Men’s Rights Activists have a new hero: a Cleveland bus driver who punched and choked a belligerent female passenger who had apparently refused to pay her fare.
The top post in the Men’s Rights subreddit at the moment, with more than 500 upvotes, links to a petition urging the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority to reinstate the bus driver, Artis Hughes, who was suspended after video of the incident leaked out. (See videos here and here.) According to the petition,
As a bus driver, mr. Hughes was lied to, insulted, threatened and eventually attacked by one of the passagers. He was clearly justified in striking back. Were he to suffer any negative consequences to his employment as a result of defending himself and striking back, this would set a disasterous precedent: he and other employees would legitimately believe that their workplace expects them to put up with harrassment, and that they will lose their jobs if they choose to stand up for themselves. …
As well as being a bus driver, mr. Hughes is a man, and [Shidea N. Lane, the passenger] is a woman. We continue to live in a world in which some people see fit to scold men for fighting back against the women who abuse them. After mr. Hughes struck ms. Lane, a woman could be heard protesting about it, saying “That’s a [censored] female”. Mr. Hughes responded by saying: “I don’t care. You want to be man? I’m going to treat you like a man!” This is a healthy attitude: if men refuse to strike back, fearing that the law will favour their female abusers over them, we create an environment in which women can harrass and victimize men with impunity. Instead, a man’s decision to fight back against a woman should be respected.
It is for these reasons – the fact that the bus driver was the real victim and was justified in hitting back; that he and other bus drivers should not fear the legal consequences of responding to attacks by passagers; and that men in general should not fear the legal consequences of responding to attacks by women – that we urge you to reinstate mr. Artis Hughes following the investigation on the incident, and hope that future policies will safeguard him and other bus drivers from legal assault whenever they respond to a passager’s physical assault.
There are a lot of things wrong with this statement, up to and including the spelling. But perhaps most germane to the discussion at hand is the fact that the various videos of the event circulating on YouTube make very clear that Hughes was not acting in self-defense.
Yes, it’s clear from the videos and the police report on the incident that the passenger was acting obnoxiously. And according to witnesses she struck first, spitting on Hughes, pushing him and apparently punching him in the head. (All I saw in the video was her pushing him.) That would be more than enough to charge her with assault, though Hughes declined to press charges.
But after she allegedly assaulted him, she backed off. When Hughes punched and then choked her, he was not defending himself; he was retaliating, and with disproportionate force – his punch literally knocked her to the floor.
In this case, Hughes’ victim was a woman. But what he did would have been equally wrong had he punched a man with similar force.
This isn’t the first time, by a long shot, that MRAs have defended the idea of responding to violence from women with disproportionate force. A year ago, you may recall, Men’s Rights Redditors and other MRAs jumped to the defense of Rayon McIntosh, the McDonalds employee who responded to an assault by two customers by beating them with a metal rod – and continuing to beat them after he knocked them to the floor. (See video of the incident here; TW for extreme violence.)
And as longtime readers here know, in one now-infamous post Paul Elam of A Voice for Men suggested that it would be proper for men abused by their female partners to
beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
In the wake of the bus incident, a number of commenters in the Men’s Rights subreddit reacted to Hughes’ assault on the young woman with something close to glee. (Click on any of the yellow comments to see them in context; they’re all from different parts of the thread .)
True, some suggested that the response was disproportionate, but they tended to get a much less enthusiastic response from the regulars than those reveling in the punch:
And MRAs wonder why some people describe their movement, such as it is, as “the abusers lobby.”
Every time I watch that video I just get a blissful smile. Murkin is my favorite dog now.
@whataboutthemoonz, The Federal Bureau of Land Management, I think. Don’t try to get one in December, it will take forever.
Given Joe’s political leanings, I assume he’s terribly worried about the inflation caused by printing more Cock Passes.
Thankfully, that inflation is easily countered by a quick trip to the pool.
You all probably think the Federal Cock Reserve is some sort of government agency, when in fact it’s a private corporation controlled by the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, and the cryogenically preserved brains of John Holmes and Colonel Sanders.
Wake up sheeple!
@ cloudiah- bahahaha, he looks so proudly defiant!
Haha, thanks you too, kitten’s- I have the rage, but it is powerless against kitty massage
Kitty massage rules the universe!
I remember the days when Barbara Walters and Anderson Cooper were real journalists. Its kinda sad how they went into daytime tv hosting.
But to tangent on the topic (or off the topic) I was once slapped by my ex. Just once. That was the point where I gave her a shpiel that hitting isn’t ok. The fact that I had to do this, recently, to an otherwise socially normal person should indicate a problem.
I know it sounds just as condescending to say “teach men not to rape” as it does “teach women to not initiate violence” but it looks like we have to do that.
Those exact words too. Learn to not initiate violence. You can scream yourself hoarse with every epithet you can and thats never an excuse to lay a finger on another person. But the second you initiate physical violence, it gets bad.
With this specific incident, I don’t know if he was or wasn’t justified in any force. With the MacDonalds employee however, I think he was totally justified. He just came out of jail, and two people triggered his “fight or flight” response.
And, specifically to Futrelle, I don’t think a fight has to be matched with proportionate force. Cops have a responsibility to do so, but they have legal authority, training, armor, and weapons. The rest of us see a threat, and we owe it to ourselves to not have our brains splattered over the sidewalk because someone else decided to start a fight.
Nope, your use of force still has to be proportionate to the threat. You can’t shoot someone who slaps you. And in this case, I’m pretty sure that uppercutting someone (who is standing back with her arms at her side, and who is much smaller) hard enough to knock her to the ground, is not using proportionate force.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6951182_acceptable-use-force.html
Futrelle, your example itself has its exceptions!
If someone is on your property, and you don’t have a duty to retreat, you can shoot them. If you tried to retreat, and they followed you, again you have the right to shoot. If they have anything in their hand and they’re charging, its justifiable homicide. Cops are given carte blanche for this, because someone at a sprint can cover 21 feet faster than an officer can unholster a gun. There are a lot of exceptions and rules, and it varies from state to state.
So the legal case of justifiable use of force is up in the air to me on this one. I don’t know the state laws there. I don’t know what a jury would say about it either.
Now, if you’re talking morally justified use of force, I can see your point. I still disagree with you though. Your first priority is to yourself, and not to the person attacking you. If he/she decided to initiate violence, then that person should suffer the outcome of that decision, and not the person being attacked. You don’t want to be a martyr for someone elses stupidity.
Whats the correct proportion anyways? You can only hit back for the number of times you’ve been hit? You can only retaliate in kind? I think minor escalation in a violent situation is entirely justifiable.
You don’t see how this is in any way contradictory?
That’s mighty US-centric of you. There are other countries in the world where shooting someone is not considered an appropriate response. The USA is an outlier when it comes to violence. It is not something you should be boasting about.
You can only hit back if you are currently under attack. If the person has stopped attacking, you don’t get to hit back. This is not rocket science.
Now you get to cite your sources showing that women comprise 90% of slapping perpetrators, or you’re going to look mighty foolish for having compared these two things.
I’d also ask you to consider whether half the population lives in fear of being slapped and must plan their lives around that fear and is getting bombarded with “how not to get slapped” messages and blamed when they do get slapped, but I’m not in the mood for any “but ALL VIOLENCE is bad!” false equivalencies today. Suffice it to say that your comparison is idiotic and just a wee bit offensive.
MRAs can always find a reason to escalate rather than call the police.
Diogenes: But to tangent on the topic (or off the topic) I was once slapped by my ex. Just once. That was the point where I gave her a shpiel that hitting isn’t ok. The fact that I had to do this, recently, to an otherwise socially normal person should indicate a problem.
Yes, that you had to do that indicates that the two of you had a problem, which is that she hit you.
The next graf doesn’t follow: I know it sounds just as condescending to say “teach men not to rape” as it does “teach women to not initiate violence” but it looks like we have to do that.
In the first case I don’t think it sounds condescending to say we need to teach men not rape; esp. since it is (as you, and your ilk, pretend to not know) a counter to the present system which is to “teach women to not get raped. Sort of like teaching people to not get hit by drunk drivers.
In the second, there is no vast number of men being put in hospital, nor killed, by the women who abuse them. It’s still a gendered problem.
And here is where you, continue, to prove what an incredible naïf you are.
And, specifically to Futrelle, I don’t think a fight has to be matched with proportionate force. Cops have a responsibility to do so, but they have legal authority, training, armor, and weapons. The rest of us see a threat, and we owe it to ourselves to not have our brains splattered over the sidewalk because someone else decided to start a fight.
Why just to Dave? is he the only one talking about it? No.
Second cops get to use disproportionate force all the time. Google, “taser deaths” for some examples.
Third, the last sentence contradicts your first. A person is allowed to not “have their brains splattered over the sidewalk”. That’s proportionate response.
If proportionate response; and cessation when the threat is stopped, weren’t the case then any time someone shoved you, you’d be allowed to kill them.
The law (pesky little thing, I know) doesn’t allow(stupidities such as Florida as notable exceptions) slaps to be met with deadly response.
