Cardinals Cheerleader Arrested for Domestic Violence

[BOTT]

Depends on your own personal viewpoints to violence against females,provocation or not. Besides as the other poster said females like to use weapons, trust me it can end up with fatal consequences balls or no balls.

He has said a lot of things on this subject.....most of them not good.

[SteelCityColt]

He has said a lot of things on this subject.....most of them not good.

Fair enough, it's between you, just saying out on its own your statement looks pretty bad.

No hard feelings buddy.

[Jhaze55]

No, my mantra is men like you need to grow a pair.

I actually lolled at how ridiculous this is.

 

Violence is violence. Nobody should be beaten.

[Vance]

Except I didn't actually say that. How to twist words 101.

 

I'm curious as to what you meant, then. Please enlighten me.

[BOTT]

I actually lolled at how ridiculous this is.

 

Violence is violence. Nobody should be beaten.

Oh look, you can spout cliches. And no, some people should be beaten.

[BOTT]

I'm curious as to what you meant, then. Please enlighten me.

I'm afraid enlightenment is not possible with you.

[Jhaze55]

Oh look, you can spout cliches. And no, some people should be beaten.

 

So domestic violence towards men is okay? Why is this even gender driven?

[Qwiz]

[BOTT]

 

So domestic violence towards men is okay? Why is this even gender driven?

Didn't say that. But you don't think there is a difference between a 200 LB man beating on a 120 LB woman than the other way around?

[Jhaze55]

Didn't say that. But you don't think there is a difference between a 200 LB man beating on a 120 LB woman than the other way around?

I'm glad all men are 200 lbs and all women are 120. 

 

You disregarding the other side of domestic violence is laughable. Especially with the quote "they just need to grow a pair"

[jvan1973]

Didn't say that. But you don't think there is a difference between a 200 LB man beating on a 120 LB woman than the other way around?

A 200 lb woman beating a 120lb man?

[BOTT]

A 200 lb woman beating a 120lb man?

Run

[BOTT]

I'm glad all men are 200 lbs and all women are 120. 

 

You disregarding the other side of domestic violence is laughable. Especially with the quote "they just need to grow a pair"

I know, those notoriously violent females beating men is at epidemic proportions. This whole "men are victims too" is just sorta pathetic but works well given that everyone in this country loves to be a victim. Good god, even the example the OP gave the man was a professional fighter....not like he couldn't have gotten out of the situation.

[Nadine]

Yes it's real. . . Women are actually more likely to abuse their partners then men are.  But we don't talk about it.  

 

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil when it comes to women.  

Link to not propaganda data?

[Jhaze55]

I know, those notoriously violent females beating men is at epidemic proportions. This whole "men are victims too" is just sorta pathetic but works well given that everyone in this country loves to be a victim. Good god, even the example the OP gave the man was a professional fighter....not like he couldn't have gotten out of the situation.

Nice double standard you got there.

 

And even if that one post was cliche, it was still true. But whatever, obviously we see differently.

[BOTT]

Nice double standard you got there.

 

And even if that one post was cliche, it was still true. But whatever, obviously we see differently.

It's a double standard because men and woman aren't the same, so let's stop pretending they are.

[BloodyChamp]

With all this focus on domestic abuse a lot don't realize that there a lot of women who abuse their husbands and or boyfriends. The larger part of men will not even press charges or make it known because of looking weak or scared of a woman. It is more common than most think. There are a lot of females who are real good at playing the victim when actually they are the ones passing out the abuse.

We've been over this truth bomb here before and it got me suspended.

[SteelCityColt]

It's a double standard because men and woman aren't the same, so let's stop pretending they are.

This is true, but it doesn't mean women aren't capable of horrific violence too, and men are often likely to hide it because of reactions such as yours. It's not as black and white as you make out, believe me.

For instance regardless of the provocation I've been raised to not hit women, it's probably a stupid ideal to uphold in the face of being attacked but there you go. So is that me showing a lack of balls as you put it?

[ruksak]

This is the biggest misconception. Women favor the use of weapons to make up for the lack of strength. Can you disarm a woman coming at you with a knife, or matrix dodge projectiles thrown at your head? Can you spidey sense a revolver pointed at you while you sleep?

 

Also, when you "stop" her from attacking you, that is considered domestic violence - against her.

