If she hit him first, his lawyers believe, it's not a felony.

[Are_grits_groceries]

As Chris Brown negotiates a plea deal, the R&B singer is making it known Rihanna struck him first that infamous night in Los Angeles. Why does he think it matters?

Because he's negotiating a plea deal, according to TMZ, and has been charged with two felonies for allegedly beating his girlfriend Rihanna. If she hit him first, his lawyers believe, it's not a felony:

Sources say Rihanna was the first one to strike — slapping and striking Brown "numerous times" while he was driving, after seeing the text message from another woman.

Supposedly, this version of events is reflected in the official police report. Floating the story publicly fits perfectly into Brown's dual PR strategy of appearing remorseful even while shifting some blame for the beating to Rihanna.
http://gawker.com/5166432/report-rihanna-hit-first-so-chris-brown-wants-a-misdemeanor

:puke: MEH!!

[ejpoeta]

1. this is BS!!! he beat the crap out of her. what the fuck!

Here is what I think is going to happen.... he's going to get off and forgiven, and she's going to get screwed. Even if she slapped him, does it make what he did to her ok??? This is ridiculous.

[screembloodymurder]

32. Yes, but in self defense.

You cannot have it both ways!

[JuniperLea]

44. Sure you can!

If this is the case, they BOTH need tried for assault. You only have to do so much beating to defend yourself.

[screembloodymurder]

66. Just enough to defend yourself ... like the police do?

If she slapped a police officer, she'd be lucky to be alive.

[Xithras]

72. Self defense only works if you can show that your force didn't exceed what was needed.

If she was beating him and he responded by squarely punching her once (ending the fight) then his argument would work. It is NOT illegal for one person to strike another, even causing injury, if the person throwing the punch is trying to end an assault on himself.

The reports I've read indicate that he was beating on her while she cowered in fear. The fact that she was cowering means that she wasn't a threat. The fact that he continued to hit her anyway means it was NOT self defense.

[Jennicut]

2. Right, so practically making her pass out and punch her face in several times is okay?

I hope she gets away from him. She is a talented young woman but its troubling that she went back with him. Not surprising though, it happens many times.

[Warpy]

3. Uh, he could have survived a couple of slaps

but he bloody nearly killed her when he rearranged her face.

Hey, COWARD, it's a FELONY!

[Dorian Gray]

40. No kidding....

this whole thing just pisses me off.

The attitudes that people have shown (not on this board, but out in the real world) about this attack baffles me!

It doesn't matter if she yelled at him or hit him first. What he did to her was not defending himself. He almost killed her.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. No one has the right to strike another person - period.

If it can be proven, which is doubtful, Rihanna should also be brought up on charges. But that should not absolve Brown of his guilt in this matter, and regardless of what happen, he should still be charged with a felony. I don't see why the (alleged) crimes of one absolve the (alleged) crimes of another. From the evidence cited, he went far beyond protecting himself, even if that were to be the case.

Still, it should be said, because from what I've been hearing, it is a point that's being ignored - women do not have any right to strike men, just as men have no right to strike women. Domestic violence is domestic violence - period.

edit to add emphasis to "which is doubtful" because someone will not bother to read closely enough to see that I don't really believe Brown's defense strategy and call me a misogynist.

[Rashel]

6. I agree. Women shouldn't get a free pass on assault. Domestic violence is domestic violence.

[RebelOne]

12. Women do not get a free pass on assault, at least not here in Georgia.

My sister slapped her husband. He called the cops and they put her in jail. He was pulling her hair, so she slapped him, but she went to jail.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Nonetheless, if he were a MAN instead of a fucking wuss, he could

take a hit from a 5' tall girl. He's a bully and a coward, and as the bigger person he had the obligation to walk away. He had no more right to respond that way to her than he did if it was a child gnawing on his kneecap.

Somebody needs to teach him what it means to be a MAN.

[ozu]

14. Sounds awfully patriarchal

Women are not children. She's an adult and if she made the conscious decision to assault him, she should face legal repercussions.

That said, he's an abusive dick and deserves a harsh sentence and counseling.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. With very few exceptions, a man is more physically powerful than

a woman who is of equal size and stature - and Brown is someone of far greater size and stature than she is.

A real man does not beat on people smaller than he is.

It has nothing to do with legalities. It has nothing to do with "she hit me first". If she is not a martial artist capable of killing with her hands, he should man up and shut up.

If she DID hit him first, he should have walked away. If he was thinking it would be a habit with her, he should break up with her.

I think he's just a fucking wuss who is pissed that her career is skyrocketing while his is languishing. He's no man.

[ZombieHorde]

28. "A real man does not beat on people smaller than he is."

and

He's no man.

