[quote]Professor X wrote:
…and bumper stickers that read, “get off my ass or I’ll beat you like I work at Mc Donald’s” with “LOL insert women’s names” under it.[/quote]
that’s actually not a bad idea. I’ll invest in this venture with you.
lol
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like the guy did some shit a decade a go and served time for it.
Now, he gets a sucky ass job(I know I used to do it) to basically tell the world, “Hey, I’m trying to turn my life around”, and now because of two bitch ass females who felt they were “entitled” and would not face any consequence because they are females, decided to instigate and escalate the situation, now he’s facing more time??
If you don’t think that’s fucked up, FUCK YOU!
The guy is not a saint, but come on.
The fact that he’s making moves to better himself is admirable in itself! And now that’s being taken away from him because he was defending himself?
The law is bullshit sometimes, and any reasonable human being should acknowledge what the man was trying to do and spare him some.
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like the guy did some shit a decade a go and served time for it.
Now, he gets a sucky ass job(I know I used to do it) to basically tell the world, “Hey, I’m trying to turn my life around”, and now because of two bitch ass females who felt they were “entitled” and would not face any consequence because they are females, decided to instigate and escalate the situation, now he’s facing more time??
If you don’t think that’s fucked up, FUCK YOU!
The guy is not a saint, but come on.
The fact that he’s making moves to better himself is admirable in itself! And now that’s being taken away from him because he was defending himself?
The law is bullshit sometimes, and any reasonable human being should acknowledge what the man was trying to do and spare him some.[/quote]
Yeah, he “did some shit”. He shot and killed a 17 year old during an argument and the bullet passed through that guy and hit an 8 year kid in the leg. This speaks to this guy’s attitude regarding appropriate levels of force as well as his judgment/impulse control. As TBG points out earlier, most people are definitely not “built” like this guy where violence is concerned.
These chicks’ attitudes/actions are a definite problem and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I understand the outrage, but this guy has issues too.
His response starts out somewhat reasonable and potentially justifiable (IMO), but appears progressively less justified (legally) as it goes on. I feel bad for the guy if he was legitimately trying to turn his life around, but he fucked up and as an adult will suffer consequences for his actions.
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like the guy did some shit a decade a go and served time for it.
Now, he gets a sucky ass job(I know I used to do it) to basically tell the world, “Hey, I’m trying to turn my life around”, and now because of two bitch ass females who felt they were “entitled” and would not face any consequence because they are females, decided to instigate and escalate the situation, now he’s facing more time??
If you don’t think that’s fucked up, FUCK YOU!
The guy is not a saint, but come on.
The fact that he’s making moves to better himself is admirable in itself! And now that’s being taken away from him because he was defending himself?
The law is bullshit sometimes, and any reasonable human being should acknowledge what the man was trying to do and spare him some.[/quote]
Illogical.
Taking your position to its logical conclusion, if anyone attacks or threatens you, you have license to maim or potentially murder. Is that your position? Because the guy did fracture the one woman’s skull. She did not brandish a weapon. She was not larger than he. And her skull is fractured and you don’t see that he may have crossed a line?
He may have been trying to turn his life around. True. And yes, he was put into a bad situation that he was ill-equipped to handle for any number of reasons. But handle it badly he did. And now he has to pay for his actions. We are all accountable for our actions.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like the guy did some shit a decade a go and served time for it.
Now, he gets a sucky ass job(I know I used to do it) to basically tell the world, “Hey, I’m trying to turn my life around”, and now because of two bitch ass females who felt they were “entitled” and would not face any consequence because they are females, decided to instigate and escalate the situation, now he’s facing more time??
If you don’t think that’s fucked up, FUCK YOU!
The guy is not a saint, but come on.
The fact that he’s making moves to better himself is admirable in itself! And now that’s being taken away from him because he was defending himself?
The law is bullshit sometimes, and any reasonable human being should acknowledge what the man was trying to do and spare him some.[/quote]
Yeah, he “did some shit”. He shot and killed a 17 year old during an argument and the bullet passed through that guy and hit an 8 year kid in the leg. This speaks to this guy’s attitude regarding appropriate levels of force as well as his judgment/impulse control. As TBG points out earlier, most people are definitely not “built” like this guy where violence is concerned.
These chicks’ attitudes/actions are a definite problem and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I understand the outrage, but this guy has issues too.
His response starts out somewhat reasonable and potentially justifiable (IMO), but appears progressively less justified (legally) as it goes on. I feel bad for the guy if he was legitimately trying to turn his life around, but he fucked up and as an adult will suffer consequences for his actions.
[/quote]
The ONLY part that I disagree with is if he hit them while truly not posing any more threat…but we don’t see that from the vid.
Also, the coworker’s responses is also not enough seeing as people right here are showing they will find any excuse they can for the female actions.
Taking a weapon and defending yourself in itself is not wrong when two people attack, chase and corner you.
His “impulse control” is what kept him from doing that until cornered.
I am also making the point that I doubt a woman in the exact same position would be seeing jail time for defending herself exactly the same, broken skull and all.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That man’s life was in danger by TWO different attackers. Who gives a shit what sex they were? They were out to hurt him and had already shown it. he ended the threat. They are both still alive.
What is the issue?
Would anyone here be saying the same if the attackers were both guys and the cashier was a woman?
Nope…and that’s bullshit.[/quote]
Was his LIFE really in danger? Was it really? What were they going to slap him to death? If he had a gun should he have shot their knee caps out? Or maybe he should have thrown french fry oil in their face as they rushed him.
Of course he should defend himself from assault, regardless of how physically imposing the attcker is, but his life was not in danger after he whacked the person with a metal rod, 5 times.
There is a reason why the law demands that self defense is done with reasonable force. So lunatics like this guy cant get away with attempted murder after he gets an open hand slap from a fellow lunatic.
Who gives a shit what sex they were? Then four sentences later you claim that this wouldnt be an issue if the sexes were reversed. Um wut?
The woman should be charged with assault as well. And the only reason I think the cashier was in the wrong is because he beat the person down with a metal rod, not because he fought back.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Was his LIFE really in danger? [/quote]
Just a heads up…but any time someone ATTACKS you, your life is potentially in danger unless you have done a weapons/cavity search, are aware of ALL the known aggressors in the area who may jump in later and know for sure how skilled your opponent is.
You can see all of this from that video?
What are you…psychic?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is in the heat of the moment, no different than war. Hiroshima may have been a tad much as well.
Are we up on charges yet for it?[/quote]
Um. Hey. Earth to X. McDonalds isnt war. Did someone inject novocaine into your skull?
This post is as far as Ive gotten in this thread. Obviously the next 8 pages are going to be filled with more idiocy.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like the guy did some shit a decade a go and served time for it.
Now, he gets a sucky ass job(I know I used to do it) to basically tell the world, “Hey, I’m trying to turn my life around”, and now because of two bitch ass females who felt they were “entitled” and would not face any consequence because they are females, decided to instigate and escalate the situation, now he’s facing more time??
If you don’t think that’s fucked up, FUCK YOU!
The guy is not a saint, but come on.
The fact that he’s making moves to better himself is admirable in itself! And now that’s being taken away from him because he was defending himself?
The law is bullshit sometimes, and any reasonable human being should acknowledge what the man was trying to do and spare him some.[/quote]
Yeah, he “did some shit”. He shot and killed a 17 year old during an argument and the bullet passed through that guy and hit an 8 year kid in the leg. This speaks to this guy’s attitude regarding appropriate levels of force as well as his judgment/impulse control. As TBG points out earlier, most people are definitely not “built” like this guy where violence is concerned.
These chicks’ attitudes/actions are a definite problem and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I understand the outrage, but this guy has issues too.
His response starts out somewhat reasonable and potentially justifiable (IMO), but appears progressively less justified (legally) as it goes on. I feel bad for the guy if he was legitimately trying to turn his life around, but he fucked up and as an adult will suffer consequences for his actions.
[/quote]
The ONLY part that I disagree with is if he hit them while truly not posing any more threat…but we don’t see that from the vid.
Also, the coworker’s responses is also not enough seeing as people right here are showing they will find any excuse they can for the female actions.
Taking a weapon and defending yourself in itself is not wrong when two people attack, chase and corner you.
His “impulse control” is what kept him from doing that until cornered.
I am also making the point that I doubt a woman in the exact same position would be seeing jail time for defending herself exactly the same, broken skull and all.[/quote]
You’re missing the finer point of this to be honest. We all “get” that you think women should be accountable for their actions. I agree fully. However, if a woman did this to defend herself, almost certainly the size and strength disparity would come into play and this is part of the legal analysis, whether you like it or not, agree with it or not. If two men go chasing after a female, or even one man, she is certainly justified in fearing for her safety such that picking up a weapon is patently not unreasonable. You do not have to like it, agree with it or otherwise, this is simply the legal standards. We speak about it here on these very forums all the time; although man and woman may be “equal” we were not created equal physically. It’s a fact of life.
And, it’s not just ONE coworker’s response, it’s all of them. None of them retreat. None. You can bet your ass that here or in Houston, if that bitch utters knife or gun, or shows a weapon, they are getting the fuck out of dodge. The other point you’re ignoring is that given that the one coworker was trying to break him off, you can absolutely expect him to testify in a manner consistent with his actions.
