Is this Just Self-Defence?

[Superfreak04]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

fido123:"When somebody FORCES you into a state of panic through their actions which endanger you I think it's more than understandable for that person not to do the ideal thing. If I attacked you and you were put in this state and couldn't respond properly (Biological Fact) isn't it my fault you're in that state in the first place? I attacked you so you must either fight or flight and he was cornered. He tried to get away but they followed him."

Superfreak04:Sure it's your fault, but you have to understand on HOW HE HANDLED THE SITUATION. He overdid it. He took a metal object (WHICH IS A LETHAL WEAPON) and started to beat them. That's like saying, "Since they jumped over the counter, I'm in panic mode. My instinct is to grab a knife and stab them because I'm in danger." Yeah, just because you're in panic mode, doesn't mean shit in a court. Let me repeat that, IT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT IN COURT. If it comes down to that, they will put you down for medical help + a prison sentence.

fido123: "We're not talking about what's the law, we're talking about what's just."

Superfreak04: Okay, then simply put, yeah he was defending himself. But, it's not that simple. I thought this was a debate on if it was right that he got charged with what he did. Which is what I'm trying to explain.

fido123: "Is an unexploded yet armed bomb a threat? So is somebody who's attacking you who just so happens to be beaten the ground. If they get back up there's a good chance they're going to attack you and therefore a threat. Minimize the threat by keeping them down. The police don't pin people then walk around cause they're not ****ing retarded."

Superfreak04: You're comparing a bomb to a person, lol..........

I'll put this in a step by step form to clarify everything based on your post.

1.)"So is somebody who's attacking you who just so happens to be beaten the ground." - BAM YOU'RE DONE, JUST WALK AWAY.

2.) "Minimize the threat by keeping them down." - Yes, which is what HANDCUFFS ARE FOR. Why do you think cops aren't supposed to just repeatedly beat the shit out of people to "minimize the threat"?

3.) "The police don't pin people then walk around cause they're not ****ing retarded." - Yeah, that's why they put them in handcuffs instead of beating them. Ever hear about the "Rodney King Incident"? PRIME EXAMPLE, why you can't do that.

"Rodney Glen King (born April 2, 1965) is an American best known for his involvement in a police brutality case involving the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on March 3, 1991. A bystander, George Holliday, videotaped much of the incident from a distance.

The footage showed LAPD officers repeatedly striking King with their batons while other officers stood by watching, without taking any action to stop the beating".

Now, compare the Mc Donalds employee to the officers. Same thing because they aren't a threat, they are just trying to get up from the ground.

[fido123]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

Sure it's your fault, but you have to understand on HOW HE HANDLED THE SITUATION. He overdid it. He took a metal object (WHICH IS A LETHAL WEAPON) and started to beat them.

How did he over do it? It was two on one. If he tried to take them on with his hands he would have gotten his ass handed to him. He grabbed the nearest thing he could find and beat them so they couldn't attack him. It would be more ideal if he had a stun gun or wooden pole around him but in a panic cornered in McDonald's he's just going to grab what's available to him that he notices. Plus if you're getting attacked wouldn't you grab something that you know is going to give you the upper hand? They're actively attacking you, you never asked to be in any sort of equal grounds duel, you just want to get out of the situation.

That's like saying, "Since they jumped over the counter, I'm in panic mode. My instinct is to grab a knife and stab them because I'm in danger." Yeah, just because you're in panic mode, doesn't mean shit in a court. Let me repeat that, IT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT IN COURT. If it comes down to that, they will put you down for medical help + a prison sentence.

I hate the justice system so yeah, it makes sense in the justice system but IMO doesn't make it just. They were attacking him, that's why he was panicking.

Okay, then simply put, yeah he was defending himself. But, it's not that simple. I thought this was a debate on if it was right that he got charged with what he did. Which is what I'm trying to explain.

