I guess the practical question is, concerning this particular case, is bringing a charge of battery a valid response by this woman?
I agree. Based on what she claims happened filing criminal charges is a reasonable course of action (more for the attack than the wet willie). However, I think that there are far easier means to achieve relief from this problem than dragging all three parties through a long expensive criminal case. Yet a long criminal case is her right.
Based on what I read, grabbing the wrist, holding her against her will, and continuously shoving his finger in her ear...while her daughter was a witness, leads me to say yes, bring the charges. If proven, they rise to the level of a crime.
Your verbiage is biased and emotionally pre-loaded towards a conclusion.
“Grabbing the wrist” ... how hard? ... for how long? ... with what intent?
“holding her against her will” ... did he commit battery or kidnapping?
“continuously shoving his finger in her ear” ... what does ‘continuously’ mean in this context? ... did it come out the other side?
If what you describe is proven true, he mugged her, kidnapped her and murdered her by piercing her brain with his finger ... that certainly sounds like a crime to me!
Now the only question is ... Is that even close to what actually happened?
Others have read the same thing I did and say, even if true, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime.
I have seen people say it isn't really abuse if no marks are left. I seen people say it wasn't real violence. I've seen people say that anyone who would pursue these charges should be slapped. To me, that is dismissing the victim and her accusations.
The opinions of others are of little concern to me, except to note that others are entitled to their opinions.
It really doesn't require us to say, "lynch him without a trial" on the one hand or, "she should be slapped for bringing the charges" on the other.
Rather, we can ask "are these charges reasonable" considering what we know?
I say yes.
In defense of Revmitchell, he and I have disagreed often on many things, but he never really advocated slapping the woman. I read his initial remark as a rhetorical statement addressed to the need to slap anyone who thought simple acts of stupidity (like a wet willie) should be treated as a criminal assault. He even later explained his intent himself. Is there something about that particular Baptist Brother in Christ that leads you to believe that he does not mean what he says? I never got that sense about him. He can be annoying, but I never sensed dishonesty in him.
“Lynch him without a trial” was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the fierceness of the attacks against anyone who was unwilling to immediately condemn the man lend a grain of truth to the accusation.
“Are these charges reasonable considering what we know?”
Interestingly, you see the issue one that hinges on “reasonable” and conclude that the charges are reasonable based on what we know. I see the real issue hinging on “what we know” since the article was anything but unbiased. We have one side of a story presented from the testimony of the alleged victim. The only witness is anything but impartial and we have been allowed to hear nothing from the other side. Yes, it is reasonable from what we know and the fact that the police filed charges lends some credibility to the claims. However, we are by no means in possession of all the facts or the complete story.
What we have here is an emotional response based on a one-sided story written to stir emotional responses. Yellow journalism at its worst.
