Kraft: zero DV tolerance - no Mixon

[XLIX]

Molitor put her hands on him first. And then did it again just to be sure, before Mixon did anything. I'd be hard pressed to call that "violence against women." I mean you can sling a lot of BS about protecting women around, but at the end of the day, men need enough equality under the law to protect themselves too. Getting hit doesn't magically not hurt just because it's a woman doing it.

It's not magic, but it is physics. He is a professional caliber football player and she is probably 100 pounds soaking wet. Who do you think is going to be able to hit harder and/or absorb a hit harder?

She was stupid to do what she did but he had no right responding the way he did. The bottom line is he will slide in the draft but still get taken, and she will get a nice payday out of the whole thing.

 

[jah]

Lol @ all the "women are equal now so it's okay to deck the **** out of them" in here. I don't think the team should acquire anyone with a history of violence, no matter who the victim is.

I think the "women are weak so don't hit them" mentality is sexist, yes, but the solution is not to allow hitting both women and men...it's to disallow either.

 

[Simpelton]

Lol @ all the "women are equal now so it's okay to deck the **** out of them" in here. I don't think the team should acquire anyone with a history of violence, no matter who the victim is.

I think the "women are weak so don't hit them" mentality is sexist, yes, but the solution is not to allow hitting both women and men...it's to disallow either.

I agree 100%. And in that case where both are clearly in the wrong, the tie goes against the one who swings first.

In this case, Ms Molitor.

I'm not saying Mixon did nothing wrong. I'm saying that something you'd have to make a good case to defeat a self defense plea over if all the evidence had been out at the time of the trial doesn't make Mixon a woman beater.

Violent yes, stupid yes, probably underage drunk, hell yes, but that label, that very specific thing that happens when a man beats a woman doesn't apply when SHE goes after HIM first and he only strikes her once, and stops once the FIGHT is over.

Because that was what this was. Not a beating. A FIGHT. There is a very substantial difference between the two.

Mixon stopped hitting Molitor once Molitor stopped hitting Mixon. Therefore, Mixon did not beat Molitor. She FOUGHT Mixon, Mixon FOUGHT back, and stopped when the FIGHT was over. That's what the video proves. That's what the EVIDENCE STATES. That's WHY the evidence MATTERS. Anything beyond that is a mix of conjecture, prejudice, and bad guesswork.

 

[Tony2046]

None of that matters once contact is initiated. What Ms Molitor did was textbook assault, and what Mixon did was warn her and back off, then she carried on the assault. Perhaps a mature person might have reported her to the police and pressed charges. Not too many running backs are mature people. And he had a legal right to defend himself. The only question in my mind is one of excessive force.

He lands a vicious jaw crushing right after she landed a marshmallow daisy slap. "Legal right" to defend himself. I'm sure he felt like his life was in danger. He could have left. He could have not followed her into the store.

If you want to argue that he should have a second chance that's fine. If it were me I would demand counseling. But to defend this brutal act with "self defense" lawyer speak is just asinine.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Kraft's team, Kraft's rules, no matter how stupid.

 

[Simpelton]

He lands a vicious jaw crushing right after she landed a marshmallow daisy slap. "Legal right" to defend himself. I'm sure he felt like his life was in danger. He could have left. He could have not followed her into the store.

If you want to argue that he should have a second chance that's fine. If it were me I would demand counseling. But to defend this brutal act with "self defense" lawyer speak is just asinine.

Yep you're exactly right, but all that means is Molitor was very very stupid to start a fight against such a superior fighter.

And you don't have to feel your life is in danger to defend yourself. Let's not pretend for a moment that men are immune to violence just because the source is female.

Molitor started a fight with Mixon -- for whatever reason that's what she seemed to want and what she got. You can make an argument for the legal version of matching penalties. What you can NOT say is that Mixon beat Molitor. He fought back and stopped the moment the fight was over. Your whole violence against woman schtick is argument from the conclusion and the video makes the whole thing invalid on the face of it.

There is simply no evidence that Mixon is a woman beater based on this incident. If there's other incidents I'm all ears but this does not meet the definition, plain and simple. This was not a beating. This was a bar fight. A very unequal bar fight, but a bar fight.

 

[XLIX]

I agree 100%. And in that case where both are clearly in the wrong, the tie goes against the one who swings first.

In this case, Ms Molitor.

Setting aside the fact that it was a woman, that's not necessarily true. He was clearly menacing them. It appears they were trying to get away from him and he followed them into that restaurant and was behaving in a menacing, threatening way. So the "one who swings first" theory likely wouldn't apply. He is clearly the aggressor; they were clearly trying to get away.

Now, relating to this particular incident, it clearly a case of vastly unequal combatants. Mutual combat laws tend to get thrown out the window in such cases. It would be a stretch for him to say he felt personally threatened or that his safety was in imminent danger.

 

[Fixit]

These threads are always a helpful reminder that outside of a shared love of a football team there are a bunch of people here I wouldn't want to know at all.

 

[TBR]

Joe Mixon was not domestic violence.

Ok... 'knocking a girl out and breaking several bones in her face -violence.'

 

[Simpelton]

Setting aside the fact that it was a woman, that's not necessarily true. He was clearly menacing them. It appears they were trying to get away from him and he followed them into that restaurant and was behaving in a menacing, threatening way. So the "one who swings first" theory likely wouldn't apply. He is clearly the aggressor; they were clearly trying to get away.

Oh is that why she carried on attacking him after he backed off and looked like he was going to walk away?

Bar fights are born of bad decisions, Him following her to her table was a bad decision. Her laying hands on him? Another bad decision. That doesn't make this anything other than a meaningless tavern brawl. A few stitches, a misdemeanor, a stern warning to Mixon to keep the partying under control, a few insults directed at Mixon over his incredible courage at taking the fight to a female half his size... if the evidence had been out on a timely basis that's all this would have amounted to.

Now, relating to this particular incident, it clearly a case of vastly unequal combatants. Mutual combat laws tend to get thrown out the window in such cases. It would be a stretch for him to say he felt personally threatened or that his safety was in imminent danger.

And I hold that the key word in this paragraph is "combatants." She started a fight, he ended it, and he didn't carry on the violence after the fight was over. This is not "beating women" whatever else you might want to call it.

I'm not gonna say that Mixon comes out of this looking like some kind of saint, by the way, it's the specific label, "woman beater" that I'm arguing against, because it simply doesn't fit the facts.

 

[Tony2046]

Yep you're exactly right, but all that means is Molitor was very very stupid to start a fight against such a superior fighter.

And you don't have to feel your life is in danger to defend yourself. Let's not pretend for a moment that men are immune to violence just because the source is female.

Molitor started a fight with Mixon -- for whatever reason that's what she seemed to want and what she got. You can make an argument for the legal version of matching penalties. What you can NOT say is that Mixon beat Molitor. He fought back and stopped the moment the fight was over. Your whole violence against woman schtick is argument from the conclusion and the video makes the whole thing invalid on the face of it.

It's not an argument against women schtick it's rational vs irrational responses. If I give you a wet willy I don't expect to get hit in the head with a sledge hammer. Keep that "he legally defended himself" crap to yourself.

 

[Simpelton]

I happen to feel that once she hit him, him hitting her was pretty proportional. He's just better at hitting than she is.

Again, not saying that Mixon is a saint. Just that this incident doesn't make him a woman beater and was probably overblown by the media at the time. Like I said, the more I look at this the less this looks like a heinous act of violence against women and the more it looks like a damn stupid tavern fight like happens nearly every weekend in every bar in America.

 

[Deus Irae]

Flying Elvis still sucks

 

[TBR]

Yep. Not every male decks her, but every single red blooded male on this planet considers it.

The difference is his low impulse control.

Welcome to the 21st century ladies, you've earned your equality, good job, so happy for you. Time for it to cut both ways.

I'd probably agree with this if you were applying it to one of many other scenarios, but it just doesn't apply here.

 

[Deus Irae]

He lands a vicious jaw crushing right after she landed a marshmallow daisy slap. "Legal right" to defend himself. I'm sure he felt like his life was in danger. He could have left. He could have not followed her into the store.

If you want to argue that he should have a second chance that's fine. If it were me I would demand counseling. But to defend this brutal act with "self defense" lawyer speak is just asinine.

If you push me, and follow it up with a slap, I'm legally within my rights to knock your ass out (remember, this was a one punch situation) in self defense, and most people are defending me and calling you an idiot for attacking a larger, stronger person. How is this any different, besides tits?

