Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    No, not all criticism. I suggest you go back and read my original comment. I said that they were idiots and should have been kicked out. In fact I've said several times that the police could and should have been called to deal with them. I am not defending their actions. You just seem to think I am. So well done for completely mis-reading everything I've said so far.

    I have not said they could not be harmful (see my last reply). Anyone could be potentially harmful. But at the time, they were not, again, making threats or assaulting anyone. So he doesn't have any justification for assaulting them.




    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    You cannot compare murder and disorderly conduct. They really aren't comparable as the levels of fear and aggression are clearly different. If you've shot someone, you're clearly willing to use violence. They haven't shown an indication that they're potentially violent in this scenario.


    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    He was not defending himself, and the woman in question does not appear to be in anyway a threat. A messy, drunken (hopefully) idiot, but not a threat. What crime is he preventing? To prevent a crime, it must be before the crime has happened. For example, I tackle a man waving a knife at a woman to the floor.

    Disorderly conduct is simply not a serious enough offence to warrant using physical aggression on another person.


    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And defending people and himself is most "definately" not an assault.
    Who is he defending? She hasn't threatened or made any attempt to hurt anyone.


    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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).
    No, she is not. She is not committing an assault as for an assault, her words would have to be a threat, some sort of comment as to put the recipient in fear of violence, etc. Not some comment about her tits. That's not an assault, neither is moving towards them over the counter.


    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    If your notion that every unsolicited touch were an assault, there'd be no such thing as bouncers :facepalm: 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.
    Actually, they are not allowed to assault anyone. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...liability.html

    I'm not saying every single touch is an assault. But this is. It's not an assault, he physically grabbed her and forcefully moved her. That's not just an innocent brush.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    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.
    See, I think you're wrong. Not about the fact that it has become culture (I've seen enough cities on a saturday night ), but about the fact that the country as a whole has degraded.

    Society has always had a seedy side. If anything it was far worse during the hundreds of years of sexual repression, when there were massive problems with 'gentlemen of society' visiting prostitutes. The homicide rate seems to have dropped as well, although that could be down to modern medicine. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/h...lent-crime.pdf. Obviously you wouldn't get young women like those two behaving like that so openly, but there were plenty of murky underworld places. Britain still has as much culture as it always did, it's just that the less cultured parts have become more acceptable.

    Sorry - that wasn't all aimed at you! It's just something I'm interested in (though by no means an expert). I don't personally think society is entering an unprecedented moral and cultural decline. If anything the opposite - most those 'chavs' can read and write, for example.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    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.

    And still like i said - It doesnt matter if there's a whole world of defences available to him he still committed the offence which is what we were saying, we didn't say he'd be convicted of it did we? we simply said he did it. which he did.

    And again, please show me my feverish protection of white girls committing crimes.
    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. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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. :rolleyes:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    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.
    Given that your defence of these people is inherently much more arbitrarily fierce than that of anybody else who'd commit such a crime, the only logical conclusion is that you have a double standard.

    No, not all criticism. I suggest you go back and read my original comment. I said that they were idiots and should have been kicked out. In fact I've said several times that the police could and should have been called to deal with them. I am not defending their actions. You just seem to think I am. So well done for completely mis-reading everything I've said so far.

    I have not said they could not be harmful (see my last reply). Anyone could be potentially harmful. But at the time, they were not, again, making threats or assaulting anyone. So he doesn't have any justification for assaulting them.
    As indicated from even your own definitions of assault, jumping the counter, advancing toward the staff, whilst exposing herself and making lewd comments whilst drunk and disorderly after having trashed the place, is assault. It is reasonable to prevent the harm someone of that tendency could create.


    You cannot compare murder and disorderly conduct. They really aren't comparable as the levels of fear and aggression are clearly different. If you've shot someone, you're clearly willing to use violence. They haven't shown an indication that they're potentially violent in this scenario.
    I was using the comparison as a matter of principle. The indication that they're harmful and capable of causing harm to the innocent is in the fact that she is committing assault by mounting the counter and advancing toward the staff.

    He was not defending himself, and the woman in question does not appear to be in anyway a threat. A messy, drunken (hopefully) idiot, but not a threat. What crime is he preventing? To prevent a crime, it must be before the crime has happened. For example, I tackle a man waving a knife at a woman to the floor.
    She has already committed a crime by being drunk and disorderly and by attempting to slide over the counter whilst exposing herself (before being stopped) the crime he is preventing is further assault to staff members.

    Disorderly conduct is simply not a serious enough offence to warrant using physical aggression on another person.
    Incorrect. If this were correct (why you're equating touching someone to "physical aggression" is beyond me) bouncers wouldn't exist. It is illegal to behave in this way in a public space and that is why it is perfectly acceptable to remove these people by force. That's why drunken 'lads' who (like these ladies) can't control themselves, are ejected forcibly from nightclubs - to protect those around them.



    Who is he defending? She hasn't threatened or made any attempt to hurt anyone.
    I've already covered this above.


    No, she is not. She is not committing an assault as for an assault, her words would have to be a threat, some sort of comment as to put the recipient in fear of violence, etc. Not some comment about her tits. That's not an assault, neither is moving towards them over the counter.
    Mounting a clear separation that customers are not supposed to circumvent whilst drunk and disorderly is a violation of personal space in the same way I wouldn't expect someone to claim its legal to swing their arms around and run towards me.


    Actually, they are not allowed to assault anyone. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...liability.html

    I'm not saying every single touch is an assault. But this is. It's not an assault, he physically grabbed her and forcefully moved her. That's not just an innocent brush.
    They aren't allowed to assault people, I agree. But protecting the public from potential harm caused by the drunk and disorderly within a public space is a reasonable form of defence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    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.
    Ah, lovely bit of sexism here :rolleyes: How could she possibly be guilty of unwanted advances, she's female! :rolleyes:

    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 mount the divider and start sliding towards me. That **** 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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    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.
    It was not battery for the same reason that apprehending someone guilty of a crime for the purposes of defence isn't battery.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    That ****
    Wait shut the **** up a second. What's going on with the swear filter?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Wait shut the **** up a second. What's going on with the swear filter?
    Lol. Hang on, I want to try this out...

    **** balls mother****er in my ass ***** **** **** *****y balls..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Wait shut the **** up a second. What's going on with the swear filter?
    :eek: shhh dont tell anyone! they might not realise and then it cant be fixed
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Lol. Hang on, I want to try this out...

    **** balls mother****er in my ass ***** **** **** *****y balls..
    That was a pretty impressive sentence if you dont mind my saying...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Those girls were acting like absolute *****
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    It was not battery for the same reason that apprehending someone guilty of a crime for the purposes of defence isn't battery.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So to conclude, a bunch of annoying *****es and the guy who touched them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Ah, lovely bit of sexism here :rolleyes: How could she possibly be guilty of unwanted advances, she's female! :rolleyes:

    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 **** 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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    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.
    You're either guilty of a crime or not. There's no such thing as being "innocent of a crime".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    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.
    The presumption of "non-threatening/non-violent" is clearly only relative to the propensity of someone in her condition to commit a crime after having mounted a barrier whilst drunk and disorderly. As far as I'm concerned, her being female makes no difference to that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    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.

    Of course a s.39 batter wouldn't get a jury but my point still stand, maybe they do it differently in Australia.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    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.
    It appears we're arguing semantics, but regardless if they were found not guilty of said crimes or had the charges dropped, then they did not commit the crime.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.