# Drunk Bully gets one hit KO'd



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

Best video of 2013 IMO


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 15, 2013)

Sucker punch. Even if he was an ******* that was still a cowardly thing to do. Instead of calling attention on himself he waits for the perfect blind side shot. He's a real hero.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

I've watched this a few times, and if you watch the kid who throws the punch from the beginning of the video, he's never involved in the fight.  He is never smacked, he's never threatened, and he's never even looked at by the drunk guy.  If I were the attorney for the kid who is knocked out, I'd sue the *@%$##^ out of the hitter for assault and battery.  What a little prick cold cocking the guy like that.

I'm sure the police would want to talk to him too for battery.  Sorry.  Just my $0.02.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Sucker punch. Even if he was an ******* that was still a cowardly thing to do. Instead of calling attention on himself he waits for the perfect blind side shot. He's a real hero.




My point exactly.  What a little pu$$y.


----------



## manicmike (Mar 15, 2013)

Good night. Dude deserved it.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 15, 2013)

Just about everyone there is an a55hole.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 15, 2013)

There's so much wrong with this video.

The hooting crowd at the beginning, why do people stand around yelling HOO! HOO! HOO! when there's a fight brewing?

The sucker punch, and I swear it sounds like the kid yells BOOM as he nails the dude.

Then the crowd swarms around.. with their horrid little smartphones to take pictures of the guy on the ground. Seriously? WTF is wrong with you locusts.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 15, 2013)

Tuffythepug said:


> He was drunk and belligerent. He was threatening innocent people.   And then he got punched right after smacking a guy in the eye for no reason.  He was going to keep assaulting innocent people until he was stopped.   I don't have a problem with someone putting a quick end to that.  I think he might remember that next time he feels like bullying people.



I mean, he didn't blind side someone with everything he had. Not justifying his moronic actions but c'mon now. I personally, would have stepped in the middle and made it known that if he didn't stop and walk away he would get put out. If I'm going to cripple someone, I'd like to know that they were given the option to man up and walk away. And yes, I have been in a situation like this, and yes I have stepped in the middle and told tough guys to take a walk and yes I think I'm tough.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> There's so much wrong with this video.
> 
> The hooting crowd at the beginning, why do people stand around yelling HOO! HOO! HOO! when there's a fight brewing?
> 
> ...



He does yell BOOM. Twice in fact. It's a video game to them.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 15, 2013)

ANDDD might I add, we don't know who the instigator is to this altercation. For all we know, the two guys picked a fight with him before the video kicked on.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

I count 3 assaults on bystanders from the drunk guy from the start of the video.

Sucker punch? Yes. Deserved? Absolutely.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 15, 2013)

I LOL'd.

When a bully gets what he deserves, I don't really care HOW he gets it; Fair fight, sucker punch, taser, act of god, his own stupidity - truly doesn't matter to me. If he's looking for physical violence, do anything at all (short of killing him) to put him out of commission as quickly as possible and be done with it.

Besides, he's probably sucker-punched a few people in his time too. I'm guessing it was just his turn.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Besides, he's probably sucker-punched a few people in his time too. I'm guessing it was just his turn.




*In this video*, he sucker punches someone.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Sucker punch. Even if he was an ******* that was still a *cowardly *thing to do. Instead of calling attention on himself he waits for the perfect blind side shot. He's a real hero.



Wait, we're antagonizing the guy who put an end to this, because he "sucker punched" the belligerent, violent drunk?

Don't forget the real sucker punch here (24 seconds):






So by your logic, drunk guy can swing at random bystanders, but when someone steps in to end the assaults, they are a coward?



jwbryson1 said:


> *If I were the attorney for the kid who is knocked out, I'd sue the *@%$##^* out of the hitter for assault and battery. What a little prick cold cocking the guy like that.



I think that would be some pretty shaky legal ground, lol.



Ballistics said:


> Tuffythepug said:
> 
> 
> > He was drunk and belligerent. He was threatening innocent people. And then he got punched right after smacking a guy in the eye for no reason. He was going to keep assaulting innocent people until he was stopped. I don't have a problem with someone putting a quick end to that. I think he might remember that next time he feels like bullying people.
> ...



Tuffy has it pretty much right. I know he deleted his post, but I agree 100% with it. 

By stepping in the middle, _you are putting yourself in harms way_. This drunk person was swinging at anyone who confronted him. You're putting yourself in a place to get injured and become part of the problem instead of the solution. 

I don't care how big and tough you think you are. If someone wants to hurt you, and you make a split second poor decision, you're the one on the ground, not him.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Sucker punch. Even if he was an ******* that was still a *cowardly *thing to do. Instead of calling attention on himself he waits for the perfect blind side shot. He's a real hero.
> ...



Absolutely.  The guy who threw the punch was never touched, so he can't claim self defense.  At the time he hit the guy, he wasn't stepping in to prevent the drunk guy from hurting somebody---he sucker punched him and the drunk never saw it coming.  So, at that moment in time, the drunk guy was the victim and the hitter was the aggressor.    






Rotanimod said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > *If I were the attorney for the kid who is knocked out, I'd sue the *@%$##^* out of the hitter for assault and battery. What a little prick cold cocking the guy like that.
> ...



Typical pedestrian comment.  Where did you get your legal training?  _*LOL.

*_
EDIT:  Did the guy deserve it?  _*Of course he did*_.  But, not from the guy who threw the punch.  Maybe from one of the guys who was hit, but not from that guy.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

^ You're not taking into consideration that no one he assaulted fought back. The drunk guy was going to continue to assault people until someone stopped him. Somebody did.

 You have a problem with how it was done. 

I do not have a problem with how it was done. 

Simple disagreement .


----------



## Heitz (Mar 15, 2013)

punching someone in the temple like that with enough force to knock him out for an extended period is really reckless.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> You're playing Devil's advocate.




Of course I am, but I am making a good point.  I'm just saying that in my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree with it, the hitter would have been on firmer ground if he had waited for the exact moment when the guy touched somebody and then knocked him the Eff out.  The drunk was barely touching people--he never actually threw a punch in the video, he was just being an obnoxious prick and poking people and asking for somebody to come at him.


----------



## Michael79 (Mar 15, 2013)

He deserved it no matter where it came from! The boom was hilarious, maybe he was annoyed with the whistling?

If the 2 guys were girls and the guy jumped in everyone here would be applauding him.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Heitz said:


> punching someone in the temple like that with enough force to knock him out for an extended period is really reckless.



Absolutely!  If the drunk guy dies, know what happens next?  The hitter will be arrested for homicide.  Simple.  Could he claim self defense?  If I was on the jury, I would say no.  But that's not for me to decide.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

You supply the puzzle pieces. I put them together:



jwbryson1 said:


> Absolutely. The guy who threw the punch was never touched, so he can't claim self defense. At the time he hit the guy, he wasn't stepping in to prevent the drunk guy from hurting somebody---he sucker punched him and the drunk never saw it coming. *So, at that moment in time, the drunk guy was the victim and the hitter was the aggressor.
> 
> *





jwbryson1 said:


> *LOL.*



Good luck with that case. I don't think many judges or juries would agree with that.


----------



## Benco (Mar 15, 2013)

Two wrongs don't make a right. The drunk **** was guilty of assault, the bloke who hit him was guilty of battery and probably ABH. Both deserve to get done for their actions.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

Heitz said:


> punching someone in the temple like that with enough force to knock him out for an extended period is really reckless.



