unprovoked

36 minutes ago, pewpewpew said:

I guess I'll preface this by saying (lest I offend anyone) that it is never ok to hit someone in the head in retaliation unless in self defence. However something doesn't sit right with the quoted interview (minutes?) after the incident and the terrified lad the next day.

 

What annoys me is how the video was cut and the "unprovoked, disgusting act of violence" story spun by the media got run. There is absolutely two sides to the event yet the media just shaped it to how they saw it and what would get the most reaction. Very poor all round.

57 minutes ago, Nasher said:

No, I don’t think that’s okay either, but obviously there’s a much lower chance of doing serious damage with an open handed slap. Like anything, there are degrees of seriousness in assaults. I’ve never heard one anyone being killed by a one-slap, have you?

We can't have it both ways. or every way .    making exceptions to the rule to suit one way of thinking...  is a COP out.  and a LAW out.

 

The culture starts with Women.  and ends with Men. 

You can't tell me women of the decades are not seriously attracted to the  "Clint Eastwood's"  and the Steve McQueen's, the Jean-Claude van Damme's... and they're screen behaviors. 

 

They are the ones mostly,  who teach boys to not cry,  not to whinge,  etc...   and they are the ones who allow the girls to do the traditional 'expected',  behaviors...  like being the victim,  being the crier, and being manipulative,  rather then being up front.

This is mostly reinforced by the Men, when they get home.

 

And all the while its being modeled on TV for Kids  'boys and girls'  to emulate...   this is where the culture begins,  and is learnt from.  

Apart from the depth of...  which is carried thru the genes from the parents.

... evolution is slow,  and the kids genes will reflect the genes of the parents,  at the time of conception...   ie: don't conceive when unfit...  but get fit and then conceive 6 months after becoming fit, & while still being fit.

 

This culture of hitting/punching/slapping is the Problem of both Sexes, and of OUR cultures.  Its an aggressive culture,  right throughout.

We cannot pick and choose if we want it to change.

 

Look at the USA,  and the shootings they have there.   They are born into the western gunslinger mentality.   Were power and death go hand in hand, and are expected and adored.

......

Keep your hands off my Stash !!!    

 

... a Very  'Self'  culture.   Of greed,  and of,  'Us & Them'.

 

.

 

 

1 hour ago, Maxwell Edison MD said:

Reportedly filmed after the match.

I don't know about being ''disabled''.

He's sharper than plenty of Demonland posters.

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

It's not necessarily the result of the punch or slap in itself. A powerful slap can easily knock someone to the ground, and the damage in these cases is often caused by the impact of the head hitting the ground, and not the strike itself. 

It's not about the force...  it's about the attitude...  and the thinking that Law/right,  is on ones side, or the other.  So they can  'carry-on',  with these beliefs.

 

The attitude to treat people this way, and the thinking that either has the right to start up,  an in your face physical aggravation...  is the problem.

That Hawks man is the beginnings of trouble...  We can see how he acts and responds with utter contempt.  

The LACK of respect for fellow people, is the beginnings of Conflict.  The desire to cause conflict is the problem.  

To allow him,  because he is,  or isn't, in some way disabled ???    is only endorsing, and embedding,  his Problems.

 

 

IMO this Hawk person's  'inner dis-empowerment',   is the issue...   and because of this,  he looks to assert Hurt on others.  to feel some personal Power.

Edited May 6, 20195 yr by DV8

39 minutes ago, Beetle said:

Provacation won't come into it when deciding if charges are laid. It wasn't really self defence given the victim was walking away..

I'm curious whether the victim will in fact sign up to a statement however, because of the lead up events.

The "offender" could well request unlawful assault charges be laid for the beer slap...it "could" be argued the beer slap itself was done intending fear...

 

If provocation is raised by the suspect and you can’t negate it, there’s not a Prima Facie case, so over here (obviously if excessive force wasn’t used), we wouldn’t charge. 

Dunno how people get themselves into these fights, 25 years of going to the footy and I've never had the urge to get verbal or physical with an oppo supporter....even though I've certainly seen my share of d-heads!

13 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

If the AFL was up to their virtue signalling best they'd ban grog at the footy.

Grog is always the problem at the footy. In the streets, violence can often be attributable to drugs and a mix of drugs and alcohol but at the footy its normally just grog.

The old days of drinking from cans and long necks in the outer were bad. As a kid, you would witness alcohol fuelled fights every week in the outer sometimes involving two men fighting but often more than two. It was rugged stuff and I witnessed many violent scenes inside and outside the ground. 

There is little of that these days and fights are unusual. Like everything else associated with the game, ground authorities have become very strict. Reporting anti-social behaviour is beamed into our brains so relentlessly that sometimes you feel like transgressing. 

