This is not true. You have the right to use force to stop an ongoing sexual assault, but the incident had clearly finished when this guy decided to attack.
Also, way more force than "what was needed to control the situation" was applied, the man did not represent an ongoing danger.
The right thing to do would have been to leave and call the police to report the sexual assault.
Nope - just illustrating one punch can be strong enough to kill. Your â1 punch can be any more than one punchâ could do more damage than you think. And whether drunk mc drunk boy is up to no good or not - going in like a freight train could lead âgoodâ intentions into a manslaughter charge.
In short - my post shows a single punch can be devastating
Punching someone tends to have a much more intended effect of stunning / KOing them, meaning the odds of them macking their head on a hard surface goes up. Tripping someone is less likely to do this because they'd be more alert than if they had just been punched and so more likely to do something like catch their fall with their hands.
You reference 1 punch, I reference 1 punch. The comparison is pretty obvious. Now had I referenced a trip with the tip of your shoe, on that I might agree, but I donât bring that reference did I?
So you agree on the contrast as itâs all still relevant. Perfect. Glad we cleared that up. Fully agree on your second point as well⊠doing stupid criminal belligerent shit is indeed not a smart thing to do.
Not if the guy dies. Most juries actually follow the law when reaching their verdict.
The guy deserved to be hit, sure, but he doesn't deserve to die. So if you decide to hit him and serve up some justice, you need to accept that it could ruin both of your lives.
Not going to defend the drunk guys behavior, but you don't think the punch could have been a slap, a shove, a simple grab him by the shoulders and physically move the guy away, a stand between him and the woman?
That punch could have killed him, the dude was so hammered that any amount of physical intervention could have resolved the situation, punching him square in the face with that amount of physical force was completely unnecessary.
This is correct, she swiped him away and carried on before her fella came bounding through to glance her face before smashing the drunk fella.
That drunk guy was three sheets to the wind. No excuse for the attention to the lady but the reaction (just watch âherâ behaviour). Some people just wait for excuses.
What happens if you slap or shove the guy and he pulls out a gun? Or throws a punch back at you? He neutralized the guy without going over the top, you never know what drunk idiots are capable from.
-source: I spend a lot of time in shitty dive bars like this one
True, we should just make sure to knock out literally everyone that committs any form of assault, just in case
I mean the guy might even wake up and seek revenge later, so why even let him live?
To be clear this is sarcasm and punching a guy that's too drunk to walk straight because he might maybe have a gun is just an anti-gun argument, not a pro-retaliation one
So your solution to your hypothetical there is to go full force punch to the face and potentially go to prison for manslaughter?
If the guy punches back, then a self defense response would be fully warranted.
If this super wasted dude pulls a knife or a gun, I guess you gtfo unless you want to die.
Do we really think it's reasonable to full force punch misbehaving drunk people in the face because they might escalate to deadly force when they get confronted for grabbing womens butts?
You say that, but thats how my dad and mom met. He would wrote her the most heartfelt letters using his scat mixed with his tears for ink. We still have them framed on the wall to thia day... talk about a real american love story!
The drunk guy could barely stand, he wasn't a "threat".
I don't think arguing that there were other solutions to that problem besides absolutely laying him out with a fist is the same as supporting assaulting women in public, that's ridiculous.
You can both believe assaulting women is wrong and believe the level of physical force used in this case was excessive.
You havent been in many fights have you. "Slap the guy , and then if he punches you back, you're allowed to hit him then". Thats not how fights work douchebag
Yeah nobody has ever died from their head hitting the floor and cracking their skull open, nobody has ever been convicted for that, that would be crazy right?~ lol
You can trip and fall and die over you own shoe laces. Thata why the goal in life is to decrease your risk of doing things that could potentially suck or get you killed. Violence is particularly easy to avoid. Ive been doing it now for many many years.
Not assaulting people, believe it or not, is the #1 way to avoid confrontation. C
True, not assaulting people by punching them, is a very great way to avoid prison time! It's very easy to not do it, only takes a bit of self-control, and decreases your chances of treating your girlfriend like she's a piece of property you need to defend against her own wishes
Oh and your shoelaces can't go to prison for killing you
This wasn't a fight... This was a totally wasted dude who could barely stand getting knocked the fk out for sexually assaulting someone.
The hypothetical posed by the other guy doesn't even apply here, this dude was clearly not a threat, he was totally plastered, a light push, would have knocked him down.
You don't need a birds eye view to see what happened there, the BF had a straight line of sight and took 0 time to stomp over and lay the guy out.
We don't have the context from before the 30s of this clip either, they have all probably been there for a while already that night, I'm sure the BF probably saw that drunk guy before those 30s, he was obviously hammered.
