danisflying527 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'd like to say please enough with the personal attacks we are here to have a friendly discussion and all our opinions deserve to be respected. I would like to leave with this example. A man comes toward you holding a knife, you happen to have a gun close by and you run to the weapon, pick it up and fire it at the mans leg the man falls to the ground and is helpless with a bullet wound to his leg, you then take the gun and shoot him in the other leg and both his arms. Is that self defense? In my opinion I just believe he went too far after disabling the two women, regardless of gender he didn't need to repeatedly beat them over the head after they were already harmless on the ground. I understand the intentions of teaching them a lesson but as I said he is not the law and this is why he is being taken to court, because the general consensus is that he took the situation too far. This is just my opinion, I guess we will have to let the law decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 You keep rambling on and on about how the cashier's actions are disproportionate to the ones of the women but our justice system does this all the time. How about people that go to prison for years and years, get fined hundreds of thousands of $$ and have a permanent criminal record for sharing a few downloaded songs/movies etc. Why? It is meant to teach them a lesson and to use them as scaremongering for others that may be tempted to do the same. Well that's exactly what he did here. He defended himself then he taught them a lesson. Please quit this brain-washed bull**** attitude that the government has drilled into you and many others and stop acting so stuck-up. Punishment does not always fit the crime. In fact it rarely does. A person's conviction and sentence far out-weighs their crime (unless that crime is murder / rape in which case they deserve societal isolation) in most cases just in this case you don't have the authorities approval. Please, go away and do something else. And you said I was the one rambling?! :laugh: You just went on an inane tangent about intellectual property and tried to compare it to assault. They're not even remotely comparable or analogous situations. No, there is nothing fear-mongering here. He was arrested and charged because he assaulted someone. He retaliated in a manner which was inappropriate, and there's nothing "brain washed" about my opinion on the matter. My opinion is based on the law, morality, ethics, etc, as I've already stated. I think your opinion is based on illogical conservative beliefs that have been bashed in your head in your upbringing, and that you have every right to respond disproportionally to someone who wrongs you. So who's the one that's brainwashed here? Please, go away and get some common sense. Beating someone with a metal iron is not an appropriate response to a slap. Continuing to beat the individual even after they've been beaten and people are yelling at you to stop is not an appropriate response. So, let's make a list of all the people that you're saying don't know what they're talking about here: the customers and co-workers clearly don't know as much about the situation as you, despite the fact that they were there; the police don't know as much about the law as you, despite the fact it's their very profession; the district attorney's office doesn't know what assault is, despite the fact that it's their profession. Well, I guess you've just got it all figured out! @ articuno1au: Stop flame baiting. You keep stating I'm personally attacking you, but you've done nothing to show it. It's not my fault if you don't know the definition of hypocrisy. If you don't want me to call you out on it, don't use it incorrectly. And now you're stating that since I didn't spell things out for you that I should have. Sorry, no -- it's not my job to teach you English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danisflying527 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 And you said I was the one rambling?! :laugh: You just went on an inane tangent about intellectual property and tried to compare it to assault. They're not even remotely comparable or analogous situations. No, there is nothing fear-mongering here. He was arrested and charged because he assaulted someone. He retaliated in a manner which was inappropriate, and there's nothing "brain washed" about my opinion on the matter. My opinion is based on the law, morality, ethics, etc, as I've already stated. I think your opinion is based on illogical conservative beliefs that have been bashed in your head in your upbringing, and that you have every right to respond disproportionally to someone who wrongs you. So who's the one that's brainwashed here? Please, go away and get some common sense. Beating someone with a metal iron is not an appropriate response to a slap. Continuing to beat the individual even after they've been beaten and people are yelling at you to stop is not an appropriate response. So, let's make a list of all the people that you're saying don't know what they're talking about here: the customers and co-workers clearly don't know as much about the situation as you, despite the fact that they were there; the police don't know as much about the law as you, despite the fact it's their very profession; the district attorney's office doesn't know what assault is, despite the fact that it's their profession. Well, I guess you've just got it all figured out! @ articuno1au: Stop flame baiting. You keep stating I'm personally attacking you, but you've done nothing to show it. It's not my fault if you don't know the definition of hypocrisy. If you don't want me to call you out on it, don't use it incorrectly. And now you're stating that since I didn't spell things out for you that I should have. Sorry, no -- it's not my job to teach you English. I don't think you understand the situation, the women did not just slap him, they continued to rush at him over the counter, who knows what they could have done to him. He was well within his legal right to use whatever he had around him to subdue the women however his continued bashing is what is alarming the authorities, you can't argue that the first few metal bar hits weren't in self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KomaWei Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I would say, that it is in self-defence. It's the same, if someone broke into your house. Oh, sorry judge, that I used a shotgun to their chest, even though they didn't have a gun themselves. In my personally opinion, if someone breaks into my house, I'm going to kill them, or beat the ever loving mess out of them. The same would be (except the killing part) done in that situation. I don't know, if those two women had a knife, or a gun, or anything. I'm defending myself, to where I can have my safety in check, to where I know, that I won't be harmed afterwards. If I was the judge? I would give him self-defence, while charging the two women with assault, verbal assault, and trespassing (as they crossed over the counter to where they had no right to be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I don't think you understand the situation, the women did not just slap him, they continued to rush at him over the counter, who knows what they could have done to him. He was well within his legal right to use whatever he had around him to subdue the women however his continued bashing is what is alarming the authorities, you can't argue that the first few metal bar hits weren't in self defense. Yes, truly, who knows what they could have done with a room full of people there? Because it's not like someone couldn't have videotaped it? Or called the cops? They had no weapons. There were only two women there, against one man. Given that the average man is much stronger than the average woman, I'm going to go ahead and say "not much" in response to your hypothetical "who knows what they could have done" fear-mongering that has no basis in reality. Furthermore, what they could have done is no response for his actions. Self defense loses its credence when you've successfully defended yourself and continue to keep beating your "assailants." I fully understand the situation, and I'd wager that the witnesses, police, and district attorney's office all also comprehend the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 No need for shooting unless they cornered him and posed a real threat, but I bet sticking a .40 muzzle in the lead morons face would have caused a full stop/reverse engines ;) That BTW is very likely legal, depending on the state law. Probably not in NYC, where shooting yourself in the leg gets you 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Yes, truly, who knows what they could have done with a room full of people there? Because it's not like someone couldn't have videotaped it? Or called the cops? They had no weapons. There were only two women there, against one man. Given that the average man is much stronger than the average woman, I'm going to go ahead and say "not much" in response to your hypothetical "who knows what they could have done" fear-mongering that has no basis in reality. 1: When they jump the counter, he doesn't know they don't have weapons. He also doesn't know that they're not going to storm back and shove his head in fry grease, either. 2: Them some big bitches. He doesn't look all that "built"; I think in a fair fistfight, they could take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 1: When they jump the counter, he doesn't know they don't have weapons. He also doesn't know that they're not going to storm back and shove his head in fry grease, either. 2: Them some big bitches. He doesn't look all that "built"; I think in a fair fistfight, they could take him. 1. So we are to always assume that people have weapons? Again, that's no defense. They had no visible weapons, and it's unlikely they would have something significant concealed on their bodies and not reveal it before they go over the counter, if they were truly trying to harm him. 2. They're overweight, but he looks fairly capable. I very, very seriously doubt he would be incapable of defending himself. Furthermore, there were plenty of witnesses there. The only reason the people didn't stop him from beating them up is the fact that he had a freggin' iron in his hands. They tried yelling at him to get him to stop. So you think their compassion only exists in a vacuum? I don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danisflying527 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Yes, truly, who knows what they could have done with a room full of people there? Because it's not like someone couldn't have videotaped it? Or called the cops? They had no weapons. There were only two women there, against one man. Given that the average man is much stronger than the average woman, I'm going to go ahead and say "not much" in response to your hypothetical "who knows what they could have done" fear-mongering that has no basis in reality. Furthermore, what they could have done is no response for his actions. Self defense loses its credence when you've successfully defended yourself and continue to keep beating your "assailants." I fully understand the situation, and I'd wager that the witnesses, police, and district attorney's office all also comprehend the situation. Come on, that's just silly, They slapped the man jumped the counter and rushed at him with an obvious malicious intent. Regardless of their gender they were obviously attempting to cause the man damage, in that situation he has absolutely every right to defend himself in whatever way possible. And i completely agree with the self defense part. He continued to beat them therefore turning it from self defense to assualt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Come on, that's just silly, They slapped the man jumped the counter and rushed at him with an obvious malicious intent. Regardless of their gender they were obviously attempting to cause the man damage, in that situation he has absolutely every right to defend himself in whatever way possible. And i completely agree with the self defense part. He continued to beat them therefore turning it from self defense to assualt. I never said he didn't have a right to self defense. I said beating someone with an iron, especially after they've been beaten so severely they go to the ground, is well past self defense. You don't have a right to defend yourself "in whatever way possible" when they just slap you. Examples of bad ways of "defending" yourself? Beating someone with a tire iron. Shooting someone. Hitting someone with a car. Beating someone with a baseball bat. Throwing acid on them. Using a machete. There are countless things that fall outside of the reasonable limits of self defense to a minor incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danisflying527 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I never said he didn't have a right to self defense. I said beating someone with an iron, especially after they've been beaten so severely they go to the ground, is well past self defense. You don't have a right to defend yourself "in whatever way possible" when they just slap you. Examples of bad ways of "defending" yourself? Beating someone with a tire iron. Shooting someone. Hitting someone with a car. Beating someone with a baseball bat. Throwing acid on them. Using a machete. There are countless things that fall outside of the reasonable limits of self defense to a minor incident. I just think we disagree with the severity of the situation, to you it sounds like you think it was a harmless slap to the face, to me it sounds like they were rushing at him to commit serious assault. I haven't watched the video yet so I guess I will have to watch it and then form a better opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiranui Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I would love to know the ages of some of the people posting that a young man was justified in bashing a defenseless fat woman's head in with a blunt instrument. That said, I don't feel too sorry for the aforementioned pair of endomorphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I