Strange women 'possessed' while assaulting man on Edmonton train

[lacktheknack]

How dare a man defend himself against a woman!? How dare he stand up where he can defend himself better!? He is only allowed to be choked by the woman, punched in the face, have his hair yanked and his head squashed against the glass while onlookers did nothing to help him. How dare a victim of assault stand up to try and defend themselves against their assailant, they should take their beating passively if they want any sympathy.

I'll reiterate that were the genders reversed here, not a single person would dare to blame the woman. It seems victim blaming is allowed when the victim is a man.

Speak for yourself. If the genders were reversed, my stance would not alter: Going after the attacker was not smart. At all. Especially seeing how the attacker was clearly on drugs and trying to leave the train.

 

[the December King]

But no one has actually claimed that the woman was innocent.

Too true! It does feel that way, however.

I think that in a similar situation, in the role of the attacked, if I even could react (most likely being stunned by the events and simply sitting there), I'd have had a delayed reaction, and not a lightning-quick counter-move retaliation like others seem to be able to do (or think they would do).

If your reaction is delayed to the point that your attacker is already walking away from you, you wouldn't really be able to claim self defense anymore. I mean, you yourself talk about retaliation, not self defense. Those are two different things.

I was just being honest- I most likely wouldn't have a 'retaliation' at all, as I said. And again, is that the line where self-defense and victim-blaming meet? After all, I wasn't the one staggering about the bus attacking people in the first place.

I'm sorry, but to me it does feel like if the genders were reversed, that this would be looked at waaay differently.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I'll reiterate that were the genders reversed here, not a single person would dare to blame the woman. It seems victim blaming is allowed when the victim is a man.

Not saying that would happen for certain but I have no problem seeing it as a possibility.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I think that in a similar situation, in the role of the attacked, if I even could react (most likely being stunned by the events and simply sitting there), I'd have had a delayed reaction, and not a lightning-quick counter-move retaliation like others seem to be able to do (or think they would do).

Humans, like all animals have a "Fight or Flight" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response] response to dealing with a threat. The threat of harm (or even a perceived threat) will result an an increase in heart rate and breathing, our nervous systems going on "high alert", adrenaline gets released into the body and increased blood flow to the muscles. It is an automatic reaction that gives the body energy to either fight or flee from a threat. We react to dangerous situations differently but it's not always possible to know how in advance, since our bodies and primal instincts take over in many such circumstances.

This is the same mechanism that gives humans the ability to lift cars off their loved ones when lives are stake.

Going after the attacker was not smart. At all. Especially seeing how the attacker was clearly on drugs and trying to leave the train.

Clearly! Clearly it was the case from the perspective of an idiot with a smartphone who filmed an assault rather than help. Clearly a man who was choked, punched and pushed into a window who stood in a second in order to defend himself was a criminal! *You* can see the attacker was doing what they did, but in the single second that elapsed in which the victim stood up what do you think HE was thinking? He, and every person alive has a right to defend themselves. He and everyone has a physiological response to threats of physical harm and his kicked in. You judge him all you like, but I think it is a horrid case of victim blaming, gender bias and rose-tinted glasses. You're seeing what you wish to see, not what is. Read up on the Fight-or-Flight response (link above) if you want to learn more about what happens to us during times of crisis and stress.

You blame an innocent man who was assaulted, as though his reaction to an unprovoked assault at the hands of a drugged-up, violent woman was unreasonable, inappropriate, unexpected or "too long" in coming? I think it's quite a shameful attitude. Victim blaming is *not* cool.

 

[Uhura]

I was just being honest- I most likely wouldn't have a 'retaliation' at all, as I said. And again, is that the line where self-defense and victim-blaming meet? After all, I wasn't the one staggering about the bus attacking people in the first place.

I'm sorry, but to me it does feel like if the genders were reversed, that this would be looked at waaay differently.

I don't think people would feel differently about the situation if the genders were reversed. Anyone who cares about the well being of the victim, would advise them to not escalate the situation, no matter what the genders of the victim/aggressor were. That's the kind of advise that keeps people alive. She could have pulled out a knife and stabbed the guy to death. That's why its pretty important to put the focus on self preservation, instead of revenge.

