| Forum Index > Closed |
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:30 Medrea wrote: 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. | ||
|
goiflin
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. | ||
|
BRaegO
United States243 Posts
| ||
|
DarkGeneral
Canada328 Posts
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. | ||
|
GrapeApe
1053 Posts
| ||
|
decado90
United States480 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:57 goiflin wrote: 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. | ||
|
BRaegO
United States243 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:59 decado90 wrote: 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. | ||
|
speknek
758 Posts
| ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:59 decado90 wrote: 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)? | ||
|
BRaegO
United States243 Posts
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. | ||
|
Aleteh
Denmark166 Posts
| ||
|
29 fps
United States5724 Posts
| ||
|
entropius
United States1046 Posts
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. | ||
|
MiQ
Canada312 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
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). | ||
|
Littlemuff
United Kingdom301 Posts
| ||
|
rEalGuapo
Germany832 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:45 Talin wrote: 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.. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
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". | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
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. | ||
|
Poltergeist-
Sweden336 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
OSC
WardiTV Summer Champion…
WardiTV Summer Champion…
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
