Bus driver uppercuts woman
- Thread starter Brad Shepard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They are both in the wrong.
1) The bus driver: easily bigger in size and strength should have pulled back. I am not an expert but I attend martial arts and this guy gave it his all in this shoryuken. It is not a matter of gender but of physical condition. Just cause you know you can beat someone doesn't give you the right to or make your assumptions about a situation correct. Talk your problems first. Fists are on the 'IF' and 'after'.
2) The passenger: The one thing you have to do when on a bus is to not distract the fucking driver. The vehicle was moving and she was still bugging him. The other thing you have to do and that is when you hit someone, which I think she did from what I can make of the vids, is be ready to take the blow. What did she think he was gonna do ? You have to assume the worst in these situations.
1) The bus driver: easily bigger in size and strength should have pulled back. I am not an expert but I attend martial arts and this guy gave it his all in this shoryuken. It is not a matter of gender but of physical condition. Just cause you know you can beat someone doesn't give you the right to or make your assumptions about a situation correct. Talk your problems first. Fists are on the 'IF' and 'after'.
2) The passenger: The one thing you have to do when on a bus is to not distract the fucking driver. The vehicle was moving and she was still bugging him. The other thing you have to do and that is when you hit someone, which I think she did from what I can make of the vids, is be ready to take the blow. What did she think he was gonna do ? You have to assume the worst in these situations.
Aww, the youtube account got closed -_-
Nice Gif XDRastien said:SHORYUKEN!
And yet, he's a bus driver.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Consequences? Nah, they happen to OTHER people!katsabas said:
I do, or rather did, while I lived downtown without wheels. And I cannot imagine that taking place on any of the buses I took. People would have said something, at least. It would have been harder for her to antagonize him, if she also had a mob of people telling her to back off and shut up.Souleks said:
But this doesn't seem to be the same neighborhood as where I caught those buses. Maybe in the bigger cities it's a lot more like that, with the bystander effect?
Well, she decided to use force on him while he was driving the bus filled with plenty other passengers - if I am allowed to use and apply your logic here, her actions could have seriously injured or even killed an easy dozen or two dozen people, including the bus driver that was just doing his job before she decided to throw a fit on his bus.Uhura said:
Yes, hell yes his action of throwing her off the bus was justified. The uppercut, well, not so much, but it's difficult to keep a level head when you just about died because of one single crazy person.
Obviously you are viewing a different video than the one I saw. Is the driver attacking in self-defense? No, I agree he is not, this was definitely retaliaton. However, if someone is infuriated, as the driver clearly was with this woman especially after she struck him, I am not surprised if they fly off the handle and overreact. That is exactly what happened here. The driver was fed up and punched this woman who had driven him verbally and physically to the brink. Hell, I'd call it temporary insanity.Vrex360 said:
The next part that you apparently did not view was him picking up the woman and throwing her off the bus entirely. As he attempts to toss out her belongings as well, she comes back into the bus to attack him, at which point he puts his hands around her throat. This part I would consider self-defense. That woman was out for blood at that point.
This video made me laugh, not because a woman got socked in the face, but because an ASSHOLE got socked in the face.
As far as the equality issue, sadly women and men are not always treated equally. There are still instances of a man and a woman having the same job, but the man making a higher wage. Heck, it's even easier to see in sports. Why are baseball/football/basketball/etc teams not co-ed? I feel like there are a few exceptions to this, but the majority of sports teams are all men or all women. So I will agree that there is still the social stigma against a man striking a woman, no matter the provocation, and there are women who have used that to their advantage. Is it right or fair? No, but it also isn't right to unload on someone physically. In this case, both parties were in the wrong.
God, that was an epic uppercut though!
There's a lot of stories like this from out of London - rarely attacks on the bus driver, though. Usually cases of gangs of teenagers kicking a lone victim almost to death while the most anybody reacts is to walk to the lower floor of the bus so they don't have to watch.the December King said:
... and in some fields, such as ANY tipped profession, it's the woman that makes the higher wage. And if you assume that men and women are equally honest in filing their taxes, this inequity will not show up on any gender gap analysis.COMaestro said:
... and in some fields, such as athletics, it's the woman that makes the same as a man despite being vastly less skilled, and again, this inequity will not show up on any gender gap analysis.
At the highest levels, it's because women don't want them to be. If pro sports were desegregated, female athletes would collectively earn BILLIONS less per year than they do right now. This is not based on my wild imagination, this is based on simply examining the history of women competing in open sports at the highest levels.
If the 199th best computer programmer in a company got paid as much as the best computer programmer in a firm, making 200 times what the 198th best programmer made, for no other reason than programmer #199 was a man and programmers #1-198 and #200 were woman, this would be cited as an example of egregious discrimination of the worst kind. The sexism (and the vast wealth) doesn't magically go away when you change the industry from "I.T." to "athletics".
