ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:52 pm
Deuce wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:48 am
ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 1:48 am
I wanted to ask this question here.
Why do people think Melo should've done "more to restrain Zverev"? This is my opinion. I'm not a mental health professional.
Explosive anger like that is not something everyone/anyone can handle. I also think this is regular behavior for him and that those who know him get out of his way until he's calmed down. I wonder what his family has gone through with him too. I think Melo, used to seeing this behavior, did what any sane person would do and got out of Zverev's way.
I don't think it's fair at all to assume that this is 'regular behaviour' for him unless you've seen that behaviour from him... well... regularly. On what is this assumption based, then?
Granted, his former girlfriend accused him of violent behaviour - and, while those accusations seem legitimate, none of us really know because we only know what we read in the media - there is probably 90% of detail that we have no idea about. So, honestly, in lieu of actual and irrefutable evidence, it's quite unjust to say that one thinks this is 'regular behaviour' for him, and that his friend and doubles partner is accustomed to seeing this behaviour from him. I have not seen any evidence of that, and I doubt you have, either. Unless you've seen that type of behaviour from him before, this is pure speculation, and thus unfair. Starting rumours like this without evidence is not right.
I don't like Zverev. I find him arrogant and obnoxious... and the accusations by his former girlfriend certainly haven't helped my opinion of him. Neither has his behaviour the other night, obviously. So, for various reasons, I don't like him. But I do like fairness - and to say that one believes this kind of violent, out of control behaviour is 'regular' for someone without ever having witnessed it oneself is blatantly unfair.
Say what you will about what you saw of his behaviour the other day - I have no problem at all with any opinion of that particular behaviour. But speculation beyond that is simply not fair.
I asked a question. I did not say that I had any inside information. Watching what happened, and the fact that none of the players even made an attempt to step to him and say "dude, no", made me wonder if this is "normal" for him. If it was an abnormal, over reaction, I think that the other men on the court would've stepped in somehow, especially when he sat down and got up to go after the chair again.
If you remember no one in tennis, player or professional journo, went against what the ex girlfriend said in a way that would exonerate him. Many said let the investigation proceed. This public display couldn't be swept under the rug.
I'm sorry if it seemed as if I was making an assumption about his temperament. However I have seen people react like this and it's not only scary but it turned out that something else was going on.
^ I get it, but I still feel that the way you worded it was unfair.
You wrote essentially that you think this is regular behaviour for him, and that this is probably the reason that no-one intervened - because they were afraid of this 'regularly out of control man'.
But you don't know him nearly well enough to think that he is regularly out of control, or to have an opinion about his regular behaviour, other than what you've seen.
Had you written it as, for example "Maybe that's regular behaviour for him, and that's why the others didn't intervene", I'd not have made any comment. Using the word 'Maybe' or 'Perhaps' would be better than "I think" in this circumstance - because with 'Maybe', one is just throwing a possibility out there, while 'I think' is a definite assumption which strongly suggests 'Probably' rather than 'Possibly' or 'Maybe'.
I hope you can see the difference in the way that the different wordings come across. One comes across as an accusation, while the other comes across as merely 'spitballing'; as throwing a possibility out there. I see a significant distinction between the two approaches.
I also didn't like the post which quoted someone as writing
"When he targeted the umpire's legs and not just the chair is when I realized that he 100% hit his girlfriend" for the very same reason - because it's grossly unjust. Firstly, he never "targeted the umpire's legs" - if he had done so, he would have hit his legs. Secondly, whoever wrote that obviously does not "know that he 100% hit his girlfriend" based on him hitting the umpire's chair - and so to state that is wrong, because it's inaccurate. And it's thus unfair.
It is sensationalism and may be 'popular' to say/write things like that - and I'm sure it gets lots of 'likes', etc. on 'social media' - but it's wrong to do.
Obviously, people are going to link his tirade on the umpire to the accusations that he was violent with his girlfriend - which is why I posted that what he did with the umpire was quite a stupid thing to do for someone accused of assault. That's linking the two events without any accusation. But to say that one KNOWS that he hit his girlfriend is, again, pure speculation, and is inaccurate because the person obviously does not KNOW.
I don't want to come across as one who is defending violence toward women, obviously - of course I'm not, and I'm sure you understand this. I'm simply saying that one should not assume or pretend to know another person's violent character, or regular violent behaviour, if one does not know that person, or if one has at least never witnessed any recurring or regular violent behaviour from the person. Because doing so comes across as an accusation - and accusation without evidence is unfair.
Opinions and perspectives are fine - but they should be based on knowledge and facts, not on assumptions and speculations.
Translation
