Excessive or Well Deserved?

Off Topic
81

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hope this kid’s life isn’t ruined over this anymore than it already was. I mean, seriously, if people want to push you just to see how far it is until you blow up, maybe they shouldn’t be so shocked when you hit the breaking point.[/quote]

Let’s not get crazy and point out “this kid” (Who has already killed someone, and injured a child as a result of that) like he’s some fucking angel.

The guy is a piece of shit in the first place, but let’s say he’s trying to turn his life around. Fine, I can deal with it, I’m a liberal. People get second chances with me.

But then something like this comes along, and shit goes down - well, you gotta be at least a little aware that this ain’t jail anymore, and that beating a woman nearly to death with a pipe - WHETHER WARRANTED OR NOT - will put you back there.

You’re getting a little ridiculous with this.

This is not a stand up guy we’re talking about here amigo.

82

Don’t care if he is a stand up guy. Court rulings like this affect ALL OF US. those two women ATTACKED a man in public and the newspaper doesn’t even mention that. Why? Because two girls got hit.

That somehow takes precedence over the assault.

This shit is stupid, so no, I do not want this guy in trouble for this. I don’t care what he did ten years ago.

83

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Don’t care if he is a stand up guy. Court rulings like this affect ALL OF US. those two women ATTACKED a man in public and the newspaper doesn’t even mention that. Why? Because two girls got hit.

That somehow takes precedence over the assault.

This shit is stupid, so no, I do not want this guy in trouble for this. I don’t care what he did ten years ago.[/quote]

Hey man, you can cry about this all you want, and like I said, to a degree I agree with you. The broads should be charged with assault and possibly more serious charges as well.

But, first of all, it’s well known amongst us degenerates that generally the winner of the streetfight gets the assault charges.

And, second of all, he CLEARLY oversteps the boundaries of what is considered a reasonable use of a force.

There’s no two ways about it, and it doesn’t matter if she’s got a dick or a vag or both or neither - when someone is on the ground like that, YOU MUST stop hitting them lest you become the attacker.

84

^Dude, the bigger issue here is that women will now be even more emboldened to do the same. THAT is what we should be discussing. This guy got shafted. They pushed him to that edge and then cried fowl when he crossed it. They demeaned him, slapped him, and attacked him. The fact that they didn’t get charged is fucking retarded.

85

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to ask…

To those of you who feel his actions are justified, at what point would they not have been justified? What if he had permanently paralyzed one of the women or worse killed them? Would your stance change?

This story reminds me of the case of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who executed one of the robbers/attackers after they were down. He received life in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html[/quote]

The point from some of us is that we do not have COMPLETE INFORMATION. We know from the article that it is alleged he struck them when they attempted to get back up. What we do not know is what his state of mind was (his level of fear and what that fear was based upon and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances) and we do not know if she ever represented a weapon, express or implied.

If someone substantially smaller than you does not fear you, I’m not sure where you’re from (canada right? you’re the dude that think he can call black women “negress” right? well, you’re from Kansas my man, home of Oz, you might not understand), but where I’m from, when someone acts brazen like this in the face of seeming common sense, it means they are armed.

She was definitely a man-acting hood bitch, not some lilly white girl waving her finger coming around the counter to give him a piece of her mind.[/quote]

What sort of information do you need once they are lying on the ground beaten? I have no qualms with the initial strikes, only the strikes AFTER they were down and out.

Self-defense is about neutralizing a threat enough for you to get away. Not beating people once they are down.

86

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
He clearly knew they were women.

[/quote]

This is debatable, the one who jumped the counter could pass for a man.

87

[quote]Professor X wrote:
^Dude, the bigger issue here is that women will now be even more emboldened to do the same. THAT is what we should be discussing. This guy got shafted. They pushed him to that edge and then cried fowl when he crossed it. They demeaned him, slapped him, and attacked him. The fact that they didn’t get charged is fucking retarded.[/quote]

You’ll not hear an argument from me about that. Like I said, I agree.

But you can only look at it on a case by case basis. This is much different than the drunk girl in Seattle and it’s much different than that “slap back” video.

I don’t think that watching this, women are going to become more aggressive. The women prone to physical aggression will be like that anyway, and the ones who aren’t, won’t be.

88

Could someone explain how the hell they don’t get charged at all here?

89

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to ask…

To those of you who feel his actions are justified, at what point would they not have been justified? What if he had permanently paralyzed one of the women or worse killed them? Would your stance change?

This story reminds me of the case of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who executed one of the robbers/attackers after they were down. He received life in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html[/quote]

The point from some of us is that we do not have COMPLETE INFORMATION. We know from the article that it is alleged he struck them when they attempted to get back up. What we do not know is what his state of mind was (his level of fear and what that fear was based upon and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances) and we do not know if she ever represented a weapon, express or implied.

If someone substantially smaller than you does not fear you, I’m not sure where you’re from (canada right? you’re the dude that think he can call black women “negress” right? well, you’re from Kansas my man, home of Oz, you might not understand), but where I’m from, when someone acts brazen like this in the face of seeming common sense, it means they are armed.

She was definitely a man-acting hood bitch, not some lilly white girl waving her finger coming around the counter to give him a piece of her mind.[/quote]

What sort of information do you need once they are lying on the ground beaten? I have no qualms with the initial strikes, only the strikes AFTER they were down and out.

Self-defense is about neutralizing a threat enough for you to get away. Not beating people once they are down.[/quote]

Have you ever been in a serious fight or ever been jumped?

90

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to ask…

To those of you who feel his actions are justified, at what point would they not have been justified? What if he had permanently paralyzed one of the women or worse killed them? Would your stance change?

This story reminds me of the case of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who executed one of the robbers/attackers after they were down. He received life in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html[/quote]

The point from some of us is that we do not have COMPLETE INFORMATION. We know from the article that it is alleged he struck them when they attempted to get back up. What we do not know is what his state of mind was (his level of fear and what that fear was based upon and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances) and we do not know if she ever represented a weapon, express or implied.

If someone substantially smaller than you does not fear you, I’m not sure where you’re from (canada right? you’re the dude that think he can call black women “negress” right? well, you’re from Kansas my man, home of Oz, you might not understand), but where I’m from, when someone acts brazen like this in the face of seeming common sense, it means they are armed.

She was definitely a man-acting hood bitch, not some lilly white girl waving her finger coming around the counter to give him a piece of her mind.[/quote]

What sort of information do you need once they are lying on the ground beaten? I have no qualms with the initial strikes, only the strikes AFTER they were down and out.

Self-defense is about neutralizing a threat enough for you to get away. Not beating people once they are down.[/quote]

It’s not? In every scary movie the bad guy gets right back up…because they DON’T keep beating his ass when down.

Further, if he hit them because they kept getting up, again it is not the same. They had already attacked and chased him. What reason did he have to think the threat was over if they kept getting up?

Self defense is about protecting yourself. That is all it is about. It is not just about doing as little as possible so you can get away.

Can I kill someone who broke into my house?

What if I can trip him and tickle him until he stops?

91

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What if I can trip him and tickle him until he stops?
[/quote]

"… In other news, a Houston area dental surgeon has been charged with molesting a home intruder … "

92

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to ask…

To those of you who feel his actions are justified, at what point would they not have been justified? What if he had permanently paralyzed one of the women or worse killed them? Would your stance change?

This story reminds me of the case of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who executed one of the robbers/attackers after they were down. He received life in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html[/quote]

The point from some of us is that we do not have COMPLETE INFORMATION. We know from the article that it is alleged he struck them when they attempted to get back up. What we do not know is what his state of mind was (his level of fear and what that fear was based upon and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances) and we do not know if she ever represented a weapon, express or implied.

If someone substantially smaller than you does not fear you, I’m not sure where you’re from (canada right? you’re the dude that think he can call black women “negress” right? well, you’re from Kansas my man, home of Oz, you might not understand), but where I’m from, when someone acts brazen like this in the face of seeming common sense, it means they are armed.

She was definitely a man-acting hood bitch, not some lilly white girl waving her finger coming around the counter to give him a piece of her mind.[/quote]

What sort of information do you need once they are lying on the ground beaten? I have no qualms with the initial strikes, only the strikes AFTER they were down and out.

Self-defense is about neutralizing a threat enough for you to get away. Not beating people once they are down. It doesn’t entitle you to do what you want.[/quote]

In my mind having spent time in prison changes what is considered reasonable. I don’t know if a jury would agree but a guy coming from that kind of background is going to be trained to react much more aggressively out of necessity.

93

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I want to ask…

To those of you who feel his actions are justified, at what point would they not have been justified? What if he had permanently paralyzed one of the women or worse killed them? Would your stance change?