I suspect you are not accusing him of being an android, inter-sexed, transgendered, or a doppelganger; so what do you mean by "a real man"?

If she DID hit him first, he should have walked away.

Do real women hit those would lose their "realness" if they hit back?

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Man: an adult male who is responsible for his actions.

Chris Brown: a wussy pissant over-grown child throwing a tantum, but physically powerful enough to do real damage when doing it.

He's no man.

As for your last sentence, I couldn't make heads nor tails out of it.

[Dorian Gray]

42. Sure...

if she hit him, he should have called the cops on her and had her arrested.

Instead he beat the shit out of her, pounded her face against the steering wheel, punched her in the face a number of times, choked her until she passed out, and bit her.

Proportionality does not say self defense. Proportionality says: "Damn! That bitch pissed me off! I'm going to beat the shit out of her."

Now he is the one who has to face charges.

And he deserves more time than what he will probably be given.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

15. This has little to do with manliness.

I think it's more about just trying to weasel out of taking responsibility for his actions. I guess in his mind the old playground defense of "he hit me first" will completely exonerate him of all wrong doing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. A man takes responsibilty for his actions.

A man resorts to violence only when absolutely necessary.

He's no man.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. A HUMAN takes responsibility for his or her actions.

Humans only resort to violence when absolutely necessary.

What, you think women shouldn't take responsibility too? Do you think women have the right to resort to violence?

[AngryAmish]

38. So a woman takes no responsibility for her actions.

A woman resorts to violence whenever she feels like it.

She is no woman?


Puke. Patriarchy 101.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Strawman. I did not say that.

SHE is the one who was beaten to a pulp. HE did the beating. It is HIS responsibility.

A 5', 105lb girl slapping a grown man hardly qualifies as an attack that warranted that response. If it was a 5', 105lb 12 year old boy that hit him would the boy be charged with assault?

I don't give a crap about legalities of who started it - the response which was entirely under his control was way out of proportion to the provocation.

There is NO equality between the two, and I don't understand why there are so many here trying to pin it on HER.

[AngryAmish]

60. We agree on the inappropriateness of the response

Yet one either stands for equality or one does not.

(BTW, she is a year or two older than this guy. Yet you use diminutive, infantilizing language (girl) for an adult woman. And call the younger male a man. Hmmm.)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Contrary to the point, and rather asinine.

First of all, none of what you said matters in the light of no human being has the right to attack another human being. It doesn't matter if it's a 5' tall girl attacking a 6'5" linebacker and no harm can come of it without weapons being involved - there is no right to attack someone.

Secondly, people do have the right to defend themselves from attack, as has been noted in lengthy legal precedent. Where that right ends is to the point where the threat of harm has been mitigated. As I stated in my post, regardless of other details in this case, it is clear that Brown went well beyond that right. Relative sizes only matter insofar as the threat of harm is mitigated.

Finally, you seem to have no real concept of what it means to be a man in today's society. You're probably of the ilk that men shouldn't cry, too. It's time for you to grow beyond your 19th century concept of what men are supposed to be.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. The point is, she was NEVER a threat to him. You have NO right

to 'defend' yourself against someone who is no threat.

You think that maybe she KNEW she was no threat? If a person who is no threat, and KNOWS they are no threat, attacks someone, is it really an attack?

I don't know what you mean about 'a man in today's society'. Is it 19th century to believe that men should not bully? That the strong should defend the weak, not prey on them? That men and women are not the same things, except with bumps in different places? Is the concept of honor too old fashioned?

But I do know I would NEVER hit a woman. I have not been in a fight for 30 years, and that last one was with another Marine. When my wife hit me, I got pissed off and punched a hole in the wall, and that was childish enough. Did she have a right or reason to hit me? WHO THE FUCK CARES? I have NO control over HER. Only myself.

I have no control over others - only myself. That's Sooooo 19th century.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. An attack is an attack.

And no one has the right to attack anyone else.

At no part of that absolute, truly unquestionable statement did gender roles or what it means to be a "man" come into play. Your wife had NO RIGHT TO HIT YOU. It doesn't matter if she could hurt you and it doesn't matter if she had a "reason". And by the way, you punching a hole in the wall could be considered abuse in and of itself, and it most likely was because that carries with it the implied threat of harm. You don't ever have to lift a finger for abuse to occur.

But since you are so much more enlightened than me, why don't you take a crack at illuminating for me how much different men and women are? I'll get my popcorn ready for this one, oh honorable one. :popcorn:

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. If you don't know that there's a difference between men and women,

you need a lot more help than you're going to get here.

This is not about 'rights' - nor is it about who is right.

