The McDonald’s cashier who was taped hitting two women with a metal pole has been cleared of all charges. Rayon McIntosh, 31, had been accused of brutally attacking the women at the 24-hour restaurant in Greenwich Village, New York, after they shouted obscenities at him, slapped him and then jumped over the counter. A grand jury heard testimony for 11 days and voted to clear McIntosh. Scroll down for video
Vicious: The cashier was filmed using a metal rod to attack two women
Savage: The attack is thought to have begun following a row over a bank note 'Hallelujah!' was heard in the courtroom after assistant District Attorney Jaime Hickey-Mendoza said: 'We ask that Mr McIntosh be released.' McIntosh, who served about a decade on a manslaughter charge, was getting his life back on track when the two women threatened him in McDonald's. His mother, Maureen Lucas, told the New York Daily News: 'If he didn’t have that record, they would never have arrested him.' Stepsister Jacara McIntosh added that he had an 11-year-old daughter and took a fast-food job in an effort to get his life back on track.
Customers: The two women are shown being served by Rayon McIntosh behind the man in white shorts She said: 'No 31-year-old wants to work at McDonald’s making $7.25 an hour but he did it.' The case stemmed from an incident at the restaurant on October 13 when Denise Darbeau and Rachel Edwards, both 24, wanted to pay their check with a $50 bill. When he checked to see if the bill was genuine they allegedly became angry.
Argument: One woman is seen jumping over the counter while the other walks to the side Eventually they jumped over ther counter. Video surveillance footage showed McIntosh grabbing a metal bar and hitting the women. The attackn was also captured on cell phone video. He was facing assault and weapons charges. The women are facing charges of criminal trespassing, menacing and disorderly conduct. A grand jury has yet to vote on their case.
Horrifying: The attack took place at a McDonald's restaurant in Greenwich Village in New York One of his victims required surgery after suffering a fractured skull and a broken arm and the other suffered cuts. A McDonald's spokesman said at the time of the attack: 'The violence in this video is alarming and reprehensible. 'The franchisee of this restaurant has told us that the individual involved no longer works for her organization. 'We strive to ensure that our McDonald's restaurants are safe and welcoming for our customers. 'Our franchisee is fully cooperating with authorities in the investigation.'
McDonalds employee working nightshift was given $50 bill. Checked if it was legit according to policy. Two ghetto girls didn't like that and yelled at him, called him a pussy and spit on him and punched him in the face. They then leaped the counter both of them and continued coming after him. He retreated to the back of store and they followed him. He grabbed a pipe and gave them one heck of a whooping in self defense to stop the attack.
Anyway, what would you do if you were in that situation? I'm not against self-defense but on the video it appeared that there was some additional unnecessary retaliation. Would you hit them girls? I probably would but just to push them back. The employee apparently also got fired, should he be fired?
The girls kinda asked for it, not saying they should've been beaten that badly but they forced the guy to snap so I don't feel that much sympathy for them.
It was definitely a bit excessive, but those girls were being absolute cunts. Honestly, reading into both sides of the argument, its just shows what happens when you get a few extreme people clashing.
girl asked for it imo, next time act civilized and you'll be treated with civility
people need to learn that they can't take out all their little personal insecurities and troubles on people working in the service industry/shitty jobs just because they think nothing will happen
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?
So they got angry about him checking if the money was real? Most shops/restaurants here do that with every bill they receive. I'm with the employee here, the women do not have a valid reason and jumping over the counter? I see perfectly clear why he would want to defend himself. Although he should have stopped hitting when they started yelling stop really..
About firing? I doubt they have any choice in that, violence against customers is probably unacceptable in any condition. I worked in a shop for a bit as a side job alongside university and if there would ever arrive such a situation, for example theft, you are not allowed to do anything since you are endangering your own safety and you will get fired.
is there such a thing as excessive violence in self defense? one of the girls got a fractured skull and a broken arm. he could of stopped once they were down, i'm sure the broken arm came after the fractured skull to protect herself
the guys been in jail for manslaughter charges; if he feels like he needs to stand his ground like that, he needs to man up a different way
Sort of actually glad to hear "justice" was served to the women even if it was street justice.
Sick of bitches going around thinking they run the world and do w/e they want. Im glad he put them in their place and hopefully taught them not to act out like that again.
edit: Definitely excessive violence towards the end you can sort of hear him hit them 2-3 more times. It's clear they both need some help but the women should be charged as well.
yep, they guy was really handling himself for quite a while and when they finally make him break (what they really intended to do), well, what else do you expect, when you are in anger, you can't easily control your actions. So i think they even got lucky with that kind of beating.
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.
Title misleading - I don't consider them girls, for true girls don't jump a counter trying to hurt somebody. The cunts deserved what they got. Slightly excessive since when they were prone on the ground, he probably could've stopped but that's what happens when you behave like idiots.
Kinda sad that he lost his job. People attacking him over a $50 bill is probably a first time occurrence, but I'm sure this guy has deal with many ratchet people like that on a daily basis. I don't blame him for snapping like that.
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?
Yep, this is a victory for the justice system as well.
I would hit anyone that hit me no matter male or female, I don't care if you have a vagina, don't hit someone expecting not to get hit back. But I think he definitely went overboard with whatever he picked up to beat them with.
This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... So a former convict was assaulted by 2 women and he retaliated with a metal pipe in self defense. Of course, the metal pipe was an over exaggeration, but the bitches had it coming. From the story it seems all 3 are not right in the head. Who in their right mind gets angry and then attacks a clerk for checking if a banknote is valid or forged? Who picks up an metal bar and hits a woman with it? He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away. After that lock them in and call the cops. The court clearing him of charges is... weird and right at the same time. Sure it was self defense but a pipe is a bit much. McD had every right to fire him. The story makes him look (probably not true in real life) like a psychopath. No company would want to be associated with an employee who did that...
You can punish all the people involved as much as you wan't, but that doesn't change the failure of the education system that allows the existence of such individuals.
No problem with defending yourself if people are coming at you. The problem starts when you are a male against 2 females, using a fucking weapon, and not even stopping when they are down.
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.
One of his victims required surgery after suffering a fractured skull and a broken arm and the other suffered cuts.
Just making sure no details were missed. After getting the gist of what happened, I agreed that the girls deserved it. But after watching the video, and reading some of the details, even I thought it was way too brutal. Guy kept on going even when they were both down, way out of line.
On December 13 2012 21:55 TigerKarl wrote: You can punish all the people involved as much as you wan't, but that doesn't change the failure of the education system that allows the existence of such individuals.
Or that poor McDonald's workers have to serve people like that (and worse) everyday.
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away....
Maybe its just my inner white-boy calling, but I can't imagine overpowering two women who (judging by the video) are as big as I am, get a grip.
If you listen really closesly, 1. its not the attackers(the women) yelling stop, its customers.2.you can hear him say "stay down" then he hits them maybe after they try to get back up? 3. If i were an american and someone tried to jump the counter, who the fuck knows what they might have on them, a knife, a gun? I probably would have done the same thing. It's well and good to sit here and say "well he should have stopped when...blah blah blah" but when you're in the heat of the moment and adrenaline is running through you and you don't know what might happen, i think you can be given a bit of lee-way.
He definitely had a right to defend himself even if some would disagree with the magnitude of the retaliation.
On December 13 2012 21:50 Obstikal wrote: Sort of actually glad to hear "justice" was served to the women even if it was street justice.
Sick of bitches going around thinking they run the world and do w/e they want. Im glad he put them in their place and hopefully taught them not to act out like that again.
Just to let you know, that series of sentences has an ambiguity which could be interpreted as misogynistic. It's very difficult to tell if you meant "all women" or "those women" need justice.
On December 13 2012 21:56 Tobberoth wrote: No problem with defending yourself if people are coming at you. The problem starts when you are a male against 2 females, using a fucking weapon, and not even stopping when they are down.
Guy should go to jail.
Implying you know more about the U.S. justice system than the ruling judge.
On December 13 2012 21:56 Tobberoth wrote: No problem with defending yourself if people are coming at you. The problem starts when you are a male against 2 females, using a fucking weapon, and not even stopping when they are down.
Guy should go to jail.
So if it was a female against 2 males it would be OK?
How is that? Because males in general are more aggressive and might attack unprovoked? Like those two cunts?
Honestly, if more than one person attacks me I hope I have the clarity to use a weapon and make sure the threat is completely gone before I stop.
It can happen way too fast that one of them gets behind you while you are dealing with the other.
Yes it looks really brutal on the video but I don't know what the girls do while on the ground, maybe they are getting up again, not yet satisfied with the outcome.
Well pretty fucked up story either way. Of course if you have all the infos you can easely go about saying he should have just pushed her away. The problem is in that situation when someone is crazy enough to explode over such a trivial matter you simply don't know what happens next. A slap to the face is one thing, but jumping the counter afterwards is definitely something that puts the danger level for the attacked to a new height.
Unfortunately for him after he has them down you can really see him leaning into the next whoop ass with aggressive power. And that for me is over the top. Means he completely forgot where he was and who he was. And that's a real shame because he could have been "Rayon Big McIntosh" :/
well he should have hit once to stop them, then call the police. That would have been self-defense but hitting someone thats lying on the ground is too much and he got rightfully fired for that
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: Who picks up an metal bar and hits a woman with it?
Put your self in his shoes, Two crazy angry women berate you for sometime then come attack you what would you do ? Calmly defuse the situation right ? He's not a trained in keeping calm in stressful situation like these, no one at mcdonalds is im sure.
If you were to break it down. I'm sure over the course of however long they were cursing at him he was getting angry and frustrated because he was just doing his job and some crazy women randomly had it out for him. He seemingly keeps his cool until they jump out at him.
