Post: #101

Instead of making fun of its powers, bitch shoulda consulted the 8 ball.

"If I try to punk this guy, will I get the taste slapped out my mouth?"

Post: #102

(11-09-2014 01:35 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  This girl though...





Nice smile

Too ghetto/10 WNB

Post: #103

(11-09-2014 03:09 PM)Sturmgeist Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:35 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  This girl though...





Nice smile

Too ghetto/10 WNB

she is.

but I would bang her.

Post: #104

And by the way, newbies, this is how you title a thread:

Quote:Girl talks shit on an NYC subway. Gets slapped back to the future

8/10 Would Re-Read Thread.

Post: #105

(11-09-2014 04:23 PM)Truckn Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 03:09 PM)Sturmgeist Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:35 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  This girl though...





Nice smile

Too ghetto/10 WNB

she is.

but I would bang her.

I find her attractive, but the bullshit that come with her isn't.

I vote WNB. Give a classy light skinned black woman instead.

Post: #106

After watching someone verbally abuse and slap a stranger without provocation, and then getting the disrespect slapped out of them, I'm well and truly like:



Justice has been done.

Post: #107

I must say, though, that the only thing I didn't like about this video is that the slap was little blasphemous. One should always speak the Pimp's Prayer before situating a ho back in her proper place.

Post: #108

[quote='Truck'n' pid='874742' dateline='1415568238']





WB too - she is cute and even starts to smile because the guy holding the phone probably smiles at her too. Poor confused thing just needs a guy to slap her lovingly from time to time.

Post: #109

(11-09-2014 06:17 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  And by the way, newbies, this is how you title a thread:

Quote:Girl talks shit on an NYC subway. Gets slapped back to the future

8/10 Would Re-Read Thread.

I know this is a little off-topic, but I'm pretty sure the guy with the 8-ball jacket would be on team no appetizers.

Post: #110

Delete

Post: #111

^^ Thought it would go on longer, and that the rings would bounce all over.
Needs more sound effects as well.

Hmm, maybe I can try my hand at animating a gif out of that.

Post: #112

Guile's theme really does go with everything.

Post: #113

Can someone mix in some sonic booms also?

Post: #114

I don't suppose this video is enough to get that guy in trouble, but does anybody have a better answer? (Secondary question: if he could be identified, would it be worth NYPD's time?) Any legal experts?

Post: #115

(11-09-2014 01:58 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  The guy single (pimp) handedly made the 8 Ball jacket cool again.

$100 on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/VTG-Phase-2-Eigh...3cebcc603e

And this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Michael-Hoban-WH...3f40532016

"Seinfeld David Puddy coat"

Post: #116

(11-09-2014 10:01 PM)Grange Wrote:  I don't suppose this video is enough to get that guy in trouble, but does anybody have a better answer? (Secondary question: if he could be identified, would it be worth NYPD's time?) Any legal experts?

In theory, the video is enough to get him in trouble, but I doubt anything will happen with it. Video evidence, like all evidence, must be properly authenticated. If the person from whose phone the video was taken were to show up in court and testify that the video is a correct and accurate depiction of what he observed on that date and time and at that place, the video could be admitted into evidence.

What the guy did was a crime. At common law, it was called battery, which is a harmful or offensive touching. Under modern statutes, it is generally a misdemeanor, either assault, battery, or both.

First off, they would have to find out who this guy is in order to charge him. They would then have to find out who the girl is and summons her to appear as a witness. Even with a properly authenticated video admitted into evidence, they would probably have to have the testimony of the girl in order to prove that the contact was either harmful or offensive. The case law and statutes I have reviewed were not extremely clear on the point of being to prove such a case without the testimony of the victim, but in my experience, it is extremely difficult. I'm 2-0 in trials were they were trying to prove assault and/or battery without the testimony of the alleged victim. If they were able to locate both the 8-ball guy and the girl, the girl would likely want to pursue charges. They could still proceed with the case regardless of whether the video would be admissible. One potential problem for the prosecution would be that if the girl had any impeachable prior convictions, they may have trouble calling her as a witness.

The same goes for the white knight with whom the 8-ball guy got into a fight. The 8-ball guy can't claim self defense, because he was the initial aggressor in the fight with the girl. If the white knight were charged (highly unlikely), he could claim that he came to the defense of the girl and would probably get off. I really don't know if he caused any harm to the 8-ball guy anyway.

Post: #117

^^ Didn't she swing at him with her shoes first? Wasn't it self-defense? Or at least be argued that way?

Post: #118

(11-09-2014 10:41 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  ^^ Didn't she swing at him with her shoes? Wasn't it self-defense? Or at least be argued that way?

I don't think so, but I'll watch it again.

Post: #119

(11-09-2014 10:42 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 10:41 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  ^^ Didn't she swing at him with her shoes? Wasn't it self-defense? Or at least be argued that way?

I don't think so, but I'll watch it again.

