#!markdown
The problem is: there was a confrontation, two parties were involved, both
were trail users, and one was "allegedly" assaulted. I don't see how this is
small potatoes. What if it was not an older lady, but an older man with much
more physical prowess whom could of assaulted with much more force. Would your
opinion be different then? You bet. I think the fact the "other side of the
coin" have been all women, to me, telling. There is no way a man is going to
attack a 64 year old woman with any conscience, but I would defend myself. But
you can bet your bottom dollar had the hiker/trail saboteur been male this
would be very different. And I don't think that is sexist at all, simply
realistic.
Feb. 2, 2015, 5:24 p.m. - Peter Leeds
#!markdown The problem is: there was a confrontation, two parties were involved, both were trail users, and one was "allegedly" assaulted. I don't see how this is small potatoes. What if it was not an older lady, but an older man with much more physical prowess whom could of assaulted with much more force. Would your opinion be different then? You bet. I think the fact the "other side of the coin" have been all women, to me, telling. There is no way a man is going to attack a 64 year old woman with any conscience, but I would defend myself. But you can bet your bottom dollar had the hiker/trail saboteur been male this would be very different. And I don't think that is sexist at all, simply realistic.