DaLovinDJ...violence is NEVER justified?

Before I go anywhere else let me state that I AM against violence and I believe there is almost always another solution…I DO believe however that sometimes you just have to do what you have to do.

I love in a bad neighborhood, the kind that if someone hears you live there they are more often than not either scared to death of you, or have trmendous repsect for you, simply because you survive day to day (as an indication I got cussed out by a 4 year old and when I went to discuss it calmly with his pa was lucky to get away)

That being said the other night I was coming back from a rehearsal and as I’m parking my car see a group of people in the street. I didn’t know what was going on but I heard shouting and saw a baseball bat being swung on something on the ground. It didn’t take me long to realize a group of people were assaulting my neighbor. Before any other action I called the police, right then and right there from my cell while still in my car. I DID inform them that in two minutes I was going to have to do something if they were not there. Two minutes passed so I, Meros, went against the mob.

Yes it was violence, yes I hate myself for it, but it took the police 10 minutes to get there, 10 minutes in which, judging by the extent of my neighbors injuries and the number of people involved (7), he would have been killed had I not gotten some of them, in particular Mr. Baseball Bat, preoccupied with me.

So tell me, should I have sat idly by and let a man (possibly) be killed for the sake of non-violence?



I am not DaLovinDJ, but sometimes violence is justified.

Violence is justified if you are protecting yourself or others. Initiating violence can be, at times, justified. For example, if the Allied powers started a war with Germany and the Axis powers before WWII there is a possiblity that WWII would have never happened and the loss of life would have been less.

The big problem is that no one knows the future so no one knows what the best path is.


Meros… got a link?


We were leaving a club one night and were met at the door by a gang of about thirty young white males who took offense that we were a mixed group of ten white, Metis, and Cree men and women.

I guess that according to these racist fucks we should not have been associating with each other and they were going to teach us something about who we should associate with by beating the ever loving shit out of us.

Three of these guys (who’s mother’s really should have swallowed) went after Lola and an injured friend who had started to run to our car while the rest of us fought with the gang.

They indicated their intentions by yelling “get that indian bitch” and didn’t make five steps towards them before I took two of them out with extreme prejudice. The third guy stopped to assist his friends and grabbed me… he was scared shitless (after seeing his friends laid out) and let go when I asked him to. That saved him from experiencing firsthand what kind of violence I am capable of when I have just cause.

So for Dalovin one… was my violence justified or would I have been a better man to allow my wife to be assaulted by three racist thugs?

After September 11th I was willing to go and stand between my Muslim friend and his family and anyone who might consider performing acts of violence towards them. He told me he received similar offers from a number of non-Muslim friends and was really touched that people respected him so much. Thankfully, nothing happened.

I have been jumped by numerous individuals and groups and because the police weren’t standing behind me I have been forced to take violent action against those wishing to cause me injury. I built up a perfect fight record and because of this, my reputation kept most people from trying to fuck with me.

I have never started a fight in my life but have finished them all using the minimum amount of force required to make the other peron cease hostilities. If that meant breaking some limbs then limbs were broken. If a smack upside the head was all that was needed then I used a smack upside the head… sadly… most people don’t respect getting smacked upside the head and ended up suffering more than they expected to.

Meros - you get a star for putting someone’s safety above your own and for putting yourself at great personal risk. We call people like you heroes around here.

Sounds like the words of someone who has either been well-insulated from reality (lucky for 'im) or has chosen to ignore reality around him.

But I’ll wait 'til I see an actual quote of Mr. DJ’s before I apply those judgments to him.

Feynn: What is Metis?

Here’s the quote in context:

Note that he was directly quoting his mother, and note the “self defense” exception. It’s from the thread The Court may finally force my neighbor to eat his own shit.

Thanks Desmostylus. As you have pointed out I mentioned she had the right idea and made exceptions for self defense. I also have no problem with violence used to end already violent situations (helping others in trouble). In the case we were discussing there was no immediate danger to any party so I felt violence was unjustified. It would be entirely foolish to think that there is never cause for violence in this often fucked up world.

My mother’s advice was to me when I was a child. She was trying to relate to me in simple terms that I should always look for the peaceful solution to any situation I may find myself in. Of course, there may be times when you have to defend yourself, so we took karate classes. In those classes they reinforced her philosophy. The art I was learning was not to beat people up, but to find the quickest path out of violence. The goal was always to end any aggressive confrontation. They were very determined to teach us to never look for a fight, and only to use what we were learning in defense.

Of course there are exceptions (I said she had “the right idea”, not “this is the ultimate truth”. I still think that the philosophy my mother tried to teach me when she repeatedly reminded me that “Violence is never the answer.” was a good one. Meros, I think you have mis-represented my words as well as my entire position. When you pit someone it is customary to link to the threads involved and quote particular sections for clarity. This process also allows one to get a chance to better formulate their argument and perhaps catch any foolish errors they may have made (such as jumping to conclusions or putting words in someone’s mouth).

DaLovin’ Dj

Or perhaps the words of someone who has a religious, philosophical, or moral objection to violence to solve problems, any problems.

gex gex - The Metis people evolved in the 18th and 19th century from a stock of Scottish and French traders, and Cree, Ojibwa, Saulteaux, and Assiniboine people and as of 1982 were officially recognized by our government as a distinct aboriginal group, with a culture that is distinct from their European and aboriginal ancestors. Having one parent that is aboriginal and another that is European does not make one Metis.

