This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
@ Adams- the Grand Jury chose not to indict him, so he's not going to trial for it. The two women are still facing pending charges for attacking him, however. The women could still attempt a civil suit, but if the Grand Jury failed to indict him, and the women are found guilty of attacking him, it will be hard for them to make a case that he is legally responsible.
Well that's good(yes I do think it is good); and if she does try to bring a civil suit, at least it probably won't go anywhere. And sorry Sinespe but I've always been of the mind that if you are going to attack someone, don't be surprised when you get beaten back; and the guy probably grabbed the pipe because it was still two against one.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
@ Adams- the Grand Jury chose not to indict him, so he's not going to trial for it. The two women are still facing pending charges for attacking him, however. The women could still attempt a civil suit, but if the Grand Jury failed to indict him, and the women are found guilty of attacking him, it will be hard for them to make a case that he is legally responsible.
Well that's good(yes I do think it is good); and if she does try to bring a civil suit, at least it probably won't go anywhere. And sorry Sinespe but I've always been of the mind that if you are going to attack someone, don't be surprised when you get beaten back; and the guy probably grabbed the pipe because it was still two against one.
yup, reap what your sowed.
just cuz they're girls doesn't give them the right to physically assault whoever they want. Besides I thought women wanted gender equality........... well, this here comes with that package.
on a more serious note: the right to defend yourself is one of the most basic human rights there is, and this one is completely irrelevant of what your gender is. The hammer of justice is unisex and all that.
Post by
Adamsm
/shrug Yet that's the way society has worked for the last 3000 years or so heh. I know that's the way I grew up; my mother always warned my sister not to start anything with me as she'll just laugh(never hurt the kid, but did put her on her butt a few times) and the reverse was true as well.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
And sorry Sinespe but I've always been of the mind that if you are going to attack someone, don't be surprised when you get beaten back; and the guy probably grabbed the pipe because it was still two against one.
Being "Surprised" is not the point. Fighting fire with fire does not make for a positive society.
neither is being victimized ya know?
or what? you suggesting the dude should had let them kill/beat the crap out of him? why? why the preferential treatment? This gender-preferential treatment was done in the past where a woman had no right to defend themselves if they were attacked by a man.
Any woman who killed her husband (even on self-defense) was sentenced to death, and that my friend, was one of the darkest periods of mankind. Having it gender reversed (Women having leeway to hurt/kill men) wont make it any shinier.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
I maintain the point that there were non-violent ways to diffuse that situation, even when the two women escalated it to the level of violence.
dude, lemme make this clear enough for ya:
Angry people
CANNOT
be reasoned with. They can't, anger shuts off whatever logic, whatever reason, whatever remnant of civilization someone has in them.
The moment someone punches you, and threatens to actually physically hurt you, the point of no-return has long been thrown out the window.
Why do you think riot police are armed with crowd-control weapons like tear gas and such? because going towards an angry mob with a megaphone telling them to calm down WONT WORK.
That's not how humans function bro'.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Haxzor
HE WHIPPED OUT THE BRO. LOOK OUT
Post by
Kristopher
Haha "Ashelia" posted.
Post by
Adamsm
Ask yourself this question: even though this guy got off with a felony, there was a very real possibility that he could've been indicted. Would you seriously run that risk for the sake of bloody-minded, primeval vengeance over people you're never going to deal with again after that negative interaction?Injuries and murder happen in the heat of the moment fairly often; if the guy had bludgeoned her to death, it would have been a charge of manslaughter at the most. That still doesn't excuse the woman for starting the entire thing, then trying to play the victim afterward; two to tango and all that. And sure there were the other workers who may have been able to diffuse it differently, but that would mean they would have to get involved, which is an issue a lot of people have(see that topic about the little kid who was run over twice before anyone finally stepped in to help her). Not saying what either of these nimrods did was right....but that still sure as hell doesn't make what the woman did right: Slapping the guy then going over the counter.
Post by
Rankkor
What, so you're telling me that the three members of staff wouldn't have been able to restrain and either eject the two women from the restaurant or call the authorities?
if they're not security guards? nope, if they attacked, and charged, nothing short of a pointed gun at them would had made them stop. And if they had been carying guns themselves, then not even an armed gun would.
Stop the logical fallacies. This is tiring. You're insisting that there are fewer options than, in fact, there are.
no fallacy here. If they haven't resorted to violence, that means that even tough angry, they are within the thresshold where they can be reasoned with. Once they resort to violence, nothing short of overwhelming threat will stop them.
that's how people function, sorry if that doesn't mesh with how you see people, but I've seen enough crap over here to know better.
I like, also, how neither of you have taken me up on my "Would you seriously risk that?" challenge.
I would. Someone comes at me all angry-like I try to talk things down, and keep the violence as a last-resort option, as long as all aggression is verbal, I either defuse the situation, or walk away from it, but the moment someone tries to harm me, or someone I care about, with physical violence, the gloves come off.
I mentioned this before, but on a political riot, a national guard assaulted my mother, and believe me, yelling at him to stop would had done squat, how did I stopped him? with force, that's how.
don't underestimate how far off the bat-crazy scale an angry person can be dude, because angry people aren't a nice sight to behold.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
I am willing to admit that there is such a thing as exessive force when fighting back, since the cashier did kept hitting them long after they stopped being a threat, but his initial stance of fighting back was the right one.
if they're not security guards? nope
Lol. So you have to be a security guard to restrain someone. Whatever, dude. I'm not arguing this with that ridiculous logic.
you're gonna have to define "restrain"
if you mean grab them by the arm and push them out I gotta tell you that not everyone is hercules, plus as adamsm pointed out, most people (including other workers at the diner) will say "this aint my business" and leave the cashier to fight alone.
if you are facing 2 oponents by yourself, who have showed no intention of backing down, then fighting back is the only resort left.
Post by
Adamsm
Alright, fine you restrain the women, call the cops and then they are off to jail for assault....and they spin around and sue you, MacDonalds, the State and everyone else they can. And for myself: I've gotten a beat down before, trying to 'reason' with the attacker; that failed spectacularly, so from now on, I see anyone threatening myself, my family or my friends, they'll be getting a beating. It's far easier to just knock the threat out then try talking which may escalate even farther.
Post by
Rankkor
It's far easier to just knock the threat out then try talking which may escalate even farther.
^
the only (and I mean ONLY) time when talking works is when your oponent hasn't displayed any actual violence. If all the agression has been verbal up to this point, things can still be talked out.
the moment stuff gets physical, trying to "reason" with an attacker can get you injured, or killed.
seen it happen a billion times already (including to myself) to know better
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I'd rather be injured in the short-term than #$%^ed in the long-term.
Well there's injuries and then there's holes in your bodies or bones shattered and ruined.
Post by
Pwntiff
Hmm...will I be an iPhone user before the end of the month?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.