How do you know he punched him in the temple? Serious question. His head is blocking the angle of the blow. 

It could've just as easily been the guys chin, which is often referred to by boxers as "the button". A spot on the chin or around the jaw that, when hit with enough force, knocks the brain around in the skull enough to render someone unconscious. 



Michael79 said:


> He deserved it no matter where it came from! The boom was hilarious, maybe he was annoyed with the whistling?
> 
> If the 2 guys were girls and the guy jumped in everyone here would be applauding him.



Yeah in this case I don't think it matters. The guy assaulted 3 people with no end in sight. 



Benco said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right. The drunk **** was guilty of assault, the bloke who hit him was guilty of battery. Both deserve to get done for their actions.



Yeah. But I bet the police don't look very hard for this guy. Just my guess.


----------



## O'Rork (Mar 15, 2013)

If you're going to talk the talk, you better be able to walk the walk. Protect yourself at all times. The Bully was a fool.


----------



## Michael79 (Mar 15, 2013)

Benco said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right.


In this situation 3 lefts got him a right hahaha


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

Michael79 said:


> In this situation 3 lefts got him a right hahaha



:hail:


----------



## Benco (Mar 15, 2013)

^


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > You're playing Devil's advocate.
> ...



At 0:24, the drunk _*clearly *_landed a left jab on the guys face. The guy who got punched was grimacing in pain from that point forward. Are you being serious, or just trolling?


----------



## Tuffythepug (Mar 15, 2013)

Heitz said:


> punching someone in the temple like that with enough force to knock him out for an extended period is really reckless.



Not that it makes much difference but for the sake of accuracy if you slow it down and watch frame by frame you clearly see the fist making contact with the lower part of his jaw at the 29.5 second mark.   I suppose it could have easily broken his jaw; He may not be whistling for awhile.  the guy threw his whole body into that punch.   You're gonna go down when you're hit like that;  I don't care who you are.

And jwbryson1 you said the drunk guy never actually threw a punch;  What was that at the 24 second mark ?  Looks like he punched the guy in the eye while he was just standing there and clearly not wanting any part of a fight.   5 seconds later the aggressor is "neutralized".


----------



## ratssass (Mar 15, 2013)

hmmm........Just For Fun                                                                                 says it all......


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 15, 2013)

ratssass said:


> hmmm........Just For Fun says it all......



Lol, should've put in Off topic chat. I actually thought of this right after I submitted, but it was too late.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Majeed has it right! As far as I am concerned...  a drunk bully who is picking on people who obviously are not looking for trouble, is fair game to be taken out anyway you can!  Any bully for that matter...

So I suppose some of you think it is ok for someone to just walk up and slap someone, or be pushing people around... with no retaliation from anyone? That kind of bullying is what causes many people (of all ages) to have problems, whether it is an beaten wife / girlfriend, an abused child, or some high school kid the big jock beats up for fun.

We have laws where we can defend a Rape Victim with lethal force if needed... I think we need the same type of laws for bullying!


----------



## Danny_511 (Mar 15, 2013)

In the beginning you see the guy tell his friend he's gonna do it, then he asks if he should lol. But regardles... "BOOM!....BOOM!" Lmao


----------



## techniker (Mar 15, 2013)

The bully is having a very bad time. KOd, arrested and now all his friends and everyone else on the internet can see his ass get handed to him.


----------



## Benco (Mar 15, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Majeed has it right! As far as I am concerned...  a drunk bully who is picking on people who obviously are not looking for trouble, is fair game to be taken out anyway you can!  Any bully for that matter...
> 
> So I suppose some of you think it is ok for someone to just walk up and slap someone, or be pushing people around... with no retaliation from anyone? That kind of bullying is what causes many people (of all ages) to have problems, whether it is an beaten wife / girlfriend, an abused child, or some high school kid the big jock beats up for fun.
> 
> We have laws where we can defend a Rape Victim with lethal force if needed... *I think we need the same type of laws for bullying!*



What is that supposed to mean? that we should be entitled to be judge, jury and *executioner *on what we observe to be a crime that deserves such draconian measures? under such (coff) laws? (coff) would it be OK for someone to walk out of the crowd, blow that guys brains out then walk away a free man? just a pat on the back for being a good citizen?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Just for fun, by a show of hands....who thinks Trayvon Martin was murdered, and who thinks George Zimmerman acted in self-defense?

This should be very interesting...


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Benco said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Majeed has it right! As far as I am concerned...  a drunk bully who is picking on people who obviously are not looking for trouble, is fair game to be taken out anyway you can!  Any bully for that matter...
> ...



If that is what it takes to stop it, yea! Physical abuse of any type, whether it is rape or beatings deserves Draconian measures!


----------



## amolitor (Mar 15, 2013)

The cops seem to have showed up seconds later, so someone did the sensible thing and called the coppers, who dealt with it. I've been here a few times. Only rarely on the "drunken idiot" side, because I'm usually not that belligerent, thankfully.


----------



## bogeyguy (Mar 15, 2013)

That was one hell of a punch. I can't believe I'm posting in this thread????????????


----------



## Byrin (Mar 15, 2013)

He deserved every bit of it. He is lucky it wasn't worse.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 15, 2013)

SXSW, a huge group of 20-30 somethings, loads of booze, what could go wrong?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 15, 2013)

> So by your logic, drunk guy can swing at random bystanders, but when someone steps in to end the assaults, they are a coward?



It's how he stepped in. The shot @ :24 seconds was a tap. Let's be realistic here. 
Without assuming anything, we don't know if this idiot was instigated.
You want to be a hero? Stand in between the bully and the victim and tell him to walk or get dropped. 

What happens after the bully gets dropped? The victim throws a kick at his limp body like a puss, but the whole time he couldn't defend himself?

I've never bullied anyone in my life and think very low of bullies, but I can't condemn a man for a video that starts in the middle of an altercation.
Even if he was 100% at fault, the sucker puncher is still a punk.

Everyone in this video deserves an ass beating.



> was grimacing in pain



A bit of an exaggeration there.


----------



## TMC (Mar 15, 2013)

> It's how he stepped in. The shot @ :24 seconds was a tap. Let's be realistic here.





if u spit on someone that is considered assault so a "tap" is definitly.  That drunk bully deserved every bit of what he got, if not just cuz of his bushy head, lol.  seriously tho, the 2 initial victims were basically suckered punched so why not give him a dose of his own medicine. and the only reason he went out so easily is because he was so drunk, it really doesnt take much, although that was a great shot, BOOM!!!!  LMAO.  
 And i can tell ya from experience if you go getting in the middle of a drunk and angry mad man it will not end with him walking away, more times than not.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 16, 2013)

TMC said:


> > It's how he stepped in. The shot @ :24 seconds was a tap. Let's be realistic here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The guy was hit with a 110% effort haymaker. That's why he went out so easily. Being drunk had nothing to do with it. 



> And i can tell ya from experience if you go getting in the middle of a drunk and angry mad man it will not end with him walking away, more times than not



So therefore, blind siding him with a sucker punch is the only option here. Right.


----------



## Nikmal (Mar 16, 2013)

First I was not going to reply to this thread because of the heated debate between some people. But now I feel I need to. 

There is a lot of factors going on here. The drunk with his clearly aggressive behavior to any one that even got close to him. If some were to have approached him the drunk guy would have done his best to either hit the person or egg him in to a full out fight. Second and most importantly here is the crowd. If the crowd had not been egging the drunk in to this clearly aggressive behavior which some were doing with the chanting that was going on and the camera's clearly video taping the situation that was going on and emboldening the drunk in to action. Next.. no one and I mean no one was trying to stop the drunk from doing anything partly from apparent fear and some because they wanted to see something happen such as a fight. Again a crowd mentality. I am thinking if the crowd had not been a factor here the problem would not have escalated the way it had. 