I don't care how conflicted you might be about gender roles. It is immaterial.

No man who beats on a woman can call himself a man.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. Nice dodge of the question.

Really though, explain it to me. Tell me these differences. Or are you afraid that what you say will damn you?

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. Not at all. I've said it before, in this very thread.

Men are bigger and more powerful than women. A man who is of the same size as a woman (say, 5'10", 160lbs"), will be stronger and more powerful than the woman is. It takes a woman being much larger than a man before you find physical equivalence between them.

That's just the way humans are built. It's called sexual dimorphism. It's not quite as pronounced with humans as it is with, say, chimpanzees. But it is there.

This being the case, it is incumbent upon the male to refrain from imposing his will upon the female by light of his physical advantage. THAT is called civilization. This in no way infers that women are inferior to men - it only acknowledges that women are for the most part more susceptible to violence by men, and that society provides rules to redress that imbalance of power.

A man who is comfortable with his masculinity does not feel the need to impose his will on smaller, weaker persons, male or female. He internalizes those rules and does NOT bully women or weaker men or children or kick the dog. He doesn't hate groups where the purpose is to prove himself tougher than his chosen victim.

He exercises restraint and self control.

Now, most of what I've spelled out here CAN be applied to women, too, but there is the obvious caveat that they have less opportunity to impose their will physically on others because of the same sexual dimorphism. Also, not being a woman, I don't claim to be qualified to speak on what makes a good gender model for women.

Are men and women different? Of course they are. Equal, but different. It is 1970s feminist nonsense to think otherwise. We've grown past that, I hope. Feminists today don't try to be female men - they don't show up at the boardroom in suit and tie. They celebrate being women, with their own strengths that counterbalance the strengths of men.

But the simple fact is, 6 million years of evolution have developed the sexes into different roles - women are the nurturers, and men the protectors. You see the same breakdown in baboon packs, gorilla tribes, chimpanzee families. It is our anthropoid destiny. And as we see with our fellow apes, the lines can be blurred and individuals take on roles outside those biological specifications, the that is the exception, not the rule.

So, to reiterate, to call yourself a man you protect the weak, you don't prey on them. It is our biological imperative.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. Are weapons not the great equalizer here?

And further, none of what you said makes much of a difference in light of the argument being put forth - that regardless of size, gender, etc., that no human being is allowed to attack another human being.

Neither a man nor a woman should feel the need to impose their will upon anyone, regardless of size or gender. That you have applied gender roles to this is rather needless.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. Who had a weapon? nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

65. This time, no one.

Next time? You don't know, and you don't want to find out, which is precisely why the law (and popular opinion) should be blind of gender and size with regards to domestic violence. It has nothing to do with "being a man" to sit there and take punishment and risk physical, perhaps lethal harm.

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Um, a lot more men own guns than women

And are far more likely to use them on an intimate partner than vice versa.

[ieoeja]

73. "They have less opportunity to impose their will physically on others"

Not true when men follow the black-or-white "men don't hit women" rule. That rule creates the opportunity for a woman to physically impose their will on those men. I have seen this in action many times.

During the Union occupation of New Orleans within the Civil War, the Union General, a southerner himself, came to note that the occasional violent acts with their inevitably fatal outcomes were almost always predicated by the women, not the men, of New Orleans. But it was always the men who died. Therefore, in an era when a "gentleman" could brutalize a prostitute as he saw fit, the Union General had rules posted about the town informing his soldiers how they could identify the difference between prostitutes and the good women of the city. Notable among the rules were the acts that had so often incited violence between the southern men and the Union soldiers.

Fights between these men came to an abrupt stop.

If you treat women like adults, everyone will be better off in the long run.

[ieoeja]

74. Roles? Biological imperative? What are we, fucking chimps?

Should I just grab the first woman I see on the street and impregnate her against her will? That is a biological imperative as well.

Or do you run a rare-known baboon dating service: http://www.chimpmatch.com?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. If someone's striking you, you have a right to hit back.

Particularly if you're trying to drive a car.

Seems like the issue is going to boil down to how many times Brown struck her, and how long did he stop after the initial attack by Rhianna.

[pipi_k]

34. If you're trying to drive a car and someone hits you,

you don't heighten the danger to yourself, your passengers, and innocent people by hitting back.

You PULL OVER and get out.

You call 911 or flag down passersby.

but you don't get involved in fisticuffs while driving.


Also...with regards to self defense...if someone hits you once or twice, you aren't entitled to beat the shit out of them "in self defense".

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Thank you. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. If someone hits my while I'm driving, I'll backhand them right in the face.

