Wayne Arnold
-
Posts
5,565 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wayne Arnold
-
-
You know what's funnier?
Florio doesn't get the joke:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/27/lesean-mccoy-changes-his-party-from-ladies-only/
Love the responses:
"hey big mouth hows the weather? it was beautiful in Philly yesterday. cant stand Kelly but understand why you were traded"
The weather has been lovely in Western New York lately, thanks for asking.
-
Dead money value of $16.2 million this year. Ouch!
-
we truly don't know what he will do in this scheme or how healthy he is, so it is a possibility he could contribute. He's got further to climb than others though because he wasn't at otas and he makes a solid paycheck that I'm sure they would love to allocate elsewhere.
I thought Chris Williams played better at tackle than at guard in St. Louis. Maybe he will be our starting RT if Kouandjio and Henderson can't step up.
-
You have 90 professional athletes on one team. Not every one of them is going to be the type of person you'd want your son to grow up being or your daughter to marry.
Gravitate toward the Fred Jackson's if you'd like and appreciate players like him more but Freddy and Kyle Williams are not the norm.
-
Yea, it's the dissecting of every throw or play. It got so bad last year wasn't Joe B saying something about Manuel hanging his head or something. I appreciate the media reporting on TC being an out of towner but not when they inject their opinions into the reporting. You can tell it's going to be bad this year with the over analysis of off-season workouts.
I asked Sal C about if he would be Pericoping any of the practices and apparently it's against NFL policy. I wonder if they'll keep fans from doing it.
I don't think it's the reporting that is as much an issue as the fan/public reaction to those reports.
You have to know how to take the reports depending on the personality and reporting history of each media member. Each need to be taken with a grain of salt and analyzed collectively - not individually. Many fans will take one single tweet/report from one single reporter and blow it completely out of proportion.
-
shady is certainly not what i have come to think of as "a bill" (the kyle, fred type).
Welp - considering our recent history (if you consider 15 years "recent") then that should be a good thing.
-
In the opinion of the prosecutor, the drunkard committed no crime.
"In the wide discretion of prosecutor Wille Meggs, those arguments have fallen flat.
Via the Tallahassee Democrat, Meggs believes that Johnson initiated the contact with the woman, and that the woman was acting in self-defense. She will face no charges.
“A person’s entitled to use self-defense if they’re being battered by someone else, and she certainly was entitled to do what she did,” Meggs said. “She didn’t commit a crime is the reason she’s not charged with a crime.”"
-
I'm not asking for your opinion on what the state of the law is. I'm asking if you see a moral distinction between the leniency you allow a woman and that which you allow a similarly situated male, and if so why.
I've intentionally kept away from the moral perspective in this thread because it's so relative and that's where the emotions come into play. If I was forced to answer your question I would say yes because men are generally bigger and stronger than women. But that isn't always the case so as always it should come down to contextual circumstances.
-
Why you give a female more leniency than you would a similarly situated male.
Well, first of all why would you assume that? Has there been another situation similar to this one where the victim was male and I did not defend him similarly?
Secondly, thanks to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, men and women are not always looked at as equals in the eyes of the law. I don't even think that applies in this case but that would be a reason for leniency in other similar cases.
-
You have no explanation either. Don't feel bad, no one does.
Actually, I take that back. I do, but I want to see if anyone else can get there without my help.
Explanation for what?
-
That's because some people mistake their feelings for thoughts.
I know you're not referring to me. I have no feelings.
-
He's offended by causality. DeAndre decked her because she called him an N and hit him in the face. That is the story as we know it.
Whether he was justified in decking her is a different matter which many people participating in this thread cannot seem to separate from DeAndre's motive.
But we don't know that she called him anything.
All we know is what we see on the video. Outside of that we're just speculating and/or making stuff up.
-
2 more hours, I can hardly wait! Like Christmas morning.
-
In general, I see most people here as saying "Johnson did something wrong" and "girl, independent of anything Johnson did, did something wrong" which I view as correct.
I will say that the words "you have a pretty good case of self defense IMO" seems pretty close to saying "the girl deserved to get punched"?
But perhaps the confusion results from the person posting not understanding the legal concept of "self defense"? I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding, the concept hinges on imminent threat of bodily harm for which less forceful responses are not reasonably available. That's the whole "if someone threatens you on your front lawn and you can reasonably run inside, lock your door, and call police, you don't get to haul out a gun and shoot them and claim self defense, but if they grab a tire iron, smash in your door, and enter the house whilst police are enroute, you can" bit?
"If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail."
Yeah, the girl did something wrong, but to assert "you have a pretty good case of self defense" as the post to which you're responding did, seems to me to come pretty close to saying the girl "had it coming to her" because she used "deadly force", no? I for one have trouble thinking "deadly force" about a girl tid-bit sitting on a bar stool throwing a wild punch at a football player who already has ahold of one of her arms.
Yeah, I tend to be leary of anyone who starts a post with "He decked her because she..."
-
So you don't understand the written word. There's a big leap from describing her role in the altercation and stating that she deserved to get cold cocked.
There's also a leap between stating people are using innuendo from the cold-cocker's lawyer as a tool "to make the victim look like she deserved what she got" and thinking or stating that the same posters really believe that she got what she deserved.
-
This. Though I'll admit the line between the two can be thin and blurry and it's hard to tell sometimes which side people are dancing on.
It seems to be Truth though, these days it's hard to point out personal responsibility which contributes to a situation without being tagged as "blaming the victim", a situation exacerbated by the fact that there is usually a good deal of actual "victim blaming" going on concurrently.
Good post.
I think you are lumping posters together who think she did something wrong (independently of Johnson doing something worse) and random posts that you feel implied that she deserved to be hit by Johnson. I say this because you respond to both the same way. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than I and others have. There is a difference, but you don't seem to see it. Gotta admit I find your post kind of insulting, for that reason.
Not at all. That's not my intent, sorry if my posts somehow come across that way.
-
Yes we do have to be literal, because not a single person excused the punch. But if Johnson stopped at the point of holding her wrist and then just pushed her away after she kneed and hit him, he'd be fine, and everyone would be talking about her being the instigator.
"No....he decked he because she raised her fist to him immediately and he grabbed her arm to prevent her swinging and she immediately swung with her other fist, followed immediately by his response. She started a sequence of events that would lead any reasonable person in that circumstance to conclude that it was to continue. Look at the video. She immediately took umbrage to him bumping into her and became aggressive. Add to that that she was probably drunk and you have a pretty good case of self defense, IMO."
That's just one example. There are others, including from one poster who called me a "white knight" for daring to defend this woman lol
-
i didn't see anyone say that in this thread?
Point to one post on this thread where someone said that she deserved what she got
Do we have to be so literal? Let's not be naive here. There is a whole lotta 'she had it comin to her' mentality in this thread.
-
So basically we gave away Stevie and threw in the Chiefs game for nothing?
-
Just fwiw, has there been any other source besides the moron's lawyer who said the drunk girl dropped the N-bomb? I would never believe a lawyer right off the bat on something like that.
No.
It's sad that people in this thread are using his lawyer's claims as a fact to make the victim look like she deserved what she got but not at all surprising.
-
I'm wondering how a thin black dude and chubby blonde girl ever got into it in the first place. This might be the first documented instance of discord between the two camps.
I don't think the tuck rule is applicable in US Courts, Matlock.
lol nicely done
-
So you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew she was pointing with her thumb and not making a fist?
I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. Since Johnson is the one who invaded her space by grabbing her wrist, Johnson's lawyers have to prove that she was acting with the intent to harm him. And since her arm/fist never moved forward, that will be extremely difficult to do.
-
He clutched her arm when she raised her fist. Then she hit him with her other fist.
So its your contention that the next time someone brushes passed me at a bar to get a drink that raising my fist and escalating the situation is both reasonable and self-defense? Have you ever been in a bar? Have you ever been in public?
So when a woman or anyone else raises her arm to point at the person behind her, it's officially open season on her face?
I can't wait for the next time a person waves at me. According to a couple of people on this forum I'm going to be within my legal right to grab his/her arm, clutch it until he/she is able to defend and get away then I'm going to bash his/her face in because it looked like the person was about to slap me!
-
He shouldn't have hit a female. He deserves to be off the team.
But she punched him. Why is that ok? Because she's a female? If it was a male who punched him & he hit him back, that's cool right? Why is it ok for a female to go around punching people? If she's Ronda Rousey, is it ok?
He made his bed and did something dumb. But she face consequences too. Everyone is going to point to his upbringing. What about a sloppy drunk chick who thinks its ok to punch someone?
It's ok from a legal standpoint because she was acting in self-defense. Why is this so difficult for some of you to grasp? He was creating apprehension by invading her space in the form of reaching for her arm and clutching it against her will. By definition, that is assault. And that was before his punch even occurred.
Look - no one thinks this girl is an angel on Earth. My daughters are both under 5 but 15 years from now I'll show them this video as a demonstration for how to not act in bars.
And I think it speaks volumes that no one here has been able to give me an answer as to what she could possibly be charged with.
Bart Scott to mentor Reggie Ragland!
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by Wayne Arnold
https://twitter.com/BartScott57/status/554047900729483264