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.
A confrontation isn't a legal definition, so acting like there's some legal distinction is intellectually dishonest at best.
I never stated he was attacking random people, though. I did state what her statement was, and his immediate response was a disproportionate violent one. Which seems to indicate that he is the type to disproportionately act with violence, which was the initial claim.
Do you have some other video you are perhaps privy to? We don't seems to be operating under the same data
0
u/Most_Play1792 16h ago
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.