Dustin Martin

[White Winmar]

Good to know that you're 'happy that know that at least the Richmond FC have been challenged to make a big call.'

Yes, let's have a few extra little quips like this. Because it's pretty funny, really, right?

Let's not admit the vile nature of the actual incident. Or the appalling nature of your earlier sentiments, such as:

'By threatening to call the club, she did in essence threaten him in a non-violent way. She is entitled to do this without risk of violence... But just because there shouldn't be a risk of violence doesn't mean there isn't. This isn't about blame but you can't argue that she isn't more vulnerable after confronting him then b4. It should have been the staff that dealt with this then the police. She still has the option of contacting the club the next morning regardless.

No, let's trivialise it and make some light-hearted banter. That's the way to go.

Miskycat, for whatever reason you're very emotionally loaded with regards to this topic and your consistent jumping off into ridiculous conclusions, misinterpretation of arguments and outright words in mouth syndrome is getting really boring.

And clearly I'm not the only one that thinks so. Get a gripe.

Sometimes when something comes across as really outrageous or trivial, it may just be because you yourself have failed to grasp what is actually being said.



In regards to the Richmond, i said right at the start of this thread that I felt the Richmond FC would sweep this under the rug. In a season where Hardwick is under pressure to win or a final or bust, I found it unlikely that they suspend arguably their best player. More likely to me they would have fined him $10000 and sent him to get some club counselling.

You know what, I am actually glad that they are now under pressure to actually dish out a proper punishment... There's reasons won't be altruistic as this will be a response to public pressure, but the little bugger is pbly looking at least at 12-15 weeks minimum and possibly a legal charge too. Good.

I personally took a bit of pride at our club's response to the whole Andrew Lovett saga, we threw up whatever flimsy reason for sacking the guy but i think cause and response was quite clear (personal opinion), and that decision pbly cost us a premiership.
M&M saga from what I've been able to piece together over the years seems a lot murkier and I back the club's judgement call there.

We sacked Stevie Lawrence too for his little indiscretion... Granted that was years ago now but another big stand nonetheless.

Now onto your other rant - for some reason the line attempted to quote really bothers you and i cannot for the life of me understand why.

You have an unsettled situation
The key point of danger is when Dusty is threatening that lady
The action that appears to trigger said threats was that lady saying what she said to Martin.

Now if I was approaching this like it was a clinical incident at a hospital (which is what I do), I would identify the lady saying something as the key point of escalation.

I don't know how an objective person can be offended by this or argue against it.

For some reason, when you hear this you think I'm saying that because this was the trigger of escalation, she brought this on herself. She didn't make Dustin threaten her... That was his choice... He chose to lose his temper, he chose threaten her, he declined to back down, or pull back, or apologise.

The lady CANNOT be held responsible for his behaviour because ultimately she has no control over it. She didn't physically force him to threaten her or be violent

At some point, your inability to make this distinction in what I'm saying becomes more about you and your own belief system then about mine. I have not in any shape or form trivialised this or apportioned blame back to the victim... And it's getting a little concerning that you can't grasp this

How dare you use logic and objective reasoning, skeptic. You, sir, are a disgrace to everything bad this forum stands for. Please do not deny our "right" to go off half cocked, become overly emotional and unreasonable, nor question our underlying motives, which may have nothing to do with the actual topic. You've done this before. Many times. It's why I'll be calling for a ban on you. I want everyone to be able to come on this site and post whatever they want, without the threat of being dismanteled by a few inconvenient facts and a bit of logic. You know it makes sense.

[White Winmar]

Good to know that you're 'happy that know that at least the Richmond FC have been challenged to make a big call.'

Yes, let's have a few extra little quips like this. Because it's pretty funny, really, right?

Let's not admit the vile nature of the actual incident. Or the appalling nature of your earlier sentiments, such as:

'By threatening to call the club, she did in essence threaten him in a non-violent way. She is entitled to do this without risk of violence... But just because there shouldn't be a risk of violence doesn't mean there isn't. This isn't about blame but you can't argue that she isn't more vulnerable after confronting him then b4. It should have been the staff that dealt with this then the police. She still has the option of contacting the club the next morning regardless.

No, let's trivialise it and make some light-hearted banter. That's the way to go.

Miskycat, for whatever reason you're very emotionally loaded with regards to this topic and your consistent jumping off into ridiculous conclusions, misinterpretation of arguments and outright words in mouth syndrome is getting really boring.

And clearly I'm not the only one that thinks so. Get a gripe.

Sometimes when something comes across as really outrageous or trivial, it may just be because you yourself have failed to grasp what is actually being said.