My ex-wife used a shoe to whoop on me once as I walked away from one of her infamous tirades. She caught me with the heel right to the back of the head, which was excruciatingly painful. So I turned around quickly to grab the shoe, it popped her right in the eye. Sure would've looked bad if the cops showed up. BTW: She was about 4'10 105 and I'm 6'1 185. Little bit of dynamite, that one. 

 

Anywho, this says much about the reasons why we should wait until the legal aspects play out. Women lie on men all the time for this kind of thing. Men lie as well, of course, but for the purpose of the NFL domestic violence conversation, women can pose a serious threat to an NFL athlete. 

[ruksak]

I know, those notoriously violent females beating men is at epidemic proportions. This whole "men are victims too" is just sorta pathetic but works well given that everyone in this country loves to be a victim. Good god, even the example the OP gave the man was a professional fighter....not like he couldn't have gotten out of the situation.

That sounds really similar to "She was asking to get raped, look at what she's wearing". ...in terms of absurdity. 

 

When you have a drunk, angry woman flailing at you like a whirling dervish, all fists 'n' elbows, it's real easy for her to get hurt just in the course of you defending yourself. If that happens, your @!$ is grass if the cops show up. 

[Vance]

I'm afraid enlightenment is not possible with you.

 

My eyes are wiiiiide open. Try opening yours.

[southwest1]

I have to be honest here. I don't condone hitting any woman, but Megan Welter clearly was aggressive & belligerent there. "Please stop. Megan please stop." 2 intoxicated people & the woman is hitting the man. 

 

This is why I get upset when some experts love to say that a woman could never harm a man & that the man can always overpower & injure a female not vice versa. Have you ever been around an enraged female? They are capable of biting, pulling, & kicking anything near them. Weight doesn't mean much if a person is bat crap crazy when they explode.

 

I will acknowledge that men have better upper body strength on average, but a female psycho who flies off at the handle is more dangerous than body builder meat head. Trust me on this one.

 

I guarantee you without that cell phone video the cops would have arrested Megan's boyfriend on the scene just on her accusation alone.   

[southwest1]

 

 

When you have a drunk, angry woman flailing at you like a whirling dervish, all fists 'n' elbows, it's real easy for her to get hurt just in the course of you defending yourself. If that happens, your @!$ is grass if the cops show up. 

Amen Brother Ruksak Amen. 

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

Lucky he wasnt dating Ronda Rousey

[Valpo2004]

Link to not propaganda data?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/  - Look at nonreciprocal violence.  Table 2 - Perpetrated by men 29.3% of the time. . . Perpetrated by women 70.7% of the time.  

 

Most DV is unsurprisingly reciprocal violence however.

 

http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

 

There has been little research on responses to male victims of intimate partner violence, in part because agencies refuse to fund such research. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice solicitation of proposals for Justice Responses to Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking (p. 8) stated “What will not be funded: 4. Proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females under the age of 12.” In the few studies done, many men report that hotline workers say they only help women, imply or state the men must be the instigators, ridicule them or refer them to batterers’ programs. Police often will fail to respond, ridicule the man or arrest him. (Cook 2009)(Douglas and Hines, 2011)

In 2008 Douglas and Hines conducted the first-ever large-scale national survey of men who sought help for heterosexual physical intimate partner violence. (Douglas and Hines, 2011) Some 302 men were surveyed. This study found that between half and two-thirds of the men who contacted the police, a DV agency, or a DV hotline reported that these resources were “not at all helpful.” The study elaborates:

A large proportion of those who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” Of the 132 men who sought help from a DV agency, 44.1% (n=86) said that this resource was not at all helpful; further, 95.3% of those men (n=81) said that they were given the impression that the agency was biased against men. Some of the men were accused of being the batterer in the relationship: This happened to men seeking help from DV agencies (40.2%), DV hotlines (32.2%) and online resources (18.9%). Over 25% of those using an online resource reported that they were given a phone number for help which turned out to be the number for a batterer’s program. The results from the open-ended questions showed that 16.4% of the men who contacted a hotline reported that the staff made fun them, as did 15.2% of the men who contacted local DV agencies. (p. 7)

Police arrested the man as often as the violent partner (33.3% vs. 26.5%) 7 . (p. 8) The partner was deemed the “primary aggressor” in 54.9% of the cases. In 41.5% of the cases where men called the police, the police asked if he wanted his partner arrested; in 21% the police refused to arrest the partner, and in 38.7% the police said there was nothing they could do and left."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

 

The dumb thing about the above article is though it concludes that women are more violent it determines for no reason whatsoever that male violence against women is more serious.  I guess it's just because women are precious flowers that society must always protect while men can be hung out to dry when they arn't useful to a woman.

