I don't think it's fair to blame both parties equally when one was clearly provoked by the other.
There's such a thing as weight class. Rather than being a thing between male/female, the guy probably had 5 inches and 100 pounds on her. He was never really in much danger, and if push came to shove could have destroyed her. Not to say a bigger person can't defend themselves from a smaller person, but as someone else already said here in Canada we have a 'reasonable defense' clause for these situations. That makes it a bit of a grey area, but the example my old martial arts instructor used to use if someone in a bar gives you a shove, and you respond by picking up a bar stool and smashing it over his head, then yeah you're going to jail!KingsGambit said:She assaulted him, likely while tripping on a chemical concoction of heavy duty drugs. He had every right to defend himself.
If that was a man attacking a woman, everyone here would be outraged and baying for his blood. The fact that there's even a question being asked shows a disgusting, sexist attitude that the man has to be in the wrong. She is violent and probably a druggie and he is a victim of assault. If feminists want to moan and complain about "equality", then they shouldn't have an issue holding that woman to account for her criminal actions.
While the expletive might be over the top, surely you'd agree that assisting to end the fight and providing testimony to police afterwards is the better thing to do; rather than record the violence and upload it to the internet?WeepingAngels said:That "shitstain" is the reason we know the truth of what happened here. I would call that something.jademunky said: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.
The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.Sniperyeti said:While the expletive might be over the top, surely you'd agree that assisting to end the fight and providing testimony to police afterwards is the better thing to do; rather than record the violence and upload it to the internet?WeepingAngels said:That "shitstain" is the reason we know the truth of what happened here. I would call that something.jademunky said: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.
The bystander effect can be really quite nasty man, we shouldn't morally condone people who refuse to assist but are happy to voyeuristically watch events unfold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
people who have mental issues arent always in the best position to judge the fact they have metal issues and/get help, they often need people to take the initiative for themjademunky said: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.
I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.WeepingAngels said:The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.
Another person involved in the fight is another person arrested and since that person would no longer be recording, the cops won't have a video witness. How is that a better scenario?Sniperyeti said:I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.WeepingAngels said:The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.
Why is a record of the event more important than intervening to prevent physical harm to another?
Why is adding a third person to the 'fight' to be avoided when it is for the purpose of preventing further conflict rather than deliberately inflicting harm on one of the parties?
Why do you consider it acceptable for the originally assaulted party to start another fight after the initial confrontation has ended, but consider it unacceptable for a third person to join the initial confrontation?
WeepingAngels said:Another person involved in the fight is another person arrested and since that person would no longer be recording, the cops won't have a video witness. How is that a better scenario?Sniperyeti said:I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.WeepingAngels said:The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.
Why is a record of the event more important than intervening to prevent physical harm to another?
Why is adding a third person to the 'fight' to be avoided when it is for the purpose of preventing further conflict rather than deliberately inflicting harm on one of the parties?
Why do you consider it acceptable for the originally assaulted party to start another fight after the initial confrontation has ended, but consider it unacceptable for a third person to join the initial confrontation?
I think having a perfect witness to a crime is invaluable, don't you?
I'm curious why doing it because of drugs means she should get a lighter sentence. You choose to do drugs, and as such you are responsible for what you do under their influence. I'd say the same thing about alcohol too (note, this isn't including what people do to you, I'm not condoning rape here). Mental illness, sure, you should make considerations for that because it's not a conscious choice you're makingSaetha said:Everyone's kinda screwing up here. The woman for starting it, the man for not letting it go, the witness for filming random strangers on the train, and the bystanders for just... bystanding.
Seriously, a better question is why didn't anyone intervene? She looked like she was about to choke him for a second there. Someone should've stepped in.
As for the legality... the woman did start the fight, but he really shouldn't have pursued. If this sort of thing were up to me, I'd probably punish them both - the guy would get a lighter sentence because he was clearly provoked, even though he shouldn't have perpetuated the fight, and the woman would if her actions are due to drugs or mental illnesses. If she just decided to threaten some random guy on the subway, than full sentence for her.
