I have watched (and listened) to that video a number of times and I am fairly certain one of the fellow employees can be heard uttering “don’t kill 'em” when the male attacker is over the girls with the metal pipe.
Two unarmed women are beaten down to the floor by a male with a deadly weapon in such a manner that people near him plead with him not to kill them. Yeah, that’s “not particularly cool” in my book either. :rolleyes:
When you’re being attacked, you make sure they stay down. Perfectly understandable.
No, it’s not. First, they are unarmed women. Any time a woman slaps (attacks) a man, he is justified (if not legally then socially) to beat the shit out of her to make sure she “stays down”? Is that what you are saying?
I’m not saying he wasn’t justified in using physical force in defending himself; but the level of aggression really should be tempered to the circumstances. If a couple of 8 year old kids were the perpetrators in this story, would it change your feelings on anything?
A level of force that does not exceed a slap to the face is not the kind of “attack” that ordinarily justifies deadly force in response; do you agree with me there? I mean, killing a person, that is the way to make sure they stay down. So killing a person (gender doesn’t matter) because they slapped you and didn’t run away: “perfectly understandable”?
Both conveniently forgetting that after the slap, one of the attackers jumped the counter to go after the guy, and the other ran around and behind the counter to go after him. When someone attacks you, you retreat (as the guy did in the video) and the attackers go after you, and BTW you have NO idea what weapons the attackers have on them, yes, deadly force is justified.
One slapped him, then both pressed the attack in a determined manner by chasing him behind the counter. At that point, it was open season on their asses. Stop trying to minimize what they did by hand-waving a coordinated attack away as “oh, he got slapped”. He got slapped, retreated, and then was attacked again. Fuck them.
I’m glad you’re taking this so seriously. 
And, as always: how would we feel if a man had smacked a female cashier upside the head before jumping over the counter while his pal came around the other side?
Oh, but because they were women, they weren’t a serious threat! Didn’t you know that? :rolleyes:
That completely changes the dynamic of the story and is a false comparison. Two men attacking a woman is the height of wicked-weasel behavior. Testosterone. And lots of it. That’s the difference.
Modifying mine.
He “retreated” only to fetch his bludgeoning stick.
Good thing he did, too. He had no idea what weapons they might have been carrying.
I don’t disagree with you here. He at least had the right to defend himself. I just protest your use of the word “retreat”, as if he was trying to diffuse the situation.
Sooooo… was the $50 bill legit?
Ah shit. The day’s only just started, and I find myself tending toward’s Magellan’s side of an argument.
He overreacted, obviously. But sorry, they started it. He had been insulted, attacked, and then chased. You don’t do that that to other people, then complain about where that rabbit hole takes you.
I hope that whatever sentence he gets is mild, and includes some form of anger management therapy. I imagine that, having server 10 years in jail, his take on appropriate response in a fight/flight situation may need some correction.
The law ought to recognize the fact that overreacting to a serious perceived physical threat is not deviant weirdo behavior. It’s perfectly understandable for a person who is defending themselves from a violent attack to keep swinging long after a cold calculating internet monday morning quarterback would have decided it’s safe to stop.
The big mistake the guy made was being a felon and having been trained to survive in a prison.
Two drunk women enter an area equipped with knives, heated pieces of metal and baskets of boiling oil? Yeah, you make sure they stay down and have no incentive to ever do that shit again.
I loved the way the news kept calling them “customers”. You jump that counter after assaulting me and you stop being a customer.
This guy is going to do hard time because two drunkass morons decided they were going to teach him a lesson.
My god, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more prejudicial news story in my life. Clue, they do it this way because it makes good copy.
I’m a trained martial artist (black belt in an esoteric form of karate) and if someone, male or female battered me and then came at me along with a cohort, I promise I would make certain neither one would be able to get up until the police arrived. Hell, I might even have grabbed a weapon since it’s better to strike someone with something that doesn’t leave me possibly injured. Please trust me when I say that the way I would have striked these attackers would not be kind.
Yes, after putting them to the ground I would have stopped. However, I rather doubt the man in question has had any training. His background tells us he is very hardcore and aggressive, but that shouldn’t prejudice us against him since he was not the instigator of the the incident.
Listen to what they say in the story, the very first statement was “a fight over an order.” It was a fight over a possible felony, passing a bogus bill. The reporters then go on to talk about his background as if that matters in this circumstance. He was attacked and he reacted. Did he over react? Probably, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was actually the innocent one in this situation.
Under the circumstances (what with him being a prison veteran and so on) those two classy dames should be glad all he used was a metal rod. :eek: