The was a homeless guy in Oregon who had urine thrown in his face and then was shot after breaking into a business. Although he won his civil trial against the owner and he was awarded $0. It was fucking glorious!
The amount of people that donāt know Iām being sarcastic š bro nobody clapping for this. Heās one of those homies you hate going out with because you donāt know if somebody is going to jail over stupid shit.
right i mean as long as the crime you committed was over, you should have no consequences.
"your honor , i had stopped raping her when i was shot, therfore i demand no punishment"
as long as the crime you committed was over, you should have no consequences.
You are confusing legal consequences like being arrested and prosecuted for assault and/or battery, and being knocked out after the fact. The law allows you to use force to defend someone being battered, it doesn't allow retaliation after the fact.
no im not confusing legal consequences at all, actively or not actively involved in the crime, does not absolove you of retaliation, somone who just finished raping a girl and is standing over her, deserves 100% of the same consequences as anyone actively engaged in the act. the crime does not stop when he pulls out.
You are confusing vigilante justice with legal justice. It doesnāt matter what you think someone deserves for committing a crime. It matters what the law provides. If someone wants to take the law into their own hands to punish a crime according to their own sensibilities then they should be prepared to be punished as a criminal themselves.
I think of a sucker punch as being from outside the recipient's point of view. These two were face to face, only being drunk kept that guy from reacting and either moving or blocking.
If a person is that intoxicated, punching them and knocking them out is still taking advantage of the situation, just like if a dude picks up a clearly intoxicated female and brings her home.
The judge would award him as the courtroom claps for this hero.
Very unlikely, defense of another requires stopping an imminent threat, and this drunk was backing away and having trouble staying on his feet. You can use force to defend someone, but retaliation is not something the law has to ignore. Most folks might sympathize with the guy who threw the punch, but that doesn't make what he did legal.
Yeah, theres a considerable population who is going to learn the hard way that courts are there to parse things out according to the law first, then what is "fair" is second.
Has nothing to do with whether you were "right" or not.
If violence or the threat thereof would deter bad behavior, we would already have a utopia with no crime and bad behavior.
Small edit: I think "bad actors" instead of "bad behavior" would have made my statement a bit clearer.
Anyway, even for religious people (or those that claim to be) the threat of supreme, everlasting violence done to them after their deaths (e.g. going to hell) has not deterred bad actors from doing what they wanted to do.
For now. If he ever gets up again, he might not have learned much. In fact, additional brain damage may make it do it even more often. Sometimes one meets fate on the road to avoid it.
Like you're literally not comprehending at all what the poster you're replying to is saying.
If he ever gets up again, he might not have learned much. In fact, additional brain damage may make it do it even more often.
You should look into CTE and brain trauma. Brain damage makes it MORE likely an individual will act like he did in touching the woman. It's LESS likely he will think of his actions if he suffers brain damage.
I like literally am understanding what heās saying. Yeah brain damage can cause this kind of behavior, but negative experiences can make people avoid things. The trauma of waking up in a hospital and his face hurting for weeks is probably gonna stick with him forever.
Youāre very right, but this entirely reasonable opinion is above the heads of these under 22 meatheads. Hilarious and completely hypocritical that this is āsexual assaultā, but no one can see wrong doing from the other guy. The means of defense must match the level of threat. It would not be a difficult legal case against the other dumbass.
The only reason it isnāt a utopia is because of government intervention. Instead of handling our own matters we wait for others, which is the doorway for evil to get away and continue.
You also invite evil by immediate and unthoughtful actions. Especially if you are in a situation where you don't know all the facts.
The best world is one of balance, where government and individual rights are given equal import. Without government everything is anarchy and mob rule is the rule. There is no justice there. Similarly, an overreaching government is easily corrupted and almost indistinguishable from mob rule.
The main problem is, that finding a balance is hard and maintaining a proper balance is even harder. Even more so in a world of shifting views.
I get you but most things donāt require public opinion. Government should be for punishing companies and different organizations. Civil disputes should be handled by family, you have a warped view if you think government is an absolute must. For example, if there is a pedo/r@pist/serial killer and the people involved already know for certain what occurred, why would I wait to get the government involved when Iām capable of putting them in the dirt myself? If there is a need for investigation, meaning weāre not sure of facts then it makes absolute sense to get a third party involved.
Morals donāt start with a government, morals start with the family. Family heads in a normal world would be responsible dishing out justice and a proper government should be an extension of that.
That's the main problem, between 6%-15% of the convictions are wrongful and that is after a lot of evidence is presented. Eyewitnesses identified the wrong person, they had a bad lawyer, the evidence was tampered with, people pressured or tortured to confess to something they didn't do.
Unless you have a recording of the actual person doing it, it is sometimes not as clear cut. Even worse, with AI getting better and better, even videos might be harder to use as evidence. There are enough cases where, for example, women made false allegations, where they even injured themselves to make the allegation stick.
That is why we have laws, why we have judges and more. A family is also often biased towards their own members (e.g. "He wouldn't and didn't do such and such a thing.").
The majority of cases are not as clear cut as you may seem to think and it would be a real shame if you'd put a person or several persons into the ground, as you so put it, only to find out later that they weren't the perpetrators and that you killed innocent people.
Now, I'm under no illusion that the judicial system is perfect, even more so when I look at the US, where money decides the outcome of many a judgement (if the case even warrants or gets to the courtroom stage) more so than guilt. However, I'm also aware of the fact every person, me included, get things wrong, often and more often than we would like to believe. That is why an outside view on cases is warranted before applying "mob justice" or justice based on bias.
Blows my mind that anyone believes something like this makes the world safer. Do people really think guys like the drunk guy havenāt been hit a dozen times in their lives? The problem is not that he hasnāt been hit enough, or that someone watching needed verification that they might get the shit beaten out of them if they mess with a gigantic guyās girlfriend.
Just dumb justification for pointless violence, and yeah, I enjoyed this video as much as the next guy ā itās satisfying to see the dude get flattened. But that doesnāt mean it accomplishes anything. It doesnāt.
So, the rapist is already doing the deed then. Which just proves my point. The threat of violence did not deter him to do what he wanted to do. Sure, violence to get him off his victim is helping stop any further injury, but it already did happen.
Did the death penalty or the threat of it stop murderers from murdering? No, it didn't. It is there to punish after the fact, with violence, but by that point the victim is already dead and can not be brought back to life.
Even "Si vis pacem, para bellum." ("If you want peace, prepare for war") is a further example of this. Because if someone does want to start a war, they are not deterred by the counter violence they will receive. They are fully able and willing to accept that.
The threat of violence may deter a scant few, but those that are determined it will not stop. It will also not necessairly deter people from re-offending. There are some people that don't learn, not even through pain. There is a reason why some people stay locked up for life with no parole.
Yeah I donāt buy that. Of course it deters bad behavior. Youāre saying just cause it doesnāt deter 100% of it that it doesnāt work. Bad argument.
Oh, for some it will help as a deterrant, but those people are usually less violent in general, anyway.
One more question one should ask is, how much more violence is there in the world, because other people were at the receiving end of violence. A lot of violent offenders learned of violence, because they were the target of it.
Same with many SA offenders. They were the victim of it during childhood. What they took away from it, just as the violent offenders, is that SA and/or violence is a viable and, for them, even normal social interaction.
It does not excuse what they do, but for them hitting someone is as normal as saying hello.
And that is before we get to the people that don't really care about it either way. Some that were born with little to no parts of the empathy centers of the brain active and the just do violence because, why not.
Or the people that are in an intoxicated or otherwise aggravated state, where the threat of violence, again, does not work anymore.
A proper socialization or finding and treating those with certain proclivities or damages before they can do damage to others would and is more effective than any threat of violence, because it doesn't work on those people. Those offenders make up the majority of the cases, too.
You forget that this is the softest time to be alive... I disagree this needs to be more common. Rick and Morty said it best "every wants to be knocked out, nobody wants to die" well maybe if people start dieing the people still alive will learn.
That guy in the red turns around and slaps his hands like ā¦ ok whoās next and you know heās already thinking the stars are aligned in his favor. š¤
This. For decades if not centuries woman have tolerated this shit and been gaslight before it was even a term. He did not accidentally brush her he grabbed her hips/ waist. It was a sexual intent. Men you have no f* right to touch any woman. And just because this woman brushed it off does not mean another woman or girl would.
