[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

I mean that’s great but he did ask for by throwing the first punch. His stupid racist arse violently escalated it.

The stance though is still that if someone "has it coming"/"deserves it"/"is asking for it" then the correct course of action, the morally right thing to do, is to give in to base violent urges and go ahead with throwing punches.

I'm literally never going to agree with that. Violence isn't the right choice, unless yourself or others are at immediate risk, you don't sink to the level of the person you want to attack, you find a better way. It's understandable that people aren't always perfect IN that situation and might lash out - and you can't always condemn those people, but you should never applaud them. It's that simple for me. It literally does not matter what the person has said or done.

Oliver's comparison was a terrible one but I'm going to offer one up that I think is, more or less, an EXACT comparison - but that I imagine people are still not going to like, fair warning.



The people on this thread who are saying that violent action against this racist old man is justified, right and acceptible are the SAME people who have been insisting - again and again, and again and again and again - RIGHTLY I might add - that in cases where black men have been subjected to battery, assault, injury and death by police officers - their past crimes do not matter and are irrelevant, and that excessive force and brutality is never justified.

Can someone please explain to me the double-think that allows you to insist that a man's past as a drug dealer, violent offender and domestic abuser does NOT justify excessive violence being used against him, but an old man saying racist things DOES justify excessive violence?

Again I will reiterate that I absolutely agree with the sentiments on those other threads - nothing justifies brutality, it DOESN'T matter who those men were or what they had done. But you have to apply that thinking across the board, or you are demonstrably a hypocrite, and when you say "what those men had done in the past doesn't matter" in other situations, you have no leg left to stand on. You're here, in this thread, insisting blue-in-the-face that it does matter. That doing bad things justifies unnecessary violent response. Does it or doesn't it? At least make up your mind.

[GiRTh]

Can someone please explain to me the double-think that allows you to insist that a man's past as a drug dealer, violent offender and domestic abuser does NOT justify excessive violence being used against him, but an old man saying racist things DOES justify excessive violence?

Simply, the police officers in such situations are trained to deal with such situations and they actually attempt to justify the use of violence or excessive force. The people in this vid reacted to a belligerent and offensive individual. It is not even close to being the same.,

[Tom4784]

A police officer shooting people to death or paralysis without warning or due process is a world away from a racist private citizen abusing other citizens and attempting to hit them, only for them to retaliate. It should be exceedingly obvious why.

[thesheriff443]

Who on this forum would hit an old man for calling you. Nasty names ??

[arista]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Who on this forum would hit an old man for calling you. Nasty names ??

Yes it's sad
so many are
wanting to punch him.

[Ammi]

...honestly, I really can’t understand this thread at all and some of the things being levelled personally at posters...there is no double think at all so far as I can see...all I mostly see are extensions of thought in a not always black and not always white, type way...I guess as Jack has said earlier...’is.....etc, etc/insert here whatever...ever justified.‘...and that ‘justification’ isn’t and never will be a definitive thing...personally, I still feel that self defence could be in play and then it would be ‘reasonable force’....but I obviously can’t see on the vid clearly enough to feel more sure with that...but whatever the law would say in terms of any black and white...?...those people involved may have been racially abused in such a way again and again and again etc...even when they were children, who knows...it’s just for me all a grey area of ‘justification’ that’s being explored in this thread and sometimes concluded with by some...‘yes, I feel it is, personally I do’...and because it’s very rarely...one size fits all...those people can still look at other violence’s and feel those ones ‘unjustified’ because each thing being looked at the differences of and not just the similarities, type thing...not in a generalisation of anything and everything that involves violence...I just don’t get the thing of ‘ you have make up your mind’ because actually, you don’t ...as a judge in a court of law you might have to more ..?...but even then, I imagine that other considerations are at times, made as well...I also don’t get when police violence is used in the present and at the time it is being used etc...why any past crimes are always relevant in the way that they often are/just thrown in there anyway in media etc....again, maybe there are times when they’re directly relevant to certain actions...but again, not an ‘always’...such ‘power in never and always’ as I said earlier...with all of the events on the bus, they were all happening in the present and not the past...anyways, I just feel as though I’m repeating circles... and I feel as though there is manipulation being used and closing down of a discussion etc...which is never a healthy thing for a discussion topic that deserves much more...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Simply, the police officers in such situations are trained to deal with such situations and they actually attempt to justify the use of violence or excessive force. The people in this vid reacted to a belligerent and offensive individual. It is not even close to being the same.,

Good reason to understand and empathise with why people who are not trained in how to respond to violence might lash out in retaliation. Not reason to applaud or suggest it as the right/correct course of action after the fact. I've already said that I understand why people might lash out in frustration and shouldn't be condemned for it: I entirely agree that police officers being (supposedly) trained professionals means that they should be condemned for resorting to unnecessary violence.

The reasons that the crimes of the "perpetrator" (in this case the old man) are irrelevant when looking at the use of violence are exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

A police officer shooting people to death or paralysis without warning or due process is a world away from a racist private citizen abusing other citizens and attempting to hit them, only for them to retaliate. It should be exceedingly obvious why.

I'm not talking about the ultra-extreme cases where people with their hands on their heads are gunned down, or cases where people who are not guilty of any crime are killed or injured. I'm talking about the use of excessive force against genuine perpetrators. If the police were called to a domestic violence situation and found that a 70 year old man had hit a family member... Had been hitting them regularly for years, even... and they rushed in and hit him in the face with a baton risking a brain bleed when he was no active threat... We would hopefully and rightly be horrified. In fact I know we would because there have been threads very recently where people have brought up the crimes and violent actions of victims of excessive retaliatory violence in the vein of "this guy had it coming", "I have no sympathy" and it has been firmly stated in response that "it doesn't matter - its still wrong".

It is wrong.

The suggestion that we should have higher expectations of police officers in "doing the right thing" than we do of non-officers is fine, I agree with that too. But the difference is in the expectation that they actually do the right thing... Not in what IS the right thing.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I also don’t get when police violence is used in the present and at the time it is being used etc...why any past crimes are always relevant in the way that they often are/just thrown in there anyway in media etc....again, maybe there are times when they’re directly relevant to certain actions...but again, not an ‘always’...such ‘power in never and always’ as I said earlier...with all of the events on the bus, they were all happening in the present and not the past...

Because the conversation moved on from the suggestion that the men were justified because they were acting in self defence (because its ludicrous to suggest that a young adult man needs to defend himself with any real force against a 70 year old) to the idea that it doesn't matter what action was taken because the man is "a bad person", "had it coming", "was asking for it", "should have expected it because of his actions".

Comparing it specifically to, let's say, a domestic violence incident where we know that domestic violence has just occurred (bad person, had it coming) and the unarmed perpetrator (not a realistic threat) is approaching the police when he's been told to stop (should have expected it because of his actions) is then subject to multiple blows to the head from police and ends up in hospital.

Do we think any of those excuses are valid for what they did? Do we say he had it coming because he's a bad person who beat his wife? Do we say he brought it on himself by refusing to comply?

NO, we rightly say "wow there was no need to use that level of force, no matter what he did".

Unless it's an awful old man on a bus

Then we say "Quite right, shame it wasn't worse".

It is double-think and bias, there's no real way around it.

[Ammi]

...’one size fits all’ is not a ‘double think’ mindset..there’s very much an extension of view beyond that as well...things like this are not always all labelled and boxed up nicely ...that would make for no discussion points at all tbh and be the end of all of us discuss type people...


...with respect TS, I feel that the ‘comparisons’ that you use are very often much manipulated into your own mindset, with this...and you’re completely dismissing and excluding things from comparisons that others have expressed they feel are relevant.....with any ‘comparisons’, we look at relatable similarities but we have to offer the same thoughts to ‘differences’....

...anyways I can’t do this today and you have your thought processes and others have theirs...so I’ll just follow the thread as an observer today as much as I’m able to...

[Cherie]

If the old guy presses charges, the guy handy with his fists could end up with a criminal record which will may impact his future forever, the old guy could also be charged, but it wont affect him, he will still get his pension, and ride the bus to Arnos Grove in his suit, so apart from the immediate satisfaction the guy got for trying to knock seven bells out of him, the satisfaction could be short lived

[Liam-]

A police officer assaulting a suspect or a member of the public is a completely different scenario to a stranger starting a fight with someone in public after racially abusing them and you know it, what a bizarre comparison

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Good reason to understand and empathise with why people who are not trained in how to respond to violence might lash out in retaliation.

Isnt that what I've been saying thru out the thread?

Not reason to applaud or suggest it as the right/correct course of action after the fact.

When have I said that? Please point it out.

I've already said that I understand why people might lash out in frustration and shouldn't be condemned for it: I entirely agree that police officers being (supposedly) trained professionals means that they should be condemned for resorting to unnecessary violence.

The reasons that the crimes of the "perpetrator" (in this case the old man) are irrelevant when looking at the use of violence are exactly the same. I'm not talking about the ultra-extreme cases where people with their hands on their heads are gunned down, or cases where people who are not guilty of any crime are killed or injured. I'm talking about the use of excessive force against genuine perpetrators. If the police were called to a domestic violence situation and found that a 70 year old man had hit a family member... Had been hitting them regularly for years, even... and they rushed in and hit him in the face with a baton risking a brain bleed when he was no active threat... We would hopefully and rightly be horrified. In fact I know we would because there have been threads very recently where people have brought up the crimes and violent actions of victims of excessive retaliatory violence in the vein of "this guy had it coming", "I have no sympathy" and it has been firmly stated in response that "it doesn't matter - its still wrong".

It is wrong.

The suggestion that we should have higher expectations of police officers in "doing the right thing" than we do of non-officers is fine, I agree with that too. But the difference is in the expectation that they actually do the right thing... Not in what IS the right thing.

This is hot air. You seem to talk alot without saying anything. Please point out where your views differ from mine.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Okay I take that comment back, it was too extreme of a comparative example, and stupid.

But it's still victim blaming to suggest the old man deserved or was asking for the violence he received.

I wouldn't say it was Victim blaming when he started the aggression/incident. I'm not saying I agree that those two men were justified as such but it was a reaction to something that old guy started.

[Ammi]

...also a consideration of there being two victims with this as well if you like...so not an equivalent from the off..?...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Isnt that what I've been saying thru out the thread?





When have I said that? Please point it out.



This is hot air. You seem to talk alot without saying anything. Please point out where your views differ from mine.

The actions of the people punching back in this thread are not just being empathised with and understood, they are being applauded and encouraged. I don't know if they have been by you, specifically, but trying to argue that it hasn't been the case several times in the thread and from several people is flat out false.

My position is that their actions are unfortunate but understandable, but not to be congratulated or encouraged. Several posts in this thread don't just offer compassion and understanding to the men lashing out - they congratulate and encourage violent retaliation against people who "have it coming".

[thesheriff443]

Look you can dress it up any way you please to try and justify your opinion.

Young fit men should not be beating the sh1t out of old men for being called names no matter how nasty those names.

I’ve experienced extreme violence confrontations and will probably experience more, violence is not the answer and should only be used in protecting yourself and others from violence.

[parmnion]

Poor old bloke looked panicked and confused with all the racket going on around him, not one of us on this forum knows what was said or even the lead up to the start of the clip. We shouldn't be judging anyone really.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The actions of the people punching back in this thread are not just being empathised with and understood, they are being applauded and encouraged. I don't know if they have been by you, specifically, but trying to argue that it hasn't been the case several times in the thread and from several people is flat out false.

When you reply to me I assume you are quoting me. Maybe try to address that in the future.

My position is that their actions are unfortunate but understandable, but not to be congratulated or encouraged. Several posts in this thread don't just offer compassion and understanding to the men lashing out - they congratulate and encourage violent retaliation against people who "have it coming".

Agreed.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Poor old bloke looked panicked and confused with all the racket going on around him, not one of us on this forum knows what was said or even the lead up to the start of the clip. We shouldn't be judging anyone really.

It really doesn't matter what the lead up to it is, if you call a black person a monkey, you're racist

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Poor old bloke looked panicked and confused with all the racket going on around him, not one of us on this forum knows what was said or even the lead up to the start of the clip. We shouldn't be judging anyone really.

I forgot that one. We dont know what was said before. I'lll ad that to the list of excuses. We've had - he had mental health issues - but yet to have - Maybe it was an error of judgement and he was mortified afterwards. Who gonna offer up that excuse?

[GiRTh]

We havent had - He was high or drunk - yet. Whos gonna offer up that excuse?

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It really doesn't matter what the lead up to it is, if you call a black person a monkey, you're racist

What if you are 2 black youths who are berating and attacking an elderly white man...what does that make you?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by parmnion

What if you are 2 black youths who are berating and attacking an elderly white man...what does that make you?

The both sides argument.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

What if you are 2 black youths who are berating and attacking an elderly white man...what does that make you?

Originally Posted by GiRTh

The both sides argument.

.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

The both sides argument.

Isnt that the fairest way.

Considering none of us know very much about this clip.