Dustin Martin

[skeptic]

Instead of confronting the guy why didn't she get the management to deal with him i.e complain to them and tell them to sort it out

This is a question that is suspiciously unanswered

[miskycat]

Which again assumes that the woman 's actions are to blame.

[LTN16]

She provoked him. Ban her for 12 months

[st.byron]

The way I see this is it is totally Martin's fault but I get where Dragit is coming from. I'm 54 years of age and cant fight so I to would most likely leave the place or even more likely just ignore. I sort of see it the other way which may sound sexist but I reckon Martin was more likely to do physical damage to a guy if they did what the girl did and maybe and of course its a guess just do verbal damage to the girl. I don't think anyone here is blaming the girl for doing what she did. I certainly hope not because its an individuals choice. Martin is 100% at fault. The girl did something I would suggest we shouldn't do but she was 100% within her rights to do it.

Agree with this. I can also see the point that she threw fuel on the fire by threatening to call his club. No surprise that a drunken idiot would not react favourably to that. She could have just asked him to STFU without the threat. Not saying she was wrong and not within her rights. Am saying she added fuel to the fire.

[miskycat]

And therefore is to blame...

[skeptic]

Blame for what!?

So you're saying that she handled the situation absolutely perfectly

[skeptic]

Some people here are so determined to turn this thread into something that it's not it's actually quite shocking

what's with you and several others miskycat going for the absolute statements?

Is is soon hard to grasp the concept that she is not at fault at all, but still may not have handled the situation completely perfectly

The fact that many people would choose not to seek out conflict with a drunken idiot is not a sexist issue. For many people, that is common sense. Especially if he is potentially doing drugs as well which is what she has implied.

So I guess I'll just put this out there.

I think Dustin Martin is an idiot. I hope they ban him for a year. He was completely 100% in the wrong and he put this lady, and the other guests in an uncomfortable position. He is likely such a mega-narcissist that he probably didn't even care. If the matter had gotten violent, he would have been the one to initiate it and it would have been COMPLETELY 100% HIS FAULT.

I don't think her response was a good one.

This apparently makes me sexist

[st.byron]

And therefore is to blame...

Nope not at all. What Skeptic said.....

[The_Merchant]

I don't see what gender has to do with this. Martin was being a dhead, a person requested that he quieten down and was threatened. There are quite a few men who have been killed stepping in to break up arguments, even here in Melbourne. I am more likely to be assaulted by someone I don't know on a night out than my wife is, but that doesn't mean either of us don't have the right to go out. Unfortunately there are people in this world who make it less pleasant and less safe for the rest of us, male and female.

As everyone here has said, Martin is 100% to blame, some people may have approached the situation differently, but since none of us know the situation, it is difficult to say how you would personally act.

[markp]

I'm sure we can all at least agree he's so tough.

I actually pretty sure we can all agree that he is 100% to blame from for his obscene behavior too.

Yes he is 100% responsible

Apparently he is 100% at fault and 100% to blame, but not 100% responsible.

Because she didn't respond 'perfectly'.

Go figure.

[Dr Spaceman]

He may prefer chopsticks, but he's now well & truly forked

[st.byron]

Apparently he is 100% at fault and 100% to blame, but not 100% responsible.

Because she didn't respond 'perfectly'.

Go figure.

I think you're missing the point Mark. He is clearly 100% responsible. And.......perhaps threatening a drunken idiot is not the wisest course of action. Threatening to "call the club on Monday" is not wrong. It's just maybe not the smartest thing to do to inflame a drunken twat by threatening and talking down to him.

[markp]

Apparently he is 100% at fault and 100% to blame, but not 100% responsible.

Because she didn't respond 'perfectly'.

Go figure.

I think you're missing the point Mark. He is clearly 100% responsible. And.......perhaps threatening a drunken idiot is not the wisest course of action. Threatening to "call the club on Monday" is not wrong. It's just maybe not the smartest thing to do to inflame a drunken twat by threatening and talking down to him.

Martin was sitting at the bar with a friend and, it is understood, was drunk, loud and offensive when the woman asked him to calm down. The request reportedly only agitated Martin further, prompting him to intimidate and threaten her with the utensil.

"He reacted extremely angrily, very very agitated, began swearing at me, standing over me physically, it was extremely intimidating," the Sydney woman, identified as "Tracey", told Seven News.

She said Martin "physically stood over me, held a chopstick above my head and threatened to stab me in the face with a chopstick".

