110
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ravhall@discuss.online 17 points 2 years ago

Not a smart move, but don’t fuck with people. Those teens need to be locked up.

[-] enbee 22 points 2 years ago

yes. they should be tried for beating the man and looting his car.

whole situation was avoidable. who chases down a gang of hyped up teenagers over littering? one of the kids threw a bottle and now this guy has injuries, severe property damage and a bunch of his possessions stolen. he chose to escalate the situation. don’t escalate. move on with your life. especially if you have all your belongings in your car because you’re moving.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 10 points 2 years ago

There will be no justice. We all need to buy guns.

[-] magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I mean yeah but like because of the crazy shit the heritage foundation is saying, not because of random teenagers.

Either way, that dipshit escalated the situation himself, but if he didn't I don't know that I'd call shooting into an angry mob that's trying to beat your ass "justice." Justified maybe, but not justice. That feels like fuel for those weird dudes who jerk off to r/justiceporn.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 4 points 2 years ago

He got out to yell at some vandals and he got beat. If he could protect himself, the right people would have been punished. The man had his entire life in that car, he was probably not in the best place mentally. Why was that his life? What about him? You seem to be siding with the criminals because the victim wanted to stop a crime.

[-] magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm not saying they where right for beating him, I'm saying getting out of your car and escalating things isn't helping anything.

If a mob comes to beat your ass, potentially to death, and you shoot someone to prevent it, yeah that's justified (and probably should be legally), but it isn't justice. You don't get to be fucking Judge Dredd, and act like self-defense puts you on some moral high-ground. You are not a stand-in for the legal system, which in and of itself is already incredibly flawed.

If you left your car and started shouting at them like a fuckwit before doing so, you might not deserve the beat down but you did kind of earn it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You're not going to accomplish anything by yelling at that crowd other than painting a target on your back.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 2 years ago

I think the stupid game is throwing the bottle.

There are two kinds of people. The ones who blame the bad guy, and the ones who blame the victim for getting mad at the bad guy.

[-] magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Both can be dipshits.

There are lots of kinds of people, for example, you're the sort that fails to see nuance. If you did you wouldn't be putting everything into a right or wrong binary. Talking about 'justice' being when the 'right' people get punished like a fucking child.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 1 points 2 years ago

Nuance. lol. “Maybe if the victim had not spoken up, they wouldn’t get beat.”

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

He got out to yell at some vandals and he got beat. If he could protect himself, the right people would have been punished.

Just so I understand your position: Are you saying justice is served when a plastic bottle is thrown at a car (which caused zero damage) should result in the bottle thrower and those with the bottle thrower being shot (possibly to death)?

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 2 years ago

So you understand justice is served when some guy gets out of the car to yell at you, and you and your friends beat him near death and destroy and steal everything he owns?

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You didn't contradict what I heard you say, so I'll take that as I understood you right.

So you understand justice is served when some guy gets out of the car to yell at you, and you and your friends beat him near death and destroy and steal everything he owns?

No, but I'm glad you're recognizing that there are differences in the level of actions and that can constitute a reasonable response. Keep building on that:

  • Throwing a plastic bottle at a vehicle which results in no damage should NOT result in a vigilante sentence of death.
  • Yelling at someone should NOT result in them being assaulted, their property damaged and stolen.

So how can either of these things be avoided?

  • The bottle thrower could choose to NOT throw the bottle
  • The yeller could choose NOT stop and yell.

Look at that! At the end of the day there's no property damage and no deaths of anyone!

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 1 points 2 years ago

You’re right. It didn’t become an issue until they beat him. And beating someone for yelling at your crime, big or small, should result in them also being beaten.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] enbee 1 points 2 years ago

what crime was he trying to stop? the kids threw a plastic bottle and it hit his car. like oops oh well, move along Mr. Uluu

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 1 points 2 years ago

It’s totally the victim’s fault. Obviously.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

If this guy had been armed, he would likely be dead. And some kid would have a new gun.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] enbee 2 points 2 years ago

have you ever handled a firearm?

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 2 years ago
[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

He escalated by getting out of his car? I agree that was stupid, he should have kept moving and not stopped for lights or stop signs, but it's pretty crazy some cities are at the point where getting out of your vehicle is considered "escalating" and leads to your car being destroyed and being viciously beaten by a group of 40 children.

[-] enbee 2 points 2 years ago

correct. assuming malice from the kids, Mr Uulu got out of the car to confront literal children. this is escalating a trivial incident to a confrontation. over a plastic bottle hitting his car.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I'm just saying it's a sad world when you think the abnormal behavior here is someone getting of their car.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

I think it is unhinged that we allow people to drive tank sized SUVs and pickups in the first place so I don't fault the teens for hating cars.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think it is unhinged that we allow people to drive tank sized SUVs and pickups in the first place so I don't fault the teens for hating cars.

What a colossally dumb take. I'm sure this was totally an anti-car protest gone wrong. 🙄 Putting aside the fact that his car was literally a small sedan, which looks like a Toyota, I would pay good money to watch you go create "solidarity" against cars with this group of kids.

Then there'd be two idiots recovering from a severe beating.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

I would concede that my comment was a tangent, but cars are destroying the planet and could potentially cause the extinction of our species, and yet you think hating excessively oversized cars makes me the dumb one? Interesting.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

He didn't chase anyone down according to the report. He ran away. Or tried to, anyway.

[-] enbee 3 points 2 years ago

“He then drove through the intersection before pulling over and getting out of his car.” he got out of his car to confront them

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
110 points (100.0% liked)

News

36142 readers
3347 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS