OT-But she started it!

Submitted by MGoFoam on

Remember the incoming Texas Tech freshman football player who got thrown out of school for punching out the women's basketball star while running buckets? Now she admits to having started it so she gets suspended from playing for the month of November. It sounds like what he did was considerably more egregious, but there sure is a disparity in the punishments. Of course, she also feels bad about the whole deal, "did not represent the double T...."

 

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/11176549/amber-battle-texas-tech-red-raiders-suspended-role-fight

GoWings2008

July 7th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

if she started it or not.  Although she may be entitled to more punishment than just a month, what he got fit the crime.  Never ever EVER, no matter who started, should a man strike a woman.  Not unless his life is in danger, whichI don't think it was in this case.

Dawggoblue

July 7th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^

This not even a remotely reasonable discription of this topic or my response. 

If we are all supposed to be equals, then make it equal.  If I walked up to a man twice my size and hit him, I should suffer the consequences.  The same should go for a woman.  If you believe she shouldn't, then don't be surprised when countless other double standards continue between men and women. 

In reply to by Dawggoblue

JayMo4

July 7th, 2014 at 5:12 PM ^

I'm probably crazy and my opinion is no doubt out of step with a lot of guys, but I actually don't think you should suffer the full potential consequences of hitting a guy twice your size.  If a guy half my size hit me, I feel I'm entitled to defend myself up to the point of disabling him as far as being a threat is concerned.  But I'm not going to curb stomp the guy and then flay him alive for being a hot-headed moron.

Defend yourself, even make a point if you have to, but no, I don't think a bigger or tougher guy is morally entitled to essentially torture or even kill someone that was foolish enough to hit someone he shouldn't.  I think it's an extremely admirable trait to have the self-restraint not to take disproportionate revenge.

 

 

WolvinLA2

July 7th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^

Sure, you're not going to beat him to a pulp, I agree with that.  But if a guy half your size punched you, and you punched him back but because of your size your punch did more damage, I don't think that puts you in the wrong either.  I mean, unless you're massive and you send him to the hospital or do permanent damage or something.  I think it's more along the lines of "don't mess with someone bigger than you because you might end up taking the brunt of the damage."

LordGrantham

July 7th, 2014 at 2:32 PM ^

What he got definitely fit the crime, but as a general matter, why can't a man ever strike a woman?  If she's wailing on you and refuses to stop, reasonable force to end the attack seems justified.

BiSB

July 7th, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^

Man or woman, you can use the force necessary to prevent physical injury to yourself or others. The issue is that, generally speaking, given the size and strength disparity between the average man and the average woman, the punch-in-the-face level of force is rarely necessary for self defense.

If Ronda Rousey starts hitting you, you're more than welcome to try to punch her to protect yourself. Though I'd suggest running like a mofo.

WolvinLA2

July 7th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^

Yeah - there's a big difference between restraining someone and clocking them in the face. That's the difference between the "moral" rules of fighting a guy vs. a girl. If a chick attacks you, you can do what you need to do to fend her off. If a dude attacks you, you get to sock him in the mouth if you want.

Monocle Smile

July 7th, 2014 at 3:13 PM ^

I think I'm also correct in saying that if some dude pushes me angrily at a bar to get my attention because I pissed him off, that doesn't give me free license to pile-drive him into the broken-glass-strewn floor, stomp on his nuts, and then whack him with a bottle of whiskey.

Dawggoblue

July 7th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^

He should have made the intelligent decision to not put his hands on you.  The problem is that once you push me, I now have to assume your intentions.  Did you just push me to create enough space to land a haymaker?  Or did I accidently step on your foot and you were just trying to move me off of it.

 

In this day and age most people would prefer not to waste time deciding your intentions.  This should take most people back to grade school when we learned to keep our hands to ourselves.  When you can't follow that rule, you may get more than expected.

In reply to by Dawggoblue

Monocle Smile

July 7th, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^

But if you responded as I described, you'd be facing legal consequences. You can think you responded properly all you want; the law disagrees, as I understand it. That's my only point.

Dawggoblue

July 7th, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^

But I have seen enough fights where Person A hits Person B and Person B beats the ever living crap out of Person A and the Police only arrest Person A.

 

So as I said, probably better to just not push someone in the first place.

markusr2007

July 7th, 2014 at 3:08 PM ^

Men don't want to be cowards, so like idiots we often tend to stand around and take it, in an effort to be macho.  But this leads to getting angry, which is dangerous. Mongo only pawn in game of life.

Yet, if we men would only allow our rational side to shine through in such instances, we'd realize there is so much merit in running like hell.

Excuse me for saying this so gently here, but men who shout out these mottos but haven't dated or married or known physically violent female companions don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

boliver46

July 7th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^



Excuse me for saying this so gently here, but men who shout out these mottos but haven't dated or married or known physically violent female companions don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

My ex-wife was often physically abusive but no one would ever believe it because I am 6'4" 250 lbs.  Then during our divorce, she broke into my house and assaulted me as I protected my new girlfriend.  Regardless of it being in MY home and SHE was the assaulting party, AND the fact I in no way did anything but fend off her attacks, we were both taken to the pokey.  I was eventually cleared (duh) but having to explain that to my 3 small children as "mommy" and daddy were carted off to jail was a real treat.

Monocle Smile

July 7th, 2014 at 3:45 PM ^

I'm glad you were rightfully cleared, and I'm guessing this woman had more than a few black marks on her record.

It seems like the MO of the police is to arrest everyone involved in a physical altercation and sort it out later. I understand why they do this, but that sounds like a rough ordeal for you, your kids, and your new girlfriend.

boliver46

July 7th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^

Certainly sucked, and I'm sure it is something that will stay with my kids forever.  Thanks for the sentiment.  And yes, multiple black marks, but that's for another day and another thread. :)

triangle_M

July 8th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^

My first wife liked to attack me when I was driving down the expressway.   Imagine going 85 down 696 and having someone trying to claw out your eyes from the passenger seat.  I love my own life too much to not protect it, which in this case was to push her head between her legs until I could pull the car over and get out - not easy to do when someone is clawing at you.   I then had to walk six miles before I could get to a pay phone and wait two hours for my dad to come get me (before cell phones).  I considered that incident our separation and divorced her a few months later.

GoWings2008

July 7th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^

The article said she claims to have "initiated the contact."  That leaves a LOT of room for interpretation.  But he did a lot more than "responding to contact" by the result that she was left with.  Apparently people don't agree with me about striking a woman, which surprises me quite a bit. 

justingoblue

July 7th, 2014 at 3:13 PM ^

"not striking anyone" a lot more easily than singling out women. If a month is what's standard for throwing a punch at TTU (and that's what she actually did) then fine, but a punch is a punch. She should get the same punishment whether he was male or female or whatever.

This in no way defends what the guy here did. At least in my opinion they're two separate assaults that should be judged on their own.

GoWings2008

July 7th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^

folks are judging my statement in a vaccum.  Of course there would be situations that make things different, which is how I clarified the case of someone's life in danger.  But I can see no good reason for a man, who is typically bigger and stronger than most women, to strike a woman.  I don't care how badly she deserves it. 

justingoblue

July 7th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^

I just also think that, barring self defense, there's no reason for a man to hit a man either. Or a woman hit a man or a woman hit a woman. Nobody deserves to get hit, and if you're throwing punches you should be punished because you threw a punch, not because of the genders involved.

WolvinLA2

July 7th, 2014 at 5:21 PM ^

I agree with the gender thing, but there are certainly reasons for a man to hit another man.  I know people disagree on this point, but there are dudes who, for a number of different reasons, absolutely deserve to get punched.  

When I was a sophomore in college, my brother was a sophomore in HS and was still little.  He got beat up kinda bad by a kid who was a senior.  I was home for the summer just a few weekends after that, and when that kid came to a party that both my brother and I were at, I returned the favor.  Some don't agree with this line of thinking (and I don't either for offenses that are more serious), but some people don't learn anything until they get a black eye.

ijohnb

July 7th, 2014 at 3:45 PM ^

If you get hit by somebody who immediately runs away from you to avoid further conflict you may not hit them back, no matter how "unfair" the initial assualt was. You lose the self defense right as soon as the threat ceases, no you don't get a "retaliation" punch.  You have the right to be pissed, but nothing else.

WolvinLA2

July 7th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^

When you say "right" is that purely the legal right?  Because I think if someone punches you and immediately runs away, you have the right to give them an equal punch the next time you see them in the proper setting.

You also have the right to tell everyone who he knows that he punched you and ran away.  Which is likely more damaging anyhow. 

ijohnb

July 7th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^

other sense is the word "right" used in other than a legal sense? No, you don't have that right. There is no "eye for an eye.". You may think you have some kind of human right to retribution but Judges tend to be unpersuaded by such a belief.

In reply to by ijohnb

WolvinLA2

July 7th, 2014 at 6:55 PM ^

Sometimes what society says is right and what the law says differs.  Not usually on large, important matters, but these differences do exist.  

I fully admit that people differ on this, but if someone punches me, I'm going to punch them back in most scenarios.  That may not be my legal "right" but I don't think it's wrong.