Mimesis Law
30 June 2022

Women: If You Hit a Man, Expect To Get Hit in Return

December 20, 2016 (Fault Lines) – In July, 2014, Oklahoma freshman running back Joe Mixon was involved in a confrontation at Pickleman’s Gourmet Café in Norman. Pickleman’s is a deli, with sub sandwiches, soups, etcetera, and is located at the “Campus Corner” area, just north of campus, along with numerous other businesses that cater to students and visitors to the University of Oklahoma.

At the end of the confrontation, Amelia Molitor had a broken jaw, Joe Mixon was suspended from the football team for a year and faced criminal charges. Recently, the store’s surveillance video of the incident was released to the public.

At the beginning of the video, you see Molitor enter the deli and go to a table, just after leaving a verbal confrontation with Mixon outside. Molitor (at 0:24) motions Mixon to her table as he enters the deli and he walks over. There’s a brief conversation and Mixon turns to walk away (at 0:38). Molitor steps towards Mixon and shoves him with both hands and then strikes him in the face or neck with her right hand. In Oklahoma, that’s Assault and Battery.[1] Mixon immediately defends himself, striking Molitor once, knocking her down and into the table, and breaking several bones in her face.

Mixon was subsequently charged criminally with an Assault and Battery on Molitor, but did not elect to fight the charges after the prosecutor offered a year deferred adjudication, 100 hours of community service, and cognitive behavior counseling. That meant that after Mixon completed the year probation, he would be found not guilty of the charge. It’s a good deal, and Mixon took it by making an Alford plea.[2]

This was a good deal for Mixon. It spared him the risk of going to a jury and being found guilty, and it allowed him to maintain that he did nothing wrong for the almost certain to ensue civil lawsuit. You see, under Oklahoma law, Mixon has the opportunity to assert that he was defending himself. In Oklahoma, there is no duty for a person to retreat before defending themselves and hasn’t been since 1912, at least.[3]

Molitor has subsequently filed a lawsuit against Mixon, in federal district court, and this has been interesting too. Mixon, a redshirt sophomore, has two more years of college eligibility, but may also declare for the NFL draft. Although Mixon has had an outstanding season, ranking second in the nation in all purpose yards and the only player this year to have touchdowns by throwing a pass, rushing, pass receptions, and a kick return. He is likely to play in the NFL, and if Molitor can get a judgment, she’ll be able to collect.

The civil case is interesting, but will hinge on the criminal case. First, instead of being heard in state court, it’s being heard in U.S. District Court because of diversity jurisdiction. Molitor is from Texas, and although Mixon is from California, he is currently residing, and the incident happened, in Oklahoma. Molitor originally filed the case in San Francisco, but lost when Mixon asked that the case be moved to Oklahoma City. She also tried to keep the video from being released to the public while Mixon sought to have it released.

Additionally, two of Molitor’s causes of action were dismissed by the court, the count for negligence, and the count for wanton and willful misconduct, leaving only one count for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mixon’s attorney’s pointed out that the basis of Molitor’s first two causes of action was an alleged battery, and that Molitor had not filed the case until Oklahoma’s one year statute of limitations had expired. They further pointed out that an intentional act (battery) could not be negligence under Oklahoma law, and the court agreed.

That one count is going to be hard to prove, and it should be. Molitor had no business assaulting Mixon, and while Mixon probably should have just walked away, he was legally entitled to defend himself. Whoopi Goldberg said it very well on The View television show:

You have to teach women—do not live with this idea that men still have this chivalry thing still with them. Don’t assume that that’s still in place. So don’t be surprised that if you hit a man, that he hits you back.

Of course, the other women on the show were appalled. They claimed that a man should never hit a woman. They are right, and they are wrong. No one should ever hit anyone else, but I’ve got news for the women on The View, and anyone else. I can tell you what’s going to happen most of the time on the street, at least in my experience.

If a woman strikes a man and he defends himself, it’s on the woman. If you don’t want to get hit, don’t hit the guy.

[1] Punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 Sec. 644 (2014).

[2] From North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), it is a plea where the defendant acknowledges that the State can prove its case, but maintains his innocence.

[3] “The law in Oklahoma is clear: There is no duty to retreat if one is threatened with bodily harm. Fowler v. State, 8 Okl.Cr. 130, 126 P. 831 (1912).” Neal v. State, 597 P.2d 334 (Okla. Crim. App., 1979).

37 Comments on this post.

Leave a Reply



Comments for Fault Lines posts are closed here. You can leave comments for this post at the new site, faultlines.us

  • DawnDay
    20 December 2016 at 12:07 pm - Reply

    Self defense? Yea, of his pride. He’s lucky he got the deal. I can’t figure out why he wanted this video released. Until I watched the video, I was more on “his side”.

    • Greg Prickett
      20 December 2016 at 12:15 pm - Reply

      It’s pretty clearly self-defense. He was starting to walk away when Molitor shoved him and then struck him. Mixon has every right to defend himself from her attack.

      • AT
        20 December 2016 at 8:56 pm - Reply

        I don’t think it is pretty clearly self-defense. It can be argued his force was excessive given the attack and attacker he faced. I’m not claiming the girl was innocent. Obviously, she physically assaulted him which certainly warrants a response, but one that is commensurate with the actual danger posed by a small statured woman. Her attack was a push and a slap, which was met with being haymaker’ed by a physically larger and stronger defender who is, essentially, a professional athlete. The argument can easily be made that he used way more force than reasonably necessary to stop the attack, which would negate his self-defense claim. At least, if I were a prosecutor, that’s what I’d be arguing at trial. But I’m sure there are other intangibles going on that this case resolved the way it did. She’s not a saint by the history you describe, and he’s a big time college athlete at Oklahoma. The reality is that often deplorable conduct by an athlete is made to “go away” when the team record or a championship bid is on the line. While it would be nice if those factors didn’t play into a prosecutor’s decision making, the reality is that they do. I don’t know, and am not claiming, that it did here. But I imagine this kind of scenario in a typical DV case, and I don’t think the male “defender” is getting that kind of plea deal. I think this kind of resolution unfortunately establishes a precedent for men to believe that when attacked by a woman, they can use extreme force to end the attack.

        • Greg Prickett
          21 December 2016 at 3:51 am - Reply

          Whether the force was excessive or not is a question of fact for the jury under Neal. The Alford plea removed the need to argue that at trial.

          Next, the conduct wasn’t made to “go away” because they needed Mixon for the team. Oklahoma is known for always having plenty of quality running backs, to the point that many high quality running backs transfer to other schools in order to get playing time. Stoops suspended him immediately for a year, and required that he do certain things in order to come back to the team. It’s the same thing that he’s done in the past (Dusty Dvoracek comes to mind). He’s kicked the starting QB off the team and not allowed him back, but Mixon wasn’t allowed back because OU had to have an RB.

          Also, this wasn’t a DV case, not even close.

          • AT
            21 December 2016 at 6:52 am -

            I never said it was a DV case, just that if you put those facts into a run-of-the-mill DV case, there is not much that defendant is going to be able to do to get such a deal. I don’t follow college football, so I was not aware of Stoops’ handling of the issue. I can certainly see that as mitigating and now understand why the prosecutor resolved the case the way he did. I don’t necessarily agree it warranted a complete dismissal, but that’s simply my own internal justice “barometer.”

            My response was primarily directed at your statement that it was “pretty clearly” self-defense. As you cited in Neal, OK law permits the prosecution to rebut a claim of self-defense by arguing the force was excessive under the circumstances. From my view of the tape, there is a disparity of size and strength used to inflict a disproportionate response to a push/slap from a physically smaller and weaker attacker. While I agree with your assertion that “it’s on the attacker,” if she (or he) picks the wrong victim, the law still requires a defender’s response to be proportional. Given Mixon’s disproportionate size and strength (and I suspect skill), plus the injuries she sustained, there is enough there to rebut a self-defense claim based on excessive force.

