Stop acting like sluts

Your feverish and almost obsessive defence of their criminal behaviour leads me to believe you have a double standard that just isn't evident in egalitarian society.

It's an inference I'm making because, as I've said above, you appear to have an inherent desire to protect these females from any/all criticism and notably from the idea that they could be harmful to anyone.

I already shot some guy in the head, the crime has been committed therefore apprehending the gunman wouldn't be preventing a crime". Yeah, this rationale really doesn't hold up.

In any case, disorderly conduct was clearly on going they were mounting the table and making an advance toward the staff when he'd stepped in.

And defending people and himself is most "definately" not an assault.

They are (ironically by your own definition) committing an assault against the staff-workers of which whom she is sliding herself towards whilst exposing herself and making lewd comments about her breasts (early in the video).

If your notion that every unsolicited touch were an assault, there'd be no such thing as bouncers Bouncers are allowed to do what they do, despite not being officers of the law, because they are keeping a public establishment free from people committing the crime of being drunk and disorderly.

This is British Culture now. It's not acceptable as a culture, but you have to accept it, because this is what it is. Look at all the pictures of Chav's you see. That is culture now. A shoddy excuse for it mind.

She didn't really rhough did she..she climbed the counter there was no reason to assume she was going to harm anyone, you have to have reasonable grounds for believing there was immediate (or at leadt imminent) threat of harm, she was a good few meters away from the the nearest person. She was being a drunk and disorderly pain in the backside, not a threat.

First she touches the man to the right of her on his lower back, she then mounts the counter - sliding herself towards the staff member who is less than a metre from her whilst exposing herself to him and making a lewd comment about her breasts.



Except I don't accept that he's committing an offence if its an act of preventative defence from someone who's being drunk and disorderly and posing a threat.

Your feverish protection of white girls is pretty self-evident is it not given that your inferences immediately and repeatedly point the idea that she can't possibly be capable of committing a crime worth defending against.

And she, by deciding to mount the separation between customer and staff whilst drunk and disorderly after having recklessly trashed the place, poses a threat of harm.

So you've just made up my supposed prejudice then. I don't have a double standard, I'd be saying the exact same thing if they were anyone else.

Thank god this hero was there to apprehend this dangerous and violent woman. Who knows what she would have done to that cashier. She could have flirted him to death, or worse, friendzoned him. I'm sure the staff were unspeakably grateful to this man for escalating the situation from 'flirty drunk girl on the counter' to a loud physical conflict. He deserves free Big Macs for life for this dashing act of heroism.

he intentionally touched her without her permission, it was not an ordinary jostling of day to day life and thus was a battery.

Where did i even suggest she can't possibly be capable of committing a crime worth defending against? where have i mentioned ANYTHING about them being white? You're arguments are laughable. I havent defended her actions i said -she wasnt being a slut and he committed an offence.

That shit

Wait shut the fuck up a second. What's going on with the swear filter?

Wait shut the fuck up a second. What's going on with the swear filter?

Lol. Hang on, I want to try this out...

Shit balls motherfucker in my ass bitch cunt fuck shitty balls..

It was not battery for the same reason that apprehending someone guilty of a crime for the purposes of defence isn't battery.

Ah, lovely bit of sexism here How could she possibly be guilty of unwanted advances, she's female!

As someone who's worked in multiple establishments that involve a counter, and drunk people on the other side - at no point do I consider it acceptable for drunk people of either gender to mound the counter and start sliding towards me. That shit is not okay, regardless of whether you're male or female, and the notion that the latter is acceptable but not the former, is a ridiculous and discriminatory double standard.

It would be. they just wouldnt be convicted of it. that's what i've been trying to say. having a defence doesnt go back in time and stop it ever happening it just means you wont be convicted for it.

Anyway, where was I. I never said her advances weren't unwanted I just implied they were non-violent and non-threatening and I personally think the man overreacted. In the end it was a needless escalation and a needless use of physical force that ultimately failed to get the girls any closer to leaving or cleaning up.

You're either guilty of a crime or not. There's no such thing as being "innocent of a crime".

do you know what a perverse verdict it? it means that a jury can acquit (find someone not guilty) of a crime even though every bit of evidence would suggest otherwise.
R V ponting - the defendant was in fact and law guilty under the official secrets act, the jury knew this, the judge even told them that he was guilty, they still acquitted because a conviction was not in the public interest. Doesnt mean he didnt do it, simply means he wasn't convicted of it.

Another case a man was acquitted after growing and supplying cannabis to his sick wife to help relieve her symptoms, he was in law and fact guilty, jury acquitted, he still grew and supplied cannabis which is illegal, he just wasn't convicted of it.

there a fair few cases of people committing crimes and simply being acquitted, doesnt mean they didnt do it.