All of that happened before she said she was going to call the club... or 'threatened' him as you say.

I don't see how reminding him of the consequences of his actions once he's sobered up is so blatantly and definitively inflammatory. If anything it should've made him take stock and back off, and I'm sure that's what the no doubt terrified woman wanted.

[st.byron]

All of that happened before she said she was going to call the club... or 'threatened' him as you say.

I don't see how reminding him of the consequences of his actions once he's sobered up is so blatantly and definitively inflammatory. If anything it should've made him take stock and back off, and I'm sure that's what the no doubt terrified woman wanted.

Uh-huh. I see what you mean. The chain of events is very relevant and perhaps her "threat" to call the club was her only remaining avenue of defence if he was physically intimidating her. What a douchebag. Reminding him of the consequences of his actions is inflammatory only because he was drunk and aggressive. Trying to get drunken fwits to see reason is a futile exercise.
It reminds me of a time in Barkly St. St.Kilda when I was being threatened with being punched up by a drunken fwit. The cops arrived in the nick of time and the copper didn't waste any time with words. He just slammed the guy against a wall and stick his baton under his throat. He understand what that meant where words would have meant nothing.

[skeptic]

I'm sure we can all at least agree he's so tough.

I actually pretty sure we can all agree that he is 100% to blame from for his obscene behavior too.

Yes he is 100% responsible

Apparently he is 100% at fault and 100% to blame, but not 100% responsible.

Because she didn't respond 'perfectly'.

Go figure.

You associate her not responding "perfectly" with her taking responsibility for his behaviour.

Not only has no one said that, but several people have gone to great lengths to separate the 2 for you.

For whatever reason you have a hang up about this.

That's fine but it is clearly your hang up rather than what forumites here are meaning

[markp]

All of that happened before she said she was going to call the club... or 'threatened' him as you say.

I don't see how reminding him of the consequences of his actions once he's sobered up is so blatantly and definitively inflammatory. If anything it should've made him take stock and back off, and I'm sure that's what the no doubt terrified woman wanted.

Uh-huh. I see what you mean. The chain of events is very relevant and perhaps her "threat" to call the club was her only remaining avenue of defence if he was physically intimidating her. What a douchebag. Reminding him of the consequences of his actions is inflammatory only because he was drunk and aggressive. Trying to get drunken fwits to see reason is a futile exercise.
It reminds me of a time in Barkly St. St.Kilda when I was being threatened with being punched up by a drunken fwit. The cops arrived in the nick of time and the copper didn't waste any time with words. He just slammed the guy against a wall and stick his baton under his throat. He understand what that meant where words would have meant nothing.

Which is exactly what martin needed, but it reads like she didn't really have time to make a call and wait for the cops or put her hand in the air and ask to see the manager.

It doesn't sound like she yelled at him or swore or abused him. And if she was out to cause mischief she would've made a complaint to police before anything.

[markp]

I'm sure we can all at least agree he's so tough.

I actually pretty sure we can all agree that he is 100% to blame from for his obscene behavior too.

Yes he is 100% responsible

Apparently he is 100% at fault and 100% to blame, but not 100% responsible.

Because she didn't respond 'perfectly'.

Go figure.

You associate her not responding "perfectly" with her taking responsibility for his behaviour.

Not only has no one said that, but several people have gone to great lengths to separate the 2 for you.

For whatever reason you have a hang up about this.

That's fine but it is clearly your hang up rather than what forumites here are meaning

You are clear as day apportioning blame.

[Bunk_Moreland]

I'm sure we can all at least agree he's so tough.

I actually pretty sure we can all agree that he is 100% to blame from for his obscene behavior too.

Yes he is 100% responsible

Apparently he is 100% at fault and 100% to blame, but not 100% responsible.

Because she didn't respond 'perfectly'.

Go figure.

You associate her not responding "perfectly" with her taking responsibility for his behaviour.

Not only has no one said that, but several people have gone to great lengths to separate the 2 for you.

For whatever reason you have a hang up about this.

That's fine but it is clearly your hang up rather than what forumites here are meaning

You are clear as day apportioning blame.

Yes clear as day

[Bunk_Moreland]

I'm sure we can all at least agree he's so tough.

I actually pretty sure we can all agree that he is 100% to blame from for his obscene behavior too.

Yes he is 100% responsible

Apparently he is 100% at fault and 100% to blame, but not 100% responsible.

Because she didn't respond 'perfectly'.