What's right and what's in the law aren't the same thing. I think it's understandable why he got charged cause the cops don't really know what happened, but if he gets sentenced I'm going to be pissed.

You're comparing a bomb to a person, lol..........

I did, it's called an analogy.

1.)"So is somebody who's attacking you who just so happens to be beaten the ground." - BAM YOU'RE DONE, JUST WALK AWAY.

BAM bitch shoots you in the back you're dead. Stay on the ground and don't move so I KNOW you're not going to attack me like you appear you are TRYING to do.

2.) "Minimize the threat by keeping them down." - Yes, which is what HANDCUFFS ARE FOR. Why do you think cops aren't supposed to just repeatedly beat the shit out of people to "minimize the threat"?

Yup, too bad that guy didn't have any.

3.) "The police don't pin people then walk around cause they're not ****ing retarded." - Yeah, that's why they put them in handcuffs instead of beating them. Ever hear about the "Rodney King Incident"? PRIME EXAMPLE, why you can't do that.

See above. Also a McDonalds employee has never been trained how to handle attackers. The police in that situation should have handcuffed him. Since the worker had none he had no other option.


Also could you please use the built in quote function? It makes quoting you far easier. You can simply copy paste the same quote header (QUOTE=Superfreak04;3552146) above each quote ending them with a [/quote]. Even just [quote]stuff[/quote] would be good for example:

I AM A QUOTE

[Superfreak04]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

Okay, I'm going to stop this debate since you want it all "In just" form.

In Just form: Yes he was defending himself. But "just form" doesn't mean anything in a court of law.

You'd have to take a criminal law class to understand where I'm coming from. If you did, you will understand why he got charged with what he did.

If you want to talk about this on AIM or something, I gladly will. All contact info is on my profile.

[fido123]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

Feel free to talk about what the courts will do, I already know why he's currently charged and I'm unclear if he'll get away scott free although I hope so. I'd contact you on AIM but it seems we agree. Contact me at "pretentiousbeard" on AIM if you think we don't.

[Emithith]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

This is the kind of thinking I can't stand. Two females are capable of killing a man so why is he not allowed to defend himself? Why do they deserve extra sympathy? I think this kind of thinking belongs in the 1950's and is plain ignorant. Women should be held to the same social standards as men, and I think it's plain ignorance to think anything else. Any women who argues me on this I usually respond with telling them if they don't want true equality they should get back to the kitchen.

I said bludgeon.
He already defended himself with a show of strength. But when they were on the ground and he continued it became assault.
Any other thinking is morally wrong.

Furthermore, it is scientifically proven that Women are physically weaker than Men. While they should be allowed the same rights, e.g. Jobs, voting, etcetera, it is bigoted to think that they can only have 2 shades of rights (black and white is to "kitchen" and full rights) when there are many shades in between.
I am in no way a women's activist, or a feminist, but that way of thinking pisses me off.

edit: I also give them extra "sympathy" because it became assault after he had them on the ground. I do not give them extra points for being women, or even if the situation was turned around I wouldn't give extra points to the males.

[fido123]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

I said bludgeon.
He already defended himself with a show of strength. But when they were on the ground and he continued it became assault.
Any other thinking is morally wrong.

I agree with you but they continued to get back up. If you want to know more about what I think about them getting back up read my previous posts.

Furthermore, it is scientifically proven that Women are physically weaker than Men. While they should be allowed the same rights, e.g. Jobs, voting, etcetera, it is bigoted to think that they can only have 2 shades of rights (black and white is to "kitchen" and full rights) when there are many shades in between.
I am in no way a women's activist, or a feminist, but that way of thinking pisses me off.

edit: I also give them extra "sympathy" because it became assault after he had them on the ground. I do not give them extra points for being women, or even if the situation was turned around I wouldn't give extra points to the males.