Now the drunk actually physically hit someone. Despite what others have said here that is a punch (a light punch meant to illicit a furtherance of a fight from the person that was hit). This was physical contact and violated the persons personal space and caused a fear reaction. This in a court of law is punishable and will be cause for prosecution by many attorney's. Anything that violates another and their personal space without said person's permission is assault and battery. Does not matter if it was a light slap to the face or a punch. The severity of the prosecution will determine the sentence. 

The sucker punch out of the blue by the bystander. That punch was partly due to the crowd egging people on and partly because I am thinking was an emboldened chance to get some attention a little and partly because he was afraid that the drunk might turn on him too. I am sure his friend was egging him on from the looks on the video too. Is this excusable.. Not a chance. Will it likely get prosecuted.. highly unlikely. The drunk was going out of his way to threaten all around him no matter who it was. If the guy that sucker punched the drunk had stepped in front of the drunk before the sucker punch.. I am sure the drunk would have punched him too. 

You can clearly see the crowd mentality, which is almost riot like when they were taking pictures instead of making sure the guy was ok when knocked out. They were more interested in getting pictures then the guy's well being after the fight was over. That and there own self worth by wanting to post there bravado and stupidity on the internet proving what idiots they are by being part of something that caused the entire fight to begin with... and yes the crowd is most to blame here in the long run. 

The guy that got slapped/punched by the drunk was taking on a passive attitude before the drunk hit him for no reason other then trying to start something. When the guy was knocked out and the guy that was the first victim tried to kick the out cold drunk was an adrenal response and one that most people that are scared with a lot of adrenaline coursing through there body would do in a similar position. He did not actually kick the drunk as he missed and then was prevented from doing it further. 

The drunks friend should have tried a LOT harder ton hold the drunk back to prevent the situation. The crowd should have shut up and made a move to prevent the drunk from building up his courage and giving him attention fueling it even further... and thus causing the drunk to do what he did and then the sucker punch after the drunk slapped someone. It is a comedy of errors and no one person is ultimately to blame other then the drunk which was arrested and probably the only one prosecuted. The crowd I have to say was lucky no one of them was taken in. The guy that did the sucker punch while not arrested I am sure a cop did visit him later on and I am sure he was taken in for questioning if not to put the fear of god in to him legally and then let off with a slap on the wrist and maybe a good fine and a little bit of community service. The Drunk on the other hand most likely got worse. He was an aggravating source and because of that the prosecuting attorney is obligated to press charges and prosecute. 

I do not care if person A is to blame or Person B is to blame. I am not posting to play that game. I am here to give you a legal opinion from my own experience and a friends phone call who is a judge in Chicago. (Linking him the video). Was any one right or wrong in the video.. sure the victim that got slapped. Was anyone else.. yeppers.. plenty to go around.. plenty or blame. Arguing it here on this site. Not so well done as to many hot opinions are happening. Am I am right in my opinion.. yes and no... it is an opinion and not an actual judgment as there is way to many factors that are in play here that are not being seen. The story before the start of the video and what is actually being said and the sound is terrible to say the least. A trial would bring most of this out. 

Arguing here is clearly not going to get anywhere other then animosity towards each other over a bunch of idiots looking for attention and now getting it here.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 16, 2013)

All of those "This *would* have happened" are judgment calls. That's it. You don't know what would have happened if someone stepped in the middle and said "Ok man enough is enough, the cops have been called and they're on their way. It's best that you leave." or "If it's a fight you want, fight me". I don't know why people are so confident as to reading the future therefore justifying such a pathetic action of sucker punching. 

Also, bringing legalities into this means what exactly? That because he legally assaulted someone by slap boxing his "victims" that the justification is a haymaker to the temple by a third party not involved?  

To say that the victim missed with a kick is irrelevant. Being passive the whole time, watching the aggressor  get folded up and kicked while on the ground, only to then throw a kick yourself is pathetic.


----------



## shefjr (Mar 16, 2013)

Is that Jarod "Froknowsphoto" Polin getting knocked out? LOL!


----------



## IByte (Mar 16, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> It's how he stepped in. The shot @ :24 seconds was a tap. Let's be realistic here.
> Without assuming anything, we don't know if this idiot was instigated.
> You want to be a hero? Stand in between the bully and the victim and tell him to walk or get dropped.
> 
> ...



...^.


----------



## Flyhigh (Mar 16, 2013)

Got what he deserved...kudo's to the guy that dropped him. Bet the ahole thinks twice before  acting out again. JMO of course.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 16, 2013)

Of course he deserved it. 

But the guy in the gray t-shirt needs to be brought up on charges, for no other reason than he's a little *****. He was never threatened, he was never attacked, he was just a bystander who was never in harm's way who wasn't brave enough to confront someone directly. It's interesting how some people admire and laud what he did, but not all too surprising; yes, PRAISE THE COWARD!

The guy who would've been justified in in knocking him out would've been the guy who was hit at the :24 second mark, not the punk in the gray t-shirt...


----------



## cynicaster (Mar 16, 2013)

That whole crowd is full of cretins who can't hold their booze, so it's hard to know what to think. 

This isn't unfair to afro boy, because he had a choice.  He could have just kept to himself and enjoyed some drinks with his friends, but he willingly decided to head out on to the battlefield and he got dropped like a bad habit as a result.  Nobody's fault but his own.

I have a deep-seeded hatred for people who have a few beers and instigate "fights" at events that are supposed to be friendly and fun, so I guess my position is, lights out a$$hole--enjoy the drunk tank and the Internet humiliation, hope it was worth it.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 16, 2013)

Flyhigh said:


> Got what he deserved...kudo's to the guy that dropped him. Bet the ahole thinks twice before  acting out again. JMO of course.



What is your opinion of the fact that the police will likely be seeking out the guy who dropped him to press charges?

Would your opinion be different if the little girl who hit him was also drunk?

I don't think anyone's saying Afro Boy didn't deserve to be dropped. The guy who dropped him, though, will be in some rather hot water if and when the authorities get a hold of him, and rightfully so...


----------



## Byrin (Mar 16, 2013)

shefjr said:


> Is that Jarod "Froknowsphoto" Polin getting knocked out? LOL!



That is funny, I thought the same thing lol.


----------



## duhast (Mar 16, 2013)

> The guy who threw the punch was never touched, so he can't claim self defense.


No, but he can claim it was done in defense of others.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

duhast said:


> > The guy who threw the punch was never touched, so he can't claim self defense.
> 
> 
> No, but he can claim it was done in defense of others.



I'd like to see how that goes over with the judge at his arraignment...


----------



## duhast (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> duhast said:
> 
> 
> > > The guy who threw the punch was never touched, so he can't claim self defense.
> ...


I think it would go over just fine. Are you aware that under certain circumstances, _deadly force _can be used in the defense of others?


----------



## TMC (Mar 17, 2013)

the dude in the black shirt that got smacked/punched ASSAULTED @24 seconds actually did step in the middle of the drunk Ahole trying to get him to leave what looks like his boyfriend in the red shirt alone.  He went as far as to put his hands together and say please stop and for that he got struck too.  I dont disagree that the one hit wonder will probably be charged or at least questioned, his face is the easiest to make out and the video is everywhere.  Im just saying if i were the cop/judge that had to decide i would congratulate him.   If you ever have experienced the feeling of being bullied or had a child go thru it than you would totally appreciate this bully getting what he deserved.  The way the world is today he is lucky he didn't get shot or stabbed or even stomped while he was out cold.  I mean to offend no one with my opinions, after all who really gives a shoot about these kids anyway.


----------



## Nikmal (Mar 17, 2013)

Probably just like I mentioned in my earlier posting. Guilty!


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

duhast said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > duhast said:
> ...


It didn't look to me like anybody's life was threatened - that's usually a qualifier for the use of deadly force.


----------



## duhast (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> duhast said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



I never said there was, and I am not advocating the use of deadly force in that situation. what you miss, is that if deadly force can be used to defend others, then so can non-deadly force. To argue that in a given circumstance deadly force would be justified, but non-lethal force would be called assault is ludacris. If deadly force, in certain circumstances is justified, so is cold-cocking some drunk @sshole punching random people in public.


----------



## Byrin (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> It didn't look to me like anybody's life was threatened - that's usually a qualifier for the use of deadly force.



It's obvious he did not use deadly force, however he did use the necessary force to neutralize the threat. The drunk continued to be a menace and so he was stopped. I do believe everyone present is to blame because all they had to do was walk away. I doubt the drunk would have followed anyone.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

Byrin said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't look to me like anybody's life was threatened - that's usually a qualifier for the use of deadly force.
> ...


It's easier than you think to kill someone by punching them in the head.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

"Personal weapons" (hands, feet, etc.) ranks surprisingly high.

edit
More tables here:
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 17, 2013)

I can only imagine a defense attorney for the idiot bully, arguing that he posed no serious danger to anyone.  He was drunk and he was a clown dancing around like he was Ali.  The first two victims not having to, but could have removed themselves from the situation.  I know they did not want confrontation, but they did not immediately leave the scene.  The bully did turn his back on them giving the opportunity

That scenario would not be popular as most of us agree he got what he deserved.  However, without witnesses and just viewing the video, the bully and the sucker puncher both would be in deep poo poo.  The sucker puncher maybe worse!

I'd be interested to see how all this played out.


----------



## Byrin (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> It's easier than you think to kill someone by punching them in the head.
> 
> FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> ...



I agree with you that it is very easy to kill someone with a punch to the head. I'm a witness to such a thing happening. I was saying that I don't think he was intentionally trying to use deadly force but just the same measure of force to neutralize the threat and try to be a hero. Like I said it all could have been avoided in many ways and unfortunately it wasn't. I personally would have walked away, in my line of work I have plenty of more threats to worry about then a drunk trying to fight.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 17, 2013)

WEAK!!!!!  

Weak on both sides.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

Byrin said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > It's easier than you think to kill someone by punching them in the head.
> ...



Agreed.  Obviously, he was not trying to kill the guy.  Still, I'm not sure that a few slaps warrants knocking a guy out.  Yeah, the guy was an ass and he probably did deserve what he got - but the guy that sucker-punched him is just as much of an ass.  Both of them are certainly guilty of assault, at least.

There are so many other (less violent) ways the situation could have been resolved...


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 17, 2013)

Byrin said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't look to me like anybody's life was threatened - that's usually a qualifier for the use of deadly force.
> ...



I wanted to use the deadly force argument, but it would have been another long drawn out argument regarding opinion because you can find precedence where people haven't been found to use deadly force by punching someone in the head, but since someone else brought it up...

A blow to the head IS deadly force. In my LE days in the Navy, we were not allowed to strike in the head or choke. Putting someone out with an RNC is consider deadly force.
Taken directly from memory and not googled:

Deadly force is the force a person uses, that knows or should know, that would cause death or serious bodily harm. 

I must have recited that line 500 times, when approached by a section leader and drilled about general orders and what could be considered deadly force. Striking (punching or kicking) in the head is considered deadly force.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

What is an RNC?  I'm guessing it's a choke hold or something, but all I'm seeing is Republican National Convention.


----------



## Michael79 (Mar 17, 2013)

Rear naked choke


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

I had to look that up.  That is what I have known as a "sleeper hold" till now.


----------



## Michael79 (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I had to look that up.  That is what I have known as a "sleeper hold" till now.



Right, which is why I find it weird to be considered deadly force. I mean I know you could suffocate people to death, but is it deadly force if you use it to put them to sleep?


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

Well, from what I read (when I looked it up, just now - I'm no expert, lol), it seems to take a bit of skill/experience to know when to let go - or you certainly can kill someone, rather than just render them unconscious.  You are cutting off the blood supply to the brain with that hold.


----------



## duhast (Mar 17, 2013)

> Deadly force is the force a person uses, that knows or should know, that would cause death or serious bodily harm.
> 
> I must have recited that line 500 times, when approached by a section leader and drilled about general orders and what could be considered deadly force. Striking (punching or kicking) in the head is considered deadly force.



Then, was not the drunk using deadly force?


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

duhast said:


> > Deadly force is the force a person uses, that knows or should know, that would cause death or serious bodily harm.
> >
> > I must have recited that line 500 times, when approached by a section leader and drilled about general orders and what could be considered deadly force. Striking (punching or kicking) in the head is considered deadly force.
> 
> ...



You're joking, right?  He slapped some people a few times...  Yes - he's an *******, but he wasn't causing "serious bodily harm" to anyone.  Well, maybe more of a 'jab' than a slap, but still not quite a punch...  The reaction of the guy he hit looked more like "WTF?!" than anything else.


----------



## usayit (Mar 17, 2013)

LOLololo

a bunch of arm chair lawyers here.

The bully deserved every bit of what he got.....  Well.... except those that took shots at him once he was down.   That was wrong.  They should at least turn his head to make sure he doesnt choke on his tongue.    

BTW....  there are cases in which US laws regarding to the right to self defense EXTENDS to the defense of others as well.   You youself does not need to be the target of assault in order to act.   Whether that applies here is not my call...


----------



## usayit (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> I had to look that up.  That is what I have known as a "sleeper hold" till now.



lol... dont worry....   we have all seen a bit too much TV wwf wrestling.    

I have hear reverse neck choke and rear naked choke...   but almost always referred to as a sleeper hold among common conversations.   

Sleeper sounds a lot better than Naked


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 17, 2013)

duhast said:


> > Deadly force is the force a person uses, that knows or should know, that would cause death or serious bodily harm.
> >
> > I must have recited that line 500 times, when approached by a section leader and drilled about general orders and what could be considered deadly force. Striking (punching or kicking) in the head is considered deadly force.
> 
> ...



A blow to the head, not a slap in the face.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2013)

usayit said:


> Sleeper sounds a lot better than Naked


The naked part threw me off till I read the description of it - naked, as in, you can perform the hold naked - it does not require the use of your clothing (which, apparently, some holds do...).


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I had to look that up.  That is what I have known as a "sleeper hold" till now.



The term rear naked choke is the translation from the judo technique called hadaka jime. I trian BJJ, and I use it all the time, and yes it's considered deadly force when applied in a combat situation.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 17, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Sleeper sounds a lot better than Naked
> ...



Collar chokes, sleeve chokes, lapel chokes, all done with the article of clothing of either yourself or your opponent.


