An Example of Non-T Behavior

Off Topic
81

I have to say, I’m on pookie’s side on this. I wouldn’t step up against some 6’4 300 pound dude to protect some idiot who should have walked out or done ANYTHING different then CONFRONTING the stupid bitch RIGHT INFRONT OF THE BEAST. My god, this guy was just asking for a beating. Being 6’2 220 himself i’m sure hes probably gotten away with a lot of stupid acts, but that one takes the cake.

I also agree with Mindeffor, if you know what to look for or have seen shit hit the fan enough times, you know when somethings Definately going to happen or when it’s just talk. I think this is a situation that as soon as she came back in with the ugly behometh I’de be back later to get my pizza, call me what you will but I’m not getting involved in something I didnt start and that I know that I couldnt stop.

82

Also after watching the video again I can’t help but laugh when the worker leaves from behind the counter to throw the lady out, then in comes the beast and he runs right back behind the counter… haha he had the right idea

83

I’d just like to clarify that I was not suggesting that it was a hate crime, even if she did say something about his race.

My feeling however is that if the person being beaten had fit into one of those groups I mentioned, then the pair likely would not have gotten the same benefit of the doubt, at least so far as the prosecutors, and public opinion went.

84

On what assenvy wrote:

This is nonsense. It is called being a scared bitch. You can romanticize it all you want to, but no one did anything for two reasons, one, they cared more about themselves than anyone else, and two, they were scared to act. I sure as hell hope no one in Iraq right now has this type of mentality. Your scenario about helping a girl in need also doesn’t make sense. That is the same scenario. The only difference is, you might get some ass in the second case.

I am not even saying that everyone should have played Superman, but no one even yelled. That is sad and shows lack of caring for anyone else but themselves. It shows apathy and why you all are trying to make excuses for it is something I just do not understand.

85

Bullshit. Pure coaching by a lawyer. In fact, her lawyer probably wrote that “apology.”

“Take care of that white motherfucker.”

“I didn’t expect that to happen.”

Fucking lying cunt.

Let’s just be thankful that there was a camera there, or God only knows what kind of bullshit excuses and lies this bitch and her gorilla would be telling about what happened. Those bystanders would probably be too pussy to testify to what they saw.

86

[quote]freejury wrote:
I wouldn’t step up against some 6’4 300 pound dude to protect some idiot who should have walked out or done ANYTHING different then CONFRONTING the stupid bitch RIGHT INFRONT OF THE BEAST. My god, this guy was just asking for a beating. Being 6’2 220 himself i’m sure hes probably gotten away with a lot of stupid acts, but that one takes the cake.
[/quote]

Right, he should’ve just let the bitch keep spitting in his face and do nothing.

Let me guess, you’re Canadian.

I would have used that crack whore as a shield.

87

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
hedo wrote:
Second a weapon is designed to stop a thug like that if you are not big enough to take him on physically.

this would be the basis for the old saying “god made man; Sam Colt made them equal.”

I backed 2 guys down once just by reaching around my right hip like I had a gun. One guy grabbed the other and they left, I heard one guy saying “what” and the other says “dude, he’s got a fuckin gun”.[/quote]

Everyone always goes on about how guns make people safer. Yet Countries that ban guns have the least violence rates out there.

The general view is, if you restrict guns enough, you’re also keeping them from the bad people. Now yes, if someone truly is bad enough to get a gun. They will get one anyway. But I doubt this person will carry it around personally, in fear of getting caught for something that didn’t require a gun.

Guns give people too much power. If someone wants to steal your car and they don’t have a weapon, chances are they are not going to go up to you and steal your car. But let us give this same person a gun. Oh, I will just point this at the person and they will give me the car, and if not they are toast!

People can still use knives, but it’s much easier to live after getting stabbed or slashed than it is after getting shot.

If some idiot comes up to my car and tells me to get out. I will laugh in his face. He will try to take it from me physically and will be met with resistance.
If he has a knife, I will still offer him resistance, and my main goal will be to get that knife out of his hands. As soon as he punctures me anywhere, I will back off and let him have the car.
If he has a gun, chances are i’m going to give up the car.

Some of these criminals don’t want resistance. They know that guns will offer them the least resistance. MAybe the guy with the knife will decide to give up on the car and just run off.

I’ve actually seen this happen in my area. A guy with a knife went onto the guys car lot and demanded the Mercedes. The guy refused. The guy with the knife ended up fleeing.

There was a girl who got raped near my area. Guy pulled her into the forest with a gun. She didn’t even scream. It was in a well lit area while she was waiting for the bus. If he hadn’t had a gun, she probably would have put up a fight.

Guns are no good.

88

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that is a fine line to cross. First, she went off on everyone before she focused in on one person. I think a hate crime would be defined as her intentionally going after him first because of his skin color.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that, Prof. X. I think the definition of a hate crime varies by state, but in this case, I think that this psycho bitch belied at least some racial motivation by referring to the victim as “this white motherfucker.” Don’t you think a lawyer could argue that she selected him for a beating because he was white, and might have let someone of her own race off with just a tongue lashing and spit in the face? I don’t know if he would (or should) win that argument, but I could at least see the argument being made in court.

I’m not that familiar with the details of the Rodney King case, but aside from the fact that King was black and the cops were white, when was it shown that this was racially motivated? For all we know, these cops could beat down anyone who tries to run. Unless there’s something I don’t know about the case, I see no difference between these two incidents. In fact, if anything, this incident is a better case for “hate crime” because we do hear this bitch mention the victim’s race. No audio was available in the Rodney King video to my knowledge.

I agree with you on this point, however. This would have happened regardless of the victim’s race. Like I said, I don’t see this as a hate crime, but I could see the argument being made. And I certainly think it would be on everyone’s lips had the races been reversed.

Come on, some ginormous bald white powerlifting dude knocks some poor black guy out after his girlfriends says, “this black motherfucker right here”? Sharpton would be running to the courthouse steps before the video was even over.

89

[quote]assenvy wrote:
The general view is, if you restrict guns enough, you’re also keeping them from the bad people. Now yes, if someone truly is bad enough to get a gun. They will get one anyway.[/quote]

You’re absolutely correct. If someone is bad and wants a gun, they will be able to get it anyway. Bro, these people get guns through illegal means as it is. Your average gangbanger doesn’t go to K-Mart to get his gun. So how is keeping these guns out of K-Mart going to keep this same gangbanger from getting his gun? By keeping it out of the hands of his suppliers? You mean, the way people can’t get drugs or steroids in this country because to own them is illegal outright? It just doesn’t work in practice.

What it DOES succeed in doing, is keeping guns out of the hands of EVERYONE ELSE who might want to protect themselves from the bad guys. John Stossel from 20/20 talks about this a lot. Time and time again, ask criminals what they fear most, and they won’t say “cops” or “getting caught” or “the death sentence”; they’ll say, “a victim who has a gun.”

Remember, it’s illegal right now for these hoodlums to be carrying guns on them, but they do it anyway, right? So how is making guns illegal going to stop that practice?

90

[quote]Professor X wrote:
On what assenvy wrote:

This is nonsense. It is called being a scared bitch. .[/quote]

No Actually, the sub-conscience does take over, making being analytical really hard.

People who go to war are trained for things like this.

They go out there in groups. Supporting each others mentality.

And no the guy and the girl is a diff scenario. In this case you definitely pick your battle from a distance. If the guy was huge and had a gun to her face, do you think you would go up to her? No. You would hide like a little bitch and if you’re a good person call the cops at the least.

No one will walk into a scenario that they don’t think they can control.

91

On what Professor X wrote:

Yep.

As far as the hate crime thing - let’s switch the skin color of everyone in that pizza joint.

Are you saying that - if it was a fat assed white woman bitch slapping a comparativley diminuative black guy, and a 300 pound ‘bubba’ beating the hell out of said black guy - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and most of the Nation of Islam wouldn’t be screaming their heads off demanding that these guys be tried as hate criminals?

