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.

Really, this "un-lady" like and "value of manhood" talk is such bullshit.

A real PERSON would never fucking lay a hand on ANYONE unless it was legitimate self defense and their life was in real danger.

A real PERSON would never believe that vigilante justice is ever acceptable and those that think it is (and do respond in that way) should be prosecuted and treated like the true criminal that they are as well.

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

Yep, I'd be prosecuted if I punched out some dude that hit a girl. And - at least here in Texas - I'd be found not guilty in about 5 seconds.

I guess we just respect women more down here.

Timmy84 said:

Tremolina said:

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".

To me they both seem to be high on tiger blood and thinking they are winning, but perhabs you are right. How about 1 year 24/7 of "Friends"?

TonyVanDam said:

Stymie said:

Pathetic.

I'm pathetic?!? Excusing f***ing you, but you're the one that has been pathetic (IMDHO) for thinking that male bus driver was suppose to take the abuse of being pushed and not defend himself at all. It's one thing for you to strongly disagree with me. But to call me pathetic because I choose to stand by my words AND answered you question with a counter question of my own just proves to me that you can NOT handled the fact that I do not see things the exact same way that you do.

Just re-watch the damn video to remind yourself that it was the woman that physically assaulted the male bus driver first. She is not the victim; HE is. Period. End of story.

I said pathetic because you called her a hoodrat bitch. Shows your mentality towards women.

He was pushed. His pride was hurt. Big deal. He didn't defend himself, he defended his pride.

Tremolina said:

Timmy84 said:

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

To me they both seem to be high on tiger blood and thinking they are winning, but perhabs you are right. How about 1 year 24/7 of "Friends"?

Make 'em watch "Barney the Dinosaur" LOL.

OldFriends4Sale said:

TonyVanDam said:

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

If this is about fairness, she should have been charged with assault as well.

JustErin said:

TonyVanDam said:

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.

Really, this "un-lady" like and "value of manhood" talk is such bullshit.

A real PERSON would never fucking lay a hand on ANYONE unless it was legitimate self defense and their life was in real danger.

A real PERSON would never believe that vigilante justice is ever acceptable and those that think it is (and do respond in that way) should be prosecuted and treated like the true criminal that they are as well.

Aren't you a hockey fan?

JustErin said:

TonyVanDam said:

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.

Really, this "un-lady" like and "value of manhood" talk is such bullshit.

A real PERSON would never fucking lay a hand on ANYONE unless it was legitimate self defense and their life was in real danger.

A real PERSON would never believe that vigilante justice is ever acceptable and those that think it is (and do respond in that way) should be prosecuted and treated like the true criminal that they are as well.

You should go into politics. Or media. Or maybe law.

RodeoSchro said:

TonyVanDam said:

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.

So basically, you condone women beating on men? Is that what you are trying to sell to us in this thread?

RodeoSchro said:

JustErin said:

Really, this "un-lady" like and "value of manhood" talk is such bullshit.

A real PERSON would never fucking lay a hand on ANYONE unless it was legitimate self defense and their life was in real danger.

A real PERSON would never believe that vigilante justice is ever acceptable and those that think it is (and do respond in that way) should be prosecuted and treated like the true criminal that they are as well.

Aren't you a hockey fan?

What the hell are you talking about?

JustErin said:

TonyVanDam said:

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.

Really, this "un-lady" like and "value of manhood" talk is such bullshit.

A real PERSON would never fucking lay a hand on ANYONE unless it was legitimate self defense and their life was in real danger.

A real PERSON would never believe that vigilante justice is ever acceptable and those that think it is (and do respond in that way) should be prosecuted and treated like the true criminal that they are as well.

I agree 100% No one should be laying hands to cause harm on anyone.

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.

That's easy to say on the org. But in real life when one's getting attacked, such composure in the face of abuse and aggression is frankly unlikely.

JustErin said:

RodeoSchro said:

Aren't you a hockey fan?

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm asking you if you're a hockey fan.

TonyVanDam said:

RodeoSchro said:

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

There it is.

So basically, you condone women beating on men? Is that what you are trying to sell to us in this thread?

No and no.

CarrieMpls said:

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

There's a big difference.

true, but I don't think retaliating is a crime in itself unless after this happened and he came after her

the courts will definately have to try this (if they haven't already)

If he hit her while sitting right after she put her hands on him, would you see his action as justified.

Is it the stopping the bus and hitting her that makes it (not self defense)?

re·tal·i·ate (r-tl-t)

RodeoSchro said:

JustErin said:

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm asking you if you're a hockey fan.

Oh right, because I'm fron Canada I must be a hockey fan.

Um, no. I'm not.

OldFriends4Sale said:

CarrieMpls said:

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

There's a big difference.

true, but I don't think retaliating is a crime in itself unless after this happened and he came after her

the courts will definately have to try this (if they haven't already)

If he hit her while sitting right after she put her hands on him, would you see his action as justified.

Is it the stopping the bus and hitting her that makes it (not self defense)?

re·tal·i·ate (r-tl-t)

v. re·tal·i·at·ed, re·tal·i·at·ing, re·tal·i·ates

v.intr.

To return like for like, especially evil for evil.

v.tr.

To pay back (an injury) in kind.

Retaliation is not the same thing as self defense.

This case is a daily case in court. Both were wrong, both get convicted.

Tremolina said:

Timmy84 said:

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

To me they both seem to be high on tiger blood and thinking they are winning, but perhabs you are right. How about 1 year 24/7 of "Friends"?

I wonder what box of "Friends" they would be though?

RodeoSchro said:

Tremolina said:

To me they both seem to be high on tiger blood and thinking they are winning, but perhabs you are right. How about 1 year 24/7 of "Friends"?

Make 'em watch "Barney the Dinosaur" LOL.

