- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Saints met with Joe Mixon tonight...
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:35 pm to Mr. Hangover
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:35 pm to Mr. Hangover
quote:I am sorry, but I do not see any grey area here. Anyone who thinks mixon did what was reasonably necessary to remove the threat, is either a crazy person, a retard, or extremely violent
Come on bro, you can't expect everyone to feel the same way you do about such a polarizing situation
Now, having said that, I have no issue with the Saints drafting him. He made a mistake and paid his debts
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 12:38 pm
1
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:39 pm to nola000
quote:
3. When committed either by the person about to be injured, or by any other person in such person's aid or defense, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against such person, or any trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property in such person's lawful possession; provided the force or violence used is not more than sufficient to prevent such offense;
I think the legal argument can easily be made the force was more than sufficient to prevent her attacks. And the fact that you're concerned about it going to jury shows that it is open to interpretation. The law clearly leaves wiggle room there.
But I also think that she should have been charged too.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 1:04 pm to nola000
quote:
The law doesnt differentiate between the size, profession or physical stature of the individuals involved. A juror might but the law doesnt.
It absolutely does. You are just making this stuff up. There is a reasonable standard associated with the force used to defend yourself...."the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense" What acion is reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent force against you is not the same for everyone. The force necessary to stop women, children, elderly, disabled...etc is vastly different than the force necessary to stop a grown man.
There are also specific laws that have increased penalties for hitting elderly, disabled, minors.
quote:
If what you say is true then no woman ever should be physically manhandled by law enforcement during arrest since almost all male law enforcement officers are much stronger and bigger in stature than most women and trained in hand-to-hand combat.
IF what you say is true, then LEO would knock out any woman resisting arrest. Yet somehow, they manage to and are required to control females without throwing haymakers and knocking them unconscious.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 1:18 pm to Chad504boy
Yeah that video is fairly similar to the Ray Rice video. I agree that the player should be suspended and fined but should also after serving that suspension be allowed for reinstatement. All that being said, I still would not want MY team drafting a player that did that. The Saints let a player go for going nuts and just swinging a belt at people on a beach so why would the Saints FO even dain the possibility of drafting this guy?
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:10 pm to TheBeezer
quote:
The Saints let a player go for going nuts and just swinging a belt at people on a beach so why would the Saints FO even dain the possibility of drafting this guy?
I mean he did a lot more than that here, including publicly calling out teammates and his coach before he was let go. He also had the other incident with the stripper at his place.
Mixon's 2nd incident bothers me too
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:16 pm to TheBeezer
quote:
The Saints let a player go for going nuts and just swinging a belt at people on a beach so why would the Saints FO even dain the possibility of drafting this guy?
the saints gave gallette a chance after he was kicked off Temple's team
then they gave em $40 mil
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:37 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
I think the legal argument can easily be made the force was more than sufficient to prevent her attacks. And the fact that you're concerned about it going to jury shows that it is open to interpretation. The law clearly leaves wiggle room there.
Now youre chunkin rock! Thats a legitimate argument to make. The problem here is peoples interpretation of the force used to stop the attack. If youre like me and you applaud "stand your ground" laws and believe very strongly that people should keep their hands to themselves in any and all circumstances then Mixons response seems legitimate(even though I wouldnt have reacted the same). I just cant put someone in jail for defending themselves. On the other hand you have many in our society that think people deserve to get their arse kicked if they say something out-of-line, burn a flag or some other action that doesnt involve physical contact with another. Or that people perceived as weaker should get more leeway in attacking another. Many of those people could end up on Mixons jury.
quote:
But I also think that she should have been charged too.
Thats the main point.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:43 pm to nola000
he might be a great guy and a great draft pick, I just don't think we can afford the slightest extra risk with our draft picks, even if passing on him was a mistake it would be the smarter move IMHO
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:51 pm to keakar
we have a bunch of bumbs as rb's behind ingram.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 2:51 pm to NOFOX
quote:
There is a reasonable standard associated with the force used to defend yourself...."the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense"
Right. We are more or less saying the same thing. "associated with the force" not "associated with the stature, age, etc.". That comes into play as far as the "perceived threat" but its ultimately the "force" or action that the law addresses. There are no protected classes when it comes to assault. Except LEO as the victim.
quote:
The force necessary to stop women, children, elderly, disabled...etc is vastly different than the force necessary to stop a grown man.
No. Thats not codified for good reason. Theres too much subjectivity for the law to draw such a distinction. Jurors might and probably will but the law most times doesnt and shouldnt. Too much implicit bias here.
Im a grown man. Im also 35, have two bad shoulders, am out of shape and weight 165lbs. I stand no chance against Ronda Rousey. A woman.
quote:
There are also specific laws that have increased penalties for hitting elderly, disabled, minors.
Yes but I can guarantee if an elderly person attacked another and the victim defended themselves that old person is going to jail and assuming the victim didnt continue the physical confrontation beyond the withdrawal of the attacker, then they are going home.
The laws which you reference are enacted to add further protection to certain groups of people but they dont not absolve members of those groups from wrongdoing nor do those laws limit the response of any potential victims of members of those groups from defending themselves.
quote:
IF what you say is true, then LEO would knock out any woman resisting arrest. Yet somehow, they manage to and are required to control females without throwing haymakers and knocking them unconscious.
1. They often do whip out a billy club and knock people out or use their fist, knees, elbows and choke holds and arent charged. Almost if not everyday in this country.
2. There is an expectation that LEOs, being properly trained, are required to exercise some restraint when apprehending suspects. This same expectation is usually not applied to your average citizen.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 3:13 pm to nola000
quote:
No. Thats not codified for good reason. Theres too much subjectivity for the law to draw such a distinction. Jurors might and probably will but the law most times doesnt and shouldnt. Too much implicit bias here.
You don't understand the law. It is codified. The standard in Louisiana is what a reasonable person would think is "reasonable and apparently necessary" to prevent the force. Oklahoma and every other state is similar. The reasonable standard takes into account the situation including the physical traits (age, gender, disabilities) of both persons.
A reasonable person most certainly understands that the force to stop a man is less than the force required to stop a woman or a disabled person in general.
quote:
Im a grown man. Im also 35, have two bad shoulders, am out of shape and weight 165lbs. I stand no chance against Ronda Rousey. A woman.
If Ronda Rousey was going to slap you, it would be reasonable and apparently necessary to punch her to prevent that. If Betty White, then it would not be reasonable or apparently necessary to prevent that. Do you really not understand this concept?
quote:
Yes but I can guarantee if an elderly person attacked another and the victim defended themselves that old person is going to jail and assuming the victim didnt continue the physical confrontation beyond the withdrawal of the attacker, then they are going home.
Again, the standard by which all states judge self defense is with a reasonable standard and the specifics of the situation come into play. What is reasonable in one situation is not necessarily reasonable in another.
It may be reasonable for an 85 yr old man to defend himself from another 85 year old man with a punch. However, it would be unreasonable for a professional boxer to defend himself from an 85 year old woman in the same manner.
Do you actually think it would be reasonabe and necessary for a professional boxer to punch a 90 year old woman full force to prevent her from slapping him? Because that is what you are arguing.
quote:
The laws which you reference are enacted to add further protection to certain groups of people but they dont not absolve members of those groups from wrongdoing nor do those laws limit the response of any potential victims of members of those groups from defending themselves.
No one is arguing that the girl was in the right. She can have comitted a crime and Mixon's response still have been assault.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 3:45 pm to NOFOX
quote:
The reasonable standard takes into account the situation including the physical traits (age, gender, disabilities) of both persons.
