In reply to EdenPrime:
Never because the government won't let them.
The dude should have used a hot fry basket instead of the rod. No broken bones, but just as much pain.
Sorry he's going to spend more time in jail. At least there are two people in this world that learned a valuable lesson.
novaderrik wrote:RealMiniDriver wrote:we don't know the circumstances that led to him killing his classmate..maybe this guy just sometimes gets attacked and meets their level of violence with a slightly increased level of violence..mad_machine wrote: well.. the flaw in your argument about an ex-con not being able to control two drunk chicks without resorting to crushing skulls is the simple fact we don't know why he is an ex-con.The Article wrote: McIntosh served more than a decade in prison after shooting and killing a high school classmate in 2000.
Slightly increased level of violence? So a slap merits a crushed skull?
I watched the video last night, and to me, it looks like both parties are pretty angry after the slap is delivered. The cashier goes for the pipe (but maybe he thinks brandishing a weapon will end the conflict, who knows?), the slappee jumps the counter, and her friend rounds the other corner. The cashier tags them both, but appears pretty focused on beating the hell out of the woman who slapped him, even after it appears like she wasn't a threat. I'd really be interested in seeing if there was any security footage from the restaurant that shows what happened more clearly.
From the tape, the cashier looks like an average guy, but he's probably a bit harder than most folks, as prison'll do that to you. FWIW, I think this plays out the same way if we replace the women with similarly sized guys. You have the right to self-defense, but once the threat is over, you STOP. End of story. It just looks like he lost control, and regained it too late.
I still can't believe that no one came to the guy's aid, if a couple of employees or customers had been helping to restrain these idiots, these drunken bizzos would've gotten the charges they deserved. Now it's a bad situation all the way around, and it could've easily been avoided.
I am also with those who say his response was uncalled for.
However, I simply can't agree about reversing the genders. If 2 fairly large men had come in drunk, slapped a female cashier, and come over the counter they'd have been tackled to the ground by everyone in the place. They would have been charged with assault or aggravated assault, and the female employee would not have been charged with anything, regardless of what she hit them with.
The thing that pisses me off most about it is the journalistic response. The twisted reporting is both biased AND premeditated under very calm circumstances. I am also confident this would have been different if the genders had been reversed.
I think 3 parties should be charged. The women, the cashier, AND the journalists.
I'd love to be able to charge the journalists with something. Maybe we should have "stiffer penalties" for journalistic misrepresentation.
SVreX wrote: I think 3 parties should be charged. The women, the cashier, AND the journalists. I'd love to be able to charge the journalists with something. Maybe we should have "stiffer penalties" for journalistic misrepresentation.
Start the process here:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/about/contact-cbs-new-york/
The inflammatory and misleading headline had to get an editor's approval before it reached publication.
kpm wrote: Who was doing the filming and was this a shake down scheme by the women gone wrong ?? Anyone comes over the counter with the intent to do harm will leave with the words "Louisville Slugger" on their lips.
Wouldnt it be "regguls ellivsiuol"
Joey
SVreX wrote:Grizz wrote: Firstly, them being women is irrelevant.You may think so, but you are completely incorrect. It was relevant to the reporting of the story. It was relevant to the response of the bystanders. It was relevant to the charges that were filed. And, it will be relevant to the court rulings. Call it what you want, but the system is VERY biased toward women, and the fact that they were women was COMPLETELY relevant. As previously noted, how would this have played out if it was 2 drunk men assaulting a woman employee?
Thats interesting. If it were two drunk men and a women cashier? Hopefully, should would have beat the pee out of them with a pipe!
Before reading your post, I was still a bit uneasy with them being women, but when I think about it that way, then yeah, Ill donate a buck or two to Rayons defense.
Joey
Datsun1500 wrote:Racer1ab wrote: You have the right to self-defense, but once the threat is over, you STOP. End of story. It just looks like he lost control, and regained it too late.If it comes out that the women had knives or were reaching for something, does that change it? Without being there we have no idea of when the threat was over as we were not being threatened. He was. If you chase me with the intent to do harm YOU made the decision and gave me the right to decide when the threat to ME is over.
Le sigh, if the women are armed, yep...that changes things. How about we take this in the other, just as plausible direction?
Mouthy drunk woman is yelling about the guy not taking her money for the 50th time, guy finally has enough and says, "Listen (B$$$$, C-bomb, etc.)
Does dropping an offensive name give her the right to react with physical violence? What if something as simple as name-calling prompted the hit? And why the hell didn't this guy follow the first friggin' rule of working a crappy retail job? "Lemme get my manager for you." Drunken hosebeasts get to talk to someone in charge, maybe they're placated.
You're right, none of us were there, we are relying on pretty shoddy info and a camera phone video to form opinions about this thing. Obviously, there are going to be differing opinions to it.
