I don't have a dog in this fight since I just now read the thread. I haven't seen anyone ITT defending Mixon, so those making pious and misdirected responses and accusations (jtung, for instance), I'll help you understand the distinctions going on here to help hone your critical thinking skills. There are essentially two arguments being made ITT, and are as follows:
1. The narrow argument, which limits its scope to the details and events seen on the video. People in here are consistently saying Mixon shouldn't have hit her, even though according to the law he may have had a right to. This is where normatives conflict with that which is legally permissible (e.g., you shouldn't hit a woman even if you have the right to).
2. The broader argument, with societal implications. Those saying that equal rights entail equal responsibilities are also correct, which is why in the phrase "Rights and Responsibilities," the two go hand in hand. Cases like Mixon's bring broader issues into the discussion at some point, which are external to the narrow argument that would take place in a courtroom. As a society we seek consistency, and inconsistencies in law warrant discussion about the nature of the inconsistencies. Translation: If there are truly equal rights and consistency is highly valued, and Mixon would have been within his rights to punch a man who spit on him and wrapped his hands around his throat, then he is within his rights to do the same to a woman. Conclusion: Either change the laws regarding equal rights (which is undesirable because it engenders inconsistency and unfairness), or adjust the description of what took place (i.e, rather than saying he hit a woman, say he hit a 120-pound person with disproportionate force).
Neither 1 nor 2 above is a statement that anyone wants to see Mixon exonerated.
Next lesson: The difference between speaking in the indicative and imperative moods, with a brief explanation of normatives.
