The Penn State culture

[Marylovesthelions]

We missed two vital starters but that makes me proud. We benched two players for breaking team rules. On the saje day they sat out, Oklahoma played a star player who had brutally attacked a young woman and was allowed to return after a suspension.

Coach Franklin cares more about the future if those two young men than winning a Rose Bowl. He is continuing the great experiment if top notch football while developing wondeful men that we can be proud of. I love Penn State. Even corrupt overseers could not destroy what Joe built.

 

[jrd23psu]

We missed two vital starters but that makes me proud. We benched two players for breaking team rules. On the saje day they sat out, Oklahoma played a star player who had brutally attacked a young woman and was allowed to return after a suspension.

Coach Franklin cares more about the future if those two young men than winning a Rose Bowl. He is continuing the great experiment if top notch football while developing wondeful men that we can be proud of. I love Penn State. Even corrupt overseers could not destroy what Joe built.

How do you think suspensions work? Oklahoma suspended him for an entire season. You're implying that Joe Mixon should have been suspended for his bowl game, after already serving his one year suspension that ended a year ago. That's insane.

The idea that Joe Mixon should be punished again is insanity. It doesn't matter if you like Joe Mixon, but he served his one year suspension. Just because the public is now seeing the video for the first time doesn't mean he gets a new punishment.

The coaches and administration have had the video for two years and punished him. Trying to frame this as James Franklin and PSU being morally superior for sitting two guys for breaking team rules while Oklahoma allowed Joe Mixon to play is intellectually dishonest. That's not what happened.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

How do you think suspensions work? Oklahoma suspended him for an entire season. You're implying that Joe Mixon should have been suspended for his bowl game, after already serving his one year suspension that ended a year ago. That's insane.

The idea that Joe Mixon should be punished again is insanity. It doesn't matter if you like Joe Mixon, but he served his one year suspension. Just because the public is now seeing the video for the first time doesn't mean he gets a new punishment.

The coaches and administration have had the video for two years and punished him. Trying to frame this as James Franklin and PSU being morally superior for sitting two guys for breaking team rules while Oklahoma allowed Joe Mixon to play is intellectually dishonest. That's not what happened.

In most schools, a student would be expelled for such a crime. At Oklahoma, football players get another chance if they have enough talent. You wouod go to jail for such a vicious attack.

 

[BobPSU92]

stoops even admitted that the "punishment" of mixon was not severe enough. Still, he played last night.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

You try getting into or returning to school with a criminal record. He should have gione to jail. You or I would. OU has a miserable record graduating football players. They are a racist program, using black kids and not providing the needed guidance or tutoring to get a degree.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

How do you think suspensions work? Oklahoma suspended him for an entire season. You're implying that Joe Mixon should have been suspended for his bowl game, after already serving his one year suspension that ended a year ago. That's insane.

The idea that Joe Mixon should be punished again is insanity. It doesn't matter if you like Joe Mixon, but he served his one year suspension. Just because the public is now seeing the video for the first time doesn't mean he gets a new punishment.

The coaches and administration have had the video for two years and punished him. Trying to frame this as James Franklin and PSU being morally superior for sitting two guys for breaking team rules while Oklahoma allowed Joe Mixon to play is intellectually dishonest. That's not what happened.

Since when is a redshirt year punishment? Mixon should have been kicked off team/out of school for a year. Arguing that he was punished by being redshirted is true insanity.

 

[jrd23psu]

In most schools, a student would be expelled for such a crime. At Oklahoma, football players get another chance if they have enough talent. You wouod go to jail for such a vicious attack.

What, exactly, are you advocating? Again, your implication is that while James Franklin punishes players who break team rule by sitting them out of the bowl game, that Joe Mixon was allowed to play in his after what he did and that these two are somehow equal comparisons. They are not. Joe Mixon was suspended for a season two years ago for this. His punishment has come and gone. Your comparison here is terrible. Joe Mixon did not get off without any punishment like you're implying in your original post.

You don't have to like Joe Mixon, but Bob Stoops did nothing wrong by playing him in the bowl game last night. I don't even understand what you're problem is with a player playing after their suspension is up. A suspension means you're not allowed to play for X and when that time is over you can play. That's what happened to Joe Mixon.

Comparing the two instances you compared is comparing apples and oranges, and a bad comparison to make.

