i beat up a gay loser today

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
And that's the disagreement. I do not believe h2o reacted legitimately. And since it is my opinion that's in question here, that settles that.

[/b]Right, so in this case I can only go on my limited information. H2o violated the law. He bragged about it. He was very proud of himself. That's all I need to know. And furthermore, if a friend of mine did the same, I'd turn him in. There is no unfair bias in play here.

If the offense, the law and the evidence was the same as in this case, I would turn my friend in. You have very effectively confirmed for me that I have made the correct decision. Thanks. [/B]

So what would be a legitimate act here gio?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Allow me to clarify.

What would be a legitimate reason for your friend to beat up a homo in a bathroom stall?

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
No, the law is legitimate if it APPLIES to both. If it applied only to women, it would be flawed. It has to apply to both.

I've seen no evidence that it would not apply to a woman if a woman had gone into her test, thought about the situation for a while, lied to her proctor, gone back to the restroom, made a terrorist threat, vandalized property, assaulted a person for being a "homo", punched a guy in the face, kneed him in the face, and chased him down and assaulted him again.

Show me a woman who has done this who has not been charged.

In the meantime, I believe the law is perfectly just. You don't. So I will turn him in, and you won't, and everybody will be happy.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
What would be a legitimate reason for your friend to beat up a homo in a bathroom stall?

Same as the legimate reason for beating up anyone. Self defense or the defense of others. It should certainly have nothing to do with the person's sexual orientation.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
I've seen no evidence that it would not apply to a woman if a woman had gone into her test, thought about the situation for a while, lied to her proctor, gone back to the restroom, made a terrorist threat, vandalized property, assaulted a person for being a "homo", punched a guy in the face, kneed him in the face, and chased him down and assaulted him again.

Show me a woman who has done this who has not been charged.

In the meantime, I believe the law is perfectly just. You don't. So I will turn him in, and you won't, and everybody will be happy.

Just because a law has no precedent of error does not make it correct! All it takes is one flawed ruling, and a set of appeals to completly change the law. That's why Supreme Courts exist.

If a woman did the same, you'd have protestors saying how she didn't react initially because she was in shock and afraid, then returned to beat up the guy so she'd prevent him from doing the same to other women, and how's she's a hero.

Whereas with a guy, he'd get thrown in the slammer. Save me the bs.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Same as the legimate reason for beating up anyone. Self defense or the defense of others. It should certainly have nothing to do with the person's sexual orientation.

Ok, self-defense from what? Bodily harm? Psychological harm?

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
Just because a law has no precedent of error does not make it correct! All it takes is one flawed ruling, and a set of appeals to completly change the law. That's why Supreme Courts exist.

If a woman did the same, you'd have protestors saying how she didn't react initially because she was in shock and afraid, then returned to beat up the guy so she'd prevent him from doing the same to other women, and how's she's a hero.

Whereas with a guy, he'd get thrown in the slammer. Save me the bs.

I have no way of knowing this unless it happens. In the meantime, I am not going to disregard a law just because you *THINK* that it *MIGHT* not be fairly applied in all circumstances. And if one of the girls from this site comes on and makes a post just like this, I'll turn her in too. Fair enough? Good.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
Ok, self-defense from what? Bodily harm? Psychological harm?

Bodily harm. You do not cause physical harm because you think you're being "psychologically harmed".

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
Bodily harm. You do not cause physical harm because you think you're being "psychologically harmed".

Bullsh!t. Look at women who are verbally and psychologically abused by their husbands. They can do whatever they want to him, and use the battered wife defense simply because of the fact they live in psychological fear of their husband, even if he didn't lay a finger on her.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
Bullsh!t. Look at women who are verbally and psychologically abused by their husbands. They can do whatever they want to him, and use the battered wife defense simply because of the fact they live in psychological fear of their husband, even if he didn't lay a finger on her.

I'm not talking about battered wives, I'm talking about my friends beating the sh*t out of a guy in a bathroom. You want to keep changing the subject.

