22 replies to this topic

[J-Roc]

I'm extremely disgusted by this.

His wife films her own assault to be exhibit A and he gets off. You can view it at The Dirty (nasty site, guilty pleasure of mine view with caution etc.)

Film is very graphic.

If this is what he does to her on film, what has he done off of camera? I knew your the States legal system was a joke but this is fucking insane.

http://thedirty.com/2012/09/smash-mouth-bassist-gets-no-jail-time-for-hitting-wife/

[Hero of Slime]

I'm extremely disgusted by this.

Yes me too. It makes me very angry when men are able to do these horrible things to women.

[Sir Deimos]

Did he smash her mouth? I'd be angry as shit too if I was in a band like Smash Mouth.


Jokes aside, this is unacceptable. Let's round up a posse.

[Kwicky Koala]

Or what about the guy from Noir Desir who *murdered* his girlfriend and walked after 4 years? Meanwhile a regular person would get a life sentence...

[SteveT]

I did some cursory internet research, and it's not entirely one-sided. Apparently, these two have been abusing each other for quite some time. These guys need restraining orders against each other and a court-ordered divorce.

Edited by SteveT, 09 September 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[Nevermind]

They did have restraining orders against each other. His was dropped due to sufficient evidence to back up his claims and she agreed to drop hers for a civil agreement. Despite the clear battery charges that should be - and perhaps were - laid against him, it was probably their history that warranted disciplining and rehabilitation of sorts, rather than incarceration. That does not make him any less of a Jack Thompson, though.

[SteveT]

Oh, yes, definitely a Jack Thompson.

[J-Roc]

The punishment does NOT fit the crime - even remotely. Barely any community service and that seems to be about it for this jackass. A man hitting a woman and a woman hitting a man are two entirely seperate events unless the person is trained the claim that each of them had abused each other sounds like some posturing by an overpaid scumbag lawyer. What I see in this video is a defenseless woman and a sick piece of shit. I for one have taken them off of my playlist permanently, fuck those guys I'm glad I never actually paid for any of their music.

[Nevermind]

It is wrong to ignore that a surprising amount of men are victims of domestic violence, regardless of their abuser's physical prowess and/or combat training. It is also wrong to assume a man will always be physically stronger than a woman. Yeah the guy is a dick and he beat on his wife but assault and battery are assault and battery no matter the gender. They are NOT separate crimes, they are simply both crimes with a victim and an assailant. Separation of the two has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with stereotyped perspectives.

[J-Roc]

It is wrong to ignore that a surprising amount of men are victims of domestic violence, regardless of their abuser's physical prowess and/or combat training. It is also wrong to assume a man will always be physically stronger than a woman. Yeah the guy is a dick and he beat on his wife but assault and battery are assault and battery no matter the gender. They are NOT separate crimes, they are simply both crimes with a victim and an assailant. Separation of the two has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with stereotyped perspectives.

I've seen this issue from a unique perspective and was even once falsely accused so there is a particular sting with your wording, Laz. The video evidence is pretty irrefutable and if we are saying that the damage done is irrelevant then we are missing the point IMO. It shouldn't simply be that assault and battery is assault and battery if we see a particular viciousness in the crime or they prey on someone in a vulnerable position I think that should definitely be part of the sentencing process.

But then again justice is rarely found in these proceedings anyway, so it is a moot point.

EDIT: I do think its important to point out that the way he was covering her mouth and choking her could have just as easily killed her.

Edited by The Dude, 10 September 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Nevermind]

Then a person preying on someone in a vulnerable position is a psychological issue and still should not be judged separately based on gender. The video evidence is there, I agree. Battery is a criminal offence - with a criminal record - and it was charges as such that I stated he should have received. If he didn't get jail time, then it means he has a damn good lawyer who dug into the country's legislation and managed to find reasonable cause for the incarceration of his client to be dismissed.

Obviously I am unaware of your history regarding such things but do not take personal offence to my words, for they are simple breakdown of the issue as it is: Person A was vulnerable and attacked by Person B. "Man attacking Woman" and "Woman attacking Man" only hold relevance of a social nature.

[J-Roc]

But should it not be considered that he's almost twice her size, harming her in a way that could have been deadly, and more than likely had a history of hurting her prior to this? I don't think this is just a good lawyer, this is more then likely purchased justice. I guess what I am getting at is that the laws requiring reforming, what do you think the changes should be?

I just found the wording of your previous post funny, I was not offended. I was assumed to be an attacker with no evidence because I'm male and the female was smaller, so I guess thats why the point of her being half his size really sticks in my craw.

[Nevermind]

I'd say less "purchased justice" and more "the right doctor perhaps gave the right assessment as confirmation that he would not re-offend or was highly unlikely to re-offend".

Changes for things like this cannot really be implemented without some kind of discrimination or unfair stereotyping. If they make the punishment more harsh because it is a man hitting a woman, then it is stating by law that women are weaker than men; if they make it a more harsh punishment because the victim is smaller than their attacker, then it is stating by law that smaller people are weaker than bigger people. Concerning physical strength, this is something that is GENERALLY true but cannot be applied across the board because it is not always true. The laws are there to cover as much ground as possible and if it is a vicious attack on a vulnerable victim then there are additives to the charges like "aggravated" which will generally carry a harsher penalty. Regarding the history of this couple though, an attack like this may be a first time offence, meaning a doctor signing off on him not re-offending could carry a punishment without jail-time and act as a preventative measure for re-occurrences. If he DOES re-offend, well then he should be in deep shit.

[J-Roc]

I guess I have an old fashioned mentality about it. An attack like this feels much more wrong than seeing some dude fight some dude.

[Nevermind]

Food for thought: how would it make you feel if it was a woman viciously attacking a vulnerable man? Or another woman? And would age make a difference?

Or what if they were beating up Jeff Bridges?

Edited by Nevermind, 11 September 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[J-Roc]

Your point is valid, thanks for broadening my understanding a bit.

At the end of the day, we can all agree he's a douche.

[Selena]

Women and violence have a questionable double standard.

It's almost acceptable, if not romantic due to all those old costume dramas, for a woman to slap a man when she gets angry. Females actually have considerable leeway when it comes to striking out at men. Mostly due to precedent -- when a woman was violent "back in the day," it was chalked up to hysterics or other fits of emotion. It was considered a manly duty to endure a strike from a female and then suppress her fit of woman-rage in a civilized fashion. Of course, it helps that women were meant to be demure and fragile back in the day, so most weren't fit enough to do any real damage.

But female right hooks are steadily getting more powerful now that corsets don't restrict airflow and women are actually allowed outside to exercise. But men are still expected to tolerate and deal with female abuse if it occurs -- that side of the tradition hasn't worn off just yet. And it's considered shameful to be abused by a woman, even if she's a powerful woman, so few men are willing to ask for help if they're being abused at home. To an extent, it's also considered improper for a man to strike back if a woman starts abusing him. Even if the abuse is extremely violent. That girl gets a black eye, even if she started the fight, and the man is often looked down on. But it's more than okay, if not encouraged, for a woman to fight back in a mirror reversal of the situation.

It has nothing to do with power or the size of one's opponent. Nobody cares if a big guy beats up a smaller guy. It's exclusively about vaginas and the concept that women are inherently weak. They are not. They are more than capable of inflicting damage, nor are they made of porcelain. Spend any time around female martial artists and you will realize that women can be pretty tough cookies once they get over that "I'm a pretty princess" mindset. I've been around women who have happily sparred with men, got beaten up a bit in the process while also landing their own really good hits, and consider it no big deal.

The "prissiness" of certain females stems from the way they're raised (aka: "my daughter is a delicate tulip princess") rather than from their actual physical strength. Females don't usually crumple physically in an altercation -- the breakdown is almost always mental due to lack of fighting experience/lack of expectations for them to actually stand their ground due to cultural bias. I've rarely seen women legitimately fight back during some sort of assault. In the video, the victim is more crippled from fear than from damage. Women are more than capable of enduring bloody noses, lacerations, strikes to the torso/face/whatever. But most of them will just curl up into a ball and let a man go to town because she's not mentally prepared or experienced enough to deal with a threat like that. So, no, they're not inherently weak dolls that break the moment you touch them. It's definitely a cultural thing to put women on pedestals like that. Both genders have gotten used to the misconception that "being female" is the same thing as "being weak."

There are many women who abuse the double-standard. The type who slap a man very hard, then start bawling dramatically and play the victim if he slaps her back with equal force. These girls have always infuriated me.

Nuh-uh. I don't care if it's a woman. I don't care if she's smaller than you are. I don't care if she lacks the upper body strength of a 6'2" man. Initiating violence is never okay, and, even with her smaller build, a woman is perfectly capable of doing you serious harm if you don't stop her. A victim should be allowed to defend themselves if someone becomes physically aggressive -- no matter their gender. Women shouldn't get a free pass just because they're women. If we're going to have equal rights, then that means women can't act like dramatic c*nts and start fights they aren't prepared to finish. People can take self-defense too far sometimes, resulting in an unjustified total beatdown rather than a "get away from me" deterrence, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.