Despite these strict rules of behaviour, alcohol is still the major problem. Every time you attend the MCG you are reminded of the presence of alcohol. There are bars on every level and several bars on each level. You literally cannot walk 50 metres without tripping over a bar. I like a drink as much as anyone, and it's part of the social custom of many to have a drink at the footy. Yet it staggers me how many people (mainly men)  are drinking. The bars are usually packed and many only emerge when the game starts. At the same time, many remain in the bar all match and watch the game on the TV screens, a habit that seems to me to be crazy.  But this behaviour tells you that there are a lot of people who just attend the game to drink with their mates, and drink copious amounts of grog.  

As with other social evils like gambling, governments and organisations spend millions of dollars on "social responsibility"" messages yet do nothing to stop the problem.  There are just too many vested financial interests that benefit from these things whether it be gambling or alcohol consumption. If the sporting codes were fair dinkum, they would limit the amount of alcohol served . You could provide a supporter with a limited amount of prep-purchased coupons or restrict the opening hours of bars. Open bars for an hour before the game and close bars during the course of the game. Sure have bars open at half-time but stop serving grog at the beginning of the 3rd Q.

It's a bit like night clubs and bars in the street. The industry and those who attend clubs tell you that stricter rules and regulations restrict business and individual freedoms.  People argue that it is their right to attend a club at any time of day or night. Yet at the same time,  the consequences of these freedoms can produce inappropriate and anti-social behaviour that comes at a cost to society. 

So nothing gets done except that authorities deliver preachy messages and give politically correct responses that do nothing to address the problem.   

 

10 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

If provocation is raised by the suspect and you can’t negate it, there’s not a Prima Facie case, so over here (obviously if excessive force wasn’t used), we wouldn’t charge. 

Provocation seems to have a lot more clout over there...

If this incident happened in a suburban street (with no one around) and not at the G where there were plenty of witnesses and phone camera footage, the brief would 100% be non-authorised.

34 minutes ago, hemingway said:

As with other social evils like gambling, governments and organisations spend millions of dollars on "social responsibility"" messages yet do nothing to stop the problem.  There are just too many vested financial interests that benefit from these things whether it be gambling or alcohol consumption. If the sporting codes were fair dinkum, they would limit the amount of alcohol served . You could provide a supporter with a limited amount of prep-purchased coupons or restrict the opening hours of bars. Open bars for an hour before the game and close bars during the course of the game. Sure have bars open at half-time but stop serving grog at the beginning of the 3rd Q.

It's a bit like night clubs and bars in the street. The industry and those who attend clubs tell you that stricter rules and regulations restrict business and individual freedoms.  People argue that it is their right to attend a club at any time of day or night. Yet at the same time,  the consequences of these freedoms can produce inappropriate and anti-social behaviour that comes at a cost to society. 

So nothing gets done except that authorities deliver preachy messages and give politically correct responses that do nothing to address the problem.   

 

I am surprised by the amount of anti-drinking comments on this thread. 99% of people that drink at the footy do so and don't get into fights. the problem is D-heads (in this case two of them) attending the footy, not people drinking at the footy.  As you said, fights at the footy has decreased massively over the years.

putting restrictive rules for when you buy booze will not help and would just aggravate people further.  You just need to look at england to see the lock out laws don't work.

Saw this today and decided it summed up this thread quite neatly:

 

Anyone remember those dhead Collingwood supporters after a Queens birthday game who hit Nate Jones' dad in front of a young teenage Zac Jones? 

Apparently Zac refused to be interviewed by Collingwood recruiters in his draft year, instead telling them not pick him.

 

Just to put this into perspective, perhaps the innocent "disabled" victim might not be the best spokesperson for Tasmania or the AFL.

Apologise for the language but I think it is important that people know who the Media are portraying as the poor unfortunate.

 

1 hour ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

unprovoked

What annoys me is how the video was cut and the "unprovoked, disgusting act of violence" story spun by the media got run. There is absolutely two sides to the event yet the media just shaped it to how they saw it and what would get the most reaction. Very poor all round.

I am truly shocked to hear that....

54 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I am surprised by the amount of anti-drinking comments on this thread. 99% of people that drink at the footy do so and don't get into fights. the problem is D-heads (in this case two of them) attending the footy, not people drinking at the footy.  As you said, fights at the footy has decreased massively over the years.

putting restrictive rules for when you buy booze will not help and would just aggravate people further.  You just need to look at england to see the lock out laws don't work.

You may be right Dub, but society has a massive problem with booze at all ages. It impacts health, the economy. families and social behaviour.

Most people drink responsibly, but from a young age there is a view that to enjoy yourself there has to be booze available., that you can't conduct anything without booze. Its a social habit ingrained by advertising and organisations whose profit comes from selling the stuff. People can do without booze but it is very hard to avoid the pressure not to drink particularly for young people..

As gambling infiltrates sport on every level so does booze.  As a society, we seem to accept that's okay. As said, it comes at a cost. 

Edited May 6, 20195 yr by hemingway

40 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I am surprised by the amount of anti-drinking comments on this thread. 99% of people that drink at the footy do so and don't get into fights. the problem is D-heads (in this case two of them) attending the footy, not people drinking at the footy.  As you said, fights at the footy has decreased massively over the years.

putting restrictive rules for when you buy booze will not help and would just aggravate people further.  You just need to look at england to see the lock out laws don't work.

Have to disagree DubDee.

The fact that dry areas are needed at all tells me different. Especially since I'm sure the caterers would prefer not to have them.

I sit in a reserved seating dry area. I have seen enough over the years to know that policing of dry areas is lax at best.

I know that the majority of drinkers don't cause trouble, but I also know families who don't go because they don't want to expose their kids to abusive, aggressive morons (drinkers or not).

 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

I am surprised by the amount of anti-drinking comments on this thread. 99% of people that drink at the footy do so and don't get into fights. the problem is D-heads (in this case two of them) attending the footy, not people drinking at the footy.  As you said, fights at the footy has decreased massively over the years.

putting restrictive rules for when you buy booze will not help and would just aggravate people further.  You just need to look at england to see the lock out laws don't work.

Why do you need to drink at the footy? Aren't you there to watch the game?

i almost never have an alcoholic drink at the footy, though the Dees make it almost necessary most weeks.

Would you stay away if there was no drinking?

It is there for the same reason as gambling  - profits

3 minutes ago, GM11 said:

Have to disagree DubDee.

The fact that dry areas are needed at all tells me different. Especially since I'm sure the caterers would prefer not to have them.

I sit in a reserved seating dry area. I have seen enough over the years to know that policing of dry areas is lax at best.

I know that the majority of drinkers don't cause trouble, but I also know families who don't go because they don't want to expose their kids to abusive, aggressive morons (drinkers or not).

 

We agree 100% GM11. 

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

I don't know about being ''disabled''.

He's sharper than plenty of Demonland posters.

Not sure he'd last long here because of the 'language' issue: Grapeviney would be onto him in no time. 

How do we know that Baldy from Baxter is not a poster on this site hiding under a nom de plume.  

The video is damning - his aggression to other supporters and his language after the game in the first interview set a tone.  Then to be interviewed straight after the incident and engage in in-depth list analysis (no after effects).  Then the channel 7 “I’m scared to go to the footy”, “I’m disabled”.

If it went to the tribunal he might get 2 weeks, intentional high, low impact, looks bad for the game (reduced to a fine for Dangerfield).  Funny how violence off the field is regarded compared to violence on the field?

1 hour ago, hemingway said:

How do we know that Baldy from Baxter is not a poster on this site hiding under a nom de plume.  

It's @Ethan....he was first to support Baldy

2 hours ago, dworship said:

Just to put this into perspective, perhaps the innocent "disabled" victim might not be the best spokesperson for Tasmania or the AFL.

Apologise for the language but I think it is important that people know who the Media are portraying as the poor unfortunate.

 

Having listened to this foul mouthed fool, egged on by a smirking creep - the one holding the mike - I can only say that I would be deeply ashamed of myself if I was provoked into doing something that had me charged with assault by either of these two.

I have no doubt that in an earlier era Benny, the 'victim' of the affair, would have earned himself some corrective attention. He is an unfiltered vulgarian. But to get into strife on his account...dumb.

As much as Melbourne has to condemn what our bloke did, Hawthorn need to reign in this garbage . The guy with the mike encourages violence and anger and offers nothing useful. 

Edited May 6, 20195 yr by pitmaster

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Why do you need to drink at the footy? Aren't you there to watch the game?

i almost never have an alcoholic drink at the footy, though the Dees make it almost necessary most weeks.

Would you stay away if there was no drinking?

It is there for the same reason as gambling  - profits

I don't need to drink at the footy. I don't need to go to the footy at all.  They are two things I enjoy doing so why not together?

The victim might be an asshat but violence is never ok. Be the bigger person and walk on. Or report him to ground staff if he’s behaving poorly. Don’t hit someone. 

1 hour ago, GM11 said:

Have to disagree DubDee.

The fact that dry areas are needed at all tells me different. Especially since I'm sure the caterers would prefer not to have them.

I sit in a reserved seating dry area. I have seen enough over the years to know that policing of dry areas is lax at best.

I know that the majority of drinkers don't cause trouble, but I also know families who don't go because they don't want to expose their kids to abusive, aggressive morons (drinkers or not).

 

I have no issue with dry or family areas if that is what you are referring to.  I also agree they should be extended

but I just think i should be able to drink with my mates at the footy if i want to