The Duel II: Speculation (Non-Spoiler)

[quote=RMD1;53719]I just don't understand how some one could defend a ruthless person like CT. There are always some people who will defend even the devil himself i guess[/quote] Whoa there now, CT has been through a lot this year.

[quote=LilysMom;53720]Whoa there now, CT has been through a lot this year.[/quote] I feel for CT but that gives him no reason to act like a total *** and punch people left and right. He has no sympathy for what he has done. He is proud of it. just look at his facebook. I have problems too, but there is a time and a place. He needs to act like a man and stop destroying others.

[quote=RMD1;53737]I feel for CT but that gives him no reason to act like a total *** and punch people left and right. He has no sympathy for what he has done. He is proud of it. just look at his facebook. I have problems too, but there is a time and a place. He needs to act like a man and stop destroying others.[/quote] ITA, with everything you said and I do not believe that he is right under any circumstances. I guess what I am trying to say is, after what he has gone threw this year, putting myself in his shoes, I do not know how I would behave myself either. That is all I am trying to say.

[quote=LilysMom;53741]ITA, with everything you said and I do not believe that he is right under any circumstances. I guess what I am trying to say is, after what he has gone threw this year, putting myself in his shoes, I do not know how I would behave myself either. That is all I am trying to say.[/quote] I understand exactly. But if he knows how he might react he shouldn't put himself in these situations. I mean he has done it before and almost again on G3. I mean hell I like CT, great entertainment and seems nice when he isn't eating babies/whatever else he does. But enough is enough

[quote=RMD1;53745]I understand exactly. But if he knows how he might react he shouldn't put himself in these situations. I mean he has done it before and almost again on G3. I mean hell I like CT, great entertainment and seems nice when he isn't eating babies/whatever else he does. But enough is enough[/quote] I believe that the only ones that are truly accountable for this is BMP and MTV. They knew casting him, what they were doing, and what he had previously done. Adam should sue the pants off of them.

[quote=LilysMom;53749]I believe that the only ones that are truly accountable for this is BMP and MTV. They knew casting him, what they were doing, and what he had previously done. Adam should sue the pants off of them.[/quote] That is their job!! As sick and twisted as it sounds thats what they are paid to do. Make sure there is drama so we keep on watching and talking about it on vevmo.com. Ct is just as much to blame he is an adult now!! You can't put all of it on BMP and MTV.

[quote=RMD1;53753]That is their job!! As sick and twisted as it sounds thats what they are paid to do. Make sure there is drama so we keep on watching and talking about it on vevmo.com. Ct is just as much to blame he is an adult now!! You can't put all of it on BMP and MTV.[/quote] You are right, CT is an adult and should be held accountable for his own actions. I am trying to say with BMP and MTV, if they cannot allow Tina back, then there is no way that CT should have been brought back, or even Abram for that matter. If they would have not brought CT in, there would not have been this problem. They knew he would have a short fuse after what has happened this year, and I am not sure when the words were said but in the trailer you do hear Adam say" You don't even deserve to be breathing right now" which would have probably released the beast. Now this could be an editing trick, as we all know, or what really did set him off. We will have to wait to see the whole thing.

