|
On December 13 2012 23:30 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:25 FabledIntegral wrote: Oh man. At first after reading the article I was on his side. Then I watched the youtube video. I was completely ok with the first 2 swings. Then the next few had me thinking "I can understand this being assault." Then he went over the top, bashing them on the ground. Then he stopped for a few seconds when people screamed STOP, he looked scared, unsure of what to do, then RESUMED beating them!
First few hits were ok, then there was a grey area, then it was definite assault in my eyes. They were getting back up and his instructions were for them to stay on the ground. This was behind the counter.
Oh, I didn't hear, sound was muffled for me.
|
Canada1218 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:56 nkr wrote: yah lets worry about how injured the people who assault you get, completely ignoring the basic biological fight and flight which kicks in at that point
if you think he can be responsible for making sure they dont get back up when HE is the one being attacked, i don't know what to say
glad the court agrees with me
Exactly. I've been in situations like these before... unless you have training, you aren't thinking. It's completely instinct. You're only thinking about how you can get out of this situation in the quickest way possible. For him, it was a metal pole.
|
It reminds me of the "Castle Rule". Basically if you are in your home and someone breaks in you can defend yourself with deadly force if need be. Once they hit him and went over the counter, he was put into a defensive position. Could he have walked away, probably. The point is they crossed the line by hitting him then going to the other side of the counter. IMO any injuries you obtain after crossing that line are from their own stupidity. They have the verdict right on this one. Now all they have to do is find the women guilty of their charges...
|
100% Justified. Further more, He should sue McDonald's for firing him, for wrongful dismissal. NO ONE deserves to be abused liked that. Those two female dogs deserved it, next time they PMS they will think twice about assaulting someone.
|
I was cool with him defending himself initially, but after 1-2-3 swings, and then the blows on the ground...fuck that. No one should be getting off.
|
On December 13 2012 23:57 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:56 nkr wrote: yah lets worry about how injured the people who assault you get, completely ignoring the basic biological fight and flight which kicks in at that point
if you think he can be responsible for making sure they dont get back up when HE is the one being attacked, i don't know what to say
glad the court agrees with me Exactly. I've been in situations like these before... unless you have training, you aren't thinking. It's completely instinct. You're only thinking about how you can get out of this situation in the quickest way possible. For him, it was a metal pole.
And to Zimmerman it was a gunshot to the chest.
|
On December 13 2012 23:59 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:57 goiflin wrote:On December 13 2012 23:56 nkr wrote: yah lets worry about how injured the people who assault you get, completely ignoring the basic biological fight and flight which kicks in at that point
if you think he can be responsible for making sure they dont get back up when HE is the one being attacked, i don't know what to say
glad the court agrees with me Exactly. I've been in situations like these before... unless you have training, you aren't thinking. It's completely instinct. You're only thinking about how you can get out of this situation in the quickest way possible. For him, it was a metal pole. And to Zimmerman it was a gunshot to the chest.
Exactly. The Zimmerman case has been thrown out of proportion by the media though... Everything is a hate crime if it's two different races these days, and it's stupid as fuck.
|
|
Canada1218 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:59 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:57 goiflin wrote:On December 13 2012 23:56 nkr wrote: yah lets worry about how injured the people who assault you get, completely ignoring the basic biological fight and flight which kicks in at that point
if you think he can be responsible for making sure they dont get back up when HE is the one being attacked, i don't know what to say
glad the court agrees with me Exactly. I've been in situations like these before... unless you have training, you aren't thinking. It's completely instinct. You're only thinking about how you can get out of this situation in the quickest way possible. For him, it was a metal pole. And to Zimmerman it was a gunshot to the chest.
Dunno who that is, but was he being beat up by multiple people, who were threatening his life? And is a gunshot to the chest, something that's widely regarded as a lethal blow, comparable to hitting someone with a metal bar (something that won't always kill unless you get excessive)?
|
On December 13 2012 23:59 GrapeApe wrote: I was cool with him defending himself initially, but after 1-2-3 swings, and then the blows on the ground...fuck that. No one should be getting off.
If I was attacked by two people, I'd probably make sure they weren't going to hit me again. Like I said before, if someone did this to me, I'd do everything I could to incapacitate them.
|
Give the guy a medal and let him give those 2 cunts a second beating.
|
while all parties were at fault, i think those girls deserved it.
|
If you punch someone who's not got specific training in determining exactly what the minimum amount of force needed to defend himself is, you can't really blame him for possibly going a bit overboard. He swung, what, two more times after they were down -- outnumbered 2:1, and not knowing what they're going to do?
He didn't pull a gun or knife. He used an improvised weapon that he had at hand to protect himself.
You don't want someone to fight back? Don't punch him.
|
No sympathy for loud mouth ghetto bitches. They had it coming.
|
On December 13 2012 23:57 Femari wrote: Any talk about hitting people until they die is truly irrelevant, and even so it would be hard to get someone on killing someone in self defense when your body naturally reacts this way.
It's not relevant to the situation at hand, but it's relevant to your point that you should make sure you're "safe". The moment he stopped hitting them, he was less safe than when he was still hitting them.
I don't see why urges and instincts are something that should be some sort of an ultimate excuse. Humans have the capacity to control their urges and basic instincts and are expected to do so - people do that all the time in everyday life, and MOST manage do it in a fight (and this was barely even a "fight") or other potentially dangerous or tense situations.
You're not somehow clear of all responsibility just because you're scared or angry. The law should be more favorable to you in these situations, sure, but not to the point where you can get away with anything (upwards to a straight up murder).
|
Go on son! the moment they stepped behind that counter he had every right. They were asking for it.
|
On December 13 2012 23:45 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:39 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 13 2012 23:35 Talin wrote:On December 13 2012 23:29 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 13 2012 23:24 Talin wrote:On December 13 2012 23:23 Kurumi wrote: Here the defender would probably serve a nice ten years in prison and the attackers would at best clean the streets for a month. Sounds reasonable, albeit 10 years is a little excessive. On December 13 2012 23:24 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 13 2012 23:19 Talin wrote: Laws should encourage restraint, not aggression. You should always be required to use the minimal force to defend yourself, and if there is any evidence that you "overdid it", you should be punished accordingly. The right to self defense shouldn't be a license to maim or kill. To ensure that attackers have an easier time hurting you? Honestly if someone gets attacked COMPLETELY unprovoked by people that are in clear state of mind (read: not drunk or on drugs or something) he or she should be allowed to do whatever they feel is right to ensure their own safety. I don't agree with that. "Whatever they feel is right" is a very dangerous wording and a slippery slope. Laws should require people to show restraint and make the correct judgement even in the most difficult situations. If someone thinks they can't do it, they should take a self defense course of some sort and get adequate training so that they know exactly how to respond to these situations. So now it is mandatory for me to visit self defence classes or I will not get permission to leave my home? What kind of world do you want to live in?! You don't HAVE to do anything, it's for your own good. But there's no reason why laws should allow you to get away with killing somebody that punched or pushed you once. Whether as a defender or attacker, it's in your best interest to know what you're doing (and when to stop). Nobody ever said people should have the right to kill someone for getting pushed.... They were attacking insulting trespassing and tried to cut off his escape path (that's why the second woman didn't jump over the counter as well but went the longer way around) This is a potentially life threatening situation. I'm OK with him beating the crap out of them. Swings like that with a metal bar could easily have killed or permanently crippled a person. If you don't think that he should have had the right to kill them, then I fail to see how you can justify the bar mashing after the attackers were down already.
Well, he should have had and did have the right to kill them.
How should he have handled the situation in your eyes? One woman jumps over the counter after hitting him while the other one tries to get around him. Those are facts. So now he knows they don't want to talk shit and he knows there is no way to de-escalate the situation. For all he knows, those psychos just wanted to see some blood today (that is probably not to far off the truth). So yeah, if your ONLY GOAL is to physically hurt somebody and make sure he can not avoid it what's wrong with him killing you? If he hadn't used the improvised weapon he would have been up against 2 women both probably a little weaker but almost as heavy as him. That's a fight he cannot win, that is a situation he cannot escape. Your fucking solution is to put hands in pocket and rely on people that assault you unprovoked to know when to stop? What the hell man? Get real..
|
On December 14 2012 00:07 entropius wrote: If you punch someone who's not got specific training in determining exactly what the minimum amount of force needed to defend himself is, you can't really blame him for possibly going a bit overboard.
That's also the case under German law (no idea about US^^) If you have martial arts training (or something similar) you are viewed differently under the law, since it's expected from you to know how much "minimum" force is. If you're untrained you're allowed to use more excessive force and you're less likely to be punished.
Also he doesnt know if they have any weapons (knifes, guns) which they wanted to use when not obeying his "stay down" command so I think the additional hits are justified as well. There are enough stories with "and then X pulled out a gun and shot Y". To me it seems like he just made sure they were no threat to him.
On December 14 2012 00:09 Talin wrote: I don't see why urges and instincts are something that should be some sort of an ultimate excuse. Humans have the capacity to control their urges and basic instincts and are expected to do so - people do that all the time in everyday life, and MOST manage do it in a fight (and this was barely even a "fight") or other potentially dangerous or tense situations.
No, not really. Most other fights end with a 3rd party intervening. Not because the stronger side thinks "it's enough".
|
I can't speak for the US of course but on the basis of German law, there's no discussion to be had.
1. State of assault He was assaulted by another person. His life/health was in danger. Which gives him the right to
2. Use defensive measures against the attacker by trying to stop his attack effectively and for a foreseeable future. He is permitted to hit them until they stop being a threat. Which, in that case, is until they stay down or get firmly held by bystanders/the police. Hitting them with fists wouldn't have been equally effective. So he was allowed to use that kind of metal bar he was swinging.
There's no reason not to let him defend himself the way he did, seeing how the women tried to stand up with the intent of attacking him further.
That's what laws are for where I come from. Noone's fucking allowed to attack you for no valid reason. And if laws don't stop him/her from doing that, I will and I'm allowed to do so.
|
Seems to me they messed with the wrong dude.
|
|
|
|