In any event, this has been a fun exercise in futility. It changes nothing except to make me more sure that I'm making the right choice. If everybody wants to justify this guy's actions, then he's going to have to learn how wrong he was another way.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
I'm not talking about battered wives, I'm talking about my friends beating the sh*t out of a guy in a bathroom. You want to keep changing the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. You said that physical harm cannot be used as a means to defend against psychological harm, under the eyes of the law. I used battered wife defense as a proof that IT CAN. I have nothing against battered wives, I fully agree with that law.

If he felt psychologically threatened by the other guy, he had justification to defend himself. If he felt that the other guy may escalate his masturbation sessions into full blown bathroom sexual assaults, he had did the right thing in protecting himself and others around him.

 

[Snatchmaster]

Gio,

Yes, h20 was an idiot. I don't condone it and wouldn't have reacted the same. But I might have when I was twenty, and angry. I think h20 was so worked up he couldn't focus on his test and that just made him angrier. He shouldn't have gone back in that bathroom.

But...

He did tell his parents. They expressed to him why it was wrong. He admitted it was wrong, and that he won't repeat his behavior. His mother got through to him. So did you.

You made your point to all the dumbsh*ts that applauded the story. Now, give the f'ing kid a break. Between his parents and your threats he's on the straight and narrow. No need to bring the law into it (and potentially ruin his life). He's already cooled down and running scared. Your job is done. Give the kid a pass with a stern warning.

 

[MicCheck1-2]

I think that you should have felt good that you were viewed in a sexual way. By male or female. You should've walked out the bathroom smiling thanking god that you were blessed with attractive qualities.

 

[diablo]

Originally posted by h2o
if it happened in a woman's bathroom, it would be indecent exposure, but male exposure in front of a male is completely legal. this guy didn't commit a crime, and i did???!!! what the fvck. society is seriously fvcked up.

You can't seriously be that stupid, can you? Let's see what goes on in the normal heterosexual male bathroom. You walk in, go to a urinal, pull your penis out, and pee. You shake it, put it back in, wash your hands (hopefully) and walk out. From time to time someone will turn around without having put their penis back into their pants. That person has then exposed themselves to the rest of the bathroom - should they be charged with indecent exposure? No. You accept the risk when you walk into the bathroom that you might see another man's private area. Of course, this risk never took into account the fact that a homosexual might get off by looking at this, but unless you're a lawmaker I don't see it changing anytime soon - how would they prove that, anyway? The only way I can see it is to make two additional bathrooms - one for homosexual men, one for heterosexual men, one for homosexual women, and one for heterosexual women. Since that would be discrimination, you're stuck with the laws we have. Since he didn't break any law, and you assaulted him, yes - you broke a law and he didn't. Genius.

I'm not changing the subject. You said that physical harm cannot be used as a means to defend against psychological harm, under the eyes of the law. I used battered wife defense as a proof that IT CAN.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The battered woman analogy is at a completely different (and very extreme) end of the spectrum. In most cases it is physical, however in the case that it is strictly psychological it has likely been happening for a prolonged period of time, manifesting itself in many different ways and forms. This took all of 2 minutes - hardly a justifiable defense... I hope you aren't planning on submitting a law school application to anywhere but <Your town here> Community College.

If he felt psychologically threatened by the other guy, he had justification to defend himself.

If I call you a "stupid head" and tap my fist against my head, are you justified in assaulting me? Of course not. You might feel psychologically threatened, but that doesn't give you any rights in the eyes of the law (or society) to take physical action against me. Put quite simply, there was no clear indication that physical harm to the victim was imminent. Without that distinction, he has no valid legal defense. I challenge you to show me US state or federal law(s) that would be applicable in this situation which state otherwise.

If he felt that the other guy may escalate his masturbation sessions into full blown bathroom sexual assaults, he had did the right thing in protecting himself and others around him.

Once again, he would have to have more than a "thought" that the other guy might sexually assault him. It would have to be to the point where a reasonable person would assume that by the actions taken, there was no alternative other than physically defending himself. If a knife had been drawn, if the guy had pulled out a gun, or even a pair of scissors (motioning threateningly) then he would have justification. A sad little man with a feminine voice sitting on a toilet with his penis out just doesn't cut it, sorry.

