The hell is wrong with people?!

[Dastardly]

So, As I browsed facebook on of my redneck friends shared a video.

So yeah, the I can understand incapacitating someone after they attack you. But continuing to punch him while he's down and then his friend shouting "Yeah!" like his friend just beat up Satan is taking it too far. Did people try and break up the fight, nope. They just sat there recording it for the internet. It's disgusting.

snip

What is wrong with people? How can they just laugh at another human being beat up?

1. If you put just want to make comments at someone, fine, but you put hands on someone, they are within their rights to respond. And there is, hear this clearly, no obligation for them to go through any kind of measure escalation of force. If someone comes up and puts hands on you, they mean you harm. You don't have to gradually increase force. You can respond with every bit of strength you have, because you have no idea how much harm they mean you and you should not have to gamble to find out.

2. If you've ever found yourself in an actual fight -- not a controlled situation, mind you -- it's not easy to show restraint. And that's not the fault of being some crazy, violent person. Adrenaline messes with your sense of time, for one, so you don't really know how long you've been beating that person. It also has a way of bypassing the rational part of your brain, because rational thought is slow thought, and this is about survival (to your brain).

3. As a bystander, do not try to be a hero and break up a fight. You don't know who has a weapon, you don't know who has a bloodborne disease, you don't know anything about the situation. Hell, you could accidentally step in and help the aggressor -- now you're party to assault.

4. The second guy cheering things on? Yeah, we're pack animals. It's a natural tendency. I bet you've probably cheered on your favorite character in a fictional fight once or twice. We should note instead that the second man did not physically join. So while his demeanor did not seem restrained, his behavior was.

5. The guy filming? There's maybe a problem there. Now, he could very well have called the police. And that video could serve as evidence. Or maybe it was just someone looking for a viral video for some publicity. Who knows? So it's hard to say whether or not the guy filming is symptomatic of some cultural ill, or just one of those things that happens now because it can (we all carry a camera now).

--

At the end of the day, it's impossible for us, the viewers, to know who started the confronation... but unfortunately for the guy that took the beating, we can clearly see him following and initiating the physical confrontation. Hell, I did it once in middle school -- started a fight over something stupid with someone who was a better scrapper, ended up getting my brain-cage rattled. Learned it was a bad idea.

 

[dystopiaINC]

What does it matter? I saw all I needed in this snippet to make a judgement. Nothing prior to the physical escalation doesn't matter.

The New Yorker escalated a verbal confrontation into a physical one, and got his ass pounded. The man who was attacked physically responded, umm... "asymmetrically", and used overwhelming force to end the fight with as quickly as possible so as to avoid personal injury- that's how fights done correctly work. When the guy was clearly pacified, which the man on top would've been unable to tell without having the same view as the others who could see the downed man's face, someone told him he's done and he stopped punching. What if this would've happened, and he'd just knocked the guy down and attempted to disengage, and the New Yorker, who had ALREADY greatly escalated the confrontation once, had pulled a knife and stabbed the guy as he was getting off of him? That's why you keep hitting until you know they're not capable of hitting back.

The problem with hitting that much is that it can cause severe damage and is in 99.9% of the cases unnecessary.
I mean I have friends who have been involved in fights and never went that far and it never backfired. Usually when the aggressor is down and not struggling anymore it's over (and the black guy got hit quite more after he was a state of passivity). It's only in the cinema that the aggressor "abuses" the lack of use of extreme violence to strike back. And let's be honest, usually people who assault someone and are armed use it straight away (and most definitely if the aggressor is outnumbered), it's again only in the cinema where they first start to try without it and than escalate if needed.

I Had a teacher in high school tell us about a fight he got into when he was about 20. He laid the guy out in one shot and thought the fight was done when the guy didn't get up right away, soon s he turned his back he got nailed in the back of the head and the guy stomped in his head a few time. He ended up with a broken nose and a shattered jaw.

 

[sumanoskae]

Comments: Blatantly racist. The comment section is full of douchebags; no ambiguity there.

Beating up the guy after the fight ended: Unnecessary and probably not cool, but he DID start the fight. I can't really feel bad for someone who asks to get hurt and then gets hurt. (Of course, I don't know WHY he started the fight, nor can I really make out what anybody is saying through the crappy audio. Could be that the other guy did or said something to provoke him, I don't know)

Beating somebody up because they assault you: No objection here.

As for nobody breaking it up, it could be for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is fear; the bystanders just didn't feel confident that they could stand up to either of the fighters.