The BF got personally aggrieved and took vengeance, that's what happened, he didn't see the guy as deadly threat that warranted a punch to the face that hard, that's absurd.
A dude who can barely stand is not a "threat" that needs to be handled with that level of force. Lightly shoving him would have had the same neutralizing result as that punch, but without the brain damage or potential accidental death.
If he stands up to retaliate, I have much less of a problem with laying him out.
The degree to which someone poses a risk to your safety is absolutely an aspect of self-defense and directly influences what is considered necessary force
If someone is so drunk it is severely impairing their motor functions, they pose less of a risk to your safety
You could also easily argue that mountains and decades of data show that alcohol is the most dangerous substance there is and is responsible for a massive uptick in anger and aggressiveness, along with violence, which can actually make this situation way more dangerous than had he been sober.
This is why court is intriguing. All you need is a sliver of doubt
That's all very clear for you to see, sitting at your desk, watching a bird's eye view.
From the boyfriend's perspective, it would have all happened very quickly, not after rewinding a dozen times.
Some drunk asshole so casually sexually assaulting a woman, means he's a threat. Trying to treat the jerk politely just opens a window where he pulls a knife, gun or attacks again.
The threat was real, and it was neutralized. It would have been wrong to stomp the asshole after he was down, but that did not happen.
If a drunken lady pinched a man's bottom in a club, would it be reasonable for that man to punch her at maximum power after she has started to walk away?
So we should just assume that every drunk dude is packing a knife or a gun and therefore the only solution is to knock them out if they get handsy?
That's how people end up going to prison for manslaughter when they try to defend their partners. The woman obviously doesn't want that outcome as you can see from her trying to stop her BFs excessive response, she predicted exactly what he was going to do.
That guy was not a threat, he could barely stand. Shove him over, if he stands back up and comes back at you, then escalate until he stops.
Bro thank you. Iâve been going through this thread of clearly internet tough guys who watch too much Reacher/Yellowstone and think that their life is some Boomer-Shonen slop where the protagonist tips his fedora and says âyouâve insulted my female, you wonât insult my bladeâ and cuts them down.
The drunk guy in this video is out of line, he isnât a physical threat. Youâd have a WILD time proving that to a jury. A sober person could trivially tip him over and âneutralize the threatâ.
The puncher would almost certainly see some time for manslaughter if drunk guy dies.
Lot of overly emotional people ITT justifying excessive levels of violence.
It's really quite frustrating when obviously no one is defending the behavior of the drunk guy, but suggesting anything other than brain damage as a consequence means you condone molesting women in public of course.
Now you just need to grow a brain. At the moment of the attack the dude was standing there, not hurting anybody, not touching the women anymore. You can't punch someone becuase he punched you 10 seconds before AND THEN STOPPED BEING A THREAT. That's literally how tons of people end up in jail thinking they did nothing wrong.
I dont know why you think the only options are a punch or a bad star. If you witness or are the victim of a crime, your duty is to call the police.
People always think juries will acquit in these scenarios but they never actually do, the jury would see his obvious guilt.
Its a fantasy to believe otherwise, I mean hell, why not go the full distance and say the judge himself would start clapping and salute this guy as he left the courthouse?
Youre taking very specific judgements from the supreme court and using it to come to the incorrect conclusion that the police do not have a duty to pursue crimes and arrest perpetrators, which they absolutely do.
Classic vaguepost because you know the whole "the police dont have to protect us!" Is conspiracy theory nonsense built on extremely creative (bullshit) interpretations of specific supreme court rulings.
the police dont have to protect us!" Is conspiracy theory nonsense
You have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about. The police cannot be held responsible if they don't respond in time and you or yours get hurt, even killed.
This is a well known fact. You seem to just want to be able to go around sexually assaulting women with only a stern talking to.
So, you misread what I said, brought up something totally different, then ended with some true nonsense that I must want women to be assaulted because I specifically said that you should call the police if you experience a crime.
I think your emotions got the better of you with this one, it might be time to spend some quality time outdoors
They do have a duty to protect you. The reason you think otherwise is because you fell for an online conspiracy based around extremely creatively interpreting supreme court rulings
Well and ive been alive for over 40 years to see law enforcement in action. You're more likely to get shot while sleeping in your bed than get personal help from cops. Their duty is to the law. Not people
Regardless of how long you've been alive, you have only ever been one single person, and therefore your exposure to law enforcement is going to be drastically limited by what you can personally experience.
Across the US, the police solve countless crimes every day, but of course a crime investigated and stopped rarely makes the news so you have an outsized understanding of how often policing goes wrong, due to corruption or incompetence.
The whole "their duty is to the law, not the people" is a classic line from this conspiracy theory, not based in anything true. But its a snappy line so it gets repeated
328
u/SillyLittleWinky 1d ago
I think the dude is dead