----------



## Nikmal (Mar 17, 2013)

I am sorry this argument has gotten to the point of uselessness now. No one and I am mean no one on HERE knows the circumstances that happened before or what was going on at all as to why the crowd was egging him on. Arguing and debating that the guy deserved it or not or if the guy only got slapped that the sucker punch should not have happened. Again NONE OF IS KNOWS what happened or even if the guy that did the so called sucker punch was ot provoked earlier or not either. Again.. this is a moot point and a frivolous argument. One I am done with from here on out. It is a video that sensationalizes bullies and crowd mentalities. One that shopuld be shut off.. and a SERIOUS problem with today's youth and the internet.  Thinking that everything should go up on you-tube and face book and it is ok to put what ever up on there. You guys are perpetuating it. I am done being that engine and will not further sensationalize this type of behavior from the video tapers... the crowd that participated and encouraged the fight.. the bully or some of the attitudes professed here. I am saddened by some of the behaviors I have seen here. 

Thanks for opening my eyes.


----------



## usayit (Mar 17, 2013)

Media is a tool that can be used in many ways.....   Good and bad... exposing the problem as well as promote it.

Just today, a rape trial ended with a guilty verdict.  The victim did could not bring memories of the attack but the videos and photos taken ended up being critical evidence.  Rodney King would have never been a household name if it were not for the videographer who just happened to be around.

talking about it.... healthy discussions framed around the problem is the solution

NoT talking about it... just like what we have been doing in previous decades...  IS Perpetuating it.


You are right about all the speculation and arm chair legal advice is absolutely silly.... but as to whether  it should be discussed or exposed?  you have it backwards.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 17, 2013)

I didn't realize how many lol-yers were on this board, I guess it's the same all over the www.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Name names fellas. Who's being an armchair lawyer?


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 18, 2013)

Just the way some portions of this thread read, have you not read it? lol

Honestly, while I know it is part human instinct to be drawn to something like this, and while I think the drunk dude got what was coming to him, it was a real sucker punch. While I am not really for fighting, both the drunk, and the "puncher" are both in the wrong. It's also human nature I suppose to see those who deserve it get theirs, and the world of pocket camcorders/cameras has brought daily stuff like this to the main stream, it is still a drunk getting knocked out. . .lord, just wait to see the videos after tonight, the greatest amateur night there is!

I was in a similar situation back in the mid 90's where a dude was roughing his girlfriend up, I got involved, dude started **** with me, knocked dude out, and had the book thrown at me basically because the girlfriend didn't want to press charges on the a** that was being an abusive prick to her. Seems like today, even when trying to do the right thing, you can end up in more trouble than those committing the act.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 18, 2013)

My partner is working on a case like this but he never got up hit his heads on curb of road and died so now hitter is going to prison where he will get beatten and buggered with a bit of luck


----------



## MK3Brent (Mar 18, 2013)

Tap to the jaw, and it's lights out.


----------



## Benco (Mar 18, 2013)

usayit said:


> LOLololo
> 
> a bunch of arm chair lawyers here.
> 
> The bully deserved every bit of what he got.....  Well.... except those that took shots at him once he was down.   That was wrong.  They should at least turn his head to make sure he doesnt choke on his tongue.



Actually you should assess his condition (after making sure you're not going to get flattened yourself and become another casualty), if he's unconscious and breathing then you do a secondary survey and if that doesn't flag anything up then put him in the recovery position, if he's not breathing then you clear his airway, if still not breathing then you immediately summon help and commence CPR.

my two cents worth as an armchair frist-aider.


----------



## MK3Brent (Mar 18, 2013)

lol, as if no one has ever been knocked out before. 

"He's going to slip into a coma because they don't know what they're doing..." 

We're a nation full of know-it-all experts.


----------



## Benco (Mar 18, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> lol, as if no one has ever been knocked out before.
> 
> *"He's going to slip into a coma because they don't know what they're doing..."
> *
> We're a nation full of know-it-all experts.



Well that sort of thing does happen, I'd sooner be in a position to help someone if I can even at risk of being called a 'know it all expert'. 

Still maybe you're right and it's a nation thing, I don't live in the US so perhaps it's a cultural difference that I don't want to LOL at such things or just stand there going 'what do I do?' when things get gnarly.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 18, 2013)

duhast said:


> > The guy who threw the punch was never touched, so he can't claim self defense.
> 
> 
> No, but he can claim it was done in defense of others.



Actually, that's only going to work as an argument if the punk in the gray shirt was trying to stop a felony, and even then that's an argument that normally comes about only after the use of deadly force.

Bottom line is that the guy in the gray shirt is in no better moral position than the guy he put on the ground...


----------



## amolitor (Mar 18, 2013)

Remember: It's THREE LEFTS, not TWO WRONGS.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 18, 2013)

What I think is pretty funny here is everyone is referring to the guy who ended up getting knocked out as "the drunk".

Does anyone here harbor the illusion that the punk who put him on the ground was sober?

The guy who got slapped in the face never had his life threatened. He was slapped. If he chose not to retaliate, then it was no one else's place to do that for him. The guy who punched Afro Boy is, based on the video, actually _more _in the wrong than Afro Boy.

Like Ballistics, I used to work law enforcement in the Navy. If you carried a sidearm, you knew the rules for the use of deadly force cold.

Nothing in that video even approaches the need for the employment of deadly force...


----------



## bc_steve (Mar 18, 2013)

Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt.  Better him than somebody else, and hopefully next time he will think better of it next time he gets all drunk and aggressive.

Sure it was a sucker-punch by grey-shirt, but at least someone stood up to a bully.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

bc_steve said:


> Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt.



How do you know who created the situation? For all you know, the 2 "victims" could have been shouting racist remarks before this video started and then when confronted, 
played coy.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 18, 2013)

bc_steve said:


> Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt. Better him than somebody else, and hopefully next time he will think better of it next time he gets all drunk and aggressive.
> 
> Sure it was a sucker-punch by grey-shirt, but at least someone stood up to a bully.



Stood up to and sucker punch in the same sentence?  Hmmmm.....

Still looked like the bully was picking on the weakest person(s) he could.  (((Classic Bully))).  He was a freakin clown that would not have done crapola to anyone except the two guys he already figured out were non confrontational.


----------



## Canuk (Mar 18, 2013)

What have been funny to see would have been one of the "drunk" guys friends, knock the little $hit out in the grey shirt. 

This sort of ambush technique is wrong and proves that the "grey shirt" was nothing more than a coward. A "real" man that wanted to diffuse the situation would have stepped up and made the "drunk" know that his behaviour needed to stop or it would be dealt with appropriately. 

Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth. He is nothing but a coward.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Canuk said:


> Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.


Did someone laud him as "a hero and brave"?



Canuk said:


> He is nothing but a coward.


Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases.  If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.

The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants.  That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this.  Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.

Talk about animal mentality...


----------



## Canuk (Mar 18, 2013)

Sorry Buckster, 
I usually agree with much of what you say, but I won't this time.
The "grey shirt" also was standing w/ a friend? (assuming), surely if he would have stepped up or said something, his friend would have had his back.
The "drunk guy" was out looking for a fight, sure that's what it appears. The "grey shirt" also appears to want to get in on the action, but not risk it, so he sucker punches, then kicks an unconscious man.  

From my interpretation of the video, the "drunk guy" obviously has a problem w/ the guys in the black and red shirts. He wasn't randomly punching innocent bystanders, in fact he turned around and was walking away until called back or taunted?  He then punched the guy in the black shirt and out of nowhere is sucker punched by a little b**ch. So I honestly don't think that the "bully" was beating down everyone insight and needed to be put down like a rabid dog.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Canuk said:
> 
> 
> > Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.
> ...



I don't think anyone said anything to this effect.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Canuk said:


> Sorry Buckster,
> I usually agree with much of what you say, but I won't this time.


No biggie, it's all just opinions anyway.

I'm curious though - taking what I *actually* said, what *exactly*&#8203; did I say that you disagree with?  Use quotes of my actual words to be clear.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Canuk said:
> ...


It seems quite obviously inferred to me, without a direct quote necessary to lay it out the way I did.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



What you did, was take the disapproval of sucker punching and the sucker puncher, and manipulate it into some maniacal evil plot of the disapprovers with if/else logic.
As if those who think that the sucker puncher was in the wrong, have only one option to choose from about their mindset.



> _The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronge__r, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases._



And you got this apparent idea from where exactly?


----------



## Canuk (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Canuk said:
> 
> 
> > Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.
> ...


 
It was a few posts up, not word for word, but I think you know which I am talking about.



Buckster said:


> Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".



"grey shirt" was standing with a friend, discussing the "drunk guy's" actions. Surely his friend would have helped him if he decided to intervene.



Buckster said:


> The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases.  If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.
> 
> The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants.  That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this.  Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.
> 
> Talk about animal mentality...



In the true case of a "bully" that may be true. This appears to be a case of the "drunk guy" having a problem with they guys in the black and red shirts, as I explaned above.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


Nah, I just followed it to its logical conclusion.  Do you reach a different one and, if so, what and how?



Ballistics said:


> As if those who think that the sucker puncher was in the wrong, have only one option to choose from about their mindset.


If nobody is strong enough to confront him and come out victorious, what's the conclusion other than the one I laid out?



Ballistics said:


> > _The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronge__r, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases._
> 
> 
> And you got this apparent idea from where exactly?


Logic.  It's the only conclusion one can reach in such a scenario.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



You're using logic, but what are you basing your logic on? 

The extremely hypothetical situation, where no one in the crowd is able to stop this individual from bullying others, then sure, blind siding him would make sense.
But that would be a completely different video wouldn't it? This guy was focused on these 2 guys, who perhaps taunted him in the first place? I can only speculate on that.
The fact here however, is that the sucker puncher was clearly capable of putting this guy down, and felt that he could and executed it precisely. How could he not? He had a good 15-20 seconds to size this guy up. 
But that's not what was taking place in this video. 

If I knew the bully was in the wrong... and he was torturing 2 guys because they wouldn't/couldn't defend themselves, I would have made it a point to break it up and make it known that if it doesn't stop, it will probably get messy.  
I would never just blind side someone. That's a level of low that I couldn't imagine stooping to. It's got nothing to do with being a 'real man'. It's got nothing to do with being an alpha male.

No one is saying that the bully is in the right or that he didn't deserve what he got. No one is defending the bully.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

I wish my C+C threads got this level of attention


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Canuk said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Canuk said:
> ...


I think we should use people's actual words when trying to counter them, but that's just me.  It's why I use quotes extensively - so there's no confusion about that.  "Lauding grey shirt as a hero and brave" is a fine, if that's what someone actually did.  If not, its just straw-manning.



Canuk said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".
> ...


Conjecture, at best.  We have no idea if anyone, including his friend, would have jumped in to help.  It does make me wonder though - at what point can the friend "jump in" and gray shirt still be a "real man"?  Can that happen while gray shirt is still on his feet, making it two against one, or does it have to be after he's already on the ground, bloodied, and maybe unconscious so his friend can then suffer the same fate?



Canuk said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases.  If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.
> ...


That is what it appears to be to you.  To me, such a description is pure conjecture.  It appears to me that drunk guy is indeed a belligerent bully, looking for a fight and using any excuse at all to have one - with anyone.

In any case, we don't see either of the two you try to frame as perpetrators do anything in particular to justify physical violence on his part.  Your "maybe" they did something before the vid started is just out of the ball park in terms of conjecture.  Hey, if we're going to do "maybes", _*maybe*_ someone else who's no longer even at the scene started it, and drunk bully just *thinks* it was the two you want to blame.  Or _*maybe*_ he's just a mean and confrontational drunk and the whole dis by the two guys is all in his head.

But none of that actually addresses what I'm actually saying anyway, which is about a much broader social issue surrounding the "real man" mentality, not what the circumstances are in this one particular instance.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Mar 18, 2013)

Seems like a high-quality, highly educated crowd.


----------



## Canuk (Mar 18, 2013)

bc_steve said:


> Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt.  Better him than somebody else, and hopefully next time he will think better of it next time he gets all drunk and aggressive.
> 
> Sure it was a sucker-punch by grey-shirt, but at least someone stood up to a bully.



This was the quote I was talking about Buckster. Not exactling "lauding him as a hero", but no the less giving him accolades.


----------



## Canuk (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> In any case, we don't see either of the two you try to frame as perpetrators do anything in particular to justify physical violence on his part.  Your "maybe" they did something before the vid started is just out of the ball park in terms of conjecture.  Hey, if we're going to do "maybes", _*maybe*_ someone else who's no longer even at the scene started it, and drunk bully just *thinks* it was the two you want to blame.  Or _*maybe*_ he's just a mean and confrontational drunk and the whole dis by the two guys is all in his head.
> 
> But none of that actually addresses what I'm actually saying anyway, which is about a much broader social issue surrounding the "real man" mentality, not what the circumstances are in this one particular instance.



Unfortunately, neither one of us will actually know what happened before this video started. The scenario I laid out was one that I would suspect happens every weekend outside bars all around the world. The "drunk man" appears to have problems with only 2 people in the crowd, would you not agree? 

I am a little confused though, what social issue about "real man" are we talking about?


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


How do you know that's not the case here?  And what's the difference if there's someone in the crowd that can take him on and be the victor or if there's not?  How do the individuals in the crowd determine if there is one who can be the victor over drunk bully, and is willing to engage in a violent brawl with him?  Do they tell drunk bully, "hold on while we decide if anyone here is a "real man" that can beat the schit out of you", then poll everyone to see if there's anyone with martial arts training and a willingness to engage in battle with drunk bully?

I mean, how do you see that determination realistically playing out?



Ballistics said:


> But that would be a completely different video wouldn't it? This guy was focused on these 2 guys, who perhaps taunted him in the first place? I can only speculate on that.


That's exactly right - it's just speculation, and appears completely made up to help justify the view drunk bully has every right to be going after them and that this punch by gray shirt is an act of cowardice and that a "real man" would have stepped up and got in drunk bully's face and said, "now see here, my good man!  You shall end these acts of aggression, or I shall be forced to engage in fisticuffs with you!"



Ballistics said:


> The fact here however, is that the sucker puncher was clearly capable of putting this guy down


In the way that he did, sure.  But in what you would probably call a "fair" fight?  We have no idea.  He might just as easily ended up a bloody mess on the ground and, since he didn't confront drunk bully directly, that's probably what he was thinking would happen if he did.



Ballistics said:


> and felt that he could and executed it precisely. How could he not? He had a good 15-20 seconds to size this guy up.


And, after sizing the guy up, he decides not to confront him directly for some reason.  That's evidence enough for me to conclude that he thought there was a damn good chance drunk bully would have beaten him to a pulp.  Otherwise, why not confront him directly and be the crowd's hero?



Ballistics said:


> If I knew the bully was in the wrong... and he was torturing 2 guys because they wouldn't/couldn't defend themselves, I would have made it a point to break it up and make it known that if it doesn't stop, it will probably get messy.
> I would never just blind side someone. That's a level of low that I couldn't imagine stooping to.


Tell us again about your martial arts training, which makes you quite capable of handling it in that way. 



Ballistics said:


> It's got nothing to do with being a 'real man'. It's got nothing to do with being an alpha male.


Then why are the words and phrase "real man" and "coward" being used by those who find it so wrong that gray shirt did what he did?



Ballistics said:


> No one is saying that the bully is in the right or that he didn't deserve what he got. No one is defending the bully.


Obviously.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Misunderstood.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Canuk said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, we don't see either of the two you try to frame as perpetrators do anything in particular to justify physical violence on his part.  Your "maybe" they did something before the vid started is just out of the ball park in terms of conjecture.  Hey, if we're going to do "maybes", _*maybe*_ someone else who's no longer even at the scene started it, and drunk bully just *thinks* it was the two you want to blame.  Or _*maybe*_ he's just a mean and confrontational drunk and the whole dis by the two guys is all in his head.
> ...


No, I wouldn't.  I don't know that it's not a simple case of them having the simple misfortune of having been in the guy's drunken sights for no reason other than he doesn't like the way they look, or where they happened to be standing, or that they made eye contact with him, or that they were flashing the peace sign and saying chill out, or because they looked weak and easy to pick on by him, or what.  My sense of it is that ANYONE could have easily become his next target for any reason or no reason at all.



Canuk said:


> I am a little confused though, what social issue about "real man" are we talking about?


The one I laid out using the word "sociopath" that you responded to.  The "King of the Jungle" "Winner Take All" animalistic justifications based on a mentality grounded in violence that "real man" confrontation is really all about.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us again about your martial arts training, which makes you quite capable of handling it in that way.
> ...


Not dickish in the least - realistic.

Tell us how you handle it if you're 5'2", 145 lbs and have no fight training at all?  Be a "real man" with that little ass holding you up and show us how you confront drunk bully.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Then why are the words and phrase "real man" and "coward" being used by those who find it so wrong that gray shirt did what he did?




Agreed.

A lot of you seem to think confronting a _*drunk, confrontational* *bully *_who is_* actively seeking a fight*_would have made him a "real man" and not a "coward".  So basically, put himself in harm's way so he could be a "real man", instead of just ending the situation. 

In a sense, he was the only person brave enough to take action to end what was happening. 

And to all of you minimizing what the bully had done in this video, there are three _*clear *_physical attacks by him on three different people in varying degrees. He had already hurt other people with no clear end in sight.

This person neutralized the aggressor; perhaps his actions shouldn't be celebrated because of the manner in which he did this, but to condemn them seems baseless.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Ah, I thought you were insinuating that I was overtly bragging in some way, as in "Tell us again" sarcastically. My mistake. Conversation and respect restored 

Yeah, but the fact is, you're making up a scenario. The sucker puncher, and both victims are all about the same average size. Size aside, no one is justifying the bully. 



> The one I laid out using the word "sociopath" that you responded to. The "King of the Jungle" "Winner Take All" animalistic justifications based on a mentality grounded in violence that "real man" confrontation is really all about.



Who is talking about this? I still don't get it.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

> Then why are the words and phrase "real man" and "coward" being used by those who find it so wrong that gray shirt did what he did?



I never said anything about being a real man. But me calling him a coward has nothing to do with anything you make it out to be. I'd rather see the situation diffused rather than detonated.


----------



## Canuk (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



You don't, you leave. But that wasn't what was happening here was it? 
I will stand by my use of the words "coward" and "real man" in the context that I used them. I'm quite sure that you will not be able to convince me otherwise. Sucker punching someone that is not looking, when you are not even involved in the situation, is cowardly. The men that the drunk guy assaulting, were not in danger of life and death. There was obviously a lot of police presence in the area, so why could they not have gotten to help?


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> > The one I laid out using the word "sociopath" that you responded to. The "King of the Jungle" "Winner Take All" animalistic justifications based on a mentality grounded in violence that "real man" confrontation is really all about.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about this? I still don't get it.


Setting aside for the moment this one particular video and the circumstances in it (which has been beaten unconscious at this point, if you'll pardon the expression), some words and phrases used in the conversation got me interested in talking a bit about the associated social mentality of what it means to be a "real man", a "coward", a "sucker punch", etc.

In my opinion, all of that goes back to a very primitive, animalistic mentality wherein whoever can beat up everyone else in a head to head confrontation can do whatever he wants, unopposed.  It's the way animals determine who the leader is, and the leader gets first choice of everything and everyone; Does what he wants, when and how he wants, without question.  That's the law of the jungle.

But we're not in a jungle anymore.  We're not primitives anymore. And we don't have to put up with the idea that the biggest, strongest MF'r who can beat up any challenger in a "fair" fight by a "real man" who confronts him directly gets to have whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants it, simply by virtue of the physical traits that enable him to kick everyone else's a$$.

I think it's about time to move on from that primitive mentality as a species, and stop using words and phrases that encourage it like "real man" and "coward".  Let's move on to the idea that violence as a means to gain control and show superiority over others is unacceptable, and that putting a stop to it is justified, even through the use of a so-called "sucker punch".

Just my opinion, mind you.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

My opinion about confronting him isn't absolute. That's based on the "If you are going to hit someone" line. It's got nothing to do with being animalistic. 
In other words, I'd prefer to see the guy in the grey shirt walk in the middle of both parties and diffuse the situation.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> > Then why are the words and phrase "real man" and "coward" being used by those who find it so wrong that gray shirt did what he did?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about being a real man.


It was from Canuk's post here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...nk-bully-gets-one-hit-ko-d-7.html#post2900669



Ballistics said:


> But me calling him a coward has nothing to do with anything you make it out to be.


How can it not?  It says that gray shirt cannot take that "cowardly" action without being deemed a "coward".  Thus, he has two choices remaining: 

1. Not get involved and let the bully continue.
2. Confront him directly, get beat down, and let the bully continue.

Either way, the bully "wins" and can continue to do whatever he wants.



Ballistics said:


> I'd rather see the situation diffused rather than detonated.


Wouldn't we all. 

But if you don't have the a$$ to take on drunk bully in a "real man" direct confrontation fistfight, and you're not allowed by the societal rules of what it means to be a "real man" to take him out by other means, then how do you diffuse it?

We already saw that flashing the peace sign with both hands doesn't work.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> My opinion about confronting him isn't absolute. That's based on the "If you are going to hit someone" line. It's got nothing to do with being animalistic.
> In other words, I'd prefer to see the guy in the grey shirt walk in the middle of both parties and diffuse the situation.


That's a direct confrontation to drunk guy, and is not likely to diffuse the situation in the real world, and you should know that.

It's much more likely that gray shirt is then going to be on the receiving end of drunk guy's next punch or series of punches, and perhaps a devastating one (or more) at that.  So, now gray shirt is on the ground bleeding, missing teeth and knocked out, nice little concussion going on, drunk bully is feeling even more superior and emboldened and has even more adrenaline flowing, and things are actually escalating, not diffusing.

Oh, but that's the way a "real man" would handle it though, right?  Yeah, makes total sense.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> But if you don't have the a$$ to take on drunk bully in a "real man" direct confrontation fistfight, and you're not allowed by the societal rules of what it means to be a "real man" to take him out by other means, then how do you diffuse it?
> 
> We already saw that flashing the peace sign with both hands doesn't work.



