|
Two idiots deserve it.. wish they get hurt more
|
On December 13 2012 23:34 TheRavensName wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Can you bench more than 80 lbs? If you can you're stronger than most women in the world.
|
On December 13 2012 23:39 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
i dont know why no one even considers just retreating back. if there is no option to ok its a different story but over here in the mcds have no dead ends and room(s) for the workers in the back.
i just dont think that a situation has to escalate that quickly. but if he indeed was cornered and with the moronic other people there its understandable.
|
He had every right to make sure they stayed down, they could get up grab a knife or something and keep fighting. He hit them when they tried to get up, not just to punish them more.
|
|
|
To be honest, after watching the video I don't know who's in the right here. I think both parties are kinda guilty but to varying degrees. So, punish both or neither?!
|
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.
They were clearly trying to get back up. He has no clue what their intent is when they get back up. Sure they could run but you have no clue what they even have on them. You are always your first priority. You make sure you're safe before you worry about the lives of your attackers.
|
he did what anyone wouldve done when you are threatened, for all he knew they had knives on them
if you go on me im gna make sure im safe and keep you on the ground
|
On December 13 2012 23:49 Femari wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:45 Talin wrote: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. They were clearly trying to get back up. He has no clue what their intent is when they get back up. Sure they could run but you have no clue what they even have on them. You are always your first priority. You make sure you're safe before you worry about the lives of your attackers.
If that's your line of thinking, then the safest you can be is to just keep whacking until they pass out or are dead. Since whatever they "maybe had on them" could be dangerous even if they're on the floor.
|
On December 13 2012 23:45 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
i dont know why no one even considers just retreating back. if there is no option to ok its a different story but over here in the mcds have no dead ends and room(s) for the workers in the back.
i just dont think that a situation has to escalate that quickly. but if he indeed was cornered and with the moronic other people there its understandable.
Did you watch the video? He did retreat back. The other woman tried to cut off his escape. If he retreated any further back, he would had been running next to hot boiling oil. He was in essence cornered and alone, because everybody else ran away like morons.
|
On December 13 2012 23:49 surfinbird1 wrote:
To be honest, after watching the video I don't know who's in the right here. I think both parties are kinda guilty but to varying degrees. So, punish both or neither?!
I agree. What he did was completely excessive.
|
Canada1218 Posts
The metal bar seems a bit excessive, but I don't know the circumstances. It might have been the only thing he could find to defend himself with, and when you're in a fight against two people, even if they're unarmed, you absolutely should seek a weapon unless you've got some martial arts training.
And as far as the ladies are concerned, if it takes a fractured skull to learn to calm the down over someone passing a fiddy under a UV, then take your fractured skull and go home. Be happy you took a metal bar to the face without brain damage or even worse, dying. There is no excuse for your behavior if you choose to assault a man when they are simply doing their job (at a mcdonalds, no less).
|
On December 13 2012 23:39 MateShade wrote:
That was definitely excessive.... Are you people blind? All 3 deserve charges
I agree. I really don't understand how most of TL seem to think his response was even close to reasonable.
|
How is the guy to know if they don't have weapons or not? The violence was probably excess. But after they cross the counter line attacking, its officially into a robbery like situation.
|
On December 13 2012 23:51 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:49 Femari wrote:On December 13 2012 23:45 Talin wrote: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. They were clearly trying to get back up. He has no clue what their intent is when they get back up. Sure they could run but you have no clue what they even have on them. You are always your first priority. You make sure you're safe before you worry about the lives of your attackers. If that's your line of thinking, then the safest you can be is to just keep whacking until they pass out or are dead. Since whatever they "maybe had on them" could be dangerous even if they're on the floor.
keep in mind the guy had served 10 years in an american prison. that could have lowered his sensitivity about what is "excessive" and what is just normal "punishment" for bad behaviour.
|
On December 13 2012 23:53 eSen1a wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:39 MateShade wrote:
That was definitely excessive.... Are you people blind? All 3 deserve charges I agree. I really don't understand how most of TL seem to think his response was even close to reasonable.
I do understand those that think he did nothing wrong and was even reasonable. I don't agree, but I see how someone can have that opinion.
However, it's the numerous bunch that are like "they totally deserved it he should have just kept whacking" that are being unreasonable and ridiculous.
|
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
|
On December 13 2012 23:51 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 23:49 Femari wrote:On December 13 2012 23:45 Talin wrote: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. They were clearly trying to get back up. He has no clue what their intent is when they get back up. Sure they could run but you have no clue what they even have on them. You are always your first priority. You make sure you're safe before you worry about the lives of your attackers. If that's your line of thinking, then the safest you can be is to just keep whacking until they pass out or are dead. Since whatever they "maybe had on them" could be dangerous even if they're on the floor.
If you keep hitting while they're not doing anything then it is excessive. Problem is he didn't do that so that is absolutely irrelevant to this. He hit them when they did something that at the time, without full knowledge, could have presented a reasonable threat. He hit them when they attempted to stand up or move. He didn't continue to hit them otherwise.
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.
|
He definately had his melee attack upgraded!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
