McDonald's Beatdown Update

Off Topic
41

[quote]fizzyduck wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]fizzyduck wrote:
one cannot fault an individual for going to any lengths to protect himself.[/quote]

Um. Yes you can. Well that is if you follow the law of every state in the US.

As a statement, that’s simply wrong.

As an opinion, that’s fucking retarded.

Im not getting into any debates though so say whatever you want. [/quote]

I can understand what you are saying, but in this instance we will have to agree to disagree. This is not a case of a man who loses it in an arguement and then overeacts and attacks. This is a case of a man who was abused, assualted, threatened and then was encountered by two individuals attempting to attack him further.

This case has provoked a great deal of controversy, but most of it comes down to the fact that it involves two women. One has to wonder if you would be making those comments if women were not involved. No is my answer.[/quote]

If it were 3 men involved, the DEGREE, of bizarreness would change but even still Id find it bizarre not get an INDICTMENT.

At this point thats all Im commenting on. Nothing about conviction at trial.

I wouldnt find it bizarre if he didnt get convicted, regardless of the sex of the parties. But to not even get an INDICTMENT means the jury didnt follow the law or the prosecutor is inept/intentionally careless.

42

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Good. Self defense and fully justified.

Any one who doesn’t agree with me is a retard and I’m not getting into any debates. (I like that one Bonez, hope you don’t mind if I steal it.)[/quote]

THe difference is my opinion is based on what the law says should happen and yours is based on god knows what.

43

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?
[/quote]

You don’t find it bizarre there’s a video of the whole incident and the reason for no trial was a lack of sufficient evidence?[/quote]

What did we see?

Yelling, they jump he ran got cornered picked up something hit. The other things are out of view.
[/quote]

The grand jury is not to decide what facts are true and what ‘facts’ are untrue.

The GJ is simply there to decide if there is enogh evidence to go to trial for the JURY to decide what actually happened.

People get indicted on Police Officer provided hearsay. Meaning a Police Officer testifies at the grand jury saying that someone else told him that defendant did blah blah and the grand jury can indict on THAT. But here we have a video of the guy and they dont indict? This is an aberration. Or a bizarre outcome.

44

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
That’s bizarre that they couldnt even get an INDICTMENT.

Jury nullification at its finest or a disinterested prosecutor. Strange either way. [/quote]

They are at fault the moment they went over the counter. Short of killing those 2 women, anything that guy did was appropriate.

45

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
On the one hand I’m glad that this happened… But on the other hand, I don’t even want to know how that precedent is going to be abused in the future…

Still, justice won out over the law for once. Interesting.
[/quote]

It’s not a precedent in the legal sense and the common man would still be well advised to always exercise discretion. This is just ONE well publicized case that was caught on video. If not for video, you never hear about this case. Meanwhile, every single day in this country people are indicted (and later convicted) for “defending themselves”. I hope no one loses sight of that simple fact. [/quote]

And i will guarantee those people that are convicted can’t afford a decent lawyer.

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?
[/quote]

You don’t find it bizarre there’s a video of the whole incident and the reason for no trial was a lack of sufficient evidence?[/quote]

What did we see?

Yelling, they jump he ran got cornered picked up something hit. The other things are out of view.

[/quote]

Sure, and that’s why I could see him coming out on top in a trial.

But what we did see wasn’t enough to even warrant a trial?

Multiple lashes caught on tape.

Him hitting them while they’re on the ground with his coworkers trying to get him to stop with the “victims” out of view.

[/quote]

Like was said when this first broke, YOU CAN’T SEE SHIT BEHIND THE COUNTER…which is why everyone acting like they could see through walls was flat out wrong.

None of you know how many times they tried to get back up or if they pulled a knife while down on the ground.

We said all of this already.

It looks like we were right.

Glad to see he gets freedom and not jail time.

If these were two guys attacking a woman, there never would have been a discussion.[/quote]

Youre still a fool.

Because you were never talking about an indictment. That was never even discussed because it seemed so obvious that he would be indicted.

You were talking about him being acquitted at trial. That is entirely reasonable to debate. Him not getting indicted is approaching the territory of freak occurrence.

Almost everyone was saying that a jury wouldnt CONVICT him. I didn’t agree, but at least it wasnt insane to believe that.

No one said he wouldnt even get INDICTED. Because that is insane.

And for anyone worried about the precedent set here. Dont. If the prosecutor was interested in putting this guy in jail all he’d have to do is refile the charges and present the case in front of a new grand jury. And considering almost 95% of cases get indicted, it’s entirely reasonable to believe he’d plead guilty or go to trial at some point.

Obviously there are far worse people to be concered with imprisoning so it’s not like I’m personally offended by this or anything close to that. I just find the outcome bizarre.

47

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?
[/quote]

You don’t find it bizarre there’s a video of the whole incident and the reason for no trial was a lack of sufficient evidence?[/quote]

What did we see?

Yelling, they jump he ran got cornered picked up something hit. The other things are out of view.
[/quote]

The grand jury is not to decide what facts are true and what ‘facts’ are untrue.

The GJ is simply there to decide if there is enogh evidence to go to trial for the JURY to decide what actually happened.

People get indicted on Police Officer provided hearsay. Meaning a Police Officer testifies at the grand jury saying that someone else told him that defendant did blah blah and the grand jury can indict on THAT. But here we have a video of the guy and they dont indict? This is an aberration. Or a bizarre outcome. [/quote]

You’re correct that they clearly had enough evidence, but this case had the wrinkle of the defense actually defending and testifying at the grand jury. Many criminal defendants just waive participation b/c it IS so easy to indict. I think in this case, because he was unable to post bail and b/c his defense was either pro-bono or being funded in some way, they decided to throw a hail mary at the grand jury and try to get him off right then.

There was also jury nullification at play here and you have to remember its NY. NYers are probably sick of this kind of shit and want to be safe in their City - particularly Manhattan. There clearly wasn’t much sympathy for the “victims” and b/c those two were also charged, they didn’t testify which certainly did not help the prosecutions case. The prosecution was in a tough spot with all being charged with a crime. They were largely asking the tape to speak for itself given that the women didn’t testify and therefore there was no rebuttal to the defendant’s testimony or that of his workers.

48

What’s foolish is having the law work out this way yet claim they didn’t follow the law because the outcome didn’t agree with you this time.

You have a real bad habit with the name calling. It would help if you were better at it…and happened to be right more often.

49

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What’s foolish is having he law work out this way yet claim they didn’t follow the law because the outcome didn’t agree with you this time.

You have a real bad habit with the name calling. It would help if you were better at it…and happened to be right more often.[/quote]

Google ‘jury nullification’

lol @ having a bad habit with name calling. If you were astute, you’d pick up on the fact that I only do that to trolls. And you, the king of ad hominems.

Fool.

And youre also upset that my post quoting yours is exactly correct. If it was even slightly off base youd have come up with some sort of rebuttal, no matter how weak it’d be.

50

Bonez, that jury is why we said from the beginning that you can’t claim to know the specific outcome. That IS the law and a big part of it as well.

I’ll let you have the name calling. Cocoa Puffs are for kids.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bonez, that jury is why we said from the beginning that you can’t claim to know the specific outcome. That IS the law and a big part of it as well.

I’ll let you have the name calling. trix are for kids.[/quote]

fixed :smiley:

52

I liked Cocoa Puffs better…and Trix has been played out.

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I liked Cocoa Puffs better…and Trix has been played out.[/quote]

i think trix kind of sucked, the only person that really loved them was that rabbit thing

i dont like lucky charms either

Nes quick on the other hand is superb!

54

Didn’t see the whole video, don’t know how far he went with hitting them when they were on the ground. It may have been excessive, or, if he was honestly afraid for his safety, it may not.

What I do know is that I resent they way some women will try to challenge or attack men, knowing that it puts the man in a no win situation - either he gets backed down by a woman, and is seen as a coward, or he hits her, and goes to jail. Actually had an exgirlfriend brag, years ago, that she “had more balls than most guys” because she could “stand down most guys she knows”. My reply was “Yeah, but what are they gonna do… hit you?” … She promptly shut up.

So while I dont exactly condone men hitting women, this video does serve as a reminder to women who do that that, yeah, one of these days you’re going to try it with the wrong guy and get your skull fractured.

55

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t see the whole video, don’t know how far he went with hitting them when they were on the ground. It may have been excessive, or, if he was honestly afraid for his safety, it may not.

What I do know is that I resent they way some women will try to challenge or attack men, knowing that it puts the man in a no win situation - either he gets backed down by a woman, and is seen as a coward, or he hits her, and goes to jail. Actually had an exgirlfriend brag, years ago, that she “had more balls than most guys” because she could “stand down most guys she knows”. My reply was “Yeah, but what are they gonna do… hit you?” … She promptly shut up.

So while I dont exactly condone men hitting women, this video does serve as a reminder to women who do that that, yeah, one of these days you’re going to try it with the wrong guy and get your skull fractured.[/quote]

i aggree, people need to learn their place…

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

56

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t see the whole video, don’t know how far he went with hitting them when they were on the ground. It may have been excessive, or, if he was honestly afraid for his safety, it may not.

What I do know is that I resent they way some women will try to challenge or attack men, knowing that it puts the man in a no win situation - either he gets backed down by a woman, and is seen as a coward, or he hits her, and goes to jail. Actually had an exgirlfriend brag, years ago, that she “had more balls than most guys” because she could “stand down most guys she knows”. My reply was “Yeah, but what are they gonna do… hit you?” … She promptly shut up.

So while I dont exactly condone men hitting women, this video does serve as a reminder to women who do that that, yeah, one of these days you’re going to try it with the wrong guy and get your skull fractured.[/quote]

i aggree, people need to learn their place…

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[/quote]

Its not about people “learning their place”, its about respecting other people and not acting like a hardass because you can be relatively sure that, whatever the outcome, you’ll be either the hero or the victim.

Men aren’t supposed to hit women, because men are bigger than them, and bullying is wrong. The same way a really big guy, like Professor X, shouldnt hit other guys who are smaller than him, because bullying is wrong.

