OldFriends4Sale said:

RodeoSchro said:

There's no way we can justify that man hitting that woman, short of her presenting a life-threatening situation to him.

Men do not hit women. EVER.

I think you mean "Men should not hit women. Ever" Because this clip shows men do

But I totally disagree with this, You're coming from the traditional stance that women are weaker and men brutally stronger, women are little pretty fragile things full of emotion and men are emotionless slabs are hardness

So if a woman is punching you in the face or attacking you, because you are a man you should just take it until you can get away or someone get her away?

Yeah, I think everyone knows what I mean.

In answer to your last question - YES. If you've got to push her away, or grab and hold her, or run away - DO IT.

A man that would strike a woman is no man at all. Obviously I'm not referring to a life-threatening situation. And this wasn't a life-threatening situation.

I do not respect anyone that thinks it's ever OK for a man to hit a woman. Not one iota.

And I'll tell you this - if I ever met that bus driver, I'd knock him the fuck out.

TonyVanDam said:

it was the woman that physically assaulted the male bus driver first. She is not the victim; HE is.

We agree there. But that's not the "end of story".

The end o fstory is that he handled completely wrong.

Come on Tony, at least we could also agree on THAT?!

What he did was not self defense, it was retaliation.

There's a big difference.

OldFriends4Sale said:

JustErin said:

It really is pretty sad that so many seem to not get it.

But it's not surprising really.

a lot of people get it, but because this situation, and many peoples ideals are very imbalanced That's why this situation is bringing out a lot of issues of gender equality

Some people are saying this should not have happened just because she is a woman, some say because he is a public servant and should have followed protocal, some are bringing in other factors why it should not have happened, some just aren't looking at all the different factors and conclude that in no circumstances should a woman ever be hit

neither of them should have had to experienced what they did.

neither of them should have done what they did

he will pay for what he did, she won't

[Edited 10/25/12 11:48am]

Are you sure about that OldFriends?

1. The bus driver was only suspended from the job, not fired. The company, RTA, had already planned to have him work another bus route.

2. The entire incident was digitally recorded uncut on the cameras installed on the bus. RTA and the company's lawyers already knows the whole story and they know that their bus driver did acted in self-defense (despite if he is allegedly "wrong" for the way he did it). The female passenger doesn't have a case at all. But of course, that's for the jury to decide if or when this case does go to court.

RodeoSchro said:

There's no way we can justify that man hitting that woman, short of her presenting a life-threatening situation to him.

This may be your opinion but it's not the law. If a woman beats up a man, he has the right to hit back, proportionally, in order to defend himself.

The busdriver didn't have ANY need nor RIGHT however to hit that woman like that. He was shameless. Like Carrie said: pure and simple retaliation. Or like Tony implied: forcing "respect".

[Edited 10/25/12 12:07pm]

CarrieMpls said:

What he did was not self defense, it was retaliation.

There's a big difference.

Yeah man, he clearly showed that it was payback.

TonyVanDam said:

1. The bus driver was only suspended from the job, not fired. The company, RTA, had already planned to have him work another bus route.

2. The entire incident was digitally recorded uncut on the cameras installed on the bus. RTA and the company's lawyers already knows the whole story and they know that their bus driver did acted in self-defense (despite if he is allegedly "wrong" for the way he did it). The female passenger doesn't have a case at all. But of course, that's for the jury to decide if or when this case does go to court.

Source?

CarrieMpls said:

What he did was not self defense, it was retaliation.

There's a big difference.

Hmmm....

How does one defend onself without retaliation? How do you expect the driver to effectively defend himself?

ForgottenPassword said:

CarrieMpls said:

What he did was not self defense, it was retaliation.

There's a big difference.

Hmmm....

How does one defend oneself without retaliation? How do you expect the driver to effectively defend himself?

In essence it's all really simple:

they were both wrong and should both be disciplined.

The only question is how

Tremolina said:

RodeoSchro said:

There's no way we can justify that man hitting that woman, short of her presenting a life-threatening situation to him.

This may be your opinion but it's not the law. If a woman beats up a man, he has the right to hit back, proportionally, in order to defend himself.

The busdriver didn't have ANY need nor RIGHT however to hit that woman like that. He was shameless. Like Carrie said: pure and simple retaliation. Or like Tony implied: forcing "respect".

