Again.

Pulling broad definitions off the web does not take into account the circumstances or the specifics of a particular case.

TD3 said:

Again.

Pulling broad definitions off the web does not take into account the circumstances or the specifics of a particular case.

Again? Did you see post #85? That was your moderator's web definition, and I responded.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

TD3 said:

Again.

Pulling broad definitions off the web does not take into account the circumstances or the specifics of a particular case.

Again? Did you see post #85? That was your moderator's web definition, and I responded.

That's why I didn't subscribe my post to anyone in particular. It makes me wince when I read broad definitions of the law applied without considering the specifics of any case; my reminder was general in nature.

TD3 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Again? Did you see post #85? That was your moderator's web definition, and I responded.

That's why I didn't subscribe my post to anyone in particular. It makes me wince when I read broad definitions of the law applied without considering the specifics of any case; my reminder was general in nature.

Understood. This is why I stated this case is for the judge to decide, but different states do have different constitutions for assault. That's all I was saying.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

TD3 said:

That's why I didn't subscribe my post to anyone in particular. It makes me wince when I read broad definitions of the law applied without considering the specifics of any case; my reminder was general in nature.

Understood. This is why I stated this case is for the judge to decide, but different states do have different constitutions for assault. That's all I was saying.

too.

OldFriends4Sale said:

people know what a hoodrat is, and yeah she was acting like a hoodrat

an older person would have to really go beyond the 10power of craziness for me to talk to them

the way she talked to that man in the video

hoodrats give a rats azz about age, they'll rob them, curse them, abuse them etc they don't discriminate

Following up on what OldFriends said, when dealing with hoodrats (male or female), one has to assume they're carrying. Here in the Bronx, I've seen too many cases of folks getting into it with these fools, and wind up beaten, maced, sliced with razors, stabbed with icepicks or worse. Hoodrats have no morals and don't follow any rules. So if some lowlife street trash makes threatening moves towards me, I won't hesitate to take them down (regardless of gender) and pin them until the cops come. I'll deal with the consequences later, but at least I'm alive.

uPtoWnNY said:

Following up on what OldFriends said, when dealing with hoodrats (male or female), one has to assume they're carrying. Here in the Bronx, I've seen too many cases of folks getting into it with these fools, and wind up beaten, maced, sliced with razors, stabbed with icepicks or worse. Hoodrats have no morals and don't follow any rules. So if some lowlife street trash makes threatening moves towards me, I won't hesitate to take them down (regardless of gender) and pin them until the cops come. I'll deal with the consequences later, but at least I'm alive.

Exactly. These comments about never hitting a woman belong on Leave it 2 Beaver.

I'll leave it at this. either protect yourself from harm....or get fucked up.

[Edited 10/27/12 6:01am]

The latter comments says a lot, pathetic. As I husband always says to our daughter listen very closely to what a male says, eventually they reveal their character or the lack therof.

==================

[Edited 10/27/12 7:35am]

How is protecting oneself from harm 'pathetic'?

TD3 said:

Again.

Pulling broad definitions off the web does not take into account the circumstances or the specifics of a particular case.

I did reply to your original post about that

it wasnt a broad general definition, it was from a Law site, calling it a broad definition off the web does not lessen my reason on posting it. I guess you know, and the lawyers who defined it at the site dont

and she was still an assailant

and I and anyone else knows that that law has to be worked within the context of each case

also knowing that each state has its own checks n balances

the purpose of posting those definitions where just to get an idea of what these 2 people may be dealing with as far as prosecutions are concerned

TD3 said:

The latter comments says a lot, pathetic. As I husband always says to our daughter listen very closely to what a male says, eventually they reveal their character or the lack therof.

==================

[Edited 10/27/12 7:35am]

dont raise hoodrat daughters then

Have you ever seen reality shows like Bad Girls Club & the Real House Wives...?

Why is it that these women tend to have no restraint when it come to putting their hands on another person?

Do you equate your daughters to that young woman in the video? do your daughters not pay their fair, do they curse and use foul language to others do they spit on people and put their hands on them?

This video was not some innocent person who got punched

Hoodrat rules tend to get hoodrat results

violence towards women is something totally different than this situation.

Dont judge every situation the same because it involves a woman, because that would be on the lines of being sexist

Beautifulstarr123 said:

It depends upon your state what constitutes assault. In NC, putting your hands on the individual is automatic assault, even without no injuries, just merely touching them.

In NY, injuries constitutes assault, but not only that, spitting on a individual is assault. Also, both parties would have been wheeled into the jailhouse. No excuses.

Waving a toy gun or gun period is menacing, according to NY law. Don't know Ohio laws, and that's for the judge to decide.

Yes, I know each state has different terms of the law

Most do have a similar general definition for it then break it down from their

From my understanding putting your hands on some as assault is very common

I said before in an earlier post that I seen a few tv court cases where I came to understand that putting your hands on someone in any way is assault and when people (in these cases women put their hands on a man and he struck back pushed(and she got hurt) etc he was found not guilty and she lost her case, it was always interesting that the women did not think it was wrong to put their hands on the man, they were always shocked at the verdict)

http://www.criminallawyer...lt-crimes/

Assault Crimes Defense Lawyers in Cleveland, Ohio

In Ohio, assault crimes are broken down into four basic categories; simple assault, negligent assault, felony assault, and aggravated assault.