I really don't know what kind of people would say that it's a good idea for a victim to go after their attacker instead of getting to safety/seeking help. Maybe the kind of people who don't give a shit about the well being of the victim would be cool with retaliation? (I'm not saying you implied anything like this. Calling for blood without any care for the safety of the people involved is just pretty common occurrence in these threads.)

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Ive read stories where woman attack men after a few drinks because men wont hit girls. Thing is she was wrong to attack him and she deserved everything she got in my book. If you attack someone, then expect them to attack you back - she is lucky he wasnt a nutcase with a knife.

 

[lacktheknack]

Going after the attacker was not smart. At all. Especially seeing how the attacker was clearly on drugs and trying to leave the train.

Clearly! Clearly it was the case from the perspective of an idiot with a smartphone who filmed an assault rather than help. Clearly a man who was choked, punched and pushed into a window who stood in a second in order to defend himself was a criminal! *You* can see the attacker was doing what they did, but in the single second that elapsed in which the victim stood up what do you think HE was thinking? He, and every person alive has a right to defend themselves. He and everyone has a physiological response to threats of physical harm and his kicked in. You judge him all you like, but I think it is a horrid case of victim blaming, gender bias and rose-tinted glasses. You're seeing what you wish to see, not what is. Read up on the Fight-or-Flight response (link above) if you want to learn more about what happens to us during times of crisis and stress.

You blame an innocent man who was assaulted, as though his reaction to an unprovoked assault at the hands of a drugged-up, violent woman was unreasonable, inappropriate, unexpected or "too long" in coming? I think it's quite a shameful attitude. Victim blaming is *not* cool.

SPEAK. FOR. YOURSELF.

I have BEEN attacked. I have HAD the panicked thoughts. I've had the fight-or-flight trigger. My reaction was flight. That's what all reaction SHOULD be in a modern context. The trains are not "compact". The trains were not full. I have personally sprinted down those isles myself. The train was pulling up to a station, the doors were about to open (as shown by the woman trying to leave and the ticket-cops arriving instantly). There was no excusable reason not to channel his adrenaline into flight instead of fight.

Yes, I'm blaming the victim. The victim was an idiot. He had no reason to attack the attacker after she left, and had every reason not to. Yet he did. No, "fight or flight" is NOT an adequate reason to respond as he did. You do the man no credit if you think he was a slave to his emotions. Fight-or-flight is NOT king, and I don't want to be in a dangerous situation with someone who only reacts with fight-or-flight instinct. Self-control is a virtue that everyone needs to learn, yet so many haven't.

Yes, "fight-or-flight" is a thing. It's NOT the mind-controlling phenomena you think it is.

Life sucks, and sometimes, bad things happen. To respond with violence is, simply, wrong and you're wrong if you do it.

 

[the December King]

I was just being honest- I most likely wouldn't have a 'retaliation' at all, as I said. And again, is that the line where self-defense and victim-blaming meet? After all, I wasn't the one staggering about the bus attacking people in the first place.

I'm sorry, but to me it does feel like if the genders were reversed, that this would be looked at waaay differently.

I don't think people would feel differently about the situation if the genders were reversed. Anyone who cares about the well being of the victim, would advise them to not escalate the situation, no matter what the genders of the victim/aggressor were. That's the kind of advise that keeps people alive. She could have pulled out a knife and stabbed the guy to death. That's why its pretty important to put the focus on self preservation, instead of revenge.

I really don't know what kind of people would say that it's a good idea for a victim to go after their attacker instead of getting to safety/seeking help. Maybe the kind of people who don't give a shit about the well being of the victim would be cool with retaliation? (I'm not saying you implied anything like this. Calling for blood without any care for the safety of the people involved is just pretty common occurrence in these threads.)

I hear you. I guess I just don't want to demonize the guy for reacting to a situation that was violently thrust upon him, especially if I can potentially see myself reacting in the same way, knowing full well that I would be doing so out of fear, and shame, and all of the other things that might come with being a victim.

As to the gender swap part of my rant, well, I currently have some issues that I'm trying to sort out, and they revolve around feminism and gender roles. I still don't think I'm wrong, but using a blanket statement, especially as may regard my fellow escapists, was out of line and inappropriate. Especially because I know that y'all are smarter than that.