A prosecutor will have no problem having this guy state that these women no longer posed a danger.
This is a pretty clear case and the guy is likely convicted.
Fighting a woman is a no win proposition. Always has been, always will be.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is in the heat of the moment, no different than war. Hiroshima may have been a tad much as well.
Are we up on charges yet for it?[/quote]
Um. Hey. Earth to X. McDonalds isnt war. Did someone inject novocaine into your skull?
This post is as far as Ive gotten in this thread. Obviously the next 8 pages are going to be filled with more idiocy. [/quote]
Yeah, the post about hyperbole following that one means maybe you should read more before responding, oh great all knowing one who misses things.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Was his LIFE really in danger? [/quote]
Just a heads up…but any time someone ATTACKS you, your life is potentially in danger unless you have done a weapons/cavity search, are aware of ALL the known aggressors in the area who may jump in later and know for sure how skilled your opponent is.
You can see all of this from that video?
What are you…psychic?[/quote]
You have a valid point and I said as much earlier. However, your point is thoroughly extinguished once those two ladies are down, clear evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Like I said, if they had a weapon, other employees are ducking for cover or helping subdue. No one is going to tell dude to stop if bitch is reaching for a weapon. It’s NYC - they gon help whoop that ass.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You’re missing the finer point of this to be honest. We all “get” that you think women should be accountable for their actions. I agree fully. However, if a woman did this to defend herself, almost certainly the size and strength disparity would come into play and this is part of the legal analysis[/quote]
How much do the two women weigh together?
Bet it is more than the cashier?
[quote]
And, it’s not just ONE coworker’s response, it’s all of them. None of them retreat. None. You can bet your ass that here or in Houston, if that bitch utters knife or gun, or shows a weapon, they are getting the fuck out of dodge. The other point you’re ignoring is that given that the one coworker was trying to break him off, you can absolutely expect him to testify in a manner consistent with his actions. [/quote]
These are all assumptions. I understand what you are saying, but NONE of this is known for sure because it is out of sight. I certainly hope murders aren’t being based on responses of the viewer alone.
[quote]
A prosecutor will have no problem having this guy state that these women no longer posed a danger.
This is a pretty clear case and the guy is likely convicted.
Fighting a woman is a no win proposition. Always has been, always will be.[/quote]
That’s what I am making an issue of.
Why let things be that way with no opposition?
I’m surprised the guy with the rod didn’t smack the moron that kept shouting OMG STOP STOP IT! My ears were ready to pop from that screeching.
Some people don’t know when to keep quiet.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You’re missing the finer point of this to be honest. We all “get” that you think women should be accountable for their actions. I agree fully. However, if a woman did this to defend herself, almost certainly the size and strength disparity would come into play and this is part of the legal analysis[/quote]
How much do the two women weigh together?
Bet it is more than the cashier?
[quote]
And, it’s not just ONE coworker’s response, it’s all of them. None of them retreat. None. You can bet your ass that here or in Houston, if that bitch utters knife or gun, or shows a weapon, they are getting the fuck out of dodge. The other point you’re ignoring is that given that the one coworker was trying to break him off, you can absolutely expect him to testify in a manner consistent with his actions. [/quote]
These are all assumptions. I understand what you are saying, but NONE of this is known for sure because it is out of sight. I certainly hope murders aren’t being based on responses of the viewer alone.
[quote]
A prosecutor will have no problem having this guy state that these women no longer posed a danger.
This is a pretty clear case and the guy is likely convicted.
Fighting a woman is a no win proposition. Always has been, always will be.[/quote]
That’s what I am making an issue of.
Why let things be that way with no opposition?[/quote]
Assumptions yes, but REASONABLE assumptions based on the video. Do you actually believe that based on the actions of the employees that ANY of them are going to testify that these women posed a DEADLY THREAT? Because once you brandish a weapon, and once you administer those type of injuries (fractured skull), the LEGAL STANDARD is DEADLY THREAT. Do you believe that, based on what you can see? Do you think the one guy trying to break it up is going to be SUPPORTIVE in court? C’mon.
If you are uncertain, I’ll make you a friendly bet and we’ll follow the case. I told you how this is likely to play. Mark my words. I do have a little experience with this.
I don’t see this as a big issue “unopposed”. First, they were charged. Next, you’re picking the wrong case for a jihad. Had this guy smacked them fucking silly and put them on their asses and was charged, then THAT is your case to champion for “equal rights”. Not this one X.