....That said, I don't see much justification for anything this guy did. A cycle of abuse does not excuse current abuse. It's not a situation where the case should have been all but dropped just because both people may or may not act like dicks. If abuse was present on both sides of the relationship, then you punish both sides for their specific misbehavior. This was not an act of self-defense. It was an aggressive pursuit followed by a strike and attempted strangulation. Even if jail time is not a factor, which it probably should be, these are people that should be kept apart -- especially if it's a continual thing.

I'd like to say it's just because he's got money or famous. That's probably part of it. You can frequently pay your way out of a serious crime if you've got a good enough lawyer to work the system or enough cash to pay someone off in order to get charges dropped. But, sadly, these sort of dismissals happen to regular abusive joes all the time.

[SteveT]

You know, I've come to regret my first post in this thread. I'm leaving it there so there's a record of my being wrong and the flow of the conversation doesn't gain a discontinuity. I was letting my disdain of a common social injustice (female on male domestic abuse going ignored and undocumented) get in the way of the immediate issue at hand: video evidence of a man abusing his wife. I apologize for that. Note that I wasn't ever trying to defend him or excuse domestic violence in any form, just pointing out that there was a bit of additional injustice beyond a poor judgement from the court. No one's directly called me out on it, but I just wanted to clarify on the record. My usual brevity was a problem there.

To add to Selena's point, in a lot of sub-cultures (specifically the middle class white culture in the U.S.), there's a major disparity in what we teach boys and girls about violence and emotions in general. Boys are taught restraint above all else. Suppress emotions. Avoid violence. Any aggression should be relieved via sports or other forms of culture-sanctioned competition. And certainly don't hurt girls because they can't fight back, and couldn't do anything to hurt you in the first place, so they're not a threat. No threat, no violence, because in this cultural frame, violence is only ok as self defense.

Girls are taught the contradictory message: you don't need restraint because you're harmless anyway (both physically and because of a fundamentally sweet and gentle nature). As Selena said, slapping a man has been romanticized as a harmless form of communication, a slightly more emphatic "no" than just saying "no." A woman can put all her force into a slap, and everyone in the room except the target will be fully convinced that it was painless, because she's just a girl. Then on top of that, women aren't encouraged to restrain or control their emotions, because culture says they couldn't control it if they wanted to, and they don't need to because, again, women are harmless. This can lead to women who see no need to control themselves ever, and lash out with emotional manipulation and physical abuse.

Mix the two together and you have women abusing the men in their life. The man starts off by sitting there and taking it, never so much as saying a word, because he's been trained not to react to things like this, and he's convinced that he's just a pussy if his wife could actually hurt him. It's a sign of weakness, so he keeps it to himself and suffers through it. But eventually, he can't restrain himself any more and strikes back. A woman, now, especially an emotionally abusive one to start with, will have no trouble showing off her bruises at work or otherwise drawing attention.

Then we're back to the part about culture where boys are trained how to treat women. No one believes he was fighting back because what harm can a woman do? There's nothing to fight back against. So obviously, he was the aggressor, is abusing his poor delicate flower of a wife, and should probably be castrated and hanged. Or maybe he's just such a coward that he couldn't find a way to make her back off without actually hitting her.

Suddenly, he's social outcast, all because of a ridiculous cultural notion, double-standards, and how we raise our children. He's a victim pushed over the edge. Yes, he reacted wrongly, yes the law is against him, but just as important as punishment is preventing marriages from reaching that point. Part of that is admitting that a sweet little girl can be just as abusive as a man.

What does that have to do with Smash Mouth? I don't know. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Maybe nothing. I don't have the info. She could have been lashing out in self-defense herself. The article I found mentioned she often went for his fingers (which would have put him out of work), and breaking fingers is one way out of a choke hold. I was just a little bothered that part of the story was buried.

Edited by SteveT, 11 September 2012 - 08:13 PM.

[Nevermind]

It also mentioned she pulled his hair which, interestingly - and to add to your bother - is another tactic for releasing oneself from various forms of holds and restraints...



















Okay.....what....the fuck....is that.....

Edited by Nevermind, 12 September 2012 - 01:26 AM.

[Sir Deimos]

That is what happens when you refuse to use proper grammar. It's a lot. Two words.

[Nevermind]

You know what, fuck it.
This thing is far too annyoing.

a lot.

Looks wrong but whatever trevor.

a lot.

Edited by Nevermind, 12 September 2012 - 06:44 AM.

[Sir Deimos]

Thanks !

[J-Roc]

It was an aggressive pursuit followed by a strike and attempted strangulation.

And to be clear what my point was earlier, the hold he was trying to do was totally misapplied and easily could have killed her. That's why I think this is a no-brainer jail sentence type deal.