The woman who was beat up at the Cracker Barrel (Atlanta: floor, move)

[PKCorey]

He did it from the video but she brought her own case down with the recent incident.

2 hot heads that don't know when to back down.

[atlantagreg30127]

Unfortunately, most of the news media only reported bits and pieces of what happened that day, and the "official" (or close to it) report of it is this:

The guy was exiting the restaurant and didn't see her young (and short) daughter about to enter, and almost hit the child with the door as he exited. He did not hit the girl with the door. He held the door open for both of them, but according to the woman, she "reminded him to be careful", and he then allegedly jumped on her and started beating her, calling her a particular name, etc.

Another account - he exited and almost got the little girl with the door but did not, held the door. The woman dropped a couple of f-bombs at him, told him she was in the army and "could kill him" and then spit on him, at which time he punched her, knocking her down, she kicked him, he punched her again, and it proceeded from there.

It was reported that in the courtroom, they played the security video frame-by-frame, where jurors were up in the air. Supposedly, they could clearly see that he did not just start beating her for no reason, and they could see that she did say something to him waving a finger or two as though she were speaking in a heated manner. The video wasn't clear enough to make out if she spit on him, and there wasn't any auto that could be made out (or none at all).

Then the woman's history came out. Apparently, she's had run-ins with the law in the past, and every time it involved making strong threats towards hurting people. In the most recent case, she had allegedly threatened to kill a teenager in her neighborhood for one reason or another, and she is due to go on trial herself for this at some point in the future. In the past, she has allegedly also threatened others, and allegedly in at least one case also used the "I'm in the Army and I could kill you", type of statement before. Allegedly there are also some disciplinary issued in her military record, but those either didn't come out in court or they were not able to get them due to policy from the military to use, etc etc etc.

In other words, to sum up - no, the guy should never, ever, have hit her. He should have laughed in her face and walked away if she did yell these things, and if she spit on him, he should have stood his ground, not lifted a finger, and then called the police on her for assault. So ultimately, even if she did these things, he was at fault for not being able to contain his anger. At the same time, the judge in the courtroom apparently even looked at her and said something to the effect of, "I'm not sure what I would have done once you spit in my face". At one point, she stood up, lost her temper in court, and walked out during the hearing, and she had to be brought back in and threatened for contempt. The guy struck a plea deal, and will serve 4 1/2 months since he's already done some time. The rumor is he's going to sue her for assault or something or other once it's done, so provided she doesn't go to jail herself for threatening the underage person in her neighborhood, there is that to deal with later. As well as possible military action because if this and another allegation is true, when angry she's telling civilians she could kill them because of her Army training and I'm sure the Army is going to have issues with that.

So it's one of those cases of "two wrongs don't make a victim". He's not completely innocent and he hit a woman. She's apparently no Susie-Q herself. Put oil and water like that together and poof.

[GrowOldGetWise]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b77b34wOAhE

I think that old lady said at the end, "No child deserves to see their mother beat" I remember seeing that on the news awhile ago, that guy has small balls. I always wonder why people who witness these events don't start fighting back, and serve some social justice every once in awhile. Someone could have picked up one of those talking parrots they sell in the gift shop, knocked him out with it while he went ground-n-pound UFC style haha.

[DoveDiva]

I agree with Greg. Both sides were wrong.

If I were her? I'd see this as justice served b/c while it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, it's also wrong for a person to spit on another. Also...the whole "I'm in the army and I can kill you" bit? Power tripping, for real.

[FlyiMetro]

Originally Posted by DuvalLuvah

Yea I remember hearing about that. Last I heard the FBI was supposed to investigate and possibly file more charges..haven't heard anything else about it though.
I think 6 months was too short of a sentence and I don't think it was right to let him get out on bond like they did. She has every reason to be mad as hell. And it was in front of her child??? C'mon dude...6 months??? smh..

From what I read the mother was walking out with the child behind her and then confronted the dude when he was walking in. Why did she have to confront the man?? One should never confront a stranger like that. Its not the mans job to notice of even hold the door for the child, its the mothers duty. I really feel she should have just taken the child & left, but she had to put the man in his place, which in turn lead to her getting put in her place. Know when to hold em, know when to fold em & know when to walk away.

[FlyiMetro]

Originally Posted by GrowOldGetWise

Who cares if she called him bad names, spit in his face, stomped her feet, if she did all that, the ass beating is still not justified. And if he screamed racial slurs, that just makes it even worse don't ya think?

This lady is not innocent. Its definately a pride match. Pride is the main vice here. Neither knew how to just walk away. She won the case, the guy got time & again she wont walk away. Now she is getting preachers & so called community leaders involved. I smell a snowball rolling down the hill. I still say if the child was infront of the mom non of this would be happening. A persons sex doesnt make them untouchable or invinsible.

[FlyiMetro]

Originally Posted by DoveDiva

I agree with Greg. Both sides were wrong.

If I were her? I'd see this as justice served b/c while it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, it's also wrong for a person to spit on another. Also...the whole "I'm in the army and I can kill you" bit? Power tripping, for real.

Women from her background are known to be bossy & pushy. This story is making more sense now. pride pride pride. smh

[Iconographer]

Apparently part of her unhappiness with the resolution of this case lies in the effect it may have on the out come of a civil trial. Not surprised that $$$$$$$$ has come into play.

http://www.ajc.com/news/clayton/vict...at-690284.html

[suprascooby22]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

Unfortunately, most of the news media only reported bits and pieces of what happened that day, and the "official" (or close to it) report of it is this:

The guy was exiting the restaurant and didn't see her young (and short) daughter about to enter, and almost hit the child with the door as he exited. He did not hit the girl with the door. He held the door open for both of them, but according to the woman, she "reminded him to be careful", and he then allegedly jumped on her and started beating her, calling her a particular name, etc.

Another account - he exited and almost got the little girl with the door but did not, held the door. The woman dropped a couple of f-bombs at him, told him she was in the army and "could kill him" and then spit on him, at which time he punched her, knocking her down, she kicked him, he punched her again, and it proceeded from there.

It was reported that in the courtroom, they played the security video frame-by-frame, where jurors were up in the air. Supposedly, they could clearly see that he did not just start beating her for no reason, and they could see that she did say something to him waving a finger or two as though she were speaking in a heated manner. The video wasn't clear enough to make out if she spit on him, and there wasn't any auto that could be made out (or none at all).

The the woman's history came out. Apparently, she's had run-ins with the law in the past, and every time it involved making strong threats towards hurting people. In the most recent case, she had threatened to kill a teenager in her neighborhood for one reason or another, and she is due to go on trial herself for this at some point in the future. In the past, she has allegedly also threatened others, and allegedly in at least one case also used the "I'm in the Army and I could kill you", type of statement before. Allegedly there are also some disciplinary issued in her military record, but those either didn't come out in court or they were not able to get them due to policy from the military to use, etc etc etc.

In other words, to sum up - no, the guy should never, ever, have hit her. He should have laughed in her face and walked away if she did yell these things, and if she spit on him, he should have stood his ground, not lifted a finger, and then called the police on her for assault. So ultimately, even if she did these things, he was at fault for not being able to contain his anger. At the same time, the judge in the courtroom apparently even looked at her and said something to the effect of, "I'm not sure what I would have done once you spit in my face". At one point, she stood up, lost her temper in court, and walked out during the hearing, and she had to be brought back in and threatened for contempt. The guy struck a plea deal, and will serve 4 1/2 months since he's already done some time. The rumor is he's going to sue her for assault or something or other once it's done, so provided she doesn't go to jail herself for threatening the underage person in her neighborhood, there is that to deal with later. As well as possible military action because if this and another allegation is true, when angry she's telling civilians she could kill them because of her Army training and I'm sure the Army is going to have issues with that.

So it's one of those cases of "two wrongs don't make a victim". He's not completely innocent and he hit a woman. She's apparently no Susie-Q herself. Put oil and water like that together and poof.

This explains the situation as clearly as I have seen to date. Simply put the guy was wrong, no other way to explain it then that but this lady had OBVIOUS issues. The prosecution doesnt offer plea deals after they have closed their arguements unless they feel that the defendent may walk. In the end they were afraid that this guy may be acquitted and he accepted their plea deal.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Apparently part of her unhappiness with the resolution of this case lies in the effect it may have on the out come of a civil trial. Not surprised that $$$$$$$$ has come into play.

Victim of beating at Cracker Barrel said justice not served, she may file civil suit *| ajc.com

Those middle aged white dudes are scary. All you have to do is look at this guy walking out the door with his wife and grand-baby and you know he's about to give the next person who comes along a serious beat down.