I'm not ignoring anything, you're arguing an inarguable point. The use of force wasn't proportional. Once you pick up a weapon, and proceed to use that weapon on someone who is unarmed with the intent to cause maximum damage, the intent is clear and obvious. Like I said, Mason could have had him arrested and charged. He's lucky in that regard.You're ignoring the fact that the person with the "weapon" was also being restrained by someone and was being moved in the opposite direction, while the person without was free to move unencumbered. Mason was the aggressor, "serious" threat be damned. Nothing that happened in that sequence of events happens if he takes his sack and keeps it moving.
I'm not ignoring anything, you're arguing an inarguable point. The use of force wasn't proportional. Once you pick up a weapon, and proceed to use that weapon on someone who is unarmed with the intent to cause maximum damage, the intent is clear and obvious. Like I said, Mason could have had him arrested and charged. He's lucky in that regard.
Nice try, but that's not how the law works. You're simply wrong as how the law operates. By your logic a use of a firearm would have been sufficient as long as it "neutralized the threat." His use of force would have been valid if it were in proportionate to the use of force used against him. Bottom line, period.1. Myles didn't "pick up" a weapon, he was already holding it.
If you're somebody unarmed who could walk away from conflict, but choose to run to that conflict with an "armed" person you are an idiot - and anything they happen to be holding to hit you with is in self-defense.
2. You're speculating that Myles' intent was to cause "maximum" damage.
2b. Myles couldn't even use full force or a full swing, because (again) he was being held back by someone.
Mason does not win this case if it goes to trial, which is probably why he comes the next day and says he won't press, even after he and his lawyer talk smack the previous night.
Get off the wood, it's no good. There goes the neighborhood.
Nice try, but that's not how the law works. You're simply wrong as how the law operates. By your logic a use of a firearm would have been sufficient as long as it "neutralized the threat." His use of force would have been valid if it were in proportionate to the use of force used against him. Bottom line, period.
Shannon been on the c00n train
Who has stared that Garrett deseves no suspension or punishment? Legitimately every genuine take I've seen that seeks to hold Rudolph accountable for escalating, also has stated ad nauseam that Myles should be punished. It's as if some of you are literally physically and mentally incapable of realizing that two things can simultaneously be true. Myles should bare the brunt of the punishment given how egregious swinging a helmet at an exposed skull is.
That simply can't happen.
Rudolph should also be punished accordingly (a single game suspension and fine would suffice) for attempting to remove Garrett's helmet, kicking him in the groin, and pursuing him once he was being removed from the situation.
Life isn't predicated on absolutes. This should be nowhere near as complicated to understand as many of you seem to be hellbent on making it.
Mason Rudolph K.O.
bytch made cac already got hilariously ko’d earlier this year by the homie earl Thomas. He should know he ain’t got the chin to fight
You know how.How Pouncey get suspended but Rudolph didn’t
You know how.
Draymond wearing a chair? Tell your friend he’s a fakkit.
So if Steven Adams grabs a chair here and clocks Draymond over the head here it’s completely justified, no suspension?
Asking for a friend