That'll make them wanna kill each other... Spongebob would be more appropriate. Least it'll make them eat burgers together after watching Spongebob literally feed all his customers with Krusty Crab patties.

JustErin said:

RodeoSchro said:

I'm asking you if you're a hockey fan.

Oh right, because I'm fron Canada I must be a hockey fan.

Um, no. I'm not.

Don't flatter yourself.

I'm asking because I thought I remembered us having a conversation about fighting once, and I thought I remembered being surprised that you were a hockey fan - the one sport that condones fighting.

But if you're not a hockey fan, then never mind.

ForgottenPassword said:

Stymie said:

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

That's easy to say on the org. But in real life when one's getting attacked, such composure in the face of abuse and aggression is frankly unlikely.

Yep. People sometimes go on the heat of the moment and that's a bad idea. It was an unfortunate situation but I hope both parties do learn from this.

RodeoSchro said:

JustErin said:

Oh right, because I'm fron Canada I must be a hockey fan.

Um, no. I'm not.

Don't flatter yourself.

I'm asking because I thought I remembered us having a conversation about fighting once, and I thought I remembered being surprised that you were a hockey fan - the one sport that condones fighting.

But if you're not a hockey fan, then never mind.

But why were you asking her about hockey?

Timmy84 said:

RodeoSchro said:

Don't flatter yourself.

I'm asking because I thought I remembered us having a conversation about fighting once, and I thought I remembered being surprised that you were a hockey fan - the one sport that condones fighting.

But if you're not a hockey fan, then never mind.

But why were you asking her about hockey?

Because she said no one should ever hit anyone, yet I thought I remembered her saying she liked hockey once. And hockey is the one sport that condones fisticuffs.

My bad.

ForgottenPassword said:

Stymie said:

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

That's easy to say on the org. But in real life when one's getting attacked, such composure in the face of abuse and aggression is frankly unlikely.

I've seen in a real life scenario and I also have more faith in humans that we all wouldn't act like animals with no fucking sense.

RodeoSchro said:

TonyVanDam said:

So basically, you condone women beating on men? Is that what you are trying to sell to us in this thread?

No and no.

RodeoSchro, you are all over the place lol

did you pull up the law of man that backs your opinion?

The problem with your(opinion) and other peoples opinion is that you can determine what is life threatening. All it takes is a mistake for someone to die, a hit in/on the wrong part of the person especially anywhere in the head

it doesn't take much for some to become disabled temp/perm or bring about death

There are a lot of people who really "didn't mean to kill them"

When people are in a situation it may not always be easy to assess what is life threatening

I'll say this, anytime a person stands over me and is being raunchy and verbally assaulting me(yes I've experienced it) My life feels threatened, because you can't determine what state of mind the other person is in. On that video that young woman was

1.)over the yellow line

2.)standing over him in his space

3.)curse words and words like bitch faggot nigger or any other racially derogatory words tend to proceed violence

Your beliefs in my opinion are biased, because you probably see women as inferior and weaker than men. (your not going to admit that of course) but your assertions lean that way

You assumptions to your conclusion that "a man should never ever hit a woman" unless his life is being threatened, also says the man is ultimately bigger stronger taller healthier a fighter and the woman is either the opposite or again inferior to him

[Edited 10/25/12 13:29pm]

Timmy84 said:

RodeoSchro said:

Don't flatter yourself.

I'm asking because I thought I remembered us having a conversation about fighting once, and I thought I remembered being surprised that you were a hockey fan - the one sport that condones fighting.

But if you're not a hockey fan, then never mind.

But why were you asking her about hockey?

RodeoSchro said:

TonyVanDam said:

So basically, you condone women beating on men? Is that what you are trying to sell to us in this thread?

No and no.

I think you are mixing up self defense with (domestic) abuse cases

5'6 130lbs Steve Irkle type male, 6ft 210lb woman, you just assume he can beat her and that she is weak?

Tremolina said:

Timmy84 said:

But why were you asking her about hockey?

OK, I admit it - it really was because she's Canadian, LOL.

RodeoSchro said:

Tremolina said:

OK, I admit it - it really was because she's Canadian, LOL.

OldFriends4Sale said:

RodeoSchro said:

No and no.

RodeoSchro, you are all over the place lol

did you pull up the law of man that backs your opinion?

The problem with your(opinion) and other peoples opinion is that you can determine what is life threatening. All it takes is a mistake for someone to die, a hit in/on the wrong part of the person especially anywhere in the head

it doesn't take much for some to become disabled temp/perm or bring about death

There are a lot of people who really "didn't mean to kill them"

When people are in a situation it may not always be easy to assess what is life threatening

I'll say this, anytime a person stands over me and is being raunchy and verbally assaulting me(yes I've experienced it) My life feels threatened, because you can't determine what state of mind the other person is in. On that video that young woman was

1.)over the yellow line

2.)standing over him in his space

3.)curse words and words like bitch faggot nigger or any other racially derogatory words tend to proceed violence

Your beliefs in my opinion are biased, because you probably see women as inferior and weaker than men. (your not going to admit that of course) but your assertions lean that way

You assumptions to your conclusion that "a man should never ever hit a woman" unless his life is being threatened, also says the man is ultimately bigger stronger taller healthier a fighter and the woman is either the opposite or again inferior to him

[Edited 10/25/12 13:29pm]

Nowhere have I ever said it was OK to let a woman harm you. Nor have I said that women are naturally inferior or weaker than men.

All I've said is that no man should ever hit a woman unless he believes his life is in danger. I've also said that any man who does hit a woman in any other situation than that is a pussy.

What's so hard to follow about that?

To me, it seems those on the other side of this debate are condoning wife-beating. I suggest they take a trip to a women's shelter some time.