Listen to sounds she is making and look at her for 2 seconds and its pretty obvious this is not normal. Also I'm not even bashing the guy, heat of the moment and all that. Ideally he should not have gone after her.WeepingAngels said:
Strange women 'possessed' while assaulting man on Edmonton train
- Thread starter Burnouts3s3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think going after her was necessary. I'm not going to say he was wrong to do it, or that it isn't justifiable, but it's generally the better option to defuse a situation like that. As for what actually happened, I have no idea.
I am also curious why her being on drugs makes her somehow more sympathetic than if she weren't on drugs. I mean, we don't blame the alcohol when someone drives drunk...we blame the drunk driver.
Because fighting her when she is on drugs can lead to MORE harm to you or them. If you're sober and get punched in the face, you'll generally stabilise yourself. If you're drunk, you won't have braced for or defended against it as well, and thus will have taken more damage up front, on top of that your coordination is out and you may fail to stabilise yourself, and fall over, crack your skull on a nearby object, and die. You are more at risk as you are drunk.WeepingAngels said:
You are additionally more of a risk. If you were an aggressive drunk, and you decided to walk away and start cooling your head after punching someone again, and they come up and punch you - you're going to crack your shit. You are going to do a lot more damage than you originally would have, as you have been provoked.
Drink driving is a decision BY the drunk to be stupid. Whilst the initial assault in this case would be the decision of the drunk, and he would be punished for it, the decision to CONTINUE the fight was the decision of someone who was sober, and in that decision they decided to risk additional harm to both themselves, and the person who was drunk. It was not the drunk person's fault they decided to retaliate beyond what would be reasonable, it was the fault of the sober person, who decided they just HAD to be a dick and continue the fight, rather than let it go.
To turn your own loaded questions on you; if someone punched you in the gut, are you saying you'd throw them to the ground and bash them till their unconscious?
The right to self defence only covers you so far. Once the threat is neutralised and they've decided to disengage, its over. If you then initiate a counter attack - its not self defence. You are attacking them. You are committing assault. Yes, you were provoked. You'll get a lighter sentence, but you'll still get done for the assault. An eye for an eye will make the world blind. Two wrongs do not make a right. These are things we are taught from the time we're a few months old. Why should adults be less beholden to them than children?
ever watch pulp fiction? where vince gets his car "keyd" and he says [i/]it would have been worth it if I could have caught him doing it[/i] he almost WANTS to be wronged so that he can dish out sweet sweet violence,his car becomes irrelevent its a mentality that is not helpful in real liseWeepingAngels said:
its not about "winning" a fight....self defense, it should be that and ONLY that...thats not to say you can't go all out...[b/]if you have to[/b] then by all means do
but once the situation is difused then its better for everyone to remain that way....retaliating and going back in just for violence sake is stupid
can we not?....please?KingsGambit said:
look...as I said violence is bad, and there is a difference between self defense and indulging in violence..if the situation is difused and you dive back in for the sake of your own rage your being indulgent and just making it worse for everyone
Well for a start it might not actually be drugs. It could be mental illness, it could be unexpected side effect of actual medication, it could be she's one of the people who becomes violent with low blood sugar ect.WeepingAngels said:
Secondly again people aren't saying the women should not be held accountable or charged. Its attacking back that is the issue. There are plenty of people who hold that opinion regardless of if the person is in the right frame of mind.
And yes to me it dose make a difference if they are. They are still accountable, they still get charged with assault but its at different levels. I don't take someone attacking me while off their face (had that happen) the same as when they do it sober. Plus it just really isn't a good idea for your own safety.
What I learned in this thread.
It is normal to allow people to attack you and once they back off you shouldn't take it any further, outside of the police who would respond with violence if the attacker assaulted them. If the attacker is drunk or messed up on drugs, they are too be treated more gently, don't know if this rule applies to the police though.
Fascinating.
It is normal to allow people to attack you and once they back off you shouldn't take it any further, outside of the police who would respond with violence if the attacker assaulted them. If the attacker is drunk or messed up on drugs, they are too be treated more gently, don't know if this rule applies to the police though.
Fascinating.
It's not just self defense, moral responsibility is to defend the well being of the other person as well, meaning you stop the fight with a minimum of damage to BOTH parties, not just oneself.
In a fistfight against a non-seasoned fighter, a leg sweep followed by pinning and restraint while calling out for help is often successful - this avoids concussions, the worst common damage in a fistfight. A concussion is brain damage, yet it's often glorified by the morally weak citizen.
In a fistfight against a non-seasoned fighter, a leg sweep followed by pinning and restraint while calling out for help is often successful - this avoids concussions, the worst common damage in a fistfight. A concussion is brain damage, yet it's often glorified by the morally weak citizen.
The police are not allowed to respond with full on violence to attacks. They can subdue them obviously which is going to involved physically stopping them most of the time but if they actually start attacking and beating the person they get charged with assault like any one else and can lose their career over it. Unless the police force in your area is corrupt which happens, different issues.WeepingAngels said:
Do onto others as you would have others do onto you. If I have a bad day, get drunk and get into a fight with someone sober, I want to be treated in the best possible way, just as I would do if the situation was reversed.WeepingAngels said:
Being drunk or messed up on drugs does not forfeit one's right to health, well being, or life.
3rd party internet voyeur hindsight, yeah!
Self defense rule of thumb - you're allowed to defend yourself insofar as using force towards ending / escaping a confrontation. Retaliation, irrelevant of justification, is not self defense if the aggressor has disengaged from the combat.
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)
Self defense rule of thumb - you're allowed to defend yourself insofar as using force towards ending / escaping a confrontation. Retaliation, irrelevant of justification, is not self defense if the aggressor has disengaged from the combat.
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)
Where has anyone said the woman was innocent? The questions most people are addressing was whether or not the man was right to attack after she left him alone. There's really no question about the state of the woman's innocence.KingsGambit said:
And we can't really say that he was defending himself since she was leaving him alone by the time he went over and attacked her. By that point, it is no longer self-defense. If she was still attacking him, then yes, it could be considered self-defense, but once someone is no longer a threat to the victim, then that victim can no longer claim self-defense. It has absolutely nothing to do with the gender of these two. It has to do with the simple fact that one person attacked someone, and once that person left that someone alone, that someone decided to attack back in their own act of aggression.
Assuming the police aren't acting in self-defense, where has anyone said they would condone an unneeded level of violence after the assailant has backed off from the police? Sure, arresting them is reasonable, but that's because the officer, unlike the guy here, is actually authorized to carry out the law and arrest the person.WeepingAngels said:
Also, we're making a distinction between self-defense and counter-assault, for lack of a better term. If the woman was still attacking the man, then he would have had every right to retaliate with violence in order to protect himself. The thing is, by the time he attacked her, she was no longer a threat to him and he was no longer in any need of defending himself. His assault was an unnecessary act of violence on his part, as it was hardly committed in attempt to protect himself or others.
Finally, some people simply don't thinking assault someone in an act of revenge is justifiable. Heck, many major religions even forbid it, and the law in many nations does too. The best thing to do is to actually get someone who is allowed to arrest the person. Doing anything else is many times illegal and will get you into trouble, and it also adds an unnecessary amount of violence to the situation, which already has too much unnecessary violence associated with it to begin with.
This has nothing to do with drugs and/or drunkenness. Once again, if she was still attacking him, there would be no question that his retaliation would be justifiable self-defense, regardless of her state of mind.
Really, her state of mind is just a distraction in this case. At best, it serves as speculation for why she committed such a bizarre act of assault. However, in determining whether or the man's act of violence was justified, it is completely irrelevant.
Edit: Sorry for the double post, but I didn't see your response before starting to type out my previous one.
Pretty much this. As soon as she backed off the man has no right to go near her.Uhura said:
Typical for these situations, the guy does nothing until adrenalin hits after the initial battery and then goes too far.
Following her up the train was cray-cray. Understandable because at this stage I would say he's highly emotionally charged after being grabbed by the throat but still wrong.
I'd say the girl's on some bad pills judging by the jaw motions and face touching.
edit: spelling
I honestly feel really bad for the guy. Firstly he had a crazy person just randomly attack him. Then HE looks like the bad guy because he does this "What?! WTF did you attack me for?!" After the attacker just suddenly loses interest and wanders away. Meanwhile some shitstain records the whole thing and does nothing.
People who know they have mental issues, know that they have violent tendencies and do not seek any help get no sympathy from me. I really doubt this is the first time the woman in the video has done this.
People who know they have mental issues, know that they have violent tendencies and do not seek any help get no sympathy from me. I really doubt this is the first time the woman in the video has done this.
Then what you learned had little to do with the content of this thread, because you weren't paying any attention to what people are actually saying here. You could save yourself a lot of time by just not reading anyone's posts at all.WeepingAngels said:
OT: She reminds me of the person sitting next to me on one of my last airline trips. Not quite as crazy, though she was definitely not in her right mind and got into the lighter part of the gray area between acceptable conduct and assault. I simply offered enough physical resistance to keep her from shoving my head into the wall a second time. She calmed down quickly, no one else on the plane seemed to have seen it or reacted to it, and I didn't think I could support any charges against her, so I settled for not having anything to do with her afterward. If she had gone a little crazier, then I probably would have called for help and let the authorities deal with it, while doing what I could to prevent her from doing any major damage.
I would also probably have tried to sue her afterwards, so I guess I'm not much better than that guy in the end. Funny how the law won't let you retaliate by punching someone, but will let you retaliate by ruining their life afterward. Our lawmakers seem to think that universal passive aggressiveness is the ideal society.
That "shitstain" is the reason we know the truth of what happened here. I would call that something.jademunky said: