It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Three Men Assault Mentally Handicapped Woman

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
for the record: there is no "justification" for an assault. man or woman.

however: there is cause and effect. and if you are of stable-sound mind you can learn the cause from the effect.

if you are not of stable-sound mind then you cannot.

thus making the "victim" a specialized target. i.e "hate crime"

its no different from somebody assaulting a person for something else beyond their ability to control... such as race.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker


remind me again where i justified the beating of anybody?


Again?Okay. One last time. THIS is what YOU said.


maybe she's completely stable and was running her mouth. thats not out of the ordinary to happen when you run your mouth.


Well, it IS out of the ordinary to assault a person. It is even more out of the ordinary for a man to assault a woman. You tried to down play this assault... Oh maybe she was running her mouth?

So what? They assaulted a woman and it was wrong, illegal and immoral.

I will not point out the obvious to you any more. Three times is enough.



i think you need to re-examine the entire issue.

stating a cause is not "justifying". the issue is whether or not she is mentally stable. theres a huge difference between a mentally handicapped person verbally assaulting an individual and then suffering the reaction, than a mentally disabled person, who cannot even comprehend the cause.

show me an assault and battery law that distinguishes a man from a woman.


What are you talking about? This is about an assault....We are talking about two men who filmed and assaulted a woman.

There is no difference as to cause! If some one is assaulted, they are assaulted. Assault is assault and assault is against the law.

If I call you a name and you shoot me. You will be in prison, regardless of me calling you a name or not.



What she may or may not have said has nothing to do with anything. There is no legal cause for assault! Assault is illegal. Period.

You are making no sense.

Now,show you a law that distinguishes a man from a woman?

The only law I am speaking of is The law that makes it illegal to assault people.

Now you know damn well it is wrong to hit women...Do you disagree that it is wrong for a man to hit a woman?

This is what I speak of when I say it is wrong for a man to hit a woman.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker


however: there is cause and effect. and if you are of stable-sound mind you can learn the cause from the effect.


its no different from somebody assaulting a person for something else beyond their ability to control... such as race.


Duh, We agree. Assault is assault is assault!

Here is the thing though. If you shoot me, it is against the law regardless of what I say to you!

If you shoot me or assault me in any way, regardless of what I say to you, it is illegal!


Then there is the morality issue.You just don't hit women. Do you agree? because your words are coming across as you finding it okay to hit women, if they run their mouth.

Have you not noticed yet that you are the only one focusing on the womans mental capacity? Everyone else is focused on the disgusting fact that a woman was assaulted.


It is illegal to assault some one. Period. Cause for the assault,is really irrelevant. Assault is assault.

You know this.
edit on 13-10-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


your being obtuse.

but thats ok. im glad your not a judge.

im also glad we agree that an assault is an assault is an assault. the womans gender has no bearing on the crime that was committed, however if she/he/it is mentally handicapped then it does.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
if the victim in the video were a man then my statement would be exactly the same minus 1 letter of the alphabet



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


your being obtuse.

but thats ok. im glad your not a judge.

im also glad we agree that an assault is an assault is an assault. the womans gender has no bearing on the crime that was committed, however if she/he/it is mentally handicapped then it does.



Obtuse? hey, if finding it wrong to hit a woman is obtuse...than I am obtuse.

I never said it was some how more illegal to for a man to hit a woman. I have said time and time again that it is assault... and frankly her intelligence level does not matter.No matter how much you want it to.

I notice that you have not answered my question. Do you agree it is wrong for a man to hit a woman?

As for me being a judge. Id have you in jail for contempt of court by now, so yes. be glad.


It is morally wrong for a man to hit a woman. Period... I can't help but notice you have not acknowledged that.... Do disagree? Do you think it is okay to hit a woman, in any situation?

What ever you say chief
edit on 13-10-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


in a court of law, the mental stability of the individual will dictate the charges, conviction, and punishment.

not the gender.

did you even watch the video? im certainly not the only one focusing on the (potential) handicap of the woman.

id say that at the very least, the police and news agency are as well.

theres no special assault law catering to women, as much as you'd like there to be.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
if the victim in the video were a man then my statement would be exactly the same minus 1 letter of the alphabet


So regardless of gender or handicap, your answer would be that, they deserve to be assaulted, if they run their mouth.

Duly noted.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker


in a court of law, the mental stability of the individual will dictate the charges, conviction, and punishment.

not the gender.