[quote=molds13;53679]1. Some graduates of schools such as Stanford are extremely book smart but have no clue when it comes to social skills. Not saying that Adam has no social skills, but just because he went to a school like Stanford does not mean he is completely well-rounded. 2. Threatening way? From what I saw (and I admit I have only seen the trailer once), he put his hands on his waist. How is that deemed threatening? 3. The point is that CT is "defending himself" in a physical and angry way instead of just walking away. He chooses to get sloshed and get himself in ridiculous arguments that escalate into violence. People can talk all they want about CT...because most of them haven't gotten kicked off a show for punching someone. This is to the point where EVERYONE knows CT's buttons. I know CT's buttons. It seems like at this point, it's easier to get rid of him than to compete against him...so they do what they know will get him riled up and kicked off. I'd do it too. 4. Your "reasonable provocation" claim holds no water. Reasonable provocation would have a reasonable person losing self-control. CT, as far as I can see, is not reasonable and does not exercise self-control. 5. How do your knees feel? End rant. I'm going to keep my mouth shut now until I see the entire edited incident fold out on television.[/quote] Wait bro, didn't they show Adam picking up something like a bottle and going towards CT's head. That is very threating, at least to most. The problem is is that there is no due process here because CT has a history and in my opinion it is hard for one to look at this from an objective viewpoint. Isolate this issue for what it is, and don't let the past skew what happened. V1man, you have an inside track moreso than most of us as to what actually happened, but if you are arguing with someone that you know doesn't like you and they are chopping you in your stomach and then pick up an object and lunge it at your head, what would be the reaction? Yes, we only see 30sec of perhaps a long argument, yet unless intentially edited out a part where CT struck Adam first, it's hard to say that CT initiated the physical assault. Adam is just as much to blame or more imo as the others that are being blamed. Even if CT is this roid raging freak, why provoke him? Someone used a vicious dog analogy. Am I that incoherent to where I will disregards an angry dog's potential or an angry person for that matter. The incident is a 2 way affair. Yes CT could and perhaps should have walked away being the bigger man, but doesn't Adam have the same responsibility? Yes BMP and security had to break up the fight, but could it have been stopped before it reached that point given the fact that "everyone knows CT". I just find it real funny that on Real World Denver when Davis said what he said to Tyrie, people from all abroad got in between them before something happened. Truth is, I never cared for Davis, but that's my opinion. On I3 when CT smashed him, are we sure Davis was as innocent as he claimed to be. I do not feel verbage is a justification for anyone to be assulted, but if most of the cast feel that this is a good tactic to get rid of CT, then shouldn't they also be aware of the consequence of their actions. CT's past has provided proof that he is a loose cannon, but in both instances he has hit someone, I noticed that it's been involvement of an opposing team or opposing member that has added to the issue.

[quote=LilysMom;53760]You are right, CT is an adult and should be held accountable for his own actions. I am trying to say with BMP and MTV, if they cannot allow Tina back, then there is no way that CT should have been brought back, or even Abram for that matter. If they would have not brought CT in, there would not have been this problem. They knew he would have a short fuse after what has happened this year, and I am not sure when the words were said but in the trailer you do hear Adam say" You don't even deserve to be breathing right now" which would have probably released the beast. Now this could be an editing trick, as we all know, or what really did set him off. We will have to wait to see the whole thing.[/quote] Your right 100%

[quote=Darock1713;53768]Wait bro, didn't they show Adam picking up something like a bottle and going towards CT's head. That is very threating, at least to most. The problem is is that there is no due process here because CT has a history and in my opinion it is hard for one to look at this from an objective viewpoint. Isolate this issue for what it is, and don't let the past skew what happened. V1man, you have an inside track moreso than most of us as to what actually happened, but if you are arguing with someone that you know doesn't like you and they are chopping you in your stomach and then pick up an object and lunge it at your head, what would be the reaction? Yes, we only see 30sec of perhaps a long argument, yet unless intentially edited out a part where CT struck Adam first, it's hard to say that CT initiated the physical assault. Adam is just as much to blame or more imo as the others that are being blamed. Even if CT is this roid raging freak, why provoke him? Someone used a vicious dog analogy. Am I that incoherent to where I will disregards an angry dog's potential or an angry person for that matter. The incident is a 2 way affair. Yes CT could and perhaps should have walked away being the bigger man, but doesn't Adam have the same responsibility? Yes BMP and security had to break up the fight, but could it have been stopped before it reached that point given the fact that "everyone knows CT". I just find it real funny that on Real World Denver when Davis said what he said to Tyrie, people from all abroad got in between them before something happened. Truth is, I never cared for Davis, but that's my opinion. On I3 when CT smashed him, are we sure Davis was as innocent as he claimed to be. I do not feel verbage is a justification for anyone to be assulted, but if most of the cast feel that this is a good tactic to get rid of CT, then shouldn't they also be aware of the consequence of their actions. CT's past has provided proof that he is a loose cannon, but in both instances he has hit someone, I noticed that it's been involvement of an opposing team or opposing member that has added to the issue.[/quote] Hey [I]bro[/I]. I'm a girl. I'm not saying Adam is not to blame. Knowing CT, he should have never approaced him. That is his fault. However, it was CT's fault that he punched him. I was just saying that CT should have walked away. It definitely could have been broken up before cameramen had to get involved. Adam absolutely had the same responsibility. That's why he got sent home as well. I do agree with you when you say verbage is no justification for someone to get assaulted. I do not know how Davis contributed to the issue. Maybe you can enlighten me. And that was not meant to be sarcastic.