 

[jrd23psu]

Since when is a redshirt year punishment? Mixon should have been kicked off team/out of school for a year. Arguing that he was punished by being redshirted is true insanity.

He was eligible for a red shirt. You have 5 years to play 4 years. You can't take a year away.

You can think the punishment was not enough, that's fine. But the idea that there was something wrong with him playing in the game last night is awful. He was given a punishment, that everyone was OK with the last two years, and now people want him punished again two years later. That's now how this works.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

What, exactly, are you advocating? Again, your implication is that while James Franklin punishes players who break team rule by sitting them out of the bowl game, that Joe Mixon was allowed to play in his after what he did and that these two are somehow equal comparisons. They are not. Joe Mixon was suspended for a season two years ago for this. His punishment has come and gone. Your comparison here is terrible. Joe Mixon did not get off without any punishment like you're implying in your original post.

You don't have to like Joe Mixon, but Bob Stoops did nothing wrong by playing him in the bowl game last night. I don't even understand what you're problem is with a player playing after their suspension is up. A suspension means you're not allowed to play for X and when that time is over you can play. That's what happened to Joe Mixon.

Comparing the two instances you compared is comparing apples and oranges, and a bad comparison to make.

He was eligible for a red shirt. The school did not have to use it, that was their decision. Instead of being allowed to play he was not, red shirt or otherwise.

You can think the punishment was not enough, that's fine. But the idea that there was something wrong with him playing in the game last night is awful. He was given a punishment, that everyone was OK with the last two years, and now people want him punished again two years later. That's now how this works.

Sorry, that's not 'punishment'. That's being allowed to function as a normal student athlete after conducting yourself in a criminal manner. He should have been suspended from school for a year at a minimum - no team workouts, no training, no player functions, no classes, no all you can eat at the training table, no free housing - nothing.

And who is 'everyone' when you say they were OK with the last two years? No one outside the OU camp saw that video - how could 'everyone' be OK with the 'punishment' (and since the video has been made public, clearly, 'everyone' is not OK with it)?

 

[psuro]

With the benefit of hindsight, Stoops wish he would have done more.

 

[jrd23psu]

You try getting into or returning to school with a criminal record. He should have gione to jail. You or I would. OU has a miserabke record graduating football players. They are a racist program, using black kids and not proging the needed guidance or tutoring to get a degree.

He probably would not get into another school with a criminal record. He probably wouldn't be able to get a job, either. Is that what you prefer? This speaks to a much larger issue, which is that we like to throw away people for first offenses. We like to take them and make sure they can't function in our society and contribute anymore.

I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon, and I don't feel sorry for the woman, either. They got into a fight and one of them ended up getting hurt. But I don't advocate that we make sure they don't have a shot at a future because of it. If we're going to make sure Joe Mixon has a criminal record for assault then I'm assuming you're going to advocate the woman has one, too? If not, is it because she lost the fight?

Maybe he should have had a harsher punishment, like being kicked off the team. Maybe not. I don't know the kid personally. What I do know is that implying a second punishment should be handed down two years later is ridiculous, and that the idea that PSU is morally superior because two kids had to sit out of the Rose Bowl is a bad argument, and isn't the same thing.

 

[jrd23psu]

Sorry, that's not 'punishment'. That's being allowed to function as a normal student athlete after conducting yourself in a criminal manner. He should have been suspended from school for a year at a minimum - no team workouts, no training, no player functions, no classes, no all you can eat at the training table, no free housing - nothing.

And who is 'everyone' when you say they were OK with the last two years? No one outside the OU camp saw that video - how could 'everyone' be OK with the 'punishment' (and since the video has been made public, clearly, 'everyone' is not OK with it)?

Everybody in the OU camp was OK with the punishment, that's my point. The idea that they can go back and hand down a second punishment now is the problem. That's not how any of this works. Again, you don't have to like the punishment and you can advocate that a harsher penalty should have handed down, but it wasn't. Bob Stoops and the school can't take a year of eligibility away from him, though. They didn't red shirt him, he didn't play. The NCAA guidelines dictate that that year does not count towards his eligibility.

He could have lost his scholarship over it and have to pay his own way. I think he should have lost his scholarship. But that ship has sailed. You can't pull his scholarship now.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

He probably would not get into another school with a criminal record. He probably wouldn't be able to get a job, either. Is that what you prefer? This speaks to a much larger issue, which is that we like to throw away people for first offenses. We like to take them and make sure they can't function in our society and contribute anymore.