No, in a court of law, the crime committed will. I have never once said that her gender will... That is your misinterpretation of my moral outrage that a man assaulted a woman.

I have said many times that it has nothing to do with her gender... So quit pretending I have said something else




did you even watch the video? im certainly not the only one focusing on the (potential) handicap of the woman.


Do I really need to clarify my words even further? IN THIS THREAD. everyone is focusing on the fact that a person was assaulted.




theres no special assault law catering to women, as much as you'd like there to be.


Yeah, beacause I have not said several times in this thread that assault is assault and it has nothing to do with Gender.

Thanks for the laugh
edit on 13-10-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


i was toaght never to hit a woman. theres an obvious physical difference between each.

but my personal beliefs are irrelevant when put up against the law of the land.

i adamantly believe that the law should be fair in cases of man vs man, man vs woman, and woman vs woman.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Agreed and will add that I think it's wrong to hit someone twice your age or 'mouthing off' regardless of gender. Surprised anyone would actually take a supportive stance towards these young 'men'.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
[ ] Shocked to see a black male behave this way.
[x] Not shocked to see a black male behave this way.

Flame away.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


in a court of law the womans handicap will most certainly differentiate between regular assault charges or hate crime.

her gender will make no difference.

my original statement that made you so emotionally charged was regarding the CRIME (regular assault/hate crime)

not personal morality.

you'd make a horrible judge. and prosecutor for that matter.
edit on 13-10-2011 by UnrelentingLurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by UnrelentingLurker
 


I'm having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make. Are you in fact saying that someone that runs their mouth should be expecting physical assault?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


i was toaght never to hit a woman. theres an obvious physical difference between each.

but my personal beliefs are irrelevant when put up against the law of the land.

i adamantly believe that the law should be fair in cases of man vs man, man vs woman, and woman vs woman.


So you think that I am asking for harsher punishment because they hit a woman? No... I am not. As I have told you repeatedly. Assault is assault. period. It has nothing to do with gender.

Assault is illegal and it is not some how more illegal if the assault is committed on a woman.

But I find it MORALLY outrageous that these men assaulted a woman.

Glad to hear that you find it morally wrong as well.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


i am saying that it should come as no surprise to somebody running their mouth that they risk being assaulted. regardless of gender or race or anything else.

however someone mentally handicapped would have a hard time understanding that. thus the crime is of higher magnitude to the assaulter, and the assaulter should likewise have no trouble understanding why they get a higher magnitude conviction.

which is why the focus of the story is on her potential mental handicap. not her gender.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Hmm, how many messed up things do we need to see before when can take the politically correct glasses off? I wonder what would be like if they had no one to hold them accountable.



Oh wait---Katrina----Haiti----Africa on a daily bases.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


From a moral standpoint I too find it reprehensible that these men would assault a woman, especially one that appears to be mentally handicapped, and also at least double the age of her attackers. From a legal standpoint, I suppose I agree that they should just be charged with assault and the other crimes committed. Rarely advocate violence, try not to internet tough guy but man I would have loved to be there. Probably would have gotten my butt kicked but at least someone would have stood up and said 'NO'.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


in a court of law the womans handicap will most certainly differentiate between regular assault charges or hate crime.

her gender will make no difference.

my original statement that made you so emotionally charged was regarding the CRIME (regular assault/hate crime)

not personal morality.

you'd make a horrible judge. and prosecutor for that matter.
edit on 13-10-2011 by UnrelentingLurker because: (no reason given)


Yeah, you are right. I would make a horrible Judge. I have morals and use common sense, unlike politicians and the justice system as a whole.


Thanks for that compliment.


Your original statement was that she may have been running her mouth and that it is not uncommon to be get assaulted for running your mouth. If you can't see where people are getting that you are trying to justify what these two men did... Then maybe you should go back and re read your own words a few times.

A woman was assaulted and you posted.... Well, she may have been running her mouth...

Come one... You are intelligent. Surely you can see why people are thinking you were trying to justify it!

As for hate crimes... You are contradicting yourself. So if a person is attacked for being handicapped it is a hate crime...

Well, what is it, if a person is attacked or killed just because of their gender?

You can't have it both ways. Either they are both hate crimes or they are both not....

You choose.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by UnrelentingLurker
 


Ahhh I think I understand your point now. Perhaps I was just not getting it but I thought you were implying that because the woman was mentally handicapped, she would have a higher propensity to mouth of and therefore deserved what she got.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join