Hmm... true. I was thinking of it from the standpoint of "She can't control her actions if she's high as a kite" but she did choose to get high as a kite, so assumably she accepted the fact that she might do something incredibly stupid or dangerous and just got high anyway.The Almighty Aardvark said:
I had a guy on the train talking and punching himself in the head and taking swings at and telling imaginary people to shut up. They don't check people at the door. Fortunately he didn't attack anyone real and some cops managed to take him off with little fuss. I wonder how common encounters like this are with the volume of people going through on trains.lacktheknack said:
That was a big part of my rather rambling response. It's easy to judge from a distance. Truthfully it didn't seem like an unreasonable reaction under the circumstances.Nouw said:
Yup, which is why most of these threads don't really have much discussion value in my opinion. I guess you could talk about whether the law surrounding these kind of situations is just but discussing what they should have done is just silly.Therumancer said:That was a big part of my rather rambling response. It's easy to judge from a distance. Truthfully it didn't seem like an unreasonable reaction under the circumstances.
That said, I have been waiting to see if any more details would surface such as whether the girl has been confirmed to be on something, if she was mentally ill, or claiming literal possession, or whatever else.
Also having had to commute on SEAT busses for a while, I'll say that public transit and the people that generally use it tend to be horrible. I am personally kind of surprised that we don't see more crazy stuff like this from urban subway transit (which is even worse apparently) showing up on the internet more frequently.
Uhh, at least where I live getting attacked does give you the right to defend yourself, but if the person stops threatening you, then it's a matter for the police. In the video we see her backing off and turn her back to him, which seemed like an opportunity for him to get away from her. As far as I'm aware, the law doesn't say you can freely exact revenge if physical harm is done to you: you can, however, sue and try to get monetary compensation.WeepingAngels said:
If you know such things can set you off in a violent manner you shouldn't be out in public without help. Actually if you are prone to unprovoked violence you should be constrained one way or another. Or take your meds and if you don't live with the consequences.Mr.Petey said:
We also say "Oh my God" without meaning it. People aren't used to seeing such seizures and/or drug effects, so this is the closet thing they describe it as at first glance, the woman filming it changed her evaluation to drugged up behavior later on when talking to the police.Mr.Petey said:Plus another thing that really REALLY bugs me is the onlookers mutterings of possession. In my opinion this is a frankly dangerous and slanderous word against those who suffer from mental issues. It almost reeks of a Victorian era system of labelling
That does seem to be a good point, KingsGambit. A lot of the time, it feels like we are given the choice of either a woman is innocent, or a man is guilty.KingsGambit said:
But no one has actually claimed that the woman was innocent.the December King said:
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.the December King said:
Ah, Edmonton trains. Can't live without em, but they're absolutely terrifying.DementedSheep said:
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.KingsGambit said:
Too true! It does feel that way, however.Uhura said:
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.Uhura said:
Not saying that would happen for certain but I have no problem seeing it as a possibility.KingsGambit said:
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.the December King said:
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.lacktheknack said:
