she rejected him

Where do you get this from?

Hexbear is the most trans-inclusive and minority respectful internet community I've ever been to. I keep seeing people talking about it like it's the gateway to hell but it's usually a pretty friendly place when I've gone there, they just have... unorthodox politics and don't back down when pressed. First time I went there I was a little disappointed to find it wasn't full of demons gnawing on the bones of the innocent but was actually just a pretty chill place. And their news megathread has a lot people from 3rd world countries posting world news I don't see other places which is mainly why I keep checking in there.

🤷‍♀️ if you hate women you'd probably say that, they probably have the highest numbers of women as a percentage of active users

I see a man defending her invasions of his space in close to the most non-violent way possible.

I would love to enact his form of nonviolence on you

Of course you can't judge without context: we can't understand. We don't know their relationship, their history, nor what they say to each other.

Context may make thing even worse for the guy? Or maybe his reaction is, still not pardonable, but more understandable with the context?

Getting the context doesn't mean your favorit side will loose anything. But judging without context is accepting to deliver unfair judgements.

You're a misogynist, woman are capable of aggression.

She invades his space, trying to grab his drink. That's primary aggression. She approaches him (!) with a bottle in hand, that's a threat with a dangerous weapon.

Meanwhile he:

Throws drink in face (unnecessary but not dangerous) Repeatedly tries to back up while she appraoches. Pushes her to regain personal space (most non-violent possible reaction)

He's insane for escalating so extremely, but that drink went towards his mouth before she grabbed.

You're on crack.. In no world is her repeatedly invading his space, even with a dangerous weapon in hand, "preventative". She kept moving forward, he kept backing up.

Honestly, people unable to see her aggression because she's a woman are fucking misogynists.

what did the lady do?

we see nothing to make her trashy in this video

Which initial attack?

The grabbing of the glass was unjustified, but not an attack. The throwing of the liquid at her was unjustified (but provoked), and also not an attack. The initial "attack" was when she stood up and began striking him in the face.

She was getting up

The rest of your comment on this point is irrelevant. She was knocked done because she had attacked him, and she was getting up before he had a chance to back away. If he reasonably believed she was getting up to continue striking him, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.

You can at this point only speculate that she was trying to attack not really prove it.

Correct. Absolutely correct. I can't prove it; he can't prove it. But, if you look at the laws governing use of force, he doesn't have to conclusively proven her intention to continue the attack. All that has to be shown is that a reasonable person in his position would believe she continued to pose a threat, and he is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop that threat.

With him on trial, I don't have to prove she intended to continue her attack. With him on trial, you have to prove his belief that she would attack is unreasonable, and/or that the kick was more force than was necessary to stop that attack. Unless he confesses that his intent here was to cause harm rather than to stop her from causing harm, I don't think that burden can be met.

I think nevertheless kicking someone without the clear intention of equivalent physical harm can not be justified.

That is incorrect. The standard is not "clear intention". The standard is "reasonable belief". As soon as she began striking him, she opened the door to a reasonable use of force to stop the threat she posed.

Weak bait. Go sit in your corner stupid boy.

The kick is assault.

Battery, but that's a fairly minor distinction. I will admit that the kick really pissed me off.

But, the kick came as she was getting back up from being justifiably shoved away after having lunged over the table and striking him unjustifiably. He could argue he believed she was getting up to continue striking him, and that the kick was only to keep her from further attacking him while he retreated. If he shuts up and lets his lawyer explain that, it probably won't be considered unjustifiable. It would probably be considered reasonable doubt. The kick will be hardest to explain, but it is certainly possible.

Funny seeing you in here pointing fingers at others. There are more people out there that recognize misogyny than myself.

Are you defending the guy in the video as well?

Love that I live rent free in your head <3

I ignored this comment because I didn't know what the hell you were talking about but now I realize you're just a fuckin idiot.

There’s zero things that are “dick moves” that justify the use of potentially deadly force. She could have fallen and hit her head and gotten a traumatic brain injury and blows to the chest can cause your heart to stop. The very early could have been a snuff video

Well I think it's her drink. She later grabs the bottle from among her stuff on the table, where it would be placed had she poured the glass with her likely dominant right hand. Conjecture obviously, but her grabbing the bottle later also kind of shows she thinks of it as hers. And why else would she grab at the glass?

Also as you can see in the screenshot in the post body this is her rejecting him after their second date, so that is another indicator for a retaliatory motive on his part. Which would also explain the absolutely reckless level of violence he employs, literally kicking her when down and slamming her head into that bench at the end.

The law makes specific vs general intent very clear

Her touching his drink would be general. His exacting harm would be specific.

Bro what the fuck is wrong with you?

Of course it's a baby account. Coward.

The fuck are you on about? You've never been assaulted and it shows.

"Put their pride aside" my ass.

Yeah bro! Btches should be seen and not hear, amiright?

So maybe she's right? Lmfao.

He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.

If you want to say that, mark up the video with the escalation points. Its a 30s video, doesn't take long.

I put this lower down, but I counted four escalation points, and she owns 3/4 of them (drink grab, slap, weapon grab). He owns one of them (front kick).

I counted two de-escalation points. He grabs his phone and bag and tries to leave (at which point she's now brandishing a weapon). He leaves the situation at the very end, ending the scene. Two de-escalation points to him, none to her.

If you see things differently, mark up the video and we can have that conversation. Because what I see in this video is that she is the one with a "lack of control make(ing) themselves a danger to those around (them)". You need to put in some more effort and understand that a clear reading of a situation isn't misogyny, and that women are just as capable of violence as men, and when you lack context you need to evaluate based on the evidence you have, not the evidence you lack.

Misappropriating the real issue of misogyny in a situation where one person is clearly the aggressor doesn't support the fight against misogyny. It confuses and dilutes the potency of the issue when there is pretty clear evidence that one particular party initiated (which we agree), and then continued to escalate a situation.

He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.

The law is not interested in who has power and control. The law is interested in each individual's use of force, and whether that use of force was justified or unjustified.

1. She grabbed the glass. Was this justified or unjustified?
2. He spilled the drink on her. Was this justified or unjustified?
3. She lunged at him. Was this justified or unjustified?
4. He pushed her away; she tripped over her seat and fell to the floor. Was this justified or unjustified?
5. She tried to stand up, and he kicked her back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
6. He backed away from her and gathered his things. Was this justified or unjustified?
7. She picked up a beer bottle, and threatened him with it. Was this justified or unjustified?
8. He shoved her away from him; she again fell back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
9. He continued to gather his things and retreat. Was this justified or unjustified?

1. Unjustified.

2. Unjustified. These first two are tit-for-tat assaults. She instigated, he responded. At this point, both of them are disturbing the peace.

3. Unjustified.

4. Justified. You are justified in using physical force to stop a physical attack against you.

5. Could go either way. In her trial, this was an unjustified escalation on his part. In his trial, he was reasonably concerned she was continuing her previous attack, so he was justified in keeping her on the ground. In both cases, the defendant on trial is owed "reasonable doubt".

6. Obviously justified; he was de-escalating.

7. Completely unjustified: This would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. He was already in the process of retreating from her; she was not justified in commencing a new attack.

8. Completely justified by her assault. He used reasonable force to keep her from striking him with that bottle.

9. Obviously justified; he was again de-escalating.

Reading this thread, I am starting to think there are a lot of misogynists on Lemmy.

Which part of this analysis makes me a misogynist?

If someone grabs a bottle in an altercation, you don't wait for them to use it.

She attacks first and comes back a few times.

He could be lying?