|
|
Post by Browning35 on Dec 10, 2013 3:49:53 GMT
Holy hell, I think I heard his nose disintegrate with that foot to the face. It seemed like the guy filming was that assailant's cohort (he clearly knew it was about to happen, saying "let's go let's go let's go")...someone should have kicked his ass too. Yeah, he knew what was up. Loved how it went from all excited ' Let's go, let's go, let's go' to ' Oh my God' once dude started getting stomped. It's all fun and games til then. Should have kept kicking the guy in the head a few more times. Fuck that guy who didn't know what was going on and wanted to break it up. Yeah, the myth continues. |
|
|
|
Post by nxp on Dec 12, 2013 19:38:30 GMT
Boom - Headshot!
In all seriousness - yay that karma appeared as a nemesis (for definition, I refer to Bricktop's monologue in Snatch), but when being the White Knight you need to be cognizant that you may become the perceived attacker and the BG the victim. Especially when placing blows on the downed attacker and yelling.
Good that he led with the foot, should have followed with a knee to pin, remove the victim, and left a quiet parting gift (weight and twist) to separate and clear.
JMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Dec 13, 2013 5:07:22 GMT
Good analysis.
Bet that lady broke her hand on the back of his head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Dec 26, 2013 23:15:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Dec 27, 2013 1:50:00 GMT
Ironic how it wasn't a hate crime for the longest time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Dec 27, 2013 2:00:04 GMT
It's just a hate crime in this case because the coward that hit that old man is White, he used a racial slur in the video and the old man is Black.
In all the cases before this where the offender(s) were Black, they used a shitload of racial slurs and the victim White magically no hate crime charges applied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Dec 31, 2013 12:48:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Jan 1, 2014 19:11:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 1, 2014 19:56:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Jan 1, 2014 22:08:06 GMT
"The four black female suspects were arrested."
Well thank god for this, at least. I hope they throw the book at these attackers HARD. I wonder if they'll charge them with a hate crime?
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 1, 2014 23:48:53 GMT
I seriously doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 9, 2014 3:48:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Jan 9, 2014 5:33:04 GMT
I suppose it was only a matter of time. We had a string of similar incidents in the same area back in 2009 (26 incidents), and though 32 people were arrested during the investigation, I'm sure there are plenty other like-minded individuals still roaming around those areas. Here's to hoping this was mainly the result of alcohol, the holiday, and a new (hopefully short-lived) trend. Otherwise, here's to hoping the next person to try this gets shot. |
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 9, 2014 15:57:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Jan 10, 2014 1:49:15 GMT
Yep, those are the ones. And like the most current wave of knockout attacks, these too seemed to target easy prey:
"Several of the 35 young male and female suspects arrested by police recently said the gangs often targeted lone white and Hispanic men because they didn't "fight back" and they had money, iPods and other valuable gadgets that attackers coveted."
You know, this whole knockout game nonsense got me thinking about a legal quandry. Where do you think the law would stand on, say, wondering the identified areas (legally armed)...not provoking anything, not breaking any laws, just minding your own business....essentially waiting for someone to attack you. Would that be illegal (lol)? I mean, on the surface it does seem wrong for some reason, but where do we draw the line between "baiting" an attack and simply being there?
Could a victim of an attack really be charged with a crime because they "should have known" they would have been (illegally) assaulted? That seems like twisted logic to me, but then again, I could see a case being made because of "intent" or something. But then AGAIN, couldn't the very act of buying a gun for the purpose of self defense (or getting a CCW permit) be considered "premeditated self defense" should you ever have to defend yourself? I mean, is not knowing the attack is coming a requisite for self-defense?
Not that I'd do this or anything (I have a little one on the way), but just out of intellectual curiosity...where would the law stand?
|
|
