Violence

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20111014/7430/mcdonalds-attack-video-nyc-assault.htm

Saw this yesterday on a CBS news site, and the bias against the cashier was palpable.
They portrayed him as the perp, when its obvious he was a victim of (SIP), Stupid In Public.

These two women should be happy he only had a rod to grab.
As a victim, he had every right to protect himself.

Quote from: Solar on October 15, 2011, 08:20:32 AM
Saw this yesterday on a CBS news site, and the bias against the cashier was palpable.
They portrayed him as the perp, when its obvious he was a victim of (SIP), Stupid In Public.

These two women should be happy he only had a rod to grab.
As a victim, he had every right to protect himself.

There's nothing hard to understand about this. If you don't want a McBeatin', then don't jump over the counter and accost employees.

I agree he had every right to defend himself.  The only problem I see is once they were down he should have stopped hitting them.  It "sounds" like he continued to hit them which is not going to be good for his defense.

Quote from: MAC Man on October 15, 2011, 08:50:18 AM
There's nothing hard to understand about this. If you don't want a McBeatin', then don't jump over the counter and accost employees.

McBeatin. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))

Quote from: malp1022 on October 15, 2011, 08:55:32 AM
I agree he had every right to defend himself.  The only problem I see is once they were down he should have stopped hitting them.  It "sounds" like he continued to hit them which is not going to be good for his defense.

I agree he should have probably stopped, but what constitutes defense and at what point is enough?

I ask, because if he'd had a gun and shot and killed them, it would be seen as justifiable defense.
Though in this case being an ex-felon, he didn't have a right to carry a piece.

So Solar I am just putting this out there for the sake of discussion, he didn't have a gun. and legally can not own and carry one.  Theoretically speaking he still did less damage with the pipe even though it "sounds" like he kept on swinging.  Maybe they should give him a break hmmmmm

Quote from: malp1022 on October 16, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
So Solar I am just putting this out there for the sake of discussion, he didn't have a gun. and legally can not own and carry one.  Theoretically speaking he still did less damage with the pipe even though it "sounds" like he kept on swinging.  Maybe they should give him a break hmmmmm

Thats how I see it, even though they were both women, it was still two against one and making sure at least one doesn't get back up and attack him totally makes sense.

I've been in these situations before, you simply do what you have to, to protect yourself.
To me, its a clear cut case of self defense, but to listen to the CBS anchor, you would think he was the instigator.
Too damn much PC anymore. :-\

I would rather fight 3 men tat 1 woman anyday.  Women are friggin brutal.  I worked as an ER nurse for 17 years, and I have seen some people messed up from fighting with or breaking up fights with women

Quote from: malp1022 on October 17, 2011, 11:18:44 AM
I would rather fight 3 men tat 1 woman anyday.  Women are friggin brutal.  I worked as an ER nurse for 17 years, and I have seen some people messed up from fighting with or breaking up fights with women

I have to agree, I used to bounce in a pretty rough bar decades ago, and refused to work ladies night when they got cheap drinks, they would get drunk and get in the bloodiest fights, breaking one up usually meant some serious scratches or heal punctures somewhere on your body..

Break up a guys fight and all you got was a broken up fight.