Pulled a knife on a guy who tried to light me on fire tonight...

Imagine if you called the authorities instead. Several women could have been spared in the future.

You shouldn't pull a knife at that point, a good swift kick to his balls would have been much better, but then make sure you get the knife open in case he decided to come after you. I have seen events like that, but usually a guy at the event would step in and get a guy like that away from the women he was offending when I was young. My question is why are good guys not protecting the women anymore?

I have personally stopped events like that numerous times in the past. More than twenty times but less than fifty when I was young. When a guy stands up, other guys then help that guy to get the person away from causing harm.

a reply to: XxKonspiracyxX

originally posted by: Hecate666

Ugh, you don't know her size nor the guy's size.

She refers to him as a "creepy little dude" like 3 times.

a reply to: XxKonspiracyxX
Anxiety, writing on a laptop at a bar, pulling knives on people... I have an idea. Stay the hell home.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Boadicea

If you were the police and read the statement (opening post)... Would you actually take it seriously?

Obviously I would. What happened is what happened whether I'm an LEO or not. Given the description, I would be investigating a sexual assault. Depending on specific answers, it could be battery to sexual battery, sexual assault, or another charge. But it is a crime.

Despite the apologists here to the contrary, no one has the right to decide for me or anyone else who can touch us and when or where or how. Period. Especially not creeper perverted men.

Quite honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if the ones who need "more details" want those details for their deviant pleasure. Because what happened is unacceptable and unconscionable, yet some sure seem to be enjoying it.

a reply to: Nyiah

Lol, no. I'm being plenty consistent.

No, you've gone from he's not a pervert, he's just drunk, to now it's not even a crime. Wrong. We can start with battery and move up from there. But I get it... you'll make any excuse for the creepy creeper and then backtrack when you can't back up your crap.

She had no cause to pull a weapon...

She had every reason not to trust this man mauling her...

... without trying less dangerous methods first...

You mean like telling him no and pushing him away? You mean those kinds of less dangerous methods? Those methods that are less dangerous for the perp, but not the victim? Because he'll back off then?

Any man that would further escalate such a situation after being made clear his attention is unwanted is a man that would use violent force under any circumstances.

...sexual assault is not an ultra-vague "he put his hands on me", and a Touching Timmy still freely roaming a bar after sending people fleeing and yelling is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

Now you're just re-writing the story. The guy was kicked out of the bar after molesting other women... he came back. Where he knew he was not welcome. Where he knew he would be trespassing and committing yet another crime.

a reply to: Nyiah

Evidently, to get online attention over the end result of that "outing".

Honestly, the whole damn OP reads like a 15 year old wannabe bad-ass trying to dredge up some street cred.

Says the one who can't/won't stop obsessing about a woman being attacked and won't stop piling on the victim... but she just wants some "street cred"?

I can only imagine what you're getting out of this... and it disgusts me.

I'm glad you pulled a knife. guy sounds like he deserves to have a knife pulled on him.

Theres a lot of really #ty men out there. Probably half of them honestly.


If i was a chick i would definitely always carry a knife.

a reply to: hombero

What do you expect? I think this is a you problem more than anything.

So you clearly understand that an obnoxious and rowdy (violent) drunk attacked her, but she was at a bar, so she just needs to shut up and let him do as he will? Of course not.

But gotcha. You don't have a problem with drunk rowdies groping and mauling women. You just have a problem with the women who don't let them.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Guy: Hi, my name is Bill. Would you like to go have coffee sometime?

Girl: **rummages through purse**

Guy: AAAAARRRRGGGHH...you STABBED me!! WTF???

Because that's what happened? Nope. Not by a long shot. So why go there? Just why? Why minimize and make excuses for this guy?

If she did stab him she would have been well within her rights, and if I were sitting on her jury, I can guarantee you she would not be convicted of anything. And I'd be loud and proud about it.

If men can't keep their grubby paws to themselves simply because it's the right thing to do, then maybe they need a little fear to give them incentive to do so.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

oh FFS - certain people in this thread need a remedial course in reading comprehension and basic english

read the dammed OP again people - even the edited version .

the tail lacks even basic internal consistency oh and read what i actually wrote - not your delusions of what you wanted me to have said

Awwww.... how special... the big man defending the pervert doesn't even have the backbone to directly address the person he's talking smack to...

The facts are already clear: The guy is a violent sexual offender who tried to force himself on the OP (and others) and failed when this woman gained the upperhand. She never used the knife on the guy. He got away damn lucky.

Cry and whine all you want about it but it says more about you than anyone else.

a reply to: AntonGonist

I see what you did there..



Respectfully,
~meathead

a reply to: Boadicea

A rapist who beats a woman into submission and has his way with her is a violent sexual offender.

A guy “laying on her” is not a violent sexual offender.

