refugees beaten in Russia after molesting women in nightclub

This kind of/sorta reminds me of the story of how a purse snatcher grabbed a ladies purse and ran into two Marines who witnessed the theft.

The Police report read: He received a bloody nose, a couple of cracked ribs and scuff marks on his arm from tripping and falling on the sidewalk Repeatedly.....

Good for Mother Russia!!!

a reply to: asen_y2k

Sometimes violence is the most appropriate and immediate answer to resolve a situation. If it stops somebody innocent being victimised it's justified imo.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: asen_y2k
But in a civilized society is violence the answer to violence? Then whats the difference between them both?

One type of violence was for sexual gratification and the following violence was to teach the lesson that assaulting women-folk will not be accepted but met head on whenever confronted.

Well, you see, there are laws for some reason, without them a society is no different from barbarism of old ages. Civilized means law abiding. When one section breaks laws, does not mean others should follow. Its like saying when a cat meows in front of you, you respond by barking at it. Why stoop down to the lower sections of society?

a reply to: Destinyone

Oh, I'd guess "chivalry" has indeed been PC'd out of any US male under the age of 40. But hey, we're all equal now. Now US women are going to be required to sign up for selective service............so I figure most US men figure you people can take care of yourselves.

originally posted by: asen_y2k
But in a civilized society is violence the answer to violence? Then whats the difference between them both?

I really hope you're just playing devils advocate here.

If someone is going to molest someone in public, the rape isn't far behind & rapists deserve nothing but a quick death.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
a reply to: asen_y2k

Sometimes violence is the most appropriate and immediate answer to resolve a situation. If it stops somebody innocent being victimised it's justified imo.

And when its taken further? Once law breaking is encouraged like done here, it will be carried on. Targets will change. We should learn the lesson of our pasts.

a reply to: asen_y2k

In other words, you would have stood there and watched a woman be sexually assaulted without saying a word.

a reply to: asen_y2k

The analogy you use about cats & dogs has lead me to conclude that you have no idea what you're actually talking about. Please never try to defend another person if you can help it, I'm sure God will love you anyways.

originally posted by: Esoterotica

originally posted by: asen_y2k
But in a civilized society is violence the answer to violence? Then whats the difference between them both?

I really hope you're just playing devils advocate here.

If someone is going to molest someone in public, the rape isn't far behind & rapists deserve nothing but a quick death.

When someone molests somebody in public, its the polices duty to do something. Let the law of the land take its course, I am pretty sure the Russians at the bar had no law degree or course in law enforcement. If you want death sentence, just pressure your government to change the laws. Then if someone is caught, proven in court, and executed, I will have nothing against it.

What you are suggesting, is letting a drunk group be judge jury and executioner on the streets.

a reply to: asen_y2k

Stopping a sexual assult occurring right in front of you is fine, you can identify the guilty party and know you're doing something helpful. I'd be happy to pay whatever legal or karmic consequences that result from it.

Forming a vigilante mob after the fact then going after anybody because they fit a demographic without caring whether they're guilty or not is something else entirely.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: asen_y2k

In other words, you would have stood there and watched a woman be sexually assaulted without saying a word.

I would have called the cops, informed the boxers at the bar/club. Its their job to handle situations like these. They are there for a reason.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
I believe the reaction here in the states would be the same as well. And in some cases, the women will just shoot them with their concealed carry and be justified in doing so.

No, it wouldn't. If you look cross-eyed at a refugee you will be charged with a hate crime.

originally posted by: asen_y2k

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: asen_y2k
But in a civilized society is violence the answer to violence? Then whats the difference between them both?

One type of violence was for sexual gratification and the following violence was to teach the lesson that assaulting women-folk will not be accepted but met head on whenever confronted.

Well, you see, there are laws for some reason, without them a society is no different from barbarism of old ages. Civilized means law abiding. When one section breaks laws, does not mean others should follow. Its like saying when a cat meows in front of you, you respond by barking at it. Why stoop down to the lower sections of society?

