It was justified to a certain point. Once the woman was on the ground and he continued to wail on her, then he crossed the line.
Poll
too far or justified
| too far | 52% | 52% - 25 | ||||
| justified | 47% | 47% - 23 | ||||
| Total: 48 | ||||||
Bet the dumb bitches won't jump over counters anymore to start a fight! They got what they deserved!
Defending yourself is completely acceptable.
Beating someone who's on the ground, with an iron bar, who's pleading you to stop, is not.
Beating someone who's on the ground, with an iron bar, who's pleading you to stop, is not.
When did it become acceptable to start shit with someone, start getting your ass beat then think you can call timeout? The moral here is don't start shit you can't back up!Jaekus wrote:
Defending yourself is completely acceptable.
Beating someone who's on the ground, with an iron bar, who's pleading you to stop, is not.
Yeah you're right, they should've walked in with a gun and shot the dude instead. That way they can properly "back it up"cdailey2142 wrote:
When did it become acceptable to start shit with someone, start getting your ass beat then think you can call timeout? The moral here is don't start shit you can't back up!Jaekus wrote:
Defending yourself is completely acceptable.
Beating someone who's on the ground, with an iron bar, who's pleading you to stop, is not.
Too far, but only because he continued to hit them after they were down.
These women came in with an attitude and thought they could take it out on whomever they wanted. In a FF joint no doubt. What person in their right mind would jump a counter to go after a McDonalds employee. This just shows a total lack of respect for the rest of the people who were there and for society in general. What does that teach kids that were eating there? That it's ok if you're not happy one day that you can jump the counter and start hitting a total stranger. They acted like total idiots and payed the price.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah you're right, they should've walked in with a gun and shot the dude instead. That way they can properly "back it up"cdailey2142 wrote:
When did it become acceptable to start shit with someone, start getting your ass beat then think you can call timeout? The moral here is don't start shit you can't back up!Jaekus wrote:
Defending yourself is completely acceptable.
Beating someone who's on the ground, with an iron bar, who's pleading you to stop, is not.
Looked fine to me. Two people crossing a counter to attack. They were obviously motivated. As long as they continue to try and get up they pose a threat. I didn't see anything excessive.
So if someone broke into your house, you would shoot them and keep shooting untill they were out of your house?west-phoenix-az wrote:
Looked fine to me. Two people crossing a counter to attack. They were obviously motivated. As long as they continue to try and get up they pose a threat. I didn't see anything excessive.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for those two women they clearly started the fight...
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Just because someone is shot doesn't mean they're no longer a threat. Who knows what they're capable of or what weapons they may have hidden on them or who they have hiding nearby.
Hilarious video
i'd keep shooting till they'll end up in the morgue instead of a hospital bedroomFloppY_ wrote:
So if someone broke into your house, you would shoot them and keep shooting untill they were out of your house?west-phoenix-az wrote:
Looked fine to me. Two people crossing a counter to attack. They were obviously motivated. As long as they continue to try and get up they pose a threat. I didn't see anything excessive.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for those two women they clearly started the fight...
Justified the metal rod wasn't even that thick/heavy, they got what they deserved
This.Jaekus wrote:
Defending yourself is completely acceptable.
Beating someone who's on the ground, with an iron bar, who's pleading you to stop, is not.
yeah lol, i wonder if they would've stopped had it been the other way around and he was on the groundSturgeon wrote:
Justified the metal rod wasn't even that thick/heavy, they got what they deserved
♥
Only reason he kept going was clearly because his adrenaline was rushing... I'd say it was justified but obviously the legal system will not see it that way.
- anyone know what/who started the argument in the first place?
- maybe the two attckers (or one of them) tried to get up and attack him again. that would justify hitting them while they were on the ground. otherwise, he would have gone too far
- maybe the two attckers (or one of them) tried to get up and attack him again. that would justify hitting them while they were on the ground. otherwise, he would have gone too far
From what i've heard they tried to give him a dodgy $50 note and he questioned it. Then they started yelling at him and that's where the video picks up.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
- anyone know what/who started the argument in the first place?
Could be wrong though.
It's time to thin the herd I guess..
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6563|Graz, Austria
Definitely too far.
You could argue that you are out of your mind at that moment and continue to hit a few times after they're on the ground.
But in this case he stopped when his co-workers already tried to calm him down (and even back away as he apparently tries to hit them too) and the blonde customer was screaming and then continues.
You could argue that you are out of your mind at that moment and continue to hit a few times after they're on the ground.
But in this case he stopped when his co-workers already tried to calm him down (and even back away as he apparently tries to hit them too) and the blonde customer was screaming and then continues.
Justified to a point, then a little too far far. But when your blood is boiling its probably hard to stop.
Am I supposed to reply to this intelligently? It's kinda hard, when what I'm presented with in the first place...cdailey2142 wrote:
These women came in with an attitude and thought they could take it out on whomever they wanted. In a FF joint no doubt. What person in their right mind would jump a counter to go after a McDonalds employee. This just shows a total lack of respect for the rest of the people who were there and for society in general. What does that teach kids that were eating there? That it's ok if you're not happy one day that you can jump the counter and start hitting a total stranger. They acted like total idiots and payed the price.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah you're right, they should've walked in with a gun and shot the dude instead. That way they can properly "back it up"cdailey2142 wrote:
When did it become acceptable to start shit with someone, start getting your ass beat then think you can call timeout? The moral here is don't start shit you can't back up!
Reply however you like. The stupid cunts got what was coming to them.Jaekus wrote:
Am I supposed to reply to this intelligently? It's kinda hard, when what I'm presented with in the first place...cdailey2142 wrote:
These women came in with an attitude and thought they could take it out on whomever they wanted. In a FF joint no doubt. What person in their right mind would jump a counter to go after a McDonalds employee. This just shows a total lack of respect for the rest of the people who were there and for society in general. What does that teach kids that were eating there? That it's ok if you're not happy one day that you can jump the counter and start hitting a total stranger. They acted like total idiots and payed the price.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah you're right, they should've walked in with a gun and shot the dude instead. That way they can properly "back it up"
Let's consult our handy-dandy use of force model. The two women were certainly not compliant, found on the bottom in the blue section.
Passive resistance (the green blob) involves simple non-compliance in which the subject isn't doing anything to resist but still doesn't comply. This does not describe the women in the video.
Active resistance involves subjects who don't comply and are engaging in non-violent actions (like walking or pulling away) that are non-compliant. These actions are found in the yellow portion of the spectrum and are met with chemical irritant sprays and pressure point stimulation. These women were not being actively resistant.
These women were being assaultive, the region in the orange. Assaultive action is met with tazers or strikes with the hands and feet or baton (a long, thin piece of metal).
Given their assaultive behavior, I, as a reasonable officer, would continue the defensive tactics until they no longer were threatening assaultive behavior. He was fully justified in using the rod to defend himself from their assault.
As to what happened behind the counter, not one of us is competent to defend or criticize because we cannot see the women. If they were just laying there, he was out of line. If they were continuing to move toward him, he was still justified in his defensive tactics. The fact that someone has a fractured skull is not indicative of their compliance. He is also not a doctor and cannot diagnose a fractured skull.
If he were a cop, the facts of the video could exonerate him. Since he's not a cop, we shouldn't be holding him to the same standard as a cop. He's not trained where to strike, and he's not trained on the use of force model. I'd tell him to be carfeul when and where he strikes and let him go with an 'attaboy.
Dispute me, I dare you.
Passive resistance (the green blob) involves simple non-compliance in which the subject isn't doing anything to resist but still doesn't comply. This does not describe the women in the video.
Active resistance involves subjects who don't comply and are engaging in non-violent actions (like walking or pulling away) that are non-compliant. These actions are found in the yellow portion of the spectrum and are met with chemical irritant sprays and pressure point stimulation. These women were not being actively resistant.
These women were being assaultive, the region in the orange. Assaultive action is met with tazers or strikes with the hands and feet or baton (a long, thin piece of metal).
Given their assaultive behavior, I, as a reasonable officer, would continue the defensive tactics until they no longer were threatening assaultive behavior. He was fully justified in using the rod to defend himself from their assault.
As to what happened behind the counter, not one of us is competent to defend or criticize because we cannot see the women. If they were just laying there, he was out of line. If they were continuing to move toward him, he was still justified in his defensive tactics. The fact that someone has a fractured skull is not indicative of their compliance. He is also not a doctor and cannot diagnose a fractured skull.
If he were a cop, the facts of the video could exonerate him. Since he's not a cop, we shouldn't be holding him to the same standard as a cop. He's not trained where to strike, and he's not trained on the use of force model. I'd tell him to be carfeul when and where he strikes and let him go with an 'attaboy.
Dispute me, I dare you.
yea. because people crawling towards you are so dangerous
