and knees you in the balls before punching you in the face with a glancing blow.

Meanwhile, earlier in the past 24 hours, your girlfriend had just broken up with you, you had just seen the Bruce Jenner transgender special on DVR just before going out, you've had a few cosmos with your boys instead of the usual craft brews, and you decided to go out that night wearing overalls with no shirt underneath because "you need to change things up a bit." Your life is in such a strange funk that in the moment after finishing up your third cosmo you start self-identifying as a woman named Eileen.

Is it morally repugnant then for you, as a recently self-identified woman named Eileen who's wearing overalls with no shirt, to then physically teach this drunk, obnoxious chick a lesson?

It's like you know me...

 

[jerboski]

No, it couldn't. People have already quoted the law that states that brandishing a fist at someone is considered assault. So his grabbing her wrist was his defense against her initial assault. Him being a football player has nothing to do with it, as she probably had no clue who he was. The bottom line is that this chick should also have been charged with a crime, but she has ovaries so she skated.

That's funny, I was cop for 6 years in Denver and never once in my career did I arrest or see any of my co-workers arrest anyone for " brandishing a fist"... Him being a football player has nothing to do with it fine, but his size and being a male does have something to do with it, he was the first to physically touch her not other way around so again how was she not defending herself???

 

[GoIrish41]

Domestic violence implies an "intimate relationship", I somehow doubt these two were ever intimate... This is violence on a woman however I wouldn't classify it as domestic violence, at least according to Colorado Law

I could not agree more. I was making the same point to the poster who said this incident was not the same as domestic violence, then told a story about domestic violence and how it related (it didn't, really).

 

[kmoose]

I don't think he was morally or legally in the right. He grabbed her first, she took a swing and then he punched her in the face.

She assaulted him, in the legal definition. I don't think it's about who touched who first. I can't believe that the bumping into each other while trying to belly up to the bar is anything illegal. So the question becomes, "At what point did the behavior become illegal?" As a layman, based on what definitions I have seen and read, it became illegal when she brandished a fist at him. At that point, he simply grabbed her wrist to prevent her from throwing a punch. Are you saying that it would be legally and morally wrong for you to grab the wrist of someone who appeared to be preparing to punch you?

Boxing out at the bar is pretty common technique -- I don't think that makes her a piece of trash and I certainly don't think it deserved getting socked in the jaw.

She didn't get her jaw jacked for boxing out. She got it jacked for punching him.

Also, raising ones hand and throwing a punch are two dramatically different things.

But she DID throw a punch. Previous to her punch, all he did was grab her by the wrist. And he only did that after she made a fist and appeared to be getting ready to throw a punch. Quit trying to couch this like he tried to push past her and then sucker punched her when she turned around to ask him to stop. That's NOT what happened, and you trying to simplify it down to that is simply false.

Punching someone is not an appropriate reaction to someone calling another person a name.

But it IS an appropriate reaction to someone punching you!

Hitting a girl is really pretty low on the behavioral food chain.

Act like a girl, and people will treat you like one. Just ask koon. But try to act like a man, and people will treat you like a man. For better or worse.

 

[jerboski]

His lawyer, Jose Baez, got Casey Anthony off. What do you think he can do with this case?

Big difference here, this case has video footage of the entire thing.... Pretty hard to argue against video

 

[ACamp1900]

Big difference here, this case has video footage of the entire thing.... Pretty hard to argue against video

But she said the N word....

 

[GoIrish41]

She assaulted him, in the legal definition. I don't think it's about who touched who first. I can't believe that the bumping into each other while trying to belly up to the bar is anything illegal. So the question becomes, "At what point did the behavior become illegal?" As a layman, based on what definitions I have seen and read, it became illegal when she brandished a fist at him. At that point, he simply grabbed her wrist to prevent her from throwing a punch. Are you saying that it would be legally and morally wrong for you to grab the wrist of someone who appeared to be preparing to punch you?

So, you think that he reasonably felt threatened when she lifted her hand up? Because that is the issue about "brandishing a fist". He still has to feel threatened in order to initiate physical contact.

No matter. When this goes to court, lets just see how it plays out when the jury watches that video. I seriously doubt that they are going to find 12 people who do not view this as what it is -- an assault on a girl at a bar by a thug.

She didn't get her jaw jacked for boxing out. She got it jacked for punching him.

Nor did I say she did. Dales (I think) called her a piece of shit because she wouldn't let the guy take her place at the bar. From my extensive experience in bar studies, I find that to be pretty common technique, and I was suggesting that his threshold for "piece of shit" status seems to be incredibly low.

But she DID throw a punch. Previous to her punch, all he did was grab her by the wrist. And he only did that after she made a fist and appeared to be getting ready to throw a punch. Quit trying to couch this like he tried to push past her and then sucker punched her when she turned around to ask him to stop. That's NOT what happened, and you trying to simplify it down to that is simply false.

Again, I did not say otherwise. The point is that HE GRABBED HER FIRST. He initiated the physical confrontation and SHE reacted. It was not the other way around. As usual, you are trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say. I never said that "he tried to push past her and then sucker punched her when she turned around to ask him to stop." She turned around and said something to him and raised her hand. He grabbed her wrists. She felt threatened and took a swing at him, and then he punched her in the face. So, he initiated the physical contact and he punched her in the face to end it. Even if you don't think she acted reasonably in between those two things, those are the beginning and end points of the physical confrontation.

But it IS an appropriate reaction to someone punching you!

Obviously I (and almost everyone else) disagrees with you. And, whether the contrarian in you likes it or not, part of the reason we disagree is BECAUSE HE PUNCHED A GIRL!!!!

 

[jerboski]

But she said the N word....

Lol anything could happen with this case primarily because its in Tallahassee, and involves a former member of the FSU football team... All bets are off

 

[jerboski]

So, you think that he reasonably felt threatened when she lifted her hand up? Because that is the issue about "brandishing a fist". He still has to feel threatened in order to initiate physical contact.

No matter. When this goes to court, lets just see how it plays out when the jury watches that video. I seriously doubt that they are going to find 12 people who do not view this as what it is -- an assault on a girl at a bar by a thug.




Nor did I say she did. Dales (I think) called her a piece of shit because she wouldn't let the guy take her place at the bar. From my extensive experience in bar studies, I find that to be pretty common technique, and I was suggesting that his threshold for "piece of shit" status seems to be incredibly low.



Again, I did not say otherwise. The point is that HE GRABBED HER FIRST. He initiated the physical confrontation and SHE reacted. It was not the other way around. As usual, you are trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say. I never said that "he tried to push past her and then sucker punched her when she turned around to ask him to stop." She turned around and said something to him and raised her hand. He grabbed her wrists. She felt threatened and took a swing at him, and then he punched her in the face. So, he initiated the physical contact and he punched her in the face to end it. Even if you don't think she acted reasonably in between those two things, those are the beginning and end points of the physical confrontation.



Obviously I (and almost everyone else) disagrees with you. And, whether the contrarian in you likes it or not, part of the reason we disagree is BECAUSE HE PUNCHED A GIRL!!!!

Great Post!!!!!!!

 

[greyhammer90]

His lawyer, Jose Baez, got Casey Anthony off. What do you think he can do with this case?

I don't know a lot, but I can tell you that video does NOT show self defense under the law. Even if he can show that he reasonably anticipated injury from this girl, he can't show that his force was proportional. It's pretty obvious after she hit him, he got angry and hit her back as hard as he could. That's not proportional force. Him saying that she called him the N word does nothing to help his case. Also, the fact that he very clearly could take control of her arms by simply grabbing them shows how excessive his reaction was. He was obviously physically in control of the entire situation from start to finish with the exception of the arm he didn't grab punching him. An appropriate legal reaction would've been to grab her other arm until he felt safe to disengage and go get the police/bouncer for her striking him. Throwing a haymaker is not a reasonable reaction under the law.

 

[ACamp1900]

I understand grey's point totally... I guess I'm just too much of an old soul... for me it would be different if this were two dudes, or two girls. Men are just so much stronger on average than a woman, if you use force like that against a female there had better be a real, clearly defined, self defense reason for it.

 

[dales5050]

Hitting a girl is really pretty low on the behavioral food chain. I'm kind of shocked that anyone would defend this guy's behavior.

I am not defending him. I think both of these people are pretty low on the food chain.

I personally do not believe in absolutes. Take for example this video. It's of a father who is defending his daughter from being attacked by multiple girls.

The video shows 1) A man hitting a woman and 2) A man hitting a child. Now people can say they will have the absolute position that they would never do such a thing but if you're daughter is being attacked by a group of people...and you just stick to your moral absolute...well, I just don't know what to say about you.


Beyond this, I think a lot of people are completely ignoring the moment and analyzing the situation from the comfort of their keyboard. It's easy to say how perfect you would be if you disregarded the fact that 1)nobody is perfect, 2) you don't know the personal history of either person and 3) you don't know all of the details.

Again, absolutes suck. What if he was abused as a child? What if the [N] word was used? What exactly did she say. All of these are details that we do not know.

While rudimentary, those who are saying something to the effect of if you don't want to get hit, don't put yourself in the position to be hit, to me at least, are saying everyone needs to take personal responsibility for the situations they place themselves in.

This whole idea that because she is a female, she should be afforded some type of pass is backwards thinking.

 

[jerboski]

I am not defending him. I think both of these people are pretty low on the food chain.

I personally do not believe in absolutes. Take for example this video. It's of a father who is defending his daughter from being attacked by multiple girls.