[Edited 10/25/12 12:07pm]

It's Man Law.

A man, a REAL MAN, would never strike a woman. And a REAL MAN would beat the shit out of any guy that did.

I dated a girl in Atlanta 30 years ago that had been beaten up by an old boyfriend. She would never tell me who it was. I promise you that if I found met that guy today, I'd punch his lights out.

That's how strongly I feel about this.

That little jerk that struck my daughter is only able to walk today because he isn't 18. But I guarantee you this - he will NEVER strike my daughter again. And his dad will NEVER EVER be able to look me in the eye. He's a weasel and a liar, and so is his son. And I told him that right to his face.

Tremolina said:

TonyVanDam said:

it was the woman that physically assaulted the male bus driver first. She is not the victim; HE is.

We agree there. But that's not the "end of story".

The end o fstory is that he handled completely wrong.

Come on Tony, at least we could also agree on THAT?!

ForgottenPassword said:

CarrieMpls said:

What he did was not self defense, it was retaliation.

There's a big difference.

Hmmm....

How does one defend onself without retaliation? How do you expect the driver to effectively defend himself?

She assaulted and battered him which gives him the right to defend himself, prportionally.

but she did not do that in a way that justifies the potentially life threatening blow he gave her

SOLELY in retaliation

not in any way to "defend"himself.

ForgottenPassword said:

CarrieMpls said:

What he did was not self defense, it was retaliation.

There's a big difference.

Hmmm....

How does one defend onself without retaliation? How do you expect the driver to effectively defend himself?

Pull over the bus, get off, call the police.

TonyVanDam said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

a lot of people get it, but because this situation, and many peoples ideals are very imbalanced That's why this situation is bringing out a lot of issues of gender equality

Some people are saying this should not have happened just because she is a woman, some say because he is a public servant and should have followed protocal, some are bringing in other factors why it should not have happened, some just aren't looking at all the different factors and conclude that in no circumstances should a woman ever be hit

neither of them should have had to experienced what they did.

neither of them should have done what they did

he will pay for what he did, she won't

[Edited 10/25/12 11:48am]

Are you sure about that OldFriends?

1. The bus driver was only suspended from the job, not fired. The company, RTA, had already planned to have him work another bus route.

2. The entire incident was digitally recorded uncut on the cameras installed on the bus. RTA and the company's lawyers already knows the whole story and they know that their bus driver did acted in self-defense (despite if he is allegedly "wrong" for the way he did it). The female passenger doesn't have a case at all. But of course, that's for the jury to decide if or when this case does go to court.

1st off everyone seeing this video in the world, and on that news channel have condemned him (Men are not supposed to hit women under any condition)

Suspended with or without pay, without pay thats a loss for him

It didn't go to court yet?

I thought he was already Pokeno4Money posted:

Just a brief followup to this story:

It apparently started when the female didn't pay the fare upon boarding the bus. The driver is 59 years old and claims she spit on his face and grabbed his throat. He was charged with assault, she was charged with disorderly conduct. He can get a maximum 6 months in jail, she can get a maximum of 30 days

Stymie said:

ForgottenPassword said:

Hmmm....

How does one defend onself without retaliation? How do you expect the driver to effectively defend himself?

Pull over the bus, get off, call the police.

RodeoSchro said:

It's Man Law.

I know that, but that is not "the law". ( tho'it may be sometimes in your parts )

I'm sorry to hear about your daughter. (And if I may suggest: put it in the hands of God)

Stymie said:

ForgottenPassword said:

Hmmm....

How does one defend onself without retaliation? How do you expect the driver to effectively defend himself?

Pull over the bus, get off, call the police.

Which is probably also protocol and therefore may be expected from him.

TonyVanDam said:

Tremolina said:

We agree there. But that's not the "end of story".

The end o fstory is that he handled completely wrong.

Come on Tony, at least we could also agree on THAT?!

Come on man, that's OBVIOUS.

"Man Law"

A "real man" this and a "real man" that.

I'm laughing pretty hard here but really, it's fucking scary the way some people think and rationalize some things.

fucked.up.major.

Tremolina said:

In essence it's all really simple:

they were both wrong and should both be disciplined.

The only question is how

Anger management.