[Valpo2004]

I have to be honest here. I don't condone hitting any woman, but Megan Welter clearly was aggressive & belligerent there. "Please stop. Megan please stop." 2 intoxicated people & the woman is hitting the man. 

 

This is why I get upset when some experts love to say that a woman could never harm a man & that the man can always overpower & injure a female not vice versa. Have you ever been around an enraged female? They are capable of biting, pulling, & kicking anything near them. Weight doesn't mean much if a person is bat crap crazy when they explode.

 

I will acknowledge that men have better upper body strength on average, but a female psycho who flies off at the handle is more dangerous than body builder meat head. Trust me on this one.

 

I guarantee you without that cell phone video the cops would have arrested Megan's boyfriend on the scene just on her accusation alone.   

 

Any adult who really wants to hurt you is going to do so and the only realistic way of stopping them is to hurt them.  

 

A 120 pound woman can hurt a 300 pound NFL offensive lineman if the lineman won't fight back, which if he's smart he wont' because if he hits her he's automatically the bad guy.

[BOTT]

This is true, but it doesn't mean women aren't capable of horrific violence too, and men are often likely to hide it because of reactions such as yours. It's not as black and white as you make out, believe me.

For instance regardless of the provocation I've been raised to not hit women, it's probably a stupid ideal to uphold in the face of being attacked but there you go. So is that me showing a lack of balls as you put it?

Once again, I never said sit there and let a woman beat on you. And I never said woman aren't capable of extreme violence. Not sure why people can't stick to what I actually write.

[BOTT]

That sounds really similar to "She was asking to get raped, look at what she's wearing". ...in terms of absurdity. 

 

When you have a drunk, angry woman flailing at you like a whirling dervish, all fists 'n' elbows, it's real easy for her to get hurt just in the course of you defending yourself. If that happens, your @!$ is grass if the cops show up.

Your first sentence may be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

[ruksak]

Your first sentence may be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

It does if you comprehend the context.

 

You said;

 

 

 Good god, even the example the OP gave the man was a professional fighter....not like he couldn't have gotten out of the situation.

Which is an absurd sexist remark ......

 

I don't care if the male if 8 feet tall and can urinate lead bullets and the woman is 4 feet tall, it's never pleasant to have anyone hit you. Especially if weapons are involved. The example I gave should illustrate that point well. My ex popped me on the back of the head with a woman's shoe with a rock hard heel, and I was walking away. 

 

"She was asking to get raped because of what she wore" = "He was asking to get beat because he wasn't man enough to deal with it". 

 

Both sexist. Both absurd.

 

I don't mean to attack you, but what you said was a bit clumsy. 

[BOTT]

It does if you comprehend the context.

You said;

Which is an absurd sexist remark ......

I don't care if the male if 8 feet tall and can urinate lead bullets and the woman is 4 feet tall, it's never pleasant to have anyone hit you. Especially if weapons are involved. The example I gave should illustrate that point well. My ex popped me on the back of the head with a woman's shoe with a rock hard heel, and I was walking away.

"She was asking to get raped because of what she wore" = "He was asking to get beat because he wasn't man enough to deal with it".

Both sexist. Both absurd.

I don't mean to attack you, but what you said was a bit clumsy.

It's still a horrible analogy.

You're right, it's not pleasant to get hit by anyone, and I'm not saying a man should sit there and get his face gouged. But let's be realistic....he is a professional fighter and she is a cheerleader....I find I hard to believe that he couldn't not remove himself from the situation without intentionally hurting her.

[ruksak]

It's still a horrible analogy.

You're right, it's not pleasant to get hit by anyone, and I'm not saying a man should sit there and get his face gouged. But let's be realistic....he is a professional fighter and she is a cheerleader....I find I hard to believe that he couldn't not remove himself from the situation without intentionally hurting her.

It's harder than it sounds, not without injuring a flailing angry woman. Holding a woman down causes marks. Pushing her causes marks. The guy in the OP had it right, cuz that's all you can do to be on the safe side. Record it. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

For the first offense the NFL used to wait until the trial was completed.  (They would punish sooner on a 2nd offense if you've already been found guilty once and I think that's ok)

 

But with Adrian Peterson the moral outrage machine went into overdrive and they didn't want to wait for a trial.