I usually agree with you, asen... A lot...

But when sexual aggression/violence comes into it all bets are off and the Law has no say in the matter until after the fact.

What about the women who are beaten, sexually assaulted, and sold into the slave trade every day? Seventy percent of married women in Russia have been assaulted by their husband and the police are little to no help.

I think this nightclub issue is more a reaction to the migrants being the ones doing the sexual assault than The Russian men's sense of chivalry.

a reply to: asen_y2k

Law-abiding does not entail pacifism, especially when the rights of others are being violated.

a reply to: asen_y2k

I'm curious, but if you saw someone abducting a baby from a shopping cart, would you remain reticent?

Good lord you see yourself as impotent? And what about situation ethics?

I'm a woman, and I'm braver than you are.

*But I don't believe you. I don't think you are a coward or impotent. I bet you would surprise yourself if you were ever in that situation. I mean, you see a baby falling from a window, you hold out your arms to catch it. There are no thought processes.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: asen_y2k

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: asen_y2k
But in a civilized society is violence the answer to violence? Then whats the difference between them both?

One type of violence was for sexual gratification and the following violence was to teach the lesson that assaulting women-folk will not be accepted but met head on whenever confronted.

Well, you see, there are laws for some reason, without them a society is no different from barbarism of old ages. Civilized means law abiding. When one section breaks laws, does not mean others should follow. Its like saying when a cat meows in front of you, you respond by barking at it. Why stoop down to the lower sections of society?

I usually agree with you, asen... A lot...

But when sexual aggression/violence comes into it all bets are off and the Law has no say in the matter until after the fact.

Ok, consder this. A guy and girl who are friends, gets into a arguement in the bar over some petty matter, a drunk guy sitting beside them, summararily decides it is a case of harrasment, forms a group, beats the # out of him, just for the sake of false bravado, even kills him, then what? I repeat, there are laws in our society for a reason. Put a charge, prove it, convict. 1000s of years have taught us these laws, they did not form overnight.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: asen_y2k

Law-abiding does not entail pacifism, especially when the rights of others are being violated.

Law abiding, does not means, vigilantism also. What if muslims forms vililanty groups in a western country? Vigilantism in all forms is moving backwards in time.

In this case, boxers should have detained these fellows till the police arrived, taken notes, video cam evidence and put these groppers in prison, where they belong. Thats a Law abiding, civilized society.

originally posted by: asen_y2k

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: asen_y2k

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: asen_y2k
But in a civilized society is violence the answer to violence? Then whats the difference between them both?

One type of violence was for sexual gratification and the following violence was to teach the lesson that assaulting women-folk will not be accepted but met head on whenever confronted.

Well, you see, there are laws for some reason, without them a society is no different from barbarism of old ages. Civilized means law abiding. When one section breaks laws, does not mean others should follow. Its like saying when a cat meows in front of you, you respond by barking at it. Why stoop down to the lower sections of society?

I usually agree with you, asen... A lot...

But when sexual aggression/violence comes into it all bets are off and the Law has no say in the matter until after the fact.

Ok, consder this. A guy and girl who are friends, gets into a arguement in the bar over some petty matter, a drunk guy sitting beside them, summararily decides it is a case of harrasment, forms a group, beats the # out of him, just for the sake of false bravado, even kills him, then what? I repeat, there are laws in our society for a reason. Put a charge, prove it, convict. 1000s of years have taught us these laws, they did not form overnight.

I'm failing to see where in your hypothetical there is an example of reacting to sexual assault.

I stay out of domestics. Personally.

If I see sexual assault you can bet your bottom dollar I'm reacting to it though.

In America...

We would of blamed our women.

We would jail our local men.

We would protest The Police by looting and burning down our own neighborhood.

We would provide housing for these immigrants.

We would immediately put them on Public Assistance.

Tell me I'm wrong..