"Also...with regards to self defense...if someone hits you once or twice, you aren't entitled to beat the shit out of them "in self defense"."

If person A attacks person B, and person A ends up getting hurt worse than person B, it does not make person B the guilty party.

Let's turn it around.

If Brown had started the assault by beating Rhianna, and she had pulled out a gun she kept in her purse for self-defense and shot him, I doubt many people would take serious issue with that.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. You really are fixated on this specious argument.

It just sucks that you're not allowed to beat the shit out of the bitch if she steps up to you, doesn't it?

[dustbunnie]

56. Supposedly that is when he pulled over -

tried to shove her out of the car but she was wearing her seat belt. Then he started attacking her.

[Hello_Kitty]

79. But don't you see? He was DEFENDING himself!

I mean, duuuuh.

:sarcasm: of course

[Lance_Boyle]

57. well, if you're driving when you come under attack

the potential lethality of the attack is amplified tremendously. She risked not only his life and her life by attacking him while he was driving, she risked the lives of everyone else on the road at this time. Damn straight she should be charged, too, regardless of gender/plumbing.

[EstimatedProphet]

26. That attitude is half the problem

That's the flipside of the never hit a woman attitude. The fact is, any time an adult hits another adult, it is defined as assault under the law. Sex, age over majority, body size, etc. doesn't matter. That's the way it should be.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. When I was ten years old I learned, dealing with my three sisters,

two older, one younger, that "she started it" is NOT an excuse.

I DON'T CARE WHO STARTED IT.

If some 6'2" Roller Derby chick decided to beat on me, I might consider filing assault charges, but I STILL would not hit her. I don't give a crap about what OTHER people do - I can only be responsible for what I do.

I DON'T CARE THAT SHE HAS NO RIGHT TO HIT ANYONE. Her being in the wrong does not cede to him the right to beat on her.

A MAN knows this.

[EstimatedProphet]

64. I don't care who started it either

NO ONE has the right to hit someone else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. Has ANYBODY claimed she had a right to hit him?

Or are you just making an excuse for him beating the SHIT out of her?


This is just silly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. This one of the more stupid things I've ever read here.

Violence is not an answer, even if you're 5' tall and real mad.

Women are as capable of being responsible for their actions as men are.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Sure they are.

And if SHE had put HIM in the hospital, there might be a valid argument against her.

Obviously, there isn't.

[ieoeja]

70. How would you handle that chld gnawing on your kneecap?

Would you simply ignore the child? Or would you punish the child?

I'm betting you wouldn't just ignore the child. Problem is, a grown woman is not a child. You can not send her to her room. You can not spank her.

Do you know how to get a woman to stop abusing you? I spent years trying to figure that one out until the day I decided to react to her like I would another male. An adult of any gender should understand that it is *wrong* to hit another, and *stupid* to hit another expecting that other to not hit back.

"Not taking it," was not the mistake Chris Brown made. The mistake was in taking it until he lost it. Had he slapped her back as soon as she started slapping him, nobody would have been badly hurt.

Surely you knew at least one kid growing up who was picked on bullies smaller than him, but lacked the confidence/violence/whatever to fight back. Until the one day he knocked some bully silly. Did you castigate that kid for hitting someone smaller? Or did you applaud the kid for finally standing up to the bully?

Vaginas and pensises should not change that equation. Woman are fully functional adults just like men. Shocking, I know.

[lmn84]

23. I agree with you completely

If Rihanna did hit him (and not out of self defense), she should also receive charges.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Yeah, she smacked and punched him while he was driving the car. Right.

So, where are the marks?

[Ikonoklast]

7. Matters not. It is in the official police report.

I was struck by my ex. Never left a mark, but remember, there are such things as 'witnesses'.

[Ohio Joe]

8. Disgusting

"Floating the story publicly fits perfectly into Brown's dual PR strategy of appearing remorseful even while shifting some blame for the beating to Rihanna."

Yeah! blame the victim! :sarcasm:

This asshole belongs in jail.

[Kahuna]

9. I somehow suspected this would be his defense. nt

[tanngrisnir3]

11. The CA Penal Code says it's a felony. Only plea bargaining can change the charge

[baldguy]

13. Assault can be mutual, and there's also a question of degree.

If she's slapping him, causing no damage, he has the right to take reasonable actions to stop her.

"Reasonable" does not include beating her to the point of unconsciousness, injuring her with swelling, bruising, discoloration to her skin & drawing blood

[ZombieHorde]

31. Your post is a mirror of the I/P forum.

Israel would the man in this scenario, and Gaza would be the woman. Thank you for unintentionally placing those events in a different light. I have remained relatively neutral, but your post has given me something to chew on.

