07-08-2015, 09:53 AM
Entirely possible they have the same policy. Alcohol was never mentioned, but when it involves a young star football player and he wasn't tested for sobriety at the scene, I wouldn't rule it out either. Judgmental on my part, sure.
I never said I think Johnson was justified in his actions. I said it raises the question where the line is between self defense and battery. I'm 95% sure you know the difference between assault and battery. Because her raising her fist to him is assault - the threat of physical violence. Him "putting his hands on her" in my opinion was justified, when he wrapped up her fist and pushed it away from himself. I generally approve of restraining techniques when confronted with physical violence. When he battered her, he crossed the line in my opinion, but that's entirely my opinion. In his mind at the time, she had battered him and he was responding in kind. I can see a legitimate defense being raised that she threatened first and then struck first. I think most people would agree he escalated the level of violence. However the law is meant to be fair, and not always open to subjective arguments. I also can't believe anyone would equate public assault/battery with domestic violence.
The issue I had with your response is that you said he could have walked away or called the cops. A victim of assault is justified in defending themselves. If they can get away, sure, but I wouldn't tell a rape victim that he or she should not fight back because they could call the cops. God forbid they commit battery to escape the situation... I doubt you feel that way either, so where do you draw the line? If she'd been holding his shirt, not allowing him to leave would he be justified? If she threw three or four punches? What level of physical violence needs to be reached before self defense becomes legitimate?
I never said I think Johnson was justified in his actions. I said it raises the question where the line is between self defense and battery. I'm 95% sure you know the difference between assault and battery. Because her raising her fist to him is assault - the threat of physical violence. Him "putting his hands on her" in my opinion was justified, when he wrapped up her fist and pushed it away from himself. I generally approve of restraining techniques when confronted with physical violence. When he battered her, he crossed the line in my opinion, but that's entirely my opinion. In his mind at the time, she had battered him and he was responding in kind. I can see a legitimate defense being raised that she threatened first and then struck first. I think most people would agree he escalated the level of violence. However the law is meant to be fair, and not always open to subjective arguments. I also can't believe anyone would equate public assault/battery with domestic violence.
The issue I had with your response is that you said he could have walked away or called the cops. A victim of assault is justified in defending themselves. If they can get away, sure, but I wouldn't tell a rape victim that he or she should not fight back because they could call the cops. God forbid they commit battery to escape the situation... I doubt you feel that way either, so where do you draw the line? If she'd been holding his shirt, not allowing him to leave would he be justified? If she threw three or four punches? What level of physical violence needs to be reached before self defense becomes legitimate?