Beware of an angry female

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Beware of an angry female

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Think you're tough? I hope you can keep that mindset 24/7.

I don't quite know what to say about this, other than the fact that an angry female managed to do quite a bit of damage to a professional football player. The thing that amazes me is the degree of determination, and the absolutely brutal intent.

Good thing there wasn't a gun around the home.

And it's a good thing she didn't know how to use that blade.

- Bill
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- Authorities say the girlfriend of Tampa Bay Buccaneers linebacker Geno Hayes stabbed him in the head and in the neck.

A Hillsborough County Sheriff's spokeswoman says Hayes was taken to a hospital by a friend Saturday. The 21-year-old former Florida State player was treated and later released.

Deputies arrested 19-year-old Shevelle Bagley on Saturday afternoon. The sheriff's spokeswoman says Hayes and Bagley got into an argument, which led to Bagley grabbing a pair of scissors and stabbing Hayes in the head. He managed to get the scissors away from her, but authorities say she then grabbed a knife and stabbed him in the neck.

Bagley was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Jail records show she was released Sunday on $25,000 bail.
- SI.com
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

Dang, I wonder what he did!

On a more serious note, I wonder if he may have been mentally hindered by concern over legal implications if he used force against her (Headline: "Pro football player arrested for assaulting 19 year old girlfriend"). On the other hand, we don't know how the fight ended...what happened after she stabbed him in the neck? Did she walk away, did he get the knife away, did someone intervene? Also maybe he managed to protect himself in ways that limited the injuries, enabling him to only need to be treated and released, rather than it simply being that she did not know how to use sharp weapons. Not a whole lot of info to determine what he may have done right or wrong in the situation.
Last edited by Glenn on Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glenn
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Glenn

Actually you bring up some very good points.

It's often a no-win situation with a capable male against an angry female. Moral of the story? Stay away from women like that. Choose well, and treat them well.

The little we know is that there was persistence in the attack, and deadly force repeatedly applied. My guess is that this woman was emotionally hijacked to the max, and likely was somewhat wild with her swings. Gross motor stuff. A trained athlete would stand a chance of surviving such an attack, although the "female" and "my girlfriend" governor would be beating the decision-making process up.

- Bill
User avatar
Mary S
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Contact:

Post by Mary S »

Sounds like a reverse Chris Brown/Rhianna thing doesn't it? Of course, she was foolish enough to go back to Chris Brown, hopefully Geno has a few more smarts in him!
User avatar
chef
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: State of Confusion
Contact:

Post by chef »

Who knows what could have pushed her to that limit...finding out he was cheating, being spurned by her lover, incited by something he verbally said, any number of things.

An angry woman can be a scary thing, especially if betrayed or abused (emotionally or physically).

I have known of 'out of control' women who have beat on their karate husbands or attacked them with food, knowing that their other half would not take a chance of retaliating because of his background in martial arts.

...how does a martial artist defend himself and keep from being prosecuted in the process anyway?

I would like to hear more about what triggered that attack.

Regards,
Vicki
"Cry in the dojo, laugh in the battlefield"
User avatar
chef
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: State of Confusion
Contact:

Post by chef »

What's a woman teacher to do if she is on hall duty and some arrogant, jerk student threatens and then pushes her?

I used to teach and know the golden rule: Never touch a student. I remember an incident when I was teaching in middle school. This hyper kid kept grabbing stuff off of my desk after being told to leave my stuff alone. I took a ruler and lightly smacked him on the hand. Oh my gosh! His mother was in the office the next day accusing me of abusing her son. The principal backed me but afterward told me to never, ever touch a student.

If they find out you are a blackbelt, who is to know what some wacky students can try...and what happens if you break up a fight by grabbing a student away from another?

Whether it is an abusive spouse or an errant & physical student...what are we to do.

Bill, I can move this topic if you think I am hijacking this thread...no problem.

Cheers,
Vicki
"Cry in the dojo, laugh in the battlefield"
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

<accidental duplicate post deleted>
Glenn
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

chef wrote:
Bill, I can move this topic if you think I am hijacking this thread...no problem.