Guys and gals. There is ONE legal question here. Was he justified using DEADLY FORCE. The minute he wielded the metal object and struck his “assailants” repeatedly, this became an issue of DEADLY FORCE, not simple self-defense. Some of you are missing that point by a mile. It’s the law, agree with it or not.
If you think two apparently unarmed women coming at one man is potentially deadly, then argue that. I think it’s a losing argument under most circumstances. It’s certainly not “impossible” to imagine such a scenario, but I think you have to engage in some serious speculation that is contrary to this video evidence.
And, even if we conceded his picking up a weapon was reasonable, once those woman are down, and he’s still striking them (again, assuming they are unarmed and this is NOT an unreasonable assumption), you have to argue that they still constituted a deadly threat. I’m not sure how anyone can make that conclusion.
Ladies and gents, either way, that’s a tough position to take.
And X, IF the women had a weapon, they would certainly face weapons charges. They did not. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that based on the lack of a weapon charge AND the response of the coworkers, these women were unarmed. I’d even go further and say they did not threaten a weapon, as you’d likely see a “terroristic threat” charge on them as well.
Out of curiosity, who is responsible for laying charges in a case like this? If it’s the victim, then you might look at the cashier as to why there isn’t an assault and battery charge on the women. If it’s the police or the DA then that changes things.
I think for sure the women should be facing assault & battery (there really is no controversy here–we all seem to agree) but I really need more info to judge whether they are being adequately charged because for all I know they made some plea bargains.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Out of curiosity, who is responsible for laying charges in a case like this? If it’s the victim, then you might look at the cashier as to why there isn’t an assault and battery charge on the women. If it’s the police or the DA then that changes things.
I think for sure the women should be facing assault & battery (there really is no controversy here–we all seem to agree) but I really need more info to judge whether they are being adequately charged because for all I know they made some plea bargains.[/quote]
LEO, private citizen or grand jury can bring a charge in this country. The cashier can sign a complaint but in reality he’s facing felony charges and a complaint against these two women are the least of his concerns as they will do nothing to mitigate the charges against him. Nothing.
He’s got bigger fish to fry right now.
This happened recently. Way to early for any plea bargains. As for the cashier, he’s already a violent felon accused of another violent felony. About the only plea he’s going to get is a discussion about the length of his imprisonment being the primary issue. Our courts are usually amenable to some type of plea due to the number of cases going thru the court. It’s cheaper and more expeditious to make deals. Witnesses change their mind, become uncooperative, move away, etc. So there is risk for both sides when it comes to trial. However, they have video here and that’s pretty strong.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Guys and gals. There is ONE legal question here. Was he justified using DEADLY FORCE. The minute he wielded the metal object and struck his “assailants” repeatedly, this became an issue of DEADLY FORCE, not simple self-defense. Some of you are missing that point by a mile. It’s the law, agree with it or not.
If you think two apparently unarmed women coming at one man is potentially deadly, then argue that. I think it’s a losing argument under most circumstances. It’s certainly not “impossible” to imagine such a scenario, but I think you have to engage in some serious speculation that is contrary to this video evidence.
And, even if we conceded his picking up a weapon was reasonable, once those woman are down, and he’s still striking them (again, assuming they are unarmed and this is NOT an unreasonable assumption), you have to argue that they still constituted a deadly threat. I’m not sure how anyone can make that conclusion.
Ladies and gents, either way, that’s a tough position to take.
And X, IF the women had a weapon, they would certainly face weapons charges. They did not. I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that based on the lack of a weapon charge AND the response of the coworkers, these women were unarmed. I’d even go further and say they did not threaten a weapon, as you’d likely see a “terroristic threat” charge on them as well.[/quote]
I dunno I think the justification for deadly force depends on the state. I am not particularly familiar with New York but it seems it has a very tight definition of the ability to use lethal force. Which also sucks for this guy. In a state with a more broad definition of the castle doctrine he’d probably be better off, though most of those states he’d have been in jail for 1000 years after killing someone as a black man so I suppose its hard to determine for sure.
Sex and race all are wound up in these kinds of cases. The video of the two women beating the transgendered woman(manfuckidontknow) is way worse they kept coming back to give the woman more and no one helped at all and even told the two women to run the cops are coming. These chicks only got five years and they were way more brutal than this guy was since he was done in less than about 45 seconds and they stretched it out for a long time.
I don’t think most people know how to respond to violence anymore. In both incidents all kinds of people that could have stepped in basically did nothing out of shock or whatever. I think people like women in the video take advantage of most people’s aversion to any type of violence to get away with acting like they do. There have been several people saying most of us are different than this guy in our propensity to violence and we are, but thats a relatively recent thing in terms of the species.