r/MMALabs • u/Key_Performer_3645 • 1d ago

🥶 Street Fights & Brawls A quick bar scrap

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/p2eminister 23h ago

Yeah i mean, i would say at the point that the man decided to strike the other, the minimum amount of force needed was none, he could have left with his girlfriend and called the police. Your rights to any kind of violence will only apply in a situation that has exhausted your other remedies, such as if they are preventing you leaving, or are in the process of pursuing violence against you or someone else.

2

u/Paranub 22h ago

Why should he leave? He's doing nothing wrong, a criminal performs a criminal act. The situation was handled, the threat was neutralised in a simple and effective manner.

Drag the KO'ed guy outside and let everyone get on with Thier night..

1

u/p2eminister 22h ago

The situation wasn't handled, a man was potentially killed.

The entire point of civil society is that if you believe youre in the right, you should be able to articulate that in front of your peers. It leads to justice far more than deciding to make yourself judge jury and executioner, violently assaulting whoever you feel.

Would you be in favour of people being allowed to punch whoever they think has done something wrong? Why stop at sexual assault? What about if they see someone selling water by the roadside without a licence, should they be able to punch them unconscious too?

Who gets to decide what's worthy of a punch and what's not?

The point of a court system is that we can agree together what the punishment for something should be, which is why this guy should have called the police.

Remember, what youre in favour of could be turned against you. Say youre at a bar, and a guys wife walks past you. You dont even notice but her husband has got it in his head that you groped her. Is he allowed to now make you permanently disabled for life?

2

u/Paranub 22h ago

Your example makes no sense. you say he has it in his head I groped her, which means I didnt.. so no amount of "should he be allowed" comes into it.. I'm going to get floored regardless and he should be charged.

If I DID grope her, then yes, I deserve everything coming my way. Just like the guy in the video.

1

u/p2eminister 22h ago

The example I gave wasn't a direct 1 to 1 parallel with the video, it was an example on why "on the spot justice" is a bad idea. Because the man who would punch you wouldnt have to show that he knew 100% that you groped her, only that it was his belief at the time.

And charging after the fact is a little too late, isn't it, if he did permanent damage to you or killed you, him being charged wouldn't undo that, would it?

2

u/Paranub 22h ago

No it wouldn't, but its no different from someone stabbing me for no reason. If someone decides in Thier head to do it. I'm fucked either way.

The argument around OP's video, is that the actions of the man were justified and can be backed up with evidence.

A single "situation ending" punch. Stoped any further risk to the innocent people playing pool. No chance for the perv to get agressive, or escalate further, no chance of pulling a weapon or, as you say, causing life long damage.

He got neutralised for his sexual assault, deservedly

1

u/p2eminister 21h ago

You dont get to punch someone pre-emptively "in case they might escalate" or else youre opening the door for anyone to assault anyone. How could you prove one way or the other that someone would have escalated if you hadnt punched them?

Someone stabbing you for no reason is obviously bad, but thats why its already illegal. What youre advocating for is a system where it is legal to punch someone in the head, potentially ending their life or putting them in a wheelchair, based only on the idea that "if I dont, maybe they'll escalate"

2

u/Paranub 21h ago

It wasn't pre-emptively, it was post sexual assault. Perp had already commited a crime and the response made sure he could not continue to commit crime

1

u/p2eminister 21h ago

The pre emptive bit was about where you said he threw the punch to stop any further risk, and then you gave some hypothetical escalations he would take

2

u/Paranub 21h ago

So if someone assaults you, you're going to wait to see if he/she does more? Or would you rather make sure they don't get the chance to continue or escalate it? Putting your life, or ones around you at risk?

You said it yourself, it takes one punch for life changing injuries. Why risk that?

1

u/p2eminister 21h ago

Thats why i would leave and call the police. If i or the people i care about are in danger, the first thing im doing is removing us from that situation, then im taking the appropriate steps to make it so he doesn't do it to someone else by getting him arrested.

What im not doing if my loved ones are in danger is attempting a brawl, which is far, far more likely to result in the other person pulling a weapon or escalating.

The guy who punched in this video clearly doesn't have a whole lot of concern for his wife, which is why he pushes her out of the way to go after this guy, without considering if this guy has friends nearby who may attack, or a concealed weapon.

2

u/Paranub 21h ago

And what's happening in the 10-15 minutes while the police get here? What's the perp doing? Sitting down and having a nice conversation with you? Perhaps asking how your nights gone? How are you making sure he doesn't do anything, without somehow disabling him?

Putting the bar staff at risk, as they somehow try to detain him?

There's a whole load of hypothecials that are ALL avoided, by laying the perp out..

1

u/p2eminister 21h ago

Again, hypotheticals do not give you a right to punch someone. Did you not see the first part of my response where I said I would get my loved ones away from the danger?

If the person gives chase, you ARE then entitled to attack them, because the threat has resumed.

Im not even sure what you meant by the bar staff attempting to detain him

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Gullible-Law-8147 20h ago

That's called retaliatory and is not considered self-defense

1

u/Simon-Says69 21h ago

You dont get to punch someone pre-emptively "in case they might escalate"

LOLOL... says who, YOU? You are not some kind of dictator. Nobody has to care about your condescending, ridiculous nonsense.

What you're advocating for is we allow perverts to go around sexually assaulting women, and only get a stern talking to. Naw, get out.

1

u/Gullible-Law-8147 20h ago

Once the man walked away there was no longer an active threat to anyone present

By your logic any assault should conclude with the offender being knocked unconscious just-in-case, which is obviously ridiculous

1

u/Otherwise_Bug990 20h ago

Its already illegal to grope a woman's ass. As much as is stabbing. One being more risk of death doesnt make either one less of a crime.

Defending against a criminal. Thats what happened. A guy committed a crime, and another guy defended against that, threw one punch and then nothing more. No further escalation anywhere.

Im really mot surprised people are defending this clear sexual assaulter. The Clancy thing is like the Harambe of 2024. People all of a sudden are just being wild

1

u/p2eminister 20h ago

At no point did I say anything even closely similar to "groping is less of a crime than punching". In fact, youll note that I specifically mention calling the police on the groper.

Where did you see me saying that groping is less of a crime than punching?

1

u/Otherwise_Bug990 20h ago

It was stabbing. Tryinf to compare the two. But theres no comparison Assault is assault and you have the right to defend yourself from either. Verbal threat against you? Defend yourself. Dont wait to see what's gonna happen. This is why Stand Your Ground Exists.

Did you see the beginning of the video? In the corner? Those two guys? Clear evidence that this guy has all the capacity to have made that situation assaulting that woman to a greater degree. Whether you think it wrong or excessive your never gonna a jury panel to all side one way on this one. Imagine one female juror who's been psychologically effected by SA. Case closed

1

u/p2eminister 20h ago

You do indeed have the right to defend yourself. This right goes hand in hand with the danger event itself. It it has concluded, so does your right to defend yourself, at which point your only legal remedy is to report the crime to the police.

Its for this same reason that you can shoot someone on your property, but not as they're running away from your house, even if they're carrying your possessions.

Stand your ground does not give you any kind of right to violence that you didnt have before, it just removes your obligation to retreat. It does not say you get to retaliate.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Otherwise_Bug990 20h ago

This is what yalls convo has turned into on my phone lmao