
http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/11464876
Well done Jerry - I hope these guys get what they deserve from the fans and the other players - no 'real' man, and especially an NFL player, should ever beat up a woman

VetSkinsFan wrote:Nice way to jump to conclusions. I know from personal experience that just b/c a woman has been struck, she is not 100% innocent. If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. I believe that no situation should have to come to violence. Sex is irrelavent. There is no double standard. While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.
VetSkinsFan wrote:Nice way to jump to conclusions. I know from personal experience that just b/c a woman has been struck, she is not 100% innocent. If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. I believe that no situation should have to come to violence. Sex is irrelavent. There is no double standard. While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.
VetSkinsFan wrote:Nice way to jump to conclusions. I know from personal experience that just b/c a woman has been struck, she is not 100% innocent. If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. I believe that no situation should have to come to violence. Sex is irrelavent. There is no double standard. While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.
VetSkinsFan wrote: If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. <snip> While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.
I don't care if someone delivers toys on Christmas Day to homeless orphans in Iceland while curing cancer and solving the banking crisis. Striking a woman is never acceptable. And none of this was "over-exaggerated." The alleged closed fist beat-down by a 300-pound lineman to the face of a woman wasn't "over-exaggerated."
SkinsFreak wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote: If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. <snip> While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.
I don't care if someone delivers toys on Christmas Day to homeless orphans in Iceland while curing cancer and solving the banking crisis. Striking a woman is never acceptable. And none of this was "over-exaggerated." The alleged closed fist beat-down by a 300-pound lineman to the face of a woman wasn't "over-exaggerated."
Completely unacceptable.
VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.
I can say that I've never personally been in that situation, but if it comes down to me or her, then it's gonna be me if I can make it happen. Don't think you can just grab every woman's wrists, look harshly, and think she's going to melt in to submission. Men get abused, and murdered, by women. You're fooling yourself if you think you can never be in the losing end of a fight with a woman.
As for my veteran status and my comment, what law would it break for me to make the comment that I did? The military frowns heavily upon domestic ABUSE, and a conviction can bar a service member from reenlistment, under the Lautenberg Amendment. Notice that it doesn't specify ot applies to a certain sex. Again, where, anywhere, is it specified where a man under ANY circumstances, cannot defend against a woman?
I am not a proponent of men hitting on women, but rarely is there a black and white rule where no exceptions apply.
DEHog wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.
I can say that I've never personally been in that situation, but if it comes down to me or her, then it's gonna be me if I can make it happen. Don't think you can just grab every woman's wrists, look harshly, and think she's going to melt in to submission. Men get abused, and murdered, by women. You're fooling yourself if you think you can never be in the losing end of a fight with a woman.
As for my veteran status and my comment, what law would it break for me to make the comment that I did? The military frowns heavily upon domestic ABUSE, and a conviction can bar a service member from reenlistment, under the Lautenberg Amendment. Notice that it doesn't specify ot applies to a certain sex. Again, where, anywhere, is it specified where a man under ANY circumstances, cannot defend against a woman?
I am not a proponent of men hitting on women, but rarely is there a black and white rule where no exceptions apply.
Are you Chris Brown lawyer??
SkinsFreak wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:Now you're jumping to conclusions.
When I said 'completely unacceptable', I was referring to the closed fist beat down to the face of a women.
VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.
Skinsfan55 wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.
This isn't Mr. and Mrs. Smith okay. Hitting a woman = wrong. Even if she's the aggressor. The reason is because the average man is about 5'10 200 lbs. The average woman is 5'4'' 164. Like I said before, a woman hits you, you hit her... guess who goes to jail?
The reason it's the man is because the physically weaker of the two is ALWAYS going to be the victim. Someone bigger and stronger is expected by the laws of our society to either stop the situation without violence or leave the situation. If a woman were to hit you and you simply leave the situation and call the police, then she would go to jail, you hit her back and you're a social pariah and a bully.
That's not just the law, it also makes the most sense, and it's all part of social contract.
The fact that anyone could possibly disagree with this (and thus be advocating for violence against women) is surprising, but then again that's why COPS has been on all these years.
VetSkinsFan wrote:I can respect your opinion and in most circumstances, you're right. But that doesn't cover 100% of the time. That's all I was trying to illustrate(poorly, obviously).
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Didn't we just sign a guy that stomped a mans head into the ground with his cleats? That was the Redskins amirite?
VetSkinsFan wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:Didn't we just sign a guy that stomped a mans head into the ground with his cleats? That was the Redskins amirite?
but, but, but... that's different.
broomboy wrote:VetSkinsFan wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:Didn't we just sign a guy that stomped a mans head into the ground with his cleats? That was the Redskins amirite?
but, but, but... that's different.
Correction, he didn't stomp a mans head into the ground, he stomped a COWBOY'S head into the ground, to me that made him a honorary skin!