      • DawnDay
        21 December 2016 at 11:27 am - Reply

        What is the basis for your assertion that Molitor is the one who fought release of the tape. while Mixon is the one who wanted it released? In the OK Supreme Court case, it was the Association of Broadcasters who were requesting a copy and the City of Norman who was opposing releasing it.
        Additionally, for clarity, Mixon pled to Acts Resulting in Gross Injury.

        • Anon
          21 December 2016 at 9:23 pm - Reply

          I don’t know if she actively opposed it; but easy to know why she wouldn’t want it released (since she could have released it herself, but chose not to):
          1. It gives her something to hold over Mixon’s head.
          2. Releasing it substantially decreases his future net worth.
          Of course, I’m sure Mixon didn’t want it released, either, given that it’s not something you can easily “unsee” a la Ray Rice.

        • Greg Prickett
          22 December 2016 at 11:31 am - Reply

          DawnDay, the basis for my assertion is the motion to intervene that she filed in the case on December 8th, which stated that the OAB request for release should be denied. The tape was eventually released by Mixon’s attorneys, at least according to the press coverage of the matter.

          You are correct, the prosecutor reduced the charge as part of the plea arrangement. Mixon did not plead guilty however, as noted, it was an Alford plea, where he maintained that he was innocent of the charge.

          • DawnDay
            22 December 2016 at 2:50 pm -

            Thanks Greg

    • Anon
      21 December 2016 at 7:12 pm - Reply

      The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in early December that the video was part of the public record, and the city had to make the video available to the media. The City could move for a rehearing; but, in all likelihood that just delays the inevitable until January or February.
      Thus, Mixon’s decision (to dump the video on Friday evening shortly before the Holidays) was “voluntary” only in a “come willingly or be dragged” sort of way. (Who’s paying for his attorneys and PR, incidentally, might be an interesting question.)

      The other interesting question is whether he stays at OU or declares for the draft. Words like “undraftable” might be slightly hyperbolic; or maybe not.

  • Scott
    20 December 2016 at 2:22 pm - Reply

    Does he spit in her face after she pushes him? It looks like that to me with his head movement.

    • Greg Prickett
      20 December 2016 at 6:31 pm - Reply

      No, there was no allegation of that that I am aware of.

      From the affidavits of the witnesses, Molitor first confronted Mixon outside, where she walked up to him and blew smoke in Mixon’s face. At the time of the incident, Molitor was out of jail on a $20,000 bond for felony possession of marijuana, so she’s not the completely innocent young lady that people are trying to portray her as being. At the time of her arrest for the felony, the court record showed that she was on probation for misdemeanor possession of marijuana from six months earlier.

      Violence against anyone is not acceptable, and while the current politically correct opinion is to decry the actions of Mixon as violence against women, it’s not that simple. In decrying (properly) violence against women, we do not thereby condone violence against men, and in any event, Mixon does have a right to defend himself.

      • James Jordan
        21 December 2016 at 12:57 am - Reply

        Hi Greg,

        First, I think this is a good piece and you make a good point. I also appreciate that this is a fraught subject and that many folks will miss the point, and I agree with the gist of it. But, bringing up a marijuana possession felony (which could be many things absent more context) and probation for a marijuana possession misdemeanor to suggest that she isn’t an “innocent” is nonsense. If you are acting as an advocate in court, then those petty things matter in our broken system, but using a bullshit record like that in a piece such as this isn’t very convincing unless I missed the irony. This whole thing seems to be an incident of stupid kids being impulsive to a dangerous extent, but I don’t see what either of them being jammed up on weed charges has to do with anything. This use of bullshit to attack the credibility of one side (and the side I disagree with, in this case) is just the sort of thing that many reform-minded people want to see an end of, and I’m sad to see you doing it.

