I don't think anyone was lovin' it.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.The video isn't working on the computer I'm typing from now, but I've got a feeling that because it was a man fighting back against women, gender is going to play into this. As someone in the comments section put it, "you quickly become the accused when the perpetrators are women."
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartWell done, that man!
Enjoy the Inferno...Can't really tell due to the angle, but it would appear that he continued hitting the one after she was floored, rather than breaking off once she was down. Can't really tell, was she armed?
^
We can only speculate, but perhaps she was grabbing his ankle or she wouldn't shut up.
Then there's that dumb ass blonde screeching "STOP!" while he's whooping those two bitches.
COME OVER THE COUNTER YOU GONNA GET SERVED HOES!
The fact that he was outnumbered means hell yeah, his little piece of metal was justified since his fucking co-workers wouldn't help.
dammit Barkey this is serious don't make me laugh
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Only a matter of time before the video gets taken down, so watch it quickly.
The women are definitely in the wrong. I can only speculate how petty the conflict had to be, (edit: Apparently the guy was checking to see if their $50 bill was legit and they flipped shit) but nothing at Mc Donalds warrants jumping over the counter to attack an employee. The guy had every right to grab something in order to defend himself when two people are charging at him. It looked like he may have gone overboard, but then again, the stupid woman yelling "STOP!" to the man and not, you know, the women attacking him, it kinda sets the mood for something else.
The other problem is gender, which is obvious, but take it a step further. Flip the genders so it's two men charging a woman cashier, who goes to grab a metal pole and defend herself. She would be defined as a hero, because women are weak and need to use weapons - then it's self defense. But as it is now, the man apparently went "overboard" because, you know, men are naturally stronger and only do harm out of a deep hunger for violence.
edited 24th Oct '11 8:17:51 AM by HeavyDDR
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -WanderlustwarriorLooking at the later hits, he shouts "Stay down" before moving to hit. He backs of several times, but moves later to strike again. He also doesn't reallu go that low, as in to hit with power. My hypothesis is that women tried to rise up after he told them to stay down and he continued to keep them down.
That's the kind of guy I like.
Preferably from safe distance.
"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"The fuck else was he supposed to do? It's the girls' fault for trying to jump him.
Those poor innocent women just wanted him to take their funny moneym damnit, How dare he hit a poor defenseless, harmless, utterly weak and helpless woman.
They all really should've stopped the violence and kept themselves under control. Maybe call security instead.
If the women had guns, though, I would say the man was justified.
Now using Trivialis handle.
Stop the violence, how? when people try to attack you, generally your response is tied less to logic and more to "do the most likely thing to protect yourself"
also security? at a mcdonalds?
edited 24th Oct '11 8:51:39 AM by Midgetsnowman
Technically the guy used a little excessive force. However, he does have the right to self defence, and given his mental and emotional state at the time he's got a very sound defence - I mean, if some bitch gave you a whack for no reason and then came over the counter to attack you in your workplace, your self-control might be a little shot from adrenaline too. At the very worst, a little fine for battery.
No damage payments to those women, though. They should be charged with all sorts of shit.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.It might have been a mall or something with some form of security over the whole place.
I also think that maybe if the other people were a little more willing to try to stop the women, then the man wouldn't have had to do more all by himself.
Now using Trivialis handle.True, but they didn't. Should he have just let himself get attacked without defending himself, then?
He could've asked for their help.
If he felt that he specific was threatened, he should flee the scene - it's 2-on-1 after all.
Now using Trivialis handle.Why, though? He handled the situation just fine on his own, and he has a right to defend himself against attacks, after all. If the people around him didn't run away, he might have been able to ask for their help.
I don't know. I guess he could've warned them, with the stick as a force of the warning, rather than jumping to actual attacks.
Now using Trivialis handle.Not like the people wanted to defend him. The lady in the background didn't start yelling "SSSSTAAAAWWWWP" until the two girls were on the ground.
You're being really optimistic of how this situation could have played out. Do you really think someone will logically think "if I warn these two attackers to stop, they will stop?"
edited 24th Oct '11 9:08:54 AM by HeavyDDR
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -WanderlustwarriorIn what world are you forced to run away every time someone attacks you because gosh, you might hurt them if you defended yourself? I don't care if it's a damn five year old, you have the right to defend yourself with appropriate force against wrongful attack.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.If they don't stop at the warning and lunge at him, then he could fight back. Going on the offensive can be a bit harsh. The video's not entirely clear, but if he did do that, then it's acceptable.
edited 24th Oct '11 9:14:12 AM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.So he was supposed to stand there as an open target, saying, "Stop, or I will harm you with this metal pole?"
I think retreating was a sure sign of "stop chasing after me."
I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -WanderlustwarriorThey did lunge at him, though; it's not like he just started hitting them out of nowhere.
Two women attack man, man attacks back with metal pole.
I thought this was kind of interesting. The two women are pretty clearly in the wrong, but is the man? Did he go overboard at the end, or was he juts scared, because he yells for them to stay down before hitting them again? And shouldn't other people have helped?
Apparently he's also served time for manslaughter a while back, so does this have any real bearing on the case now, where he's facing more time after just recently getting a job in April?
Thoughts?