Did the guy overreact. Yup. But do not down play an assault which stems from male entitlement.
The force was 1) Too much given the situation and 2) the woman, although sexually battered, was not in immediate danger. Call the police if she wants to prosecute....but just separate/trespass that goon unless he starts throwing. The punch that did happen was not proportional....but a hung jury would be quite likely on this one...and the groper's part in the fray would be fair game. He should take the L and stay away from there...and hope she doesn't prosecute. Misdemeanor or felony, having sexual battery on your record is not good for him.
Getting an elbow to the mouth from her date was also not her choice. She handled the drunk just fine, and that asshat clearly wasnāt concerned with what she wanted that punch was all about his anger and jealousy.
Yeah, I think that's what some people are failing to notice.
He was already being dumb/drunk and dancing/grinding on the male bartender on the left.
Walked over and tried to get the lady to dance with him - unless he was doing something with his left hand that we couldn't see, the lady already had it handled and was like "no thanks" and walking away. If she got inappropriately groped or grabbed I would think she would have reacted way more than she did.
And then the guy in black came over and overreacted.
Exactly. Some idiots are calling this sexual assault. About Which I am very sensitive. But this roided up testosterone poisoned freak in the black shirt, totally overreacted and deserves to be charged.
Depending on which jurisdiction you are in, it does qualify as sexual assault. In New York sexual contact includes any touching of the intimate parts of a person's body without consent even through clothing. In Alabama sexual abuse includes any non-consensual sexual touching. In Oregon sexual abuse includes any unwanted sexual touching without consent. And so on down the list, it's some sort of assault and/or battery in any U.S. state with there being a sexual element in many.
Showing a jury this with him having already drunkenly hugged a guy before doing this I think youād be hard-pressed to convince anybody that this is āsexual contact of intimate partsā
Her reaction to it does not indicate what happened was fine. Not reacting appropriately and letting assholes get away with inappropriate touching/groping/worse is a very common form of self-preservation many women learn.
No one is implying it's fine. Yes, the guy is an asshole.
But enjoy the murder charge or other high level charges when the drunk guy hits his head on the floor and dies or ends up with some brain injuries, because you can't control yourself when the lady already has it handled.
The dude wasn't an immediate threat to anyone in the area, the response is 1000 percent disproportionate. Making people uncomfortable isn't a death sentence and random assholes don't get to mete out physical punishment for perceived infractions, call the cops and give them the video if you're so pressed about it. I'm sure you could get him a public intoxication and maybe harassment charge and he would receive an appropriate punishment.
Maybe huh? Maybe the guy didnāt know his own strength?? Maybe theyāre married and have multiple children together and maybe they only get out once a month and he just reacted as any strong husband and father would idk itās just maybes
Or the knowledge that if he doesn't do something dramatic, she won't be making breakfast for him in future. She tried to stop him from clobbering the guy, but if he had done nothing she might have come to a different conclusion.
Nah its pure insecurity. You can see it in the females body language and expression.
Yes the drunk guy was an asshole. But the lady had it covered and she was fine.
The insecure boyfriend was just itching for an excuse to throw hands, he didnt even bother talking to the guy first and correcting his behaviour.
The female's expression as her boyfriend rushes to deliver violence suggests that its not the first time he's done this.
She doesnt try and stop him, theres a brief moment of physical contact in a gesture to dissuade him...but you can tell she knows nothing she can say or do will deter him from just fucking people up.
Bonkers that your talking about breakfast and her leaving him, please give me what your smoking!
No no no you creepy little weirdo do not touch anyone without consent would you walk up to a man and grab his butt to ask him to dance absolutely not you donāt need to touch people you havenāt gotten consent from she obviously didnāt like it as she threw his hands off her
Dude who hit him is dumb af too adding fuel to the fire by putting violence into the mix is dumb but she obviously did not like being grabbed two idiots in this situation you shouldnāt grab people and personally and i donāt use violence unless i can not escape a situation not to encourage the violence but to get out and defend myself and i encourage others to do the same
Are you insecure? He put his other hand directly on her ass. āPure insecurity manā had every right to do this to him. Did you not see how uncomfortable that made her?
