Joe Mixon Video Released

[RutgersRaRa]

It's called a technicality. Usually used to defend someone.

Read what they said rather than trying to molecularize it in order to repudiate some nuance and re-direct their intentions. A good working principle is to take a writer at his or her stated intentions. Each said they do not believe he should have hit her. When we refuse to take someone at his or her word, it brings into play the age-old lament in marriage: Whenever I have a disagreement with my wife about something I said, she is right there to tell me what I meant.

If you're still in school, take a Philosophy Of Law class. You'll be able to make better distinctions in people's arguments, which would be doubly beneficial given the subject matter ITT. There are multiple forms of "law" at work here, and you are working in a rigid binary mindset--if someone dares to bring up any qualifying issues other than "Crucify him!" you assume they want to throw a party in his honor. Listen to what their stated intentions are in their posts. Believe it or not, it's right there.

 

[RutgersMO]

Man he f*cking nails this girl....

http://newsok.com/article/5531208

He apologized...so it now OK?

He broke 4 bones in her face.

This POS should NEVER be allowed to play football again...even two hand touch.

MO
PS When RR is allowed back in the league we can TALK about it....but Mixon really: NOT SO MUCH.

 

[jtung230]

Read what they said rather than trying to molecularize it in order to repudiate some nuance and re-direct their intentions. A good working principle is to take a writer at his or her stated intentions. Each said they do not believe he should have hit her. When we refuse to take someone at his or her word, it brings into play the age-old lament in marriage: Whenever I have a disagreement with my wife about something I said, she is right there to tell me what I meant.

If you're still in school, take a Philosophy Of Law class. You'll be able to make better distinctions in people's arguments, which would be doubly beneficial given the subject matter ITT. There are multiple forms of "law" at work here, and you are working in a rigid binary mindset--if someone dares to bring up any qualifying issues other than "Crucify him!" you assume they want to throw a party in his honor. Listen to what their stated intentions are in their posts. Believe it or not, it's right there.

I deal with partners at major law firms everyday. I do like to work in a rigid binary mindset. Especially on matters like this one.

 

[madchuck]

I think we all agree he shouldn't have hit her. However, I am a criminal defense attorney and looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's self defense. He was actually about to walk away when she got up and pushed him. Also, read this story which are similar facts where the kid wasn't charged. He fractured a girls skull at a Rutgers frat party. Young men these days need to be taught not to put their hands on women. But women need to know not to go out trying to fight men. Especially this generation because they'll knock you out.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.s...near_rutge.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

[FanuSanu52]

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.

The equal rights argument is fallacious, however. Equal rights does not mean we have to ignore inherent physical differences between men and women .. you know, the entire reason it's wrong for a man to hit a woman. Those arguing that equal rights is part of the equation in a case like this one thereby look really sleazy, fair or not.

 

[madchuck]

The equal rights argument is fallacious, however. Equal rights does not mean we have to ignore inherent physical differences between men and women .. you know, the entire reason it's wrong for a man to hit a woman. Those arguing that equal rights is part of the equation in a case like this one thereby look really sleazy, fair or not.

There is no law that says self defense doesn't apply to girls. If instead of the girl, it was that scrawny kid she was with who pushed him and grabbed his neck, we wouldn't be having this conversation. He's an asshole for hitting her but it was classic self defense.

 

[RU4Real]

I think we all agree he shouldn't have hit her. However, I am a criminal defense attorney and looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's self defense. He was actually about to walk away when she got up and pushed him. Also, read this story which are similar facts where the kid wasn't charged. He fractured a girls skull at a Rutgers frat party. Young men these days need to be taught not to put their hands on women. But women need to know not to go out trying to fight men. Especially this generation because they'll knock you out.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.s...near_rutge.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

You keeps saying two things. One, that you're a criminal defense attorney. Two, that legally Mixon acted in self defense and did nothing wrong.

You keep evading the only actual facts that anyone in this thread knows.

He was charged.

He pled guilty.

He was sentenced.

Those things do not suggest self-defense.

 

[FanuSanu52]

I think we all agree he shouldn't have hit her. However, I am a criminal defense attorney and looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's self defense. He was actually about to walk away when she got up and pushed him. Also, read this story which are similar facts where the kid wasn't charged. He fractured a girls skull at a Rutgers frat party. Young men these days need to be taught not to put their hands on women. But women need to know not to go out trying to fight men. Especially this generation because they'll knock you out.