 

[briankoontz]

You'll be working against yourself to try and think logically about things, if you're attacked, since adrenalin and stress responses will distort your state of mind and perception of time, but generally things shake out better if you aim for that principle, where possible. (legally and otherwise)

Part of being a good person is to ensure one is in a good frame of mind at all times, so that if a stressful event occurs one responds in the best possible way. To make excuses for a bad response to a difficult situation based on "adrenalin and stress" is just that - an excuse, not a reason.

It's called "being prepared". In life anything can happen at any time.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

No, "fight or flight" is NOT an adequate reason to respond as he did. You do the man no credit if you think he was a slave to his emotions. Fight-or-flight is NOT king, and I don't want to be in a dangerous situation with someone who only reacts with fight-or-flight instinct. Self-control is a virtue that everyone needs to learn, yet so many haven't.

Yes, "fight-or-flight" is a thing. It's NOT the mind-controlling phenomena you think it is.

Actually, that is precisely what it is. Non-essential bodily functions are shut down and rational thought goes out of the window while the body is made ready to respond to a threat. I don't know if you've heard of hormones before but they *vastly* change the way people think, feel and behave. Changes in oestrogen are why women have a "time of the month" and causes mood swings and irritability amongst other physiological and emotional symptoms. Seratonin makes people feel happy and is the reason why people under the influence of ecstasy want to hug everyone. Adrenaline gives people energy, alertness and strength. You can espouse self-control and the need for it all you like, but when one is threatened that goes out of the window.

Life sucks, and sometimes, bad things happen. To respond with violence is, simply, wrong and you're wrong if you do it.

Part of being a good person is to ensure one is in a good frame of mind at all times, so that if a stressful event occurs one responds in the best possible way. To make excuses for a bad response to a difficult situation based on "adrenalin and stress" is just that - an excuse, not a reason.

Both of these statements are feel-good, philosophical garbage and horrendously naïve. Instead of condemning the attacker, you lay blame at the victim. Your morality is seriously brought into question, as is your understanding of how the human body, nay any animal in all of nature, reacts to threats and the instincts of self-preservation.

I don't think either of you are at fault for your thinking however. I blame it on "society" that teaches that men should never, under any circumstances, raise a hand against a woman. It's this "sin" he committed and for which blame is being directed toward him instead of his female assailant. The reasons are moot, the circumstances are irrelevant, only that he dared use superior masculine strength against a fragile, weaker female. "He was never at risk!", "He should restrain himself", "He should only act proportionally", "He should have fled", "He could've reacted differently". *These* are excuses, every one, excuses to justify blaming him for breaking the rule about men daring to harm a woman.

I'm not a violent man by any stretch. I would never raise a hand against another human being to intentionally cause them harm. I do have two young children in my household however, and can say with certainty that anyone who threatened them with harm would be in need of an ambulance by the time I was done, and to my mind I would morally justified in my actions. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are unfortunately times when violence is justifiable and an unprovoked assault, being choked and punched, is one of them.

Possibly one of the only things with which I agree with feminists is that victim blaming is morally wrong. Tho I do agree that "violence is not the answer" in general, the victim here is not the violent one. He had violence done to him and reacted to it. Blaming him in my mind is not only wrong, but an attitude I would call shameful.

 

[lacktheknack]

No, "fight or flight" is NOT an adequate reason to respond as he did. You do the man no credit if you think he was a slave to his emotions. Fight-or-flight is NOT king, and I don't want to be in a dangerous situation with someone who only reacts with fight-or-flight instinct. Self-control is a virtue that everyone needs to learn, yet so many haven't.

Yes, "fight-or-flight" is a thing. It's NOT the mind-controlling phenomena you think it is.

Actually, that is precisely what it is. Non-essential bodily functions are shut down and rational thought goes out of the window while the body is made ready to respond to a threat. I don't know if you've heard of hormones before but they *vastly* change the way people think, feel and behave. Changes in oestrogen are why women have a "time of the month" and causes mood swings and irritability amongst other physiological and emotional symptoms. Seratonin makes people feel happy and is the reason why people under the influence of ecstasy want to hug everyone. Adrenaline gives people energy, alertness and strength. You can espouse self-control and the need for it all you like, but when one is threatened that goes out of the window.

So my statement that I've been there before and understand the reaction directly didn't fit your little tirade, so you cut it out.

Then, you tell me that hormones override one's basest decision-making skills? What the hell?

Congratulations. You've convinced me that you can't actually defend your position adequately, so I'll take that as is and call it a day. Bye.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Ive read stories where woman attack men after a few drinks because men wont hit girls. Thing is she was wrong to attack him and she deserved everything she got in my book. If you attack someone, then expect them to attack you back - she is lucky he wasnt a nutcase with a knife.

Read stories? Hell it's happened to me mate.

I was out with some friends in town but I had to go home early because I was in work in the morning. Got the last train home and there were two really drunk girls in the same carriage as me. I sit down at the back of the train well away from them put my headphones in and just zoned out listening to my i-pod. Next thing I know this girl is flying at me swinging like a champ and clocks me on the side of the head with a proper sucker punch. I remember it feeling like it was in slow motion, I was stunned and the next thing I knew my fist was sailing towards her face, it was then that my brain decided to take note of the long hair, cleavage, and smell of perfume and vodka and scream girl! I managed to pull the punch just in time so no damage done.

Her mate ended up dragged her off me and then apologizing for her. Apparently some bloke had been trying it on with her in a club all night and I was wearing the same shirt so she thought he was me. I was alright, I've got a hard head lol. So yeah, fair warning. Scouse birds can be frigging mental when they've had a few.

O.T.

What the hell kinda drugs was she on? She was clearly as they say 'tripping balls'. Still that bloke was a bit out of order though, he should have just let it go. Also, way to demonstrate the bystander effect guys, train full of people and no one thinks maybe it'd a good idea to brake it up but it's a grate idea to film it instead? *slow clap*

 

[Sunrider]

Yeah, no. I don't give a shit what sort of drugs she's on. He's not in the wrong here. She deserved a whooping for that.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

No, "fight or flight" is NOT an adequate reason to respond as he did. You do the man no credit if you think he was a slave to his emotions. Fight-or-flight is NOT king, and I don't want to be in a dangerous situation with someone who only reacts with fight-or-flight instinct. Self-control is a virtue that everyone needs to learn, yet so many haven't.

Yes, "fight-or-flight" is a thing. It's NOT the mind-controlling phenomena you think it is.

Actually, that is precisely what it is. Non-essential bodily functions are shut down and rational thought goes out of the window while the body is made ready to respond to a threat. I don't know if you've heard of hormones before but they *vastly* change the way people think, feel and behave. Changes in oestrogen are why women have a "time of the month" and causes mood swings and irritability amongst other physiological and emotional symptoms. Seratonin makes people feel happy and is the reason why people under the influence of ecstasy want to hug everyone. Adrenaline gives people energy, alertness and strength. You can espouse self-control and the need for it all you like, but when one is threatened that goes out of the window.

So my statement that I've been there before and understand the reaction directly didn't fit your little tirade, so you cut it out.

Then, you tell me that hormones override one's basest decision-making skills? What the hell?

Congratulations. You've convinced me that you can't actually defend your position adequately, so I'll take that as is and call it a day. Bye.

Not wanting to jump in where I don't belong but he kinda has a point.

The fight or flight response is hard wired into our brains, as it is with all higher animals. We really don't have much choice in it. Once the adrenalin hits, higher brain function is bypassed and we operate on autonomic control. Ever had the feeling of time slowing down when you are in an accident or a really dangerous situation? Well that sensation is caused because the brain cuts out non-essential neurons (i.e. reasoning and logic) from the info processing loop. This is done to speed up your reaction time and the effect we feel is one of time seeming to slow down. Think back to the times when it's happened to you, how well can you explain your reasoning and thoughts about why you did what you did at the time. Unless you are really exceptional or have had extensive training then you probably can't. You just react very little actual taught goes into it.

Just providing info on the physiology of fight or flight here, no opinion on your discussion.

 

[lacktheknack]

Not wanting to jump in where I don't belong but he kinda has a point.

The fight or flight response is hard wired into our brains, as it is with all higher animals. We really don't have much choice in it. Once the adrenalin hits, higher brain function is bypassed and we operate on autonomic control. Ever had the feeling of time slowing down when you are in an accident or a really dangerous situation? Well that sensation is caused because the brain cuts out non-essential neurons (i.e. reasoning and logic) from the info processing loop. This is done to speed up your reaction time and the effect we feel is one of time seeming to slow down. Think back to the times when it's happened to you, how well can you explain your reasoning and thoughts about why you did what you did at the time. Unless you are really exceptional or have had extensive training then you probably can't. You just react very little actual taught goes into it.

Just providing info on the physiology of fight or flight here, no opinion on your discussion.

Not ALL logic/reasoning neurons are shut down, otherwise we would react like a fainting goat.

I'm not saying that I was in full state-of-mind when I got attacked. I was, however, in a good enough state of mind to quickly determine what would be a better move: hit back or move back. And there after analyzing the circumstances for a second (attacker brags about his fighting ability, open space behind me, no authorities nearby) to decide that fleeing was a good idea.

I don't see how it's "morally questionable" to assume a man who, given seconds to assess his situation, made a terrible decision on his own.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm not sure how I feel about this video. I don't want to assume the worse and it's possible that the women may have been having a bad day or on drugs or something else (I heard a story that the man before bumped into her or made a bad comment), but I think what she did really is considered assault.

Now, towards the end, we see the man getting tackled. I think what happened is that when the police came, they saw him attacking her and assumed the worst and arrested him. The police probably didn't see the first part of the fight. And I do think the man was in the wrong when he attacked her when she walked away.

But, in my honest opinion, I do believe this fight 'started' when she grabbed his neck and was making punching gestures at him. In my book, that's assault.

So I can come up and attack you and when I back off, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything to me?

I'm not saying what the woman did was right, I'm saying that choosing not to retaliate and ignoring her would've been the right choice here. Then, the man would not have gotten unjustly tackled by the police.

Sure but that's assuming that she would actually relent on the attack. It doesn't matter if the person is a woman or a man. Someone who has the intent to kill you whether with full knowledge of it or under the influence of third party narcotics can kill you if you allow them the chance.

The police should of knocked both of them down and send them to the station. The woman would probably get double the charge, and honestly the man should get off scott free.

Of course that punishment is in line with what we currently see in the video. It's possible that maybe those two have a connection with each other, but I digress.

 

[DementedSheep]

I'm not sure how I feel about this video. I don't want to assume the worse and it's possible that the women may have been having a bad day or on drugs or something else (I heard a story that the man before bumped into her or made a bad comment), but I think what she did really is considered assault.

Now, towards the end, we see the man getting tackled. I think what happened is that when the police came, they saw him attacking her and assumed the worst and arrested him. The police probably didn't see the first part of the fight. And I do think the man was in the wrong when he attacked her when she walked away.

But, in my honest opinion, I do believe this fight 'started' when she grabbed his neck and was making punching gestures at him. In my book, that's assault.

So I can come up and attack you and when I back off, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything to me?

I'm not saying what the woman did was right, I'm saying that choosing not to retaliate and ignoring her would've been the right choice here. Then, the man would not have gotten unjustly tackled by the police.

Sure but that's assuming that she would actually relent on the attack. It doesn't matter if the person is a woman or a man. Someone who has the intent to kill you whether with full knowledge of it or under the influence of third party narcotics can kill you if you allow them the chance.

The police should of knocked both of them down and send them to the station. The woman would probably get double the charge, and honestly the man should get off scott free.

Of course that punishment is in line with what we currently see in the video. It's possible that maybe those two have a connection with each other, but I digress.

Did you watch the video? she literally had her back to him walking off and tackling them both would pointless and awkward since she had collapsed (real or fake) onto the ground when the police got there. They girl should get fined and the guy should get off though.

 

[sXeth]

She clearly needs some sort of professional help.

The guys actions make no sense at all. He almost completely ignores her choking him and pulling his hair, then after she walks away, suddenly chases after her to start shit? I could see it if he pushed her off when she was trying to grab his throat, but what he does is almost as weird as her, if less theatrical.

 

[DementedSheep]

She clearly needs some sort of professional help.

The guys actions make no sense at all. He almost completely ignores her choking him and pulling his hair, then after she walks away, suddenly chases after her to start shit? I could see it if he pushed her off when she was trying to grab his throat, but what he does is almost as weird as her, if less theatrical.

It was probably because he wasn't expecting the attack so was shocked and then went for her when that wore off.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Attacking the girl back so much later was a dumb move. In a guy vs guy fight that's perfectly fine, but with a female involved one has to be VERY careful with how & when they react.
He couldn't fought back when she was attacking him so any damage he caused her could at least be masked as self-defense.