[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
There is a world of difference between “I don’t give a fuck” (which is really the background you are describing) and “I don’t know better”. Because they fucking well DO know better.
[/quote]
If ANYONE knows better, it’s the guy who already did some time for killing another person. This guy is hyper-aware of the potential ramifications of his violence.
Even if the women had attacked him with a knife, once they were disarmed and on the ground the cashier is no longer within his right to continue the assault. The law grants you the right to defend yourself, it does not give you the right to exact revenge/dole out justice/assuage the frustrations of men against uppity hoodrats everywhere.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
He retreated to get a fucking weapon. Not to get away. You ARE missing something.
[/quote]
Purely subjective and speculative.
They didn’t just slap him, for cryin’ out loud. They breached a boundary and hunted his ass down. Good gawd, man, ye are a-twistin’ this thing around. Cease and desist this tomfoolery.
[/quote]
No, when someone leaves where they are presently standing and returns to about the same area, but this time with a weapon, it’s a very safe assumption that he left to retrieve something to defend himself with.
It’s also a safe to assume that he didnt have the plan to run out of the back door but on his way saw the metal rod hanging next to the door and had an epiphany to return to where his attackers were to show them how well he defends himself from their incessant slaps.
…and before this degenerates into a street cred pissing contest, your race/gender/background/religion/emotional state is never a valid defense for any crime. Do none of you realize how slippery of a slope that is?
This guy nearly beats a woman to death well after any threat she posed was neutralized, but it’s ok because he’s from the ghetto and she flipped his switch, man. Plus everybody hates ghetto hoodrat bitches.
Another guy beheads his daughter for dishonoring her family, but it’s ok because he’s from Egypt and they do that shit there. Plus he was really pissed off.
A woman shoots her abusive husband in the head while he’s asleep, but it’s ok because she’s a woman and she was being abused. Plus she was really depressed.
We have laws for a reason, and every adult is held accountable for their actions REGARDLESS. I don’t know why some of you are trying to so hard to defend this guy. All 3 of them are pieces of shit and need to be locked up.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
No, when someone leaves where they are presently standing and returns to about the same area, but this time with a weapon, it’s a very safe assumption that he left to retrieve something to defend himself with.
It’s also a safe to assume that he didnt have the plan to run out of the back door but on his way saw the metal rod hanging next to the door and had an epiphany to return to where his attackers were to show them how well he defends himself from their incessant slaps. [/quote]
Now you got him returning to the same area? Nope. The same area was the cash register he was working. He did not return there. The she-thugs chased him into the kitchen. This twistin’ stuff you got goin’ on has to stop. C’mon man.[/quote]
Exactly…but let’s not act like this is new to him. Twistin’ shit is his middle name.
The guy did retreat to the kitchen…in an EMPLOYEE ONLY part of the facility. The women chased him back there so he grabbed a weapon.
At no time did he leave, grab a weapon and come back to the same spot to attack someone.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
…and before this degenerates into a street cred pissing contest, your race/gender/background/religion/emotional state is never a valid defense for any crime. Do none of you realize how slippery of a slope that is?
A woman shoots her abusive husband in the head while he’s asleep, but it’s ok because she’s a woman and she was being abused. Plus she was really depressed.
[/quote]
Umm. Hasn’t that happened several times? The so-called “battered woman syndrome?”[/quote]
Yep.
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2009/01/26/news/srv0000004569847.txt
LOL at anyone thinking this hasn’t been happening already.
^^ That example came to mind because I just saw a preview on the Discovery channel for a show about women who murdered their abusive husbands and formed a support group in prison.
And this is from Wikipedia:
Again, battered woman syndrome is not a legal defense, but may legally constitute:
-Self-defense when using a reasonable and proportionate degree of violence in response to the abuse might appear the most appropriate defense but, until recently, it almost never succeeded. Research in 1996 in England found no case in which a battered woman successfully pleaded self-defense (see Noonan at p198). After analysing 239 appellate decisions on trials of women who killed in self-defense in the U.S., Maguigan (1991) argues that self-defence is gender biased.
-provocation;
-insanity (usually within the meaning of the M’Naghten Rules); and
-diminished responsibility.
Basically women have tried to argue battered woman syndrome, but it rarely works. If anything, this further proves the point. It’s a lot easier to argue in defense of a woman who’s been abused for years versus a guy who’s never met his attackers, and that shit STILL doesn’t fly in court.
[quote]overstand wrote:
^^ That example came to mind because I just saw a preview on the Discovery channel for a show about women who murdered their abusive husbands and formed a support group in prison.
And this is from Wikipedia:
Again, battered woman syndrome is not a legal defense, but may legally constitute:
-Self-defense when using a reasonable and proportionate degree of violence in response to the abuse might appear the most appropriate defense but, until recently, it almost never succeeded. Research in 1996 in England found no case in which a battered woman successfully pleaded self-defense (see Noonan at p198). After analysing 239 appellate decisions on trials of women who killed in self-defense in the U.S., Maguigan (1991) argues that self-defence is gender biased.
-provocation;
-insanity (usually within the meaning of the M’Naghten Rules); and
-diminished responsibility.
Basically women have tried to argue battered woman syndrome, but it rarely works. If anything, this further proves the point. It’s a lot easier to argue in defense of a woman who’s been abused for years versus a guy who’s never met his attackers, and that shit STILL doesn’t fly in court.
[/quote]
LOL.
The fact that a woman can use it at all and has is enough.
If Francine Hughes can claim she went crazy, this man should be able to as well, right?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
^^ That example came to mind because I just saw a preview on the Discovery channel for a show about women who murdered their abusive husbands and formed a support group in prison.
And this is from Wikipedia:
Again, battered woman syndrome is not a legal defense, but may legally constitute:
-Self-defense when using a reasonable and proportionate degree of violence in response to the abuse might appear the most appropriate defense but, until recently, it almost never succeeded. Research in 1996 in England found no case in which a battered woman successfully pleaded self-defense (see Noonan at p198). After analysing 239 appellate decisions on trials of women who killed in self-defense in the U.S., Maguigan (1991) argues that self-defence is gender biased.
-provocation;
-insanity (usually within the meaning of the M’Naghten Rules); and
-diminished responsibility.
Basically women have tried to argue battered woman syndrome, but it rarely works. If anything, this further proves the point. It’s a lot easier to argue in defense of a woman who’s been abused for years versus a guy who’s never met his attackers, and that shit STILL doesn’t fly in court.
[/quote]
LOL.
The fact that a woman can use it at all and has is enough.
If Francine Hughes can claim she went crazy, this man should be able to as well, right?[/quote]
The dude can say he had a vision from God, and God commanded him to beat the shit out of the women. It doesn’t make it a valid defense and it doesn’t mean it’s going to get him acquitted.
I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make, he can claim whatever the hell he wants. Whether or not it’s a valid defense will depend on legal precedent (and for the battered woman syndrome, there is none.)
[quote]Chushin wrote:
BG,
I was under the impression that multiple attackers legally constituted a “life threatening” attack, and legitamized the use of a weapon for defense.
Was I wrong, or did the calculus change because the attackers were women?[/quote]
I don’t want to put words in BG’s mouth, but I don’t think anybody on this side of the fence is arguing whether or not the attack was life threatening. He may very well have feared for his life. What he (and I) are trying to say is after the first few whacks, the women were on the floor, the threat was neutralized and his life was no longer in danger. He is guilty for every smack after that.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
^^ That example came to mind because I just saw a preview on the Discovery channel for a show about women who murdered their abusive husbands and formed a support group in prison.
And this is from Wikipedia:
Again, battered woman syndrome is not a legal defense, but may legally constitute:
-Self-defense when using a reasonable and proportionate degree of violence in response to the abuse might appear the most appropriate defense but, until recently, it almost never succeeded. Research in 1996 in England found no case in which a battered woman successfully pleaded self-defense (see Noonan at p198). After analysing 239 appellate decisions on trials of women who killed in self-defense in the U.S., Maguigan (1991) argues that self-defence is gender biased.
-provocation;
-insanity (usually within the meaning of the M’Naghten Rules); and
-diminished responsibility.
Basically women have tried to argue battered woman syndrome, but it rarely works. If anything, this further proves the point. It’s a lot easier to argue in defense of a woman who’s been abused for years versus a guy who’s never met his attackers, and that shit STILL doesn’t fly in court.
[/quote]
LOL.
The fact that a woman can use it at all and has is enough.
If Francine Hughes can claim she went crazy, this man should be able to as well, right?[/quote]
The dude can say he had a vision from God, and God commanded him to beat the shit out of the women. It doesn’t make it a valid defense and it doesn’t mean it’s going to get him acquitted.
I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make, he can claim whatever the hell he wants. Whether or not it’s a valid defense will depend on legal precedent (and for the battered woman syndrome, there is none.)[/quote]
I’m mostly just fucking with you for not knowing women were already doing that.
No man could ever get away with that. Just like we have seen in this thread, people would question why the fuck he stayed and got hit in an abusive relationship instead of JUST WALKING AWAY…yet for some reason, that concept doesn’t work the same for women.
I am just admiring the double standards and how far people will go in this thread (even as far as claiming he ran off, grabbed a weapon and ran back to beat up someone) to act like he started beating them for no reason.
I do believe most of us will admit that IF they were TRULY no longer a threat, then he should stop hitting them.
The discourse here seems to be coming from people acting like they can see behind walls and that their attempts to ignore the fucking attack that started this are not related to the fact that these were women at all.
As long as they kept coming at him, they were a threat. Since we can’t see if they stopped, it is speculation that they were no longer a threat.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
BG,
I was under the impression that multiple attackers legally constituted a “life threatening” attack, and legitamized the use of a weapon for defense.
Was I wrong, or did the calculus change because the attackers were women?[/quote]
I don’t want to put words in BG’s mouth, but I don’t think anybody on this side of the fence is arguing whether or not the attack was life threatening. He may very well have feared for his life. What he (and I) are trying to say is after the first few whacks, the women were on the floor, the threat was neutralized and his life was no longer in danger. He is guilty for every smack after that.[/quote]
Gee, Bonez argued just that…that his life was NOT at risk at all and that he should have known the women were unarmed.
Are you missing those posts?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
yeah, you guys are right. we should have let al capone, stanley williams, and richard ramirez write the penal code. those guys know what appropriate actions/reactions are. [/quote]
No one is saying that. MY point (and I know I’m late to the party) is that it is both unrealistic and irresponsible for a society to have a “set standard” and then actively disenfranchise a significant (historically repressed) portion of the population to where they cannot reasonably meet said standard.
I am not naive enough to believe that he will not go back to prison for doing what he did (even though a part of me feels they had it coming). My point is that ANYONE who grew up the way he did would have a very hard time finding the level of restraint that the law requires in that situation. A situation he did not initiate.
[/quote]
Well then he doesn’t deserve to walk around among us. Period.
I disagree with you 100%.
“Restraint” you say. I say common decency. Two people are down. And he continues to beat them with a deadly weapon. That cannot be excused AC. Defend his picking up a weapon. Hell, defend his swinging it a few times based on his background. But you cannot, under any reasonable analysis, defend his continuing to strike them when they were down.
And if you’re not capable of basic decency, well then you DO belong in prison.
There is a world of difference between “I don’t give a fuck” (which is really the background you are describing) and “I don’t know better”. Because they fucking well DO know better.
[/quote]
You and I BOTH know that in our youth we’ve had moments where we haven’t shown restraint. We HAD to in order to survive and thrive where we grew up. And we don’t disagree - I agree that he will be convicted of assault with intent at the very least. I see that plain as day, just as you do. I am only pointing out that just about ANYONE who has grow up as he (we) did and has been in the system will not have the restraint to “switch it off”. Not as his age. We have the gift of age, experience and perspective. We’ve “grown up”. LOL But we’re the exception, not the rule.
I also know that if every moment of BOTH OUR lives were caught on camera, we’d BOTH probably be behind bars. So forgive me if I don’t see the issue as black and white and that he “doesn’t deserve to walk among us”. “Deserve” for me is a slippery slope. I agree that there is enough evidence to KEEP him from walking among us for a few more years (plus whatever back up time he has hanging over his head for violating parole).
But do you think for a second that those girls that attacked him would have given him any quarter when HE was down? I don’t know about you, but I’ve been on the receiving end of a stomp down and they don’t stop when “you’ve had enough”. You know what I’m talking about. If every conflict in the hood was measured by the standard of “the law”, 90% of the people there would be in jail. I’ve been to jail, and I just don’t see it as the answer.
I don’t think we have a disagreement about this incident: we both agree there is evidence to put him in jail. I was only waxing philosophic on some of the Cultural/Economic/Educational/Societal issues as to WHY I see this outcome as kind of inevitable. Sad, but inevitable nevertheless.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
AC when we talk next we’re going to argue about this 
LOL[/quote]
It’s ON! LOL I’ll probably hit you up tomorrow afternoon before class.