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.s...near_rutge.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

There is no law that says self defense doesn't apply to girls. If instead of the girl, it was that scrawny kid she was with who pushed him and grabbed his neck, we wouldn't be having this conversation. He's an asshole for hitting her but it was classic self defense.

Law is open to interpretation. As an attorney, you feel good about how a jury is going to view it if you're defending Mixon?

The quoted definition above leaves plenty of room to nail him to the wall.

Did Nick Cage's issues in Con Air teach us nothing? :(

 

[madchuck]

You keeps saying two things. One, that you're a criminal defense attorney. Two, that legally Mixon acted in self defense and did nothing wrong.

You keep evading the only actual facts that anyone in this thread knows.

He was charged.

He pled guilty.

He was sentenced.

Those things do not suggest self-defense.

He entered an Alford plea, he never admitted guilt. They gave him a deferred disposition which means the charge was dismissed when he completed his probation. Slap on the wrist. I never said he did nothing wrong. I said he shouldn't have done it. I said he would have a case for self defense because she hit him first. You're ignoring that he was walking away, she pushed him, he got in a fighting stance, she grabbed his neck, then he decked her. If it was a dude instead of a girl, would your opinion change?

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

This was from 2014. He was already punished for this. Including a year suspension and a misdemeanor charge.

He won't be charged again. As for the football team he already served a year suspension for this. I don't think they do anything.

You are 100% correct on the former.....

I wouldn't be so sure on the latter... nothing causes moral societal indignation and outrage like video...

 

[theRU]

You said: This is where this ideal of equal rights gets tricky. If equal rights exist...then i'm afraid this guy is off the hook.

That's how I got there.

still not making sense.. because by acknowledging special treatment for women in this case due to gender, then you are acknowledging they are not equals. That is why I think they need to be registered for the draft, just like any other man.

 

[theRU]

Law is open to interpretation. As an attorney, you feel good about how a jury is going to view it if you're defending Mixon?

The quoted definition above leaves plenty of room to nail him to the wall.

Did Nick Cage's issues in Con Air teach us nothing? :(

apparently the defense and prosecution both acknowledge that it could go either way. Since the prosecution accepted the alford plea to guilt. If they were so sure that they could have "nailed him to the wall" they would have done so.

 

[RU4Real]

He entered an Alford plea, he never admitted guilt. They gave him a deferred disposition which means the charge was dismissed when he completed his probation. Slap on the wrist. I never said he did nothing wrong. I said he shouldn't have done it. I said he would have a case for self defense because she hit him first. You're ignoring that he was walking away, she pushed him, he got in a fighting stance, she grabbed his neck, then he decked her. If it was a dude instead of a girl, would your opinion change?

Responses are obligated to be proportional.

And "Alford plea" means nothing other than he pleaded guilty while maintaining his innocence. It's just slightly more or less guilty as "guilty with an explanation". It is, in other words, a pointless exercise in criminal defense lawyers being able to claim they did something for their clients.

He pled guilty. Period.

Clearly some component of the Oklahoma judicial system disagrees with you. You might choose to be more measured in your responses. I doubt it, but... you might.

 

[theRU]

I deal with partners at major law firms everyday. I do like to work in a rigid binary mindset. Especially on matters like this one.

I dont like or agree with what the kid did, but i dont understand how you fail to acknowledge that she women in this instance was wrong. The days of old school man/woman norms is dead. Men don't have to hold the door open... Things are more black and white now than ever. Its not just Mixon's responsibility to de-escalate a situation. She has culpability too.
So while i dont like that the world is this way you have to acknowledge the following:
1. Did he start to walk away? Yes
2. Did she instigate to draw him back in? Yes
3. Did she use racial slurs? Apparently yes from what i've read
4. Did she spit and hit him one more time before he struck her? Yes

If justice is blind, than it does not see her for a woman but simply another being that struck another being. Its fairly simple. So if you want to attack me and claim that I dont want equal rights, it actually seems you are the one who is still seeking and approving of special treatment.

 

[RU fan forever]

still not making sense.. because by acknowledging special treatment for women in this case due to gender, then you are acknowledging they are not equals. That is why I think they need to be registered for the draft, just like any other man.

Excuse me but, did I understand this correctly?
I know I'm old and I was brought up
In a deferent way then you, but, are you saying that,because this woman pushed
Him, is ok for him to punch her in the face?
If this is the case, I feel sorry for you!!!

 

[FanuSanu52]

apparently the defense and prosecution both acknowledge that it could go either way. Since the prosecution accepted the alford plea to guilt. If they were so sure that they could have "nailed him to the wall" they would have done so.

Because a drawn out trial would be better than a guilty plea?

Your comments are making less and less sense. Quittin time.

 

[FanuSanu52]

I dont like or agree with what the kid did, but i dont understand how you fail to acknowledge that she women in this instance was wrong. The days of old school man/woman norms is dead. Men don't have to hold the door open... Things are more black and white now than ever. Its not just Mixon's responsibility to de-escalate a situation. She has culpability too.
So while i dont like that the world is this way you have to acknowledge the following:
1. Did he start to walk away? Yes
2. Did she instigate to draw him back in? Yes
3. Did she use racial slurs? Apparently yes from what i've read
4. Did she spit and hit him one more time before he struck her? Yes

If justice is blind, than it does not see her for a woman but simply another being that struck another being. Its fairly simple. So if you want to attack me and claim that I dont want equal rights, it actually seems you are the one who is still seeking and approving of special treatment.

Definitely quitting time.

 

[KingHigh]

possibly but she shouldn't have touched him either... Without a doubt If this were 2 men (even a small 120 lb man) we would view this differently.

And don't mistake me for defending him. I dont believe its right. However i acknowledge that equal rights (treatment) exists, and its a far more slippery slope to legislate a law that requires men to show some type of restraint before being able to defend themselves. How much force needs to be applied before a man can defend himself against a woman?

Very similar to police violence. Reaching for a knife while you are 30 ft away is ok to shoot? 20 ft? 10ft?
How much is too much? Because of this i'm afraid you have to stick to who struck first, and that way nobody should ever strike anyone.

I agree that if it were two men Mixon would not have been in trouble whatsoever because she was clearly the initial aggressor. But he is a man and she is a woman. If Janay Palmer was a man we would all have said she deserved everything she got. Spitting in another person's face...

It sounds nice to say everyone is equal and everybody is the same, but it just simply isn't true. The laws and our feelings on these things reflect that we believe men are superior, and have a far greater responsibility for conduct than do women.

 

[KingHigh]

She barely touched him. Some of you defending his actions are pathetic. You wouldn't be saying this if that was your daughter.

I'd be upset if it were my daughter or my son getting a broken face. But regardless of the gender, I would say if you don't want violence committed upon you, do not commit violence unto others.

 

[CranfordKnight]

The woman claims that Mixon was harassing her and her group and using homophobic slurs, which is what led her to confront him. Seems pretty clear from the tape that he was instigating. Maybe this started outside? All I know is I'm reading 3 pages of Holiday Inn Express guests' opinions and no mention of that.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

I deal with partners at major law firms everyday. I do like to work in a rigid binary mindset. Especially on matters like this one.

There's a bigger world out there, my dawg! And just say NO! to lawyers at major firms.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

The equal rights argument is fallacious, however. Equal rights does not mean we have to ignore inherent physical differences between men and women .. you know, the entire reason it's wrong for a man to hit a woman. Those arguing that equal rights is part of the equation in a case like this one thereby look really sleazy, fair or not.

That's because there are, for simplicity's sake, at least two types of law at work here--institutional (criminal), and social. Each carries different consequences. Criminal violations can put a person behind bars, social violations result in things like loss of friendships and not being drafted. But those arguing that equal rights don't play a part in this are wrong--in the legal sense, they do. In the social sense, they don't. It's a mixed experiment that is still developing in America, and it might mean in cases like Mixon's that the legislators have to come up with a penalty based on weight, rather than gender. If you're struck by a 200-pound person (male or female), and you weigh 120 pounds (male or female), the penalty is greater than if you weighed 160.

And those saying that the fact that she spit on him and hit him means nothing in the law, that's not so. Mitigating factors are always brought in. The people in this thread, from what I've sensed, aren't saying she is 50% responsible. Those saying that she contributed to it are probably saying 10%, which means he looks like a total scumbag. And he may not get drafted and has probably lost friends for breaking her jaw. And then there will be the civil lawsuit, unless that's already been settled or she was given money by a booster to go away.

 

[BoroKnight]

well folks.. technically she hit him first... and technically she grabbed his throat before he hit her back... so technically he defended himself. So you gotta ask yourself if she was a guy, who would be guilty of what?

