Then you’re not a very good person.
No, lobohan, I’m a person who can’t see what the two people he was defending himself were doing behind the counter, and can clearly see them instigating the attack on the McDonald’s employee. I’m not willing to assume he was continuing to strike them for no reason.
I agree with Commander Fortune. I would vote to not convict if on the jury. If that makes me a bad person then OK. I can live with Lobohan thinking I am a bad person and have a clear conscience in not convicting a guy who didn’t deserve to be convicted.
They were on the ground and he was hitting them with some kind of pipe. He had already battered them to the ground and broken a skull and an arm. What’s to assume? Were they going to piece together from their individual shattered pieces some kind of Voltron super-assailant, more powerful than their previous unshattered forms?
I keep being flippant, but it’s a serious question. Why does it require an assumption to decide that he used more force than necessary to defend his person? What exactly was the threat that would have required repeated blows with that thing once they were down?
On a related note, since we’ve now moved back to talking about legal conclusions, you guys are absolutely incorrect about him not deserving conviction for anything. You beat somebody with a deadly weapon like that, you need a legal justification. As Muffin has already pretty thoroughly pointed out, this guy didn’t have one.
If everyone on Earth shared your sensibilities there would be a lot more needless deaths. So, I’d say that if a standard for being a good person is striving for fewer needless deaths, you are clearly operating against that standard. I mean, maybe you feed the poor or coach basketball for poor kids or something, I don’t know. But the one I fact I have about you is that you think every common scrap should end with one person dead or insensate on the ground.
Yeah, you’re probably a bad person too. You might as well revel in it. No use being a big-shot internet tough guy without the reveling.
Your ability to assess what is, or is not, a fact needs some work.
OK… Can I get some instruction on that that doesn’t involve coming to a different conclusion than you? Cuz that’s pretty much the extent of your evidence of my “big shot internet tough guy” persona.
True. I don’t know you from Adam. Thankfully.
When someone asks you if you think beating helpless people on the ground is going too far, say yes.
It’s a simple rule I use to evade screenings for sociopathy.
Whew, thank g-d THAT’S not the case here, cuz then I would agree with you and need a shower.
Well we all know juries (jurors) are more than capable of being fallible.
Geez, what kind of ungodly force would this guy have needed if he was attacked by an * man??* (or heaven forbid, TWO). By the reasoning here, he’d need a fucking bazooka.
He’d need one (1) metal rod.
I think the girls should go to jail and the guy should be made to attend either anger management classes or maybe a self defense class to learn self control.
I do not think he deserves jail.
Fuck that. If some guy attacks me and I am allowed to have a bazooka thats my weapon of choice.
Well if I had a weapon of choice, it would be my Lobohan endorsed “Big-Shot Internet Tough Guy Keyboard of Mass Destruction®” in camo colors. For this particular case, I think the guy would go with what he knows.
This keeps getting tossed about, but is anyone the bloody Daredevil here ? And by that I mean has anyone *heard *the exchange that led to the slapping in the first place ? For all we know he opened up with fighting words.
Not that I buy the concept of fighting words in the first place, but Internet tough guys usually do.
Why the hell not ?
Well, to be fair, the women may have been giving him the finger on the ground (in between bludgeonings) and his ire was just being stoked.
Well, we can’t see what the women were doing under the counter on the video, and it appears to be more of a thin metal poker or antenna of some kind (maybe a long latch for one of the kitchen machines) than a “pipe” as is being asserted, so we really don’t know what’s going on other than the people crucifying the cashier already exaggerating the facts. Does this have something to do with the ideological opposition to the notion of self-defense?
Why are you so convinced that you’re the only person who’s ever been attacked? That’s just weird.
One time was when I was attacked with a knife by a crazy girl and her BF; she held the knife to my belly, and I was pregnant. I talked my way out of that one. One was as a teenager and it was a group of girls and hitting them back then running like hell was the only realistic option. A few times it was as a teacher in a very rough school, with angry muscular teenager boys 6 inches taller than me holding improvised weapons. One time it was a drunk arsehole in a pub where I was working. A couple of times it was some neighbourhood kids who’d hit me, beaten and bullied my daughter repeatedly and smashed my windows; hitting them would only have got me into trouble, so I had to hold back, even though you can bet I was white-hot angry with the little fuckers.
But I’m not trying to claim I’m manly - I’m not even a man.
Nobody is saying that people should hold hands and sing kumbaya with their attackers. That’s not exactly close to what I’ve said, is it, even as a parody? I never even said he was wrong to use the crowbar - has anyone said that at all?
You’re making this stuff up because it’s easier for you to argue with imaginary people who want the guy to not defend himself at all rather than people who have a more nuanced opinion than that.