I understand you and agree with you. It seemed to me you were giving them extra sympathy because they were women. Regardless those two women combined were a threat and gender shouldn't really be taken into account here. Often people use the "don't hurt women" rule with stuff like this. Don't hurt ANYBODY in ANYWAY like this, UNLESS you are defending yourself man or women. I think it's crazy though for that rule to only apply to women or apply especially to women, it's just social conditioning from the 50's IMO. Men and women should have entirely 100% equal rights while understanding we're both different.

[Emithith]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

Okay, I see your point. I thought you were saying that patriarchy is okay. Totally wrong. lol

[xXAll-ProXx]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

It's not that hard when you're beat up to pull out a knife and fall over onto you stabbing you. Even easier would be she pulled out a gun and shot him. Point is she attacked him and he wants to make sure she isn't going to do it again to save his own life. Plus it's two on one and far more threatening than just one person coming at you. Have some common sense...

I guess it's a little bit different in New York then. Cause that sort of stuff doesn't happen that often in Canada, which is why I wouldn't beat someone with a lethal object if they jumped over the counter and slapped me. With that being said, I still don't see the point in beating them that bad after they're trying to get up, but then again, maybe it's common to see people pull out knives when they are trying to get up in the U.S ?_?

I'd probably do the same if I was at a McDonald's in Texas. js

[~kitty~]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

I think that this act was too aggressive, regardless of gender. I do feel like if the cashier used something else, less lethal I would think it would be all right.

[Emithith]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

I think that this act was too aggressive, regardless of gender. I do feel like if the cashier used something else, less lethal I would think it would be all right.

Sort of a general rule of thumb, alright sort of deal?

[benguino]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

Fido: You say that the man kept beating the women because of the fact that he was afraid that the women might get back up and attack him. Isn't there also the possibility that the man was beating the women just for sweet revenge? Why is it that you seem to rule this possibility out?

[devonin]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

The sexes of the people involved in this incident should be completely irellevent.

The whole thing was caught on camera which makes it -very- easy to simply look at what happened and say "Given the people involved, was the amount of force used in self-defense excessive under the circumstances"

The women both assaulted someone. They should be charged accordingly. The man defended himself from assault, which is fine, but then arguably -also- committed assault by using excessive force.

The fact that it was women attacking a man makes no difference. The only important thing is "Having put them to the ground in self-defense, was he then able to get away from the situation/get to safety/get to where additional witnesses would result in the assault ending" if the answer is yes (And I'd say it is a yes in those circumstances) then continuing to hit them was also assault.

Everyone goes to jail, everyone loses, because everyone's a loser, case closed.

[fido123]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

Fido: You say that the man kept beating the women because of the fact that he was afraid that the women might get back up and attack him. Isn't there also the possibility that the man was beating the women just for sweet revenge? Why is it that you seem to rule this possibility out?

Yeah but if what he's doing seems logical you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't assume somebodies motives like that.

[bmah]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

Yeah but if what he's doing seems logical you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't assume somebodies motives like that.

Well then, I guess you should rethink what you said earlier about the women. To me, it seems logical to give the women the benefit of the doubt after beating down on them repeatedly. Whether or not it was those women that requested the man to stop beating on them, you can't assume the motives of the women either.

You can argue that making that assumption for the women as opposed to the employee isn't "logical" but I can't see your arguments going any further than the reasoning of "adrenaline".

Maybe devonin said it best. The women aren't going to get away from this by far, but the man certainly isn't going to get the deal you're rooting him for.

[fido123]

Re: Is this Just Self-Defence?

I don't think he needs a deal, I just don't think what he did was assault. You can't give the benefit of the doubt to the women because they were in the process of attacking him. Just cause they're on the ground doesn't mean they're not trying to attack him.

@Devonin: If you're implying I think the genders of anybody in that situation should be taken into account I don't think that at all. I'm trying to say that society often does. As for the rest of your posts I've already posted my arguments in previous pages so I guess we amongst others in this thread disagree on what kind of force should be punishable. Excessive, no doubt but I think given his situation it's simply understandable and shouldn't be punishable.