        • Hercules Allen
          2 January 2017 at 10:05 pm - Reply

          Hey James
          I believe the reason that her record is brought up is the fact the media have already painted a picture of the “victim” as a “victim”. Do you ever notice that whenever there is an officer involved shooting that always find ways to discredit the person who was shot? They always bring up their past police records, school suspensions (see Trayvon Martin) drug use. So I believe thats why Greg brought up the young ladies past. Yes this is a sad case because in an ideal society you don’t want men to react violently to a woman, however, had she not placed her hands on him her jaw wouldn’t have been broken. Every action causes a reaction. Good day

      • samuel furcolow
        24 December 2016 at 2:42 am - Reply

        yes there was allegation of that

        there was also allegation that he was the third football player she had had a confrontation with – the other two being 6’4 and 6’7. money seeking behavior from a woman.

        • Pete
          27 December 2016 at 11:02 am - Reply

          Any evidence for these allegations?

          • Greg Prickett
            27 December 2016 at 1:01 pm -

            It was in several of the articles on the issue.

  • Anon
    20 December 2016 at 11:38 pm - Reply

    FFS, it’s not a matter of political correctness to say a 6’1″, 225 pound physical freak should not slug someone half his size — woman, man, or child — and then run away like a bitch (or a thug). And he wasn’t “defending himself” — he was angry, plain and simple. Also, your timeline — “Molitor steps towards Mixon and shoves him with both hands and then strikes him in the face or neck with her right hand” — isn’t correct:
    She (kinda) pushes him, he aggresses/lunges towards her, and then she (kinda) slaps him. As for having no business shoving him… that would be the same guy who (with his teammates) was harassing her gay friend, and ultimately stalked her in to the restaurant (for, you know, disrespecting him).

    You’re right, though, that’s what happens on the street; which is why you get a PSR with 15 “Assaults on a Female” whereupon the DJ has no problem tonning the SOB.
    You’re probably wrong, however, about the civil case being interesting: since the guy who just watched his draft stock take a swan dive from Day One to “off half the league’s board” probably doesn’t want discovery/trial promoting such fun questions like “Hey, about the time you got benched for throwing a parking citation in the face of (*ahem* female) parking attendant…?”

    What’s really weird is you skipped the one thing that would have made this post relevant — that Mixon partially sank himself after taking to the police without counsel.

  • Charles McCarthy
    21 December 2016 at 12:36 am - Reply

    I don’t think it is excessive force because he threw one punch to stop an attack, an attack that appeared to be escalating. I doubt if there has ever been a case of excessive force when one punch was thrown to fend off an attack.

  • Leonard
    22 December 2016 at 12:01 am - Reply

    Mr. Prickett is dead on with this case. There’s nothing else to say and I tell that to all my women friends, especially ones involved with younger men. They will hit back, don’t do it.

  • Hypocrisy Jenkins
    23 December 2016 at 1:45 am - Reply

    This is no different than a cop choosing to use a gun as opposed to a Taser or baton in suspect encounters.

    • Greg Prickett
      23 December 2016 at 10:15 am - Reply

      It’s completely different. To use a gun, deadly force has to be justified, which it was not here. Regular force is justified under Oklahoma law.

      This is an equal rights issue. If a woman is going to be equal to a man, that also means that if she batters someone, there may be consequences. This is an example of that.

  • Jr
    23 December 2016 at 1:46 pm - Reply

    The whole thing sucks for both parties and I feel sorry for both people involved but I will tell you one thing this is not about us she and he situation this is about a white girl hitting a young black man and she got knocked out for it there’s no rule in the book or in the law book that says a woman could hit a man whether you’re white or black or whatever you call it I probably would have reacted the same way as Mixon did.

  • Vince
    23 December 2016 at 6:40 pm - Reply

    Men and women aren’t equal when it comes to slandering and gossiping about others so men lack that kind of experience as they prefer to fight it out physically. That doesnt stop women from destroying a man’s reputation and hitting him with immoral and unlawful verbal bullying. Women dont hold back. Think about it.

  • Alex
    24 December 2016 at 9:08 am - Reply

    She should have been charged with battery.

    He should have only used as much force as necessary to stop the attack.

  • Beatrice
    24 December 2016 at 6:29 pm - Reply

    If I hit a man, he has all rights to hit me back. If you don’t want to get hit back, keep yoy hands to self.

  • Larz0
    26 December 2016 at 1:38 pm - Reply

    Actually, those prior matters are kept from the jury until sentencing.

    • Greg Prickett
      26 December 2016 at 10:50 pm - Reply

      What prior matters? If you’re talking about her background, no, that’s not correct, it can be used to impeach her credibility during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial.

  • Sarah
    28 December 2016 at 10:04 am - Reply

    Only a pussy would have hit her like that. Self defence? Was he scared of her? What a lying pussy.

    • Greg Prickett
      28 December 2016 at 11:22 am - Reply

      Sorry Sarah, but if she can’t control herself, why do you expect him to control himself?

      And in my experience, women can hurt men, sometimes seriously.

  • Juston
    29 December 2016 at 12:00 pm - Reply

    to all “entitled princesses” who think their gender gives them a free pass on willful, negligent and irresponsible behavior… keep you hands to yourself UNLESS YOU are being attacked. Your uterus does not give you the right to initiate physical abuse. Guys, keep your anger in check… Joe Mixon may well have killed this infantile tart with the same punch and faced dire legal consequences.. and little miss sunshine would be in the morgue… for what? some verbal insults?

  • Jeff
    3 January 2017 at 12:22 pm - Reply

    It seems that Molitor pushed, Mixon spit, Molitor slapped, and Mixon hit. Molitor started the confrontation, and then each action escalated it. mixon is a punk who should be in jail for his actions. The real issue outside of legal implications is that the left wants it two different ways: they want equality for women and want to claim that sex doesn’t make a difference, and then they turn around and want men who treat women badly to be condemned more vigorously that men who treat other men badly. There is a very significant logic issue with the left. They do not exhibit consistency in their positions. As a man who believes that women are different than men, and generally much less physically imposing or capable, I think women should be treated with respect and care, even if they don’t deserve it based on their actions. But the left wants their cake and eat it too. They want equality but with conditions that they get to define, such as lowering the physical requirements to make certain military units. They see different as insulting. Conservatives appreciate the differences between men and women and as such we can be consistent in our calls for abusive men to be punished severely. The left cannot do that and be consistent in their ideology.

  • Monica
    6 January 2017 at 1:44 pm - Reply

    Molitor was out of control and she got checked. She instigated the entire incident. Little miss princess put her hands on that young man and she got what she deserved. She assaulted him and should have been charged for it. Women do not have the right to physically assault men and get away with it. No one does. This goes both ways. I’ve seen the video and don’t see any use of excessive force by Mixon in defending himself. He used one punch that by the way would never have been necessary had the girl not placed her hands on him. Where was her restraint? And why did the 911 caller mention that the assault occurred from the male hitting the female, when clearly the assault began the other way around. Ladies, be clear on this: there’s no free pass to hit men. You can’t do it. You cannot hit men first and expect that they won’t hit you back. Stop asking for double standards. Were not talking about domestic abuse, violence towards women etc. This is about a young girl basically attacking someone else and now playing the victim. Money is her motivator, she and her attorneys are praying that the young man gets to play in the NFL. True justice will be full vindication for this young man upon that girl losing her lawsuit and case fully dismissed. How must the family of this young man be feeling at this point? As the mother of sons I can tell many stories of elementary school age girls hitting my sons and even placing kicks to their groin. Those little girls smugly committed those acts and did not expect to be hit back, and my sons did not hit them. They absorbed the abuse, and later I would comfort them and let them know that I was proud of them, explaining that it was unfair what had happened to them. They knew what their parents meant when we told them that males don’t hit females. We had to further explain how that rule can sometimes lead to unfair situations but to fully evaluate their response due to societal expectations. They are now well adjusted men who thank heavens haven’t been in the unfortunate situation of this young man.