In regards to the Richmond, i said right at the start of this thread that I felt the Richmond FC would sweep this under the rug. In a season where Hardwick is under pressure to win or a final or bust, I found it unlikely that they suspend arguably their best player. More likely to me they would have fined him $10000 and sent him to get some club counselling.

You know what, I am actually glad that they are now under pressure to actually dish out a proper punishment... There's reasons won't be altruistic as this will be a response to public pressure, but the little bugger is pbly looking at least at 12-15 weeks minimum and possibly a legal charge too. Good.

I personally took a bit of pride at our club's response to the whole Andrew Lovett saga, we threw up whatever flimsy reason for sacking the guy but i think cause and response was quite clear (personal opinion), and that decision pbly cost us a premiership.
M&M saga from what I've been able to piece together over the years seems a lot murkier and I back the club's judgement call there.

We sacked Stevie Lawrence too for his little indiscretion... Granted that was years ago now but another big stand nonetheless.

Now onto your other rant - for some reason the line attempted to quote really bothers you and i cannot for the life of me understand why.

You have an unsettled situation
The key point of danger is when Dusty is threatening that lady
The action that appears to trigger said threats was that lady saying what she said to Martin.

Now if I was approaching this like it was a clinical incident at a hospital (which is what I do), I would identify the lady saying something as the key point of escalation.

I don't know how an objective person can be offended by this or argue against it.

For some reason, when you hear this you think I'm saying that because this was the trigger of escalation, she brought this on herself. She didn't make Dustin threaten her... That was his choice... He chose to lose his temper, he chose threaten her, he declined to back down, or pull back, or apologise.

The lady CANNOT be held responsible for his behaviour because ultimately she has no control over it. She didn't physically force him to threaten her or be violent

At some point, your inability to make this distinction in what I'm saying becomes more about you and your own belief system then about mine. I have not in any shape or form trivialised this or apportioned blame back to the victim... And it's getting a little concerning that you can't grasp this

How dare you use logic and objective reasoning, skeptic. You, sir, are a disgrace to everything bad this forum stands for. Please do not deny our "right" to go off half cocked, become overly emotional and unreasonable, nor question our underlying motives, which may have nothing to do with the actual topic. You've done this before. Many times. It's why I'll be calling for a ban on you. I want everyone to be able to come on this site and post whatever they want, without the threat of being dismanteled by a few inconvenient facts and a bit of logic. You know it makes sense.

[markp]

'Get that one up ya......' you write, True Believer.

You really are a revolting person, aren't you?

Who wants to make this about violence 'full stop" but then decides it's best to put sexual violence to one side because it doesn't suit his internet argument.

Then says women are more likely to abuse their childrem but wouldn't want to allow for the fact that woman are more likely to be more often spending most of the time with those childrem, or be the only present parent, by a considerable margin, for the same reason that it would not suit his internet argument.

And among all these stats do we hear what % of all this violence 'full stop' is perpetrated by men? No, of course not. Why? See above.

Then there's this...

Once we exercise our right to choose however, if we elect to follow that unwise path, we do not have a right to expect no harm to befall us.

Somehow by saying calm down to a drunk we forgo our right to not be assaulted or threatened with stabbing and murder.


Fk me.

[HitTheBoundary]

Somehow by saying calm down to a drunk we forgo our right to not be assaulted or threatened with stabbing and murder.

No, you don't forgo your right.

But you still might be stabbed and murdered.

But at least you would die with your rights intact.

[Bunk_Moreland]

Somehow by saying calm down to a drunk we forgo our right to not be assaulted or threatened with stabbing and murder.

No, you don't forgo your right.

But you still might be stabbed and murdered.

But at least you would die with your rights intact.

whatever the hell that means?

[asiu]

subtlety 'n nuance are gifts 'n opportunity in this teach/ learn experience ,
we all are involved in here.
... gently.

lay the sword down.

tis All a journey from head to Heart.

[skeptic]

Excuse me kind sir,

Will you please remove your balaclava and kindly refrain from robbing this bank.

It's my right not to be robbed today as it is against the law, nor am I responsible for funding your ice habit, you must now put the shotgun down and hand yourself in.

I have the right now not to be shot, let's go

[Dis Believer]

Fk me.

Whilst it's always nice to receive the invite, sorry, but I lean a different way.......

[Dis Believer]

Who wants to make this about violence 'full stop" but then decides it's best to put sexual violence to one side because it doesn't suit his internet argument.

Then says women are more likely to abuse their childrem but wouldn't want to allow for the fact that woman are more likely to be more often spending most of the time with those childrem, or be the only present parent, by a considerable margin, for the same reason that it would not suit his internet argument.

And among all these stats do we hear what % of all this violence 'full stop' is perpetrated by men? No, of course not. Why? See above.