He calls her a bitch and she flips out. Check at the one minute mark, the 1:05 mark is when she swings her shoes.

Post: #120

(11-09-2014 10:43 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 10:42 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 10:41 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  ^^ Didn't she swing at him with her shoes? Wasn't it self-defense? Or at least be argued that way?

I don't think so, but I'll watch it again.

He calls her a bitch and she flips out. Check at the one minute mark, the 1:05 mark is when she swings her shoes.

It's a close call actually. She swings her shoes at him. He then turns around and smacks her. The standard for self defense where I am is that there is a burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the three factors do not apply: 1) That the Defendant honestly believed that he was in danger of imminent serious bodily harm. 2) That the Defendant's belief was reasonable. 3) That the Defendant did not use any more force than was reasonably necessary in light of the actual or threatened harm.

If the guy were to testify that he was in fear of imminent serious bodily harm, that would probably satisfy the first prong, which is subjective. Nobody really knows what was going inside of his head. As far as the third prong goes, he smacked her once, so I think it would be pretty difficult to argue that that was excessive. If he repeatedly punched her or kicked her when she was down or something, it would likely be excessive. The second prong is where it gets a little tricky. She is much smaller than him, and although she is insulting him, I don't think she actually verbally threatened him with any harm (correct me if I'm wrong). She did however swing her shoes at him and stood right in front of him after she did so. It is basically a question of fact was to whether it is reasonable for a guy to fear a much smaller girl who swings her shoes at him and stands in front of him. As I said, it's a close call. It would depend on the judge or jury and how each one of them comes across.

Post: #121

"whether it is reasonable for a guy to fear a much smaller girl who swings her shoes at him "

I'd argue that, to NOT fear a woman, of any size, swinging at you, would be a sexist behavior per se, a blatant show of sexist disrespect.

Then I'd read the jury this:

http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-08-07/woma...y-weapons/


In January, a stripper was charged with aggravated assault when she allegedy beat her co-worker in the face and head with the sharp heel of her shoe.
In February, a 22 year old woman was arrested for brutally attacking two other women outside a bar in the UK with her stiletto.
In June, two men were attacked in separate incidents by a woman wielding a sharp-pointed heel in a bustling town center. Both were sent to the hospital with serious head and eye injuries.
In July there two stiletto attacks: One involved a male British soccer player who got into a brawl over his girlfriend and borrowed a woman’s stiletto heel to slice his nemesis’ scalp.

The second random act of shoe violence happened last month at an McDonald’s drive-thru in Ohio. A 35-year-old man spotted a woman being beaten in her car in the line ahead of him. When he got out to help her, four women nearby mistook him for an attacker and clubbed him repeatedly. One woman took off her high heel and gouged his eye with it. He’s expected to have permanent damage to his vision as a result.

With a tally of five assaults and one murder in the past year alone, the stiletto heel is looking less like a fashion statement and more like a deadly weapon. And in some states, it technically is.

...writes L.A. criminal defense Attorney Stephen Rodriguez on his ‘Legal Dictionary’ website : “Consequently, cars, broken bottles, rocks, even the heel of a stiletto can qualify as a deadly weapon if it has been used to intentionally injure the victim.”

Post: #122

Wow this forum is too hillarious. I've been laughing my ass off reading this thread. RVF tackles everything so eloquently. My vote for video of the year 2014.

The dude with the black hat who steps in really helped... he pulled the girls off him while he got the white knight one on one. Got em to step away and basically officiated the whole fight.

Post: #123

Just saw this on twitter, Same video but he knocks the sonic rings out of her

https://vine.co/v/OeLJYbQMxp1

Post: #124

(11-09-2014 01:43 PM)CRR Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:31 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 01:06 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

(11-09-2014 10:34 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Reminds me of this:

What's even better is that he got cleared of all charges by a jury

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...women.html

While the bitches involved, a lesbian couple, had to accept a plea deal to avoid jail.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/wome...-1.1157596

I was very happy to see this guy acquitted of the bullshit "felony" charges against him. It was clearly self-defense. Those women leaped over the counter to pursue him, and he absolutely had reason to believe he was in imminent danger of bodily harm. They got what they deserved.

Just so pathetic how the media tried to spin this as "him" being the aggressor.

B-b-b-b-ut I heard a black man in Harlem told a white woman (who for some reason was walking through the neighborhood, while filming, while wearing tight clothing) "good morning"!!!

To the Social Victimization Mobile!

EDIT: Is it wrong that I kinda wanted him to hit the fat whale yelling "STOP"? Her tone and manner only escalates the situation.

NOPE

That woman was participating in the original form of concern trolling. her "OH MY GOD STAAHHHHP!" was about instigating and escalating. If it were a man vs. man brawl, she likely would have simply ran out. I assume that she was worked up over the fact that a man fought back against two women.

Post: #125

WB all 3 hoodrats if of legal age.