Cheers,
Vicki
Actually your scenario is the same thing, Vicki. As a teacher, you are in a no-win situation when a student attacks you or is otherwise inappropriate.

Rich Castanet has quite a bit of experience on this. With him it's a matter of understanding the rules better than the students. He takes no guff, and gets students booted if they get anywhere near a situation where physical confrontation is possible. And then when it comes to fights and stuff, he uses his physical presence and his commanding posture (learned from martial arts) to demand respect from students.

The sociopaths will try to use the rules against the teacher, and taunt them with the "you can't touch me" mantra. I've heard Rich tell a student "Oh I CAN touch you if I don't want to worry about my job." It often shuts them up.

The "do not touch the student" I believe is a good rule, Vicki. There's no win in the situation. But if a student attacks you, you are entitled to defend yourself. It may not be pretty afterwards, but your personal safety comes first. Another important rule of thumb is never to be alone with a student where said student can claim certain things happened that did not. There isn't as much problem with the female teachers, although certainly a few well-publicized cases are changing that perception.

Bottom line - you don't have to put up with an unruly student. Boot their booty out of the room, and spend your time with the students who want to learn.

Bill
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

DV

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

I guess it is only Domestic Violence (DV) when a man does it.

When a woman hits a man, when a woman uses deadly weapons on men in their home, there is seemingly NEVER any mention of domestic violence (that might interfere with the present mythology that only men are the aggressors at home)..

Women can do everything that men can do, but they need special protections. Women can serve as police officers, but they need special protections. Women can serve in the military, but they need special protections (never hit a girl? never hit a woman?) rape shield laws are other special protections (under force of law) that those who claim women can do everything a man can do need.

She should get the female sentencing discount cuz we all know only men are capable of violence (this is the mindset that says women have legitimate excuses for their violence and use of a deadly weapon).

I wonder.....She would likely find a battered women's shelter within five miles of her home (if she lives in or near a city) and he would likely not find more than four shelters that would take him in in the entire state (let us sue for equal access to services-equal rights for men-what a concept-to be treated equally under law, what a concept).

Repeat after me folks, "Domestic Violence is NOT a gender issue, it is about inappropriate use of violence"

Women are just as capable of being violent as men despite all the mythology that we must work so hard to maintain.

This sure does remind one of the Chris Brown/Rihanna situation (where only men are held accountable for their violent acts).

She can seemingly be as violent as she wants to be and he is the only one that sees any negative ramifications of those actions.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Mary S
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Contact:

Post by Mary S »

Repeat after me folks, "Domestic Violence is NOT a gender issue, it is about inappropriate use of violence"
Akil, you said it right there but then you changed it to fit your agenda.

Are you saying that Chris Brown shouldn't be held accountable?
That Shevelle Bagley won't be held accountable?
I guess it is only Domestic Violence (DV) when a man does it.
No, it isn't.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Thank you for saying what I felt, Mary.

I have to stand by Mary on this one, Akil. You were 80 percent right in your post. And then it turned south into a personal agenda.

Deep breath, Daniel san.

Some of us know the emotional and psychological pain of these circumstances. I've taught martial arts for 31 years to thousands. I've had men and women come up to me and tell me stories that I'll go to my grave with. And I have seen things. The pain can be unspeakable.

At some point, we need to separate our knowledge of the facts from our emotional response to the facts. It's the only way to go forward.

- Bill
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Bagley was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Jail records show she was released Sunday on $25,000 bail.
If it had been the other way around, can you picture an 'aggravated battery' charge? 25k bail?

Akil does get a bit overworked about this stuff, but our courts do seem to feed it.
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

Are you saying that Chris Brown shouldn't be held accountable?
I am saying we should NOT ignore Domestic Violence when a woman does it (does that make me a bad person with an agenda?). I am saying that even if he was more violent than she was, that she still needs to be held accountable for what violence she did.

