You go, Girl!- Page 2

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 4:36pm

Iflit...

You're a f*cking genius!

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 5:19pm

Matt, I didn't make the law. I'm just saying that on the books, you can't hit someone. The A-hole had the option of calling the cops so he did. Someone else may not have.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 5:27pm

Sodomy is illegal in some states, but you don't hear about girls calling the police saying their boyfriends came in through the backdoor. Just because it's a law, doesn't make it correct. I know he had the option of calling the cops, but I wonder if he actually believes he is the one to come out on top of all this. And believe me, there is most definitely a way those words (or any sentence directed at a gay man) could be spoke that would warrant a slap on the face.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 5:35pm

Matt!!!! I am not your foe! I totally agree with you that some laws are ridiculous. I'm only stating a fact about a law on the books. I'm not saying whether it's fair or not. I'm sure that the slap wasn't hard enough to even leave some nice red marks!

[etoile]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 6:37pm

Wait, Richard Simmons is gay???

But on a serious note, unwanted physical contact is unwanted physical contact. PERIOD. It doesn't matter the degree or severity of the contact. Would someone think this act is such minor matter if they were the one hit in the face? Not always so easy to turn the other cheek for fear of it being struck also. How great was the restraint that his fellow showed not taking a swing at Simmons after he was struck?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 7:44pm

Jane2 - I know you are not my foe. I just think that calling the cops for a slap in the face that was provoked is beyond ridiculous.

etoile - I disagree with you about "unwanted physical contact" to a certain degree. I don't want people stepping on my feet trying to get to their seats in the theatre, but I'm not going to call the police if they do so. The slap was a reaction to a comment meant to be abusive. As far as I'm concerned, though it may be unlawful, it was fair and deserved. It's interesting that freedom of speech allows people to abuse each other verbally, but an actual SLAP is a criminal offense. I probably would not have slapped him myself for fear of being slaughtered, but I commend Richard on his bravery and self-conviction. I would love for every bully to realize that there might be physical consequences to their words. Perhaps they would think twice about their behavior. If I had made such a comment that caused another person to feel the need to physically assault me, I would know that I probably deserved it. Verbal or physical, abuse is abuse. What Richard did was no worse than what the man did to him. And despite what you think, the law is not so protective that it ignores physical acts that are a result of taunting or being provoked.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 7:55pm

Richard Simmons is the new Liza.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 8:52pm

That makes Liza the new Zsa Zsa.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 9:17pm

Updated On: 3/25/04 at 09:17 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/25/04 at 10:33pm

Matt, just thought of another ridiculous law. I was having a conversation with one of the crew members at the last theatre I worked in. We were talking about some equipment that was left laying around the theatre at the end of the night, and how it was necessary for her to clean it up before we locked up and went home. Why was it so important she clean up right then instead of waiting until the next day? Because if someone should decide to break into the theatre during the night, let's say with intentions to steal something, and this criminal should trip and fall or be hurt in some way by a falling piece of equipment, this criminal can sue the theatre.

Also, I heard a news story today that a store owner was arrested because he shot a man who was about to hold him up. I don't remember the details, but the victim was the one who was arrested, and not the criminal.

I've also heard similar cases concerning people who cause injury to someone who has broken into their home. The homeowner turns out to be the criminal, and is sued by the would be thief, rapist, murderer, who knows what the intent was?

Go figure.

[etoile]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 3:23am

Matt, you seem fixated on rationalizing a criminal act, no matter how slight an act, by stating it was prompted by verbal abuse so there is no foul. There is no indication, no evidence, that there was verbal abuse. And yes, some verbal statements are subject to criminal charges. You make a blanket statement that freedom of speech allows people to abuse each other. Freedom of speech comes with some restrictions and responsibities. Verbal statements that are a public annoyance, cause an inconvenience, are vulgar, or overtly loud constitute disorderly behavior. That's criminal. I have no doubt that if the slappee crossed the line, he too would have been charged with something.

One factor necessary for a criminal act is that it be knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally commited. So the unwanted accidental stepping upon one's feet by a fellow theater patron really doesn't apply.

Granted verbal abuse and physical abuse are both forms of abuse. Daaa. But they are by no means equal. So when you say, "What Richard did is no way worse than what the man did to him." it boggles my mind. (But does help me understand how and why you could justify the lob of a Playbill at a youngster.) How do you rationalize the escalating to an act of violence? How do you equate a statement with an act of violence? Words equal use of force. Please!

And dispite what you think I know I will explain something about the effect of contribuatory tremulous behavior. When BOTH parties engage in a violent act it mitigates the severity of the criminal charge, not negates charges. So when one individual is charged with a misdemeanor violation for a slap, a misdemeanor - not a summary charge, and the other party is not cited for uttering a verbal statement of any type...well to me that indicates only one aggressor.

And I will even go out on a limb and suggest, based upon my observance of human behavior, that when one displays uncharacterist "bravery and self-conviction" it is usually the result of a chemical catalyst.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 7:06am

Matt, is it possible that having been hurt by words in the past, perhaps you are over-identifying with Richard S. just a little? I think it's important to make the distinction between WANTING to slap someone, and actually doing it. There's is nothing wrong with feeling the desire to react in such a manner...but the DOING of it is a separate issue. I am generally an advocate of non-violence to a fault, but that doesn't mean I don't feel the impulse to strike out when my buttons are pushed. Why, just yesterday I interacted with someone during the course of my workday who, on an emotional level, I would like to have slapped silly. And any number of people would have felt it was justified.

There's something else that bothers me about this whole affair, but I've been having trouble putting my finger on it. Then my Assassins CD started to play, and I thought "Jody Foster". The Accused.

It's the "he asked for it" justification of violent behavior that is troubling me. It's not that big of a leap to see the same rationalization being applied in a sexual assault situation, the "she asked for it" defense. As a college student, I lived in a house with a girl named Wanda who rented and lived in the fruit cellar for $10/month (...housing was hard to come by...). One night, she was assaulted in her room by a guy who had seen her dancing at a club earlier in the evening. They didn't know each other, but he followed her home. Now, Wanda liked to dress in a seductively, and not for nothin', the quotation under the photo in her high school yearbook read "backfield in motion". Wanda image was that she was "hot stuff". Long story short, her attacker pitched the "she was asking for it" defense in court (Ravenna, Ohio, 1972). She was attacked by someone SHE DIDN"T EVEN KNOW in her own room. But because the perception was that she was a floozy, he got off.

My point is, that justifying a criminal act, even ones that have a superficially humorous overtone (like slapping), is the top of a very slippery slope.

Updated On: 3/26/04 at 07:06 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 7:27am

You're right. Lock up the menace. He shouldn't be allowed on the streets. And a slap in the face and rape are exactly the same. And we should also focus on the mattress tags. Too many people remove them and get away with it. Lock 'em up! It's criminal!

"How do you rationalize the escalating to an act of violence?"

When the act is scalated because the offender does not respond to any other previous attempts.

With all the true violent crimes and terrorism going on in this country, something like this slap in the face really makes me wonder about the priorities in this country.

"Granted verbal abuse and physical abuse are both forms of abuse. Daaa. But they are by no means equal."

Talk to a pyschologist about that. There is most definitely verbal abuse that is far worse than any slap in the face.

And nope, I'm not overreacting, I just have a different opinion. The only one I think is overreacting is the man who reported the slap to the police.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 10:01am

Matt, I'm not suggesting that Richard should be locked up. And I'm not suggesting that that verbal abuse isn't serious.

But as innocuous as it seems, or as provoked as it may have been, it still fits the definition of assault. Would I have reported it? Probably not. But then again, I wouldn't have made an assinine comment in the first place.

