( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave

lid wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave


Never try to pick a fight with an old man.
He'll just kill you.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, lid wrote:

( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


Dave

Dave__67 wrote:
On Feb 23, 2:26 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)
Oh dayummm......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4
better call the amber-lamps.
Hitler comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI
Dave
The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


There's a pretty entertaining post-event interview with the old guy
posted on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ7Yx...eature=related

On 2/23/2010 12:13 PM, RBnDFW wrote:

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


There's a pretty entertaining post-event interview with the old guy
posted on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ7Yx...eature=related


The guy is a character. I think I read he was also tasered multiple
times by the police at a baseball game after stirring up some sort of
ruckus, and sent for psychiatric evaluation. Note what is printed on the
back of his tee shirt.

Another funny aspect of this whole thing is the girl on the bus in the
purple tights wearing the headphones, who sits through the whole thing
as if nothing is happening. She has been given the name "Amber Lamps" by
those on the web who do such things, and there are several tributes to
her beauty and aloofness floating around the web.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:06:46 -0800 (PST), Dave__67
wrote:

On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


Dave


He used threatening and insulting language to provoke a fight and then
proceeded to commit grievous bodily harm. Five years is the tariff for that.
(in civilized parts of the world)


Mark Rand
RTFM

My take on the story is as follows:

The white guy is big (much bigger than the black guy), and an
experienced fighter.

The white guy took an accomplice along to record a video, so he
intended something worth of a video to happen.

The white guy picks a small black guy, insults him, then puts a show
for the video camera about how he did not mean what he meant, further
incensing the black guy but making a false impression that an insult
was unintentional.

The white guy taunts the black guy some more and retreats.

Black guy is angry, follows him, slaps the white guy in a manner that
left NO mark on his face (so he hit him lightly, if at all), and then
gets severely beaten up.

Does the white man deserve much sympathy here?

Not from me.

He intended to produce a show to post on the internet, succeeded at
that, at the cost of serious injuries to the black bus rider who did
not expect any trouble when he got on the bus.

i

On Feb 24, 9:41*am, Mark Rand wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:06:46 -0800 (PST), Dave__67
wrote:



On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.

Dave

He used threatening and insulting language to provoke a fight and then
proceeded to commit grievous bodily harm. Five years is the tariff for that.
(in civilized parts of the world)

Mark Rand
RTFM

I agree santa provoked the fight, but the other guy crossing the line
to physical made it legal self-defense.


Dave

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:41:58 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:06:46 -0800 (PST), Dave__67
wrote:

On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


Dave


He used threatening and insulting language to provoke a fight and then
proceeded to commit grievous bodily harm. Five years is the tariff for that.
(in civilized parts of the world)

I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?

Bloody 'ell. I'm sure glad I don't live Over There, Mark.

When I was growing up, kids were taught not to fight with the adage
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
We learned to ignore the verbal bullies.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:59:48 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?


Watch the videos and make your mind up on who is the guilty party in the
incident. IMO the guy who actually provoked the incident and then threw the
_punches_ is the aggressor, who now seems to be being feted for his actions.

Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:59:48 -0800, Larry Jaques

wrote:


I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?


Watch the videos and make your mind up on who is the guilty party in the
incident. IMO the guy who actually provoked the incident and then threw
the
_punches_ is the aggressor, who now seems to be being feted for his
actions.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Not to judge the case, but in the US, the "fighting words" assault by the
white guy is not protected speech. He could be arrested for assault in many
states but wouldn't be, unless it led to further altercation.

The poke by the black guy is going to be treated as battery in most states,
because the "fighting words" assault is NOT a defense for the poke by the
black guy, anywhere in the US. The original, verbal assault may be a
misdemeanor but it is not a physical threat, so it doesn't justify physical
retaliation. Because the white guy walked away, there can be no claim of
immanent danger.

Most prosecutors would treat this without all of the complication. The fact
that simplified it tremendously is that the black guy was a parole violator.
g

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus26960 wrote:
My take on the story is as follows:

The white guy is big (much bigger than the black guy), and an
experienced fighter.

The white guy took an accomplice along to record a video, so he
intended something worth of a video to happen.

The white guy picks a small black guy, insults him, then puts a show
for the video camera about how he did not mean what he meant, further
incensing the black guy but making a false impression that an insult
was unintentional.

The white guy taunts the black guy some more and retreats.

Black guy is angry, follows him, slaps the white guy in a manner that
left NO mark on his face (so he hit him lightly, if at all), and then
gets severely beaten up.

Does the white man deserve much sympathy here?

Not from me.

He intended to produce a show to post on the internet, succeeded at
that, at the cost of serious injuries to the black bus rider who did
not expect any trouble when he got on the bus.