[FudaFuda]

16. Dont blame the defense lawyers

They have a job to do for their client, which is to defend him against the prosecution and mitigate any punishment to the greatest extent possible. So if they come up with a BS theory of the case to argue its not a felony, that's just them doing their job. The question to be concerned about is whether the prosecutors, cops, and judge go along with it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. +1 (nt)

[Dr. Strange]

37. That sounds like a cop-out.

If it's such a "BS theory," then the defense lawyer shouldn't be presenting it.

[geek tragedy]

50. It's his job to help his client, not promote

coherent or legitimate arguments.

[Scout]

68. "mitigate any punishment to the greatest extent possible"

no.....

the job of the defense attorney is to see that the defendant receives a fair trial, and that his rights are not violated in the process.

[Dawgs]

25. Unfortunately, she will probably go along with this story to get him out of it.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's very bright to go back with someone that beat you.

[ellacott]

27. I don't think it's bright either

There were reports that Jay Z is trying to arrange a meeting between Rihanna and Tina Turner. Hopefully Tina will get a chance to talk to her.

Even if she hit him first he still could have walked away.

[musette_sf]

30. typical victim blaming and abuse apologetics

:mad:

:puke:

no marks on him.

look what he did to her.

anyone who thinks she deserved what she got and thinks she is to blame, well, :puke:

this is so sad, she's going to go back with that POS, and abusers will know, once again, that they can get away with it.

[librechik]

33. In my county, she would be charged also.

I'll be surprised if she isn't charged since it was in the police report. It's up to the courts to sort this out, not the police or the press.

[TexasObserver]

35. They both engaged in domestic violence and both should be charged.

According to the police report, she attacked him physically repeatedly and then he attacked her.

Whether either or both committed a felony is a matter of prosecutorial determination at this point, but it's a valid defense point that she attacked him first, because it alters the nature of the assault he committed against her from unprovoked to self defense.

This case is best understood if the participants were viewed as either two men or two women. The fact that one is male and one is female doesn't alter the nature of the event: two people engaged in domestic violence. One started it, while the other used excessive force. Both should be charged with domestic violence.

[Captain Hilts]

45. The report is based on what the two of them told the cops. That's all.

She should be charged with a misdemeanor and he with a felony.

[cboy4]

69. Yup. It's exactly the way the DA should proceed....He should

get the 273.5 (F) and she should get a lesser (M) battery if it is indeed true she hit him also.

I read the search warrant and affidavit, and there's no information that she initiated the physical violence.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ieoeja]

75. Agreed. Remove gender from the equation. n/t

[TexasObserver]

81. We need to do that if we're going to treat domestic violence properly.

Giving a free pass to every abusive woman is not a great system. If a woman attacks a man, and he calls the police on her, guess who goes to jail? Until we treat men more fairly when they are victims of domestic violence, we won't make serious advancements in the treatment of it. Too many commentators like to pretend the atmosphere of violence in many of these relationships does not involve violence by women against men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Are you suggesting that who threw the first punch is irrelevant?

Violence escalates. It is never appropriate.

[Lisa0825]

54. I once knew a teeny tiny lady with a huge husband, and she used to

barrage him with punches and slaps, until he hit her or pushed her down. Sure, she was not capable of physicaly hurting as much as he possibly could, but being hit dozens of times by even a small adult can't be totally devoid of pain, brusing, etc. When he hit her or pushed her down or away, she would scream about him abusing her, as if she didn't remember the 50 times she'd just smacked him. I know this is a volatile subject, but I do think that she was provoking him. Was he never allowed to defend himself? He didn't want to just leave, because she threatened him with not allowing him to see their child. To my knowledge, he never pummeled her the way she did him. That doesn't make it right, but the notion that a woman can never provoke a man is not quite right either.

[cynatnite]

43. Wow, then his face must be all bloodied and bruised, too...

:sarcasm:

[chrisa]

62. Typical wife beater.

She hit me first. I was completely justified in smacking her up and choking her. Don't make me mad again and it won't happen anymore.


Sick.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. people have differening strengths. there is a difference between striking and battery too

[Seldona]

67. She hit him while driving? No danger to the public there.

:sarcasm:

She should have been locked up too.

[cboy4]

71. That is a ridiculous defense....you can't water down a 273.5

felony by whining the other person started it.

If the other person started it with the use of force, then they should be charged with a crime as well.

But if what happened as read in the search warrant and affidavit is true Mr. Brown, I suspect you're going to prison.

[blogslut]

80. It really doesn't matter

Mr. Man can claim that the woman hit him..but the point is that he could not control himself. He chose to hit her. He is responsible for his reaction to her physical assault.