The city just north of us was founded in by Fr. Albert Lacombe in 1861 as a Metis settlement, it was named St. Albert after Fr. Lacombe’s patron saint. He also established other Metis settlements in the province and spent his life championing their cause when other members of the church and society looked upon the Metis and aboriginal people as savages. His opinion was that the “half breeds” (his words) were the most honourable and civilized people he knew and that Europeans could not be trusted.

Anyways… back to the OP.

My wife is very dark skinned and I believe that in the incident I described, this made her a very visible target for a racially motivated attack.

Again… the level of violence I used was, in my opinion, justified. Had I continued to beat these individuals after they were down that would not have been justifiable and would have been criminal. I must admit that I sincerely wanted to beat them within an inch of their worthless lives.

The racists who went after my wife got severely injured and there’s more to this story…

A few days after this happened I went to see my nephew at McDonald’s where he was working at the time. I was at the counter talking to him when I saw the same three individuals I encountered a few nights before walking around the back of the restaurant. They saw me and kept their heads low. They looked like shit… one guys face looked like he had been hit with a baseball bat and another had a noticeable limp. I asked my nephew what happened to them and he said they told him they were attacked by a gang of indians.

I smiled and said they hadn’t been attacked by a gang of indians but rather, had made the mistake of going after his beloved Aunt.

He looks at me with a smile and says… “You did this didn’t you?”

I replied… “yup.”

He said he would have a talk with them after work… :slight_smile:

Or the words of someone who’s been quoted out of context. I disagreed with him in that thread (to some extent, at least), but if I thought he’d said something as fatuous as that with no qualifications, I’d have had more to say. But he didn’t.

In the words of a good friend of mine"

I think most historians now agree that the Soviet and American tanks rolling through the streets of Berlin had something to do with why the Germans stopped being mean to the rest of Europe.

Well, if the intention of this thread was to Pit dalivindj for having a ridiculous opinion, it’s failed miserably. Maybe before you Pit someone for something that you believe they said, it might be worth actually reading their post to make sure that you know what the hell you’re talking about. Especially when others, like feynn, might then also jump in without apparently having the slightest hint of a clue about what the Pitted person’s position is.

I don’t recall anyone saying in the thread started by lieu that violence is unacceptable in self-defence. The main issue in that thread, with relation to self-defence, was whether lieu’s situation actually qualified for such a definition. Some said no, some said yes, and that’s where the lines were drawn. As both Desmostylus and dalovindj have already pointed out, the latter was quoted completely out of context in the OP of this thread and, more importantly, without the inclusion of the qualifying sentence which would have demonstrated his position of the issue quite clearly. If quotations are used in this way in books and articles, it’s called intellectual dishonesty, and that’s exactly what the OP is guilty of.

Thanks for the quote, Desmo. A most well-reasoned and written post by Mr. DJ, one that I agree with.


In which case we’re right back to the situation of somebody who has chosen to ignore reality around 'im.

Incorrect, Spoofe. Some people are so dedicated to their philosphy or moral code that they will abide by it in the midst of something of which they are fully aware. I suppose you could call it the “Christians & Lions Syndrome.” That’s not ignoring it, it’s refusing to let the situation dictate your actions.

Never let it be said that I will not admit when I am wrong. DJ yes, in hindsight I DID misunderstand you to a degree. My apologies, as far as the link goes, I’m still new to it all and will be sure to do so in the future

I’m not referring to the act itself. Call my bitterly cynical, but I’m of the opinion that someone who says “I will never do Action A, never, despite the reason” is closed off to reality. Thus, the attitude is what I call “ignoring reality”.


Don’t take this wrong, but IMHO you’re skating extremely close to making up your own definition.

The attitude I’m describing (not that I actually practice it) is the one of say those aforementioned Christians facing the lions or those Buddhist monks who’ve renounced violence no matter the consequence or the cost to themselves.

Don’t you see that such people are not ignoring reality? What they’re doing is presenting their action as an example of how they believe everyone–including those persons inflicting violence on them–should behave. They’re fully aware of reality. In fact, it is their willful act of nonviolence by which they are trying to change reality into a better reality.

Apology accepted. Don’t worry about it. Your not the first person to pit me on faulty premises. Believe me. Good luck in all your future posts. This place is great. I’ve learned a tremendous amount hanging out here and I’ve made a few friends along the way. Enjoy. You’ll get the hang of it. . .

Hey SPOOFE, thanks for the compliment and I hope you’ve got something cool planned for your 10,000th post!!! Are you savoring hovering at 9999? How many posters over 10,000 do we have these days any how? I’m a couple years away myself.

Thanks to all who came to my defense here!

DaLovin’ Dj

I don’t think that’s quite right. I have no desire to continue that argument here, but I feel this misrepresents my (and others’) position a bit.

I don’t think anyone was saying that lieu acted in self-defense. I certainly wasn’t, and I don’t believe lieu himself was either. Some of us were simply of the opinion that there are instances, other than strict self-defense, where a violent reaction is, perhaps not appropriate, but at least excusable. Others disagreed.

That was my take on it, anyway.

Perhaps that’s true. It’s certainly true that most people were arguing in such a manner, and i probably overstated the case a little. However, there were a few people whose emphasis on the tire iron issue as an example of assault seemed to be making an argument that lieu acted in self-defence. At least, that’s how i interpreted their posts.

Demise was the first, saying:

Beagle opined:

Peyote Coyote adds:

Ogre said:

Demise argued:

and ogre weighed in again, regarding the tire iron:

I saw these posts as making the case for, or at least implying, self-defence on lieu’s part. YMMV.