[QUOTE=Darock1713;53768] V1man, you have an inside track moreso than most of us as to what actually happened, but if you are arguing with someone that you know doesn't like you and they are chopping you in your stomach and then pick up an object and lunge it at your head, what would be the reaction? Yes, we only see 30sec of perhaps a long argument, yet unless intentially edited out a part where CT struck Adam first, it's hard to say that CT initiated the physical assault. [/QUOTE] I'm not arguing anything, Darock. I have simply reported that was told to me be witnesses. I've also provided an analysis of the legal questions involved in relation to the contract between the parties involved. Feel free to call the cast liars. Feel free to reject my legal analysis. I never respond to hypothetical statements as contained in your first sentence. That is something learned in both criminal law and civil procedure 101 in law school. How do you decided what is physical assault? Do you know the elements of the crime under the law controlling the contract or in the local jurisdiction involved? Do you know anything of the concept of proportional response as a element of self defense? It is something I'd leave to the experts. I know in one past incident, BMP's lawyer was not involved in the decision-making process. The executive producer made some decisions on his own without consulting legal counsel and it left the company completely and foolishly vulnerable to a serious civil action. From what I know from people who were there, BMP is again vulnerable, and I can't believe BMP's very capable legal counsel was involved.

[quote=V1man;53802]I'm not arguing anything, Darock. I have simply reported that was told to me be witnesses. I've also provided an analysis of the legal questions involved in relation to the contract between the parties involved. Feel free to call the cast liars. Feel free to reject my legal analysis. I never respond to hypothetical statements as contained in your first sentence. That is something learned in both criminal law and civil procedure 101 in law school. How do you decided what is physical assault? Do you know the elements of the crime under the law controlling the contract or in the local jurisdiction involved? Do you know anything of the concept of proportional response as a element of self defense? It is something I'd leave to the experts. I know in one past incident, BMP's lawyer was not involved in the decision-making process. The executive producer made some decisions on his own without consulting legal counsel and it left the company completely and foolishly vulnerable to a serious civil action. From what I know from people who were there, BMP is again vulnerable, and I can't believe BMP's very capable legal counsel was involved.[/quote] I wouldn't even bother attempting to argue this one. V1 obviously has some law school experience. If only I'd decided to actually apply, I might've helped you out more :)

I know there's a lot being said about Adam putting his hands on CT first, but the way CT was standing over him, pushing him toward whatever he almost fell into, caused Adam to have to grab whatever was closest (CT) to regain his balance, which caused CT to snap and put Adam in a position where he was threatened so his first little punch to the stomach or whatever it was was justified. Not to mention how close CT had his body up against Adam's before any hands went anywhere else - definitely the tort of assault and Adam could reasonably find himself in danger, thus allowing him to use reasonable force to defend himself. Obviously, I have not seen the entire context but from what I can see, it's very difficult to justify anything for CT

[QUOTE=ssseeeaaann;53815]I know there's a lot being said about Adam putting his hands on CT first, but the way CT was standing over him, pushing him toward whatever he almost fell into, caused Adam to have to grab whatever was closest (CT) to regain his balance, which caused CT to snap and put Adam in a position where he was threatened so his first [B]little punch to the stomach or whatever it was was justified[/B]. Not to mention how close CT had his body up against Adam's before any hands went anywhere else - definitely the tort of assault and Adam could reasonably find himself in danger, thus allowing him to use reasonable force to defend himself. Obviously, I have not seen the entire context but from what I can see, it's very difficult to justify anything for CT[/QUOTE] I don't think you can ever justify hitting physically hitting somebody no matter how threatened he felt. If Adam truly felt threatened, he should have left the situation. If you want to call it a "little punch" then it definitely crossed the line. I don't support CT on this, but a if indeed it was intended as a punch, then I don't think it could be justified as you said.

When Adam grabbed CT to regain his balance after CT got in his face and almost made him fall over, CT told Adam not too touch him and backed off a little but then Adam said "I'll touch you all I want." and hit or shoved him. I think what set CT off was when Adam reached for the cup or whatever it was, probably trying to dump something on CT's head like what happened in G3. So to me, it looks like Adam started it, he was doing alot of little things before CT snapped and punched him. I'm not saying that CT was right in punching him at all, it shouldn't have happened and if one of them walked away it could have been prevented. Adam was just pushing his buttons and I think that he got what he was asking for because he was continuing to confront CT. This is just what I think about the 30 seconds of the incident that was put on the trailer. There could be something else that happened that we haven't seen yet. I'll wait for the actual episode before I say anything else about it.

[quote=V1man;53802]I'm not arguing anything, Darock. I have simply reported that was told to me be witnesses. I've also provided an analysis of the legal questions involved in relation to the contract between the parties involved. Feel free to call the cast liars. Feel free to reject my legal analysis. I never respond to hypothetical statements as contained in your first sentence. That is something learned in both criminal law and civil procedure 101 in law school. How do you decided what is physical assault? Do you know the elements of the crime under the law controlling the contract or in the local jurisdiction involved? Do you know anything of the concept of proportional response as a element of self defense? It is something I'd leave to the experts. I know in one past incident, BMP's lawyer was not involved in the decision-making process. The executive producer made some decisions on his own without consulting legal counsel and it left the company completely and foolishly vulnerable to a serious civil action. From what I know from people who were there, BMP is again vulnerable, and I can't believe BMP's very capable legal counsel was involved.[/quote] Sorry, been out of pocket. Internet isn't a tool of frequency in the Spanish plains. To molds 13, my sincerest apologies ma'am. And yes, before I begin, I failed to acknowledge that CT did lunge into Adam from previews. V1man - I'm an engineer, and I purposely chose it over law because I hated school, but wish I had pursued it only to form a formidable rebuttable, but since I didn't and I don't know the BMP bylaws, I haven't a viable defense against a legal analyst. Guilty? However before sentencing, I believe I am allowed a say on my behalf and I'm not a quitter regardless of how pointless one may view this losing battle? Yes, I agree that CT's response was unproportional to "Adam's antics", but a physical threat also involves perception, a perception of a threat or injury. Perception which is pretty hard to dispute no matter how far fetched the claim is. With that said, this gets CT off the hook. BMP/MTV/Viacom, etc ...... well, you're right, I have no understand in regards to the legal ramifications of said contracts, agreements, etc. Also, if misworded, then my fault, but i never was claiming that you were arguing anything, I just was saying that in a midst of an argument (CT/Adam) and tempers boiling, chopping at someone, and lunging a bottle/cup at someone's head can cause a reaction, and as unproportional as it was, Adam is not stupid. As for the incident as whole, yes, again you are correct. I have no testimony from witnesses, no understanding of the legal paperwork, nor do I have New Zealand bylaws, but I do know that I should expect a consequnce when I provoke someone with a raging bull mentality like CT's.

[B]Deleted by moderator[/B] 1. Don't post off topic stuff here (relating info from a currently taping challenge). 2. Don't create what is a spoiler in an thread clearly labeled[B] "The Duel II: Speculation (Non-Spoiler)"[/B]