Verbally diffuse it. "I've just called the police and they're on their way. Everyone might want to leave" or "Is this really necessary. Let's all go our separate ways"
If you don't feel that you can beat the guy up in the first place, than you shouldn't even be thinking about throwing a punch. 

The peace sign did work, the guy started walking away, but someone shouted something to regain his attention.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 18, 2013)

Defusing this sort of situation is a bit subtle, you have to be both friendly and bossy toward the problematic guy. You gotta make him believe that you get his problems and you're basically on his side. I've stepped in to a bunch of these over the years and never gotten hit. I generally call the cops, too, but I don't tell that to drunk homeboy.

It helps to be sober.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion about confronting him isn't absolute. That's based on the "If you are going to hit someone" line. It's got nothing to do with being animalistic.
> ...



And if he is on the receiving end of the bullies punch, that's the choice he made to get involved. That's him saying, I'm not a part of this, but I'm going to make myself a part of this. Same thing with throwing a sucker punch, only, it's an honorable decision. As for it not diffusing the situation, I've seen it done countless times. It's pretty realistic.

I also think you are giving the assailant some extreme benefit of doubt. We saw nothing but a couple of slap box style hits from him.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Defusing this sort of situation is a bit subtle, you have to be both friendly and bossy toward the problematic guy. You gotta make him believe that you get his problems and you're basically on his side. I've stepped in to a bunch of these over the years and never gotten hit. I generally call the cops, too, but I don't tell that to drunk homeboy.
> 
> It helps to be sober.



Maybe you are the drunk, belligerent whisperer that Gotham needs


----------



## runnah (Mar 18, 2013)

We've all sucker punched a drunk guy at a street festival. If you say you haven't I know you are lying.


----------



## Canuk (Mar 18, 2013)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Defusing this sort of situation is a bit subtle, you have to be both friendly and bossy toward the problematic guy. You gotta make him believe that you get his problems and you're basically on his side. I've stepped in to a bunch of these over the years and never gotten hit. I generally call the cops, too, but I don't tell that to drunk homeboy.
> 
> It helps to be sober.



^^^this

I have had the pleasure(?), of defusing several drunks, and have never had to knock someone out to do it. Usually when someone outside the situation gets in middle of its over.


----------



## usayit (Mar 18, 2013)

Didn't the guy in the red shirt try to get in the middle of this?  ended up getting smacked at the beginning?

He later showed some pretty good restraint pulling his drunk friend (black shirt) away when he tried to kick the unconscious bully.


... yeh...  talking worked really well...


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

usayit said:


> Didn't the guy in the red shirt try to get in the middle of this?  ended up getting smacked at the beginning?
> 
> He later showed some pretty good restraint pulling his drunk friend (black shirt) away when he tried to kick the unconscious bully.
> 
> ...



You're right, it did work. However, you're using the middle of that altercation as your leverage that talking doesn't work.

Go rewatch the video.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 18, 2013)

The guys who were trying to calm the drunk down weren't doing it right. It's *subtle* like I say, and among other things it involves staying out of range until you've established a relationship with the guy. Which can take literally seconds if you're lucky, drunks are funny.

It's helpful if you've spent a lot of time drunk.


----------



## usayit (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't the guy in the red shirt try to get in the middle of this?  ended up getting smacked at the beginning?
> ...



I have re-watched it...   several times.  You have no standing... unless you were there and saw more than what was captured in the video.   

What I am simply stating is that the guy in the red shirt DID look like he was trying to stop the altercation from going any further.... he also used restraint and did not retaliate with a single punch.  Whether or not he did it correctly is besides the point.... Bully is a bully and when they feel that they have the upper hand... they take it.

Do we even know that the bully was drunk?

I went through similar cases in high school.  I was a quiet type.. non-confrontational... just like many traditional Asian cultures raise their kids.  Till one day, I dropped everything,  turned around and smacked the guy.  Teachers showed up before it got any further.  I got detention... but they left me alone from that day on.... never had to do it again.  Dad understood... took me out for dinner afterwards.  He wasn't angry because I didn't start it.. but It tried to end it.

We don't know who the grey shirt guy is... he may have been just another jacka$$ too....  but we are making assumptions.  Perhaps he just got tired of this silly behavior... maybe he was standing up for another.  There is so much useless speculation in this thread.   But me.. personally... I'm going to give the grey shirt guy the benefit of doubt and say the bully deserved it.. but stop short of calling the guy a stand up hero.   His actions did put a stop to it ... rather quickly... no denying that

PS> Ballistics... I've read your participation in this thread.   Sounds like you are hell bent on winning an argument rather than simply discussing.   Your previous two responses to my posts have been in itself confrontational.  I'm not arguing with you... I am simply stating my different view.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

usayit said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



Yeah, and based on the video, nothing says that talking doesn't work. The video starts with the guy getting smacked, and the dude puts up peace signs but is resisting his friend who is trying to push him away.
They go off screen, something is said and the guy comes back. Hes slapping people. Everyone is making him out to be some bruiser. He's being annoying and obnoxious, but he's not throwing heymakers.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

:28 seconds he's a shocked victim and the bully is a big mean jerk. 
:34 seconds and he's a tough guy throwing kicks at a lifeless body.

If coward isn't the term to describe him, I don't know what is.


----------



## usayit (Mar 18, 2013)

PS> I didn't say talking doesn't work....   What I'm saying is in this case it didn't.


----------



## mishele (Mar 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> We've all sucker punched a drunk guy at a street festival. If you say you haven't I know you are lying.


Alright, I'll admit it.


----------



## mishele (Mar 18, 2013)

Drunk+talking=LOL


----------



## usayit (Mar 18, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> :28 seconds he's a shocked victim and the bully is a big mean jerk.
> :34 seconds and he's a tough guy throwing kicks at a lifeless body.
> 
> If coward isn't the term to describe him, I don't know what is.




You are describing the guy in the black shirt.  I'm talking about his companion in the red shirt.   

* He is clearly talking to the bully (no idea what he is saying)
* He got smacked 
* He received another thrown punch later
* He pulled his companion (black shirt) away when said companion tried to kick the bully while being unconscious.

The black shirt guy is clearly drunk... probably scared.. and angry.   I don't blame him for his actions... but its good that he had a buddy with him who was in a better state of mind.   Sounds to me like you've never been on the receiving end of such treatment... and yet call him a coward.   Sorry.. but its easy to act all righteous and tough behind a faceless presence.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 18, 2013)

usayit said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > :28 seconds he's a shocked victim and the bully is a big mean jerk.
> ...




If I could describe how hard I just rolled my eyes at your blind assumption about being on the receiving end of a belligerent idiots abuse. You know how many drunks I've had to deal with in a single 12 hour night post (forget about an entire tour) on a Friday night with a bar right across the street from base? No, you don't know - So before you start classifying and quantifying my life experiences, keep in mind that you don't have a clue who I am or what I've been through.

I speak from real world experience, not from what ifs and maybes.


----------



## usayit (Mar 18, 2013)

You have no clue who I am either...  

I again refer you to my last sentence in my previous post.



No assumptions made... I'm simply stating what I observed the red shirt guy's actions.

I stated that there are a lot of arm chair lawyer like posts in this thread... you were the only one to respond.

I simply pointed out that many (normal healthy individuals) in a state of being drunk, scared, and angry could act in the same manner.  You assumed he was a coward. 

I made no statements that personal judge you... yet you are compelled to provide proof of your validity (manhood if you like).

...

I think someone needs reflect on their own pattern of behavior/response.


----------