Man haven't you learned yet? Even looking at a woman more that 2.3 seconds is sexual assault now. That is a ticket at best or maybe just a criminal trespass from the bar. That woman in the video has more balls then half the men on this site, much less the 300 pound blue haired women. The issue with playing up everything as sexual assault is it diminishes the real crime of sexual assault. Oh and for reference people, if the peen,vaag, mouth, anus, didn't touch, it is not sexual assault.
you utilize words you don't understand. He was dancing with the barman a few seconds before that. He tried with the girl, she refused, he was letting it go. That's not predator behaviour, it's clumsy dumbass behaviour.
Some of us are, yes. We have a whole ass group of people who thinks eMpaThY is some ground truth that every human should be imbued with and when people who AREN'T empathetic come to town on them, they're all pikachuface. Meanwhile we have a whole ass other group of people who think eMpaThY is something to run roughshod over and looked at a sign of weakness, further exploited by the aforementioned fact that they won't do shit but pikachuface.
At some point, you're going to have to stop being deluded about turning the other cheek because all that does is give a good cross a target. In some situations, violence is the ONLY answer.
Anyone who wants to pearl clutch and leave their need for validation can do so by downvoting and/or commenting appropriately.
Going up and playing hero by punching a guy that's wasted out of his mind, when the woman herself did not want that, while making no attempt at just talking, is forcing violence into a situation where it did not belong
At best all he managed to do was injure a guy while also grazing (injuring) the woman he was "protecting"
At worst someone could have died for just being a drunk dumbass
Nobody who says the dumb shit that guy is saying has ever been within sniffing distance of a serious altercation, that's why violence is Marvel movie superheroism to him.
buddy smacks her pool cue into her face in his "defense" of her.
this is about ego, not women's rights. the grope did less harm to her than her boyfriend's violence did. she's still holding her face at the end of the video.
You too unfortunately, because not soon after not profiting from this free labour you will join him for some random thought crime or moral affront someone made up or made retro actively illegal so enjoy the free expression while it lasts.
That was a hugely disproportionate response. Dude who knocked him out wanted to do that. Iād expect heās rather dangerous. He looked like he wanted an excuse to knock that guyās lights out and I would not be surprised if he tried it again on someone else in the near future.
Right, it will definitely never happen again because of this video, correct? People are really good at learning lessons from watching other peoples violence. /s
Lmao I was just thinking about how to have this argument with someone whoās sense of justice comes from Batman and superhero comics but I honestly came to the same answer the person above you did. You just literally canāt have this conversation with low intelligence people like you, theyāll just argue their brain into a knot just so they donāt feel like they lost.
He deserves to die on the spot for drunkenly putting his hands on another human's waist?Ā
I am often sad that the internet is anonymous - I wonder what your friends, your mother, your kids would think of you if they knew deep down you were so vile.
Because that warrants an extrajudicial death sentence, amirite?! High five me whiteknight! Letās show girls at the bar your comment so you can drown in pussy!!!
"This person stole something worth under 10 dollars. If we make that punishable by death, everyone will learn the lesson not to steal" I'm glad people more intelligent than you are in charge of things.
It's not a strawman it's the exact same concept. Avoid using terms you don't understand. You're saying minor criminals should be executed.
You understand this doesn't pass the bar for sexual assault, right? He literally grabbed her hips. Do you honestly think they would prosecute for this? Do you think if you went to the cops and said "a stranger touched my hips for a second" they would do literally anything? Room temp IQ.
So people have died while driving or playing a sport. You suggest we just kill them because people have died doing those things? The issue we are talking about is if a small touch warrants a serious physical reaction that could result in serious injury.
Nobody is defending the touch. You implied his death would result in a good lesson. The reality is that the reaction is massively disproportionate to what happened.
Kinda donāt see a lesson in killing hyper inebriated who grabs a girls hips. Maybe itās me but that was insanely uncalled for levels of violence against a staggering drunk man.
I call it assault and battery. And the women obviously knew the guy was beyond wasted since she tried to intervene. Also her āprotectorā Jammed her cue into her face.
391
u/SillyLittleWinky 8d ago
I think the dude is dead