This story reminds me of the case of Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who executed one of the robbers/attackers after they were down. He received life in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html[/quote]

The point from some of us is that we do not have COMPLETE INFORMATION. We know from the article that it is alleged he struck them when they attempted to get back up. What we do not know is what his state of mind was (his level of fear and what that fear was based upon and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances) and we do not know if she ever represented a weapon, express or implied.

If someone substantially smaller than you does not fear you, I’m not sure where you’re from (canada right? you’re the dude that think he can call black women “negress” right? well, you’re from Kansas my man, home of Oz, you might not understand), but where I’m from, when someone acts brazen like this in the face of seeming common sense, it means they are armed.

She was definitely a man-acting hood bitch, not some lilly white girl waving her finger coming around the counter to give him a piece of her mind.[/quote]

What sort of information do you need once they are lying on the ground beaten? I have no qualms with the initial strikes, only the strikes AFTER they were down and out.

Self-defense is about neutralizing a threat enough for you to get away. Not beating people once they are down.[/quote]

It’s not? In every scary movie the bad guy gets right back up…because they DON’T keep beating his ass when down.

Further, if he hit them because they kept getting up, again it is not the same. They had already attacked and chased him. What reason did he have to think the threat was over if they kept getting up?

Self defense is about protecting yourself. That is all it is about. It is not just about doing as little as possible so you can get away.

Can I kill someone who broke into my house?

What if I can trip him and tickle him until he stops?
[/quote]

I edited my response but it didn’t take. I meant to write once they are neutralized or down AND out, not just down.

94

By the reaction of his coworkers, they appeared thoroughly beaten/neutralized. Even if they weren’t, cracking them across the skull or spine is NOT justified. At that point he could have clearly fled the scene to call the police.

95

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Could someone explain how the hell they don’t get charged at all here?[/quote]

My guess is the Hysterical White Woman (thanks BG) was a shining character witness for the two helpless females that started all this over what seems to be company policy.

96

[quote]Professor X wrote:
… It is not just about doing as little as possible so you can get away.[/quote]

Actually I think it is. Legally speaking that is.

But it’s pretty dumb to not get away if you can, if it’s a real threat. It might offend your ego but that is the reality.

97

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It’s not? In every scary movie the bad guy gets right back up…because they DON’T keep beating his ass when down.
[/quote]

Your first mistake is basing anything in real life off of movies. You’re better than this one.

X - the concept of self defense DOES NOT give you the right to use excessive force. It simply doesn’t.

I really don’t think you have any concept of what “self-defense” is - you know what you WANT it to be, but you - like most people - are VERY unclear as to what it really is.

I highly suggest you read this link. It’s from Marc Macyoung, one of the best in the business when it comes to this sort of thing.

98

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
… It is not just about doing as little as possible so you can get away.[/quote]

Actually I think it is. Legally speaking that is.

But it’s pretty dumb to not get away if you can, if it’s a real threat. It might offend your ego but that is the reality.

[/quote]

What I mean is, if it is my house, why am I running?

That is why I brought up the burglar.

Also, this guy was CORNERED. Where was he going to run to? The dumpster?

99

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It’s not? In every scary movie the bad guy gets right back up…because they DON’T keep beating his ass when down.
[/quote]

Your first mistake is basing anything in real life off of movies. You’re better than this one.
[/quote]

Learn what hyperbole is.

[quote]

X - the concept of self defense DOES NOT give you the right to use excessive force. It simply doesn’t.

I really don’t think you have any concept of what “self-defense” is - you know what you WANT it to be, but you - like most people - are VERY unclear as to what it really is.

I highly suggest you read this link. It’s from Marc Macyoung, one of the best in the business when it comes to this sort of thing.

http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defenseexplained.htm[/quote]

My point is, you can’t see what happened behind the counter. That video is not enough to judge that he used “excessive force”. That depends on what they did behind the counter.

I think the fact they were women is why people are so accepting of just writing off that he did something to them they did not deserve or that was not warranted.

100

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What I mean is, if it is my house, why am I running?

That is why I brought up the burglar.
[/quote]

Your house is different. It falls under different rules and oftentimes is part of a “Castle doctrine” that allows you to protect your home.

However, this varies GREATLY from state to state.

[quote]
Also, this guy was CORNERED. Where was he going to run to? The dumpster? [/quote]

That does indeed add another facet to this case, because you’re right, he was.

That does not change the fact that once he launches his own assault while they’re down, he’s legally in the wrong area.