Frank Clark: "The woman took it to another level"
When asked about the November domestic violence incident, Frank Clark appeared to blame the woman:
Clark: "The woman involved took it to another level. It all could have been avoided." He said it was a "shock" when he invited to Combine
— Dane Brugler (@dpbrugler) February 20, 2015
That just sounds horrible.
Mod edit: This is the full quote from this MLive story. There are more words from Clark in the story and I'd encourage everyone to take a look before forming a strong opinion on what he said today. JGB.
I'm just saying it was a conversation between me and one my friends, and the woman involved, she took it to another level that it shouldn't have been taken to. "That's fine. I'm not throwing her under the bus. I'm not saying she did anything wrong. I'm just saying a lot of things that happened in that room that night could have been avoided."
February 20th, 2015 at 11:20 AM ^
smh
I wish Gardner was representing the Maize and Blue instead of Clark.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:20 AM ^
Maybe. Maybe not. But I'd rather this thread didn't go much longer than my post.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^
February 20th, 2015 at 11:38 AM ^
Thin out the herd...get rid of the slow ones.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^
any musical ability other than being able to blow like the wind into a kazoo, I would start a band and name it "Banhammers". Then I'd act all indignant and insulted when someone called us "The Banhammers".
February 20th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
Rebuttal: The children running down a hotel hallway yelling "Frank's killing our sister!"
February 20th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
This is the one piece of evidence that Frank just can't explain away. I hope Clark turns his life around, however, he made a huge, unforgivable mistake in front of a child.
February 20th, 2015 at 2:20 PM ^
I mean, that's not inconsistent necessarily with "the woman involved started the physical phase of the altercation, and, barring her actions, no physical altercation would have taken place". Of course, and most importantly, "she started it" is not at all inconsistent with "Clark then took it too far".
All we have here is a tweet though, and, devoid of context, it's hard to draw the conclusion that Clark is an unremorseful victim-blamer that everyone seems to be leaping to. The last part about being surprised about his combine invite could be read as him at least recognizing that he did a bad thing. Would need to see the whole interview at a minimum.
February 20th, 2015 at 7:44 PM ^
She hit him with a remote, bit his nose, got punched, hit him with an alarm clock, and then he left. It's ridiculous that smaller, female people can do whatever the hell they want while a bigger, male person gets crucified for retaliating in any way. If she were a dude Frank would have faced 0 repercussions. Maybe I'm just more into equality and personal responsibility than most people and think people who start a fight with giant drunk people shouldnt be surprised when they get punched.
February 20th, 2015 at 9:40 PM ^
I'm all for people trying to view this rationally (I'm sympathetic to the view that "Frank's killing my sister" =/= she didn't start it), but as an insanely strong human being, he has the right to defend himself, but not the right to show that lack of restraint. You have a responsibility that goes along with being that much more able to hurt the other person.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
February 20th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
How about never hit another person unless confronted with serious injury.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^
Anyone that says "never hit a woman" has obviously never been stabbed/slashed by one.
/I seem to attract the crazy. Don't judge me!
February 20th, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^
You're never going to be able to convice us that Alice was the crazy one
February 20th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
kind of girl hallucinates seeing a rabbit, follows it down a hole, and then takes drugs from strangers?
A crazy one.
February 20th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^
students too. And God bless em for it!
February 20th, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^
state
ones
February 20th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
to get those girls?
February 20th, 2015 at 12:24 PM ^
February 20th, 2015 at 9:49 PM ^
and leave it at that. Even if you're drunk. You know that you're a loaded weapon if you're Frank Clark.
February 20th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^
Yep... I was hoping someone would chime in like this. I had an ex-gf, who tuned out to be a high functioning substance abuser, once lose her effing mind on a prescription pill + booze bender. I had to physically restrain her and call the cops. She got arrested -- not me.
One day I hope to stop attracting the crazy too; I won't judge if you don't :)
February 20th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^
name was Sara we might have dated the same girl. Your scenario sounds eerily familiar.