Go figure.

You associate her not responding "perfectly" with her taking responsibility for his behaviour.

Not only has no one said that, but several people have gone to great lengths to separate the 2 for you.

For whatever reason you have a hang up about this.

That's fine but it is clearly your hang up rather than what forumites here are meaning

You are clear as day apportioning blame.

Yes clear as day

[Enrico_Misso]

Dustbin is the perfect example of why we should have a no dickheads policy.
Comes from very bad stock with no hope of reforming.
It is lucky he is a fantastic footballer as that is absolutely the only thing he has going for him.
Sadly even now everyone can write the script on what will happen to him post footy.

It also illustrates why we were correct in rejecting Cousins.
And why we will live to (even further) regret the Carlisle recruitment debacle.

[skeptic]

Deleted

[skeptic]

This topic is starting to get frustrating now.

Putting aside the assumptions that you have made to suit your argument, you're thought process is obviously that because i don't feel that lady's response was the most effective or wisest, that she is to blame for bringing this on herself.

How you make that connection is beyond me and any attempts to elaborate will, I suspect, be fruitless because you're quite intent in seeing what you want. As is Bunk who seems to be having a discussion on his own... Bringing up his own redundant arguments then blasting me for them (very weird).

Having discussed previous topics with both of you before, I'm quite struck by your respective inabilities to see the shades of grey... Everything is a clear black and white, right and wrong. Dusty is a 100% wrong, the lady is 100% right and the reflection that the situation could have been managed more effectively is me shifting blame to the victim. The idea that such imperfection isn't a justification for what Dusty did doesn't compute with you because it's not a total statement. Very concrete.


It's clear that we're not going go reach any clear resolution on this so all I can really add is that none of us are in a position in life where we can realistically control other people's behaviour. Only our own. Me personally, i tend to view alcohol and drugs as the biggest issue in our society and something that is completely out of control... And a worrying proportion of the population can't control themselves.

With that view, I personally wouldn't confront an intoxicated person... Especially one that I suspect may be using too. The likelihood of a satisfactory outcome is low, and the risk of violence, or being followed etc. is too high. Especially if he was as out of control as the media suggests.
That's just me though and i don't have all the facts. No doubt this is me blaming the victim as clear as day

Word

[ripplug66]

Dustbin is the perfect example of why we should have a no dickheads policy.
Comes from very bad stock with no hope of reforming.
It is lucky he is a fantastic footballer as that is absolutely the only thing he has going for him.
Sadly even now everyone can write the script on what will happen to him post footy.

It also illustrates why we were correct in rejecting Cousins.
And why we will live to (even further) regret the Carlisle recruitment debacle.

So we are comparing Carlisle to Cousins and Martin based on a stupid act. It cant be using drugs because I think we know we have a player who has had a reali issue with them. There are dickheads at most clubs. Hodge got caught drink driving. I wouldn't mind that d**khead.

[cwrcyn]

We only get to know what's reported. there are many disckheads in the AFL. Some get caught, some don't. Swan, Hodge, and quite a few others push the boundaries all the time, and there is little blow back. We've had a decorated player at our club who pushed the boundaries in recent years, but has managed to keep it from blowing up. All is not what it seems in some cases. Get 750 men between the ages of 18 and 34, and there'll always be a smattering of idiots amongst them. No club is immune.

[markp]

Everything is a clear black and white, right and wrong. Dusty is a 100% wrong, the lady is 100% right and the reflection that the situation could have been managed more effectively is me shifting blame to the victim. The idea that such imperfection isn't a justification for what Dusty did doesn't compute with you because it's not a total statement.

All we have is a sketchy account in the paper.

You are saying she could have handled the situation better when you don't know what the exact situation was.

Im saying NOTHING that came out of that woman's mouth (and certainly nothing she's reported to have said) could justify or excuse martin's response.

She could have been drunk and called him a wanker even and it would in no way be her fault that he threatened to stab and kill her.

And if he she had called him a wanker and he then turned around and told her to bugger off and we were sure of all these details I may even agree with you, but she said calm down and he stood over her and threatened to kill her ffs.

He is 100% to blame, she is 100% not to blame, for his violent and threatening outburst.

And if you are not trying to apportion blame then why keep insisting she could have handled the situation better, when you don't even know what the situation was or the options she had in those moments? Let alone how terrified and isolated she may (or must) have felt.

Clear as day you are apportioning blame to the victim. Give it a rest.