Actually yes - I did spell out the stat for the percentage of violent crime committed by males.

Actually yes, I did explain that setting aside sexual assault (whilst not diminishing that crime), was to put the statistics in context for THIS discussion, which is about assault in a public space by a drug/alcohol effected bogan.

And on the issue of child abuse, biological mothers are twice as likely as biological fathers to abuse their children - do they have access to the kids at twice the rate of fathers ?? Please explain what time with the children has to do with anything? Or is it simply that if the perpetrators are female are we now going to shift the goal posts and use the amount of access a perpetrator has to the victim as an excuse as to why they perpetrated the crime??!!

[HarryM]

Fk me.

Whilst it's always nice to receive the invite, sorry, but I lean a different way.......

[skeptic]

Or is it simply that if the perpetrators are female are we now going to shift the goal posts and use the amount of access a perpetrator has to the victim as an excuse as to why they perpetrated the crime??!!

I doubt it, I'm sure the poster in question would be mortified by the prospect of apportioning blame away from the perpetrator. Goodness knows I've heard all about it.

[Bunk_Moreland]

Still apportioning blame I see.

Lots of women hatred prevelant on this thread, and obviously nobody will change those views.

Interesting to know the level of hatred towards women is still so apparent in most men.

I think we need more than White Ribbon day, but it seems nothing will changes some intrenched views.

Oh well not up to me, just hope my daughter never get involved with people who hold such neanderthal views..

[skeptic]

Aaah the old I'm right because I'm right strategy
Throw in a few insults, no actual arguments and you have the old Bunk special, dripping with irony of course

[To the top]

There is an old saying that you never judge others against self.

As a male, I have sons, step-sons and now Grand-sons (and daughters, step-daughters and Grand-daughters).

And from where I sit, and from what I think I know, it would not be my expectation that any of those males whose raising I have been central to would ever inflict abuse - on anyone.

Ditto for the females I have been central to the raising of.

What is a fact however is that over 25 years ago I found myself in the Family Court of Australia - and, in those proceedings the credibility of my Affidavit v the Affidavit's of the other party to those proceedings was confirmed when The Family Court of Australia Ordered that a Family Report be attended and the children were able to speak.

So, everyone has a story.

The presumption that everyone has the same story is fraught - and that recognition, just perhaps, needs to be addressed so no one is excluded from acknowledgement and representation.

And, above all, particularly children who (significantly) have no voice or recourse, deserve that acknowledgement and respect - and the opportunity to live their lives in a safe environment along with all other members of our community.

[skeptic]

There is an old saying that you never judge others against self.

As a male, I have sons, step-sons and now Grand-sons (and daughters, step-daughters and Grand-daughters).

And from where I sit, and from what I think I know, it would not be my expectation that any of those males whose raising I have been central to would ever inflict abuse - on anyone.

Ditto for the females I have been central to the raising of.

What is a fact however is that over 25 years ago I found myself in the Family Court of Australia - and, in those proceedings the credibility of my Affidavit v the Affidavit's of the other party to those proceedings was confirmed when The Family Court of Australia Ordered that a Family Report be attended and the children were able to speak.

So, everyone has a story.

The presumption that everyone has the same story is fraught - and that recognition, just perhaps, needs to be addressed so no one is excluded from acknowledgement and representation.

And, above all, particularly children who (significantly) have no voice or recourse, deserve that acknowledgement and respect - and the opportunity to live their lives in a safe environment along with all other members of our community.

Really good post, i'll take that on

[dragit]

Still apportioning blame I see.

Lots of women hatred prevelant on this thread, and obviously nobody will change those views.

Interesting to know the level of hatred towards women is still so apparent in most men.

I think we need more than White Ribbon day, but it seems nothing will changes some intrenched views.

Oh well not up to me, just hope my daughter never get involved with people who hold such neanderthal views..

Your posts just make me want to punch men, or one man.

I love women.

[st.byron]

The reason for putting the sexual assault bracket to one side is because it skews the perception of what we are talking about here. That is not to diminish the impact, trauma or gravity of that category, but it does create a false perception.
The situation we are talking about here is a confrontation in a public place with a stranger (putting aside his celeb status, they don't know each other). If we take the fact that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault assailants are known to their victims and the vast majority of sexual assaults do not occur in a public place, then statistically females are at far less risk of violence in public places than males. In fact outside of sexual assault, females are far safer full stop.

You're manipulating stats to suit your own argument. I don't agree that there's any validity in taking the sexual assault figures out of the equation. OK, males are more likely to be victims of assault, robbery, homicide - but females are way more likely to be victims of violent crime. And males are way way more likely to be the perpetrators.

You've said that you're taking the sexual assault stats out because, ".....THIS discussion ....... is about assault in a public space by a drug/alcohol effected bogan."

I don't see any validity in cherry picking stats in service of a narrower discussion related only to this incident. You say men are wrongly portrayed as perpetrators when they are in fact more likely to be victims.Your posts have railed against the narrowness of only focusing on male perpetrators and female victims. Taking the largest category of violence out of the equation to support that argument makes no sense. You said to Miskycat, "If you actually, sincerely gave a crap about others, you would be railing against violence, full stop....". Yet you want to take the largest category of violent crime out of the equation??? Strange.


I see your frustration with the demonisation of men in our culture and I too have felt the wrath of women who want to attack and insult men just because we're male. Males are widely portrayed in our culture as bumbling or violent idiots. For men who are genuinely concerned with building a male culture of heart, integrity and honouring, it's painful and frustrating.
However, men do need to own the fact that most of the physical violence in our culture is perpetrated by males and that there has been centuries of subjugation, abuse and violence towards women, by men.
To change that I believe men need to re-connect with their deep inner masculine and with other men, to find a sense of self that is grounded in knowing who they are and that they are worthy men contributing to their community. Then the violence and abuse will naturally stop.

[dragit]

Sorry if this has been posted already

It is believed that several witnesses who saw Martin confront the woman have played down what has been reported as a vicious and threatening verbal attack.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/richm ... z3uC12xVGE

If this is true, what is going on here?

a) the restaurant is full of richmond fans who don't want to see their star miss games

b) the restaurant is full of men who love seeing violence towards women

c) all of the people in the restaurant have been leant on by Martin's bikie mates, the AFL and the police

[The Fireman]

Dustin at the Saints ?.......I'd have him.

[HitTheBoundary]

Dustin at the Saints ?.......I'd have him.

[The Fireman]

hahaha.. surely we are well prepared for any controversy by now ?

[White Winmar]

All of the above, dragit.

[skeptic]

The thing that bothers me most about Martin here is that IMHO, that type of reaction (if it is indeed as initially reported) is quite psychopathic.
Even factoring in that he was intoxicated, a well balanced person doesn't respond to being told to quieten down with threats of violence. It's a real special mentality that does that... Reeks of narcissism and entitlement.

Having worked in EDs a lot, I always felt that the lowering on inhibitions often results in a person's true nature emerging to the service. I think there are a lot of ppl out there that are angry, bad tampered, and not bothered to resort to violence/threats etc. but have the social awareness to keep that stuff in check.

It's always been very fascinating to me when working with psychotic ppl, how some patients have these horrific persecutory paranoid thoughts and are really passive/gentle, whilst others are really aggressive.

I don't know. Reading the article on his apology, doesn't seem very genuine does it?

[HitTheBoundary]

I don't know. Reading the article on his apology, doesn't seem very genuine does it?

Hard to tell, as it's translated from his original apology in crayon.

[markp]

Actually yes - I did spell out the stat for the percentage of violent crime committed by males.

Where have you quoted the % of violent crime committed by men?

Actually yes, I did explain that setting aside sexual assault (whilst not diminishing that crime), was to put the statistics in context for THIS discussion, which is about assault in a public space by a drug/alcohol effected bogan.

Firstly you railed against people reducing this down to a violent crime by a man against a woman (an alleged act of which was the impetus for 'THIS discussion'), and said we should be talking about violence 'full stop'.

Then you said.... 'The reason for putting the sexual assault bracket to one side is because it skews the perception of what we are talking about here... The situation we are talking about here is a confrontation in a public place with a stranger (putting aside his celeb status, they don't know each other)'.

So on one hand you wanted to widen the parameters, and then reduce them right down, because and when it suited your bitter agenda.

And on the issue of child abuse, biological mothers are twice as likely as biological fathers to abuse their children - do they have access to the kids at twice the rate of fathers ?? !

Likely, at least.

Please explain what time with the children has to do with anything? Or is it simply that if the perpetrators are female are we now going to shift the goal posts and use the amount of access a perpetrator has to the victim as an excuse as to why they perpetrated the crime??!

If you cant figure that out on your own then you probably cant figure out much on your own. Most children are abused by a primary care giver, this is predicable because children spend most of their time with their primary carer. It is also predictable that if the primary care giver is mostly a woman, then the statistics of abuse will reflect that.


But I think these quotes sum up your position well...

I couldn't be bothered reading through all tiresome 8 pages of waffle in this thread as I have a pretty good idea of the various protagonists and their already fixed positions

Gotta love the double standards whereby the moral high-grounders advocate that females should be free to do whatever they desire without risk of consequence, whereas that same group would deem a male should demonstrate some common sense in his approach and weigh the associated risks....

Miskycat and Bunk have summed you up well.