Thats my point. The reasonable standard itself is not codified or defined. Its left up to jurors to decide what they deem "reasonable". That in itself is a problem in law but thats a different convo.
quote:
A reasonable person most certainly understands that the force to stop a man is less than the force required to stop a woman or a disabled person in general.
Not in all circumstances. Thats why its left up to jurors to decide. From the perspective of this potential juror(me) I would be all acquittal. She elevated the confrontation to the level of a physical assault. The consequences of her actions are hers to bear in full, short of Mixon continuing to pummel after she withdrew from the conflict by eating the edge of a table and taking nap on the floor. Im all for accountability in all its forms.
quote:
If Ronda Rousey was going to slap you, it would be reasonable and apparently necessary to punch her to prevent that. If Betty White, then it would not be reasonable or apparently necessary to prevent that. Do you really not understand this concept?
Right, because Ronda Rousey is known and if my defense established that I had this knowledge prior to me defending myself that would be affirmative defense in most jurors eyes. The woman who attacked Mixon presented no obvious reputation or outward indicators either bolstering her apparent ability to present a threat or diminishing it, therefor Mixon has no duty to assume she isnt capable of fully laying waste to him. Talk about sexism. Shes just a girl, she cant defend herself?
quote:
She can have comitted a crime and Mixon's response still have been assault.
Dude, she DID commit a crime. She assaulted Mixon. This statement from you alone tells me that you already made up your mind that "shes just a poor weak girl, she couldnt have done any real damage". People got to jail for assault just for spitting on someone.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 3:48 pm to nola000
WE DONT WANT A GUY THAT WAS HITTING A WOMAN !!!! NO MATTER HOW GOOD HIS EXCUSE WAS.
WE DONT NEED DRAMA, WE NEED A DRAMA FREE LOCKER ROOM HERE WITHOUT OFF FEILD ISSUES
WE DONT NEED DRAMA, WE NEED A DRAMA FREE LOCKER ROOM HERE WITHOUT OFF FEILD ISSUES
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 3:49 pm to keakar
quote:
WE DONT WANT A GUY THAT WAS HITTING A WOMAN !!!!
So you dont think there are any situations that merit a physical response against a woman?
How about this? *might want to mute*
quote:
WE DONT NEED DRAMA, WE NEED A DRAMA FREE LOCKER ROOM HERE WITHOUT OFF FEILD ISSUES
I agree with here, 100%.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 4:00 pm to keakar
Heres my favorite. Keep the sound on.
Sometimes bitches need stitches for jumpin out their britches.
Sometimes bitches need stitches for jumpin out their britches.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 4:32 pm to lsupride87
quote:
I am sorry, but I do not see any grey area here. Anyone who thinks mixon did what was reasonably necessary to remove the threat, is either a crazy person, a retard, or extremely violent
I haven't even watched the video since it happened, so I don't really have an opinion about the incident itself - I was just saying
However, I would be interested to know if any women's right groups or activists have spoken out about mixon... you know, the ones who are fighting so hard to be treated 'equal to' men..
Posted on 3/8/17 at 10:24 pm to CapperVin
(no message)
Posted on 3/8/17 at 10:36 pm to nola000
LMAO
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:20 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I just don't like how he reacted after all of this. He didn't give a frick and showed no remorse whatsoever until his draft stock might be effected.
Probably because he got hit first
Again, you can shite on him for destroying that girl's face all you want but, he only struck back.
I get he was much bigger. It was shitty. But you can't smack the shite out of someone (let's call it what it is ASSAULT) and assume there will be NO retaliation.
And now you don't want to give him a chance for a one time ordeal JUST because it's on Youtube.
This guy isn't a dime a dozen
Posted on 3/9/17 at 8:03 am to OKtiger
I thought this thread was gonna be anout what round we would be willing to take the PR hit on him )I'd say 3rd or 4th). Y'all turned it into a fricking 1st year law debate. One that everybody already had 3 months ago. I am disappoint.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News