I didn't call the cops though.
February 20th, 2015 at 1:46 PM ^
Nope... this was a woman in Denver. Called the cops cause she started waving her handgun at me when I was trying to get her to calm down (she was ranting and raving that I was gonna break up with her) and stop punching me in the face.
She was a mess -- claims she doesn't remember any of that. Pity though... she's smoking hot and a really nice person when she's sober.
Anyway, I think the point is making blanket statements is bad.
Of course, Clark didn't help himself out either!!!
February 20th, 2015 at 1:56 PM ^
In my opinion most things in life are not black and white but varying shades of grey. So I tend to avoid speaking in absolutes.
And he certainly didn't help himself out. It would have only helped if the phrase was "the woman took it to another level when she stabbed me / pointed a gun at my head."
Your story went a bit further than mine. Not sure how I would react with a gun involved in the situation. The police call was probably your best option.
Smart. Sexy. Sane. You only get to pick two.
February 20th, 2015 at 3:12 PM ^
Smart. Sexy. Sane. You only get to pick two.Never heard that before... so true. Sigh.
February 21st, 2015 at 9:57 AM ^
*Maximum of 2
February 20th, 2015 at 9:55 PM ^
came at me with a carving knife. Grabbed the knife with one hand and decked her with the other. Two sliced tendons, and some 65 stitches later, I was the one arrested because I split her lip. So the charges against me were finally, and righteously, dismissed while I was still wearing my ball splint. Nobody would entertain the thought that she'd assaulted me but I can say this, she got nada in the divorce.
I don't know what happened at the hotel, but I know this, things aren't always as they first seem. I'll reserve judgement about her until things are aired out in court.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
Seriously. I think I would find that phrase pretty offensive if I were a woman.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
Equality means that if you take a swing at someone you better be prepared for them to swing back, regardless of what's between your legs.
February 20th, 2015 at 1:27 PM ^
its not like some men weren't already swinging at women
February 20th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^
February 20th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
"Not in 'Nam, of course..."
February 20th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
There was an interesting social experiment done on the sidewalks in a large city. Basically there were two actors, one male and one female, that simulated two events.
The first event was that the guy started shoving the woman around and yelling at her. The response was so overwhelming from the males around the two people the safety of the male actor was close to being at risk. Males responded immediately to the female being shoved and a couple of the males responding looked ready to strike the male actor. The male actor had to point out repeatedly that this was an experiment and was pointing to the hidden cameras. One male that responded to the shoving continued to argue and point at the actor - stating that he didn't care if it was an experiment that you never do that to a woman.
The second event was that the female actress started to shove and slap the male actor and yell at him. The response was quite different from the previous event. People were laughing and continued on their way. One male even joined in with the actress and slapped the male actor on the head. People typically looked, laughed, and kept about their business.
It was an interesting thought piece that spoke about how we as a culture do not have one view of violence. Violence against another person should never take place.
I hope that Frank can continue with counseling to find out why he responds the way he does, and fix that part of his behavior. From the post below, it looks like he has been going to counseling. The events of that night when detailed with the police report of things like Bando mentioned (kids running down the hall screaming he's killing her) it just gives me chills.
February 20th, 2015 at 1:01 PM ^
I would imagine there is a high rate of physical violence against men that simply goes unreported. Even when people witness such things, as you mention, they laugh or ignore the violence even though it is the exact same thing.
Jokes aside, violence is unacceptable (generally speaking) agaisnt a man or a woman. Unfortunatley, there is a double standard that continues to persist. Take for example Carrie Underwood's 'Before He Cheats', the damn song is glorifies domestic violence. If a man were to change the pronouns and sing the same words he would likely face some criticisms.
In short, 'don't hit a woman ever' does not help the problem of domestic violence as a more inclusive statement could.
February 20th, 2015 at 1:06 PM ^
that song.
February 20th, 2015 at 3:07 PM ^
I think you're spot on regarding violence against men that's not reported. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of it suppressed by men themselves - the "be a man, don't complain" mentality runs strong and deep through society, even when things definitely cross the line into behavior that's actually illegal. Ending this idea that hitting men is somehow better than hitting women would be a great step for society as a whole.
February 20th, 2015 at 3:16 PM ^
Here is the link instead.
February 20th, 2015 at 8:00 PM ^
If you assume that people aren't stepping in because the woman is incapable of hurting the man, but are stepping in because the man is capable of hurting the woman.
February 21st, 2015 at 5:18 AM ^
February 20th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
There are plenty of REASONS to hit anyone. Very few of them are good reasons, but I would respectfully disagree when someone says one should NEVER hit a woman or there is never an excuse. It feels good to say NEVER and NO EXCUSE, but I think if we are honest we can all think of several situations in which using physical force would be appropriate. This goes for men and women.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^
I'd have to agree. If you are in fear of your life, you have the right to defend yourself. All depends on the situation, and the law (I don't think...I'm no lawyer) probably doesn't recognize sex of the person if you're being threatend for your life.
Now, that said...no idea if that thought applies to this situation at all.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^
Yea I don't recall the details of what happened, but from what I remember it sounded like violence wasn't necessary.
February 20th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
I hate linking them, but here goes.
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2014/11/1…
February 20th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^
Of course the freep has a detailed report.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:49 AM ^
don't need to be in fear of your life, you just can't take action more drastic than the original threat to yourself and/or more significant than was necessary to end the threat.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
let's talk this out, genuinely:
- you get punched, you are permitted to punch back to end the threat. This assumes you are better puncher than the person who initiated.
Suppose you are not a good puncher? Is using a baseball bat permitted? Hitting them in the head, injuring them? Suppose initiating puncher is really good at the punching, he/she is doing significant damage.
It may be obvious where I'm going to end up, but suppose you are also bad with baseball bats, but good with firearms. OK to use said firearm to end the threat, if you're intent is not lethal?
You're hypothetical only works if you have a force available to you that is similar to the one being applied against you, but also superior enough to stop that applied force. So in practice you must take action more significant (at least in terms of effectiveness) than the original threat, or else you will not end the assault.
February 20th, 2015 at 12:10 PM ^
requires you to make these distinctions reasonably, even though it may not be all that plausible in theory. If you get sucker punched and there is obviously no intent from the puncher to inlfict any more damage than you have no legal right to punch back even though you may really, REALLY want to. if the puncher is walking away or playing Madden by the time you can hit him back your out of luck, and any action you take against him would be considered assault/battery.
Now if the puncher is a really good puncher and intends to keep punching, but, wouldn't you know if, there is a gun within reach, you would probably be permitted to assume the worst about the punchers intentions and use said gun, although I would advise aiming at the punchers knee cap and not all that much higher, less you want to seriously complicate the matter for yourself.
That is the problem with the emerging GUNS GUNS GUNS culture, the assumption that you can defend yourself with a gun to whatever extent you feel like. If you bring a gun to the party you better have made these calculations in your head before you use it because it isn't all good just because you were not the aggressor.
Now if the puncher is in your house to your surprise without invite or warning, fire away, have a ball.
February 20th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^
I think you make too broad an assumption about the GUNS GUNS GUNS culture, as you're perjorative indicates. Some individuals act as you claim, and these cases tend to make national news due to their sensationalism, controversy, and ratings. Many who carry guns who've faced the same situaiton have aimed for non-lethal areas. But you know the next point, right? It's not always feasible. Guy's on top of me, beating the hell out of me, I feel like I might die (even if the damage being inflicted really isn't moving toward lethal), I have a means to protect myself and I need to fire. Aiming to a preferred area isn't possible.
These are the questions people avoid when grandstanding one way or the other. Not accusing you of that. I've never owned a gun myself, only shot one once at range, and never intend to own one.