The video shows 1) A man hitting a woman and 2) A man hitting a child. Now people can say they will have the absolute position that they would never do such a thing but if you're daughter is being attacked by a group of people...and you just stick to your moral absolute...well, I just don't know what to say about you.


Beyond this, I think a lot of people are completely ignoring the moment and analyzing the situation from the comfort of their keyboard. It's easy to say how perfect you would be if you disregarded the fact that 1)nobody is perfect, 2) you don't know the personal history of either person and 3) you don't know all of the details.

Again, absolutes suck. What if he was abused as a child? What if the [N] word was used? What exactly did she say. All of these are details that we do not know.

While rudimentary, those who are saying something to the effect of if you don't want to get hit, don't put yourself in the position to be hit, to me at least, are saying everyone needs to take personal responsibility for the situations they place themselves in.

This whole idea that because she is a female, she should be afforded some type of pass is backwards thinking.

I don't think anyone is arguing absolutes or saying a women can never, ever be hit by a man.... In the video you show, of course most of us fathers would have done the same thing if it was our daughter HOWEVER this situation we are looking at is completely different. The FSU QB wasn't being attacked by five women and getting his ass kicked, he wasn't being hit with weapons of any kind, in fact he was the one who initiated the physical aspect so the argument is was he right in hitting her and the answer is pretty clear, absolutely not... I don't think anyone is saying that a woman cant ever be hit by a man, it is based on the situation and in this situation there is no reason why he should have punched her in the face. PERIOD

 

[ulukinatme]

The FSU Pres and the writer were talking about brawling with an underage girl in a bar while speculation has it Jimbo was infuriated with his boy's inability to deck a girl when he had 60 pound advantage and threw an unobstructed haymaker that only buckled the female's knees. She grabbed the bar but would not have taken a one count. Unconfirmed reports allege Jimbo muttered something along the lines of, "How do you expect to intimidate a safety or a corner with that milquetoast display. When Jameis took a female down she stayed down until he was done. Then you compound it by running away like you had a handful of unpaid for crab legs! You have impugned both the honor of this team's Strength and Conditioning Program as well as the Team's manhood. You're done."

This deserves some reps!

 

[greyhammer90]

Then we all agree. /Thread.


...right guys? Guys?

 

[dales5050]

I don't think anyone is arguing absolutes or saying a women can never, ever be hit by a man....

Multiple people have said this in this thread.....

 

[ulukinatme]

I mean, some people could really,... like REALLY... use a good ass beating now and then though...

That ACamp guy comes to mind!

 

[kmoose]

Nor did I say she did.

Like hell you didn't:

Boxing out at the bar is pretty common technique -- I don't think that makes her a piece of trash and I certainly don't think it deserved getting socked in the jaw. Also, raising ones hand and throwing a punch are two dramatically different things. Punching someone is not an appropriate reaction to someone calling another person a name. If anyone is a piece of trash, it is the former FSU QB. Hitting a girl is really pretty low on the behavioral food chain. I'm kind of shocked that anyone would defend this guy's behavior.

 

[Irish#1]

Damn kmoose. You've been in an argumentative mood lately.

 

[gkIrish]

There are four camps:

A) Guys should never hit girls
B) This particular guy should not have hit this particular girl and she did nothing wrong.
C) This particular guy should not have hit this particular girl but is at fault to some extent
D) He was within his right to hit her

I'm in camp C. I think anyone in camp D is misguided.

 

[kmoose]

There are four camps:

A) Guys should never hit girls
B) This particular guy should not have hit this particular girl and she did nothing wrong.
C) This particular guy should not have hit this particular girl but is at fault to some extent
D) He was within his right to hit her

I'm in camp C. I think anyone in camp D is misguided.

And I think you are foolish and easily led around by your guilt and/or over-glamorized sense of chivalry. Women who act like women should be treated like women. Saying that you can never hit a woman, ever, is simply sexist and wrong.

You forgot one camp, though:

E) He was within his right to hit her, but he probably should have pulled his punch at least a little.

 

[BeauBenken]

There are four camps:

A) Guys should never hit girls
B) This particular guy should not have hit this particular girl and she did nothing wrong.
C) This particular guy should not have hit this particular girl but is at fault to some extent
D) He was within his right to hit her

I'm in camp C. I think anyone in camp D is misguided.

Yea, I think there's just a lot of gray area. I think the argument is really "when is it okay/when is it not okay", and it is not "this guy is innocent/this guy is guilty".

 

[gkIrish]

And I think you are foolish and easily led around by your guilt and/or over-glamorized sense of chivalry. Women who act like women should be treated like women. Saying that you can never hit a woman, ever, is simply sexist and wrong.

You forgot one camp, though:

E) He was within his right to hit her, but he probably should have pulled his punch at least a little.

I'm foolish because I'm in camp C? On the scale of opinions it's pretty much the closest one to yours without agreeing with you.