It's very idealistic, but that's not how humans operate.
Another Savage Beating at McDonalds
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
It's very idealistic, but that's not how humans operate.
Well, many do, actually. Most police do not shoot everyone who is aggressive or even hits them. Most people do not hit people who are down and damaged. And there are laws about what one can do in response to violence. Most courts in the US are pretty liberal about what the initial victim can do in response, but there are limits. And then, the law is not ethics. In ethics most people think that the response should generally fit the attack.
Or it could be that "Street Cred" or one's personal reputation for toughness is highly valued in urban, low-income areas and is defended with vigor...even when the circumstances don't really call for a violent reaction.
Or as Huey Freeman from "The Boondocks" defines it: "A moment where ignorance overwhelms the mind of an otherwise logical negro male causing them to act in an illogical, self-destructive manner."
Right, but street cred, it's value, and the desire for its attainment would be a social stressor, would it not? And 'Low income, urban [population]' is precisely a socio-economic group that might be subjected to greater stressors during a time of general economic hardship.
So then, you're really just stating a specific instance of the generic factors I was discussing.
:m:
Many people *believe* they do. Once aggression becomes the game all bets are off.
They will not hesitate to put a gun on aggressive people. Google: "police shoot too many people". Heck even stun guns are overused:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/us-stunguns-newyork-idUSTRE79I82U20111019
Do you have statistics to support this?
Correct. Yet because that is a reactionary law, people typically cannot be forced to obey it. They can only be punished after the fact.
Well the law is often used for legalized revenge. That is quite related to ethics.
I can see that as possibly being true as humans have a tendancy to "equalize". It does however, greatly play down the fact that an attack took place (and an attack is not equal to being in an absence of attack by any means). I've seen martial arts instructors realize this, communicate it to their students, and flat out say that if someone is attacking you then you should assume their intent is to kill you. What that does pre-decide what an "equal response" would be... because in an actual fight that is generally the last thought on your mind.
:thumbsup:
in his defense, he probably got (attempted) gang raped in prison many times so when he saw the two running towards him, one of which looked almost like a man and suspected of being the "butch" of the two (as commented by some youtubers), he was forced to relive those painful, traumatic moments where he might have had to fight to the death to preserve his safety and dignity.
it is difficult to be rational when your life is in danger. he also didn't know whether the girls carried knives or handguns and since he was behind the counters he couldn't have seen their hands at all time.
i think he deserves some leeway. i would go with "temporary insanity" or something along that line.
it is difficult to be rational when your life is in danger. he also didn't know whether the girls carried knives or handguns and since he was behind the counters he couldn't have seen their hands at all time.
i think he deserves some leeway. i would go with "temporary insanity" or something along that line.
Damn, that just reminded me.
I saw a kid on the news that stabbed his own mother over two cheeseburgers.
I wish I were joking about that..
What the hell's in that special sauce ,anyway?
The OP is just classic case of three idiots finding the same room. Case closed. Next!
Nah, if it was a bad neighborhood the employee would have been interacting with customers from behind the safety of a pane of bulletproof glass, exactly to prevent anything like this from occurring.
Well, no. Many people do. I've seen a lot of fights, most of them did not end with the winner kicking the head of the person who was down. Sometimes the endings were even pretty mild, it just was clear who was winning or someone backed off. Likewise police in fights. Some react with more violence than they encountered, many even most do not. They generally go for control. Though there is a bad national trend where the police reactions are worse.
Of course police will 'put a gun on aggressive people'. I was talking about shooting people in the face. Of course people are upset about police using too much violence in the situations they do this. This does not mean 'that is how humans operate'. It is how some humans operate. And that is why we have laws and ethics, to try to get the statistics over towards not overreacting.
Life experience. Ya got statistics to back up your blanket, unqualified assertion that 'this is the way humans operate' period?
This does not counter my point. It is built into our system to judge people for reacting with too much violence. Some posters here seem to think this is a bad idea. I wonder if any of them are challenging the laws that punish overreaction. I wonder if they tell their children that it was OK that they kept kicking the other kid in the head becase he started it.
I doubt it. The idea that one should respond with only something on the same level of violence as the attack or what it takes to stop the attack is pretty common throughout the states. Hell, schools even punish kids for fighting back - not that I agree with this. Certainly any kid hitting another kid with a metal pipe when they are down is going to get in trouble. And most parents would consider this something to be dealt with.
If my kid got attacked and fought back and the instigator got badly hurt, I would not be likely to be upset at what my kid did. If a kid attacked my kid and he ran off, got a metal pipe, won the fight and then came back to land some full swing shots and the other kids head, I would definitely be concerned.
I don't think that is a weird position for a parent to have. By this I mean, I think it cuts close to the norm.
And it would freak me out if I did it. If there was a history of stalking, the other person threatened to kill me over the phone and showed up, they pulled knife, they were many of them and I wanted this one out of the game so I could face the others, those are different stories.
And by the way: I am not saying I wouldn't react with too much violence. But I think there is such a thing - which your links above support since they are complaints about too much violence, too much shooting and tasing. IOW your links support my position that in general we believe not every response is OK.
I have been in fights and I did not kick anyone in the head when they were down. Once, just once, I had two people on me who I did not know and who I pretty much automatically assumed the worst. I hurt one bad, I think. I was flailing for throats and eyes. I caused enough of a problem, got space and ran. If I could not have escaped, sure I might have done something bad, but that guy in McDonalds had the upper hand by far. He'd won. It was not OK what he did. Obviously it wasn't OK what the other two did. I would not look kindly on a lawsuit from them.
Sure, I never thought, hm that punch was X pounds per square inch so I'll...
However I never had to restrain myself from kicking someone in the head when they were down. And in clinches I never ripped out their adam's apple. If someone had had a knife, sure, no question, though I would have been lucky if I got anywhere against a knife. As I said, two people who I do not know - so I can't put the fight in any context with some limitations - I fought 'dirty' and I could have killed one of them - a punch to the throat might do it. I didn't think about the equality issue, it comes natural to me.
Some guy pushes me in a bar I don't smash a been bottle and jam it in his face. Some guy punches me in a bar, I don't do that. Maybe you would, but I think most people do not react to all violence as if killing the opponent is an immediate OK goal. That's just not my experience.
Maybe it is yours. I am sure in some neighborhoods it heads in that direction. But of course that's what you hear about. You don't hear about all the other fights where people let the loser walk home without damaging them as much as they could.
And that guy with the pipe - you treat that OK and he stand a good chance of killing someone, down the line, maybe a mugger with a knife. Maybe someone who bumps into him in a nightclub.
Unfortunately, all too often, courts require a higher standard of behavior from the victims, and here are some generalizations.
- A victim must suddenly know the laws on violent assaults and abide by them.
- He must assess the "relative combat abilities" of the assailants versus his own.
- He must somehow assess the damage that the assailants intend to perpetrate upon him and/or others, and he can only respond with up to the same level of violence (which turns the attack into a war of attrition without a decisive victory).
- Especially being women, the assailants might have pepper sprays and/or stun guns, in addition to the typical with knives, firearms and other weapons, and they require a victim to assess the "level of force" or "force multiplier" those exotic weapons provide the assailants.
If McD's does not train their employees on what to do if assailants begin attacking employees and jumping/circumventing the counter, then McD's is also responsible for what happened under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.
Humanity, n. Botched abortion.
Sadly this poor black dude with one prior cannot even afford Cifo's legal advice. That's why black people go to jail more than other groups.
Charges dropped:
New York (CNN) -- A fast-food worker whose run-in with two unruly customers was captured on cell phone video last month will not be indicted on assault charges, prosecutors said Saturday.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/03/justice/new-york--mcdonalds-beating/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
New York (CNN) -- A fast-food worker whose run-in with two unruly customers was captured on cell phone video last month will not be indicted on assault charges, prosecutors said Saturday.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/03/justice/new-york--mcdonalds-beating/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Saw that coming.
My MA instructors taught me to respond to a threat in kind: if they throw a punch, block it and return with a punch. If they throw a kick, block or dodge and return with a kick. However....
if they come at you with a weapon, your life is in danger and you do whatever you must do in order to end the threat they pose. If there are more than one attacker you must assume that they are trying to kill you and you must respond with this in mind. The sex of the attacker does not come into the equation.
When you have ended the threat, however, you are required to stop. The only thing that was of pivotal importance in this situation was that there were 2 attackers. The use of deadly force in self defense is justified with multiple attackers. MA rule of thumb.
My MA instructors taught me to respond to a threat in kind: if they throw a punch, block it and return with a punch. If they throw a kick, block or dodge and return with a kick. However....
if they come at you with a weapon, your life is in danger and you do whatever you must do in order to end the threat they pose. If there are more than one attacker you must assume that they are trying to kill you and you must respond with this in mind. The sex of the attacker does not come into the equation.
When you have ended the threat, however, you are required to stop. The only thing that was of pivotal importance in this situation was that there were 2 attackers. The use of deadly force in self defense is justified with multiple attackers. MA rule of thumb.