Ask yourself why SOME female competitors fight for segregation in competitive endeavors where none exists and/or none is needed? Because such segregation pays so well, ESPECIALLY when you get away with semi-segregation (i.e. chess events with two fields: "open" and "women only")
Of course he had the right to remove her from the bus. The point is that he was using excessive force when doing it. She could have been seriously hurt! I feel like a lot of people here have really immature view on violence. The thing is that in real life people don't always get up unharmed after you punch or push them. Do you think that the driver wanted to kill the girl? Do you think he would have been happy and felt self-righteous if she had died or gotten seriously injured? Do you think he would have wanted such a stupid incident to ruin the lives of two people? I'd say the driver probably would have been devastated.Headdrivehardscrew said:
To me it seems like a lot of the people who cheer his actions don't actually realize how serious the consequences could have been. To them it's just entertainment.
I'm going to skip all the gender bullshit and simply say this.
You can't fucking hit anybody. Like ever. It doesn't matter what the hell they say, being told fucking words doesn't give you jurisdiction to physically harm someone.
You can't fucking hit anybody. Like ever. It doesn't matter what the hell they say, being told fucking words doesn't give you jurisdiction to physically harm someone.
I swear I could hear the crack of the sound barrier being breached with that punch.
He used excessive force, so bad on him, but videos like this never reveal the whole story anyway - for all I know she could have hit him beforehand or whatnot. That was highly escalated from the start of the footage.
He used excessive force, so bad on him, but videos like this never reveal the whole story anyway - for all I know she could have hit him beforehand or whatnot. That was highly escalated from the start of the footage.
Well yeah, I was more trying to imply that you can't respond to a situation void of violence with violence. In defence implies somebody else has already introduced violence into the problem. I should have qualified my statement rather than assuming people would infer what I really meant.AlphaLackey said:
Thanks for picking that apart by the way.
Thanks for lazily arguing from an absolute, by the way; but you missed the whole point I was trying to make. If I corner you and say I'm going to rip your f***ing head off in a manner that suggests I was serious, you would be very much justified in using violence to escape from the situation even though you would be, technically, throwing the first punch.him over there said:
Time to throw my post onto the opinion stack!
To cut it short i think what he did was understandable but not a justified response and definitely not a good thing .
We all get angry. Its understandable. Its a human emotion and it makes us lose control. In the eyes of the law no one can say the bus driver wasnt provoked and as such he doesnt deserve punishment. But to lash out in rage isnt a good thing. Didnt parents teach us anything? Hitting someone in rage is pretty much always a bad decision and very rarely sorts out a situation (unless said situation is a fight for your life).
It isnt a question of gender. We have NO evidence this girl was abusing gender privilege to avoid the assault and get away with such inappropriate acts. People are NOT angry because she is a girl. I have yet to see any posts saying this anyway. People are angry because the force was excessive. Cmon that guy was huge, and fuck me sideways he KNOWS how to throw an uppercut. That girl was like 80 pounds? A simple slap would probably knock her down. Of course we can say he was full of pent up rage (understandably) but it doesn't excuse such extreme force. There are a LOT of ways someone with that much of a strength advantage could have physically removed or incapacitated her.
A good reason vigilante justice like this is discouraged is it now leaves us with a difficult question. The girl here has already been punished, pretty damn brutally, with a hefty uppercut to the jaw. Should we punish her AGAIN? Is DOUBLE punishment fair? Has she learnt her lesson? Is it acceptable to extract two lots of punishment from a person as long as the victim feels like taking a second lot at the time? Its a difficult question of what is and isnt fair.
The woman was a dick and pushed someone so far even a well balanced human would lash out.
The thing is that if we "Praise" and "Encourage" such behavior people will think its more acceptable to lash out for lesser provocations that some psychopathic woman. We cant say that "Hitting someone in blind fury after they provoke is a good and just thing to do, it makes you a hero and you should be rewarded" because to be honest that sends a pretty piss poor lesson for what should be socially acceptable. These things shouldnt be SHAMEFULL because in some cases (like this one) the mans response was blind fury from lots of provocation. They most certainly shouldnt be encouraged though. People shouldnt be told that lashing out in rage is anything but a last resort after you try hard to ignore it and defuse the situation and you just cant escape or control yourself. People shouldnt feel normal attacking others over small provocations and using this as an excuse. Dont encourage this kind of thing.
To cut it short i think what he did was understandable but not a justified response and definitely not a good thing .
We all get angry. Its understandable. Its a human emotion and it makes us lose control. In the eyes of the law no one can say the bus driver wasnt provoked and as such he doesnt deserve punishment. But to lash out in rage isnt a good thing. Didnt parents teach us anything? Hitting someone in rage is pretty much always a bad decision and very rarely sorts out a situation (unless said situation is a fight for your life).
It isnt a question of gender. We have NO evidence this girl was abusing gender privilege to avoid the assault and get away with such inappropriate acts. People are NOT angry because she is a girl. I have yet to see any posts saying this anyway. People are angry because the force was excessive. Cmon that guy was huge, and fuck me sideways he KNOWS how to throw an uppercut. That girl was like 80 pounds? A simple slap would probably knock her down. Of course we can say he was full of pent up rage (understandably) but it doesn't excuse such extreme force. There are a LOT of ways someone with that much of a strength advantage could have physically removed or incapacitated her.
A good reason vigilante justice like this is discouraged is it now leaves us with a difficult question. The girl here has already been punished, pretty damn brutally, with a hefty uppercut to the jaw. Should we punish her AGAIN? Is DOUBLE punishment fair? Has she learnt her lesson? Is it acceptable to extract two lots of punishment from a person as long as the victim feels like taking a second lot at the time? Its a difficult question of what is and isnt fair.
The woman was a dick and pushed someone so far even a well balanced human would lash out.
The thing is that if we "Praise" and "Encourage" such behavior people will think its more acceptable to lash out for lesser provocations that some psychopathic woman. We cant say that "Hitting someone in blind fury after they provoke is a good and just thing to do, it makes you a hero and you should be rewarded" because to be honest that sends a pretty piss poor lesson for what should be socially acceptable. These things shouldnt be SHAMEFULL because in some cases (like this one) the mans response was blind fury from lots of provocation. They most certainly shouldnt be encouraged though. People shouldnt be told that lashing out in rage is anything but a last resort after you try hard to ignore it and defuse the situation and you just cant escape or control yourself. People shouldnt feel normal attacking others over small provocations and using this as an excuse. Dont encourage this kind of thing.
As said on QI. "You have a crap job, I can fully understand why you'd be extremely angry"BiscuitTrouser said:
Which leads to the question, why would you provoke a bus driver?
If the price of TOTAL non hypocritical equality is to accept the negative aspects as well as the positives maybe (some) women are willing to do that. Maybe some of them are so sick of being told they have it better due to the lack of the draft when they personally wouldnt mind it that accepting it is a step away from tired old arguements.matthew_lane said:
Put it this way (which is going to be a terrible example but let me do this):
Its easy to go "You have a privilege as a slave, you dont pay taxes". Maybe accepting the few negative aspects to properly embrace all the positive ones is a worthwhile trade. Especially when they are all rooted in the same idea which is "Women are too weak to fight".
Legitimately because the whole "Dont hit women" and "Women cant fight" and "Women are ALWAYS weaker than men" and "Women cant be drafted" all arise from the same stereotype about the perceived weakness of women these groups tend to try and target the one overarching problem. Its the same reason men who are abused by their wives cant be taken seriously in society. If this is a problem that affects both genders and, in my opinion, is a hurdle to womens rights in some peoples minds (for the reasons you stated about taking it seriously) then why dont YOU start advocating it too. I havnt seen any feminist groups say they DONT want the draft. Just a lack of campaigning for it. Which are not the same thing. To be fair the right of the draft is fairly pointless anyway. The problems of sexism in other areas matter a lot more to both genders since the draft is a purely hypothetical point at this point in time. When a draft is CALLED maybe we would see campaigning for it. Until then im sure youre more likely to see people fight a problem that IS hurting them rather than a problem that COULD hurt them in some fairly unlikely circumstances.matthew_lane said:
Also we override our biology every day. Its not difficult. We evolved from an animal that lives a life based on "Eat, fight, fuck" so im sure we could go a little further and stop treating women as fragile things unless they (that specific person) want to be.
EDIT: Having done some research on the subject perhaps an "All female" legion would be appropriate. With ONLY the women who are physically able enough to qualify for the male regiments as well. The rest can provide support roles like the men who are not physically able to fight due to lack of strength. The proportion here can then be judged not on gender but on ability. Ive located a few people who believe women should get the draft and are also women. Its an interesting read in any case.
EDIT EDIT: Heres a wonderful idea i found that Germany apparently employs. People get the option to sign up for the draft. Or community service in hospitals and other essential places. Surprisingly enough not everyone goes for the community service.
OP is obviously joking, this video looks pretty cut and dry. The woman hit the bus driver WHILE HE WAS DRIVING A BUS which is a dangerous situation if he loses control of the bus and maybe runs down a car or somebody walking down the street, or collides with a transport truck - anything really. The headline here should read: Stupid Woman Hits Bus Driver, not the other way around.
Did this female strike the male with the expectation that the male would strike back? No? There's all your evidence right there.BiscuitTrouser said:
Well, okay.. you saying "even though she was striking him, he should not have struck her back" should be included too.
Do you suspect she will ever strike a man with the expectation that she should be immune from reprisal because of her gender? No? Looks like she learned a lesson, the same lesson I would learn if I struck someone twice my size while suspecting I could behind the equally quaint social expectation that "you don't hit someone with glasses".
I guarantee you, with the genders reversed, that's exactly what people would say. Even if the provocation isn't physical, you can "play for mainstream laughs" a woman lashing out after repeated provocation by a male. You can do it in sitcoms, in commercials, in movies, you name it.
I appreciate the pacifist angle you are trying to take to this discussion. But to try and take the gender out of the equation is inaccurate IMO.