TexasCHLforum.com

amber wrote:Sexism is as sexism does. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're not able to verbally defend ourselves from a loudmouth, that's sexist. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're too weak or incompetent to serve in the military or drive a truck or use power tools or change a tire, that's sexist. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're not smart enough to be a doctor or a lawyer or a computer programmer or a CEO, that's sexist. When men treat women like children instead of adults, that's sexist.

I hear you Amber, but I believe this mix and match of situations doesn't all fit thrown into one gunny sack together. For instance, helping a female to change a tire is not the same thing as telling her she can't be a CEO or a doctor or lawyer. By the way, I have saved many a stranded female on the side of the road with flat tires or broken down vehicles. I hate to admit it but I have yet to stop and help a male stranded with a flat tire....unless he had a female with him and looked in trouble. It probably could be considered sexism, but it is a good kind. On the other hand, i would never deny a female the right or will to do any job or task because of her sex. You don't know me so you don't realize you are trying to give a sexism lesson to a guy who was raised by a single mom who became an attorney while raising 3 boys. My temptation is to debate the issue further with you, but it probably distracts from this thread.

Amber wrote:

Sexism is as sexism does. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're not able to verbally defend ourselves from a loudmouth, that's sexist. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're too weak or incompetent to serve in the military or drive a truck or use power tools or change a tire, that's sexist. When men try to "protect" women because they think we're not smart enough to be a doctor or a lawyer or a computer programmer or a CEO, that's sexist. When men treat women like children instead of adults, that's sexist.

Wow!

Amber, "Sexism/Sexist" is a term (the meaning of which we may disagree slightly), but it is not "owned" by men to be perpetrated upon women. Sexism is employed by both genders in different ways, I am sure you would agree.

Look what you started Amber...

KBCraig wrote: I hate to see threads locked, but I think it's almost time for this one to be placed on probation until more facts come out.

I hate to see threads locked too, but I don't understand what harm speculation and projection can do. We are not the jurors. Assumptions and speculations can help us understand the finer points when the facts differ just a little bit. besides a lot of people seem to enjoy it. If we were forced to wait until we had the facts on every story we wouldn't be able to ever discuss any news story because the truth is we never know all the facts on any of them. It is traditional in this forum to discuss shootings to nth degreee open up a whole bunch of threads and for half the folks to see it one way and the other to see it another. Makes for pretty good reading. There is more to be learned from real Texan incidents like this one and Joe Horn than there is from the hypotheticals like the Worcestor Pharmacy shooting.

We don't need no steeekin' facts We make great discussion without them.

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote: I hate to see threads locked, but I think it's almost time for this one to be placed on probation until more facts come out.

I hate to see threads locked too, but I don't understand what harm speculation and projection can do. We are not the jurors. Assumptions and speculations can help us understand the finer points when the facts differ just a little bit. besides a lot of people seem to enjoy it. If we were forced to wait until we had the facts on every story we wouldn't be able to ever discuss any news story because the truth is we never know all the facts on any of them. It is traditional in this forum to discuss shootings to nth degreee open up a whole bunch of threads and for half the folks to see it one way and the other to see it another. Makes for pretty good reading. There is more to be learned from real Texan incidents like this one and Joe Horn than there is from the hypotheticals like the Worcestor Pharmacy shooting.

We don't need no steeekin' facts We make great discussion without them.

Now that was a very good point and Liberty said it a whole lot better than I did...see I told ya'

-geo

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote: I hate to see threads locked, but I think it's almost time for this one to be placed on probation until more facts come out.

I hate to see threads locked too, but I don't understand what harm speculation and projection can do. We are not the jurors. Assumptions and speculations can help us understand the finer points when the facts differ just a little bit.

In this case, the speculations and assumptions are being used to support preconceived notions, not to help arrive at the truth.

We are not the jurors, but we are the public. You know, those folks from whom jurors are drawn. Words have a way of getting repeated, and of creating a lasting influence in people's minds.

Do you really want potential jurors being influenced by the idea that the CHL in this case is automatically wrong? Just because "everyone knows" that being a soccer dad means he must have been cursing and threatening, and the coach's husband could not possibly have been in the wrong in any way?

Whether or not any potential jurors read this forum isn't the point. The point is, reputation spreads, and the rampant projection and speculation about people with real names, amounts to sullying their reputations.

KBCraig wrote: In this case, the speculations and assumptions are being used to support preconceived notions, not to help arrive at the truth.

We are not the jurors, but we are the public. You know, those folks from whom jurors are drawn. Words have a way of getting repeated, and of creating a lasting influence in people's minds.

Do you really want potential jurors being influenced by the idea that the CHL in this case is automatically wrong? Just because "everyone knows" that being a soccer dad means he must have been cursing and threatening, and the coach's husband could not possibly have been in the wrong in any way?

Whether or not any potential jurors read this forum isn't the point. The point is, reputation spreads, and the rampant projection and speculation about people with real names, amounts to sullying their reputations.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

KBCraig wrote: The point is, reputation spreads, and the rampant projection and speculation about people with real names, amounts to sullying their reputations.

Glad you find it so amusing.

I wonder how funny it will be if you're involved in an incident someday, and thanks to poor reporting and prejudices, everyone talks about what a piece of trash you are.

KBCraig wrote: In this case, the speculations and assumptions are being used to support preconceived notions, not to help arrive at the truth.

We are not the jurors, but we are the public. You know, those folks from whom jurors are drawn. Words have a way of getting repeated, and of creating a lasting influence in people's minds.

Do you really want potential jurors being influenced by the idea that the CHL in this case is automatically wrong? Just because "everyone knows" that being a soccer dad means he must have been cursing and threatening, and the coach's husband could not possibly have been in the wrong in any way?

Whether or not any potential jurors read this forum isn't the point. The point is, reputation spreads, and the rampant projection and speculation about people with real names, amounts to sullying their reputations.

Thanks for explaining where you were coming from. Don't we make preconceived judgments on every crime story we read about? If poisoning the jury were a real concern we could put a total news blackout on every crime story. There is nothing wrong with speculation and second guessing these guys until we become a part of the court case then we just put aside our preconceived notions and conclusions. We can learn to much from these incidents, To not not discuss these incidents is to overlook realistic scenarios and understandings on just how things can go wrong. If any of us ever find ourselves in the position of any of the these 3 major players perhaps we might have learned something from this to prevent things from going as wrong as they did here.

Liberty wrote: To not not discuss these incidents is to overlook realistic scenarios and understandings on just how things can go wrong. If any of us ever find ourselves in the position of any of the these 3 major players perhaps we might have learned something from this to prevent things from going as wrong as they did here.

Here is the problem with this logic, Liberty-

The summary of most of the comments is like this:

1. The father, who was initially "yelling at the coach", is a complete jerk, a coward, an idiot, etc. You cannot learn from his behavior because these judgments only serve to separate his actions from those of normal people. So nobody on this forum is saying to themselves, "you know, I'm also a complete jerk, a coward, and an idiot. I should learn something from this situation". Instead everyone is saying, "oh I would never get into that situation, because unlike this guy, I am not a complete jerk, a coward, and an idiot".

2. The husband, who "shoved" the father, was justly defending his wife who was being mercilessly verbally abused by this cowardly jerk. Nevermind that his actions were not justified by law clearly by any of the evidence that has been made public, or that this same prejudice against the cowardly jerk seems to have permeated even the law enforcement people on the scene so the guy who actually committed an assault did not get charged (yet). So the normal, prejudice and assumption based position here only teaches us the lesson of "we can break the law sometimes by assaulting someone and get away with it, as long as we are defending a helpless woman, and the other guy happens to be a cowardly jerk". This is not the kind of lesson we need to be learning.

Anyway if the dad was such a coward, then the woman didn't need any help defending herself.

This whole situation is way too biased, and too many people are breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for how much better they are than the dad who was arguing with the coach. I can tell you from direct experience, arguing with the coach is routine in kids' sports, whether you want to admit it or not. Sure, maybe you are one of the parents who does not argue with the coach, and maybe you are right that the other parents shouldn't do it and it makes them look like a fool. But it still happens, with regularity, and people do it who are not cowardly jerks or otherwise those whom we can easily castigate. Most of the time they are just regular people who get too excited and emotional when they think their child has been treated unfairly, and most of the time they think the coach is the one on some kind of power trip trying to exercise some unfair advantage over certain kids for no good reason. Sometimes they are right, and the coach is the one who is the power-tripping jerk. So they get too excited and get in arguments, big deal?

What I think a lot of folks are overlooking is the fact that we don't know what was said by the instigator (Burke) and what physical movements were made by the parties.

Many are assuming Burke was just 'yelling or cussing' at the female coach. We don't know if when the husband stepped in that Burke didn't say something that initiated a legal response in a push from the husband. Verbal threats CAN be relevant enough to justify use of force. He may have even moved toward the husband in a manner that the husband felt was heading toward assault (raised fists, quick lunge, etc.) In this case, the husband would have been justified in his use of force ( a push or even possibly greater) to prevent being attacked or create a safe distance between them.

The problem is WE DON"T KNOW ALL OF THE INFORMATION! Until these event details come out, we are ALL just speculating at what 'might' have happened and making up our own picture with 90% of the puzzle pieces missing. That leaves a lot of room for everyone to try and figure out whether the puzzle will be a picture of a horse or a donkey when finished.

I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

This discussion would really get legs then.

flintknapper wrote:I'm just glad there wasn't a PitBull involved.

This discussion would really get legs then.

this thread caused this...