At this point he's probably lost a bit of himself mentally just because of the anger thats built up to this point and now he has to defend himself against these people who have gone from "they are angry at me to they are trying to attack me". It's hard to make the right decisions when under that amount of pressure. I'm sure all he thought was I need to get these crazy bitches from hurting me.
In the end both people were wrong, him for hitting them a few more times then necessary and them for everything they caused
On December 13 2012 22:01 urashimakt wrote: He definitely had a right to defend himself even if some would disagree with the magnitude of the retaliation.
On December 13 2012 21:50 Obstikal wrote: Sort of actually glad to hear "justice" was served to the women even if it was street justice.
Sick of bitches going around thinking they run the world and do w/e they want. Im glad he put them in their place and hopefully taught them not to act out like that again.
Just to let you know, that series of sentences has an ambiguity which could be interpreted as misogynistic. It's very difficult to tell if you meant "all women" or "those women" need justice.
He said "THE women." Definite article. There's no ambiguity. And just in case you imagined one, he clarified later with "bitches." Do you honestly think this guy is calling every single woman a bitch?
On December 13 2012 22:04 Jayson X wrote: Well pretty fucked up story either way. Of course if you have all the infos you can easely go about saying he should have just pushed her away. The problem is in that situation when someone is crazy enough to explode over such a trivial matter you simply don't know what happens next. A slap to the face is one thing, but jumping the counter afterwards is definitely something that puts the danger level for the attacked to a new height.
Unfortunately for him after he has them down you can really see him leaning into the next whoop ass with aggressive power. And that for me is over the top. Means he completely forgot where he was and who he was. And that's a real shame because he could have been "Rayon Big McIntosh" :/
Yes you can see him clearly. But you cannot see the two women. What if one was reaching into a pocket or something? Maybe she's got pepper spray on her.
He can't take that risk against multiple attackers.
The things is, the man is fleeing at first, and then grab a pole and defend himself almost in the kitchen so I'd say, even if he went a little to far into beating them (the threat of the pole should have been enough to make those bitches back off) I can understand that, in the context, with the shame of getting insulted by two bitches while doing a work nobody can be proud of, he lost himself and hit a little too much.
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away....
Maybe its just my inner white-boy calling, but I can't imagine overpowering two women who (judging by the video) are as big as I am, get a grip.
Then maybe your inner white-boy should man up, put on at least a lil bit of muscle, try to keep a level head. They weren't men, they weren't strength athletes, just 2 ghetto bitches trying to act high n mighty. Instead of picking up a weapon slam them into the nearest wall with your innate man strength.
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away....
Maybe its just my inner white-boy calling, but I can't imagine overpowering two women who (judging by the video) are as big as I am, get a grip.
Then maybe your inner white-boy should man up, put on at least a lil bit of muscle, try to keep a level head. They weren't men, they weren't strength athletes, just 2 ghetto bitches trying to act high n mighty. Instead of picking up a weapon slam them into the nearest wall with your innate man strength.
On December 13 2012 22:01 urashimakt wrote: He definitely had a right to defend himself even if some would disagree with the magnitude of the retaliation.
On December 13 2012 21:50 Obstikal wrote: Sort of actually glad to hear "justice" was served to the women even if it was street justice.
Sick of bitches going around thinking they run the world and do w/e they want. Im glad he put them in their place and hopefully taught them not to act out like that again.
Just to let you know, that series of sentences has an ambiguity which could be interpreted as misogynistic. It's very difficult to tell if you meant "all women" or "those women" need justice.
He said "THE women." Definite article. There's no ambiguity. And just in case you imagined one, he clarified later with "bitches." Do you honestly think this guy is calling every single woman a bitch?
No, which is why I didn't say he was. I said it could be read that way and it can. I automatically assumed he didn't mean it that way.
On December 13 2012 22:07 WhiteDog wrote: The things is, the man is fleeing at first, and then grab a pole and defend himself almost in the kitchen so I'd say, even if he went a little to far into beating them (the threat of the pole should have been enough to make those bitches back off) I can understand that, in the context, with the shame of getting insulted by two bitches while doing a work nobody can be proud of, he lost himself and hit a little too much.
On the other hand, him 'fleeing' could also mean "Bitch u stay right there, ima be right back with my pole to smack you up"
On December 13 2012 22:07 WhiteDog wrote: The things is, the man is fleeing at first, and then grab a pole and defend himself almost in the kitchen so I'd say, even if he went a little to far into beating them (the threat of the pole should have been enough to make those bitches back off) I can understand that, in the context, with the shame of getting insulted by two bitches while doing a work nobody can be proud of, he lost himself and hit a little too much.
On the other hand, him 'fleeing' could also mean "Bitch u stay right there, ima be right back with my pole to smack you up"
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away....
Maybe its just my inner white-boy calling, but I can't imagine overpowering two women who (judging by the video) are as big as I am, get a grip.
Then maybe your inner white-boy should man up, put on at least a lil bit of muscle, try to keep a level head. They weren't men, they weren't strength athletes, just 2 ghetto bitches trying to act high n mighty. Instead of picking up a weapon slam them into the nearest wall with your innate man strength.
while the other one may draw a knife while you do so and stab you? I am glad you are not jumping to conclusions you see fit but fully thought this through. /sarcasm
They guy overreacted a little, but nobody was forcing those morons to jump the counter and attack the guy. For all he knew they could be carrying a knife or a gun.
On December 13 2012 22:07 WhiteDog wrote: The things is, the man is fleeing at first, and then grab a pole and defend himself almost in the kitchen so I'd say, even if he went a little to far into beating them (the threat of the pole should have been enough to make those bitches back off) I can understand that, in the context, with the shame of getting insulted by two bitches while doing a work nobody can be proud of, he lost himself and hit a little too much.
On the other hand, him 'fleeing' could also mean "Bitch u stay right there, ima be right back with my pole to smack you up"
Employee went way overboard beating them with the pipe after they were already down, although we can't see what exactly is happening behind the desk from this view. Shouldn't have had to resort to beating two girls with a metal pipe as the first solution anyway.
I can't say I feel sorry for em and they very much so had it coming.
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away....
Maybe its just my inner white-boy calling, but I can't imagine overpowering two women who (judging by the video) are as big as I am, get a grip.
Then maybe your inner white-boy should man up, put on at least a lil bit of muscle, try to keep a level head. They weren't men, they weren't strength athletes, just 2 ghetto bitches trying to act high n mighty. Instead of picking up a weapon slam them into the nearest wall with your innate man strength.
while the other one may draw a knife while you do so and stab you? I am glad you are not jumping to conclusions you see fit but fully thought this through. /sarcasm
Did you see a firearm? Did you see a knife? No? Well then don't use objects yourself. He panicked and used excessive force, it's understandable and even excusable, but that doesn't make it any more right.
Very delicate subject, but a subject that's very important to me. I see absolutely no problem at all with his actions, as people mentioned, if it was the case that two men jumped over the counter, people wouldn't argue at all, they had it coming!
But when it's two ''defenseless'' women?! If we are striving for equality (which we should) it should cover every aspect of the spectrum, not just getting the benefits of one part and then saying ''BUT I'M A WEAK DEFENSELESS WOMEN WHO CAN'T STAND UP FOR MYSELF'' when you're hit...
Not that you should actually go around hitting peoeple (regardless on gender), but I've had some really fucked up experiences with women getting away with verbal/physcial assault (rather harsh)...
On December 13 2012 22:14 Vaelone wrote: Employee went way overboard beating them with the pipe after they were already down, although we can't see what exactly is happening behind the desk from this view. Shouldn't have had to resort to beating two girls with a metal pipe as the first solution anyway.
I can't say I feel sorry for em and they very much so had it coming.
They stopped being girls the moment they decided they wanted to become assailants, though.
Oh wow that was brutal! Ok he got abused, and shit. But come on he smacked them to "defend" himself yes, but continuously? Erm that was way to much for me, he should defo be charged with assault as well. The 2 girls should be as well for their part in being idiots, but the guy hit them repeatedly for no reason, they were down and out.
All partys are very much to blame, and all should be punished.
Interesting story. His response was fine but towards the end of the video I think he hits them although there was no need. But I suppose that in the heat of the moment is kind of hard to stop. In any case, jumping the counter is like trespassing. They did that and they took the blame for the whole incident. I think this was also the reason behind him not getting charged.
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... So a former convict was assaulted by 2 women and he retaliated with a metal pipe in self defense. Of course, the metal pipe was an over exaggeration, but the bitches had it coming. From the story it seems all 3 are not right in the head. Who in their right mind gets angry and then attacks a clerk for checking if a banknote is valid or forged? Who picks up an metal bar and hits a woman with it? He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away. After that lock them in and call the cops. The court clearing him of charges is... weird and right at the same time. Sure it was self defense but a pipe is a bit much. McD had every right to fire him. The story makes him look (probably not true in real life) like a psychopath. No company would want to be associated with an employee who did that...
Man or woman I'm not taking a single bruise nick or cut if I have the option after I know harm is intended upon me. The first hits totally justified the remaining ones I dont know. No one really knows what the women looked like and if they still posed a threat later as they are behind the counter. If I had any second thoughts of them getting up sure but if they were unconcious or unresponsive then yea can call it quits. Also from the the video the poles looks and sounds quite thin but apparently it did a lot of damage. Either way the women should be charged with assault as well as she slapped him. Man or woman this one sided kind of justice is ridiculous. Especially when you look at the animals some of these women are.
On December 13 2012 21:55 TigerKarl wrote: You can punish all the people involved as much as you wan't, but that doesn't change the failure of the education system that allows the existence of such individuals.
It's a bit narrow minded to blame something like this on an education system.
Firstly, an education system is limited by resources, and those resources mean that there will always be people who slip through. For instance, I went to the best school in my area, fee paying, almost exclusively upper middle class with high rates of Oxbridge admission. That didn't stop 1-2 kids in most years going the 'drug dealer' route, one guy in my year is now a heroin junkie, lives off his dads money (very wealthy family), has been in street fights with other drug dealers and is currently in hiding from the Hells Angels after 2 girls OD'd in a club they run on his drugs, he's also had bailiffs on him multiple times and been kicked out of several flats after complaints from neighbours. In short, he is scum, but his education was from the best school in a considerable area.
It's a complex system, socio-economic factors play a big role, so do physiological and psychological factors. For instance, asking a black student to state his race on an exam will result in lower scores, the same for women and sex, and the opposite is true for asian kids (they improve).
So basically an education system, no matter how good, will have successes and failures. Even this means next to nothing when you consider that normal peoples tendency towards violence often stems from their economic position, you can be amazingly well educated but if you can't get a job and are working in a shitty chain restaurant taking crap from people on welfare you're not going to care for the society you're in and as a result will be more likely to act out.
I genuinely wouldn't consider a lot of middle class people to be better educated, a lot of them are thick as shit with bizarre, self contained views of the world, they just have a bigger stake in society and so conform to societies rules a lot more. If you have something to lose you aren't going to risk it.
Rant over.
------
I also don't care for the women in this, charges of aggravation or anti-social behaviour should really be thrown down but I don't know if the states does anything like that. He should've still been charged through, gbh is still gbh regardless, I don't understand why they would clear him.
Weirdly enough I don't see this happening in the UK though, the only times you might expect it to happen, in the small hours with drunk people, McD's and co all employ bouncers. We Brits do love a good rumble when we're pissed though so you can totally understand why.
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away....
Maybe its just my inner white-boy calling, but I can't imagine overpowering two women who (judging by the video) are as big as I am, get a grip.
Then maybe your inner white-boy should man up, put on at least a lil bit of muscle, try to keep a level head. They weren't men, they weren't strength athletes, just 2 ghetto bitches trying to act high n mighty. Instead of picking up a weapon slam them into the nearest wall with your innate man strength.
while the other one may draw a knife while you do so and stab you? I am glad you are not jumping to conclusions you see fit but fully thought this through. /sarcasm
Did you see a firearm? Did you see a knife? No? Well then don't use objects yourself. He panicked and used excessive force, it's understandable and even excusable, but that doesn't make it any more right.
I don't use objects. I simply tell you, that telling others how they should have reacted when you have no clue of the circumstances (as you don't see whats happening) OR the given situation ( you do not know about weapons either) is stupid.
"Use your innate man strength"? - You don't know about waepons "try to keep a level head"? - When you can possibly get stabbed in the next few seconds?
I never said anything about right or wrong, this is you clamining I do so. I don't judge the situation as I have no clue what happend behind the counter. All I say is that I can understand why the guy reacted the way he did...whether it was right or wrong is for the jury to decide, who knows all the facts.
Bitches had it coming, wtf do they expect? jumping over the counter to assault the guy, of course he will hit back. And if the girls were on some crazy drugs they probably tried to rise and hit him again, so he continued hitting them until they couldnt retaliate. Justice was served.
On December 13 2012 21:56 Tobberoth wrote: No problem with defending yourself if people are coming at you. The problem starts when you are a male against 2 females, using a fucking weapon, and not even stopping when they are down.
Guy should go to jail.
While I think I heard an extra whack or two that wasn't visibly caught on camera, the fact that two adults jumped one adult with the intent on clearly attacking, assaulting, and trying to cause harm is more than enough for me to justify the one adult defending himself and making sure those two people stay down until the proper authorities arrive. It's not like anyone else was helping him or restraining the two adults, and weapons (makeshift ones, mind you- he wasn't carrying around a gun exactly) will help you defend your life.
And I repeatedly say "adult" because I see no reason to give women special treatment in this case. They were certainly not acting like "ladies". Plus, I know plenty of women who can go a few rounds with guys. You don't give up your right to self-defense just because your attacker wears lipstick.
On December 13 2012 22:21 sc4k wrote: Wait, was he actually acquitted?
Yeah full acquittal. The case was easy, as the counter represents both a figurative and literal interpretation of "stepping over the line."
He had all the right in the world to protect himself, I could have seen him using lethal means and still walking away. If this McDonalds worker was a woman with a gun and two men jumped the counter, if she shot them both she would have been a hero on the news.
I think its interesting how nobody in that mcdonalds was helping the guy behind the counter. How can they allow them to jump the counter and why has he to fight 1vs2? I think even professional security guys always try to get the superior numbers to fight someone and pin them down. I find it a bit hypocritical that this girl starts screaming when a guy hits women that assault him but does nothing when 2 women attack one guy and corner him.
Clearly self defense, possibly excessive. I don't see why McDonald's fired him, when a customer jumps the counter they're no longer a customer. What outcome would McD's have wanted, just let them clean out the cash registers to avoid some bad press???
McD's seems negligent for lack of security training/equipment in a 24hr facility. Drunks get rowdy and there should be a security guard or a taser.
On December 13 2012 22:29 gyth wrote: Clearly self defense, possibly excessive. I don't see why McDonald's fired him, when a customer jumps the counter they're no longer a customer. What outcome would McD's have wanted, just let them clean out the cash registers to avoid some bad press???
McD's seems negligent for lack of security training/equipment in a 24hr facility. Drunks get rowdy and there should be a security guard or a taser.
Of course the females we're wrong that's something that everybody agree's on. But the guy wasn't alone in there and he shouldn't have reacted that fierce.
He snapped and went on a rampage almost hitting his fellow colleges, and that IMO cancels the self-defense part. If he were alone and no one around him to help then his actions would be a more normal action to do.
It's hard to tell from the video what was really going on, how hard the girls slapped him, more precisely how they attacked him behind the counter, what kind of metal pole he was using and how badly he struck them with it. With that said it certainly looks like he's using excessive violence while 'defending himself', but I guess the jury thought otherwise. I'm just hoping the jury didn't acquit solely based on the flawed "the girls started it" kind of argument.
So funny reading comments about high'n mighty typist on the internet, saying people should "man" up and just easily push them away with one arm, possible fucking another chick with a big ass american pornstar smile flexing his biceps.
On December 13 2012 21:54 Latham wrote: This seems like sensationalist bull, rather than news... He should have just easily overpowered them and pushed them away....
Maybe its just my inner white-boy calling, but I can't imagine overpowering two women who (judging by the video) are as big as I am, get a grip.
Then maybe your inner white-boy should man up, put on at least a lil bit of muscle, try to keep a level head. They weren't men, they weren't strength athletes, just 2 ghetto bitches trying to act high n mighty. Instead of picking up a weapon slam them into the nearest wall with your innate man strength.
while the other one may draw a knife while you do so and stab you? I am glad you are not jumping to conclusions you see fit but fully thought this through. /sarcasm
Did you see a firearm? Did you see a knife? No? Well then don't use objects yourself. He panicked and used excessive force, it's understandable and even excusable, but that doesn't make it any more right.
I don't use objects. I simply tell you, that telling others how they should have reacted when you have no clue of the circumstances (as you don't see whats happening) OR the given situation ( you do not know about weapons either) is stupid.
"Use your innate man strength"? - You don't know about waepons "try to keep a level head"? - When you can possibly get stabbed in the next few seconds?
I never said anything about right or wrong, this is you clamining I do so. I don't judge the situation as I have no clue what happend behind the counter. All I say is that I can understand why the guy reacted the way he did...whether it was right or wrong is for the jury to decide, who knows all the facts.
And what, I said I don't understand? I said it was excessive not that I don't understand why he did it. Did noone ever teach you to THINK before doing something? Yeah when adrenaline kicks in, and your life's in danger it's only "YOU OR THEM" going through your head. That also goes through an animal's head. The difference is, you can foresee consequences. When you pick up an object you should be aware you can END LIFE with it.
On December 13 2012 22:31 endy wrote: Stupid bitches vs uncontrollable impulsive employee. Not really sure what were are supposed to discuss here as both parties are unarguably wrong.
Well the girls started the issue first.
No idea why they verbally abused him just because he was checking the money. I guess they were retarded?
I didn't like how he continued hitting them while they were down. But on the other hand, we don't know what they did behind the counter either. For all we known they could have been biting his legs or whatever.
I hate how females have gotten this dogmatism that they shouldn't allowed to be hit. I actually slapped my girlfriend across the face the other day because she slapped me. I a girl attacks me, I'll attack back, even if males are genetically stronger.
Well, the law is sterile like that. I dont think there is a way to OVER protect yourself so he could have beaten them to death quite easily and not been touched by the law either.
Wow quality video, the women are the aggressors then I'm trying to not be sexist and imagine them as men and this doesnt seem that bad, either way if people hit red mist then they often don't know when to stop
Difference betwwen that guy and anyone here on TL: ENORMOUS. Why are we even discussing this? We don't know if he kept hitting them because they were still fighting or not. We don't know if those girls were on drugs or not. We would need to check the actual case records, but I don't think we have access to that though the internet, so again... why are we discussing this. So probably your previous thread was closed on those grounds.
I think its ok he hit them maybe once, or till they were down/moving away/being submissive, but hitting after they are down you better be sure that they are a serious danger to you. Also bitches will be bitches.
On December 13 2012 22:21 sc4k wrote: Wait, was he actually acquitted?
Yeah full acquittal. The case was easy, as the counter represents both a figurative and literal interpretation of "stepping over the line."
He had all the right in the world to protect himself, I could have seen him using lethal means and still walking away. If this McDonalds worker was a woman with a gun and two men jumped the counter, if she shot them both she would have been a hero on the news.
Okay interesting. I wasn't saying wait as in 'what the fuck' I mean I just couldn't actually see where they said there was an acquittal I thought it just said charges dropped. In English law there are two separate questions, the first is objective: 'did the person in question actually believe they were under attack or in imminent danger of an attack?'. The second is subjective: 'was the response rendered reasonable, taking into account the panic of the moment and the fact that it's hard to make these decisions under pressure?'.
The general rule is that you can do pretty much anything until they stop being a threat...but if you pause, and they are unconscious or have broken bones or are writhing around in agony or just are clearly not a threat, and THEN you smash them up some more...that's usually considered going too far, and you will face the full punishment of the law for whatever damage you incur. I think that makes sense. The video is kinda hard to make out but it does look like he pauses, backs off, then goes back in to smash them up some more. If that is so then I think he should have been convicted, if not, then it's fair he wasn't.
On December 13 2012 22:37 TiTanIum_ wrote: Difference betwwen that guy and anyone here on TL: ENORMOUS. Why are we even discussing this? We don't know if he kept hitting them because they were still fighting or not. We don't know if those girls were on drugs or not. We would need to check the actual case records, but I don't think we have access to that though the internet, so again... why are we discussing this. So probably your previous thread was closed on those grounds.
it wasn't my thread
and it was closed because it only contains a video and some description
I dunno, if you jump a counter and start attacking a cashier, you risk being shot. Maybe not at McD's in new york but if you pulled that shit at a late night variety store in lots of places in america, there's a very good chance you'd be meeting a gun.
Those girls should consider themselves lucky. I don't blame the guy for losing it, He tried to retreat first and was pursued. I have a feeling a lot of women think they can get away with being crazy/violent, but this is a world of gender equality and that means if you pick a fight with someone bigger than you, you might get some bones broken.
I'm sure his response could have shown more control but you can't really expect someone to exercise discretion when they get assaulted and chased down when they try to back off.
If the events that led up to this incident are as the article describes, then the two people who assaulted the employee should consider themselves lucky that a metal pipe was the most convenient method of self defense available and that they get to walk away from the situation alive.
You assault someone and they walk away rather than retaliate and you continue to pursue them... You have no right to complain if you are shot in the face at that moment IMO.
That said, thankfully the situation didn't get that drastic, but once the woman was on the ground and the threat had clearly stopped, continuing to beat her was definitely a reversal of roles and now he was the one assaulting someone who wasn't fighting back. I don't blame him, as they did it to him first and it would be incredibly hard to maintain your judgement in that situation, but that is the line where you step past self defense and into revenge. :/ He probably should be held responsible for some portion of the medical expenses.
Gender is completely irrelevant. This wasn't a domestic dispute.
His reaction seemed justified until both women hit the floor, then he should have stopped. Everything after ~38 seconds is obviously excessive in relation to self-defense. The most troubling thing after they go to the ground is that there are moments of hesitation before he continues hitting them, indicative of conscious decision making.
On December 13 2012 22:37 TiTanIum_ wrote: Difference betwwen that guy and anyone here on TL: ENORMOUS. Why are we even discussing this? We don't know if he kept hitting them because they were still fighting or not. We don't know if those girls were on drugs or not. We would need to check the actual case records, but I don't think we have access to that though the internet, so again... why are we discussing this. So probably your previous thread was closed on those grounds.
In most of this cases it leaves us on a Stereotype vs Non-stereotype pov discussion.
About the case. The thing is only a people with certain experience can deal with stressful situations like that without it ending it up controversial. You can't expect that from any cashier in McD. Generally places like that should have hired security guards who are trained to not let it end up this way.
I enjoyed that video. Yes, he was excessive, but in my opinion, people who behave like that deserve it. I mean, what the hell is wrong with you if you attack someone for following a store policy that won't affect you at all if the money is real?
Well if you corner a scared dog or cat they will snap either ... This is just a basic instict, if a certain animal (and screw religions, I'm considering us as animals) gets cornered, show submission and is still attacked the result wouldnt be different on the nature
I like this. Girls were asking for it. If I was in that situation, I probably wouldn't have gone that far, but I still would have beat the shit out of them. Vagina or no vagina, you attack me physically and I will retaliate.
On December 13 2012 22:21 sc4k wrote: Wait, was he actually acquitted?
Yeah full acquittal. The case was easy, as the counter represents both a figurative and literal interpretation of "stepping over the line."
He had all the right in the world to protect himself, I could have seen him using lethal means and still walking away. If this McDonalds worker was a woman with a gun and two men jumped the counter, if she shot them both she would have been a hero on the news.
Okay interesting. I wasn't saying wait as in 'what the fuck' I mean I just couldn't actually see where they said there was an acquittal I thought it just said charges dropped. In English law there are two separate questions, the first is objective: 'did the person in question actually believe they were under attack or in imminent danger of an attack?'. The second is subjective: 'was the response rendered reasonable, taking into account the panic of the moment and the fact that it's hard to make these decisions under pressure?'.
The general rule is that you can do pretty much anything until they stop being a threat...but if you pause, and they are unconscious or have broken bones or are writhing around in agony or just are clearly not a threat, and THEN you smash them up some more...that's usually considered going too far, and you will face the full punishment of the law for whatever damage you incur. I think that makes sense. The video is kinda hard to make out but it does look like he pauses, backs off, then goes back in to smash them up some more. If that is so then I think he should have been convicted, if not, then it's fair he wasn't.
I could go either way with that, since I believe the law allows him to make the judgement on whether or not they are a threat. Generally speaking jury's are pretty smart so, Im thinking they figured that one out.
I cant tell if after they were down they tried to get up again because if you try to get up after just attacking me twice you are getting hit again because taking the chance they go for round 3 is not a chance im willing to take when there are 2 of them who clearly showed they wanted to fight.
On December 13 2012 22:07 WhiteDog wrote: The things is, the man is fleeing at first, and then grab a pole and defend himself almost in the kitchen so I'd say, even if he went a little to far into beating them (the threat of the pole should have been enough to make those bitches back off) I can understand that, in the context, with the shame of getting insulted by two bitches while doing a work nobody can be proud of, he lost himself and hit a little too much.
On the other hand, him 'fleeing' could also mean "Bitch u stay right there, ima be right back with my pole to smack you up"
Or it simply means kittens...
Way too deep for me to understand.
Simply did the same thing as you.
I mean if him "fleeing" could also mean "Bitch u stay right there, ima be right back with my pole to smack you up" then it could just as well mean kittens. Or mean the purpose of existence. However I am pretty sure it just meant fleeing.
Dude is a pussy straight up. He's surrounded by males that are yelling "no no no" and going to break it up and the girls are unarmed.
They were obviously hostile so I could have seen a slap or a punch, but beating them to a bloody pulp with a deadly weapon while they're on the ground?
The dude obviously shouldn't go to jail because he was being assaulted, but Mcdonalds even fired him because they know he's a punk.
It was totally justified in my opinion. Yes He beated them pretty badly and the last hits was probably unneccesary. You have to remember that it's easy to sit here and analyze the situation afterwards and say stuff like "he should have stopped" and so on. In the heat of the moment he probably was scared and pretty high on adrenaline. Shit could have gone alot worse.
And I dont feel a single shred of sympathy for the 2 girls. Wtf were they doing jumping over the counter..
I acctually have a friend who basically did the samething, he was very drunk though. He jumped over the counter and tried to get some icecream when the personel were not looking. They threw him out and called the police and stuff. Not really in the same league as this stuff, but it was pretty funny to watch
what is your obession with this video? i seen the last thread you tried to open about it. it's old.
that guy spent 10 years in jail for manslaughter, the way he beat those women like 10 fucking times when they were on the ground was excessive. anyone who can't see that is as psycho as him and the women that attacked him.
On December 13 2012 22:55 Epoch wrote: what is your obession with this video? i seen the last thread you tried to open about it. it's old.
that guy spent 10 years in jail for manslaughter, the way he beat those women like 10 fucking times when they were on the ground was excessive. anyone who can't see that is as psycho as him and the women that attacked him.
it wasn't self defense after the first few hits.
It's easy to judge that he went too far from an observer's point of view. He kept attacking because he went into frenzy, which is normal if taken into account how the two women were disrespecting him. In theory, if he stopped beating them earlier, they probably would have retaliated.
So let's say taht you were the black dude that got attacked, what would you do ? Your co workers are running away and aren't helping you while 2 crazy black bitches are chasing you in the kitchen. You don't know if those two "girls" had a knife or a pistol in their pocket, you don't pay attention for a second and you are on a trip to the graveyard. The only way to be safe would be to put her on the ground and wait the police, well, that's what he did. He CLEARLY told them to stay down and they didn't so he hit them again. You want to be treated equally to a man ? Here is your treatment.
I've watched the video twice now and I don't see that he's hitting two women, he hits one guy (the dude who jumps over the counter) and a woman and then there's the blonde who shouts "stop" all the time.
Did he proceed hitting the blonde, too? Otherwise I don't see where the second woman is supposed to be.
I would not have gone for that metal pipe, but i would defend myself with my fists and legs if they ever made it over that counter. One person that gets hit by another for what ever reason has the right to hit back in my book, no matter the gender.
Extreme on both sides, i just hope both learned from that, meh i doubt it.
The only problem is that he didnt finish them off. The world is a better place without retarded savages like this. Their vote counts. Mcdonalds kinda had to fire him from a pr stand point but I doubt they disagreed with his retaliation. It's really satisfying to hear that he did not have any charges pressed against him, though I assume this event will still make it tough for him to find a new job, lol. "wait...you're that guy who beat the shit out of those 2 women at the Mcdonalds, right?" "uh...yeh, that was me" "We'll make a decision by next week and, uh...let you know"
On December 13 2012 23:02 kafkaesque wrote: I've watched the video twice now and I don't see that he's hitting two women, he hits one guy (the dude who jumps over the counter) and a woman and then there's the blonde who shouts "stop" all the time.
Did he proceed hitting the blonde, too? Otherwise I don't see where the second woman is supposed to be.
the big white woman screaming definately ruined the video, she was really irritating. I think this guy doesn't even deserve to be fired, he got slapped, defused himself from the situation (i hope he wasnt going to get the metal pole then proceed to beat them around) they then got up in his grill, he hit them a considerable amount of times. One woman did try to get back up and he beat them back down, but you cant really see much else except justice being served cold in this video.
2 dikes get beat with a metal pipe for thinking they are tough. seems like they got what they deserve, you wanna act like you a man take a beating like 1. where im from this shit goes on everyday. chicks that dress like dudes think that a guy wont beat them because they are still women but fuck it if you swing at me im dropping you
On December 13 2012 23:02 kafkaesque wrote: I've watched the video twice now and I don't see that he's hitting two women, he hits one guy (the dude who jumps over the counter) and a woman and then there's the blonde who shouts "stop" all the time.
Did he proceed hitting the blonde, too? Otherwise I don't see where the second woman is supposed to be.
The one with short hair is a girl lmao.
No way in hell, look at that jaw line and bone structure. Even for a man he looks rather bruteish, regardless of the short hair.
On December 13 2012 23:02 kafkaesque wrote: I've watched the video twice now and I don't see that he's hitting two women, he hits one guy (the dude who jumps over the counter) and a woman and then there's the blonde who shouts "stop" all the time.
Did he proceed hitting the blonde, too? Otherwise I don't see where the second woman is supposed to be.
The one with short hair is a girl lmao.
No way in hell, look at that jaw line and bone structure. Even for a man he looks rather bruteish, regardless of the short hair.
Watch the video again, "she" is the one that is talking trash at the beginning. That seems a girl's voice to me.
On December 13 2012 23:04 llSpektrll wrote: The only problem is that he didnt finish them off. The world is a better place without retarded savages like this. Their vote counts. Mcdonalds kinda had to fire him from a pr stand point but I doubt they disagreed with his retaliation. It's really satisfying to hear that he did not have any charges pressed against him, though I assume this event will still make it tough for him to find a new job, lol. "wait...you're that guy who beat the shit out of those 2 women at the Mcdonalds, right?" "uh...yeh, that was me" "We'll make a decision by next week and, uh...let you know"
I'm pretty sure that he's going to get killed by some guys trying to whiteknight...
On second thought, whiteknighting does seem like a poor choice of words...
haha.. Seems alright to me. They assaulted a dude, climbed over the counter to continue to assault him then get their asses handed to them. What did they expect to happen?
EDIT: Seems like he tried to diffuse the situation by going to the back. Too bad they followed him. haha.. idiots.
I don't understand most of the arguments being had in this thread.
It's not a gender question. There right to self-defence exists regardless whether it's a woman attacking you or a man. It is only relevant concerning the amount of force you're allowed to use in your defense, given that women tend to be less physically strong than men.
Equally, it's not a question of whether he could use a metal bar. Once you're being physically attacked, it's your right to stop the attack effectively. He was up against two. They jumped over the counter and showed extremely aggressive behavior. He was not limited to only use his fists.
The only real question is one we can not answer from the outside: Wasn't the attack thwarted after the first hits when the girls hit the floor? Considering they tried to stand up again, arguably the fight wasn't over. But whatever happened behind that counter and whatever mental condition the employee was while hitting them is nothing we can judge from the outside.
And in dubio pro reo, innocent until proven guilty. I think the jury did a good job.
That was very pleasing to watch from the other side of the world :3 I just wished he would have dished out the punishment a bit more evenly so both girls would've learned a valuable lesson instead of seriously harming one.
If anyone around you is ever videotaping your behaviour just before you get attacked, it was probably your fault. Same thing as that bus driver who gave the woman an uppercut and threw her off his bus.
All of them really should be put in jail or get some kind of punishment. They attack him, he attack them, and not just defend. This was an actual fight, and should be treated as one, and the last 5 hits or something had absoloutly nothing to do with self-defence....
as had already been mentioned before, i wouldn't really consider that excessive force, in self defence you always want to make sure that the aggressor wouldn't be able to come back at you afterwards, plus he already took a punch and tried running away (further into the store) first, and since that didn't work they really did forced his hand. No bullshit 2v1, i'd grab whatever i could to defend myself too and make sure both of them were no longer a threat before i stopped. Plus he probably had a rough background (conjecture territory here) to have gotten out of jail and tried to stay clean, so survival instinct must have kicked in/and he would have been prone to use more force than people who've never been in a fight.
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.
Absolutely agree with the court of law and the employee in this case. Those women were way out of order. If someone jumped over the counter at me and threatened me I would absolutely have done the same thing as this guy.
IMO sexist story to begin with. If two males jump the counter, attack an employee and get beaten up badly it won't even make the news.
Employee went a bit overboard towards the end, but with the adrenalin flowing it is hard to restrain yourself. Apart from that, he did what he could to avoid the situation (retreat, threatening with the bar before attacking).
Guy had definately a right to defend himself with all means possible against two highly aggressive attackers who might have been armed with knives or guns (it's America afterall, good chance they have weapons).
The attackers could have easily avoided their injuries if they behaved normally like everyone else. They failed to do so and payed a high price, but that is not the employees problem.
just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor. but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area. I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
Man they got seriously beat down. They deserved it, but tbh I think his "self defence" was a little over the top. Generally you're supposed to stop once the attacker is incapacitated
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote: just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor. but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area. I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
Well the dude was in jail for 10 years for manslaughter.
I think we now can see why lol. No one rational acts like that.
Girl slaps and spits on you----------> break her skull in and snap her arm with metal rod.
Seems a bit excessive to keep beating them with a pipe after they are already on the floorm even though he clearly has a right to defend himself in this situation. But I geuss this has been considered by the court, not really my place to criticise what another country considers an acceptable amount of force. I feel no sympathy for the women who got hurt.
I hope the women get imprisoned. We need to get rid of scum from our society, breaking the law and provoking response should never be tolerated. Good on you, US law and customs, that you don't tolerate that. Here the defender would probably serve a nice ten years in prison and the attackers would at best clean the streets for a month.
On December 13 2012 23:10 YoucriedWolf wrote: That was very pleasing to watch from the other side of the world :3 I just wished he would have dished out the punishment a bit more evenly so both girls would've learned a valuable lesson instead of seriously harming one.
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.
If someone attacks for absolutely reason they give up their right to personal well-being.
"I hit this dude just for fun in the face, he then broke my arm, now I sued him and he goes to jail." Sound good to you?
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 23:19 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.
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.
Yeah, he hit them a few times when they were on the floor, damn right. If you're attacked with no provocation it's sensible to not just floor them, but make sure they're not getting back up until the police arrive, I'd have no hesitation sticking my boots in until I'm certain they're not going to be able to fight anymore.
On December 13 2012 21:46 LibertyNA wrote: is there such a thing as excessive violence in self defense? one of the girls got a fractured skull and a broken arm. he could of stopped once they were down, i'm sure the broken arm came after the fractured skull to protect herself
the guys been in jail for manslaughter charges; if he feels like he needs to stand his ground like that, he needs to man up a different way
might be considered temporary insanity, it sometimes happens when people snap (iirc)
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote: just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor. but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area. I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
Well the dude was in jail for 10 years for manslaughter.
I think we now can see why lol. No one rational acts like that.
Girl slaps and spits on you----------> break her skull in and snap her arm with metal rod.
Girl slaps and spits on you
you then try to get away, she breaks into your home (jumping over the counter is tresspassing) and proceeds to follow you while her friend tries to cut your route of escape off. Yeah, how DARE HE lay hands on these innocent flowers..
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.
People aren't trained like police officers. During altercations you don't know how to effectively react, and your spike of adrenaline and "fight or flight" mentality takes over.
Like I said, the dude shouldn't go to jail because he was obviously on the other hand of a tense situation, but he's still proven to me he's a pussy.
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 23:19 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?!
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.
After reading the rather biased article, I was on the side of the two women. Metal pipe and fractures? Definate over reaction.
Then I saw the video. The man retreated and was cornered. Other store employees and customers totally reluctant to help him. Especially that idiot fat white woman costumer who kept yelling stop. Well idiot fat white woman costumer, why didn't you yell stop when someone was being assaulted? That was no metal pipe. It's a cleaning rod.
He was totally justified considering the situation. If somebody or two people are so mentally imbalanced that they would leap over a counter, there is no telling whether they have weapons, not to mention boiling vats of oil. He did a good job by preventing those women from straying into the more dangerous parts of the shop, where the possibility of permanant injuries lay.
-the "girls" are terrible stupid bitches and scum. no question. -its sad that NO ONE did anything. atleast at the point where they go behind the counter the rest of the staff should just cut of their way/do something. doubt they wouldve started a fight with the whole staff when they just stood in the way while he goes somewhere in the back. -while the girls had it coming its still not ok to beat em down with a weapon and continue when they already hit the floor
overall a shitty story. scum beeing scum, other people beeing passive idiots, him going too quickly too far.
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote: just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor. but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area. I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
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.
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.
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 23:23 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).
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 23:23 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 23:23 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.
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
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 23:23 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 23:19 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.
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 23:23 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 23:23 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.
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?!
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).
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 23:23 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 23:39 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: 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 like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
well, bitches got what was coming, man rightly goes free his actions may have been a bit overboard but we need to set a precedent against this dumb thug life behaviour going on
What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
How anyone can say this was excessive force is beyond me, it's very likely that they were drunk, or on some crazy drugs. When people are in that state a couple of blows wont cut it. He even tried to move away, but they continued to chase him, and its very clear they wanted to hurt him. He then proceded to pick up a metal pipe and hit them until they were laying still on the ground and was no longer a threat. And the morons who say he had other employers to help him, did you see them do anything? They didnt do jack shit.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
It may seem bad on video, but the guy handled it ok in my opinion. It's not an easy situation and he was right telling them to stay down, because you don't know what will happen once the get up.