Face it, what h20 did constitutes assault. He has no proof other than his word that said homosexual did indeed masturbate while viewing him through a crack in a stall door. The fact that he left, only later to come back and physically assault the gay man will make his word about as reliable as mud. What will be seen by any jury will be a hate crime (in addition to the assault charge). The gay's attorney will argue that his client was doing nothing more than normal bathroom business when the defendant kicked in the door (unprovoked) and commenced to beat a man guilty of only being a homosexual. Believe me, with the rash of assaults on people recently based on their sexuality, I'd be hard pressed to believe that he'd be let off with anything less than jail time and punitive damages. The gay could easily get serious money for post-traumatic stress disorder, and possibly conscious pain and suffering (though this one is harder to prove).

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by diablo
You can't seriously be that stupid, can you? Let's see what goes on in the normal heterosexual male bathroom. You walk in, go to a urinal, pull your penis out, and pee. You shake it, put it back in, wash your hands (hopefully) and walk out. From time to time someone will turn around without having put their penis back into their pants. That person has then exposed themselves to the rest of the bathroom - should they be charged with indecent exposure? No. You accept the risk when you walk into the bathroom that you might see another man's private area. Of course, this risk never took into account the fact that a homosexual might get off by looking at this, but unless you're a lawmaker I don't see it changing anytime soon - how would they prove that, anyway? The only way I can see it is to make two additional bathrooms - one for homosexual men, one for heterosexual men, one for homosexual women, and one for heterosexual women. Since that would be discrimination, you're stuck with the laws we have. Since he didn't break any law, and you assaulted him, yes - you broke a law and he didn't. Genius.

Note, there is a difference between a dude forgetting to put a d!ck in his pants, and a guy who is watching you through a partially opened stall door and servicing himself.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The battered woman analogy is at a completely different (and very extreme) end of the spectrum. In most cases it is physical, however in the case that it is strictly psychological it has likely been happening for a prolonged period of time, manifesting itself in many different ways and forms. This took all of 2 minutes - hardly a justifiable defense... I hope you aren't planning on submitting a law school application to anywhere but <Your town here> Community College.

In most cases, yes the battered wife defense is commonly used by victims who have suffered through years of psychological abuse. However, the law itself (at least here in Canada), is ambiguous enough that it doesn't state the specific duration of the psychological abuse, but rather the idea that the victim felt psychologically threatened. Whether the psychological abuse took 2 minutes or 2 years, if the battered wife feels that she is psychologically threatened and physically attacks her husband to prevent the threat from happening, she can use the defense in her favor, and win. Nowhere in the law is the duration of psychological abuse defined, nor is it said that it has to occur over a long period of time.

If I call you a "stupid head" and tap my fist against my head, are you justified in assaulting me? Of course not. You might feel psychologically threatened, but that doesn't give you any rights in the eyes of the law (or society) to take physical action against me. Put quite simply, there was no clear indication that physical harm to the victim was imminent. Without that distinction, he has no valid legal defense. I challenge you to show me US state or federal law(s) that would be applicable in this situation which state otherwise.

In that case no, and by the way that would not psychologically threaten me. My major is not law, but rather psychology with a focus in forensics. One thing you will learn from studying criminals is that they often escalate their crimes if left unchecked.

A "peeping tom" for example will observe a woman undressing in a window everyday, and he will get away with it for so long that he will build up confidence to enter her place when she is not there. Then he will build up enough confidence to enter her place and wait for her to come home, and then build enough confidence to assault her one day.

I can understand if h2o felt threatened by this peeping tom. He doesn't know if the guy is simply a dude who whacks off in the washroom, or a some guy that actually stalks him. If he feels psychologically threatened, he has justification in defending himself.

Once again, he would have to have more than a "thought" that the other guy might sexually assault him. It would have to be to the point where a reasonable person would assume that by the actions taken, there was no alternative other than physically defending himself. If a knife had been drawn, if the guy had pulled out a gun, or even a pair of scissors (motioning threateningly) then he would have justification. A sad little man with a feminine voice sitting on a toilet with his penis out just doesn't cut it, sorry.

Let me ask you a question. If a guy was masturbating in a girls room, and some girl saw him, felt threatened, and kicked the sh!t out of him. Do you think the jury would believe her if she claimed that she "thought" the guy would sexually assault her? Of course they would.

A knife does not have to be drawn for the woman to feel threatened. Why is one necessery for a man to be threatened? As for the little man with the feminine voice, that doesn't mean much. If you look sex offenders / serial killers, most of them are small, harmless looking, and some are even feminine in nature.

Face it, what h20 did constitutes assault. He has no proof other than his word that said homosexual did indeed masturbate while viewing him through a crack in a stall door. The fact that he left, only later to come back and physically assault the gay man will make his word about as reliable as mud. What will be seen by any jury will be a hate crime (in addition to the assault charge). The gay's attorney will argue that his client was doing nothing more than normal bathroom business when the defendant kicked in the door (unprovoked) and commenced to beat a man guilty of only being a homosexual. Believe me, with the rash of assaults on people recently based on their sexuality, I'd be hard pressed to believe that he'd be let off with anything less than jail time and punitive damages. The gay could easily get serious money for post-traumatic stress disorder, and possibly conscious pain and suffering (though this one is harder to prove).

I'm not saying he can get off easy. The fact he didn't defend himself right away when it happened could be attributed to shock, and fear. The fact he returned later to fight the guy can be attributed to him collecting his courage and realizing he had to prevent this pervert from doing this to other people.

But I'm getting distracted here.


My main point was not that he can get off easy from this charge. My point was that if the same crime happened to a woman, and she reacted the same way, she wouldn't be charged, and if she was, the public outcry would be so loud that she'd get off the hook. Whereas when a guy does it, everyone turns their back on him. It's a flawed, gender biased law, and I don't see how some people here can condemn the guy so quickly, nor do I believe that Gio is doing this because he feels "it's the right thing to do" but rather because he enjoys seeing this guy get scared from his e-threats.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
I'm not changing the subject. You said that physical harm cannot be used as a means to defend against psychological harm, under the eyes of the law.

Wrong. I absolutely never said that. I said that I would not consider it self-defense if my friend said he beat up a "homo" because he was afraid of "psychological harm". You're deep in BS territory there.

If he felt psychologically threatened by the other guy, he had justification to defend himself.

Oh please.

If he felt that the other guy may escalate his masturbation sessions into full blown bathroom sexual assaults, he had did the right thing in protecting himself and others around him.

BULL-FU*CKING-SH*T. If he was so worried about bathroom sexual assaults, he would have contacted the police after he was safely out of the bathroom. Not gone back in alone.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
Wrong. I absolutely never said that. I said that I would not consider it self-defense if my friend said he beat up a "homo" because he was afraid of "psychological harm". You're deep in BS territory there.

Gio, your exact quote is:

Bodily harm. You do not cause physical harm because you think you're being "psychologically harmed".

Nowhere in there did you mention your friend beating up a homo. You said "you do not respond with physical force if you're threatened psychologically". I used an example of a battered wife because it is clearly a case where the woman can attack the man after being convinced she is psychologically threatened and that there is harm coming her way (or someone else's way, like her daughters), and get away with whatever violent act she commited, even tho the man may not have physically harmed her. You may act in self-defense if you are psychologically threatened.

The fact is, like I said, h2o did not know whether this guy just happened to be there, or if he was a stalker, or whatever. He felt threatened, went back into exam room, thought about this, and realized he had to act upon this, and prevent this guy from doing this to him, or anyone else again. While talking to the cops would have been a smarter thing to do, he was obviously shaken at the time and could not think straight.

BULL-FU*CKING-SH*T. If he was so worried about bathroom sexual assaults, he would have contacted the police after he was safely out of the bathroom. Not gone back in alone.

Maybe he wasn't worried about himself, maybe he was worried about others. Or maybe he got some courage after leaving. etc etc.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
Gio, your exact quote is:

Bodily harm. You do not cause physical harm because you think you're being "psychologically harmed".

Nowhere in there did you mention your friend beating up a homo. You said "you do not respond with physical force if you're threatened psychologically".

