33
This happened in Louisville, Kentucky
(cdn.imgchest.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
33 points (92.3% liked)
Crazy Fucking Videos
9313 readers
429 users here now
Dive into the World of Insane Videos!
Rules
- No hate speech of any kind.
- Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
- Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There’s zero things that are “dick moves” that justify the use of potentially deadly force. She could have fallen and hit her head and gotten a traumatic brain injury and blows to the chest can cause your heart to stop. The very early could have been a snuff video
She does hit the left side of her head against that bench when she falls around second 16, and holds it with her hand when she gets back up.
She grabbed his drink. Assault. Unjustified.
He dumped the drink on her. Questionable. She had instigated the physical altercation, but this could be considered an unjustified escalation.
She lunged at him. Escalation: Assault by battery.
He shoved her away while she was attacking him; she fell over backward. Even if the beer-dumping was unjustified, he was now justified in using physical force to stop her physical attack.
She tried to stand back up; he kicked her back to the ground. Questionable. He was certainly justified in initially shoving her away, which caused her to fall to the ground; if he reasonably believed she was getting back up to continue her battery, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.
He retreated, and grabbed his things. De-escalation.
She picked up a beer bottle and threatened him with it. Escalation: Assault with a deadly weapon. (This also demonstrates the reasonableness of his belief that she would continue her battery in #5.)
He shoved her away while she was threatening him. Completely justified by her latest assault.
He retreated while she was on the ground. De-escalation.
Grabbing a drink isn't assault. Nor is it battery. It is, at most, petty theft.
So no, he actually started the physical altercation, which means that all of your assertions are false.
Common misconception. You should read the legal definitions of both "assault" and "battery". I would guess that you're conflating the "aggravated" variants for the simple variants. Grabbing a glass from someone's hand does, actually, meet the criteria of simple assault and simple battery.
Assault: "Assault is generally defined under common law as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such contact."
Battery: "Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent."
Basically, "assault" is merely making someone think you're going to touch them without consent, and "battery" is merely touching someone without consent. Grabbing the drink meets the legal definitions of both. Throwing a drink on someone also meets the definition of both.
"Petty theft" (Petty Larceny) applies to simply taking something without consent. When any level of force is used against a person in the process of the taking, it is not "theft" or "larceny". It is "robbery". The use of force in the taking is the defining difference between theft/larceny and robbery.
Whether her intention was assault and battery or robbery, she initiated the physical altercation. He might not have been justified in throwing the liquid at her, but she certainly provoked that response with unjustifiable use of force.
I stand by my analysis. She committed simple assault and battery in #1.
#1 might not justify #2. He might get charges of disorderly conduct for #2.
#2 certainly does not justify #3. She committed assault and battery in #3. Simple or aggravated is an open question.
#3 certainly justified #4.
#5 might not have been justified. It's an open question.
#7 was not justified.
#7 justified #8.
There's no reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or even offensive contact there. If you clipped the rest of the video off, and showed a jury just the video up to the grabbing of the drink, none of them would agree that it creates a reasonable apprehension.
But you're proving that you're a misogynistic shitstain, so there's that.
Don't bother this guy is a fucking idiot. This is his break down;
Reaching for a drink that's launched in your face is ASSAULT!!
Kicking someone after shoving them is questionable
What a stupid fuck that guy is.
My arguments are consistent regardless of the genders of the participants. Yours clearly are not. Mine would hold up with two men, two women, two NBs, or any two adults of any sex, gender, race, creed, color, national origin. Switch any gender of any participant here, and you have a big, politically incorrect problem with your current position.
No they're not. They're fucking dumb and everyone reading this thread seems to think the same thing.
You're literally trying to say she touched him first. On a date.
From your perspective a partner would have the right to choke slam their partner if they surprised them with a hug because they touched them first.
From your perspective one person is not responsible from removing themselves from danger, they're responsible for hurting people to make a point and exert control.
You're stupid go drink whatever liquids are under your sink.
This is how I know you're a moron.
Reaching for a drink that is instantly launched in your face = assault.
pushing someone violently and kicking them when their down = qUeStiOnAbLe!?
Fuck off you idiot. You mischaracterized the entire thing
Following the strict, technical definition of assault, yes, reaching for the drink was assault. Grabbing the drink was technically battery. Subsequently throwing the drink at her may or may not also be considered assault and battery, depending on how "provocation" and/or "instigation" come into play. Let's say it is. Let's say that the thrown drink was battery. He's guilty, he's an asshole, but his guilt was in responding to her attack. His actions did not justify her previous actions, nor her subsequent actions.
If you unjustifiably initiate a physical altercation, you are not justified in using force until you have first attempted to retreat from the altercation, or have been stopped, and excessive force is continuing to be used against you. She instigated the altercation: grabbing the drink. He responded, throwing the drink. She was not stopped, and had made no attempt to retreat. She continued the altercation by lunging over the table and striking him multiple times. He was justified at this point in shoving her away from him, which he did. She fell to the ground. Then she got back up on her feet.
The "questionable" conclusion depends on whether it was reasonable to believe she was rising to continue the attack. If she's the defendant on trial, then she is entitled to the evidence being viewed in her favor. If she's on trial, the kick was an unjustified continuation of his initially-justified force, and her subsequent actions can be viewed from that perspective.
If he's the one on trial, he is entitled to the evidence being viewed in his favor. If he's on trial, the kick was to put her back on the ground, stopping her from continuing to strike him.
Which part of that did I mischaracterize?
You're a complete idiot and talking to you is a waste. You wrote an entire essay defending the straight assault of this woman.
This man was never in danger.
The entire problem with your moronic breakdown is intent. His intent from the start is to exert force and harm. Her intent is unclear, she might be being rude, she might be trying to prevent him from excessive drinking. You don't know. You do know his intent is violence.
Fuck off idiot go be misogynistic and stupid somewhere else
It is not misandry to say that a man should not grab a drink out of a woman's hands. It is not misogyny to say that a woman should not grab a drink out of a man's hands.
It is not misandry to say that a man should not lunge over a table and strike a woman who has thrown a drink in his face. It is not misogyny to say that a woman should not lunge over a table and strike a man who has thrown a drink in her face.
I'm going to invite you to withdraw your denigrating comments about "moronic" and "misogyny", and participate in the discussion calmly and rationally.
I don't believe I discussed intent so far at all. The closest I came to discussing intent was pointing out that the first physical act was initiated by her, not him. He committed the second physical act: throwing the drink at her. If I'm going to look for evidence of intent, I'm going to point out that in throwing the drink, no part of his body came into contact with her. He did not strike her. He did not throw the glass itself. He threw the liquid only. Even if his actions were deplorable and unreasonable, I know he demonstrated significant restraint at this time, which contradicts your claim that his intent was to exert force and cause harm.
Other indications of his intent: Right after the kick, he backed away, retreating from the altercation. Right after the final shove, he again backed away, retreating from the altercation. Again, he demonstrates significant restraint at these times. Again, these contradict your claim that his intent was to exert force and cause harm.
If we're looking at evidence of her intentions, we have the initiating act of physical contact. After the thrown liquid, we have her throwing the first punch. As he is gathering his things and attempting to leave, we have her approaching him, beer bottle in hand.
I started this comment by reversing the genders. I'm going to ask you to do the same in this video. A man (the size and shape of Mark Zuckerberg) grabs a glass in a woman's hands. She (A woman with the same stature and physicality of Brienne of Tarth) immediately throws the drink in his face. Mark reaches over the table and starts punching Brienne. She shoves him, he trips and falls. He attempts to get back up; she kicks him back to the ground. While he is on the ground, she attempts to leave. Mark picks up a beer bottle and approaches her again. Brienne throws him across the room by his scrawny neck, and walks away from the scene.
Now, instead of giving her a medal or buying her a beer, you have to now argue that Gwendoline Christie is a violent scumbag, Zuck is a victim of her wrath, and everyone who sees it differently is inherently misandrist. Can you do that? Can you make her out to be the bad guy here?
Another paragraph. What a dork.
You're so fucking weird. Stop looking at their genders you stupid misogynistic moron.
The law that you wanna quote so fucking hard with 0 expertise is all about intent.
Her intent was not violent. His was. His actions were harmful and disgusting. Period. Worst case scenario she will get simple battery depending on that initial conversation but due to his actions probably not because her intent appears to be completely non-violent. That's what the law sees, intent.
You defending these actions exposes how your little pea brain works you sexist idiot. Fuck off.
Classic.
Actually, it's not. The primary issue to consider is "justification" not "intent". The use of force is generally unlawful unless justified in defense of self or others. A person is justified in using a level of force a reasonable person would deem necessary to stop another's use of unjustified force. Provocation and instigation also play a role: A use of force is not always unlawful if the other party has acted to deliberately provoke the response. Look up "fighting words" to get you into the right area of study.
Here, she initiates the physical altercation by unjustifiably grabbing the glass. Provoked, he splashes her. She unjustifiably strikes him. He justifiably shoves her. He kicks her, putting her back on the ground.
The kick is questionable. It's either an unjustified attack while she's on the ground, or it's a justified attempt to keep her from getting up and striking him further. Since this would only matter if he's the one on trial, and if he's the one on trial, we owe him the benefit of a doubt, we have to call this one justified.
Either way, he immediately retreats after the kick, ending the threat to her, and making her next actions unjustifiable. She gets back up, grabs a beer bottle, and confronts him again. He justifiably shoves her away.
I invite you to go through each and every action and reaction yourself. Characterize them how you wish, and we can reasonably discuss those where we disagree.
Are you talking about here, where you discussed "low impact" and "high impact" escalations? I think that was a reasonable, fair analysis of escalation.
The use of force against another person without their consent is generally unlawful unless justified. A use of force is justified where a person reasonably perceives a threat of unjustified force, and uses only such force a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.
You addressed "escalations" on most of these acts during the altercation. However, your analysis is incomplete. You did not explicitly state whether each of these forceful acts were justified or unjustified, and you did not provide your rationale for determining justification.
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think we can agree that grabbing the glass from him was an unjustified use of force.
I think we can also agree that his throwing the drink on her was also an unjustified use of force. (Even though there was a previous use of force by her, the throwing of the drink could not be considered an attempt to "stop the threat"; the throwing of the drink was unjustified.)
Her lunge across the table. Was this justified, or unjustified? Why?
Ok. Surely, we can agree it was a physical act. Surely, we can agree it was the first physical interaction of the altercation. There was no physical contact between the parties prior to her grabbing the drink.
Can we agree that it was also unjustified? If not, can we agree that her attempt to grab the glass was not invited, wanted, or consented to? At the very least, it was the first physical escalation of a verbal disagreement, right?
When a physical altercation has commenced, the person instigating the physical altercation is not justified in using any force until they have attempted to retreat from the altercation. If she did, indeed, instigate the altercation, (even if his reaction was a "wild escalation"), she was not justified in continuing the altercation, let alone escalating it, until she had made some effort to retreat.
Did she make some effort to retreat? Or was she continuing the physical altercation she had provoked and instigated?
You've made this argument, repeatedly, and rationally. I've commended your analysis on escalation as reasonable, fair, rational. I've conceded every single point you've made about escalation.
I've also pointed out that "escalation" is only one relevant factor. More specifically, "escalation" affects the determination of "reasonableness" as it applies to the use of force. It is not the only factor that determines reasonableness, and it is certainly not the only factor relevant to justification. Talk to me about justification. I've conceded that the throwing of the drink was not justified, and I've conceded that the possible justification for the kick was, at best, questionable. Talk to me about justification with regard to every other act committed by each party.