I am saying that Domestic Violence should NOT be defined as a crime that only men can commit, either by the law or by the media (that that would be sexist AND that that form of sexism is the kind of sexism that folks are NOT eager to discuss much less attempt to eradicate).


Are you saying that women have valid excuses for being violent while men do not. Are you suggesting that men who cheat on their wives have the right to cut of their men's genitals?

Are you saying that Rihanna shouldn't be held accountable for her violence?

You may NOT be aware of her violence since that was not highlighted by the media (his violence was made known to the public while her violence was generally ignored as violence by the media). His violence was bad and hers was bad and I dare suggest that they be treated as both guilty, not just the one with gonads.

Or did we (we the media) assume that since she was a woman, that she was incapable of serious violence. Are we ready to ignore her violence and prosecute his?

For all who are confused (and for your own personal agendas), let me state what i am saying, that BOTH men and women who are violent should be labeled EQUALLY and be prosecuted EQUALLY according to the severity of their crime regardless of gender or mythlogy (the mythology being that only men are violent in the home, that only men seek to control their mate, that men are always bigger and always stronger than their mate, that women do not compensate for the sometimes lack of size or skill with use of weapons, poisons, and/or surprise.

This should not be confusing. Men should be treated in the same manner under the law as women. When men commit the same crimes as women, there should be equal outrage. And when a woman commits the same crime as a man, there should be equal punishment, not a rush to excuse her behavior.

All I am asking is that we treat Mr. brown with the same legal principles that we treat Rihanna with (innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law regardless of gender).

Are you (fill in the blank here folks-ask yourself, please, this question) assuming that ONLY men are capable of Domestic violence?

Has our unwillingness to label female violence in the home led us to a mythology that women are less violent than men. What if our mass media never labeled a woman's violence as domestic violence? Wouldn't that leave us less likely to find female DV since we rarely define it as such.

Have we as a society defined a crime whereby only men can be considered the 'bad guy'?

How the media treats crimes can be as important in creating societal memes as how the prosecution treats a crime.

Are we ready to excuse female violence but prosecute male violence while pretending to be treating folks equally regardless of gender.

If my 'personal agenda' is to point out gender inequality, the kind that we (as a collective-society) like to ignore or pretend does not exist, then I'll happily accept that moniker.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Contact:

Post by Akil Todd Harvey »

CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional October 14th, 2008

California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights.
At the age of 11, Maegan tried to stop a domestic dispute between her parents. She soon found herself staring down the barrel of her father's shotgun. She watched helplessly as the trigger was pulled. She is only alive today because the gun didn't fire--the safety was on.

Maegan was abused and witnessed domestic violence in her home for most of her childhood. By age seven there had been knife attacks, punches, kicks, and more. It was hard to leave--the abuser was the one who earned the money, and the victim was unable to work because of a disability. On numerous occasions they looked for help to escape the abuse but were refused. Why?

Because in Maegan's family, the abused spouse was her father, and the battering and child abuse were perpetrated by her mother.

The California Battered Women Protection Act of 1994, codified in Health & Safety Codes Section 124250, et. seq., created funding for domestic violence shelter-based services. However, by defining domestic violence as something only experienced by women, the statutes exclude male victims from receiving state-funded domestic violence services, including shelter, hotel arrangements, counseling and legal services.

Maegan, now 21, and her father, David Woods, are the lead plaintiffs in a new lawsuit against the State of California and numerous state agencies and state-funded domestic violence service providers. Beginning in the mid-1980s, David was violently attacked on numerous occasions by his wife Ruth, who suffers from a bi-polar disorder which, in her case, creates a propensity toward violence.

On several occasions David decided that he and Maegan should get out of the house to escape Ruth's violence. However, with his disabling condition and inability to work, David had no money to provide for himself and his daughter. Numerous times he contacted a Sacramento domestic violence agency he had heard of in the media, WEAVE, but they always told him "we don't help men," and never offered him a referral to another facility. David tried churches and various programs, but all they could offer for men were homeless shelters with waiting lists. He found nothing for abused men and their children. David gave up and sank into a heavy depression.