While referring to your bullsh*t scenario about under which circumstances I would consider my friend "justified" for beating up a homo in the restroom. I said self-defense, and you asked, "Self defense from what? Physical harm or psychological harm?" Jesus, it's not like it was that f*cking long ago. Go back and read if you've forgotten things, before posting stupid sh*t. These things aren't being said in a vaccuum.

I used an example of a battered wife because it is clearly a case where the woman can attack the man after being convinced she is psychologically threatened and that there is harm coming her way (or someone else's way, like her daughters), and get away with whatever violent act she commited, even tho the man may not have physically harmed her. You may act in self-defense if you are psychologically threatened.

You are trying to justify the actions of a guy who went into a men's restroom for the express purpose of physically assaulting a presumably gay man, when there was absolutely zero danger to him -- to a battered woman who defends herself while fearing for her life? You're not just full of sh*t, you're overflowing with sh*t.

The fact is, like I said, h2o did not know whether this guy just happened to be there, or if he was a stalker, or whatever. He felt threatened, went back into exam room, thought about this, and realized he had to act upon this, and prevent this guy from doing this to him, or anyone else again. While talking to the cops would have been a smarter thing to do, he was obviously shaken at the time and could not think straight.

A person who feels threatened and fears for their safety does not do what h2o did. H2o was acting on anger and wrath and a bunch of other unhealthy emotions, mixed with a healthy dose of stupidity, but if he truly felt threatened by this little effeminate man on a toilet seat he wouldn't have just gone back alone. I think that's clear to everyone. So I'm not sure what you think you have to gain by pretending otherwise.

Maybe he wasn't worried about himself, maybe he was worried about others.

Yes, I'm sure he was being very noble beating up the "faggot". He's such a hero for beating up a "homo". Bottom line: if he was truly "concerned" about others, he had plenty of other ways to handle it and plenty of time to think about it. He chose not to do that. He deserves the consequences that come his way.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You seem to be getting pretty angry there Gio over a friendly debate. Are you gonna resort to insults and accusations of homosexuality again by any chance? Because it's pretty entertaining watching you lose your cool over this.

You are trying to justify the actions of a guy who went into a men's restroom for the express purpose of physically assaulting a presumably gay man, when there was absolutely zero danger to him -- to a battered woman who defends herself while fearing for her life? You're not just full of sh*t, you're overflowing with sh*t.

Like I said, the guy doesn't know if the gay man in question was randomly there masturbating to whichever guy was there, or if he was a stalker.

A person who feels threatened and fears for their safety does not do what h2o did. H2o was acting on anger and wrath and a bunch of other unhealthy emotions, mixed with a healthy dose of stupidity, but if he truly felt threatened by this little effeminate man on a toilet seat he wouldn't have just gone back alone. I think that's clear to everyone. So I'm not sure what you think you have to gain by pretending otherwise.

Not necesserily. It's a typical fight or flight scenario. In situations where we feel threatened, we either fight back, or run away. It's basic human instinct for survival. In this situation, h2o did both.

Yes, I'm sure he was being very noble beating up the "faggot". He's such a hero for beating up a "homo". Bottom line: if he was truly "concerned" about others, he had plenty of other ways to handle it and plenty of time to think about it. He chose not to do that.

He was obviously distressed and wasn't thinking clearly. It's easy for you or me to say "he should have reported him to cops" or campus security,or he should have filed a lawsuit, etc. The fact is, we weren't there, we aren't him, and we don't know how he felt at the time or what was in his mind. It's easy to act irrational if you think you are being stalked by some pervert. Either way, I doubt that guy will be masturbating while watching some guy in a public washroom again.

 

[spider_007]

GEO

Im sure that even a secure man like your self can see that there is something complearly desturbing about this story. Imagine if it was you that walked into the bathroom and saw a guy doing that. It might have been moraly wrong, but im sure you can understand the psychological impact that would have on a guy. I understand that there are guy in the bathroom sometimes not compleatly ziped up (even naked when at the gym) but non of them are looking at you with those horny eyes while jerking off.

Even tho what he did is "morally wrong" i have to say i would do the same thing (other then braking the door). I'D BE PROUD TO SAY "I STOPED A SEXUAL PREDITOR FROM VIOLATING ANOTHER PERSON"