I think that the more people you add to the fight, the more likely someone will be injured. If one person jumps in then more people might also jump in (a mob mentality) and then you have a much bigger problem than you started with. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am just not interested in arguing about the bystanders actions.Sniperyeti said:WeepingAngels said:Another person involved in the fight is another person arrested and since that person would no longer be recording, the cops won't have a video witness. How is that a better scenario?Sniperyeti said:I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.WeepingAngels said:The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.
Why is a record of the event more important than intervening to prevent physical harm to another?
Why is adding a third person to the 'fight' to be avoided when it is for the purpose of preventing further conflict rather than deliberately inflicting harm on one of the parties?
Why do you consider it acceptable for the originally assaulted party to start another fight after the initial confrontation has ended, but consider it unacceptable for a third person to join the initial confrontation?
I think having a perfect witness to a crime is invaluable, don't you?
No, I disagree.
Another person involved in the fight, for the purpose of defence of another, is protected by the law of Necessity. Of course that changes if the purpose of their involvement is to deliberately inflict harm etc, but that is not the sort of involvement I am arguing should have occurred here. Similarly, the initial victim was legally justified in acting in self defence while he was the victim of the initial attack.
This changes, as several people have mentioned above, when the initial assault is over and the victim begins his own assault on the attacker who is moving away (provocation is a matter of sentencing, not a defence).
There are issues with the value you place on the phone video. Evidence such as this is still subject to challenge and debate in a court of law, it does not result in some sort of incontrovertible 'cast iron case' which the initial victim can use to defend himself - particularly in the present case where it indicates he initiated a second attack outside of self defence. Testimony of witnesses may be challenged in cross examination, but in relatively minor cases like this is of sufficient weight as a record of events; particularly in a public space with multiple witnesses.
Beyond the law, my personal view (and if you read the second article I linked you might find the view of the general public) is that the morally correct action is intervention and protection. Quite besides whether the evidence gained in making the video is useful in a later case, the superior ethical interest should be in prevention of further harm.
I suppose my position is that a fight without witnesses where no one is hurt is better than a fight with witnesses where someone is seriously injured. Even if the involvement of bystanders is necessary to bring about the latter situation, it is still the preferable final outcome.
What I was advocating is intervention to prevent the fight, rather than 'jumping in' and trying to inflict further harm. However, if you're finished with the argument I won't pursue the point.WeepingAngels said:I think that the more people you add to the fight, the more likely someone will be injured. If one person jumps in then more people might also jump in (a mob mentality) and then you have a much bigger problem than you started with. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am just not interested in arguing about the bystanders actions.
Thanks. Just to be clear, I understand what you are saying but things don't always happen as intended. The person jumping in to help might become part of the fight when a punch lands in his face. You also can't account for the other bystanders who may only jump in after the first person does, think of a bar fight.Sniperyeti said:What I was advocating is intervention to prevent the fight, rather than 'jumping in' and trying to inflict further harm. However, if you're finished with the argument I won't pursue the point.WeepingAngels said:I think that the more people you add to the fight, the more likely someone will be injured. If one person jumps in then more people might also jump in (a mob mentality) and then you have a much bigger problem than you started with. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am just not interested in arguing about the bystanders actions.
No, but using those things as an excuse does not mean you get to walk away from a situation like that without expecting some kind of retribution. What if you were the person being choked and you were 'having a bad day' already, and some kid on the train fucking with you is enough to push you over the edge? Being blinded by rage from righteous anger doesn't mean you forfeit any of the things you listed either.briankoontz 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.
Being drunk or messed up on drugs does not forfeit one's right to health, well being, or life.
While I completely sympathize with the man, he technically utilized more force than necessary when he pursued her; if he would have retaliated right after she attacked him, it would be a different story.WeepingAngels said:So I can come up and attack you and when I back off, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything to me?