Couple of my friends were on a train when a really big guy came to pick a fight, told one of them to lick his boot. Of course he didn't, so the big guy punched him in the face. Then 2 of my friends took him down and the big guy got hit many times in the face and in the body. They held him down until he got calm and make the huge mistake of thinking it was over, and let him get up again. Then the big guy went for his bag and got a knife and tried to kill them. Luckily someone had called the cops and the train got to a station and they busted him. (my friends obv. got no charges for beating him up, but he was convicted of attempted manslaughter)
Both are at fault. While I'd give the edge to the employee, it's clear from the clip that "self-defense" was excessive. The 'women' there (if you can call them that...) are much more of a threat to society than someone who over-reacts to a situation.
Anyway, I don't feel like anyone is really getting screwed unjustly in the end here.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Subtle racism is always the best
It's especially good when it isn't racism at all and someone else just takes two accurate descriptors and puts them together to create racism in his head.
On December 14 2012 00:35 Sea_Food wrote:
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
If you listen, he was telling them to stay on the ground, and hitting them when they tried to get back up thats's different than if they were just laying there and he was wailing on them, just because they are on the ground doesn't mean they aren't a danger. I like the america hating though, that guy was totally rich as fuck working for minimum wage at McDonalds.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Subtle racism is always the best
It's especially good when it isn't racism at all and someone else just takes two accurate descriptors and puts them together to create racism in his head.
it actually is racism if you are making general statements about "black girls". there is no context needed.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: 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 like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Common misconception, but flat out wrong.
Just look at this recent case: A member of a gang shot a policeman through a door thinking his life was in danger (which it never was). He was acquitted on all charges. No fine, no nothing.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: 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 like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Erm, ... No. Self-defense is permitted. Google "Notwehr".
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
Someone lying on the ground being hit with a metal pipes does not stay still to take the beating. Yeah defiantly deserves some more.
man that woman kept screaming stop made me cringe oh well they had it comming don't think any of them got it worse tbh fired from mcdonald im sure he can still manage to get a better job etc
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Subtle racism is always the best
It's especially good when it isn't racism at all and someone else just takes two accurate descriptors and puts them together to create racism in his head.
it actually is racism if you are making general statements about "black girls". there is no context needed.
You must not know the definition of racism if that's what you believe
As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the McDonald’s employee has already been fully acquitted. His name is Rayon McIntosh and you can find a larger article on his acquittal here:
The long and the short of it is that one of the ladies got five years probation and one got ten days community service. Neither will see jail time for their crimes.
Personally, I feel bad for the two women. They were viciously beaten for attempting to commit what would probably (you never know for sure, which is the problem, but probably) have been a much less severe attack on Mr. McIntosh.
Nevertheless, I cannot find fault with McIntosh, and I am glad that the courts did not either. He attempted to retreat from the situation, and then he did what he thought he had to do to protect himself when that retreat wasn’t enough. I imagine that spending ten years in prison does certain things to you mentally. I imagine that there were dozens of times where he would have had to defend himself against grievous bodily injury while he was serving his time, and those instincts don’t just disappear overnight. These ladies should not have forced his hand.
Ultimately it’s a valuable lesson. If baseline levels of emotional maturity and human decency are not enough to keep you from physically assaulting perfect strangers, maybe the thought that the stranger might be an ex-convict who will snap and hospitalize you might give you pause.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
Someone lying on the ground being hit with a metal pipes does not stay still to take the beating. Yeah defiantly deserves some more.
You apparently do not understand what I meant.
From the video available to us, there is no way for us to know if there were attacking his legs or trying to get up to go at him again, since we could not see them behind the counter. If we had the store cameras showing us a diffrent angle, you might have an argument.
On December 14 2012 00:39 Mawi wrote: man that woman kept screaming stop made me cringe oh well they had it comming don't think any of them got it worse tbh fired from mcdonald im sure he can still manage to get a better job etc
The way she was screaming "SHHHHTAAAP" was indeed cringe-worthy.
On December 13 2012 23:31 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: -the "girls" are terrible stupid bitches and scum. no question. -its sad that NO ONE did anything. atleast at the point where they go behind the counter the rest of the staff should just cut of their way/do something. doubt they wouldve started a fight with the whole staff when they just stood in the way while he goes somewhere in the back. -while the girls had it coming its still not ok to beat em down with a weapon and continue when they already hit the floor
overall a shitty story. scum beeing scum, other people beeing passive idiots, him going too quickly too far.
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote: just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor. but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area. I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
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.
i don't fuckign get you people....
do they have 2 break his famr or something so he can fucking hit back or something? they fucking slap him. they fucking jump over 2 get close 2 him while he runs away.
fuck yes he can hit them till they stay the fuck down.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: 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 like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Common misconception, but flat out wrong.
Just look at this recent case: A member of a gang shot a policeman through a door thinking his life was in danger (which it never was). He was acquitted on ANY charge. No fine, no nothing.
There's more, less extreme examples. I can dig them up if you like me to.
one case, point proven. if you can't see the special case here i don't know. he's a GANG MEMBER. so maybe he expected other ARMED gang members to come after him. a very rare case in germany were a very low percentage of people are armed.
it's not a misconception that german courts value "self-defence" very strict and punish excessive violence very often.
edit:
On December 14 2012 00:39 rEalGuapo wrote: Erm, ... No. Self-defense is permitted. Google "Notwehr".
yes, it is permitted. but german courts valuate "excessive" much more strict than other countrys. shooting someone in self-defence will get you to jail nearly every time (rare exceptions are cases like the above).
If he'd stopped hitting them when they were floored I would have supported him 100%. I would have hit them too "Don't hit girls" goes out the window when they hit you.
Ultimately it’s a valuable lesson. If baseline levels of emotional maturity and human decency are not enough to keep you from physically assaulting perfect strangers, maybe the thought that the stranger might be an ex-convict who will snap and hospitalize you might give you pause.
On December 14 2012 00:42 Eufouria wrote: If he'd stopped hitting them when they were floored I would have supported him 100%. "Don't hit girls" goes out the window when they hit you.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
The black, ex-con who had been working at McDonalds in the few months since his release from prison got off because of "money." Brilliant analysis.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
Someone lying on the ground being hit with a metal pipes does not stay still to take the beating. Yeah defiantly deserves some more.
You apparently do not understand what I meant.
From the video available to us, there is no way for us to know if there were attacking his legs or trying to get up to go at him again, since we could not see them behind the counter. If we had the store cameras showing us a diffrent angle, you might have an argument.
Well i know for a fact where i live the man would have got atleast some prison time for using a weapon just for the first hit, even if there was a threat for him.
What you are supposed to do in that situation is walk out and call the cops.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
Someone lying on the ground being hit with a metal pipes does not stay still to take the beating. Yeah defiantly deserves some more.
You apparently do not understand what I meant.
From the video available to us, there is no way for us to know if there were attacking his legs or trying to get up to go at him again, since we could not see them behind the counter. If we had the store cameras showing us a diffrent angle, you might have an argument.
Well i know for a fact where i live the man would have got atleast some prison time for using a weapon just for the first hit, even if there was a threat for him.
What you are supposed to do in that situation is walk out and call the cops.
What an awesome idea, go out and call the cops while you are getting chased by 2 crazy black bitches who are probably either drunk or on drugs. Add to that the fact that he didn't know if they had knives or guns with them. Yeah sure, go out and call the cops, I'm sure you'll be fine by the time they arrive.
Ultimately it’s a valuable lesson. If baseline levels of emotional maturity and human decency are not enough to keep you from physically assaulting perfect strangers, maybe the thought that the stranger might be an ex-convict who will snap and hospitalize you might give you pause.
That last part really fits your name ....
Haha. What can I say? I do my best to keep it real.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
Someone lying on the ground being hit with a metal pipes does not stay still to take the beating. Yeah defiantly deserves some more.
You apparently do not understand what I meant.
From the video available to us, there is no way for us to know if there were attacking his legs or trying to get up to go at him again, since we could not see them behind the counter. If we had the store cameras showing us a diffrent angle, you might have an argument.
Well i know for a fact where i live the man would have got atleast some prison time for using a weapon just for the first hit, even if there was a threat for him.
What you are supposed to do in that situation is walk out and call the cops.
He did attempt to retreat from the situation, they gave chase. Mind you they had already hit him(well, slapped) once when he did this. Obviously violence was not his first response to this.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
Someone lying on the ground being hit with a metal pipes does not stay still to take the beating. Yeah defiantly deserves some more.
You apparently do not understand what I meant.
From the video available to us, there is no way for us to know if there were attacking his legs or trying to get up to go at him again, since we could not see them behind the counter. If we had the store cameras showing us a diffrent angle, you might have an argument.
Well i know for a fact where i live the man would have got atleast some prison time for using a weapon just for the first hit, even if there was a threat for him.
What you are supposed to do in that situation is walk out and call the cops.
What an awesome idea, go out and call the cops while you are getting chased by 2 crazy black bitches who are probably either drunk or on drugs. Add to that the fact that he didn't know if they had knives or guns with them. Yeah sure, go out and call the cops, I'm sure you'll be fine by the time they arrive.
Evidently they had, in fact, been drinking:
"Before the mid-October night went horribly wrong, there was a dinner at Planet Hollywood. Then a trip to the Fat Black Pussycat bar. Five tequila shots later, the two women ended up at a McDonald’s in Greenwich Village, about to become Internet stars of the worst kind."
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).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
That's reasonable, however my argument is that when the attackers were on the ground, he was no longer being threatened to the point where he had to utilize potentially lethal force to keep the situation under control. Obviously there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but from the point that he got his attackers on the ground, on he should be fully responsible for how he handles the situation until the police arrives.
The two hits after the attackers were down were delivered very savagely, far too much so in order to be "warning hits", and he should definitely not be legally in the clear for how he behaved after the attackers were down. The attackers probably tried to get up to run away from a guy that was, for all they knew, about to crush their head with a metal bar the very next second.
tl;dr - I'm fine with using any means to defend yourself from the assault, but once you overcome the attackers you can't blindly and mindlessly react to a possibility of them having weapons, or superpowers, or whatnot.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Episodes like this sicken me because shit doesn't truly hit the fan until the man hits back, and then every uppity feminist in the place loses their mind. One of the biggest beefs I have with our society is the notion that men simply aren't allowed to hit women. One day people will understand that just because you have a vagina doesn't mean there's an invisible forcefield shielding you from the fists of men, and that you can't just hit them and expect no recourse /rant
Does not matter if it was a woman, a child, or a 250pound body builder. He was hitting people on the ground. With a weapon.
In any civilized nation that man would have got at least 5 years in jail. But i guess this is america so money = human rights.
There is no way for us to reasonably know if they were actually on the ground or in the process of trying to get up again. If the latter is true he was not at fault at all.
Someone lying on the ground being hit with a metal pipes does not stay still to take the beating. Yeah defiantly deserves some more.
You apparently do not understand what I meant.
From the video available to us, there is no way for us to know if there were attacking his legs or trying to get up to go at him again, since we could not see them behind the counter. If we had the store cameras showing us a diffrent angle, you might have an argument.
Well i know for a fact where i live the man would have got atleast some prison time for using a weapon just for the first hit, even if there was a threat for him.
What you are supposed to do in that situation is walk out and call the cops.
Go read my post on previous page. That's in your country. (well they didnt use weapons but the attacker was bleeding anyway)
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: 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 like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Common misconception, but flat out wrong.
Just look at this recent case: A member of a gang shot a policeman through a door thinking his life was in danger (which it never was). He was acquitted on ANY charge. No fine, no nothing.
There's more, less extreme examples. I can dig them up if you like me to.
one case, point proven. if you can't see the special case here i don't know. he's a GANG MEMBER. so maybe he expected other ARMED gang members to come after him. a very rare case in germany were a very low percentage of people are armed.
it's not a misconception that german courts value "self-defence" very strict and punish excessive violence very often.
On December 14 2012 00:39 rEalGuapo wrote: Erm, ... No. Self-defense is permitted. Google "Notwehr".
yes, it is permitted. but german courts valuate "excessive" much more strict than other countrys. shooting someone in self-defence will get you to jail nearly every time (rare exceptions are cases like the above).
I don't know where you get your information.
Shooting someone in itself is fine when you're being assaulted and when shooting the attacker is the only possibility to stop the attack with certainty and for a longer duration.
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).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
That's reasonable, however my argument is that when the attackers were on the ground, he was no longer being threatened to the point where he had to utilize potentially lethal force to keep the situation under control. Obviously there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but from the point that he got his attackers on the ground, on he should be fully responsible for how he handles the situation until the police arrives.
The two hits after the attackers were down were delivered very savagely, far too much so in order to be "warning hits", and he should definitely not be legally in the clear for how he behaved after the attackers were down. The attackers probably tried to get up to run away from a guy that was, for all they knew, about to crush their head with a metal bar the very next second.
My issue with that is that we cant see if they were attacking his legs or trying to get away from that video.
Also, what does he know that if he lets one of them get up and get away she wont be comming at him with a weapon of her own? Their intent to hurt him was pretty obvious, and I doubt he was thinking of more than his own safety with that much adrenaline pumping, Adrenaline makes you strong and stupid. I dont know.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Here...... take my likes!!!!
Maybe they would... cause of their wide eyed naivete..
Also, you can hear him telling them to "stay down" in the video, and if you look closely, see one of them very obviously refusing to stay down. If you're not going to do what the man with the pipe says, the man with the pipe is going to whack you.
It's too bad. People on TL are just as dumb as the general population now. I can't believe some of you are suggesting this guy should have served time. These girls assaulted him and then JUMPED THE FUCKING COUNTER to come after him when he retreated. He defended himself, and it doesn't matter if you think he threw in too many blows. You could clearly see that bitch getting up to come after him AGAIN after she took 2-3 blows. Stupid wastes of skin are lucky he didn't kill them with the first shot. And you expect him to not arm himself and just grapple with these bitches? They were obviously not right in the head. Why would he risk that?? What if they had knives or razors or some shit? What if they had guns? He disabled them and he did it using a weapon so that his ass didn't get fucked up or killed. That is exactly what self defense is.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: 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 like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Common misconception, but flat out wrong.
Just look at this recent case: A member of a gang shot a policeman through a door thinking his life was in danger (which it never was). He was acquitted on ANY charge. No fine, no nothing.
There's more, less extreme examples. I can dig them up if you like me to.
one case, point proven. if you can't see the special case here i don't know. he's a GANG MEMBER. so maybe he expected other ARMED gang members to come after him. a very rare case in germany were a very low percentage of people are armed.
it's not a misconception that german courts value "self-defence" very strict and punish excessive violence very often.
On December 14 2012 00:39 rEalGuapo wrote: Erm, ... No. Self-defense is permitted. Google "Notwehr".
yes, it is permitted. but german courts valuate "excessive" much more strict than other countrys. shooting someone in self-defence will get you to jail nearly every time (rare exceptions are cases like the above).
no, this is not correct. You might go to jail for illegal weapon posession, but not for the self defence. There is something called "Notwehrexzess". In the majority of the cases where the court assert that such a "Notwehrexzess" happened the offender is not being punished, he just gets told that his act of self defence was inappropiate (using over the top level of violence with weapons or without), but there is no punishment dished out (fines, jailtime, compensation of the victim etc.).
Some years ago there was another case of an old man who got held hostage by young robbers who wanted to know the combination for his safe (happened at his home). As far as I remember they were unarmed but physically much stronger. The old man got his hands on a weapon (he was a registered weapon owner) and shot one of the robbers in the back (dead) while they were seemingly on the run.
He got cleared off all charges because he could not be sure that they were unarmed and he could not be sure if they were to flee or just regroup infront of his house to come back and finish the job. Additionally the robbers showed a lot of criminal energy (holding someone hostage, beating him in order to get their hands on his money), the victim couldn't be sure whether they were done with him or not.
Cases like that are numerous and verdicts like that are the norm.
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).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
That's reasonable, however my argument is that when the attackers were on the ground, he was no longer being threatened to the point where he had to utilize potentially lethal force to keep the situation under control. Obviously there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but from the point that he got his attackers on the ground, on he should be fully responsible for how he handles the situation until the police arrives.
The two hits after the attackers were down were delivered very savagely, far too much so in order to be "warning hits", and he should definitely not be legally in the clear for how he behaved after the attackers were down. The attackers probably tried to get up to run away from a guy that was, for all they knew, about to crush their head with a metal bar the very next second.
My issue with that is that we cant see if they were attacking his legs or trying to get away from that video.
Also, what does he know that if he lets one of them get up and get away she wont be comming at him with a weapon of her own? Their intent to hurt him was pretty obvious.
He doesn't need to let them get up, but full swings of a metal bar wasn't the only way to keep them down.
And while we can't KNOW from the video that they weren't "attacking his legs", I think that was extremely unlikely to have happened, as in that position, you're normally trying to run away from the huge metal bar about to crack your skull, not to kick his legs. -_-
As for the intent to hurt, from that video his intent to cause pain was much more apparent than the attackers'.
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
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).
I never said you should be able to get away with anything. I said you have the right to defend yourself when threatened. The moment he stopped hitting them he was just as safe because they were not making any motions that potentially would be a threat. When they did he was less safe and hit them again to maintain his own safety. He even told them to stay down.
As for the controlling your instincts, unless you're trained or have experience you don't really have the ability to control it that well.
That's reasonable, however my argument is that when the attackers were on the ground, he was no longer being threatened to the point where he had to utilize potentially lethal force to keep the situation under control. Obviously there's a difference between being threatened and feeling threatened, but from the point that he got his attackers on the ground, on he should be fully responsible for how he handles the situation until the police arrives.
The two hits after the attackers were down were delivered very savagely, far too much so in order to be "warning hits", and he should definitely not be legally in the clear for how he behaved after the attackers were down. The attackers probably tried to get up to run away from a guy that was, for all they knew, about to crush their head with a metal bar the very next second.
My issue with that is that we cant see if they were attacking his legs or trying to get away from that video.
Also, what does he know that if he lets one of them get up and get away she wont be comming at him with a weapon of her own? Their intent to hurt him was pretty obvious.
He doesn't need to let them get up, but full swings of a metal bar wasn't the only way to keep them down.
And while we can't KNOW from the video that they weren't "attacking his legs", I think that was extremely unlikely to have happened (and they'd have to be literally insane to react to the situation that way).
I dont think it is unlikely, they were both drunk, and drunks do retarded shit all the time and you dont feel much pain. Besides, someone throwing a shit-fit, spitting and slapping a worker for checking the 50$ bill you handed them is pretty fucking insane as well.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
On December 13 2012 23:20 ETisME wrote: just to say that it's easy to just say he should have stopped after she was on the floor. but when one is so provoked and angry, it could have been a lot worse considering how many tools he has in the kitchen area. I could think of the hot boiling oils for the chips etc
Well the dude was in jail for 10 years for manslaughter.
I think we now can see why lol. No one rational acts like that.
Girl slaps and spits on you----------> break her skull in and snap her arm with metal rod.
You have no idea how anyone rational would act in that situation. He felt trapped and helpless, getting attacked in an area that is supposed to be safe. They were wrong to attack him, he then retaliated which is perfectly understandable.. they deserved it.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
Oh of course this guy would easily retaliate against two attackers, because they are women, and not hurt hurt them in the process.