JustErin said:

"Man Law"

A "real man" this and a "real man" that.

I'm laughing pretty hard here but really, it's fucking scary the way some people think and rationalize some things.

fucked.up.major.

I know! Can you believe some people think it's OK for a man to hit a woman?!? They've either not ever met a real man, or something. Who knows?

It's weird. Even weirder than thinking you can get married to someone and then go live in separate houses, LOL.

Tremolina said:

RodeoSchro said:

It's Man Law.

I know that, but that is not "the law". ( tho'it may be sometimes in your parts )

I'm sorry to hear about your daughter. (And if I may suggest: put it in the hands of God)

LOL, even I laughed when I typed "Man Law". All I could think of was those beer commercials!

I've prayed for the kid and his dad. They go to the church I used to attend, and I've spoken to the youth pastor about them.

[Edited 10/25/12 12:27pm]

RodeoSchro said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

I think you mean "Men should not hit women. Ever" Because this clip shows men do

But I totally disagree with this, You're coming from the traditional stance that women are weaker and men brutally stronger, women are little pretty fragile things full of emotion and men are emotionless slabs are hardness

So if a woman is punching you in the face or attacking you, because you are a man you should just take it until you can get away or someone get her away?

Yeah, I think everyone knows what I mean.

In answer to your last question - YES. If you've got to push her away, or grab and hold her, or run away - DO IT.

A man that would strike a woman is no man at all. Obviously I'm not referring to a life-threatening situation. And this wasn't a life-threatening situation.

I do not respect anyone that thinks it's ever OK for a man to hit a woman. Not one iota.

And I'll tell you this - if I ever met that bus driver, I'd knock him the fuck out.

No one should hit anyone for no reason. In this instance though, dude was stupid for giving her a Mortal Kombat uppercut.

Timmy84 said:

Tremolina said:

In essence it's all really simple:

they were both wrong and should both be disciplined.

The only question is how

Anger management.

Good idea!. Charlie Sheen 24/7 for 3 months?

Tremolina said:

Timmy84 said:

Anger management.

Good idea!. Charlie Sheen 24/7 for 3 months?

We're not talking about drug rehab. They both made end up drinking tiger blood and describe anything they do as "winning".

RodeoSchro said:

Tremolina said:

This may be your opinion but it's not the law. If a woman beats up a man, he has the right to hit back, proportionally, in order to defend himself.

The busdriver didn't have ANY need nor RIGHT however to hit that woman like that. He was shameless. Like Carrie said: pure and simple retaliation. Or like Tony implied: forcing "respect".

[Edited 10/25/12 12:07pm]

It's Man Law.

A man, a REAL MAN, would never strike a woman. And a REAL MAN would beat the shit out of any guy that did.

I dated a girl in Atlanta 30 years ago that had been beaten up by an old boyfriend. She would never tell me who it was. I promise you that if I found met that guy today, I'd punch his lights out.

That's how strongly I feel about this.

That little jerk that struck my daughter is only able to walk today because he isn't 18. But I guarantee you this - he will NEVER strike my daughter again. And his dad will NEVER EVER be able to look me in the eye. He's a weasel and a liar, and so is his son. And I told him that right to his face.

Come back 2 reality... what Law of Man said a man can't hit a woman?

Judge Judith Scheinland: Woman takes man to court because he hit her, caused a cut or broke glasses or something, the Judge breaks down both parties with questions... Oh she pushed him or hit him (1st) Judge looks at the woman and says 'what do you want me to do, U CAN'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON ANOTHER PERSON(never brought up gender) case is dismissed

I've seen a good number of these cases and the women usually see nothing wrong with what they did, causing the judge to rip them apart

Same with the ones who expect the man to pay child support but don't think they have to pay even if he has the child 50% or more of the time.

What Law of Man are you talking about? Sources?

And a real Lady would never put her hands on a man

Defending someone is one thing, I'd defend brother sister cousin mother father nephews aunts male friends or female (gender has nothing to do with it)

And if you beat the shit out of the guy, you would be guilty and be prosecuted under the Law of Man

the situation with (your daughter) would possibly be treated differently, because of the relationship and how/when you acted, if you walked in on your daughter being abused is one thing, you premeditating what you're going to do and do it is another

RodeoSchro said:

Tremolina said:

This may be your opinion but it's not the law. If a woman beats up a man, he has the right to hit back, proportionally, in order to defend himself.

The busdriver didn't have ANY need nor RIGHT however to hit that woman like that. He was shameless. Like Carrie said: pure and simple retaliation. Or like Tony implied: forcing "respect".

[Edited 10/25/12 12:07pm]

It's Man Law.

A man, a REAL MAN, would never strike a woman. And a REAL MAN would beat the shit out of any guy that did.

I dated a girl in Atlanta 30 years ago that had been beaten up by an old boyfriend. She would never tell me who it was. I promise you that if I found met that guy today, I'd punch his lights out.

That's how strongly I feel about this.

That little jerk that struck my daughter is only able to walk today because he isn't 18. But I guarantee you this - he will NEVER strike my daughter again. And his dad will NEVER EVER be able to look me in the eye. He's a weasel and a liar, and so is his son. And I told him that right to his face.

1. A woman, a REAL WOMAN, would never show unlady-like conduct by physically striking first.

2. A man. a REAL MAN that takes the value of manhood seriously, would never stand there like a spineless coward and allow himself to be physically attack by another man, woman, OR beast.

OldFriends4Sale said:

RodeoSchro said:

It's Man Law.

A man, a REAL MAN, would never strike a woman. And a REAL MAN would beat the shit out of any guy that did.

I dated a girl in Atlanta 30 years ago that had been beaten up by an old boyfriend. She would never tell me who it was. I promise you that if I found met that guy today, I'd punch his lights out.

That's how strongly I feel about this.

That little jerk that struck my daughter is only able to walk today because he isn't 18. But I guarantee you this - he will NEVER strike my daughter again. And his dad will NEVER EVER be able to look me in the eye. He's a weasel and a liar, and so is his son. And I told him that right to his face.

Come back 2 reality... what Law of Man said a man can't hit a woman?

Judge Judith Scheinland: Woman takes man to court because he hit her, caused a cut or broke glasses or something, the Judge breaks down both parties with questions... Oh she pushed him or hit him (1st) Judge looks at the woman and says 'what do you want me to do, U CAN'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON ANOTHER PERSON(never brought up gender) case is dismissed

I've seen a good number of these cases and the women usually see nothing wrong with what they did, causing the judge to rip them apart

Same with the ones who expect the man to pay child support but don't think they have to pay even if he has the child 50% or more of the time.

What Law of Man are you talking about? Sources?

And a real Lady would never put her hands on a man

Defending someone is one thing, I'd defend brother sister cousin mother father nephews aunts male friends or female (gender has nothing to do with it)

And if you beat the shit out of the guy, you would be guilty and be prosecuted under the Law of Man

the situation with (your daughter) would possibly be treated differently, because of the relationship and how/when you acted, if you walked in on your daughter being abused is one thing, you premeditating what you're going to do and do it is another

Everybody always talks about "real" this and "real" that. Common sense is look, you shouldn't hit anyone for any reason and if you do get hit, feel free to hit back. That's what is meant by self defense. It's stupid to actually make this a case about gender because this is how the media plays it. The woman's always the victim no matter what she does though the man was still at fault for the hit (so both parties are guilty). She spit at him and pushed him (which is just as wrong), if he called the cops on her for harassment and abuse, we wouldn't be talking about this.

TonyVanDam said:

RodeoSchro said:

It's Man Law.

A man, a REAL MAN, would never strike a woman. And a REAL MAN would beat the shit out of any guy that did.

I dated a girl in Atlanta 30 years ago that had been beaten up by an old boyfriend. She would never tell me who it was. I promise you that if I found met that guy today, I'd punch his lights out.

That's how strongly I feel about this.

That little jerk that struck my daughter is only able to walk today because he isn't 18. But I guarantee you this - he will NEVER strike my daughter again. And his dad will NEVER EVER be able to look me in the eye. He's a weasel and a liar, and so is his son. And I told him that right to his face.

1. A woman, a REAL WOMAN, would never show unlady-like conduct by physically striking first.

2. A man. a REAL MAN that takes the value of manhood seriously, would never stand there like a spineless coward and allow himself to be physically attack by another man, woman, OR beast.

Tony, any man that strikes a woman for any reason other than to prevent her from killing him is a pussy.

There it is.