So if a normal sized guy decides to get up in X’s face, knowing that either (a)X will choose not to fight him and look like he got punked, or (b)X will hit him and everyone will think “Professor X is a horrible bully”… what kind of position does that put X in? Isn’t that kind of disrespectful and, in reality, pretty cowardly?

57

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t see the whole video, don’t know how far he went with hitting them when they were on the ground. It may have been excessive, or, if he was honestly afraid for his safety, it may not.

What I do know is that I resent they way some women will try to challenge or attack men, knowing that it puts the man in a no win situation - either he gets backed down by a woman, and is seen as a coward, or he hits her, and goes to jail. Actually had an exgirlfriend brag, years ago, that she “had more balls than most guys” because she could “stand down most guys she knows”. My reply was “Yeah, but what are they gonna do… hit you?” … She promptly shut up.

So while I dont exactly condone men hitting women, this video does serve as a reminder to women who do that that, yeah, one of these days you’re going to try it with the wrong guy and get your skull fractured.[/quote]

This is exactly the point, well said…people act a certain way knowing that they can get away with it. People start fights and when they get beat up in a fair fight, they sue…or the winner goes to jail for assult.

Many problems that in years past could be settled “outside” now just blow up into a bigger shit pile.

i aggree, people need to learn their place…

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha[/quote]

Its not about people “learning their place”, its about respecting other people and not acting like a hardass because you can be relatively sure that, whatever the outcome, you’ll be either the hero or the victim.

Men aren’t supposed to hit women, because men are bigger than them, and bullying is wrong. The same way a really big guy, like Professor X, shouldnt hit other guys who are smaller than him, because bullying is wrong.

So if a normal sized guy decides to get up in X’s face, knowing that either (a)X will choose not to fight him and look like he got punked, or (b)X will hit him and everyone will think “Professor X is a horrible bully”… what kind of position does that put X in? Isn’t that kind of disrespectful and, in reality, pretty cowardly?[/quote]

58

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
At your very core every Human wants to feel a degree of safety At Home and At Work. This will always be in the minds of the Masses. Lawyer, Judge, Jury.

That is why this verdict is of no surprise to me.

I’ll let the rest of you debate the legality of it.[/quote]

Not a verdict.

Grand jury said there wasnt enough evidence to even go to trial. Bizarre.
[/quote]

Why Bizarre?
[/quote]

You don’t find it bizarre there’s a video of the whole incident and the reason for no trial was a lack of sufficient evidence?[/quote]

What did we see?

Yelling, they jump he ran got cornered picked up something hit. The other things are out of view.

[/quote]

Sure, and that’s why I could see him coming out on top in a trial.

But what we did see wasn’t enough to even warrant a trial?

Multiple lashes caught on tape.

Him hitting them while they’re on the ground with his coworkers trying to get him to stop with the “victims” out of view.

[/quote]

Like was said when this first broke, YOU CAN’T SEE SHIT BEHIND THE COUNTER…which is why everyone acting like they could see through walls was flat out wrong.

None of you know how many times they tried to get back up or if they pulled a knife while down on the ground.

We said all of this already.

It looks like we were right.

Glad to see he gets freedom and not jail time.

If these were two guys attacking a woman, there never would have been a discussion.[/quote]

Youre still a fool.

Because you were never talking about an indictment. That was never even discussed because it seemed so obvious that he would be indicted.

You were talking about him being acquitted at trial. That is entirely reasonable to debate. Him not getting indicted is approaching the territory of freak occurrence.

Almost everyone was saying that a jury wouldnt CONVICT him. I didn’t agree, but at least it wasnt insane to believe that.

No one said he wouldnt even get INDICTED. Because that is insane.

And for anyone worried about the precedent set here. Dont. If the prosecutor was interested in putting this guy in jail all he’d have to do is refile the charges and present the case in front of a new grand jury. And considering almost 95% of cases get indicted, it’s entirely reasonable to believe he’d plead guilty or go to trial at some point.

Obviously there are far worse people to be concered with imprisoning so it’s not like I’m personally offended by this or anything close to that. I just find the outcome bizarre. [/quote]

I don’t think one grand jury would want to step over what the previous grand jury did.

59

I’m glad that the man goes free without any charges. His actions may seem excessive in hindsight, but there’s no way to know what would have happened if he had stopped attacking them while they were on the ground.

She slaps him first, then they jump the counter and expect to be the victims? Justice prevailed.

60

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If these were two guys attacking a woman, there never would have been a discussion.[/quote]

If she took two guys down like that in a pressure situation, I’d be interested in finding out her number. Strong sons, dude…together, we would rule the galaxy as father and batshit insane sons.

More seriously, 1) I’d still say it’s fucked up to attack when the threat is stopped, so there’d still be a discussion re: what was going on behind the counter; and 2) it just isn’t a good comparison. A woman faces more of a threat from two men than a man faces from two women. A dude with a metal rod can also probably do a lot more damage than a woman with a metal rod can. Yeah, maybe there’s some element of chivalry going on when we consider that a woman in the reverse situation wouldn’t face as much heat, but it’s overshadowed by other legitimate reasons she’d get off light. Straight up, getting attacked by women just isn’t the same as getting attacked by men.