To say the two are the same beast is a bit of a reach. The OP is fairly ambiguous as to what exactly the guy did to her. She says he put hands on her, which could mean anything from he grabbed her boobs to he put his arm around her. Both are unwanted physical contact but they are not the same sort of contact.

If I got that sort of statement out of somebody I’d be looking at three things: what exactly did this guy do to her, did he actually do what she claims she “heard” he did inside the bar and if so why wasn’t he dealt with then, and why was a weapon pulled.

Everything else is chalked up to poor decisions. Going to a bar on a Friday night and expecting to be left alone? Going to a bar on a Friday with a headache? Going to a bar while dealing with anxiety? No, none of those are crimes but they’re poor decisions worthy of an eye-roll. And FWIW I absolutely do not buy her story at face value. There is absolutely more to it, but it could just as easily exonerate her as it could indict her.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

A rapist who beats a woman into submission and has his way with her is a violent sexual offender.

Definitely.

A guy “laying on her” is not a violent sexual offender.

To say the two are the same beast is a bit of a reach.

I agree and disagree, but only to extent. Of course being beaten and raped is obviously a far worse offense. Which would be reflected in any criminal charges, and/or sentencing.

But anyone forcing themselves on another is a violent act, whether it includes bruises and penetration or not. The fact that she was not physically harmed in the process doesn't make it non-violent or wrong. He was using force to have his way with her.

The OP is fairly ambiguous as to what exactly the guy did to her. She says he put hands on her, which could mean anything from he grabbed her boobs to he put his arm around her. Both are unwanted physical contact but they are not the same sort of contact.

Well, she wasn't writing a graphic porn novel, so I understand leaving out the details. I think I would have a hard time putting such things into words, especially in this medium. And quite honestly, I think some folks here would like it too much....

If I got that sort of statement out of somebody I’d be looking at three things: what exactly did this guy do to her, did he actually do what she claims she “heard” he did inside the bar and if so why wasn’t he dealt with then, and why was a weapon pulled.

Let's say she specifically states that he did put hands on private parts... he denies it; with what you do know, or could reasonably surmise, what kind of charges would he be looking at? What kind of charges would she be looking at?

And what about reasonable fear? She was isolated and being physically violated -- is that neutral enough? -- to one extent or another by a persistent and less-than-stable man... at what point is she reasonably allowed to act in self-defense? When does she get to say, "I feared for my person and/or my life and took necessary action to defend myself"?

And whatever happened inside would be separate from what happened outside, wouldn't it? You certainly would not blame her if the staff inside the bar didn't deal with the troublemaker properly.

Everything else is chalked up to poor decisions. Going to a bar on a Friday night and expecting to be left alone? Going to a bar on a Friday with a headache? Going to a bar while dealing with anxiety? No, none of those are crimes but they’re poor decisions worthy of an eye-roll. And FWIW I absolutely do not buy her story at face value. There is absolutely more to it, but it could just as easily exonerate her as it could indict her.

Poor decisions aren't necessarily criminal though. Poor decisions don't make anyone else commit criminal acts.

Thank you, Shamrock, for being your awesome polite and informative self. I appreciate it.

she didn't stab the guy. She didn't even pull a gun.

Everyones gone so soft because of the massive social engineering in place by the powers that be.

America is doomed.

a reply to: Boadicea

But anyone forcing themselves on another is a violent act, whether it includes bruises and penetration or not. The fact that she was not physically harmed in the process doesn't make it non-violent or wrong. He was using force to have his way with her.

Draping an arm around someone’s shoulders, for example, is not violent. It is forced, unwanted contact but it is not in any way violent. That’s the point I’m getting at. Since we don’t know what the guy did because all we have is a “he got handsy” statement with a “laying on top of me” (and let’s be honest, how much laying on top of can you do on a person who’s sitting up?) we don’t really know. We know there was unwanted physical contact, but leaping right to “violent sexual assault” is a little much, imho, given the info we have.

Well, she wasn't writing a graphic porn novel, so I understand leaving out the details. I think I would have a hard time putting such things into words, especially in this medium. And quite honestly, I think some folks here would like it too much....

She had no problem being detailed when recounting what a badass she was, though. But the main point I was trying to make I ambiguity cuts both ways. While it’s not fair to her to immediately discount her story on account of ambiguity I also don’t think it’s reasonable to warp it into a “violent sexual assault” either due to the ambiguity.

Let's say she specifically states that he did put hands on private parts... he denies it; with what you do know, or could reasonably surmise, what kind of charges would he be looking at? What kind of charges would she be looking at? And what about reasonable fear? She was isolated and being physically violated -- is that neutral enough? -- to one extent or another by a persistent and less-than-stable man... at what point is she reasonably allowed to act in self-defense? When does she get to say, "I feared for my person and/or my life and took necessary action to defend myself"?

