Dustin Martin

[saynta]

Get a room ffs, you two, this has become extremely tiresome.

[markp]

Get a room ffs, you two, this has become extremely tiresome.

Thanks stinger.

I agree.

[Moods]

I see it differently again. I reckon threatening to call the club was a smart move by the woman. Even in Martin's drunken stupor he would have realised that he was going to be made accountable for his actions. This may have made him furious, but he was 100% crystal clear that this female knew who he was. In the heat of the moment she had to think on her feet. She'd asked him to quieten down, and instead of complying with her request he confronted her. She was taking a calculated risk. Was the woman at the Freo prelim final game a fool as well? Or should she have just slinked off like a lot of other fans did at the game to get away from the drunken idiot? Most people today understand that hitting a woman is completely unacceptable, so in public at least, most won't do it. If a man had confronted Dusty (and I take the alternate view to some) and he was a big bloke, then I have no doubt that Martin would have belted him. He would have actually been at far higher risk of assault in my view.

I reckon as a society we need to change OUR culture twds idiots. I, like most, will tend to move long and try not to get involved. However for those brave souls who are prepared to make a stand, we should be applauding and supporting them, rather than tut tutting at how stupid and dangerous their actions were.

[dragit]

Basically it is not possible to discuss events leading up to an incident without blaming the victim for the outcome?

[Moods]

Dragit - can I ask you something? Do you believe that the woman at the Freo game who asked the drunken fool to quieten down was foolish for doing so? Would you have yanked your wife or daughter away if she had confronted this man?

I'm not trying to imply anything here, ie not saying your some sort of coward or anything like that. I myself have been around drunken knobs at the footy and have just tolerated it or moved on. I see that example as the one mirrors this situation the best. I also see that woman as some sort of hero.

[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.

I can't. 100% responsible for his actions and behaviour. How the woman can be queried in any way just shows how far there is to go in educating on violence toward women.

The mentality of some on this thread is appallingly ignorant

[markp]

Basically it is not possible to discuss events leading up to an incident without blaming the victim for the outcome?

It's not possible to say she didn't act optimally, when you don't really know what happened, without people thinking you're attempting to apportion blame. Very hard thing to successfully do I'm affraid.

And she didn't have to act 'perfectly' according to you to be 100% blameless for being violently threatened with stabbing and murder.

I don't understand how anybody can't understand that.

[markp]

I see it differently again. I reckon threatening to call the club was a smart move by the woman. Even in Martin's drunken stupor he would have realised that he was going to be made accountable for his actions. This may have made him furious, but he was 100% crystal clear that this female knew who he was. In the heat of the moment she had to think on her feet. She'd asked him to quieten down, and instead of complying with her request he confronted her. She was taking a calculated risk. Was the woman at the Freo prelim final game a fool as well? Or should she have just slinked off like a lot of other fans did at the game to get away from the drunken idiot? Most people today understand that hitting a woman is completely unacceptable, so in public at least, most won't do it. If a man had confronted Dusty (and I take the alternate view to some) and he was a big bloke, then I have no doubt that Martin would have belted him. He would have actually been at far higher risk of assault in my view.

I reckon as a society we need to change OUR culture twds idiots. I, like most, will tend to move long and try not to get involved. However for those brave souls who are prepared to make a stand, we should be applauding and supporting them, rather than tut tutting at how stupid and dangerous their actions were.

Agree, and said similar to Byron.

I doubt she was trying to do anything other than remind him of the consequences and get him to back off.

[The_Merchant]

Dragit - can I ask you something? Do you believe that the woman at the Freo game who asked the drunken fool to quieten down was foolish for doing so? Would you have yanked your wife or daughter away if she had confronted this man?

I'm not trying to imply anything here, ie not saying your some sort of coward or anything like that. I myself have been around drunken knobs at the footy and have just tolerated it or moved on. I see that example as the one mirrors this situation the best. I also see that woman as some sort of hero.

Has anyone said either victim was foolish?

Martin is 100% to blame for his behaviour and for his reaction, but he is not the only person involved in the incident. To say there are no other contributing factors is being naïve. The bar tender who served him drinks, the restaurant manager for not pulling him up on his behaviour, the club for not adequately educating/supervising him, his mates for not intervening earlier, who knows what else.

We don't have any details except a couple of short snippets in the newspaper, mostly from one persons point of view. You would expect the club to do a full investigation, which I understand they are doing. That includes everything leading up to the incident. If the victim makes a complaint to police, you would expect them to also investigate thoroughly.

[markp]

Did Winmar act optimally or most effectively or perfectly on that day at Vic park?

He could've started a riot , there were no doubt countless drunk bogan unhinged dirtbags there that day.

He should've put his head down and copped it.

[The_Merchant]

Did Winmar act optimally or most effectively or perfectly on that day at Vic park?

He could've started a riot , there were no doubt countless drunk bogan unhinged dirtbags there that day.

He should've put his head down and copped it.

