Is this Just Self-Defence?

[reuben_tate]

Fido: You say that the man kept beating the women because of the fact that he was afraid that the women might get back up and attack him. Isn't there also the possibility that the man was beating the women just for sweet revenge? Why is it that you seem to rule this possibility out?

[devonin]

The sexes of the people involved in this incident should be completely irellevent.

The whole thing was caught on camera which makes it -very- easy to simply look at what happened and say "Given the people involved, was the amount of force used in self-defense excessive under the circumstances"

The women both assaulted someone. They should be charged accordingly. The man defended himself from assault, which is fine, but then arguably -also- committed assault by using excessive force.

The fact that it was women attacking a man makes no difference. The only important thing is "Having put them to the ground in self-defense, was he then able to get away from the situation/get to safety/get to where additional witnesses would result in the assault ending" if the answer is yes (And I'd say it is a yes in those circumstances) then continuing to hit them was also assault.

Everyone goes to jail, everyone loses, because everyone's a loser, case closed.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by reuben_tate

Fido: You say that the man kept beating the women because of the fact that he was afraid that the women might get back up and attack him. Isn't there also the possibility that the man was beating the women just for sweet revenge? Why is it that you seem to rule this possibility out?

Yeah but if what he's doing seems logical you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't assume somebodies motives like that.

[bmah]

Originally Posted by fido123

Yeah but if what he's doing seems logical you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't assume somebodies motives like that.

Well then, I guess you should rethink what you said earlier about the women. To me, it seems logical to give the women the benefit of the doubt after beating down on them repeatedly. Whether or not it was those women that requested the man to stop beating on them, you can't assume the motives of the women either.

You can argue that making that assumption for the women as opposed to the employee isn't "logical" but I can't see your arguments going any further than the reasoning of "adrenaline".

Maybe devonin said it best. The women aren't going to get away from this by far, but the man certainly isn't going to get the deal you're rooting him for.

[fido123]

I don't think he needs a deal, I just don't think what he did was assault. You can't give the benefit of the doubt to the women because they were in the process of attacking him. Just cause they're on the ground doesn't mean they're not trying to attack him.

@Devonin: If you're implying I think the genders of anybody in that situation should be taken into account I don't think that at all. I'm trying to say that society often does. As for the rest of your posts I've already posted my arguments in previous pages so I guess we amongst others in this thread disagree on what kind of force should be punishable. Excessive, no doubt but I think given his situation it's simply understandable and shouldn't be punishable.

[Izzy]

I don't think the guy ever felt like he was in danger, he just seems pissed off at the women and is taking advantage of the situation.

It was self defense up until the first strike and she was on the ground defending herself.

[reuben_tate]

From the video it doesn't seem like the man orders the women to stay on the ground. If I was being brutally attacked like that, I would try to run away. I wouldn't want to be beaten to death. I think every person has the right to get off the ground. Now if the man had told the women, "stay on the ground or else I'll beat the **** out of you!" then of course I would stay on the ground seeing that getting up would result in me being beaten some more. However, when the women first got up for the first time, they had no idea or warning that doing so would result in their physical harm.

If you want someone to do something (in this case, stay on the ground) you have to tell that person, you can't just assume that the other person knows what you want from them.

[UserNameGoesHere]

In hindsight he probably should have yelled at them to stay on the ground, but I don't know if the result would have been any different.

Also this appears to really boil down to a personal judgment call. It depends whether you think this amount of force was justified or excessive, in this particular case, as to which side of the fence you'll be.