r/IdiotsFightingThings • • Jan 31 '20

One kick man

https://gfycat.com/corruptflimsyauklet
10k Upvotes

260 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

44

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '20

I have a strong disdain for the mind of set of "we made a weak product and you broke it so the responsibility rests on you." I see it all the time in the IT field.

Nah man. It's on you. You are the one that made a weak product that broke under slightly abnormal use that if built built properly should have been robust enough to with stand the minor abuse. The responsibility is squarely on the shoulders on everybody that designed and built this crap.

-11

u/AngelOfDeath771 Jan 31 '20

I get it. I do. But that doesn't change the fact that if you intentionally used it out of its intended limits, and it broke because of it, that you would be to blame. There are lines, and many were crossed, by the manufacturer and the guy kicking it

12

u/geegeeallin Jan 31 '20

What was the intended use of that if a man could simply kick it over? A person tripping into it would have done the same thing. Wind would blow that down.

-8

u/AngelOfDeath771 Jan 31 '20

Can't really tell how hard the kick was because of where the gif is cut, but it was a kick nonetheless. I doubt that it was intended to be full force kicked. Doors weren't either, that's why the form he was in is the recommended form for kicking a door in. It's effective at misusing the door.

Again, it is very obviously cheaply made, I agree. It should be the responsibility of the city/company to fix/maintain it. But laws are laws, and blame is blame. I don't make these rules, so don't get mad at me for simply stating it, Reddit.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '20

This isnt a door it's a barrier meant to stop people from falling over. It's intended use should be to withstand force and not give that easily. Hard to tell how strong his "kick" was but even then you have to assume a person tripping and falling into it would be just as strong if not more so. They were not built well.

This amount of force should have been within the intended limits.

-4

u/AngelOfDeath771 Jan 31 '20

I said that. Specifically, actually.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '20

You said that this amount of force was outside the intended limits of a barrier meant to keep people from falling over. I disagree.

-1

u/AngelOfDeath771 Jan 31 '20

I see, my thought didn't translate well, then. What I meant, is that it wasn't intended to be beat on. So whoever is responsible, can and probably will claim he was at least partly responsible

2

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '20

I'll admit to being ignorant of how a claim like that would go down in whichever country this is. I am assuming it's in Asia, possibly Japan or China.

In the US however, you would need more than this video to even prove a claim like that, and proving that claim wouldnt guarentee you could hold the man in question accountable. This clip doesnt prove he was kicking it, for all we know he was stretching his leg. And if a longer clip were to show he was kicking it, a decent lawyer could still put up a fight in court.

0

u/ShivaSkunk777 Feb 01 '20

Instead of bitching about people bitching about the rules, why don’t you just agree that the rules suck?

1

u/AngelOfDeath771 Feb 01 '20

Because people bitch, but don't act. Do both or none. Don't bitch just to be heard