PhantomEcho said:
These two women are repeat offenders. That's been stated quite clearly. It was also determined that his 'repeatingly going back to hitting them' was, in fact, due to their repeated attempts to GET BACK UP.
Odd, because when I watched the video I saw one and exactly
one moment where one of the women tried to get back up, afterwards I only saw him standing over them beating them over and over again.
I even saw a clear moment where he paused and then returned to beating them, so I don't know what you are on about.
Here's the rule. When you get your ass HANDED to you after assaulting some dude, and he subdues you... you STAY THE HELL DOWN. It's pretty much RULE NUMBER ONE. These women didn't just go down. They got up again, only to get put down a second time off-camera. They never ceased their vulgarity and their spitefulness. They never showed any signs of being done attacking the man until he subdued them REPEATEDLY.
They showed EVERY bloody sign of being over and done with, one attempt by one of them to get up that we can actually confirm and SEVERAL hits done while they were still on the ground I find it very hard to seriously justify the idea that they posed him any kind of serious risk.
Other staff members were trying to intervene and people were
screaming and begging him to stop and what evidence do you have that the beating 55 seconds in was due to them getting up, because the other what, seven hits he gave them prior sure as hell weren't.
And all the while, the only thing these 'customers' saw was a man hitting two women with a metal pole. Trust me, they never even CONSIDERED the reasoning behind it. You could have told them all that the women had KNIVES and were trying to KILL him, and they would side with the women.
Even though they were in fact, completely unarmed and one was even unconcious. For god's sake one of them had a fractured skull and a broken arm, I find it hard to believe that she was still seriously a threat to him at the very end. Though he sure as hell seemed to think so.
I'm sorry but even if they were still coming at him with her broken bones and damaged flesh I would like to remind you that they were UNARMED and frankly the fact that they never tried to pull out a weapon at any point during the beating should have made that point obvious.
They were never a real risk to his safety and they sure as hell weren't by that point, so even if they were still 'trying to finish the fight' it doesn't justify the use of lethal force against non lethal force.
EDIT: Also why is 'customers' in quotation marks? They were there to buy food from the venue, that makes them customers. That's valid.
Also even though people were there and could see it happening before their eyes they were still screaming: "STOP." And other coworkers were surrounding him to try to pull him away.
THEY certainly didn't seem to think his life was in danger.
Because that's the way our society works. If you're a woman, you get a 'get out of punishment free card' in the public eye. Nobody wants to believe you're the criminal. Men are programmed to rush to the defense of women. And women will only see a man beating two 'defenseless women', regardless of who instigated it.
Don't give me that crap. Maybe it would be true for some people but I would never justify beating someone hard while they are on the ground regardless of their gender. Seriously if you want to debate this issue on me don't EVER use that argument on me, EVER.
Also while I'm here:
http://globalcomment.com/2011/lara-logan-julian-assange-two-cases-of-rape-culture/
As a woman you also get the comfort of knowing that if you get raped or sexually assualted you will be harrassed and mocked and put through social shame and branded a 'slut' for it. Or branded a liar and have your reputation destroyed.
Seriously, the media is hardly fair on women.
The public eye is utterly blinded by the shades of bigotry and instinct involved here.
Because there isn't any. You get in trouble when you almost kill someone through excessive beating. That's the law.
Mr. McIntosh committed no crime. He defended himself from a brutal assault by two women who were intent upon causing him serious harm. They breached the front counter of a fast food restaurant, launched an assault upon an employee, and refused to remain down even once they had been mostly subdued.
And he refused to stop after being told to and refused to move away even though it was well within his power to do so, they were injured and on the ground. Even if they had intent to do him harm I doubt they still had the
capacity to.
Seriously there was a point right before the 50 second mark where he could have just hopped away from them. Even if they tried to get back up they would be injured and slow, he was well and truly safe and able to move away from them.
But he didn't. He just bashed them again.
Frankly even if they were still trying to attack him I could accuse him of hanging around
waiting for them to get back up, given he had a pretty clear window of oppurtunity to move away and didn't take it.
Because what self defence really is, is the point where you have subdued someone enough to give you a chance to escape from them. It's not standing over them waiting to see if they move again so you can smack them down violently again.
Come on look at that pause, if they were ever going to attack him... that would have been it. He had stopped and was distracted for at least five seconds, why not attack him then? My theory is that they
couldn't.
His co-workers offered him absolutely no assistance, despite his being outnumbered, because store policy is to ALLOW assaults to happen. Did any one of them even move to call the police WHILE he was being attacked? If so, I certainly didn't see it. I only ever saw them watching in a stupor as he was beaten by a couple of drunken thugs.
I agree that it is unfair that the coworkers weren't allowed to intervene and should have done but that doesn't make savage beatings okay.
Plus he didn't even
try to ask for help from any of them or the manager. He just went right for the bar.
And then the media got wind of this, and put out the whole 'Oh, he shot a kid to death!' angle.
Yeah, yeah... now he's a VIOLENT CRIMINAL.
Because nobody reads far enough into the incident report to see that it was an accidental 'negligent discharge of a firearm'. The boys were friends who got into an argument. There was no violent murder. It was a terrible tragedy which he had served his sentence for completely.
From what I understand the person he killed was Oshan Litchmore. He shot and killed Litchmore in a shopping mall, a very public place. The bullet went through Litchmore's stomach and into the leg of an eight year old boy.
Why did Mcintosh have a gun in a public place? Why did Mcintosh pull it out in a public place and why did Mcintosh fire it into the stomach (a shot that you can only give if facing someone head on) of someone that some reports say he was engaged in a heated argument with?
To me that's just too much of a coincidence. Plus I don't think you would get TEN YEARS for accidental discharge.
EDIT: Actually I am mistaken, he was firing the gun in anger at unkind words and looks directed at him, the bullet hit Litchmore by accident. At least according to this newspaper clipping.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1957&dat=20000105&id=-URGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=--cMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6300,1141716
Yeah, totally accidental carelessness, firing a gun like crazy in a public place due to unkind words against you. While children are present. Really he's quite the tragic victim.
Irresponsible media coverage at its worst, they never even bothered to MENTION that the two women actually ARE repeat offenders.
Yes and they should absolutely be punished for their actions, just excuse me for thinking the guy who almost killed them with a metal bar should be punished also.
But yes, they should have mentioned these women were repeat offenders but I really don't think it would change much. As far as I know they didn't shoot up a shopping mall and put children's
lives in danger.
That said, doesn't matter now does it because he's gotten away scott free.
It's a travesty of the highest order. Just further evidence of sensationalist reporting trumping the truth. It's already been proven that out of context video footage can make just about any case you want to make. This only serves to prove it further.
Well, the evidence in the video speaks for itself. They were unarmed and on the ground and even if they were trying to continue the fight despite serious injury, that doesn't justify repeated use of deadly force.
P.S my responses to the previous posters were more about their arguments then the actual case itself. Just thought I needed to address that.
P.P.S Also, you've won. Rayon Mcintosh is now free to raise his daughter, why do you even care what we think?