I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon, and I don't feel sorry for the woman, either. They got into a fight and one of them ended up getting hurt. But I don't advocate that we make sure they don't have a shot at a future because of it. If we're going to make sure Joe Mixon has a criminal record for assault then I'm assuming you're going to advocate the woman has one, too? If not, is it because she lost the fight?

Maybe he should have had a harsher punishment, like being kicked off the team. Maybe not. I don't know the kid personally. What I do know is that implying a second punishment should be handed down two years later is ridiculous, and that the idea that PSU is morally superior because two kids had to sit out of the Rose Bowl is a bad argument, and isn't the same thing.

You call that a 'fight'? Want a future? Don't sucker-punch a woman and walk away like you do that every day. It seems like you're saying his response was appropriate given her 'assaulting' him first. What a piece of crap you must be.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Everybody in the OU camp was OK with the punishment, that's my point. The idea that they can go back and hand down a second punishment now is the problem. That's not how any of this works. Again, you don't have to like the punishment and you can advocate that a harsher penalty should have handed down, but it wasn't. Bob Stoops and the school can't take a year of eligibility away from him, though. They didn't red shirt him, he didn't play. The NCAA guidelines dictate that that year does not count towards his eligibility.

He could have lost his scholarship over it and have to pay his own way. I think he should have lost his scholarship. But that ship has sailed. You can't pull his scholarship now.

Worst argument ever. This isn't worth discussing further.

 

[Lion78]

How do you think suspensions work? Oklahoma redshirted him.

FIFY

 

[jrd23psu]

You call that a 'fight'? Want a future? Don't sucker-punch a woman and walk away like you do that every day. It seems like you're saying his response was appropriate given her 'assaulting' him first. What a piece of crap you must be.

I don't know what you call it when someone pushes somebody else and then punches them in the head and then gets punched back, but that's a fight.

Remove the gender here and you have a fight. The reason you're not calling it a fight is because a woman was hit. I'm not a big guy, and if I push Joe Mixon and take a swing like she did and he knocks me out (and he would have knocked me out with that punch) I have a feeling everyone would be singing a different tune. It would be, Joe Mixon taught a tough guy a lesson he won't soon forget.

As much as people don't like it, she assaulted him and she wound up on the end of a brutal punch for it. And again, this speaks to a bigger issue at hand, and it's the idea that nobody should ever hit a woman for any reason. It's a terrible outlook and it's dangerous. All it does is reinforce the idea that it's safe for women to hit men because they aren't supposed to hit back. That's a dangerous thing to teach people because it's not a reality. People DO hit back.

What we should be teaching both women and men is that if you attack somebody they are liable to retaliate with force. It's dangerous to do, and if you instigate a fight with somebody by swinging at them you should be prepared for them to swing back at you. You don't do it. The woman couldn't contain her anger and got physical. The result was very bad for her. Everybody should understand how dangerous it is to keep teaching women that it's never OK for a man to hit them, because they will continue to feel safe hitting men.

 

[jrd23psu]

FIFY

A RS doesn't work like that. Eligibility is dictated by the NCAA. A school can't strip you of a year of eligibility. You have 5 years to complete 4 years of football. If any player does not play in one of those 5 years it does not count towards their eligibility. He wasn't red shirted, the year did not count towards his eligibility by NCAA rules. There is no changing that.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I don't know what you call it when someone pushes somebody else and then punches them in the head and then gets punched back, but that's a fight.

Remove the gender here and you have a fight. The reason you're not calling it a fight is because a woman was hit. I'm not a big guy, and if I push Joe Mixon and take a swing like she did and he knocks me out (and he would have knocked me out with that punch) I have a feeling everyone would be singing a different tune. It would be, Joe Mixon taught a tough guy a lesson he won't soon forget.

As much as people don't like it, she assaulted him and she wound up on the end of a brutal punch for it. And again, this speaks to a bigger issue at hand, and it's the idea that nobody should ever hit a woman for any reason. It's a terrible outlook and it's dangerous. All it does is reinforce the idea that it's safe for women to hit men because they aren't supposed to hit back. That's a dangerous thing to teach people because it's not a reality. People DO hit back.

