Skip to comments.Cop Blames Bieber Doll For Beating
Posted on 03/12/2012 7:07:54 PM PDT by Jahoohio
DENVER -- A Denver police officer arrested in the beating of his girlfriend claimed that she attacked him with a Justin Bieber doll.
Officer Michael Nuanes, Jr., 37, said that his girlfriend hurled a Barbie-sized Justin Bieber doll at him, injuring his foot.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
His response needed to be enough to make her stop, and he clearly did more than that, but NO ONE, man or woman, should have to allow themselves to be assaulted without defending themselves.
I’m really really tired of this presumption that women can hit men without consequences. Watch TV and you’ll see it three times a night. Played for comedy value. Ha ha ha. Look at the poor sap. He got beat by a woman.
She left the house eventually. When an angry man tells you to leave, you get out and then go get the cops.
Notice again the double standard. How many times do men just get thrown out of the bedroom or house by the woman and are just expected to meekly go sleep on the sofa or at the Y.
Attacking a woman for recording him with a cell phone video is not “self-defense”.
He is not responsible for her behavior. He is responsible for his own. His own behavior was criminal and reprehensible.
This is a boy who kicked in a door after his girlfriend locked herself in the bathroom to disengage from the fight. That is not the mindset of a man defending himself.
This is a boy who grabbed his girlfriend by the leg with intent to pull her off the bed because she was recording him on a cell phone video. (A wise man would be on his *best* behavior in such circumstances; not his *worst*).
This is a boy who beat his girlfriend before:
“The girlfriend said that she had photographs of her injuries from past abuse and beatings.”
This is not a man who was attacked by a crazy, abusive girlfriend.
This is a boy whom no conservative man should defend, because conservatives respect women. Liberals despise them.
Oh, you are familiar with those gentlemen?
They’re not typically the verbose sort, but they make their arguments well and concisely when they must, wouldn’t you agree?
Stealing this from the comments:
“I suppose all the good funny lines have already been said so I’ll just say, “ If I ever get beat up with a Justin Bieber doll, God give me the strength to keep my mouth shut about it”.”
Three brothers Kimber, one orphaned PS90, one Benelli SA shotgun. Hubby, the sweetheart, just bought me another 2,000 rounds for the PS90. See my homepage for a pic of the rifle when it was brand new. Don’t mind that I’ve been banned. Just scroll down.
“Hubby, the sweetheart, just bought me another 2,000 rounds for the PS90.”
Does that mean he gets to shoot it, now? Or does he still have to get his own?
Maybe, when I’m busy with the shotgun... [smiles]
“This is not a man who was attacked by a crazy, abusive girlfriend.”
The article is confusing as the sequence of events, but it looks like she started the actual violence during this particular incident when she threw something and hit him with it. I guess you think he should have just stood there and taken it - cowering like a dog. How many shots does she get?
This is a classic scenario. The woman starts the violence using a weapon, provokes a response, and then lays the responsibility entirely on the man. Later, her injuries matter, his do not.
If he’d injured her before, why was she still in the house? That’s a second classic scenario. She couldn’t have been that scared of him.
It’s a fashion doll. A child’s toy. No grown man would admit to being “injured” by it. A little boy might, to gain sympathy from Mommy.
At that point, he still had the upper hand. All he had to do was document it, and who looks bad? She does.
He wants her out of the house? At that point, he has reason to do so when he decides to *legally* evict her.
He decides he’s going to act like a little boy, and not like a man.
A boy thinks it is appropriate to beat up a woman because ONE child’s toy was thrown, not a man.
A boy thinks it is appropriate to snatch a woman’s cell phone from her, not a man.
A boy thinks it is appropriate to illegally order a woman from her home, not a man.
Because a man knows how to use his brain and act in wisdom, a boy does not.
A conservative man realizes that her two-year-old behavior reflects on her, not him, and not done anything stupid—under no circumstances would a conservative man decide to also engage the girlfriend in two-year-old behavior.
A liberal boy feels impotent at the act and needs to “teach her a lesson”.
Perhaps that is the problem. A weak, impotent man feels he must beat up a woman because he realizes she is the one person that truly sees how weak and how lacking as a man he really is.
He must be a powerless boy indeed to consider that provocation.
She gets to throw things at him and his only option is to let her and/or run away? Whether or not it hurt him or could hurt him is completely irrelevant.
HER lack of control and violent behavior started the confrontation. After denying it you’re now admitting it.
You’re making the standard “man up” argument that women so often use which translates to “lie down like a doormat and do nothing while I walk all over you”. Which is exactly the opposite of being a man.
According to you, she’s accountable for nothing and the criticism is reserved solely for him. You sound like a stereotypical left-wing man-hating feminist. What are you doing on freerepublic?
I have never denied that she was immature for throwing the doll. But that immaturity reflects on her, not on him.
A wise man understands that. A foolish man thinks it’s a good idea to join a foolish woman in foolish behavior.
Adults are expected to act like adults in conservative society—and part of adult behavior is not joining a fool in his (or her) folly.
He doesn’t look weak if he realizes he doesn’t have to “avenge” himself because she threw a glorified Ken-doll at him.
He becomes weak when he uses that as an excuse to assault her and attempts to illegally evict her.
He’s a fool because he thinks the way to show strength is to beat up someone physically weaker than he is. That’s how a bully thinks.
He’s a fool because he clearly does not fear God—or the thought to raise a finger against her would not occur to him.
He’s a fool because he engaged in foolish behavior and then wanted her to lie to get out of the consequences of his foolhardiness.
Liberals want to defend abuse of women; conservatives NEVER excuse the practice.
Considering his maturity level, they are probably his dolls.
Ahh, the dreaded “maybe”!
Sounds like your Mister had better buy his own.
I’m laughing so hard I’m choking!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.