State attorney says woman was defending herself when punched by De'Andre Johnson (link)

[Bushwood CC]

Here is a link to the article:

State attorney says woman was defending herself when punched by De'Andre Johnson

Here are some excerpts from what investigators and prosecutors FACTUALLY SAW ON THE TAPE:

**********************************************************************
....Johnson provoked the incident by pushing the woman from behind and the left as the two were approaching the bar at Yiannis. Meggs said the woman tried to keep Johnson away by placing her left forearm on his chest and raising her right fist as the two exchanged words.
....
....
....
Meggs said he believes “it’s clear from the investigation” that Johnson initiated the contact.

“A person’s entitled to use self-defense if they’re being battered by someone else, and she certainly was entitled to do what she did,” Meggs told the Democrat. “She didn’t commit a crime is the reason she’s not charged with a crime.”
***********************************************************************

Yea, looks like I was not only being "argumentative" but FACTUALLY CORRECT according to investigators and prosecutors on the case in my viewing of the video tape.....and in my statement as to what the tape showing not being a matter of "opinion", but rather being a matter of RECORDED FACT that De'Andre Johnson both INITIATED THE INCIDENT WITH INTENTIONAL VIOLENCE ("battering" to use Meggs term) and was the AGGRESSOR causing the VICTIM to have to react in SELF-DEFENSE in an attempt to get the MUCH LARGER AGGRESSOR off of her!!!

 

[psualt]

We all know state attorneys wouldn't lie.

 

[sylvanialion]

Wow .... I looked at it this way:
Had he not hit her (walked away like he should have) .... The video would have shown (IMHO) that they both jockeyed for a place at the bar with him being the aggressor and wrong. Then she hip checked, kneed, threatened and struck him. None of which was deserving for what I saw on video even if he was wrong.

As shocking as the conclusion by the state attorney is that he is only getting a misdemeanor .... Never hit a girl.

 

[Bushwood CC]

Wow .... I looked at it this way:
Had he not hit her (walked away like he should have) .... The video would have shown (IMHO) that they both jockeyed for a place at the bar with him being the aggressor and wrong. Then she hip checked, kneed, threatened and struck him. None of which was deserving for what I saw on video even if he was wrong.

As shocking as the conclusion by the state attorney is that he is only getting a misdemeanor .... Never hit a girl.

She initiated contact by "hip checkinng" him? What laughable BS - she had her back to him and couldn't even see him when De'Andre Johnson came up from behind her while her back was to him and clearly DROVE HIS ELBOW INTO HER , PUSHED HER INTO THE BAR AND CONTINUED TO DRIVE HER DOWN THE BAR WITH HIS FOREARM. That is what the video UNQUESTIONABLY SHOWS as the State Attorney who is an "objective viewer" relative to the two parties clearly states (laughable that you are claiming that the State Attorney went into the investigation on a non-objective basis and is therefore viewing the video non-objectively??? Given that you are making this ludicrous accusation of their clear interpretation of the HARD EVIDENCE - the videotape - could you please tell us the source of their non-objectivity to the two parties involved???). How amusing. Gee, rather interesting that some are not only "argumentative", but demonstrated to be wrong by the most significant third-party "objective" source you can find and they're still "argumentative" (IOW, a clear indication of asinine behavior). You must have missed this portion of of the description of what happened from the video:

"Johnson provoked the incident by pushing the woman from behind"

But according to your clear BS and FALSE representation, this woman somehow had eyes in the back of her head and "hip checked" De'Andre Johnson BEFORE she even knew he was there and about to drive his elbow into her lower back despite the fact that this is all made up bull$hit and the video shows no such thing. LMFAO, at least when I'm "argumentative" I'm honest and proven conosistent relative to the PROFESSIONALS INTERPRETATION OF THE VIDEO in regards to the terms of AGGRESSOR, INSTIGATOR, SELF-DEFENSE, etc....; rather than being "argumentative" and making bull$hit, self-serving false crap up that absolutely does not appear on the video.

 

[ram2020]

She initiated contact by "hip checkinng" him? What laughable BS - she had her back to him and couldn't even see him when De'Andre Johnson came up from behind her while her back was to him and clearly DROVE HIS ELBOW INTO HER , PUSHED HER INTO THE BAR AND CONTINUED TO DRIVE HER DOWN THE BAR WITH HIS FOREARM. That is what the video UNQUESTIONABLY SHOWS as the State Attorney who is an "objective viewer" relative to the two parties clearly states (laughable that you are claiming that the State Attorney went into the investigation on a non-objective basis and is therefore viewing the video non-objectively??? Given that you are making this ludicrous accusation of their clear interpretation of the HARD EVIDENCE - the videotape - could you please tell us the source of their non-objectivity to the two parties involved???). How amusing. Gee, rather interesting that some are not only "argumentative", but demonstrated to be wrong by the most significant third-party "objective" source you can find and they're still "argumentative" (IOW, a clear indication of asinine behavior). You must have missed this portion of of the description of what happened from the video:

"Johnson provoked the incident by pushing the woman from behind"

But according to your clear BS and FALSE representation, this woman somehow had eyes in the back of her head and "hip checked" De'Andre Johnson BEFORE she even knew he was there and about to drive his elbow into her lower back despite the fact that this is all made up bull$hit and the video shows no such thing. LMFAO, at least when I'm "argumentative" I'm honest and proven conosistent relative to the PROFESSIONALS INTERPRETATION OF THE VIDEO in regards to the terms of AGGRESSOR, INSTIGATOR, SELF-DEFENSE, etc....; rather than being "argumentative" and making bull$hit, self-serving false crap up that absolutely does not appear on the video.

Well Bushwood, I am not going to say this necessarily proves it one way or the other, but I am man enough to admit it appears professionals see it as you do. I must have misinterpreted the video. I will eat crow.