What we should be teaching both women and men is that if you attack somebody they are liable to retaliate with force. It's dangerous to do, and if you instigate a fight with somebody by swinging at them you should be prepared for them to swing back at you. You don't do it. The woman couldn't contain her anger and got physical. The result was very bad for her. Everybody should understand how dangerous it is to keep teaching women that it's never OK for a man to hit them, because they will continue to feel safe hitting men.

Just....wow. Please don't have kids. Later.

 

[lein]

I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon, and I don't feel sorry for the woman, either. They got into a fight and one of them ended up getting hurt. .

Given the choice of walking away, or winding up and cold cocking her, he chose the latter.

Oklahoma did nothing to punish him as he gets the full ride and keeps all eligibility. Would have had a meaningful punishment if they sat his ass on the bench for a year without the benefit of a redshirt, make him pay by losing a year.

 

[AWS1022]

I don't know what you call it when someone pushes somebody else and then punches them in the head and then gets punched back, but that's a fight.

Remove the gender here and you have a fight. The reason you're not calling it a fight is because a woman was hit. I'm not a big guy, and if I push Joe Mixon and take a swing like she did and he knocks me out (and he would have knocked me out with that punch) I have a feeling everyone would be singing a different tune. It would be, Joe Mixon taught a tough guy a lesson he won't soon forget.

As much as people don't like it, she assaulted him and she wound up on the end of a brutal punch for it. And again, this speaks to a bigger issue at hand, and it's the idea that nobody should ever hit a woman for any reason. It's a terrible outlook and it's dangerous. All it does is reinforce the idea that it's safe for women to hit men because they aren't supposed to hit back. That's a dangerous thing to teach people because it's not a reality. People DO hit back.

What we should be teaching both women and men is that if you attack somebody they are liable to retaliate with force. It's dangerous to do, and if you instigate a fight with somebody by swinging at them you should be prepared for them to swing back at you. You don't do it. The woman couldn't contain her anger and got physical. The result was very bad for her. Everybody should understand how dangerous it is to keep teaching women that it's never OK for a man to hit them, because they will continue to feel safe hitting men.

What if it was a 14 year old kid that hit him? Is it okay for him to knock a kid out? That's about as much damage as that girl would have done to him. And she hardly punched him in the face, a slap to the neck maybe and that was after a baby push. And why did he walk in there in the first place? And walk right to her? Why not just leave?

And when the coach comes out and says the punishment wasn't harsh enough, he has every right to make it harsher...he's the coach.

 

[AWS1022]

A RS doesn't work like that. Eligibility is dictated by the NCAA. A school can't strip you of a year of eligibility. You have 5 years to complete 4 years of football. If any player does not play in one of those 5 years it does not count towards their eligibility. He wasn't red shirted, the year did not count towards his eligibility by NCAA rules. There is no changing that.

He was redshirted.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

He was redshirted.

That'll learn 'em!

 

[jrd23psu]

Just....wow. Please don't have kids. Later.

I'll be sure to take into account your opinion (an internet stranger) when I'm deciding whether I want to have kids. If I do, though, I'll make sure they understand how dangerous it is to assault someone, and that they shouldn't assault anybody over a disagreement. A matter of fact, I'll be sure to instill in them the value of having a constructive conversation with somebody if they have a disagreement and that using violence is only something you do as a last resort when you're being threatened.

I know, those are terrible values for somebody to have, and I certainly shouldn't have kids so I don't pass those bad parenting lessons down to them.

Of course you offered nothing of substance in your reply, and I'm not surprised, what would you say? That it's not dangerous to hit somebody? Of course it is.

 

[jrd23psu]

What if it was a 14 year old kid that hit him? Is it okay for him to knock a kid out? That's about as much damage as that girl would have done to him. And she hardly punched him in the face, a slap to the neck maybe and that was after a baby push. And why did he walk in there in the first place? And walk right to her? Why not just leave?

And when the coach comes out and says the punishment wasn't harsh enough, he has every right to make it harsher...he's the coach.

Then a 14 year old might have ended up getting seriously hurt. A 14-year old is also a minor, not an adult. It would be incredibly dangerous for a 14 year old to start a fight with a RB at any school. Show me a video of a 14 year old hitting an adult and I'll tell you if I think the adult should have hit the kid back.

That woman made a grave mistake when she assaulted Joe Mixon. And yes, she assaulted him. There's no arguing that. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong to hit somebody, I'm describing reality. It's dangerous to continue to condition women that it's never OK for men to hit women. For starters, that's simply not true. There are plenty of instances where you're validated in doing so. But more importantly, the more we condition women to believe this false idea the longer they will feel safe getting physical with men. Anyone getting physical with anybody is not safe. This is what we should be reinforcing.

