Larry Baer

[Toni]

He does seem pretty concerned about the fact he might face some kind of sanction.

And rightly so. Facing some kind of sanction for taking back your own property from someone who took it from you would be a pretty shitty thing to have to experience and nobody should need to go through something like that.

If only that is what had happened there would be no video of the incident.

Again, suppose he had pulled out a gun and shot his wife instead of knocking her to the ground, her crying out for help, requiring at least two standers by to calm him down enough to prevent further violence/retribution: would he have been equally justified?

 

[dismal]

Wow, Jimmy, I guess if he'd killed her you'd have an excellent point. Killing someone for taking your phone seems like a disproportionate response. I wonder if the law has ever dealt with things like proportional responses? How can anyone even know?

But let's assume it has. Let's assume we must ask ourselves whether responses to wrongful acts must be proportional.

Now we're left with the question: is taking a phone back a reasonable and proportional response to someone taking your phone?

Jeez, it's a tough call isn't it.

- - - Updated - - -

The actions were:

a) one person took the other's phone without permission
b) the person whose phone was taken took it back, and because the person who took the phone tried to hold onto it, the person who took the phone fell over

The first action is the morally wrong one. If you suffer consequences from taking and trying to hold onto someone else's property you are not the victim. Your hands are not clean. You are the initiator.

So, if instead of knocking her to the ground, her screaming, he had pulled out a gun and shot her in the head, he would have been justified?

*sigh*

Is there a place you all go to get fed the same ridiculous answers?

And he doesn't "knock her to the ground". He grabs his phone and pulls it away. She ends up on the ground because she will not let go of his phone. Watch the video again. He directs none of his action toward her. He's entirely focused on getting his phone back.

I guess that's why she's screaming for help and why it took two bystanders to calm him down.

There is no part of any recounting of this that indicates that he regretted that his injured wife fell or that he was in any way concerned about her fall or her. At all. He does seem pretty concerned about the fact he might face some kind of sanction.

I can only comment on what I see. I see a guy taking a (what we now know is his) phone back.

If the question is: did he act in the wrongly in taking his phone back? My answer is "no".

If the question is 'Does this make him a bad husband?" My answer is "pass". I do not make it a habit of judging other people's marriages.

If the question is "Does this embarrass Major League Baseball?". I suppose they would prefer not to have their owners grappling for phones with their wives in public, but I will leave that to them.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He does seem pretty concerned about the fact he might face some kind of sanction.

And rightly so. Facing some kind of sanction for taking back your own property from someone who took it from you would be a pretty shitty thing to have to experience and nobody should need to go through something like that.

If only that is what had happened there would be no video of the incident.

Again, suppose he had pulled out a gun and shot his wife instead of knocking her to the ground, her crying out for help, requiring at least two standers by to calm him down enough to prevent further violence/retribution: would he have been equally justified?

No. If she had put poison on the phone so that he'd die screaming as soon as he grabbed it and this was all an elaborate assassination plot on her part because he'd been writing articles critical of Vladimir Putin, would you still be going on about how she's the victim? I mean, if you're going to think up weird ass situations unrelated to what actually happened, why stop halfway with a gun? Lean into that shit.

 

[Toni]

If only that is what had happened there would be no video of the incident.

Again, suppose he had pulled out a gun and shot his wife instead of knocking her to the ground, her crying out for help, requiring at least two standers by to calm him down enough to prevent further violence/retribution: would he have been equally justified?

No. If she had put poison on the phone so that he'd die screaming as soon as he grabbed it and this was all an elaborate assassination plot on her part because he'd been writing articles critical of Vladimir Putin, would you still be going on about how she's the victim? I mean, if you're going to think up weird ass situations unrelated to what actually happened, why stop halfway with a gun? Lean into that shit.

I’m just trying to determine the limits of violence that you believe a husband is allowed to use on his wife in a public altercation involving a cell phone.

Knocking the wife to the ground, causing her to cry out for help and spurring bystanders to intervene on her behalf and the police to be called is OK.

Pulling out a gun and shooting her is not.

Do I understand that correctly?

 

[dismal]

If only that is what had happened there would be no video of the incident.

Again, suppose he had pulled out a gun and shot his wife instead of knocking her to the ground, her crying out for help, requiring at least two standers by to calm him down enough to prevent further violence/retribution: would he have been equally justified?

No. If she had put poison on the phone so that he'd die screaming as soon as he grabbed it and this was all an elaborate assassination plot on her part because he'd been writing articles critical of Vladimir Putin, would you still be going on about how she's the victim? I mean, if you're going to think up weird ass situations unrelated to what actually happened, why stop halfway with a gun? Lean into that shit.

What I want to know is: if it turned out she was using the phone to hack into Skynet and was just about to launch a global nuclear strike would we still be calling this "an assault" or calling him "a hero"?

 

[dismal]

If only that is what had happened there would be no video of the incident.