Will people stop saying he hit them with a metal bar? It was a fry cleaner, do you know how they look? Its basicly a car antenna with a bent hook for uncloging a deepfryer. They weigh like 200-500 gram
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
On December 14 2012 00:18 Spekulatius wrote: 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 like you live in a different germany than i do. violence even in self-defense gets punished by german courts. especially since in germany you NEVER expect people to wear guns/ be heavily armed even if they assault you.
he wouldn't necessarily be sentenced to prison but he would get AT LEAST a fine on every german court.
Common misconception, but flat out wrong.
Just look at this recent case: A member of a gang shot a policeman through a door thinking his life was in danger (which it never was). He was acquitted on ANY charge. No fine, no nothing.
There's more, less extreme examples. I can dig them up if you like me to.
one case, point proven. if you can't see the special case here i don't know. he's a GANG MEMBER. so maybe he expected other ARMED gang members to come after him. a very rare case in germany were a very low percentage of people are armed.
it's not a misconception that german courts value "self-defence" very strict and punish excessive violence very often.
edit:
On December 14 2012 00:39 rEalGuapo wrote: Erm, ... No. Self-defense is permitted. Google "Notwehr".
yes, it is permitted. but german courts valuate "excessive" much more strict than other countrys. shooting someone in self-defence will get you to jail nearly every time (rare exceptions are cases like the above).
no, this is not correct. You might go to jail for illegal weapon posession, but not for the self defence. There is something called "Notwehrexzess". In the majority of the cases where the court assert that such a "Notwehrexzess" happened the offender is not being punished, he just gets told that his act of self defence was inappropiate (using over the top level of violence with weapons or without), but there is no punishment dished out (fines, jailtime, compensation of the victim etc.).
Some years ago there was another case of an old man who got held hostage by young robbers who wanted to know the combination for his safe (happened at his home). As far as I remember they were unarmed but physically much stronger. The old man got his hands on a weapon (he was a registered weapon owner) and shot on of the robbers in the back (dead) while they were seemingly on the run.
He got cleared off all charges because he could not be sure that they were unarmed and he could not be sure if they were to flee or just regroup infront of his house to come back and finish the job.
Cases like that are numerous and verdicts like that are the norm.
True.
For anyone else doubting this, reading this or this might clear things up (German only, sry).
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
He did no damage close to "almost killing one of them". While a hit in the head is really fucking dangerous, the fact of the matter is that he did not.
On December 14 2012 01:01 Solarist wrote: Will people stop saying he hit them with a metal bar? It was a fry cleaner, do you know how they look? Its basicly a car antenna with a bent hook for uncloging a deepfryer. They weigh like 200-500 gram
Eh, you could fuck someone up pretty bad with one of those things, not as bad with a metal rod sure, but still:
i would say that he was excessive in grabbing a weapon, except it was 2v1, while he most likely would have been able to fend one off without any weapons, anytime you fight in lesser numbers you need a significant advantage to win, he found one
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
And potentially trip or slip and fall into incredibly hot grease or injure a coworker? I'd take beating the shit out of my attacker(s) over potentially causing permanent damage to myself or an innocent person any day of the week
You do understand the environment he was in, don't you? You don't run in a kitchen.
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
And potentially trip or slip and fall into incredibly hot grease or injure a coworker? I'd take beating the shit out of my attacker(s) over potentially causing permanent damage to myself or an innocent person any day of the week
I forgot about the possibility of slipping into a vat of hot grease. You have a good point.
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
I dont know, was there a way for him to get out of that kitchen or was he trapped in that frying area?
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
And potentially trip or slip and fall into incredibly hot grease or injure a coworker? I'd take beating the shit out of my attacker(s) over potentially causing permanent damage to myself or an innocent person any day of the week
You do understand the environment he was in, don't you? You don't fucking run in a kitchen.
Yes. Golbat is the only human on this world we should care about. Everyone else comes afterwards.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
He did no damage close to "almost killing one of them". While a hit in the head is really fucking dangerous, the fact of the matter is that he did not.
On December 14 2012 01:01 Solarist wrote: Will people stop saying he hit them with a metal bar? It was a fry cleaner, do you know how they look? Its basicly a car antenna with a bent hook for uncloging a deepfryer. They weigh like 200-500 gram
Eh, you could fuck someone up pretty bad with one of those things, not as bad with a metal rod sure, but still:
Im not saying you cant do damage with one. people are just making it out like he picked up a fucking lamp post and started beating them. Theres quite a big fucking difference to a metal pipe as most have been saying and that thing
Well with this I literally see no problem with the additional strikes. Threatening to cut someone up gives him reason to believe she (whichever of the women who said it) is potentially armed. They stay down because you don't want to get stabbed.
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
I dont know, was there a way for him to get out of that kitchen or was he trapped in that frying area?
She had time to jump over the counter, so did he. There was a door to his left.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Subtle racism is always the best
It's especially good when it isn't racism at all and someone else just takes two accurate descriptors and puts them together to create racism in his head.
it actually is racism if you are making general statements about "black girls". there is no context needed.
Fact is, almost all violent girls gang in France are either 100% or overwhelmingly black. There might be one/two little arab, white girls who seek to "integrate" and who has been accepted in the group since France is not as racially divided than the US, but that's it.
They do not kill, or whatever, they're just excessively violent vulgar loud idiots who frequently engage in meaningless delinquency activities (stealing clothes etc...). This is not an opinion, I lived in Paris and spend some time in Marseille : I saw this with my own eyes. In case you didn't know, it's been proven that Subsaharan African women have higher testosterone level and age "faster" than their Asian/Caucasian/North-African counterparts.
This of course only explains the "statistical tendancies". Of course, each girl is a special case and has a unique reason to act the way she is.
On December 14 2012 00:51 bailando wrote: all you "civilized people" who would not have acted like him...what would you do? tell me? get beaten up? good job tards.
Yes, I would have got beaten up by two unarmed women! My only way to survive such a hellish altercation would be to almost kill one of them with a metal rod!
Sigh. It helps to actually analyze the situation instead of dingling your protruding manhood proudly. Nails, concealed weapons, kicks to the groin, eye pokes, there are many ways a woman can fuck a man up. And unless youre someone who knows how to take a punch, get your jaw just right, you can be laid out to anyone.
Besides considering the man's past and how he goes for the rod instantly, i think it's pretty obvious he is not confident in his fighting ability, and probably has been knocked out before.
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
And potentially trip or slip and fall into incredibly hot grease or injure a coworker? I'd take beating the shit out of my attacker(s) over potentially causing permanent damage to myself or an innocent person any day of the week
You do understand the environment he was in, don't you? You don't fucking run in a kitchen.
Yes. Golbat is the only human on this world we should care about. Everyone else comes afterwards.
Please learn to comprehend what you read. I'm assuming that English isn't your first language, but if you can't understand what I'm trying to say when it's that plain, you shouldn't be discussing it.
-i think grabbing the pipe is fine since they threatened to cut him up. It was a bit excessive but understandable all things considered(If someone said they were gonna cut you up and they kept trying to get back up, you might get paranoid they will try to stab you)
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
I dont know, was there a way for him to get out of that kitchen or was he trapped in that frying area?
She had time to jump over the counter, so did he. There was a door to his left.
Why Run? He did nothing wRong.
I'm seRIously baffled by people who feel they have to flee in that kind of situation. You have Rights too, you know that, Right?
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
I dont know, was there a way for him to get out of that kitchen or was he trapped in that frying area?
She had time to jump over the counter, so did he. There was a door to his left.
Jump over the counter where her friend was? Ehh...
And that door looks like one of those fridges the keep dip and shit in, even if it is a door it could have been locked/blocked.
On December 14 2012 00:31 Golbat wrote: What he did was totally justified. If you've ever seen black girls fight, you'd know they go apeshit once the punches start flying. It might have looked like excessive violence, but you can't see the girls on the ground after they go down, they might have still been coming at him.
Subtle racism is always the best
It's especially good when it isn't racism at all and someone else just takes two accurate descriptors and puts them together to create racism in his head.
it actually is racism if you are making general statements about "black girls". there is no context needed.
Fact is, almost all violent girls gang in France are either 100% or overwhelmingly black. There might be one/two little arab, white girls who seek to "integrate" and who has been accepted in the group since France is not as racially divided than the US, but that's it.
They do not kill, or whatever, they're just excessively violent vulgar loud idiots who frequently engage in meaningless delinquency activities (stealing clothes etc...). This is not an opinion, I lived in Paris and spend some time in Marseille : I saw this with my own eyes. In case you didn't know, it's been proven that Subsaharan African women have higher testosterone level and age "faster" than their Asian/Caucasian/North-African counterparts.
This of course only explains the "statistical tendancies". Of course, each girl is a special case and has a unique reason to act the way she is.
Have youtube videos from Russia taught you nothing? People with higher levels of testosterone(think Sicilians for example) are better at violence, and have generally pushed out local crime groups(caucasus mafias in moscow for example) but they are not more prone to engage in it.
On December 14 2012 00:57 Sinensis wrote: I am 100% positive I could have avoided hitting someone in that situation. It's a shame he didn't. But whatever, they had it coming.
I'm 100% positive you would have got your ass beat
Who would have beaten my ass then? The girl who jumped over the counter? In the time he had to grab a pipe and beat her continually even while she was down, I could have run. He could have run.
I dont know, was there a way for him to get out of that kitchen or was he trapped in that frying area?
She had time to jump over the counter, so did he. There was a door to his left.
Why Run? He did nothing wRong.
I'm seRIously baffled by people who feel they have to flee in that kind of situation. You have Rights too, you know that, Right?
If you can quote where I said people must flee in that kind of situation, then you're entitled to be baffled. I said I could have avoided hitting someone, and that I thought it was a shame he didn't.
According to the Heyoka Report Acceptability Spectrum which outlines an amount of reported posts a thread can generate in a limited time span, this thread is destined for nowheresville and doesn't belong on the forums.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.webstaurantstore.com/28-fryer-clean-out-rod/28-fryer-clean-out-rod.jpg)