There are 1000's of dead people who were 100% within their rights to whatever it was that lead up to them being dead. But they are still dead.

[desertsaint]

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.

I can't. 100% responsible for his actions and behaviour. How the woman can be queried in any way just shows how far there is to go in educating on violence toward women.

The mentality of some on this thread is appallingly ignorant

You two are way over in your outrage and deliberate misinterpretation of dragit's argument.
In any meeting people are responsible for their own actions. So a comment on the wisdom of the woman's actions in this encounter in no way diminishes Dustin's responsibility. Police and security personnel are trained to deal with drunks and violent persons in a way that will ideally diffuse the situation. This is why both would advise they be allowed to deal with it.
In QLD you can be fined if you leave your car window down far enough to entice a theft. Overboard and unfair - most certainly in my view, but an indication that we are all responsible for our own actions.
I remember my first night working at a pub in London. I was on the ashtray cleaning journey through the masses of young drunks when a fight broke out. Being next to the main antagonist I immediately grabbed him. Next thing I was grabbed from behind and swung out of the fight - by the bouncer. It was then i saw the guy i had grabbed was wildly swinging a broken pint glass. The bouncer afterwards showed me his scars from such encounters and said never, ever get involved. Was he suggesting I was responsible if i'd been glassed? No, he was suggesting a smarter course of action. That was all dragit was suggesting, and you two have bleated on and on, riding atop your imaginary high horse.
You can disagree with his belief that people shouldn't get involved - that's a fair response. Personally I think if we all stood up to this type of behaviour the world would be a better place. But expect the occasional blowback, just as my behaviour, if continued, may see me with the odd glass scar. It is the seed of the American Gun lobby's argument - if we all have guns we all can stop the maniacs with guns.

[Moods]

While I'm not looking to diminish the gravity of what has happened, I do find it a little weird that this girl firstly felt compelled to challenge a guy who was clearly intoxicated and aggro, then threaten to ring his club when he reacted angrily. She's also making a pretty big accusation of drug taking suggesting that "he was going to the toilet constantly".

In no way am I standing up for Martin who seems like a right knob and this incident is completely off, but I do feel that some people just love the chance to take down an AFL player.

This is the comment that has stirred the pot. Dragit has described her actions as 'weird' as well as possibly embellishing the story to gain notoriety by suggesting she was revelling in 'taking down an AFL player.'.

From today's papers. The woman was happy to let the whole thing go after Martin apologised, but her employer (Ch 7) appears to be driving the whole thing. To be honest I don't blame them. It doesn't seem like the woman is being overly vindictive though - she warned Martin that she would do what she did (call the club) and he escalated from there. He has no-one to blame but himself. He's very fortunate that she hasn't gone to the police as I would think that Martin would have his registration as an AFL player stripped from him if found guilty of such an offence. (Making threats to kill/threats to inflict serious injury)

[Dr Spaceman]

It's possible to wonder whether taking a different course of action may have lead to a different outcome.

No one knows because we weren't there. A different course of action may have alleviated the problem or made things worse.

It's reasonable IMO to ponder these things, without in any way suggesting that is what this particular victim should've done. Because we weren't there. Nonetheless having the discussion may assist one of us or one of our loved ones on some occasion in the future.

But pondering all this in no way makes it anything less than 100% Martin's fault.

And I don't really think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

[markp]

Did Winmar act optimally or most effectively or perfectly on that day at Vic park?

He could've started a riot , there were no doubt countless drunk bogan unhinged dirtbags there that day.

He should've put his head down and copped it.

There are 1000's of dead people who were 100% within their rights to whatever it was that lead up to them being dead. But they are still dead.

And thousands more who'd be alive if some people had been pulled up earlier.

Also thousands more who said nothing, put there heads down and still ended up dead.

The point to such observations? Well there is none, is there.

[markp]

While I'm not looking to diminish the gravity of what has happened, I do find it a little weird that this girl firstly felt compelled to challenge a guy who was clearly intoxicated and aggro, then threaten to ring his club when he reacted angrily. She's also making a pretty big accusation of drug taking suggesting that "he was going to the toilet constantly".

In no way am I standing up for Martin who seems like a right knob and this incident is completely off, but I do feel that some people just love the chance to take down an AFL player.

This is the comment that has stirred the pot. Dragit has described her actions as 'weird' as well as possibly embellishing the story to gain notoriety by suggesting she was revelling in 'taking down an AFL player.'.

From today's papers. The woman was happy to let the whole thing go after Martin apologised, but her employer (Ch 7) appears to be driving the whole thing. To be honest I don't blame them. It doesn't seem like the woman is being overly vindictive though - she warned Martin that she would do what she did (call the club) and he escalated from there. He has no-one to blame but himself. He's very fortunate that she hasn't gone to the police as I would think that Martin would have his registration as an AFL player stripped from him if found guilty of such an offence. (Making threats to kill/threats to inflict serious injury)

I think it was Caro who said yesterday the woman wasn't happy with the club's characterisation of her being happy in accepting the apology and it all being fine and that prompted her to pursue it further.

And yes she could screw him big time if she wanted.

[Bunk_Moreland]

It's possible to wonder whether taking a different course of action may have lead to a different outcome.

No one knows because we weren't there. A different course of action may have alleviated the problem or made things worse.

It's reasonable IMO to ponder these things, without in any way suggesting that is what this particular victim should've done. Because we weren't there. Nonetheless having the discussion may assist one of us or one of our loved ones on some occasion in the future.

But pondering all this in no way makes it anything less than 100% Martin's fault.

And I don't really think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

I have yet to read a post suggesting it wasnt anything but Martins fault.

But as markp points out there are plenty arguing that it is not his 100% responsibility. This is in fact a mitigation of his responsibility and alleges the woman is somehow partly responsible. That is the issue.

[Viking3]

I'll probably be crucified by the righteous do-gooders among us, but here goes;
This is not "violence against women" it is just violence.
We don't need to stop "violence against women", we need to stop violence.
A man or a woman has the right to question one's behaviour.
A man or a woman must decide what their actions may lead to.
Martin would have reacted the same way to this woman as he would have to a man.
The guy is a plonker of the highest order.
ALL violence must be stopped.

[markp]

I'll probably be crucified by the righteous do-gooders among us, but here goes;
This is not "violence against women" it is just violence.
We don't need to stop "violence against women", we need to stop violence.
A man or a woman has the right to question one's behaviour.
A man or a woman must decide what their actions may lead to.
Martin would have reacted the same way to this woman as he would have to a man.
The guy is a plonker of the highest order.
ALL violence must be stopped.

#AllLivesMatter

[skeptic]

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.

Nobody is saying it does... but for some reason you're hearing it this why. It's mind boggling. Let's say she called him a C@n@! (very bad word) and that sets him off and he attacks her. It doesn't make it okay for him to do that... it's not justified. She doesn't bring it on herself.
That doesn't mean that calling him a you know what was a smart thing to do!

I don't understand why you can't grasp this concept w/o turning it into 'apportioning blame'. I think I had it right the first time, it simply doesn't fit within your thinking model of absolute statements.

Anyway, you either won't or can't grasp what I'm saying (I'm leaning towards the former) and this is getting boring now so I'm going to try to leave this there

[asiu]

I'll probably be crucified by the righteous do-gooders among us, but here goes;
This is not "violence against women" it is just violence.
We don't need to stop "violence against women", we need to stop violence.
A man or a woman has the right to question one's behaviour.
A man or a woman must decide what their actions may lead to.
Martin would have reacted the same way to this woman as he would have to a man.
The guy is a plonker of the highest order.
ALL violence must be stopped.

... reads like sense to me.

What of the 'environment' that this thread takes place within ?
... is it not violence.

Alternate 'perceptions' are expressed into a 'consensus of reality'
that brooks no outlier ... using judgement / condemnation to maintain some perceived comfortable consensus ... or maintain a perceived route out of an uncomfortable consensus

... discussing violence under the threat of violence seems a tad insane to me.

Example ... the opening line of the above quote ,
seeks to protect itself * ... before a perception is even offered.

Its an interesting mirror that we look into.



*
could even be perceived as attack ,
though (given context of environment) i see it as defensive

[asiu]

'n dustin martin is not seperate from us
... he is Us.

[Bunk_Moreland]

'n dustin martin is not seperate from us
... he is Us.

He might be ypu but he certainly isn't me

[markp]

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.

Nobody is saying it does... but for some reason you're hearing it this why. It's mind boggling. Let's say she called him a C@n@! (very bad word) and that sets him off and he attacks her. It doesn't make it okay for him to do that... it's not justified. She doesn't bring it on herself.
That doesn't mean that calling him a you know what was a smart thing to do!

I don't understand why you can't grasp this concept w/o turning it into 'apportioning blame'. I think I had it right the first time, it simply doesn't fit within your thinking model of absolute statements.

Anyway, you either won't or can't grasp what I'm saying (I'm leaning towards the former) and this is getting boring now so I'm going to try to leave this there

It's really not that complicated.

Given what we know (and really even no matter what she could have said, but let's put that aside), her responsibility for being violently threatened with stabbing and murder is zero.

Yes or no?

How can you not see that by denying that you are apportioning blame and as Bunk points out therefore mitigating his responsibility. And to do so without all the facts surrounding the encounter does you no favours, either.

He's either 100% responsible for threatening to stab and murder her or he's not.

Other than that what you are suggesting may as well be if she'd stayed home none of this woulda happened.

[Dis Believer]

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, however Viking seems to strike a great chord. Look at everyone's reactions based on the gender of the "victim" in this case, would any of you have been anywhere near as vociferous if the person on the receiving end of the threatening behaviour had been a male instead of a female???

How many then would have taken the view that it was a stupid move on the part of a guy out for a night to have had a crack at an AFL player who was clearly under the weather.

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......