92

[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:
I’m not that familiar with the details of the Rodney King case, but aside from the fact that King was black and the cops were white, when was it shown that this was racially motivated? For all we know, these cops could beat down anyone who tries to run. Unless there’s something I don’t know about the case, I see no difference between these two incidents. In fact, if anything, this incident is a better case for “hate crime” because we do hear this bitch mention the victim’s race. No audio was available in the Rodney King video to my knowledge.[/quote]

You think this case shows a racially motivated crime MORE than several cops continually beating up one guy on tape? So, in your opinion, you think that same beating would have occured if they had picked up any white person that night? That is actually the first time I have ever heard anyone relate to that incident like this. One of the things that made that case so high profile was the fact that many blacks had been reporting police brutality for years and nothing had been done about it. For once, they finally caught it on tape and everyone who had either been in a situation like that or even had family members who had used that as their podium to show the world what had been going on. In the long run, it caused many positive changes because of that approach. Before then, there was a real problem with the way police treated blacks. That has decreased significantly since that particular case.

As far as the fat hoe in the video, she made a racial slur. There is no doubt about that. That doesn’t mean her boyfriend took him out due to race. I think you would have hard time pushing a hate crime as a motivation simply because of the way she acted before that towards everyone else.

[quote]
Come on, some ginormous bald white powerlifting dude knocks some poor black guy out after his girlfriends says, “this black motherfucker right here”? Sharpton would be running to the courthouse steps before the video was even over.[/quote]

As far as this is concerned, I agree with you. For one, race crimes against blacks are historically more prominant and more likely than they have been in the opposite fashion. We happen to be at a cross roads in our society where, due to improvements in race relations, we can now bring more acts into question as far as true motivation. I have no doubt that it would have been spun in that direction if that had been the case, however, the same burden as far as PROVING IT IN COURT would still rely on proving that she went after him only because of his race. Because of her previous actions towards EVERYONE, that doesn’t seem to be the case. That makes talking about it as if it were a blur of the facts. To make a proper argument, you would have to bring in cases where a race crime was accused but none was actually committed. I can’t think of one.

93

Ill try and explain a few of the things that happen here using my own experience .

First, we need to define the universal human phobia. It is not snakes or sharks or the dark or any of that stuff. It is interpersonal human aggression. It seems that animal species are very often hardwired to not attack their own kind. Nowhere is this more evident than in human beings. Despite the violence we see on the news and so forth, the vast majority of us do our best to maintain the social contract and not harm each other. Even people engaged in wars have historically made almost ludicrous attempts to avoid killing the enemy. Of course, there are a small percentage of people that do not exhibit this trait and will use violence at the drop of a hat.

The fact that nobody in the group even appears to react(prof. x mentions how no one even shouts at the guy to stop) is quite common when humans are confronted with the universal human phobia. A phobia reaction can take a number of forms, but for some reason, a common reaction to the UHP is to deny it is happening. That effect is made worse by the fact that most people realize that violence like that is directed specifically against one target and if you completely stay out of the conflict, you have almost no chance of being hurt.

Like it or not, self-preservation is the most powerful drive we have in almost all cases.

Be honest. How many of you guys at least experienced a somewhat elevated heart rate watching this? Do the mental exercise of putting yourself in that pizza parlor and see what you experience.

Now, the question becomes what can you do about it, because the beating of this guy in a roomful of men capable of defending him is inexcusable.

I have a couple of answers but none of them are easy.

The first is a mental exercise. Military and law enforcement officers (at least the good, capable ones) go through a regular practice of visualization. I do it every shift in my patrol car. Mentally put yourself in a situation like this pizza brawl and resolve yourself to act. The effect is even more powerful if you use actual circumstances around you to enhance the experience (ie…if you are on line at walmart, run a briefly run walmart scenario in your head, maybe even picking out a guy that looks tough as your “bad guy”.) Believe it or not, this steady visualization game vastly improves performance in violent situations for a host of reasons. Just make sure you see yourself acting appropriately and decisively.

Next, take responsibility for your own survival. If you are able, carry a firearm and train in its use. You, your family’s or maybe some helpless other person may rely on you some day. Dont go anywhere without this firearm. If I step out of the house to go to a store for the damn newspaper, I have a gun on me. (BTW, it is a topic for another day about if and then how a firearm should have been employed in this particular case.)

If you cant carry a gun legally, or absolutely refuse to (which is a shame, really), then physically prepare yourself for violence. Everybody here is probably in excellent physical condition, so that is not an issue. Im talking about real fighting skills…muay thai, boxing, wrestling etc. Not only will these improve your odds of surviving a violent confrontation, it will improve the odds that you would enter such a fray to begin with. To wit, if 6’8" UFC fighter Tim Sylvia was on line behind the guy that got beat up, he would have been much more likely to intervene than some milktoast accountant with a size 12 shirt. This is common sense. Sylvia knows he could knock that belligerent piece of shit the fuck out because he has done it before. There is only so much you can do to improve your physical
capabliities, but if this kind of thing really pisses you off, then you have an obligation to do so.

Lastly, make peace with yourself that you will not ever let something like this happen in front of you. Lets be fair and say that human nature and societal conditioning were working hard against those bystanders in the pizza place. But lets also say that good men dont want that for their society, and we need to resolve beforehand to draw our line.

The shitty thing about experience is you never have enough until you need it. Unless you want to go live in an urban war zone and play superhero(and live a much shorter life in the process), your exposure to this kind of thing will be very minimal.

PLease heed some of my advice. It could be anyone of us catching the beating one day.

Stay safe

94

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You think this case shows a racially motivated crime MORE than several cops continually beating up one guy on tape? So, in your opinion, you think that same beating would have occured if they had picked up any white person that night? That is actually the first time I have ever heard anyone relate to that incident like this. One of the things that made that case so high profile was the fact that many blacks had been reporting police brutality for years and nothing had been done about it. For once, they finally caught it on tape and everyone who had either been in a situation like that or even had family members who had used that as their podium to show the world what had been going on. In the long run, it caused many positive changes because of that approach. Before then, there was a real problem with the way police treated blacks. That has decreased significantly since that particular case.[/quote]

So you think that the previous allegations of frequent beatings by white LAPD cops against only black perpetrators is evidence enough to raise that video’s status to that of showing a hate crime? I guess I can see that argument. But again, that’s basically what you’re saying. Because given SOLELY what is shown on the tapes, the pizza parlor video shows MORE evidence of having been racially motivated because the woman made a racial slur. The Rodney King beating showed white cops beating a black guy. There’s no reason to conclude, solely from that video, that race was a factor as, like I said, those cops could just be scum bags who always beat perps who run. You get what I’m saying? I do think it was racially motivated and I do think it’s a good thing that it was brought to light. But my point was that between the two videos, the pizza one is more telling of a hate crime than the Rodney King video in absence of the context that the numerous previous allegations provide.

[quote]As far as the fat hoe in the video, she made a racial slur. There is no doubt about that. That doesn’t mean her boyfriend took him out due to race. I think you would have hard time pushing a hate crime as a motivation simply because of the way she acted before that towards everyone else.
[/quote]

Yeah, I agree with you, I don’t think this was a “textbook” hate crime for the simple fact that the victim could have been of any race. But I could definitely see the argument being made in court in order to try for a stiffer sentence. I guess what I have more of a problem with is the “jump” to invoking racism that tends to occur in the media much more often when the victim is a minority and the assailant white. I’m for equality in all things, including accusations of racism. The whole “there’s no such thing as racism against the majority” is a crock, as far as I’m concerned.

Again, I think it depends on the state as far how they define “hate crime.” I’m not entirely convinced that she would have to have gone after him “only because of race,” as some states may define “hate crime” to mean that a criminal act was even partially motivated by race. For instance, in making greater the likelihood that this pig would demand that her boyfriend kick this dude’s head in. Obviously they didn’t get together in the car before going to the pizzeria and decide they were going to fuck up some white guy.

95

Sensational post, JD430.

96

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is called being a scared bitch. You can romanticize it all you want to, but no one did anything for two reasons, one, they cared more about themselves than anyone else, and two, they were scared to act. I sure as hell hope no one in Iraq right now has this type of mentality.[/quote]

There are three important differences here. The GIs in Iraq are trained for combat situations; used to work together as teams; and last but not least, armed.

The bystanders here are none of those things.

I’m quite sure that had the rest of the people in the pizzeria been a bunch of GIs just back from Iraq, the large thug and his crazy bitch would’ve been pinned to the ground and held until police arrived.

Training for combat makes an enormous difference. You learn to deal with the adrenaline rush of “fight or flight” and can think more clearly under pressure.

Were they scared? If it was the first time most of them were in such a situation, they probably were all scared shitless and froze.

Calling them pussies, scared bitches, cowards and so on is harsh. They simply reacted like most untrained civilians react in similar situations.

97

[quote]violentvegan wrote:
freejury wrote:
I wouldn’t step up against some 6’4 300 pound dude to protect some idiot who should have walked out or done ANYTHING different then CONFRONTING the stupid bitch RIGHT INFRONT OF THE BEAST. My god, this guy was just asking for a beating. Being 6’2 220 himself i’m sure hes probably gotten away with a lot of stupid acts, but that one takes the cake.

Right, he should’ve just let the bitch keep spitting in his face and do nothing.

Let me guess, you’re Canadian.

I would have used that crack whore as a shield.[/quote]

Violentvegan, I was just about to guess that he resides somewhere around the Akron area. Kidding.

Witnesses aside, the fact that something so paltry escalated into what it did has to be one of the most utterly depressing things I have ever heard. Not to mention the fact that from this point on, whenever I hear the name DaVinci it will no longer be solely associated with human intelligence, it will now encompass both ends of the spectrum.

I wonder how she would explain such a course of events to her children.

98

[quote]pookie wrote:

Calling them pussies, scared bitches, cowards and so on is harsh. They simply reacted like most untrained civilians react in similar situations.[/quote]

I disagree. They didn’t react at all and even that takes conscious effort. They didn’t yell, scream or even whimper. They stood there and watched. You want to make excuses for that. Fine. Maybe if that were you being beat up, that is how you would want everyone standing around to react. I personally don’t consider myself a pussy and I would have done something. That is clearly the difference between us.

99

[quote]pookie wrote:

There’s a bunch of factors that can’t be known from just the video. Most of the people in the pizzeria probably live not to far around; what if the thug is a local gang member? Do you really want to get involved and then fear for your family’s safety everyday? Is risking having one of your kids getting stabbed or beaten while going to school worth it?

[/quote]

Pookie, you’re violating ceterus parabus. When examening a situation, you have to look at only the relevent factors. In other words you can’t try to explain the situation by bringing in a bunch of unknown and irrelevent factors. Here are the important two factors: Guy getting attacked, and people’s response to it. Based on MY moral code (everyone’s is different) the guy gets attacked, the people should intervene. All other factors are unknown and unimportant.

100

Nate- thanks for the Tim Larkin article, I dont really agree with what he writes but then with his background and my background I should probably take what he says as gospel.

I dont see people “slashing” as the first means of attack…I see people getting stabbed, with a lot of force, possibly repeatedly, seemingly out of nowhere.

I guess he thinks knife = non-lethal (for the first attack) so take out the CNS. I think getting cut/stabbed = very bad news so take out the knife, and then the CNS.

There are other things in the article that i disagree with, but as you didnt write the frickin thing ill refrain from writing a paper on it.

In fact, come to think of it I think that for me personally, the article is next to useless.

I would always prioritise a potentially lethal weapon. Unlike Tim, I consider the knife touching me the equivalent of a lethal strike (though i know that odds are it might not be).

A good way to describe it i guess would be that if someone has a bat, i’d treat it as an extension of their arm and get close i.e. inside the arc that the bat will travel, to stop the attack.

If someone has a knife, I am not looking to do anything “close” unless i am sure that the knife is not going to cut me.

Maybe thats stupid- I freely admit that i am not too experienced in this.
Anyone who knows what they are talking about, feel free to educate me. I guess Tim has tried to do that but I have just disagreed with everything he said!