|
On December 13 2012 21:46 Nabes wrote:
I dont think it was excessive, if you have people coming at you and trying to hurt you, you bet your ass you will retaliate with the pain train.
Not excessive at all. They got what was coming to them.
I feel horrible for this guy, he was just trying to get his life back on track. Maybe the video will earn him a bodyguard job, he acted pretty quickly in that situation and he's not a small dude. Those were not small women, and both were clearly accustomed to fighting (read: could beat up most TLers), and he handled the situation quickly.
It's easy to dissect the video after "oh, he hit them on the ground, excessive, excessive!" but in that sort of moment... he can't be blamed.
|
Its about what the situation could have escalated to. Not the facts in hindsight that is 20/20. I could totally see myself being in that guys shoes thinking they would throw oil at him, or could have been armed anyway.
I mean they leaped over the counter, that takes confidence of some degree.
|
On December 13 2012 23:31 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
is getting angry a excuse for excessive violence? was he really in such a danger that beating people down breaking bones is fine? in the end the only physical thing from them was a bitchslap. its hard to say.
It was only a bitchslap BECAUSE he reacted the way he did. I am 100% certain that a person who is willing to jump over a counter, spit on you and pursue you for absolutely no reason will hurt you bad if given the chance. The chance is pretty damn apparent in a 2 on 1 situation.
|
well. hope those bitches learned the lesson; fast foods bad for you.
Im so happy the charges were dropped. I was cheering for the guy.You can defenitely tell that a decade in jail changes a man lol.
Get yo life back brah.
I want mcgriddles so baaaad now :S
|
On December 13 2012 21:45 heyitskez wrote:
wow thats pretty fucken brutal, however, if roles were reversed and it was 2 men jumping the counter, there wouldnt be a question whether this was ok or not, so i dunno, i guess its ok?
I think this is the best answer to the question on how people should feel about this. If it was a woman, she'd be being called so brave or something for standing up to two men doing the same thing. I know for a fact I'm probably weaker then quite a few women, but would still get viewed negatively if one or two fought me.
|
On December 13 2012 23:29 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
Imho those bitches deserved every hit they received and they needed to be taught a lesson.
|
For some reason it feels really good watching awful people getting brutally assaulted. They deserve that and a bit more.
|
And that's how you defend an invade.
|
On December 13 2012 23:29 Psychobabas wrote:
Looks like he unevenly dished out the punishment.
Should have made sure he broke the other girls arm or skull as well.
I admit i laughed at this
|
"this guy deserves a raise"
Thumbs up to that youtube comment lol
i did some research on it, and he was questioning the legitimacy of a $50 the women gave him, and for that he got hit. then as he retreated they pursued him, and he defended himself with a metal rod of some sort, he hit them until they were into submission, and told them to stay down, and hit them back down each time they tried to rise.
apparently he's an ex convinct, who served 11 years for manslaughter, which sounds terrible, but upon further research i learned it was an accident, in where he misfired a pistol, and his friend unfortunately died.
he got charged and prosecuted for assault and possesion of a weapon but it looks like he was cleared of the charges.
personally im glad. i would have expected any human being, male or female, to do what he did in that situation vs any male or female attacking him, sex shouldnt matter in this situation, he was attacked at his work place, and he defended himself accordingly.
|
I don't really feel any sense of sympathy for the women to be honest. You jump the counter, assault, harass, and provoke a guy and he's nearly always going to retaliate. Glad he was acquitted, shouldn't be punished for self defense in which he didn't act first.
If anyone should be charged with something it should be the women but I think they've had enough punishment through the self defense to have learned not to start shit like this.
|
On December 13 2012 23:35 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Have you ever been in a fight, assaulted, mugged, etc? It's scary. Terrifying. Once someone breaks that physical barrier, retaliation is necessary, in any form. It's as split-second as stimming too many Marines, except while your shoes are on fire. You don't know what they're going to do after they hit you. Getting hit on the face provokes the same reaction as a wolf biting your neck- you need to DEFEND or FLEE RIGHT NOW.
|
he should have even hit them harder, its not acceptable you work for the abolute minimum (well still more then i get but thats ...) but he works his ass of is friendly and shit and then got hit and they go in privat spave of mcdonalds etc ?
he SHOULD have hit them even harder ... no other chance they learn it ...
|
On December 13 2012 23:35 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What I failed to say is that if at all possible you should retreat. If you can't and the attackers don't stop after you submit OR start unprovoked. Do what you want!
For me someone attacking unprovoked is a clear sign that they do it just to inflict pain. Nobody should suffer just because someone else enjoys it.
|
That was definitely excessive.... Are you people blind? All 3 deserve charges
|
i would shake that mans hand. them biachs givin it all mouth n then jumping the counter bet they were shocked when they found out hed been in the pen haha
|
On December 13 2012 23:39 MateShade wrote:
That was definitely excessive.... Are you people blind? All 3 deserve charges
No I'm not. But great arguments you provided, thank you for joining the discussion.
|
So some people find it shocking that the charges against the employee were dismissed. What about the two attackers?
THEY are the ones who should be brought to court.
|
On December 13 2012 23:24 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
If you're being attacked and the one thing on your mind is, 'I should restrain myself so I cause my attacker the least amount of harm possible, while doing just enough to stop them', you're going to end up hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