  • Ikker19
    6 January 2017 at 1:58 pm - Reply

    “Jeff”…your assertions about the “left” are the typical simplistic “generalizations” made to “confuse” and “misrepresent”, as well as being, “just plain wrong” about what wanting “equality” really means…

    Those who are reasonable and rational who want equality (I hope seeking equality is not just limited to the “left”) recognize that “equal” does not mean “equal” in every aspect of life…but there has to be a starting point and a way to determine and enforce equality…

    In this country this is done through laws and the courts…the “law” is rarely so clear that it’s standards or requirements can be applied evenly across gender lines without the necessity of applying exceptions that recognizes “true” differences …

    Let me enlighten you and explain correctly how the “left” views attaining “equality”….the starting point is that everyone should be treated “equality”….consequently, in order to deviate from treating the sexes with “equality” a compelling fact based objective argument must be presented to justify any “unequal” treatment….accordingly, long standing subjective opinion based on stereotypes can no longer be accepted on face value no matter how long they may have been believed to be true…

    For example…In 1967, Kathrine Switzer became the first official female to enter and finish the Boston Marathon, the general consensus at the time was that women weren’t physically able to stand the rigors of running long distances. Her feat called into question years of conventional wisdom (running is bad for reproductive health, causes infertility), tradition and misguided assumptions (women will lose their femininity).
    Read more at http://running.competitor.com/2014/05/news/30-years-first-womens-olympic-trials_102670#jFcVxOv7COc3mGC8.99.

    That’s the “equality” the so called “left” is fighting for…if you want to treat someone “unequally” objectively justify your position…don’t rely on your own subjective biases or long held stereotypes as your evidence to exclude and limit…

    Now Jeff…instead of applying your Conservative “incorrect subjective stereotype based equality premise” that you claim the “left” subscribes to to your “so called logic”…please explain how the left’s goals that I explained are not logical and fair???!!!…

  • Jay
    11 January 2017 at 10:48 pm - Reply

    She has a record

    Why can’t, poor, blonde, meek girls, understand racial comments and assault will only get themselves into compromising situations. No cause no effect. Both parties are wrong, but you can’t use racial slurs and assault someone and not think its fine. I guess white privilege prevailed.. again.

    Also, he requested for the video to be released.

  • Charles Williams
    12 January 2017 at 3:31 pm - Reply

    I do not agree with a man hitting a woman, but what I find interesting is nobody is playing up her actions that provoked the incident, to begin with. Two children in essence, in a arguement that lead to this event. Nobody is saying she is wrong, they are saying he is wrong for retaliating. I reiterate that, if that was my sister Joe Mixon undoubtedly would have had his ass whooped SEVERELY!!!!!!!!, but at the same time. I would have barked on my sister, in private about putting her hands on anybody, man or woman, without fear of repercussions from that person, whether man or woman.At the end of the day she was wrong and he was dead wrong. Because I am only assuming he has been hit harder than that on the field.

  • Joel
    18 March 2017 at 8:58 am - Reply

    The problem with this incident is that both parties were clearly at fault but nobody really wants to point the finger at the woman because she got hurt really bad. The sheer stupidity of physically assaulting somebody twice your size and strength frankly is shocking to me in this situation. I mean, I’m a 6′ 180 lb. 48 year old white guy…if I went up to an NFL lineman and shoved him and slapped him in the neck right after my friend called him the N-word what do you think is going to happen to me? If he knocks me out then I damn well deserved it and he would be well within his rights because I initiated an assault. Yes, Mixon shouldn’t have hit her that hard but he certainly was well within his rights to do something…a slap or a shove to get her off him. Point the finger at Mixon…that’s fine but she doesn’t get a pass on this one.