Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Would July a pun LC Thread Would July a pun LC Thread

07-07-2015 , 05:00 PM
Falcon's nerding out with GoT withdrawal.
07-07-2015 , 05:05 PM
Really wanted to see Podrick and Brienne get it on this season.
07-07-2015 , 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Yeah suzzer, asking someone where the line is is for morons like...oh wait
Where the line is exactly is irrelevant to this case. This is a grown ass woman hitting someone in the face. Holding the man legally responsible but not the man would be absurd. Holding the man responsible at all would be absurd.
07-07-2015 , 05:09 PM
Hopefully this gets removed

Quote:
Wisconsin state legislators are preparing to vote on a budget, and a controversial package of modifications has already passed the finance committee and will soon be up for a vote by the legislature. This new package of provisions has already drawn criticism for its inclusion of measures that would decimate the state’s open records laws, protect state politicians from media scrutiny, and gut the Wisconsin definition of “living wage.” But one additional measure is worth gaping at, perhaps above all others: section 56, which would take away workers’ right to a weekend—even a one day weekend.
http://gawker.com/wisconsin-is-tryin...end-1716293116
07-07-2015 , 05:13 PM
Children of tomorrow will have another thousand post thread on the real reasons for the Civil War.

Quote:
Five million public school students in Texas will begin using new social studies textbooks this fall based on state academic standards that barely address racial segregation. The state’s guidelines for teaching American history also do not mention the Ku Klux Klan or Jim Crow laws.

And when it comes to the Civil War, children are supposed to learn that the conflict was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — written deliberately in that order to telegraph slavery’s secondary role in driving the conflict, according to some members of the state board of education.

Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...ce1_story.html
07-07-2015 , 06:22 PM
I don't really have too much sympathy for the girl in that video if she dropped the N-bomb on top of swinging on Johnson.
07-07-2015 , 06:29 PM
Are there any independent witnesses to back that up?
07-07-2015 , 06:37 PM
Yeah.

http://www.tmz.com/2015/07/07/florid...ord-qb-claims/

Excuse the TMZ link. That's where I read the racial slur story on FB.
07-07-2015 , 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
This is a grown ass woman hitting someone in the face. Holding the man legally responsible but not the man would be absurd. Holding the man responsible at all would be absurd.
It was an elbow punch that may have glazed his left cheek. He decked her like a distressed coward. I am fine either way with holding the man legally responsible here. Holding the woman responsible is this situation is LOL.
07-07-2015 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D
I don't really have too much sympathy for the girl in that video if she dropped the N-bomb on top of swinging on Johnson.
...and if she didn't drop the N bomb?
07-07-2015 , 06:45 PM
I'm with Ikes here. I'll add that it's not fair of everyone here to presume that Mr. Johnson knew with certainty that his attacker was a woman. Given today's liberal climate and the dark and noisy nature of the establishment, Johnson could have easily concluded that he was attacked by a dangerous male assailant.
07-07-2015 , 06:45 PM
A little, but not much. She signed the receipt for it.
07-07-2015 , 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula72
It was an elbow punch that may have glazed his left cheek. He decked her like a distressed coward. I am fine either way with holding the man legally responsible here. Holding the woman responsible is this situation is LOL.
It seems hard to conclude from the video that the girl isn't guilty of battery, so I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. It's certainly never good judgment to punch anyone, especially someone weaker than you, but it's hard to feel much sympathy (morally or legally) for the person who throws the first punch at a complete stranger.

I mean, was this girl on drugs? She came at him like a demon! She was certainly no angel.
07-07-2015 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman0330
It seems hard to conclude from the video that the girl isn't guilty of battery, so I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. It's certainly never good judgment to punch anyone, especially someone weaker than you, but it's hard to feel much sympathy (morally or legally) for the person who throws the first punch at a complete stranger.
That is a widely accepted guideline to have. However, it doesn't mean that charging that woman with battery in this situation isn't a joke.
07-07-2015 , 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula72
That is a widely accepted guideline to have. However, it doesn't mean that charging that woman with battery in this situation isn't a joke.
You should stick to trolling PU if you think that what the woman did isn't sufficient for a battery charge.
07-07-2015 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by formula72
That is a widely accepted guideline to have. However, it doesn't mean that charging that woman with battery in this situation isn't a joke.
She's the only one who should possibly be charged. I'll happily agree that the state has bigger issues to deal with than drunk girls punching guys in the face, but charging the guy is a ludicrous proposition that flies in the face of common sense. He returned a punch for a punch. That's all. Don't punch and don't be punched.
07-07-2015 , 07:12 PM
Oh and guess what, only the guy is being charged.
07-07-2015 , 07:14 PM
She was just trying to have a nice conversation about her new rings and he got all grabby, of course she won't get charged.
07-07-2015 , 07:23 PM
He has been kicked off the football team too.
07-07-2015 , 07:41 PM
Ikes, what's the better play for the elite athlete in that spot: 1) Right hook, or 2) walk away? Assume there would be no legal or team related consequences to either decision.

Want to at least rule some things out before getting too involved.
07-07-2015 , 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
He has been kicked off the football team too.
Maybe he was kicked off for being a 19-year-old in a bar.
07-07-2015 , 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeImBetter
You're very right. Can you imagine doing parent training with him 2 hours a day 5 days a week? 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm has been my day's low point for three weeks.
I can't imagine doing it or how you deal with it.
07-07-2015 , 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
She's the only one who should possibly be charged. I'll happily agree that the state has bigger issues to deal with than drunk girls punching guys in the face, but charging the guy is a ludicrous proposition that flies in the face of common sense. He returned a punch for a punch. That's all. Don't punch and don't be punched.
Him punching her was an unreasonable response. We aren't in the Old Testament anymore and common sense dictates that the least force necessary to protect oneself is the maximum amount of force that ought be allowed. He deserves no sympathy.

She also shouldn't have dropped an n-bomb and punched him. She was also guilty of bar-guarding which gets a 15 yard penalty in most states. She deserves no sympathy.

Both are clearly guilty of bad behavior and both are guilty of assault as a lesser charge should they plea deal to get out of a charge for battery.
07-07-2015 , 07:58 PM
Your common sense ain't the law. Nor should it be.
07-07-2015 , 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
You don't have a right to grab someone because you think they might hit you.
You actually do have that right pretty much everywhere as long as the "think" is grounded in reason. Someone raising a fist at you is a reasonable cause for concern.

      
m