Again, suppose he had pulled out a gun and shot his wife instead of knocking her to the ground, her crying out for help, requiring at least two standers by to calm him down enough to prevent further violence/retribution: would he have been equally justified?

No. If she had put poison on the phone so that he'd die screaming as soon as he grabbed it and this was all an elaborate assassination plot on her part because he'd been writing articles critical of Vladimir Putin, would you still be going on about how she's the victim? I mean, if you're going to think up weird ass situations unrelated to what actually happened, why stop halfway with a gun? Lean into that shit.

I’m just trying to determine the limits of violence that you believe a husband is allowed to use on his wife in a public altercation involving a cell phone.

Knocking the wife to the ground, causing her to cry out for help and spurring bystanders to intervene on her behalf and the police to be called is OK.

Pulling out a gun and shooting her is not.

Do I understand that correctly?

He didn't "knock her to the ground". He grabs his phone. He pulls his phone away from her. She falls because she does not let go of his phone.

When someone takes your phone do you think "taking it back" is a disproportionate response?

 

[Toni]

I’m just trying to determine the limits of violence that you believe a husband is allowed to use on his wife in a public altercation involving a cell phone.

Knocking the wife to the ground, causing her to cry out for help and spurring bystanders to intervene on her behalf and the police to be called is OK.

Pulling out a gun and shooting her is not.

Do I understand that correctly?

He didn't "knock her to the ground". He grabs his phone. He pulls his phone away from her. She falls because she does not let go of his phone.

When someone takes your phone do you think "taking it back" is a disproportionate response?

She fell as a result of his actions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it wouldn’t have been rape if a rape victim had just shut up and let him do what he wanted.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She fell as a result of his actions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it wouldn’t have been rape if a rape victim had just shut up and let him do what he wanted.

She fell as a result of her own actions. She was the instigator of the event and it's wrong to suggest that her victim should have just shut up and let her do what she wanted.

 

[dismal]

I’m just trying to determine the limits of violence that you believe a husband is allowed to use on his wife in a public altercation involving a cell phone.

Knocking the wife to the ground, causing her to cry out for help and spurring bystanders to intervene on her behalf and the police to be called is OK.

Pulling out a gun and shooting her is not.

Do I understand that correctly?

He didn't "knock her to the ground". He grabs his phone. He pulls his phone away from her. She falls because she does not let go of his phone.

When someone takes your phone do you think "taking it back" is a disproportionate response?

She fell as a result of his actions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it wouldn’t have been rape if a rape victim had just shut up and let him do what he wanted.

No, she fell as a result of her actions. If she had not wrongfully taken and held onto the phone she would not have fallen.

Her actions were wrong. She took his property without his consent and attempted to keep it against his wishes. His actions appear solely motivated by recovering his property which was wrongfully taken, and proportionate.

 

[Toni]

She fell as a result of his actions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it wouldn’t have been rape if a rape victim had just shut up and let him do what he wanted.

No, she fell as a result of her actions. If she had not wrongfully taken and held onto the phone she would not have fallen.

Her actions were wrong. She took his property without his consent and attempted to keep it against his wishes. His actions appear solely motivated by recovering his property which was wrongfully taken, and proportionate.

She would not have fallen if he had not lunged at her and wrestled the phone from her hands as she cried out for help.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She fell as a result of his actions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it wouldn’t have been rape if a rape victim had just shut up and let him do what he wanted.

No, she fell as a result of her actions. If she had not wrongfully taken and held onto the phone she would not have fallen.

Her actions were wrong. She took his property without his consent and attempted to keep it against his wishes. His actions appear solely motivated by recovering his property which was wrongfully taken, and proportionate.

She would not have fallen if he had not lunged at her and wrestled the phone from her hands as she cried out for help.

And she also wouldn't have fallen if she hadn't taken his phone, leading to his lunging for it. You can't start your example halfway through the event and expect to get an accurate representation of the event.

 

[TSwizzle]

She fell as a result of his actions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it wouldn’t have been rape if a rape victim had just shut up and let him do what he wanted.

No, she fell as a result of her actions. If she had not wrongfully taken and held onto the phone she would not have fallen.

Her actions were wrong. She took his property without his consent and attempted to keep it against his wishes. His actions appear solely motivated by recovering his property which was wrongfully taken, and proportionate.

She would not have fallen if he had not lunged at her and wrestled the phone from her hands as she cried out for help.

And she would not have fallen if she had given up the phone. They are both a couple of assholes, one as bad as the other but because he's an elderly, wealthy, white male, oh boy. Can't have that !

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...one as bad as the other...

people > property

 

[untermensche]

I think that some are only basing their opinion on the size difference between the two phone wanting adults.

But no punches were thrown.

Nobody was slapped. Nobody was roughed up.

The both touched nothing but the phone and hands of the other.

A tussle over a phone.

And it does not take Stockholm syndrome for the wife after tempers have settled to admit it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I side with those who see two well-off jackasses in the video. At a guess, they behave like entitled jackasses all the time with each other. There are marriages that are entirely based on animosity and regressive got-ya-last games; I had the misfortune to witness one at close range for 50 years. Nope, for me, this is not a video that lends to placement in a schematic on gender roles, the patriarchy, or male violence -- surely there's no shortage of examples that do fit.

 

[Toni]

I think that some are only basing their opinion on the size difference between the two phone wanting adults.

But no punches were thrown.

Nobody was slapped. Nobody was roughed up.

The both touched nothing but the phone and hands of the other.

A tussle over a phone.

And it does not take Stockholm syndrome for the wife after tempers have settled to admit it.

No. If the situations were reversed and she had lunged at her husband sitting in a chair and wrestled the phone away from him with such force that he cried out for help, caused bystanders to intervene on his behalf and attempt to calm him down and caused police intervention, I would have considered her to be in the wrong. Even if she were 4 ft 11 and he 6 ft. 10.

He clearly did more than grab the phone. He clearly touched more than her hand. His body knocked her down. It may not have been his intention to knock her to the ground but he did. An appropriate next action would have been to apologize and to help her up, making certain that she was ok. Even if he did so after putting the phone in his pocket.

No one is claiming Stockholm syndrome. I do think both statements were released under advise of attorneys, no doubt keeping in mind any future litigation in divorce proceedings.

 

[untermensche]

I think that some are only basing their opinion on the size difference between the two phone wanting adults.

But no punches were thrown.

Nobody was slapped. Nobody was roughed up.

The both touched nothing but the phone and hands of the other.

A tussle over a phone.

And it does not take Stockholm syndrome for the wife after tempers have settled to admit it.

No. If the situations were reversed and she had lunged at her husband sitting in a chair and wrestled the phone away from him with such force that he cried out for help, caused bystanders to intervene on his behalf and attempt to calm him down and caused police intervention, I would have considered her to be in the wrong. Even if she were 4 ft 11 and he 6 ft. 10.

He clearly did more than grab the phone. He clearly touched more than her hand. His body knocked her down. It may not have been his intention to knock her to the ground but he did. An appropriate next action would have been to apologize and to help her up, making certain that she was ok. Even if he did so after putting the phone in his pocket.

No one is claiming Stockholm syndrome. I do think both statements were released under advise of attorneys, no doubt keeping in mind any future litigation in divorce proceedings.

Crying for help has nothing to do with it.

People cry when they don't get their way. She wanted the phone but was not strong enough to maintain possession.

So she cried out. As soon as he got the phone it was over.

She was not injured.

 

[Toni]

I think that some are only basing their opinion on the size difference between the two phone wanting adults.

But no punches were thrown.

Nobody was slapped. Nobody was roughed up.

The both touched nothing but the phone and hands of the other.

A tussle over a phone.

And it does not take Stockholm syndrome for the wife after tempers have settled to admit it.

No. If the situations were reversed and she had lunged at her husband sitting in a chair and wrestled the phone away from him with such force that he cried out for help, caused bystanders to intervene on his behalf and attempt to calm him down and caused police intervention, I would have considered her to be in the wrong. Even if she were 4 ft 11 and he 6 ft. 10.

He clearly did more than grab the phone. He clearly touched more than her hand. His body knocked her down. It may not have been his intention to knock her to the ground but he did. An appropriate next action would have been to apologize and to help her up, making certain that she was ok. Even if he did so after putting the phone in his pocket.

No one is claiming Stockholm syndrome. I do think both statements were released under advise of attorneys, no doubt keeping in mind any future litigation in divorce proceedings.

Crying for help has nothing to do with it.

People cry when they don't get their way. She wanted the phone but was not strong enough to maintain possession.

So she cried out. As soon as he got the phone it was over.

She was not injured.

She was knocked to the ground. It took multiple strangers to calm him down. This was not OK.

 

[dismal]

Crying for help has nothing to do with it.

People cry when they don't get their way. She wanted the phone but was not strong enough to maintain possession.

So she cried out. As soon as he got the phone it was over.

She was not injured.

She was knocked to the ground. It took multiple strangers to calm him down. This was not OK.

No, she fell to the ground because she tied to hold onto a phone that wasn't hers while the person whose phone it was took it back.

You are not entitled to your own facts. We can see the video.

 

[laughing dog]

Crying for help has nothing to do with it.

People cry when they don't get their way. She wanted the phone but was not strong enough to maintain possession.

So she cried out. As soon as he got the phone it was over.

She was not injured.

She was knocked to the ground. It took multiple strangers to calm him down. This was not OK.

No, she fell to the ground because she tied to hold onto a phone that wasn't hers while the person whose phone it was took it back.

He twisted it out of her hand which clearly caused the fall.

You are not entitled to your own facts. We can see the video.

Apparently not.


The woman was wrong for taking the phone and for not handing it back. The man was wrong for physically taklng the phone back in such a manner as to cause the woman to fall out of her chair. Neither person committed an egregious act. But one would think it would be obvious that the man's actions are worse than the woman's actions to any civilized human being.