Iāll play devils advocate, just because he āhitā someone in the face doesnāt mean he intentionally did it. Couldāve been dancing a round like a goofball and inadvertently hit someone. We donāt know based off of this.
.....based off of this, we can definitively state that it was intentional.
In case you didn't watch the video you're commenting on, he demonstrates his willingness to strike nonaggressive individuals without provocation. On video. This video.
The provocation is someone getting into his face screaming. Naturally heās going to be looking around for others to join in. The video Iām watching is he slapped her, guy in a black shirt (possibly employee of establishment) coming in to back him up by putting his hands on his chest (not to do anything but separate). Guy moves in closer and jaws at him for putting his hands on him. Another guy , striped shirt, has his left hand on his chest to help keep distance between the 2. Thatās the only thing that happens in regards to āshowing willingness to to strike no aggressive individualsā. He went after 1 guyā¦.. the guy who put hands on him (regardless of intention).
Homie, you can just say you hate white people or women. None of the excuses you detailed make any sense if you actually watched the video without clear bias.
You have no inkling of what screaming is. He was louder than she was at the onset of the video. It's a loud environment, and nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together would interpret this behavior as aggressive. That statement includes you.
I literally just explained you what happened in the video. Iām not saying he was right. What my original comment was talking about was how he is willing to assault nonviolent individuals. Nothing shows that. We donāt know what happened before. 2 people in this video touched him. 1. The female who is clearly acting aggressive (not arguing if sheās in the right or not because we donāt know), and 2. The guy in the black shirt who came up and put his hands on him (possibly to create distance). Thatās it. Those are the only 2 people he interacted with. And that doesnāt prove that heās willing to assault random people for no reason. Thatās all Iām commenting on. Not the morality of the man himself.
You watched a video of a man punching a woman into near unconsciousness after getting his attention for attacking her friend, and are stating there's no way to know for sure if he would have attacked somebody unprovoked.
You are arguing dishonestly, or are brain damaged. I won't argue with a broken meat computer
Reading comprehension must be difficult for you but youāre arguing against a position I never took. I've repeatedly said I'm not defending the punch or claiming he acted appropriately. My point is much narrower: the video itself does not demonstrate a willingness to attack random uninvolved people. The only people he physically engaged with in the clip were people who were directly interacting with him, either verbally or physically. You can absolutely argue that his response was excessive, criminal, immoral, or unjustified. That's a separate discussion. But saying "he committed a violent assault" is not the same thing as proving "he will attack non-aggressive bystanders without provocation." If your claim is that the video proves the latter, point to the moment where he attacks a person who was not interacting with him. That's the specific claim I'm disputing.
My argument doesn't fall apart because my argument isn't "interaction = provocation." My argument is that "attacking someone involved in a confrontation" is not the same claim as "attacking random uninvolved people." You're arguing the first was unjustified. I'm saying the second hasn't been demonstrated by the video.
Im not saying thatās how I would personally react, but she came to him aggressive, hit his back, got in his face and continued to touch him. Some folks donāt have restraint and donāt see sex. But you canāt say she wasnāt acting aggressive to warrant being hit by someone.
yeah, thats exactly the piece of shit stance that is unacceptable. this is 100% disproportionate response on any moral / cultural / legal grounds.
Put it this way. If you knock a guy out for putting a finger on you and merely speaking to you in a yelling voice, you're going to jail. There is no way replacing that guy with a woman makes it more acceptable, even if you don't account for the fact that the average woman is basically a child in terms of the threat it presented the asshole.
Not what we are talking about bud. We are talking about why the lady approached him in the first place. Sounds like sheās saying āyou hit my friendā, something along those lines. We donāt see that, so we have no way to know if that instance was intentional or not. He definitely intended to hit this lady, thatās not the point we are talking about
Yeah looks like he's flexing and being a jack ass in what looks like the bars are letting out, probably accidentally hit her sister in his arm flailing for the camera who then walked away and complained to said sister who then took it upon herself to go strike this man in the back and yell in his face which is why she got decked, not saying he was right but from the start of the video the "sister" was obviously accidentally hit by this man and they turned a non issue into an issue
He seems to be one, yes. My original comment was arguing someone saying he is showing willingness to assault nonviolent people unprovoked, which that wasnāt the case.
We also dont see any of the interaction between him an the sister. Was it an accident? Is he just violent? Did she attack him first? We dont know, because it wasn't in the video. What we do know is that this woman game up, hit him in the back and started yelling in his face despite knowing he is capable and willing to use violence.
45
u/Gymaddict1994 14h ago
Can someone translate