The other option is the ambiguity; the people watching don't know why these two or fighting, or which one of them is in the right.

The other option is that the bystanders simply thought "Hey, a guy started a fight and he's getting roughed up; his mistake, not mine"

 

[sumanoskae]

What does it matter? I saw all I needed in this snippet to make a judgement. Nothing prior to the physical escalation doesn't matter.

The New Yorker escalated a verbal confrontation into a physical one, and got his ass pounded. The man who was attacked physically responded, umm... "asymmetrically", and used overwhelming force to end the fight with as quickly as possible so as to avoid personal injury- that's how fights done correctly work. When the guy was clearly pacified, which the man on top would've been unable to tell without having the same view as the others who could see the downed man's face, someone told him he's done and he stopped punching. What if this would've happened, and he'd just knocked the guy down and attempted to disengage, and the New Yorker, who had ALREADY greatly escalated the confrontation once, had pulled a knife and stabbed the guy as he was getting off of him? That's why you keep hitting until you know they're not capable of hitting back.

The problem with hitting that much is that it can cause severe damage and is in 99.9% of the cases unnecessary.
I mean I have friends who have been involved in fights and never went that far and it never backfired. Usually when the aggressor is down and not struggling anymore it's over (and the black guy got hit quite more after he was a state of passivity). It's only in the cinema that the aggressor "abuses" the lack of use of extreme violence to strike back. And let's be honest, usually people who assault someone and are armed use it straight away (and most definitely if the aggressor is outnumbered), it's again only in the cinema where they first start to try without it and than escalate if needed.

But you must consider, if even 0.1% of the people who get knocked down DO escalate the conflict, there is always the chance of it happening, however slim.

Granted, punching him in the back of the head probably WAS overkill (There are less lethal ways to incapacitate someone), but the guy's adrenaline was probably pumping; he might have just picked the most obvious target instinctively.

And while I do not think the guy who won behaved well, I can't really fault him for wanting to eliminating even the smallest chance of further conflict.

 

[kuolonen]

Comments in youtube are what they are. You can find Chinese nationalist-socialists in there, peta supporters wishing death of mankind, etc. If I graded humanity by what I have read on youtube, I would travel the world while filling all fresh water supplies with poison.

As for nobody helping this guy, I am honestly surprised anyone would do anything, other that what was already done on the film, for a guy who throws first punch after loading up with a barrage of suckmydick. Oh well, maybe if the attacker was a white redneck we'd all be having a hearty laugh about racist cracker getting some real street justice. Maybe play Django Unchained soundtrack on the background.

 

[A Weakgeek]

I don't know man, saying he went overboard and should have stopped seem like hindsight from a person whos never actually been in a real fight (Like me).

I mean the guy in the greenshirt is the one who got assaulted. Now, we don't know if he's ever been in a fight before, but if we assume the very likely scenario that he hasn't, he's clearly not in a clear state of mind. Regardless if he is winning the fight or not, he'll be mostlikely angry, pumped up on adrenaline and scared at the same time.

So did he go too far? Yeah, but expecting one to act reasonably in a situation like above is more ignorant than his actions given the circumstance. Get off your high horse internet.

As for people tagging onto the racial element? It has nothing to do with the video. People with agendas will find it anywhere and everywhere. It's just one of those things you have to ignore to be able to use the internet.

 

[TheRookie8]

I believe you answered your own question in your title.

Keeping it simple? A general lack of decency led to anger and conflict, which then progressed to violence because people felt the need to validate themselves. That's all that happened here.

True validation and peace comes from helping others, and any sort of pride or fulfillment garnered from the suffering or cheapening of others is empty and cruel. You head in that direction, you're asking for a bloody outcome.

 

[TheRookie8]

Apparently someone said part of the video was cut. The cut video apparently showed the black man attempting to leave and the two white guys preventing him from doing so, causing him to start his outburst. But with the internet you can never be sure.

That seems hardly plausible.

Why would the two white guys preventing the black guy from leaving and then, after he insults them, just turn around and leave themself?
If they were really looking for trouble, they would act way more agressive, than just trying to go away and definitly react to his insults.

Putting that aside, the black guy couldve left at least after the two were gone, so in the end, he really started the fight and lost it.

Attempting to understand the motivations of cruel, violent individuals is a feeble action, because such motivation is feeble to begin with.

As for the black guy (banking off of the two white guys being instigators)...people often feel to need to defend against injustice...sadly, his defense is built off of juvenile behavior and insults, which sort of undermines any noble or macho intent he had in mind when he resorted to said violence.