I don't hit people. If I have a disagreement with a guy, and especially one a lot bigger than me I don't push him and slap him because I understand that I'm liable to get punched out for it. And again, if I did and you guys saw it on video I have no doubt that you'd be singing a different tune. The popular narrative would be that I got what I deserved, even if I didn't deserve it.

You cannot assault somebody, and the idea that "men should never hit a woman under any circumstance" only creates people who feel safe hitting somebody, and as you can see, that's dangerous.

 

[AWS1022]

I'll be sure to take into account your opinion (an internet stranger) when I'm deciding whether I want to have kids. If I do, though, I'll make sure they understand how dangerous it is to assault someone, and that they shouldn't assault anybody over a disagreement. A matter of fact, I'll be sure to instill in them the value of having a constructive conversation with somebody if they have a disagreement and that using violence is only something you do as a last resort when you're being threatened.

I know, those are terrible values for somebody to have, and I certainly shouldn't have kids so I don't pass those bad parenting lessons down to them.

Of course you offered nothing of substance in your reply, and I'm not surprised, what would you say? That it's not dangerous to hit somebody? Of course it is.

All of the things that Mixon didn't do yet you defend him as if his actions were justified.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I'll be sure to take into account your opinion (an internet stranger) when I'm deciding whether I want to have kids. If I do, though, I'll make sure they understand how dangerous it is to assault someone, and that they shouldn't assault anybody over a disagreement. A matter of fact, I'll be sure to instill in them the value of having a constructive conversation with somebody if they have a disagreement and that using violence is only something you do as a last resort when you're being threatened.

I know, those are terrible values for somebody to have, and I certainly shouldn't have kids so I don't pass those bad parenting lessons down to them.

Of course you offered nothing of substance in your reply, and I'm not surprised, what would you say? That it's not dangerous to hit somebody? Of course it is.

Ok - we get it; you're on board with this because she touched him first (even though he followed her into the restaurant and further instigated a situation that initiated elsewhere). You also are fine with his punishment and think he deserves a second chance (even though he ripped up a parking ticket and threw it in the face of a female just two months ago). I have nothing to say to you because you are a dolt trying to justify what he did. The lesson he'll never learn because of twits like you is that his special talent as an athlete is more important than anything else. Of course you should never resort to violence to resolve a dispute. Of course women shouldn't hit men. Of course people are prone to respond in an escalated fashion. You don't get to break someone's face just because he or she touches or threatens you (her slap on his neck was a doozy!). Especially when you know you could (and he did) destroy someone with one punch. Glad you don't have kids. Keep it that way.

 

[jrd23psu]

All of the things that Mixon didn't do yet you defend him as if his actions were justified.

Show me where I said he was justified? I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon. He shouldn't have hit the woman. I also don't feel sorry for the woman. She assaulted someone who was not willing to take it. She shouldn't have assaulted him. She's an adult, and adults should not be addressing disagreements by lashing out violently.

You won't find anywhere where I said it was justified, either.

What I said was that this is clearly a gender issue, and Joe Mixon is taking as much heat as he is because we want to hold on to the dangerous idea that men are never supposed to hit a woman.

 

[AWS1022]

Then a 14 year old might have ended up getting seriously hurt. A 14-year old is also a minor, not an adult. It would be incredibly dangerous for a 14 year old to start a fight with a RB at any school. Show me a video of a 14 year old hitting an adult and I'll tell you if I think the adult should have hit the kid back.

That woman made a grave mistake when she assaulted Joe Mixon. And yes, she assaulted him. There's no arguing that. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong to hit somebody, I'm describing reality. It's dangerous to continue to condition women that it's never OK for men to hit women. For starters, that's simply not true. There are plenty of instances where you're validated in doing so. But more importantly, the more we condition women to believe this false idea the longer they will feel safe getting physical with men. Anyone getting physical with anybody is not safe. This is what we should be reinforcing.

I don't hit people. If I have a disagreement with a guy, and especially one a lot bigger than me I don't push him and slap him because I understand that I'm liable to get punched out for it. And again, if I did and you guys saw it on video I have no doubt that you'd be singing a different tune. The popular narrative would be that I got what I deserved, even if I didn't deserve it.

You cannot assault somebody, and the idea that "men should never hit a woman under any circumstance" only creates people who feel safe hitting somebody, and as you can see, that's dangerous.

When you can explain why he walked into the restaurant and confronted her in the first place, then your argument may have some merit. Until then what he did was wrong. I agree that there are certain situations when a man may need to hit a woman, but this wasn't one of those situations. By him approaching her, he essentially started it. Getting a shove and a light slap from a woman is hardly assault. I've been hit harder by guys while joking around and I didn't lash out and punch them.

 

[AWS1022]

Show me where I said he was justified? I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon. He shouldn't have hit the woman. I also don't feel sorry for the woman. She assaulted someone who was not willing to take it. She shouldn't have assaulted him. She's an adult, and adults should not be addressing disagreements by lashing out violently.

You won't find anywhere where I said it was justified, either.

What I said was that this is clearly a gender issue, and Joe Mixon is taking as much heat as he is because we want to hold on to the dangerous idea that men are never supposed to hit a woman.

You have an awful broad definition of assault. She hit him because he lunged at her after she pushed him (not really an assault unless you also consider a pillow fight assault).

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Show me where I said he was justified? I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon. He shouldn't have hit the woman. I also don't feel sorry for the woman. She assaulted someone who was not willing to take it. She shouldn't have assaulted him. She's an adult, and adults should not be addressing disagreements by lashing out violently.

You won't find anywhere where I said it was justified, either.

What I said was that this is clearly a gender issue, and Joe Mixon is taking as much heat as he is because we want to hold on to the dangerous idea that men are never supposed to hit a woman.

It's not a gender issue even though you keep wanting it to be one. It's that if he weren't a star athlete, he's likely kicked out of school or in jail. But, yeah - he was redshirted, so he paid his debt.

 

[elvis63]

First Bobby Engram was suspended for one season after stealing some stereo equipment. And it was also a redshirt year.

The woman should not have touched Mixon, I agree. If you lay hands on them, they might retaliate. But his response was still disproportionate to her actions. He also should not have gone into the restaurant after them.

 

[jrd23psu]

Ok - we get it; you're on board with this because she touched him first (even though he followed her into the restaurant and further instigated a situation that initiated elsewhere). You also are fine with his punishment and think he deserves a second chance (even though he ripped up a parking ticket and threw it in the face of a female just two months ago). I have nothing to say to you because you are a dolt trying to justify what he did. The lesson he'll never learn because of twits like you is that his special talent as an athlete is more important than anything else. Of course you should never resort to violence to resolve a dispute. Of course women shouldn't hit men. Of course people are prone to respond in an escalated fashion. You don't get to break someone's face just because he or she touches or threatens you (her slap on his neck was a doozy!). Especially when you know you could (and he did) destroy someone with one punch. Glad you don't have kids. Keep it that way.

Again, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put any stock in your opinion of me. And I've seen this fight plenty of times posted elsewhere.

Anybody watching this video should understand what a huge risk you take when you have a disagreement and you get physical. Don't do it, it's not safe.

And if Joe Mixon had another issue with the law then they should handle it. Who's advocating that it shouldn't be handled? Certainly not me.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

You have an awful broad definition of assault. She hit him because he lunged at her after she pushed him (not really an assault unless you also consider a pillow fight assault).

Exactly. He faked like he was going to hit her, she slapped him, and he punched her probably as hard as he could. She should have known better though.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Again, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put any stock in your opinion of me. And I've seen this fight plenty of times posted elsewhere.

Anybody watching this video should understand what a huge risk you take when you have a disagreement and you get physical. Don't do it, it's not safe.

And if Joe Mixon had another issue with the law then they should handle it. Who's advocating that it shouldn't be handled? Certainly not me.

You're defending his actions and his punishment. You're garbage. I can be pragmatic too.

 

[jrd23psu]

It's not a gender issue even though you keep wanting it to be one. It's that if he weren't a star athlete, he's likely kicked out of school or in jail. But, yeah - he was redshirted, so he paid his debt.

It's definitely a gender issue, that's not even debatable. But yeah, if he wasn't a star athlete there is a good chance he would have been kicked out of school. When you have something to offer you're more likely to be given a second chance at something when you make terrible mistakes. It's not unique to being a star athlete, either. Not all people are treated equally across the board in life. Somebody with nothing to offer would not be given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that means we should always throw everybody away and never offer second chances. Plenty of people have done terrible things and turned their lives around with a second chance.

But I agree, people who having something extraordinary to offer often times are given second chances when somebody of no consequence would not.

 

[jrd23psu]

You have an awful broad definition of assault. She hit him because he lunged at her after she pushed him (not really an assault unless you also consider a pillow fight assault).

Those are all considered assault. I didn't make them assault and they aren't my definition, our laws made those things assault. If I push a woman (or a man), I'll get arrested for assault. If I slap a woman (or a man) in the neck, I'll get arrested for assault.

 

[jrd23psu]

When you can explain why he walked into the restaurant and confronted her in the first place, then your argument may have some merit. Until then what he did was wrong. I agree that there are certain situations when a man may need to hit a woman, but this wasn't one of those situations. By him approaching her, he essentially started it. Getting a shove and a light slap from a woman is hardly assault. I've been hit harder by guys while joking around and I didn't lash out and punch them.

I don't know why he walked into the store. I watched the same video as everybody else.

Of course what he did was wrong. Again, I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon and the backlash he's received. It's a direct result of his actions.

This woman wasn't joking with her friends. The reason it's not assault when you joke with your friends and slap them is because the context is that you're friends and it's acceptable to joke like that.

This is the same bad comparison that the OP made by trying to prove PSU is somehow morally superior because two kids sat out last night and Joe Mixon played. It's a bad comparison and it doesn't make our school better, either.

I find it incredible how easily people want to criticize other schools when we know what it's like to be characterized as morally repugnant over the last 5 years. You'd think we would understand the dangers of riding a high horse.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I don't know why he walked into the store. I watched the same video as everybody else.

Of course what he did was wrong. Again, I don't feel sorry for Joe Mixon and the backlash he's received. It's a direct result of his actions.

This woman wasn't joking with her friends. The reason it's not assault when you joke with your friends and slap them is because the context is that you're friends and it's acceptable to joke like that.

This is the same bad comparison that the OP made by trying to prove PSU is somehow morally superior because two kids sat out last night and Joe Mixon played. It's a bad comparison and it doesn't make our school better, either.

I find it incredible how easily people want to criticize other schools when we know what it's like to be characterized as morally repugnant over the last 5 years. You'd think we would understand the dangers of riding a high horse.

Hilarious! Bowen and Blacknall were suspended for a game they were otherwise eligible to play in; Mixon did not receive a punishment at all similar to that. If he finishes out his career at Oklahoma, he can and would likely play in every single game without ever missing one. These guys missed a game because of some unknown team rule infraction (if video of them surface breaking a woman's face to bits, well, I'll change my tune). It's incredible that you think what Oklahoma did (which was the college football equivalent of paid leave) was punishment enough for criminal behavior.

Put another way, when CJF suspended Sickles for the first half against OSU, he dished out more punishment than Oklahoma did for Mixon.

 

[jrd23psu]

Hilarious! Bowen and Blacknall were suspended for a game they were otherwise eligible to play in; Mixon did not receive a punishment at all similar to that. If he finishes out his career at Oklahoma, he can and would likely play in every single game without ever missing one. These guys missed a game because of some unknown team rule infraction (if video of them surface breaking a woman's face to bits, well, I'll change my tune). It's incredible that you think what Oklahoma did (which was the college football equivalent of paid leave) was punishment enough for criminal behavior.

You're 100% right. We don't know why Blacknall and Bowen were held out. We don't know what team rule they broke or what they did wrong. Why would somebody bother coming on a message board to gloat about the moral superiority of our school over Oklahoma when none of us knows the details? We have no idea why, but we're sure we're definitely morally superior.

If you're wondering why plenty of other fans of other schools really took joy in what happened at our school it's because of this blind moral superiority some of our fans seem to have. We can't tell you why someone got in trouble, but we'll still compare something we don't know to something we do know and make sure to tell everyone we're better.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

This thread illustrates the loss of American culture and more specificly, black culture. When we grew up in the 4Os and 50s it was unacceptibke for a man to hit a woman under any circumstances. After 30 years of rap music that lowers the status of women to whores, after four generations of men ignoring the children they sire, we live in a culture where women are demeaned and not valued. Sadly, many women accept and live down to this lower opinion. Even sadder, some people justify violence on women, like in this thread. Have a blessed day.