just think we disagree with the severity of the situation, to you it sounds like you think it was a harmless slap to the face, to me it sounds like they were rushing at him to commit serious assault. I haven't watched the video yet so I guess I will have to watch it and then form a better opinion I recommend watching it. It's not a pretty sight, and he clearly didn't feel too threatened at any point from the looks of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davo Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 He didn't get slapped in the face like she was a lady and he had just said something uncooth. Let's drop that pretense atleast. These were two thugs who rushed behind the counter after he fled. One woman actually climbed over the counter. They were most certainly a threat and putting them at bay or attacking them back was certainly justified from a self defense POV. However, continuing the beat the stuffing out of them was most definitely assault. This is only made worse by the fact that the guy had spent time in jail for manslaughter. He clearly doesn't know when enough is enough. McDonald's also is justified in firing him, regardless of how you feel about the severity of his retaliation. It's the policy of most establishments that you can't beat a customer down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted October 17, 2011 Global Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2011 Wow, that cashier really beat the crap out of them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 The victim's mother claims she may have permanent brain damage. Geez, if this was the appropriate form of self-defense, where's the line you cross for an inappropriate response in self-defense? Killing her and ****ing on her corpse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyCypherz Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Those two biatches got what they deserved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eveready Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 she may have permanent brain damage. Preexisting condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Preexisting condition. Yeah, even though there's no history of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tender Foot Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Yeah, even though there's no history of it... So what, the same thing that goes for 99% of the people that they say had Preexisting condition when they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 So what, the same thing that goes for 99% of the people that they say had Preexisting condition when they didn't. ...sudden memory loss is a preexisting condition that is in no way related to the severe beating she received? It's just the biggest coincidence in the history of the universe? My goodness, you guys are seriously willing to go to every extreme imaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 The victim's mother claims she may have permanent brain damage. DUH -- acting that way in a public restuarant, certainly suggests mental problems. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blade1269 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 hey, Note to self: always super size..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Maybe that brain damage will make her a normal citizen instead of some insane threatening thug. They got what they deserved. You can't act like that and expect others to let you step all over them. Come at me with intent to do harm, and you better follow through, because I know I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnast Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Eh, I tried to keep an open ear to those that were saying that what the cashier did was nothing less than assault without a doubt, but you guys are killing your own arguments with some statements. To say that the casheir hit the women with the rod only because he got slapped is ridiculous. If multiple people are overtaking obstacles to get to you after you just got assaulted, of course they're going to be considered a threat. If I've already been struck by one of them; why wouldn't I think that they're trying to cause harm to me after them trespassing and attempting to follow me further into the work area right afterwards? They ran right up to him when he already had the weapon in his hand. It wasn't a long distance swing. Threatening them very likely wouldn't have stopped them. When somebody is coming at you like that how close do you let them get before you finally take action? (This part isn't in reply to any "pro-assualt" people but nobody seems to mention this...) The guy swung several times before they finally fell down. Neither decided to retreat while they were blocking his swings. In fact, they were getting closer and closer before they fell down. If it wasn't clear before, it's obvious they are trying to get close to hiim physically for a reason. And to add to the above; someone mentioned (not in the same words) that the guy looked capable of handling them with his fists. Exactly. For two women to rush me like that, I'd have to consider the possibility that they feel empowered to do so because they have weapons. They are less than two feet away when he starts swinging. You don't know what they have, and at that point it's too late to try to find out. So, up until that point there is no gray area for me, but right after they fell he got two more hits in. One on each assailant. I couldn't see what was going on behind the counter from the video and presumably nobody else in this thread could, either. My thoughts were that they were getting right back up at that moment, but if not, then he possibly went too far. The thing is, though, that right after those two hits, the girl on the right was still trying to get right back up - hence the pause and subsequent hits. They already proved that they weren't backing down after they proceded to inch up on the guy while he was initially swinging at them, so why would somebody in that situation think that they were trying to jump back up only to congratulate him on a fight well done and then walk away? When most people get knocked down and are done fighting and the person who knocked them down is standing no more than a foot away, no less with a weapon in hand, they typically wait at least more than 3 seconds and make a gesture such as holding their open hands towards the aggressor to let the "winner" know they've won and it's usually accompanied with something to the likes of "okay okay". Some people say the girls that were being attacked were screaming for him to stop, but I've watched the video at least ten times and they were very loud in the beginning, but it seems like a desperate "victim" would be just as loud if not louder if they wanted the situation to end. I didn't (even after just watching again) hear them screaming for him to stop at all. TL;DR: Silly arguments like "Slapping someone doesn't give you the right to annihilate someone with a construction beam" are hyperbole, misleading, and have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts