Quote from: Blood Axe;1088915Sure that's the best outcome. But who is most responsible if it doesnt work out that way? The attacker.  If he doesn't commit a crime, a violent assault, then he probably wont be shot & killed by someone defending themselves from that assault.  Do I want someone to die? NO. But if its a choice between a violent thug like Matt Loter and someone he attacked without any reason- then let it be Matt and people like him.
 If violent criminals stop a second and think "Hey, my victim might be armed and I could be seriously injured or die. I better not do that. "  Is much better than them thinking they can attack, permanently injure or possibly kill someone with impunity.  No one has to take a beating and "just hope for the best".  If you think you will be badly injured or possibly killed you have every right to defend yourself with deadly force. I live in a state that is "stand your ground/castle doctrine" and conceal carry- if I was suddenly attacked unprovoked from behind by an unseen assailant(like it appears in the Mat Loter case) I would respond with deadly force.

Greetings!

Indeed. What if the other fellow was married, and had his infant child cradled in his arms while his wife went to the bar to get them some drinks or a bite to eat? Hyperbole, perhaps, but it isn't hyperbole to know that young children get killed also by thugs all the time.

Beyond that, what if the guy Loter had attacked--what if his attacker's blows had connected strongly to his head, and caused bleeding on the brain, or the loss of an eye? Serious consequences can result from even a few physical strikes made by a man that is strong, and well-trained.

Fortunately, Loter is a clown, but even clowns also can get in unexpected blows that can cause sudden damage that can be serious or life-threatening.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: HappyDaze;1088918I'm not arguing against you on any of that, and I'm glad to see that you prefer a "nobody has to die" resolution. In this case, the attacked moved to evade the attacker and was successful so there was no need for deadly force. That's not to say that the attacked was obligated to retreat, but it did lead to the best outcome here.

I agree with you there. I certainly prefer no one to die.
Too bad Loter did not spend some time in cage for his attack, as I doubt he has been discouraged from repeating his actions.

Quote from: SHARK;1088919Greetings!

Indeed. What if the other fellow was married, and had his infant child cradled in his arms while his wife went to the bar to get them some drinks or a bite to eat? Hyperbole, perhaps, but it isn't hyperbole to know that young children get killed also by thugs all the time.

Beyond that, what if the guy Loter had attacked--what if his attacker's blows had connected strongly to his head, and caused bleeding on the brain, or the loss of an eye? Serious consequences can result from even a few physical strikes made by a man that is strong, and well-trained.

Fortunately, Loter is a clown, but even clowns also can get in unexpected blows that can cause sudden damage that can be serious or life-threatening.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

If attacked unexpectedly, especially from behind in the head, someone can easily suffer permanent injury or death.  The victim could have been knocked unconscious and then suffer a head injury from striking the floor.  Im glad that wasn't the case here.   Loter is a scumbag.

Whag is interesting is a lack of survival skills from many of the more violent  SJWs. It is as if theg forget jow prevalent guns are in tne US. One of these days one of them will come across a trigger happy person with tragic results.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1088802Meh. I don't see the win here. The scumbag committed assault and the cops let it go, then the civil lawsuit results in a YouTube retraction. I doubt the SJWs are going to view this as a loss. Their hero punched "the Nazi", got away with it, but had to make an apology video we all know is fake.

The point was made, and that was the point.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1088909We have a situation that was resolved without anyone dying. I'm responding to someone that said a better resolution would have involved a death. I'm not saying that self-defense is wrong; I'm saying that the belief that an outcome that ends in someone's death is better than one that does not is wrong.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1088911My side is that a situation of one asshole punching another guy that results in both of them living on without any permanent injuries is a better outcome than one where one (or both) of them are killed.

I'm in the same boat, and while I understand engaging in violence to defend oneself, I'm somewhat disturbed at how... enthusiastic people are being about it here.

Quote from: Blood Axe;1088915If violent criminals stop a second and think "Hey, my victim might be armed and I could be seriously injured or die. I better not do that. "

The problem is this depends on violent criminals actually stopping a second to think, which they mostly don't. Enforcement by example and deterrent only works on reasonable people, and no matter how many SJWs face the consequences the rest will continue believing it could never happen to them.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1089038I'm somewhat disturbed at how... enthusiastic people are being about it here.

Please don't conflate a general lack of interest in the lifespan of criminal thugs with enthusiasm for their short lifespan.