Mixon sued
- Thread starter Clinton Scott
- Start date
Thanks for the link Salt Lake. The article and charges make her look like Little Red Riding Hood being mugged by the Big Bad Wolf.
I have never commented on this subject before. I have read tons of posts.
I have no idea what happened, but I have read where he was slapped and spit on before he reacted. I guess it will all come out in the lawsuit.
BTW, why Northern California? Shouldn't it be judged in Norman?
This is going to dog him for a long time and rightfully so. Hope he continues to do the right thing
I'm surprised it actually took her this long to file a lawsuit.
She probably wanted to graduate from OU....to leave OU....before filing a lawsuit. No way she would have done this while still attending OU.
He's from California but maybe an attorney on this board can answer why the suits filed in his home state. Come forward please and show us your occupation even if your a crook. Maybe they will be able to roll the video in California? I'm not worried about it. He's talented enough to have a NFL career and make a load of money. He can afford to fork some money over if that happens. This is a smart move if you win or settle out of court. Maybe then they can both be left alone.
It's in the article:
The filing was made in California because Mixon’s permanent residence of Oakley, California, is located in Contra Costa County, according to the lawsuit.
Molitor filed the lawsuit just days before the statute of limitations ran out in Oklahoma. State law indicates that civil suits for personal injury must be filed within two years of the date of the incident.
I assume she might have ongoing medical related expenses, and perhaps they waited until the 11th hour to make sure all possible expenses were accounted for in the suit.
AND, maybe under the idea that the longer they waited, the more likely he'd be in the NFL with big bucks by the time the suit was settled.
If true, and it very well may be, it doesn't excuse what he did. Were he wearing a uniform of any other color, not one person here would defend him.
Ya that's a good point CT. Didn't think about that little angle.
I dunno V, if a woman calls me the N word, then slaps me w/ aggression, in today's world, she leaves the female side of things and becomes an equal. I recognize all of us are wired a bit differently, but I'm not sitting idle and let anyone disrespect & then seconds later assualt me. I'm not sure what I would have done at age 17 and on the eve of my 18th birthday, but I'll admit that I most likely would decked her in the heat of the moment.
I imagine a lawyer got in her ear. If he was a bench warmer, there's likely no lawsuit as there's no money. But it's a sue city world we live in these days. Now that she just beat the 2 yr date threshold, the lawyers most likely will stall until he gets an NFL contract. What's interesting, is that he was an adult (age 18) but for less than 3 hours and he'll more than likely end up paying a settlement as an adult with a NFL contract. Somehow this doesn't seem right either. Of course none of this entire deal does.
I imagine a lawyer got in her ear. If he was a bench warmer, there's likely no lawsuit as there's no money. But it's a sue city world we live in these days. Now that she just beat the 2 yr date threshold, the lawyers most likely will stall until he gets an NFL contract. What's interesting, is that he was an adult (age 18) but for less than 3 hours and he'll more than likely end up paying a settlement as an adult with a NFL contract. Somehow this doesn't seem right either. Of course none of this entire deal does.
This is what I find to be BS...
"..who was and is a University of Oklahoma NCAA Division I football player with great physical stature and strength,..."
His size and/or his being a football player should be irrelevant. He was either right or wrong based on whether he hit her. Not because of who he is, what he is and/or who she is or what she is.
Worng is wrong or Right is Right.
"..who was and is a University of Oklahoma NCAA Division I football player with great physical stature and strength,..."
His size and/or his being a football player should be irrelevant. He was either right or wrong based on whether he hit her. Not because of who he is, what he is and/or who she is or what she is.
Worng is wrong or Right is Right.
I was in a situation over 40 years ago where my EX-wife started hitting me repeatedly during a tantrum. I did not retaliate and stood sideways to absorb her hits because I knew she really could not hurt me and I knew instantly not to strike back (she was 5'2" about 125 lbs....and a woman). I was very upset and angry, but my retaliation was to purge her from my life forever.
Before we began figuring out the property settlement a few days later she asked me what I wanted.
I told her....."only your absence".
Before we began figuring out the property settlement a few days later she asked me what I wanted.
I told her....."only your absence".
Not quite true in a civil suit. There's much more gray area available here, especially when weighing the punitive damages.
I think the point of the statement is to defend her preceding slap as if to say she knew she wouldn't cause any harm to him, but when he chose to strike her, he knew that they would cause bodily harm, and he is therefore responsible for the damages incurred. Civil suit, not criminal. I would just about guarantee she is going to win compensation. The open question is how much?
I'm betting that you wouldn't cold cock someone, especially a female, half your size with maybe 1/10 of your strength. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so. To me, what he did was reprehensible. I can't think of any scenario short of her pointing a gun at him or coming at him with a knife that would excuse what he did. I've never hear of a case where a 220 pound man needed medical attention as a result of being called a bad name or being slapped with an open hand by a female. Sure, she shouldn't have slapped him.... but his reaction was overkill to the nth power.