In Ohio, a simple assault is when you were reckless or knew your actions could cause physical harm to someone else, including an unborn child. Negligent assault is when someone was injured but you acted without the intent to purposely harm another person.

Felony assault occurs when you caused serious injury to someone and/or hurt or attempted to harm someone with the use of a deadly weapon such as a gun, knife, bat, tire iron, etc Aggravated assault is considered slightly less severe than felonious assault in Ohio, while the criteria is the same, if you were “under the influence of sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage” you may be charged with aggravated assault instead of the much harsher felony assault.

Any assault charge in Ohio is a serious matter and can be terrifying. If you’re facing assault charges in Cleveland, Ohio, you should immediately get in touch with an attorney who specializes in assault crimes.

Cleveland, Ohio Assault Crimes Attorneys – Criminal Defense Law Firm

In Cleveland and throughout the state of Ohio the penalties for assault crimes can be quite severe. A simple assault charge could be considered a first degree misdemeanor and you could spend 6 months in jail and face fines up to $1,000.00.

If you commit a negligent assault on another person or unborn child in Ohio and are convicted you could pay a fine up to $500.00 and do up to 60 days in jail.

Felony assault convictions are taken very seriously in Ohio and could earn you up to 2-8 years in prison and fines up to $20,000.00. While the penalties for being convicted of aggravated assault could get you up to 6 years in prison and a fine up to $5,000.00.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

TD3 said:

That's why I didn't subscribe my post to anyone in particular. It makes me wince when I read broad definitions of the law applied without considering the specifics of any case; my reminder was general in nature.

Understood. This is why I stated this case is for the judge to decide, but different states do have different constitutions for assault. That's all I was saying.

TD3 your disregard that I did give consideration to the specifics, in and around the post I put the definition in, so your response is a bit snooty. you are also the person that made the situation racial whereas most others saw 2 people regardless of race

Beautifulstarr123, everyone knows that this would be a case for a judge to decide and for the bus driver he would have to deal with his employers verdict as well

uPtoWnNY said:

How is protecting oneself from harm 'pathetic'?

because some people dont think a man should ever put his hands on a woman, no matter what

I still wonder who people would respond if it was an older female bus driver

OldFriends4Sale said:

uPtoWnNY said:

How is protecting oneself from harm 'pathetic'?

because some people dont think a man should ever put his hands on a woman, no matter what

I still wonder who people would respond if it was an older female bus driver

That's what I was wondering too. Since apparently men can't hit women back in self-defense despite what the woman did according to some folks (though some have contradicted themselves in their responses. *coughRodeocough*)

Timmy84 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

TD3 said:

Again.

Pulling broad definitions off the web does not take into account the circumstances or the specifics of a particular case.

Again? Did you see post #85? That was your moderator's web definition, and I responded.

If I pulled moderator status in this discussion I would be wrong

Its just as wrong to insert 'moderator's' in your train of thought

"That was OF4S who posted the web definition" is what you could have said

me being a Moderator has absolutely nothing to do with this nor are my beliefs outside of me being a huge Prince fan... I can be a Satanist Communist Mob Boss, as long as Im a Prince fan

and it was the definition of a Law site, not my definition

[Edited 10/27/12 16:11pm]

"Communist Mob Boss"

Timmy84 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

because some people dont think a man should ever put his hands on a woman, no matter what

I still wonder who people would respond if it was an older female bus driver

That's what I was wondering too. Since apparently men can't hit women back in self-defense despite what the woman did according to some folks (though some have contradicted themselves in their responses. *coughRodeocough*)

most of them are responding very legalistic,

very 'by the book'

most arent going to be honest all around because they do treat and view women unequally but wont admit it

When you watched the 1st video with the M & F newcasters, you can tell he felt a bit differently but knew that being on the news like that would have had people protesting his removal for saying anything opposite from the woman newscaster, he couldn

t just come out and say 'she got what she deserved' or 'she had no business putting her hands on him' etc

OldFriends4Sale said:

Timmy84 said:

That's what I was wondering too. Since apparently men can't hit women back in self-defense despite what the woman did according to some folks (though some have contradicted themselves in their responses. *coughRodeocough*)

most of them are responding very legalistic,

very 'by the book'

most arent going to be honest all around because they do treat and view women unequally but wont admit it

When you watched the 1st video with the M & F newcasters, you can tell he felt a bit differently but knew that being on the news like that would have had people protesting his removal for saying anything opposite from the woman newscaster, he couldn

t just come out and say 'she got what she deserved' or 'she had no business putting her hands on him' etc

Right. That's what happens when things grow politically correct. In a way I can understand but what may happen in one case doesn't always happen in cases when men and women hit each other.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Again? Did you see post #85? That was your moderator's web definition, and I responded.

If I pulled moderator status in this discussion I would be wrong

Its just as wrong to insert 'moderator's' in your like

That was OF4S who posted the web definition is what you could have said

me being a Moderator has absolutely nothing to do with this nore are my beliefs outside of me being a huge Prince fan... I can be a Satanist Communist Mob Boss, as long as I

m a Prince fan

and it was the definition of a Law site, not my definition

Have it your way, Gotti

Timmy84 said:

"Communist Mob Boss"

ehhh dont 4get Satanist

OldFriends4Sale said:

Timmy84 said:

"Communist Mob Boss"

ehhh dont 4get Satanist

Timmy84 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

because some people dont think a man should ever put his hands on a woman, no matter what

I still wonder who people would respond if it was an older female bus driver

That's what I was wondering too. Since apparently men can't hit women back in self-defense despite what the woman did according to some folks (though some have contradicted themselves in their responses. *coughRodeocough*)

I haven't contradicted myself at all. I'm frankly amazed that some think by "Men don't hit women - EVER" that meant "even in life-threatening situations". It meant that a man does not strike a woman unless his life is in danger.

It was directed at those who were commenting that it was OK to hit a woman if they hit you. That if a woman wanted to act like a man, she should be prepared to get her ass whooped like a man.

You dudes need to read some Westerns, fast!

RodeoSchro said:

Timmy84 said:

That's what I was wondering too. Since apparently men can't hit women back in self-defense despite what the woman did according to some folks (though some have contradicted themselves in their responses. *coughRodeocough*)

I haven't contradicted myself at all. I'm frankly amazed that some think by "Men don't hit women - EVER" that meant "even in life-threatening situations". It meant that a man does not strike a woman unless his life is in danger.

2.)It was directed at those who were commenting that it was OK to hit a woman if they hit you. That if a woman wanted to act like a man, she should be prepared to get her ass whooped like a man.

You dudes need to read some Westerns, fast!

lol my point exactly that u contradict yourself

Westerns? seriously (the time of the playground rules and when women were definately not seen as equal to men or could not vote lol)

the Law disagrees with your 2nd point

[Edited 10/28/12 8:49am]

RodeoSchro said:

Timmy84 said:

That's what I was wondering too. Since apparently men can't hit women back in self-defense despite what the woman did according to some folks (though some have contradicted themselves in their responses. *coughRodeocough*)

I haven't contradicted myself at all. I'm frankly amazed that some think by "Men don't hit women - EVER" that meant "even in life-threatening situations". It meant that a man does not strike a woman unless his life is in danger.

It was directed at those who were commenting that it was OK to hit a woman if they hit you. That if a woman wanted to act like a man, she should be prepared to get her ass whooped like a man.

You dudes need to read some Westerns, fast!

Dude I like Western films. What ARE you going on about man? I'm with OF4S, the law doesn't agree with your theory. Hippie.

Stymie said:

Stop the bus, pull over and call the police.

exactly. what's upsetting is he's entertaining that stupid argument not even giving a damn he's driving and may well endanger the lives of those riding with him. he could've most likely, if not surly, avoided all that had he acted like a responsible driver above anything else.

Timmy84 said:

RodeoSchro said:

I haven't contradicted myself at all. I'm frankly amazed that some think by "Men don't hit women - EVER" that meant "even in life-threatening situations". It meant that a man does not strike a woman unless his life is in danger.

It was directed at those who were commenting that it was OK to hit a woman if they hit you. That if a woman wanted to act like a man, she should be prepared to get her ass whooped like a man.

You dudes need to read some Westerns, fast!

Dude I like Western films. What ARE you going on about man? I'm with OF4S, the law doesn't agree with your theory. Hippie.

We're not talking about the same thing.

OK ladies, here is the deal:

If you are ever with me, or a man like me, you do not ever, ever, EVER have to worry that I/we would ever strike you (unless you were trying to kill us, but we're such great men that would never happen, so you really have absolutely no worries at all). You will always be safe.

If you are with people who think no one should ever hit anyone, then you should also feel safe. Unless, of course, you're attacked by someone who has no problem hitting other people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those kind of people. In that case, the person with you probably has no idea what self-defense is, and you're screwed. So stay away from dark alleys, speakeasies, pool halls, drug dens, and probably people in general.

If you are with someone that thinks men and women's equality extends to physicality, and if a woman wants to act like a man then she'd better be ready to get hit like a man, well all I can say is - RUN.

Now - where are my love beads and puka shell necklaces?!?

Pokeno4Money said:

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhTq85Q0SUro3x38mr

Seems like the majority of the people on the bus were happy that the older bus driver clocked the 25-year-old female after she spit on him and hit him. Most of the people who have commented are supportive of the bus driver, too.

Personally I think the guy was wrong for doing what he did, it's not like he was ever in danger of being seriously hurt. If I was in his shoes, I would have definitely kicked the female off the bus. But punch her in the head with a vicious uppercut? No, too excessive.

(Edited to embed video)

[Edited 10/23/12 5:57am]

I agree with this lady journalist that we don't know what traspired between those two before we saw the video. Some city bus drivers can be downright nasty and unprofessional