Dustin Martin

[iwantmeseats]

Guys a total douche.
You take one look at him...expect anything different? I dont.
Except he is weak as piss and likes to threaten women.
If he got a year, Id be stoked.

[markp]

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......

I asked a few pages back if it was a guy who'd said calm down would anyone have said he shouldn't have done that?

I doubt it.

And if it then played out the same that guy would still shoulder zero responsibility for being threatened with stabbing and murder.

[Bunk_Moreland]

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......

I asked a few pages back if it was a guy who'd said calm down would anyone have said he shouldn't have done that?

I doubt it.

And if it then played out the same that guy would still shoulder zero responsibility for being threatened with stabbing and murder.

Why should there be consequences for anyone for asking a drunken Bogan in a restaurant to calm down.

Also why hasn't that person the right to do so without having their life threatened?
In this case it was a woman. So what? She has the right to ask someone to stop behaving appallingly.

Still the question remains unaswered, was Martin 100% responsible for his actions?

[dragit]

Why should there be consequences for anyone for asking a drunken Bogan in a restaurant to calm down.

Why are people mean to people?

[Dr Spaceman]

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......

I asked a few pages back if it was a guy who'd said calm down would anyone have said he shouldn't have done that?

I doubt it.

And if it then played out the same that guy would still shoulder zero responsibility for being threatened with stabbing and murder.

Why should there be consequences for anyone for asking a drunken Bogan in a restaurant to calm down.

Also why hasn't that person the right to do so without having their life threatened?
In this case it was a woman. So what? She has the right to ask someone to stop behaving appallingly.

Still the question remains unaswered, was Martin 100% responsible for his actions?

Martin was 100% responsible for his actions.

Repeat;

MARTIN WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS.

Now, should a person have the right to ask a drunken bogan in a restaurant to calm down and be able to do so without having their life threatened?

ABSO-BLOODY-LUTELY!!!

But can we (society, police etc ) guarantee their life won't be threatened in these circumstances? Well I'm sure we'd like to but sadly, at this point in time, we can't.

And so, unfortunately, we as individuals must take steps to decrease the possibility that bogans will threaten our lives.

Would be better if that was not so; but unfortunately it is. Maybe one day

[#gosaintas]

You also have the right to walk up to some jihad maniac waving a machete around in the London Underground and tell him he's a tool. If you do it and get stabbed, it's 100% the jihadist's fault. Having said that, not really advisable is it.

[Bunk_Moreland]

You also have the right to walk up to some jihad maniac waving a machete around in the London Underground and tell him he's a tool. If you do it and get stabbed, it's 100% the jihadist's fault. Having said that, not really advisable is it.

So your analogy is equivalent to being in a restaurant in Windsor? Stick to player hate, the grown ups are talking here

[loris]

Police are now probing the issue

[markp]

It seems many people here would be too worried to as much as shush someone in a darkened cinema for fear that person may stab them.

Maybe if more people pulled martin up earlier he would've adjusted his conduct sooner, or a long time ago.

Maybe by this woman not being cowered and martin having to deal with the consequences he now will.

Or maybe he'll end up in jail and everyone will be safer.

[ripplug66]

It seems most people here would be too worried to as much as shush someone in a darkened cinema for fear that person may stab them.

Maybe if more people pulled martin up earlier he would've adjusted his conduct sooner, or a long time ago.

Maybe by this woman not being cowered and martin having to deal with the consequences he now will.

Or maybe he'll end up in jail and everyone will be safer.

I don't think anyone has suggested they wouldn't tell anyone in a cinema to be quiet. Ive seen some over the top posting on here but a fair few are using examples that are ridiculous. Why cant people suggest what the lady did was dangerous but also suggest what she did was ok? Its a choice and I certainly wouldn't choose what she did but I would tell a moron at the cinema to shut up and I wouldn't tell a pissed guy at Cushion to shut up.

Martin Us 100% wrong. The girl is 100% right to do what she did. The girl took her life in her own hands. Would I do it? Not sure but probably if I knew it was Martin. If I didn't know the guy and he looked like Martin not a 1% chance.

[stevie]

Surprised that there were no security guards or whoever around. They seem to be every else these days. They have them in the Woolies car park each night till stumps.

[st.byron]

Why should there be consequences for anyone for asking a drunken Bogan in a restaurant to calm down.

Why are people mean to people?

[The_Merchant]

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.

What a ridiculous statement.

You like categorical statements but as we don't have a full grasp of the circumstances, how can you make a categorical statement. It has been suggested that there is a possibility that the victim may have prevented themselves from entering a dangerous situation. That is entirely possible. It is also entirely possible that the victim took the only reasonable course of action available to them. You don't know, and I certainly don't.

The chances that Dustin Martin is 100% responsible for the entire situation are remote. There are many, many contributing factors in most incidents. To ignore them is to say that every individual is entirely responsible for their own actions and we will never grow as a society. We can reduce instances of alcohol fuelled violence, which is a plague in our society, but not if we don't all shoulder some of the responsibility. It is up to all of us to work towards a society where not only should the victim have been safe to approach Martin and ask him to settle down, but she should never have had to in the first place.

You say that he is 100% responsible, so are you saying that his mates should not have stopped him from drinking as much as he did? Should the bar not have any responsibility under the RSA? Should management not have provided a safe and pleasant atmosphere for all of their guests? Should the club ignore that he has a problem with alcohol and not provide him with assistance in addressing it?

Martin should shoulder 100% of the blame, but no, I doubt that he is 100% responsible. That is not a categorical statement because I don't like to make categorical statements without all of the facts, but it appears you do.

[markp]

It seems most people here would be too worried to as much as shush someone in a darkened cinema for fear that person may stab them.

Maybe if more people pulled martin up earlier he would've adjusted his conduct sooner, or a long time ago.

Maybe by this woman not being cowered and martin having to deal with the consequences he now will.

Or maybe he'll end up in jail and everyone will be safer.

I don't think anyone has suggested they wouldn't tell anyone in a cinema to be quiet. Ive seen some over the top posting on here but a fair few are using examples that are ridiculous. Why cant people suggest what the lady did was dangerous but also suggest what she did was ok? Its a choice and I certainly wouldn't choose what she did but I would tell a moron at the cinema to shut up and I wouldn't tell a pissed guy at Cushion to shut up.

Martin Us 100% wrong. The girl is 100% right to do what she did. The girl took her life in her own hands. Would I do it? Not sure but probably if I knew it was Martin. If I didn't know the guy and he looked like Martin not a 1% chance.

But that person in the darkened cinema could be martin and he might have a chopstick.

Better to say nothing and make yourself as small a target as possible.

And what she did was not dangerous, I'd say generally the death and serious injury rate from asking someone who's being loud and obnoxious to calm down in a nice japanese restaurant on a nice strip in a nice suburb would be pretty low.

[HitTheBoundary]

http://discoveringmandarin.blogspot.in/ ... ticks.html

[ripplug66]

It seems most people here would be too worried to as much as shush someone in a darkened cinema for fear that person may stab them.

Maybe if more people pulled martin up earlier he would've adjusted his conduct sooner, or a long time ago.

Maybe by this woman not being cowered and martin having to deal with the consequences he now will.

Or maybe he'll end up in jail and everyone will be safer.

I don't think anyone has suggested they wouldn't tell anyone in a cinema to be quiet. Ive seen some over the top posting on here but a fair few are using examples that are ridiculous. Why cant people suggest what the lady did was dangerous but also suggest what she did was ok? Its a choice and I certainly wouldn't choose what she did but I would tell a moron at the cinema to shut up and I wouldn't tell a pissed guy at Cushion to shut up.

Martin Us 100% wrong. The girl is 100% right to do what she did. The girl took her life in her own hands. Would I do it? Not sure but probably if I knew it was Martin. If I didn't know the guy and he looked like Martin not a 1% chance.

But that person in the darkened cinema could be martin and he might have a chopstick.

Better to say nothing and make yourself as small a target as possible.

And what she did was not dangerous, I'd say generally the death and serious injury rate from asking someone who's being loud and obnoxious to calm down in a nice japanese restaurant on a nice strip in a nice suburb would be pretty low.

Ridiculous based on the fact that in a cinema they are likely to be reasonably sober and I gather from what we have read Martin wasn't like that and I would plain to see. And I agree that the injury rate would be low in a Japanese restaurant but the difference is you get to see the face of the person and you know alcohol has been served on a regular basis.

Anyway I still don't get what you are trying to say.

[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.

What a ridiculous statement.

You like categorical statements but as we don't have a full grasp of the circumstances, how can you make a categorical statement. It has been suggested that there is a possibility that the victim may have prevented themselves from entering a dangerous situation. That is entirely possible. It is also entirely possible that the victim took the only reasonable course of action available to them. You don't know, and I certainly don't.

The chances that Dustin Martin is 100% responsible for the entire situation are remote. There are many, many contributing factors in most incidents. To ignore them is to say that every individual is entirely responsible for their own actions and we will never grow as a society. We can reduce instances of alcohol fuelled violence, which is a plague in our society, but not if we don't all shoulder some of the responsibility. It is up to all of us to work towards a society where not only should the victim have been safe to approach Martin and ask him to settle down, but she should never have had to in the first place.

You say that he is 100% responsible, so are you saying that his mates should not have stopped him from drinking as much as he did? Should the bar not have any responsibility under the RSA? Should management not have provided a safe and pleasant atmosphere for all of their guests? Should the club ignore that he has a problem with alcohol and not provide him with assistance in addressing it?

Martin should shoulder 100% of the blame, but no, I doubt that he is 100% responsible. That is not a categorical statement because I don't like to make categorical statements without all of the facts, but it appears you do.

I say martin is 100% responsible for violently threatening to stab and murder this woman.

Read it slowly if it helps.

Likely he should not have been served booze if he was drinking, but that doesn't make the bar staff or manager in any way responsible for his violent threats, only for contravening their licence.

Other's are saying she said and did things she should not have... even though they don't know exactly what was said or all the surrounding circumstances. How's that for categorical without all the facts?

I say it doesn't matter what she said (even though it seems it was not abusive) it does not contribute to her being in any way responsible for the violent threats of stabbing and murder.

[markp]

It seems most people here would be too worried to as much as shush someone in a darkened cinema for fear that person may stab them.

Maybe if more people pulled martin up earlier he would've adjusted his conduct sooner, or a long time ago.

Maybe by this woman not being cowered and martin having to deal with the consequences he now will.

Or maybe he'll end up in jail and everyone will be safer.

I don't think anyone has suggested they wouldn't tell anyone in a cinema to be quiet. Ive seen some over the top posting on here but a fair few are using examples that are ridiculous. Why cant people suggest what the lady did was dangerous but also suggest what she did was ok? Its a choice and I certainly wouldn't choose what she did but I would tell a moron at the cinema to shut up and I wouldn't tell a pissed guy at Cushion to shut up.

Martin Us 100% wrong. The girl is 100% right to do what she did. The girl took her life in her own hands. Would I do it? Not sure but probably if I knew it was Martin. If I didn't know the guy and he looked like Martin not a 1% chance.

But that person in the darkened cinema could be martin and he might have a chopstick.

Better to say nothing and make yourself as small a target as possible.

And what she did was not dangerous, I'd say generally the death and serious injury rate from asking someone who's being loud and obnoxious to calm down in a nice japanese restaurant on a nice strip in a nice suburb would be pretty low.

Ridiculous based on the fact that in a cinema they are likely to be reasonably sober and I gather from what we have read Martin wasn't like that and I would plain to see. And I agree that the injury rate would be low in a Japanese restaurant but the difference is you get to see the face of the person and you know alcohol has been served on a regular basis.

Anyway I still don't get what you are trying to say.

Been to a cinema on a friday or saturday night?

Or maybe someone could be on ice? Everyone's on ice these days.

I honestly don't expect you to grasp the concept and dangers of victim blaming, so it's ok.

[asiu]

lol @Do not use chopsticks as an aid in impersonating a walrus.

[miskycat]

OK, I'll try to explain:

Any comment that includes references to the 'many, many' factors that may have been involved, such as his 'mates', 'the restaurant', the 'media', the 'management', the 'club', the 'atmosphere', ' the alcohol', 'his troubled past', 'society', 'the woman', the 'AFL', 'his drinking', etc, etc, etc are all continuing the tired tradition of victim blaming and thereby continuing to take the focus away from THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE.

[ripplug66]

Been to a cinema on a friday or saturday night?

Or maybe someone could be on ice? Everyone's on ice these days.

I honestly don't expect you to grasp the concept and dangers of victim blaming, so it's ok.

Expected comeback. Personal comments when nothing else left to say. Consistent. Good stuff. And yes I occasionally get to the cinema on a Friday. If that's the best you have then I'm really relieved. You are going so well. I notice there was no mention of what your actual point it.

[The_Merchant]

[
I say martin is 100% responsible for violently threatening to stab and murder this woman.

Read it slowly if it helps.

Likely he should not have been served booze if he was drinking, but that doesn't make the bar staff or manager in any way responsible for his violent threats, only for contravening their licence.

Other's are saying she said and did things she should not have... even though they don't know exactly what was said or all the surrounding circumstances. How's that for categorical without all the facts?

I say it doesn't matter what she said (even though it seems it was not abusive) it does not contribute to her being in any way responsible for the violent threats of stabbing and murder.

Don't need to read it slowly, it isn't that I don't understand what you are saying, I am saying that I think you are probably wrong. That's ok. You seem to have a very narrow focus, I see alcohol fuelled violence as a bigger issue. That is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Dr Spaceman]

Victim blaming.

Should not happen.

Unfortunately the term is applied a bit too readily. Often to shut down discussion.

Down here in Geelong a few weeks back a young 14 year old girl was raped. Repeatedly by 4 different men.

Those men are 100% at fault. 100% responsible. 100% should go to jail.

The victim is 0% to blame.

But upon hearing this story some people queried what a 14 year old was doing out at 3:00pm in the morning.

As soon as that got raised those people were immediately shut down as being "victim blamers".

Whilst victim blaming can happen, it should not be an automatic assessment when questions are asked.

You can feel total sympathy for the victim, put total blame and responsibility on the perpetrator, but still calmly ask about factors surrounding the crime.

[The_Merchant]

OK, I'll try to explain:

Any comment that includes references to the 'many, many' factors that may have been involved, such as his 'mates', 'the restaurant', the 'media', the 'management', the 'club', the 'atmosphere', ' the alcohol', 'his troubled past', 'society', 'the woman', the 'AFL', 'his drinking', etc, etc, etc are all continuing the tired tradition of victim blaming and thereby continuing to take the focus away from THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE.

And I say we all have to work together to end alcohol fuelled violence. It is easy to say it is all one persons fault. What Martin did is 100% wrong and most likely the victim did absolutely nothing wrong. But to ignore other contributing factors won't prevent the next incident, and we don't grow as a society.

[miskycat]

...'most likely the victim did absolutely nothing wrong.'

Gold, and you still don't get it.