Drunk Bully gets one hit KO'd

[Steve5D]

The guy who threw the punch was never touched, so he can't claim self defense.

No, but he can claim it was done in defense of others.

Actually, that's only going to work as an argument if the punk in the gray shirt was trying to stop a felony, and even then that's an argument that normally comes about only after the use of deadly force.

Bottom line is that the guy in the gray shirt is in no better moral position than the guy he put on the ground...

 

[amolitor]

Remember: It's THREE LEFTS, not TWO WRONGS.

 

[Steve5D]

What I think is pretty funny here is everyone is referring to the guy who ended up getting knocked out as "the drunk".

Does anyone here harbor the illusion that the punk who put him on the ground was sober?

The guy who got slapped in the face never had his life threatened. He was slapped. If he chose not to retaliate, then it was no one else's place to do that for him. The guy who punched Afro Boy is, based on the video, actually more in the wrong than Afro Boy.

Like Ballistics, I used to work law enforcement in the Navy. If you carried a sidearm, you knew the rules for the use of deadly force cold.

Nothing in that video even approaches the need for the employment of deadly force...

 

[bc_steve]

Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt. Better him than somebody else, and hopefully next time he will think better of it next time he gets all drunk and aggressive.

Sure it was a sucker-punch by grey-shirt, but at least someone stood up to a bully.

 

[Ballistics]

Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt.

How do you know who created the situation? For all you know, the 2 "victims" could have been shouting racist remarks before this video started and then when confronted,
played coy.

 

[JacaRanda]

Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt. Better him than somebody else, and hopefully next time he will think better of it next time he gets all drunk and aggressive.

Sure it was a sucker-punch by grey-shirt, but at least someone stood up to a bully.

Stood up to and sucker punch in the same sentence? Hmmmm.....

Still looked like the bully was picking on the weakest person(s) he could. (((Classic Bully))). He was a freakin clown that would not have done crapola to anyone except the two guys he already figured out were non confrontational.

 

[Canuk]

What have been funny to see would have been one of the "drunk" guys friends, knock the little $hit out in the grey shirt.

This sort of ambush technique is wrong and proves that the "grey shirt" was nothing more than a coward. A "real" man that wanted to diffuse the situation would have stepped up and made the "drunk" know that his behaviour needed to stop or it would be dealt with appropriately.

Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth. He is nothing but a coward.

 

[Buckster]

Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.

Did someone laud him as "a hero and brave"?

He is nothing but a coward.

Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases. If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.

The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants. That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this. Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.

Talk about animal mentality...

 

[Canuk]

Sorry Buckster,
I usually agree with much of what you say, but I won't this time.
The "grey shirt" also was standing w/ a friend? (assuming), surely if he would have stepped up or said something, his friend would have had his back.
The "drunk guy" was out looking for a fight, sure that's what it appears. The "grey shirt" also appears to want to get in on the action, but not risk it, so he sucker punches, then kicks an unconscious man.

From my interpretation of the video, the "drunk guy" obviously has a problem w/ the guys in the black and red shirts. He wasn't randomly punching innocent bystanders, in fact he turned around and was walking away until called back or taunted? He then punched the guy in the black shirt and out of nowhere is sucker punched by a little b**ch. So I honestly don't think that the "bully" was beating down everyone insight and needed to be put down like a rabid dog.

 

[Ballistics]

Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.

Did someone laud him as "a hero and brave"?

He is nothing but a coward.

Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases. If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.

The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants. That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this. Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.

Talk about animal mentality...

I don't think anyone said anything to this effect.

 

[Buckster]

Sorry Buckster,
I usually agree with much of what you say, but I won't this time.

No biggie, it's all just opinions anyway.

I'm curious though - taking what I actually said, what exactly​ did I say that you disagree with? Use quotes of my actual words to be clear.

 

[Buckster]

Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.

Did someone laud him as "a hero and brave"?

He is nothing but a coward.

Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases. If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.

The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants. That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this. Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.

Talk about animal mentality...

I don't think anyone said anything to this effect.

It seems quite obviously inferred to me, without a direct quote necessary to lay it out the way I did.

 

[Ballistics]

Did someone laud him as "a hero and brave"?

Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases. If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.

The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants. That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this. Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.

Talk about animal mentality...

I don't think anyone said anything to this effect.

It seems quite obviously inferred to me, without a direct quote necessary to lay it out the way I did.

What you did, was take the disapproval of sucker punching and the sucker puncher, and manipulate it into some maniacal evil plot of the disapprovers with if/else logic.
As if those who think that the sucker puncher was in the wrong, have only one option to choose from about their mindset.

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases.

And you got this apparent idea from where exactly?

 

[Canuk]

Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.

Did someone laud him as "a hero and brave"?

It was a few posts up, not word for word, but I think you know which I am talking about.

Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".

"grey shirt" was standing with a friend, discussing the "drunk guy's" actions. Surely his friend would have helped him if he decided to intervene.

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases. If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.

The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants. That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this. Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.

Talk about animal mentality...

In the true case of a "bully" that may be true. This appears to be a case of the "drunk guy" having a problem with they guys in the black and red shirts, as I explaned above.

 

[Buckster]

I don't think anyone said anything to this effect.

It seems quite obviously inferred to me, without a direct quote necessary to lay it out the way I did.

What you did, was take the disapproval of sucker punching and the sucker puncher, and manipulate it into some maniacal evil plot of the disapprovers with if/else logic.

Nah, I just followed it to its logical conclusion. Do you reach a different one and, if so, what and how?

As if those who think that the sucker puncher was in the wrong, have only one option to choose from about their mindset.

If nobody is strong enough to confront him and come out victorious, what's the conclusion other than the one I laid out?

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases.

And you got this apparent idea from where exactly?

Logic. It's the only conclusion one can reach in such a scenario.