I still disagree that size has anything to do with it. It's most likely the gender. If it was a guy about her size and this guy did these things to Mixon, something tells me that the majority would think differently. But for it was a female, it becomes wrong. What I guess I'm trying to say is that she should not have set him off, especially since she she was so small, and he so big. I think she didn't think he would hit her and as such, she thought she could get away with it.
Whatever happened to men not hitting women? Its not like he just lightly pushed her. He actually hit her with great force, in the face, with a closed fist. I don't care what she called him.
Are you saying is that what Mixon did would be ok if he did it to a man of her size?
I've never hit a woman in my life but the fact that she hit a big man twice her size is stupid. She must've seriously thought it was OK to hit him, but him not her. And stupid is as stupid does.
They were both wrong. But he'll pay dearly financially. At least he's shown already that he's better than his one emotional, bad, split second decision.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that she had it coming. Hopefully that isn't what you mean
Stupid is as stupid does.
And I'll stick by my question as it appears that some believe gender is the issue in that pounding the face of a man is different than pounding the face of a woman, both being of equal size. The only difference I see is that it's highly doubtful that a man her size would call him the "N" word, and then slap him.
Again, he was dead wrong. No man should punch a woman in the face regardless of what name she called him. Thats ridiculous. I'm sure he has been called much worse on the field.
No worries on my end. You believe it's all about gender, I believe they were both wrong.
Tell me why incoming freshmen are not given curfews during their first semester on campus. Might be a good idea to say "no" to some of these 17-18 year olds. For some it might be the first time in their lives to hear that word.
CT its been a while since I graduated college, but I don't remember having a curfew my freshman year. You had to sign in at the desk if you came in after a certain hour, but I think that was about it. Might not be a bad idea though
Why would athletes be treated differently from the general population, only to protect the team/coach/revenue? That's selfish. If it's to protect the student, then I repeat my opening question.
Online learning is quickly surpassing the abilities of classroom learning in relations to theory and application. The advantage traditional college has and will always maintain is the education of life and networking. If you're sending someone to college with the confines of expanded rules, then what's the difference from high school? We would just start referring to college as the 13th grade.
Scholarship athletes are not regular students by any stretch of the imagination. They should represent the university well on and off the field, much more than the average student. After all, aside from a free education and room and board, they enjoy celebrity status....and make the university lots of money.
One semester of curfew to start the freshman year, which is not a form of "confinement" or an extension of high school, likely would have had Mixon out of harm's way at 2:30 am that morning, 2-1/2 hours after turning 18.
Nothing "selfish" here. Not when the students (Mixon and Molitor), Pickleman's Gourmet Cafe, OU, Coach Stoops and the football program have potentially much to lose by this event.
.
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Suing him right before the statute of limitations kicks in.
Rapacious litigant perhaps?
Also, most of us don't know how we'd react. Unless something that unsavory has happened to ya.
Rapacious litigant perhaps?
Also, most of us don't know how we'd react. Unless something that unsavory has happened to ya.
This proposal would be incredibly difficult to enforce. Not all student-athletes are on scholarship, so would they be exempt? What about those on academic scholarship? Should they be held to the same standard since they too are receiving state money for their education? And who would be responsible for ensuring hundreds of student-atheletes are not breaking curfew? I understand the sentiment of wanting to protect the university as well as the scholarship athelete, but this idea will never gain any traction for many reasons.
That's no problem if people don't agree with me.
And I do not see OU taking any such action.
Given what has happened at OU in recent years, there's obviously a lot of entitlement and leeway given to athletes.
Since it's out of my control I won't be surprised when such events reoccur. It is a sign of the times both at OU and other football factories.
And I do not see OU taking any such action.
Given what has happened at OU in recent years, there's obviously a lot of entitlement and leeway given to athletes.
Since it's out of my control I won't be surprised when such events reoccur. It is a sign of the times both at OU and other football factories.
I doubt incidents like this and others are newfound. They've probably been occurring for a century at similar rates or even greater, but we just have a stronger legal system and media reach these days. There's no longer a 'drunk tank,' and fighting's no longer 'what boys do.' The town sheriff no longer knows everyone by name and is no longer able to just slap the 'butcher's son' on the wrist, stomp on the weed, and tell the boy to get home to his family. Everything is documented, etched in stone, prosecuted to the fullest and broadcast to the Earth.
At 67, I'm aware of the changing times and how events like this have always been around....and how the social media has brought more attention to people's misdeeds.
Why not be PROACTIVE for a change instead of having to deal with this crap legally and in the public eye ? This really isn't difficult to do, especially if prospective recruits and their parents/parent/guardian know in advance what the rules of conduct are. We might lose a player, but the reputation of the school and the team should come first.