This is where this ideal of equal rights gets tricky. If equal rights exist...then i'm afraid this guy is off the hook.

I am a VERY firm believer in the "eye for an eye" concept, regardless of gender. But the response was somehwat more than the initial contact required.

If you don't want to get hit, don't hit. Man, woman, whatever. But you also don't get to break bones because you got shoved.

 

[BoroKnight]

Now I don't agree, but I think what people are saying here is if you put a man in place of the women in this video, how would you then perceive the situation. So I can see their point with the equal rights debate.

You can't demand equal rights in some situations and than not in others which don't benefit you. Look at the facts, she hit him and grabbed his throat 1st. A man does that to you and you hit back. However, I was taught you never hit a women, this kid's parents apparently never taught him that etiquette.

It's not etiquette. It's antiquated chivalry. Somebody hits me, they get an equal, immediate retaliation. NO MORE, but no less, either.

 

[czxqa]

Responses are obligated to be proportional.

And "Alford plea" means nothing other than he pleaded guilty while maintaining his innocence. It's just slightly more or less guilty as "guilty with an explanation". It is, in other words, a pointless exercise in criminal defense lawyers being able to claim they did something for their clients.

He pled guilty. Period.

Clearly some component of the Oklahoma judicial system disagrees with you. You might choose to be more measured in your responses. I doubt it, but... you might.

You've mentioned this plea a few times already, so it's pretty clear that it's a sticking point for you as proof of his culpability legally speaking. I would just point out two things to consider. One, that the prosecution gave back quite a bit to get this case off their docket- they agreed to the one year probation and expungement of the plea if the terms of the agreement were met. That's a very significant giveback on the part of the prosecutors, and one that is typically only given for a very minor first offense, certainly not a violent assault. Second is that it was very much in Mixon's interest to get this case resolved and behind him ASAP, because the longer this story stayed in the news, the worse it would be for his reputation.

My point is that it wasn't like they had him dead to rights and he threw himself on the mercy of the court. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense wanted a drawn out legal battle and they made a deal that kept his record clean and satisfied the judge that he would be able to show greater restraint in the future. Everyone agrees there was culpability on both sides, and the criminal justice system has enough on its plate without having to deal with a case like this. Hashing out degrees of responsibility and distributive justice belongs in the civil court, which is where this case has moved. She sued on three grounds, two of which have been dismissed, and the third, emotional distress IIRC, is still pending civil litigation. So we'll see what happens there.

 

[RU4Real]

You've mentioned this plea a few times already, so it's pretty clear that it's a sticking point for you as proof of his culpability legally speaking. I would just point out two things to consider. One, that the prosecution gave back quite a bit to get this case off their docket- they agreed to the one year probation and expungement of the plea if the terms of the agreement were met. That's a very significant giveback on the part of the prosecutors, and one that is typically only given for a very minor first offense, certainly not a violent assault. Second is that it was very much in Mixon's interest to get this case resolved and behind him ASAP, because the longer this story stayed in the news, the worse it would be for his reputation.

My point is that it wasn't like they had him dead to rights and he threw himself on the mercy of the court. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense wanted a drawn out legal battle and they made a deal that kept his record clean and satisfied the judge that he would be able to show greater restraint in the future. Everyone agrees there was culpability on both sides, and the criminal justice system has enough on its plate without having to deal with a case like this. Hashing out degrees of responsibility and distributive justice belongs in the civil court, which is where this case has moved. She sued on three grounds, two of which have been dismissed, and the third, emotional distress IIRC, is still pending civil litigation. So we'll see what happens there.

Those are all fair points. I'm not arguing any of that. I'm arguing against whats-his-name's assertion that it was, pure and simple, self-defense.

Clearly not.

What it was, was, "maybe it was, maybe it wasn't."

 

[czxqa]

Those are all fair points. I'm not arguing any of that. I'm arguing against whats-his-name's assertion that it was, pure and simple, self-defense.

Clearly not.

What it was, was, "maybe it was, maybe it wasn't."

Yeah, totally agree.

 

[jtung230]

still not making sense.. because by acknowledging special treatment for women in this case due to gender, then you are acknowledging they are not equals. That is why I think they need to be registered for the draft, just like any other man.

All men are not created equal. There are jobs some men can do others can not. Equal rights is about getting the same when both genders are performing the same task.

 

[LC-88]

Two Wrights make an airplane.

And three lefts make a right.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

And three lefts make a right.

And four rights make a square.

 

[RutgersROB]

well folks.. technically she hit him first... and technically she grabbed his throat before he hit her back... so technically he defended himself. So you gotta ask yourself if she was a guy, who would be guilty of what?

This is where this ideal of equal rights gets tricky. If equal rights exist...then i'm afraid this guy is off the hook.

I had a guy attack me at bar where i was by myself and he was with two friends who also put there hands on me... In the end he got beat up pretty badly yet i spent the night in jail...there is no defense here this guy should be in trouble

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Not sure what people see there...he clearly spit on her. So she shoves him, he spits right in her face, then she hits him in the neck, and then he throws the hook. Whenever I see these videos, I wonder how many times that POS smacked around or even cold cocked a girl in public where there wasn't security footage. Because if that is his instant reaction, you know it isn't the first time he's done this. That's either the way you react to provocation or not.

I sincerely hope no NFL team touches him.

 

[Saint Puppy]

Not sure what people see there...he clearly spit on her. So she shoves him, he spits right in her face, then she hits him in the neck, and then he throws the hook. Whenever I see these videos, I wonder how many times that POS smacked around or even cold cocked a girl in public where there wasn't security footage. Because if that is his instant reaction, you know it isn't the first time he's done this. That's either the way you react to provocation or not.

I sincerely hope no NFL team touches him.

Yeah - just watched it several more times - it definitely seems like he spits in her face after she pushes him. I don't see where she spits in his face which is what is being claimed.

 

[Pils86]

My take is he follows her into the joint after something happened outside, he says something offensive and starts to walk away but stops to allow a confrontation, she pushes him which does not hurt him, he spits in her face, due to the spit she tries to slap him and he blocks it and punches her with all his might. Shame on him, OU Football and justice in Norman. I can't see him ever playing in the NFL with this video out there.

 

[greenknight]

Jumped in late to this thread but should have been thrown out of OU plain and simple. These universities need to step up their game against crime and athletes
Unfortunately they are representing your university 24 hrs a day 7 days a week and if they cannot represent in a positive fashion they should be relieved of their scholarships and from the university themselves

 

[LevaosLectures]

I agree that if it were two men Mixon would not have been in trouble whatsoever because she was clearly the initial aggressor. But he is a man and she is a woman. If Janay Palmer was a man we would all have said she deserved everything she got. Spitting in another person's face...

It sounds nice to say everyone is equal and everybody is the same, but it just simply isn't true. The laws and our feelings on these things reflect that we believe men are superior, and have a far greater responsibility for conduct than do women.

Never post.

 

[madchuck]

Those are all fair points. I'm not arguing any of that. I'm arguing against whats-his-name's assertion that it was, pure and simple, self-defense.

Clearly not.

What it was, was, "maybe it was, maybe it wasn't."

We agree then. I never said it was 100% self defense. I never said he did nothing wrong. I was just saying an argument for self defense could be made because she was the initial aggressor. He got a slap on the wrist probably for a combination of things. He's a football player at OU, he had no prior record and the fact that she was the aggressor and he probably could've argued self defense. We can agree "maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I posted a link to a case where a kid punched a girl in the face and fractured her skull at a frat party because she tried to hit him. The police didn't charge him. Watch the video it's the same thing.

 

[madchuck]

Responses are obligated to be proportional.

And "Alford plea" means nothing other than he pleaded guilty while maintaining his innocence. It's just slightly more or less guilty as "guilty with an explanation". It is, in other words, a pointless exercise in criminal defense lawyers being able to claim they did something for their clients.

He pled guilty. Period.

Clearly some component of the Oklahoma judicial system disagrees with you. You might choose to be more measured in your responses. I doubt it, but... you might.

http://www.koco.com/article/clevela...-against-ou-football-player-joe-mixon/4299739

I looked into what happened in Oklahoma. The Prosecutor basically conceded that she was the aggressor and he couldn't be charged with assault or battery. Instead he was charged with a misdemeanor.

 

[RU4Real]

http://www.koco.com/article/clevela...-against-ou-football-player-joe-mixon/4299739

I looked into what happened in Oklahoma. The Prosecutor basically conceded that she was the aggressor and he couldn't be charged with assault or battery. Instead he was charged with a misdemeanor.

What was she charged with?