By February 2003, Maegan began telling her father to find a place of safety from Ruth's violence. He again called WEAVE and again was told "we don't help men." Maegan, then 18, became so frustrated watching David being abused that she called WEAVE herself and insisted they help her father. According to Maegan, WEAVE said they do not help men, and that men are the perpetrators of domestic violence, not the victims.

That year Ruth finally began to seek professional help for her problems. David, loyal and a firm believer in his marriage vows, stuck by her. In January 2004, the two appeared together on the NBC's John Walsh Show and discussed Ruth's violence.

Domestic violence policies based on the woman good/man bad model kept David trapped in his violent marriage in a number of ways. The biggest reason David didn't leave Ruth was Maegan. She was frequently the target of Ruth's attacks, particularly when David wasn't around to protect her and take Ruth's blows.

Domestic violence researcher Richard Gelles, whose groundbreaking work on domestic violence in the late 1970s was instrumental in bringing the issue to public consciousness, explains that current policies often trap abused fathers like David. They can't leave their wives because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they simply take their children, they can be arrested for kidnapping. Moreover, they would probably lose custody of their children in the divorce anyway, again leaving their children in harm's way.

These cases often have tragic results. In the highly-publicized Socorro Caro murder case, Socorro often abused her husband Xavier, a prominent Northridge, California rheumatologist, and once assaulted him so badly he had to have surgery to regain his sight in one eye. Trapped and not knowing what to do or where to go, Xavier endured the abuse, once telling his wife "one day you are going to do something that cannot be undone." A short time later Socorro shot and killed three of their four children. Their baby survived only because Socorro ran out of bullets. She was later convicted and sentenced to death for the murders.

While police intervention often works for abused women, abused men understandably fear that once the police are involved, their wives will accuse them of being the abuser and it is they who will be believed. Draconian arrest policies often direct police to make an arrest, and police are often pressured to arrest the man.

The anti-male bias of police policies was evident in the Woods case. During the 1995 shotgun incident, Ruth called the police after David wrestled the shotgun away from her. Maegan yelled to her mom, "Tell the truth!" and Ruth told the police she wanted them to come because she wanted to kill her husband.

Nevertheless, when the police arrived and David opened the door to let them in, the officers immediately grabbed him by the wrist, wrestled him to the ground, and handcuffed him. They only uncuffed him after Maegan told them that it was her mother who had the gun
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

ATH, you are constantly outraged, just outraged, about all the emphasis that only men are violent and DV by women is unimportant and I still have never once seen a single soul on these forums disagree with you. There is no controversy. THIS thread is about the danger women can pose and the difficulties men can face in being larger and more physically capable (usually) while confronting that. Relax, you are amongst rational beings, and no one is going to state / ever has stated that female violence is ok. Further, if you relax, and accept that no one is fiendishly opposed to your courageous defense of men, you might be able to back down from statements (posed as rhetorical questions) such as these:

"Has our unwillingness to label female violence in the home led us to a mythology that women are less violent than men?"

No, that is not the case. There is not a myth that women are less violent than men, there is only the fact of the matter:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/i ... tm#intgrel

some highlights:

Men committed 88% of the murders. 8x the female rate.
"For the years 1976-2005 combined, among all homicide victims, females are particularly at risk for intimate killings and sex-related homicides."
"Female victims are more likely than male victims to be killed by an intimate or family member."
See the 2nd to last chart on the 2nd link for clear, graphic data showing the discrepancy in male and female intimate homicides.

It's worth point out that these data are about killings. I sought these specifically because it's hard not to report or blow off a killing--they should be reliable. Could there be a huge proportion of female intimate violence which is nonlethal and overlooked because of social norms? Yes. Does it say something about innate tendencies or at least social conditioning that men kill their female intimates much more often than the other way around? YOU BETCHA.

PS: women have gonads too.
--Ian
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”