thebigabd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,496
- Reaction score
- 77
I agree with this. There's also the fact that witnesses on the scene said that it was Joe's group who instigated it with homophobic remarks directed at the woman's friends. Mind you, she didn't cover herself in glory, either, but I have read literally hundreds of posts about this incident on the Hale board, where it is discussed with regularity, and while her reported use of the N word is frequently cited to justify Mixon's actions, his (or his friends') unprovoked use of anti-gay hate speech never gets mentioned (unless I bring it up, which I do, but I'm a voice in the freaking wilderness over there).
The persistent portrayal of Joe as a victim in this incident, as someone who was protecting himself, is a significant reach. I'm of the opinion that he has paid a sufficient price for the incident, but a victim he was not. Was he legally justified? I'll leave that to coolm and other legal minds to sort out, but if he was my son, I'd tell him he was wrong, no matter what legal niceties were at play. He wasn't at risk, he was dealing with a drunk who was no real threat to him, and he should have walked away, period.
And I'd add with great emphasis that he should cut out the homophobic crap (or stop hanging around with people who call that kind of crap, whichever applies). For pete's sake, the most basic of lessons I'd expect someone to have learned even by the age of 17 or 18 is "Live and let live." Joe (or his friends) went looking for trouble with their remarks and they got it.
Well said, SkyVue...
I don't think he paid nearly the price he should have though, but it is what it is. It's horrible for OU, I know that.