To answer your question though he didn't think his behavior was justified. You do.

There’s no way you should hit a female. period. Even a male. At the end of the day, there’s no way you should hit a female. Period.

I've said I think him responding with a strike was reasonable, and it still is. His apology changes nothing about the facts of that situation.

He also said this:



Does that now mean people everywhere are precluded from defending themselves from multiple batteries?

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

I've said I think him responding with a strike was reasonable, and it still is. His apology changes nothing about the facts of that situation.

He also said this:



Does that now mean people everywhere are precluded from defending themselves from multiple batteries?

Ask Mixon if what he did was justified.

He has accepted he made a mistake. Now it is your turn.

So now Mixon is the ultimate arbiter of justification? Would you be appealing to his authority if he had come out and said he was justified in defending himself with a strike?

So now Mixon is the ultimate arbiter of justification? Would you be appealing to his authority if he had come out and said he was justified in defending himself with a strike?

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

I'm shocked , SHOCKED that a player who one day hopes earn his living in a league with a huge public relations problem in regards to how they handle DV might think it may be in his best interests to apologize for something even though he may truly feel he isnt at fault for.

Mixon is the arbiter of whether or not his own actions were justified.

That's ludicrous. If he is the only one that can dictate whether his actions were justified, why did you even bother to weigh in on this before he spoke publicly about it?

You did, though, so could it be that whether his response was justified is discernible independent of his own rationalizations? Yes, it could be, and yes, it is.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Dude you were the one that went on for pages about how it was possible that Mixon legitimately feared for his safety.

If you read what I wrote you'd see that I never said he was the ONLY one who could decide whether or not his actions were reasonable. He just happens to be the best person to do so because he was, you know, the guy who was actually there.

I'm not even clear what you age trying to say anymore.

Wow.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Mixon is the arbiter of whether or not his own actions were justified. What an odd hill you've picked to die on.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You better hope no one really tries to deconstruct this argument, you homewrecker.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

He had been battered, twice, by this person. Oklahoma criminal code affords him the right to "meet force with force" to make that stop. What if he had punched her, just not as hard, then, would that have been OK? If so, then you're saying his choice of response was reasonable, but he did it too well, and should have had the presence of mind to only use 50% of his power to stop the threat? That would be unreasonable.

If you're going to say he should not have touched her at all, you are saying that this young man should have allowed himself to be battered by this white girl and has no identifiable right to actively protect himself from her battery. That's great

Also, the protection of assault and battery laws, as well as self-defense laws, doesn't hinge on the size or strength of one participant relative to another. If they did, that means Joe Mixon and big, strong people everywhere are less protected by the laws proscribing the unwanted physical/violent touching of another than people who happen to be smaller. I think the Constitution says something explicitly about that...

WHUUUUUT?

The Mixon discussion never had to do with due process, it never had to do with him being charged, nor his pleading.

Be better. Do better.

And...where is the part about due process of law?

And she absolutely should have been.

Mixon got his "due process". He plead guilty. He admitted he was wrong after the fact too in a press conference.

He clearly got his "due process" and "due process" indicates he was wrong. Why don't you accept he was wrong?

I never denied that Mixon broke her face, and he did get due process after being charged with a crime of "gross bodily harm", again, a fact I never denied. You are really, really, bad at this. I'd put you on ignore if it wasn't so funny.

Well, you said it had nothing to do with him being charged. I have proven that false.

By posting a quote of me talking about how the female should have been charged? Mixon's due process rights are/were not impacted by her charging.

BRick, do you...understand what due process is? I mean not substantive, but merely procedural.

I do.

May be time for the last holdouts to accept Mixon was wrong.

http://deadspin.com/woman-punched-by-joe-mixon-says-argument-was-incited-by-1792201184

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.