 

Therefore if the accusation is enough for a suspension she needs to go.  Along with Hope Solo.

 

People want action based upon preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, for social justice. Same as for a civil case.  If TMZ or other video / pictures exist, then some evidence has been presented that takes it beyond a he said/she said ordeal, and a suspension may be in order while further details are obtained.

 

Businesses with employees in a public scope may have more of a moral obligation to maintain public trust. They can do as they see fit.  If an employee drives for company business (truck driver/delivery, sales rep, etc..) and they get a DUI and their license is or might be suspended, then the company can dismiss them.  They may not be able to properly perform their job... especially in a conviction.  Criminal due process does not have to play out before these actions are taken.  But it might be, in unclear cases.

[crazycolt1]

Once again, I never said sit there and let a woman beat on you. And I never said woman aren't capable of extreme violence. Not sure why people can't stick to what I actually write.

I think it started when you out and out insulted him by telling him to grow a set of balls. I think your mindset is stuck in another time zone.

[crazycolt1]

The BIG difference is the man can stop the violence, the woman cannot.

I think you are very misinformed.

[crazycolt1]

No, my mantra is men like you need to grow a pair.

Do you always insult people and make yourself look ignorant?

[crazycolt1]

It does if you comprehend the context.

 

You said;

Which is an absurd sexist remark ......

 

I don't care if the male if 8 feet tall and can urinate lead bullets and the woman is 4 feet tall, it's never pleasant to have anyone hit you. Especially if weapons are involved. The example I gave should illustrate that point well. My ex popped me on the back of the head with a woman's shoe with a rock hard heel, and I was walking away. 

 

"She was asking to get raped because of what she wore" = "He was asking to get beat because he wasn't man enough to deal with it". 

 

Both sexist. Both absurd.

 

I don't mean to attack you, but what you said was a bit clumsy. 

I think your being to tame with him myself. He does have a bad habit of saying things without thinking of how it sounds or who it insults.

[southwest1]

Slightly off topic, but still within the topic of female domestic violence as in yet another woman being arrested on causing physical abuse to another person. Olympic soccer goalie Hope Solo charged with assault.

 

I am not blaming any gender here. I am just pointing out that both women & men can cross the line here that's all. 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/soccer/u-s-soccer-stands-decision-hope-solo-play-article-1.1949261

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/brennan/2014/09/22/hope-solo-us-soccer-domestic-violence-charge/16072499/

[Valpo2004]

People want action based upon preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, for social justice. Same as for a civil case.  If TMZ or other video / pictures exist, then some evidence has been presented that takes it beyond a he said/she said ordeal, and a suspension may be in order while further details are obtained.

 

Businesses with employees in a public scope may have more of a moral obligation to maintain public trust. They can do as they see fit.  If an employee drives for company business (truck driver/delivery, sales rep, etc..) and they get a DUI and their license is or might be suspended, then the company can dismiss them.  They may not be able to properly perform their job... especially in a conviction.  Criminal due process does not have to play out before these actions are taken.  But it might be, in unclear cases.

 

Not saying it has to legally involve a trial.  However since thanks to the public outrage machine we've moved the line from found guilty in court to preponderance of evidence then Hope Solo needs to go.  

[ruksak]

I think your being to tame with him myself. He does have a bad habit of saying things without thinking of how it sounds or who it insults.

I have no issue with his approach. I'd rather a poster tell it like he/she really feels and not parse words for the sake of acceptance. I give him credit for speaking his mind, though I found his manner of doing so a bit dubious. 

 

I was "tame" with him because there's no point in using insults as a tool to deliver my disagreeance. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

Not saying it has to legally involve a trial.  However since thanks to the public outrage machine we've moved the line from found guilty in court to preponderance of evidence then Hope Solo needs to go.  

 

I, personally, would like to see corporate and sports leagues adopt policy where punitive measures are based upon the Clear and Convincing Evidence standard. But the days of letting only the court system thrash it out somewhere in the future has passed. Why? Because to get a guilty verdict in court, it must be beyond a reasonable doubt.  It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence  (that was allowed to be) presented in that intensely structured, formal, and rule laced proceeding that  (fortunately for some innocent folks wrongly accused) is slanted toward the defendant.  We need that when deciding whether to fry (OK, lethally inject) someone or not, or confine them until they pass away from natural causes.  We do not need that high of a bar level to determine if a player should sit a few games and get his pay docked for violating a domestic abuse policy.  IMHO