We all bring our past experiences to the table when arguing, um, dicussing, something like this. It colors our perception. No doubt the Wanda incident has shaped my reaction as much as your experiences have shaped yours. That's just how it is.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 10:02am

i think that richard is naive if he thinks that he can slap someone and not face both criminal charges and very likely a civil suit. he's public figure and he's got cash from all those years of sweating to the oldies. hence he's going to get sued and he should very well know it. let me play devil's advocate for just a moment here and put the shoe on the other foot.

an pro-life advocate wearing a button proclaiming "abortion is murder" is standing in line at the airport next to patricia ireland. now trish is having a bad morning and being stuck next to this woman who while saying nothing is evidently sending out negative energy. now, the plane is delayed, there's no wehere to sit and trish, taunted by that button, makes a comment, "hey everybody, let's see if she's still pro-life when her daughter is pregnant as a result of a rape!" now our little advocate winds up and delivers a healthy slap to good ol' trish.

is she justified in doing so? those words were probably as bad or worse to the pro-lifer than "hey everybody it's richard simmons, let's drop our bags and rock to the '50s."

Updated On: 3/26/04 at 10:02 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 11:16am

Good point, but what I keep saying, and keep being misunderstood, is that I *believe* that laws don't see the gray areas, and that if you physically attack someone, you have broken the law. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter what they said to you.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 12:20pm

iflitifloat - Sorry about the confusion. I was responding to both you and etoile. I don't argue that a slap on the face does not fall under the legal definition of assault, I just think calling the police for a slap that was provoked is a total waste of time, money, and police. Had Richard Simmons not been famous, it probably wouldn't have been reported.

papa - If I pro-lifer said that to anyone, I would hope they would get slapped, but that's just me. I feel like slapping them every time they shove a photo of a dead fetus in my view when walking to work, but that's another topic. And like we said earlier, we don't know how the man said what he did (there is no indication there wasn't verbal abuse). Depending how he said it, it could be just as bad as your pro-lifer example.

Jane2 - While a slap may be breaking the law, I *believe* it matters a great deal what was said to you. As etoile pointed out, certain types of verbal abuse are considered criminal as well. The only difference is, etoile does not believe that verbal and physical abuse could not be equal. I think they can.

Regardless, I'm not gonna change my mind about it. Other than the Playbill incident, I have never struck anyone after the age of 8, but I have seen a great many that most certainly deserved it. And every time I see a sign that says "God Hates Fags", I am reminded of it. Has past experience clouded my judgement? Absolutely. That is exactly what experience does. Everything you experience is a learning process and you make personal decisions. I have learned that I was way too passive with those that tormented me in my youth. Should I have attacked them physically? No, but considering their behavior, I absolutely believe they would have deserved it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 12:44pm

interesting. is it an accident that in your post you have the pro-lifer getting slapped when i had the former president of n.o.w. getting whacked by a pro-lifer?

and i wish everybody was as opened minded as you, matt. it would have kept a few charges from being pressd and saved me thousands in legal fees!

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 2:05pm

Ok Matt, I give up. What I'm trying to say to you is that I *believe* (and my using asterisks is not meant to be sarcastic to you, I use them because I don't know how to include italics, so no need to take offense), anyway I believe that on the police books, according to the law, it does not matter how heinous a person's words are-you are still in the wrong if you take physical action. You keep on saying it isn't fair, that a slap isn't the same as a full attack, etc. That may be all true, but it's still a fact-you hit someone, you're the perp, and not the other person. You and perhaps others have a problem with that, but it's still the law.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/26/04 at 4:27pm

Jane2 - I completely understand you and that is exactly what my last reply addressed. We're using different forms of the word "believe". But as etoile said, there are criminal forms of verbal abuse as well, so sometimes it does matter what a person says or how they say it. If the person slapped said something that is considered disorderly behavior, charges can be filed against them, too. Yes, slapping someone is against the law. And yes, I think in some instances it is quite unfair to file charges against them. But hey, the world is unfair. I'm just being vocal about it.