She's pretty tough.

That's fricken awesome!

ROFL

Holy shit that is CP in a nut shell...

Nice find.

That should be the header for the Washington DC Forum.

KCNancy to a T.

i see your point if thats how it actually started. .but youre leaving out the part where the big football player pushed his elbow in her back and pinned her against the bar because he wanted his drink and didnt want to wait like a civilized person.

hes at fault . .big shot bully thinking he dont need to wait for a drink

Can't really see how it all began but it looks like both the dumb blond and the QB were trying really hard to get to the bar. Dumb blond is obviously drunk, and in her drunk manner, edges out QB to bar. QB doesn't appreciate dumb drunk blonds aggressive moves, the two have an altercation which ends in idiot QB punching dumb drunk blond in face.

Also missing from this discussion - the kid is only 19. Shouldn't even be in that bar.

Football player says the woman called him something racist. I guess that makes it okay then?

I know I'll be shouted down for this, and in my opinion, it isn't all that relevant, but I'm not even sure she's making a fist. I'm not sure she's not pointing at something behind her.

Actually, you have it backwards according to the legal definition of assault, as was taught to me in Pre-Law club back in college.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault , defines assault as:

"Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant."




I am not taking up for the player here, because we don't yet know all the facts, just trying to point out the difference between "assault" and "battery" as defined by the law.



Assault: the woman first verbally threatens him and shortly thereafter balls up her right hand

Battery: kneeing him in the balls and then punching him with her left hand



It will be interesting to see how the law will interpret his responses to her actions.

What appendage is she pointing with? Her thumb is in contact with her fingers the entire time it is in a fist.

Even if she is pointing to something behind her, do you think it's fair to say that he sees it as just a fist?