SXSW Bully sucker punch. Justified or cheap? (2 Viewers)

[Twyst]

Yeah, and honestly don't know if I could resist hitting someone if I was in the same situation. It just doesnt mean it's right. I got into quite a few fights in my late teens/early twenties and just realize how stupid and pointless it was.

 

[Galbreath34]

Fair enough, just curious.

 

[XXXtraAnchovies]

Yeah, and honestly don't know if I could resist hitting someone if I was in the same situation. It just doesnt mean it's right. I got into quite a few fights in my late teens/early twenties and just realize how stupid and pointless it was.

defending the honor of a fair maiden is always right

 

[kevin from buffalo]

defending the honor of a fair maiden is always right

i;m a lover,not a fighter..but i recall more than once i had to toss a few because my bride was touched,not a good idea because i worked in corrections.... i can deal with a drunk bozo with ease but if my better half gets mixed up in anything..it's time to dance...

this is one main reason why i am double thinking about going to the kentucky derby.

 

[QSTA]

What happened after you put his *** on the ground....? Because people like that deserve what they get as well....

I told him if he got up off of the ground I would put him back on the ground. The security guard summoned a police officer, and explained what happened. The gonad was arrested, and I went back into the Dome just in-time for Drew to break the record against the Falcons.

 

[Mojomajik9]

He deserved to be punched just for his haircut

 

[QSTA]

While I understand that this situation is totally messed up, no matter what anyone says to you, it STILL doesn't give you the right to physically assault someone IMHO. Walk away and tell a security guard once you have separated him from your wife and diffused the situation. Fighting for any reason other than for self defense is not manly, its stupid. I wish I would have realized that in my earlier days and saved myself some trouble. Going to jail for laying out someone running their mouth just isnt worth it, trust me. If someone lays hands on someone or is being physically threatening sometimes a fight can't be avoided, but being the person who brings physicality into a disagreement should be avoided at all costs IMO. It may feel good to blow up and hit someone who is not physically threatening anyone, but its just not the right thing to do.

See my above answer about the ramifications of my actions. Also, the security guard was behind me the whole time during this incident. Afterwards, the security guard explained to me that the guy verbally assaulted a couple earlier, making the female run away crying. He actually shook my hand.

I don't go out looking for fights. The whole "fighting is stupid" speech sounds great, but I draw the line when you make sexual explicit remarks to my wife. IMO, I didn't blow-up, I took a measured response to someone who was given 2 opportunities to walk away. I didn't feel good, or bad afterwards. I did what I thought a reasonable husband would do when his wife is sexually offended, verbally, or physically.

 

[LSSpam]

If he deserved it it doesn't matter if it's cheap.

But everyone swarming around to take pictures of the guy on the ground with their phones was hilarious and frightening at the same time.

This. He deserved it (he was obviously trying to pick a fight with unwilling participants, knocking him out was a service to public safety) but the crowd reaction was more disturbing and notable in my opinion.

 

[LSSpam]

I am looking for a back story because I don't feel like we need to go around labeling people in this situation (like you do) without the proper information. Obviously something had to have happened to set him off (maybe I am wrong, and you are right). But I just don't feel the need to label somebody something without knowing what took place prior.

He was trying to create a physical altercation with people who obviously didn't want one. There is no reason or justification for that. Trying to start violence with people trying to avoid it is wrong, period, under any circumstances. It doesn't matter who called who what, doesn't matter how sideways they looked at you, picking a fight with people trying to avoid on is wrong. That's a clean, thick line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

 

[El Caliente]

He was trying to create a physical altercation with people who obviously didn't want one. There is no reason or justification for that. Trying to start violence with people trying to avoid it is wrong, period, under any circumstances. It doesn't matter who called who what, doesn't matter how sideways they looked at you, picking a fight with people trying to avoid on is wrong. That's a clean, thick line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I agree. But without knowing what caused the altercation to escalate to that point is what I am looking for. Details. Because of a lack of details many a man have been put in prison. Give me the back story so I can more justifiably to around accusing people.

Twyst had great details for me to go off of. He gave me before, during, and a happy ending. This just jumps right into the during and after. Bad story.

 

[LSSpam]

I agree. But without knowing what caused the altercation to escalate to that point is what I am looking for. Details. Because of a lack of details many a man have been put in prison. Give me the back story so I can more justifiably to around accusing people.

Twyst had great details for me to go off of. He gave me before, during, and a happy ending. This just jumps right into the during and after. Bad story.

What the hell are you talking about? Accuse of what?

 

[El Caliente]

What the hell are you talking about? Accuse of what?

I don't see the word "accuse" in my thread.

I don't see why people find it so hard to understand that there might be more to this story than what is being presented. Think back to 12 Angry Men (everyone had to read that book or at least watch the movie). The Kid supposedly killed his father, and every last juror (but Henry Fonda's carachters) thought that it was a forgone conclusion that the kid was guilty. But it was mainly due to the fact that they had not studied the situation out, or simply just wanted to judge the kid and get it over with. Juror #8 was looking for more details and was analyzing the back story before he came to his conclusion.

I am trying to do no different. I want to come to the conclusion you guys have, but I just don't have enough evidence to do so.

 

[LSSpam]

I agree. But without knowing what caused the altercation to escalate to that point is what I am looking for. Details. Because of a lack of details many a man have been put in prison. Give me the back story so I can more justifiably to around accusing people.

Twyst had great details for me to go off of. He gave me before, during, and a happy ending. This just jumps right into the during and after. Bad story.

I don't see the word "accuse" in my thread.

As for the rest, if you agree, as you stated, that violence directed at those seeking to avoid it is never justified, then there is nothing else to learn about the situation. But you probably don't remember typing "I agree" either

I'm not sure what you're doing in this thread. It seems like your trying to claw out a high moral ground position, but you're not just failing to do so, you're sounding schizophrenic doing it.

 

[El Caliente]

What am I doing in this thread? Trying to get answers. Trying to be a bit slower to judge, and a little quicker to pick up important details. Trying to hold discussion as to the situation at hand. What are you doing in this thread?

I am not searching for a moral high ground. I am searching for details. Once I get those details I will feel more comfortable making up my mind. The fact that a video could so quickly sway so many here is tragic. The hope for our judicial system might as well be left in the hands of vigilantism if a simple plea for details is met with sharp ridicule.

 

[Loco Hornet Fan]

What am I doing in this thread? Trying to get answers. Trying to be a bit slower to judge, and a little quicker to pick up important details. Trying to hold discussion as to the situation at hand. What are you doing in this thread?

I am not searching for a moral high ground. I am searching for details. Once I get those details I will feel more comfortable making up my mind. The fact that a video could so quickly sway so many here is tragic. The hope for our judicial system might as well be left in the hands of vigilantism if a simple plea for details is met with sharp ridicule.

Honestly, I would recommend that you take a step back and look at what you've been writing. LSSpam laid it out pretty well I think, but you have not been very consistent in your comments. It actually is very confusing. You keep throwing out references to 12 Angry Men that don't make sense in this situation. Would juror 8 have been so gung-ho about "more backstory" if he was shown video footage of the kid stabbing his father?

We have this guy acting like a drunk fool, berating, bullying, hitting and picking fights with people who are trying to move away and clearly do not want to fight. If they called him a bad word (or whatever), it was over long before the video started rolling and they had backed down. Everything that happened after that was him being at fault. You have even said at least once that you agree with this, yet almost immediately go back to not wanting to accuse people (we don't know with what) without a backstory.

Several people have explained it better than me, but it's just not clear what you are looking for here. In your opinion, what could have happened right before the video started that would justify the guy's (the one who was knocked out) actions?