If you have any questions, I suggest you read/contact Marc MacYoung. He’ll be glad to set you straight, since he makes a decent living testifying in cases where someone thought being slugged gave them the right to kick the shit out of the slugger.
So the legal case of justifiable use of force is up in the air to me on this one.
Of course it is: A man hit a woman.
Now, if you’re talking morally justified use of force, I can see your point. I still disagree with you though. Your first priority is to yourself, and not to the person attacking you. If he/she decided to initiate violence, then that person should suffer the outcome of that decision, and not the person being attacked. You don’t want to be a martyr for someone elses stupidity.
That, my boy, is the argument of the Hatfields and McCoys. If you hit me, and you stop. You have no more intent to attack me, and I decide you’ve not gone far enough away I can (per your argument) hit you until you can’t move, “To protect myself”.
You, on the other hand, have a quite reasonable idea that I am attacking you (because, in fact, I am). That’s why the law says the threat must be present, and active.
Whats the correct proportion anyways? You can only hit back for the number of times you’ve been hit? You can only retaliate in kind? I think minor escalation in a violent situation is entirely justifiable.
You can defend yourself so long as the attack is ongoing. Some things (the presence of a weapon) may allow for a greater level of response; so long as the person has the weapon and the apparent intent to use it, but the loss of intent means the loss of right of response. A person who backs up, even if holding a knife, a bottle, a baseball bat, is no longer an active threat.
You have to stop.
It’s really very simple.
BTW, I notice you have decided to let the “Adrian Chen is trying to impose a reign of silencing terror on the creeps of the world” argument drop. I assume it’s because you are admitting defeat, not that you are pretending you can move on as if it didn’t happen.
And Again I apologise. I confused you, and Steel/Varpole/Butthorn. It’s not just that I’m rushing, on my way to work, but that you are both fairly similar in the nature of your waffling qualifiers to excuse bad behavior by men; while insisting that women who fail to meet some impossible standard are wretched, and deserving of what they get.
He’s actually doing a bang up job of showing just what is wrong with honour culture. If you go around thinking violence is ok to defend your honour, it is easier to confuse retaliation, or even pre-emptive violence, with self-defense.
@pecunium
“It’s not just that I’m rushing, on my way to work, but that you are both fairly similar in the nature of your waffling qualifiers to excuse bad behavior by men;”
Woman refuses to pay the fare, yells, screams, hits, spits and chokes a man. Which equals mens bad behavior. Get off your knees. Stop worshipping women.
Oh, so now he was in danger of being killed? Or is this a vague reference to George Zimmerman? Because as time goes by there is increasing evidence that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth about what happened that night and he just flat out murdered a guy who had the temerity to walk through his neighborhood while being black.
No, nwoslave, that part equals woman’s bad behavior. The bad behavior from the man came when after she had backed away he hit her, and with far more force than she had used to boot. Everyone here has agreed she was being an asshole, but that does not justify what the guy did.
@Myoo
“Everyone here has agreed she was being an asshole, but that does not justify what the guy did.”
Well lucky us. Women like you are psychic and know that the women wouldn’t just start up again with the screaming, spitting, hitting and choking. poor little victim was just blowing off a bit of steam. Let’s give her a box of chocolates. She’s a victim.
————-
Nice opening line to the article, Dave.
“the Cleveland bus driver who punched and choked a female passenger.”
By the sound of it, you’d think the delicate waif was sitting there reading the gospel and a bad man up and waffled her. How about the truth as the title instead?
Female passenger screamed at, spit on, choked and hit innocent Cleveland bus driver who was trying to do his job, while expecting kid glove treatment in return.
Isn’t that what really happened, Dave?
@nwoslave
I’m not a woman, dude, and if she started up again with the spitting, the guy could spit right back, if she started again with the hitting and choking then he could use a proportional amount of force to defend himself. Escalating only shows him to be a violent asshole.
Aw, NWO’s just pissed and jealous that he can’t hit a woman right now.
Owly – she assaulted him. Everyone here knows that; nobody is defending what she did. The point is that she had backed off and THEN he attacked her. It’s not like he went over and made her get off the bus: he knocked her off her feet. Even if he’d been defending himself (which he wasn’t) it was totally disproportionate. But he wasn’t: he was starting over and escalating. He lost any claim to be an innocent victim at that point.
NWO: You ignorant fool: Woman refuses to pay the fare, yells, screams, hits, spits and chokes a man. Which equals mens bad behavior. Get off your knees. Stop worshipping women.
You left out that we’ve all condemned her, and the follow up: Man waits until woman is no longer attacking him, gets up, pursues her, cold-cocks her.
Which to you is exemplary behavior.
Some Christianity you got going there.