 

[XLIX]

Oh is that why she carried on attacking him after he backed off and looked like he was going to walk away?

There is absolutely no point in the confrontation where Mixon withdraws until after he delivered his knockout blow. His followed them into the restaurant and once he got there, his exit was not obstructed in any way, shape or form so it doesn't matter what you think it "looked like."

Bar fights are born of bad decisions, Him following her to her table was a bad decision. Her laying hands on him? Another bad decision. That doesn't make this anything other than a meaningless tavern brawl. A few stitches,

Actually he broke 4 bones in her face. That's a bit more than "a few stitches" but why should we let facts get in the way?

a misdemeanor, a stern warning to Mixon to keep the partying under control, a few insults directed at Mixon over his incredible courage at taking the fight to a female half his size... if the evidence had been out on a timely basis that's all this would have amounted to.

And I hold that the key word in this paragraph is "combatants." She started a fight, he ended it, and he didn't carry on the violence after the fight was over. This is not "beating women" whatever else you might want to call it.

Like I said, the law disagrees. He was following them when they tried to retreat into a public place. He was menacing them and being the aggressor. The law doesn't look exclusively and simply at "who initiated contact"; it will take into consideration who is being the aggressor.

I'm not gonna say that Mixon comes out of this looking like some kind of saint, by the way, it's the specific label, "woman beater" that I'm arguing against, because it simply doesn't fit the facts.

Well I never called him a woman beater, and yet for some reason you're arguing with me.

You are obviously arguing that he was justified in his behavior because "she started it." All I am telling you is that the law disagrees.

 

[Kontradiction]

OK WTF? She initiated contact. I hadn't seen this before and it really does change the situation. This isn't violence against woman, this is a fight, one she started -- one she was stupid to start, but she still escalated it to contact against a fit and tranined athletic male, she should be the one eating the consequences here. If you can't finish what you start, don't start crap.

Hell he even gave her a last warning and (barely) restrained himself, then she hit him again. At some point you just don't need to be putting up with that. At some point protecting her actions just rewards stupidity.

It's one thing to put up with a woman's words, but if she lays hands on you first, as far as I've always been concerned, all bets are off and she's stepping into the arena. The law should NOT protect a woman who's already crossed that boundary because then you're protecting her exactly and ONLY because female. The law should NEVER protect the aggressor in a fight. Basic rules of gender equality ought to give him all the right to finish his business just as if it was a man trying to lay hands on him as long as he doesn't carry on after the fight is over.

This is where the pro-feminism and gender equality arguments always got interesting for me. If a woman is truly a man's equal and initiates contact then, by that logic, shouldn't it be okay for a man to use commensurate force and stand his ground? It's a catch-22 for someone that is pro gender equality because if you feel that way but disagree with what Mixon did on the basis that she's a female, then you're essentially admitting that a woman is not a man's peer - at least from a physical standpoint. Now, all that being said, he shouldn't have followed her in there either. All he did was make the situation worse.

 

[NashuaPats]

There is absolutely no point in the confrontation where Mixon withdraws until after he delivered his knockout blow. His followed them into the restaurant and once he got there, his exit was not obstructed in any way, shape or form so it doesn't matter what you think it "looked like."
Actually he broke 4 bones in her face. That's a bit more than "a few stitches" but why should we let facts get in the way?
Like I said, the law disagrees. He was following them when they tried to retreat into a public place. He was menacing them and being the aggressor. The law doesn't look exclusively and simply at "who initiated contact"; it will take into consideration who is being the aggressor.
Well I never called him a woman beater, and yet for some reason you're arguing with me.

You are obviously arguing that he was justified in his behavior because "she started it." All I am telling you is that the law disagrees.

If you watch the whole video, you will see that she actually motioned/waived for him to come talk to her. I'm not defending him, but am just trying to get the facts straight.

 

[bbobbo]

If you watch the whole video, you will see that she actually motioned/waived for him to come talk to her. I'm not defending him, but am just trying to get the facts straight.

didn't see that before. she does in fact motion to him.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

I can only hope those of you who think that it is OK to slug her because she was shoving him first, never try that defense in front of a Judge. Because it will end with you wearing an orange jump suit.