What it really boils down to is this, was his use of force reasonable? If the guy can deliver a blow with enough strength to fracture a skull, I gotta believe he has the strength to restrain her without risk of serious injury or loss of life. Perhaps if he had been restraining the one woman, someone would've been more likely to assist him and restrain the other. It's all theoretical.
Just out of curiousity, anyone ask what their wives, daughters or girlfriends think about this?
The women were wrong, point blank. They should have just left. When they started attacking him, he used the minimum amount of violence he thought was necessary to end the conflict. He should have restrained one of them? What if the other had a knife? Should he have allowed them to continue to attack while he was trying to hold hands? The time for restraint ended when they came across that counter. Some of you guys sound like perfect victims. Women and children can be threats, and should be treated as such when they do stuff like this. To do otherwise is simply stupid.
"That drunk bitch stabbed his liver, but at least he didn't hit her back! What a swell guy he is!"
I did ask my girlfriend and she said the women got what they deserved.
SVreX wrote:Grizz wrote: Firstly, them being women is irrelevant.You may think so, but you are completely incorrect. It was relevant to the reporting of the story. It was relevant to the response of the bystanders. It was relevant to the charges that were filed. And, it will be relevant to the court rulings. Call it what you want, but the system is VERY biased toward women, and the fact that they were women was COMPLETELY relevant. As previously noted, how would this have played out if it was 2 drunk men assaulting a woman employee?
I would like 2 large fries , 2 quarter pounders , fish sandwich, ,apple fritter no make that 2 apple fritter and a diet coke
I'm luvin' it.
I think the gal crossed the line when she made it physical (the slap). He did not retaliate until he was backed into a corner by the two of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWIV5WcIck8 better version of video. Pretty crazy stuff.
I think the thing thing that's going to get our defendant in trouble is around the 1:10 mark when he was continuing to hit a downed opponent while asking "who the berkeley, who the berkeley (do you think you are?)". He could have clearly walked away at that point with just about no chance of being pursued. Instead he stood there and continued to deliver a beat down.
I think he might be in a lot less trouble if he had only taken the first couple of swings with the metal pipe. The last couple are whats going to screw him over.
i dunno. they still have the problem of going into a non-public secure work area (kitchen) to pursue the guy. Thats intent to continue assault without regard to conditions or environment.
GlennS wrote: I think the thing thing that's going to get our defendant in trouble is around the 1:10 mark when he was continuing to hit a downed opponent while asking "who the berkeley, who the berkeley (do you think you are?)". He could have clearly walked away at that point with just about no chance of being pursued. Instead he stood there and continued to deliver a beat down. I think he might be in a lot less trouble if he had only taken the first couple of swings with the metal pipe. The last couple are whats going to screw him over.
While I don't disagree, I will say that unless there is footage of what is going on behind that counter there is no way positively assert the threat was subdued.
Behind that counter they could have been reaching for a weapon, be it a knife or just another pole that was on the ground there. They could have been kicking at him or making an effort to get back up and continue the fight.
Not to make light of it but the zombie killing "double tap" rule applies. You shoot em twice because you never assume the threat is subdued until you are positive it is subdued. If they are still coming after me, trying to get back up, or reaching for something looking like a weapon, they are still a threat. If they were subdued then shame on his co-workers, managers and by standers for not stepping in and ensuring they were restrained once subdued.
And my wife thinks they got what they deserved as well.
Sometimes, you gotta smack people around a bit before they understand what you are saying. I feel confident that they will wake up in the hospital, sober, and feel very ashamed and embarrassed at their behavior. "Oh, they don't take $50 bills! I get it now."
Or they will consider themselves victims and sue McDonalds for millions.
JThw8 wrote:GlennS wrote: I think the thing thing that's going to get our defendant in trouble is around the 1:10 mark when he was continuing to hit a downed opponent while asking "who the berkeley, who the berkeley (do you think you are?)". He could have clearly walked away at that point with just about no chance of being pursued. Instead he stood there and continued to deliver a beat down. I think he might be in a lot less trouble if he had only taken the first couple of swings with the metal pipe. The last couple are whats going to screw him over.While I don't disagree, I will say that unless there is footage of what is going on behind that counter there is no way positively assert the threat was subdued. Behind that counter they could have been reaching for a weapon, be it a knife or just another pole that was on the ground there. They could have been kicking at him or making an effort to get back up and continue the fight. Not to make light of it but the zombie killing "double tap" rule applies. You shoot em twice because you never assume the threat is subdued until you are positive it is subdued. If they are still coming after me, trying to get back up, or reaching for something looking like a weapon, they are still a threat. If they were subdued then shame on his co-workers, managers and by standers for not stepping in and ensuring they were restrained once subdued. And my wife thinks they got what they deserved as well.
From what I've heard, hitting them once and yelling "stay down" everytime they try to get up is a common prison guard technique, so that's probably where he got it from.
Above post 
You'll need to log in to post.