As for charges: him, here it would be anything from 2nd degree forcible sexual offense to simple assault. My state also has an assault on a female charge. Her: I can’t imagine the knife with brass knuckles is legal. Beyond that, this is where the ambiguity doesn’t help. We don’t know how reasonable her response was. I have a really hard time buying that she was alone on the patio in the middle of the night at a crowded bar. That part really doesn’t add up to me. It was the middle of a Friday night at a bar with crowds of people who made her headache worse but somehow she’s all alone on the patio before and after this guy encounters her? And the crowd of people arguing about what he’d done inside had all disappeared? Not one member of the bar staff working the patio on a Friday night? That seems a tad unlikely.

And whatever happened inside would be separate from what happened outside, wouldn't it? You certainly would not blame her if the staff inside the bar didn't deal with the troublemaker properly.

Certainly not. I would blame the establishment for not handling him though. And I would blame her if she’d made that up and used the story to help justify her actions.

Poor decisions aren't necessarily criminal though. Poor decisions don't make anyone else commit criminal acts.

Of course not, which is why I said the same thing. But they are questionable elements of her story.

There's always 3 sides to a story.

In this case, i) the OP's side, ii) the guy and iii) the truth.

Usually there's quite a bit of variance between the three.

OP is a writer, goes to a bar looking for inspiration to continue the story but is having the archetypal 'writers block', sees in an incident or argument between a guy and a girl, thinks this could be good for the book, thinks how can i expand on this, decides to post on ATS and get a wide variety of opinions on this situation, viola: material for book.

Seems plausible?

Since we don't have ii) or iii), seems as plausible to me as the first or second posts in this thread.

a reply to: XxKonspiracyxX

Good for you! That creep started it and you Ended it.
It really sucks that men think they can just slather themselves on women, Even when the woman says back away.
Glad you were prepared and that your ok.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

Draping an arm around someone’s shoulders, for example, is not violent. It is forced, unwanted contact but it is not in any way violent. That’s the point I’m getting at.

Fair enough... but only as far as it goes. When that arm "draped" around the shoulder doesn't allow for the person to walk away, then it's not just "draped," and it's not just unwanted contact, but forced contact, and therefore violent.

Since we don’t know what the guy did because all we have is a “he got handsy” statement with a “laying on top of me” (and let’s be honest, how much laying on top of can you do on a person who’s sitting up?)...

"Got handsy" means that he had hands where they didn't belong. Call it Girl Code if you want. But in these parts, among the women I know, "handsy" means hands touching, fondling, grabbing and otherwise putting hands on private parts. Laying on top could refer to him putting his body across her lap, or she could have been pushed/knocked down in the process. You're right that we don't know. However, we do know that his hands violating her body progressed to his body violating her body.

We know there was unwanted physical contact, but leaping right to “violent sexual assault” is a little much, imho, given the info we have.

I profoundly and vehemently disagree. We know he violated her person. We know the violations escalated. We know the OP felt fear for her safety. We know she acted only to stop the violation of her body and made no attempt to violate his body. We know she gave him every chance to say "Ooops! Sorry!" and back off. We know he did not back off, but attempted further violence on her person.

We do not know all the details, but we know enough. At best, we can say that it could have been much much worse -- for both of them. But it does not minimize what did take place, nor does it any way preclude even more sinister intentions on his part.

She had no problem being detailed when recounting what a badass she was, though.

Badass? That's not what I got... I got a scared but feisty woman who is prepared to take care of herself. And did. But I guess that is a badass.

But the main point I was trying to make I ambiguity cuts both ways. While it’s not fair to her to immediately discount her story on account of ambiguity I also don’t think it’s reasonable to warp it into a “violent sexual assault” either due to the ambiguity.

Okay. I don't see ambiguity. I see degrees of offense. And if we knew more details, I would only expect to qualify the degree to which she was violated. There is nothing that could excuse what we know so far. It can only get worse.

Unless she's lying about what she has said. In which case, we're talking a whole 'nother deal.

As for charges: him, here it would be anything from 2nd degree forcible sexual offense to simple assault. My state also has an assault on a female charge. Her: I can’t imagine the knife with brass knuckles is legal.

I have questioned that also. Would that be regional? By state?

Beyond that, this is where the ambiguity doesn’t help. We don’t know how reasonable her response was. I have a really hard time buying that she was alone on the patio in the middle of the night at a crowded bar. That part really doesn’t add up to me. It was the middle of a Friday night at a bar with crowds of people who made her headache worse but somehow she’s all alone on the patio before and after this guy encounters her? And the crowd of people arguing about what he’d done inside had all disappeared? Not one member of the bar staff working the patio on a Friday night? That seems a tad unlikely.

But you're talking about a situation in which she lied about what happened, and that's a whole different story. And however likely or unlikely it seems, it could be exactly as she said.

And that's the only situation/facts to address, without getting more details from the OP -- and from others there that night.