You missed the part about the black "man" being a convicted murderer,
carrying a concealed weapon, who was out on bail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0aB4AnKq1s

Jon

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:55:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Not to judge the case, but in the US, the "fighting words" assault by the
white guy is not protected speech. He could be arrested for assault in many
states but wouldn't be, unless it led to further altercation.

The poke by the black guy is going to be treated as battery in most states,
because the "fighting words" assault is NOT a defense for the poke by the
black guy, anywhere in the US. The original, verbal assault may be a
misdemeanor but it is not a physical threat, so it doesn't justify physical
retaliation. Because the white guy walked away, there can be no claim of
immanent danger.

Most prosecutors would treat this without all of the complication. The fact
that simplified it tremendously is that the black guy was a parole violator.
g

Your legal analysis is spot on in the first two paragraphs.....with
the possible exception of the verbal assault being a misdemeanor. More
likely it is a civil law infraction, the bus service being a public
service under CA's civil rights law. (I do not know what constitutes a
Federal "Hate Crime"). "Tyronne's" legal remedy would be to sue EBM.

Unfortunately, proving monetary damages (probably on an intentional
infliction of emotional distress theory) would be very difficult since
he probably suffered no permanent injury emotionally. He can sue for
economic damages if, due to having to take his time to report this
matter he suffers damages to earnings. Probably can collect attorney's
fees also.

When approaching a civil litigation, it is necessary to do a
collectability assessment of the defendant. I believe Epic Beard Man
may be sort of uncollectable.

In the third paragraph you are factually incorrect (as is Epic Beard
Man [EBM]): "Tyronne" (as he has come to be named on YouTube....this
is not his real name) is not a parole violator, and further, EBM
asserts that Tyronne pulled a switchblade on him. Tyronne denies this
and no knife is visible in the vid.

FYI: "Tyronne" says call an ambulance. But because he just got his
clock cleaned it sort of sounds like "Amber Lamps". So naturally, by
the logic of YouTube, the hot looking brunette in the blue tights is
now know as: Amber Lamps.
Dave

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:37:20 -0600, Ignoramus26960
wrote:

My take on the story is as follows:

The white guy is big (much bigger than the black guy), and an
experienced fighter.

The white guy took an accomplice along to record a video, so he
intended something worth of a video to happen.

The white guy picks a small black guy, insults him, then puts a show
for the video camera about how he did not mean what he meant, further
incensing the black guy but making a false impression that an insult
was unintentional.

The white guy taunts the black guy some more and retreats.

Black guy is angry, follows him, slaps the white guy in a manner that
left NO mark on his face (so he hit him lightly, if at all), and then
gets severely beaten up.

Does the white man deserve much sympathy here?

Not from me.

He intended to produce a show to post on the internet, succeeded at
that, at the cost of serious injuries to the black bus rider who did
not expect any trouble when he got on the bus.

i

You are incorrect. The video was shot by a young black women who was
completely unknown to either of the parties involved in the fight. It
was not set up by either of them. Not for YouTube entertainment or for
any other reason.
Dave

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:25:42 -0800, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:



You missed the part about the black "man" being a convicted murderer,
carrying a concealed weapon, who was out on bail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0aB4AnKq1s

Jon

These are the assertions of Epic Beard Man (EBM). These are all
incorrect. EBM is known to the local police to have some
issues....possibly some mental health issues.

"Tyronne", as the black male has come to be known (that is not
actually his name) admits to being drunk at the time of this incident.
Dave

On 2010-02-25, lid wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:37:20 -0600, Ignoramus26960
wrote:

My take on the story is as follows:

The white guy is big (much bigger than the black guy), and an
experienced fighter.

The white guy took an accomplice along to record a video, so he
intended something worth of a video to happen.

The white guy picks a small black guy, insults him, then puts a show
for the video camera about how he did not mean what he meant, further
incensing the black guy but making a false impression that an insult
was unintentional.

The white guy taunts the black guy some more and retreats.

Black guy is angry, follows him, slaps the white guy in a manner that
left NO mark on his face (so he hit him lightly, if at all), and then
gets severely beaten up.

Does the white man deserve much sympathy here?

Not from me.

He intended to produce a show to post on the internet, succeeded at
that, at the cost of serious injuries to the black bus rider who did
not expect any trouble when he got on the bus.

i

You are incorrect. The video was shot by a young black women who was
completely unknown to either of the parties involved in the fight. It
was not set up by either of them. Not for YouTube entertainment or for
any other reason.

I have hard times believing this. It does not seem credible. The video
was posted by "fans" of that white man.

i

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:55:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Not to judge the case, but in the US, the "fighting words" assault by the
white guy is not protected speech. He could be arrested for assault in
many
states but wouldn't be, unless it led to further altercation.

The poke by the black guy is going to be treated as battery in most
states,
because the "fighting words" assault is NOT a defense for the poke by the
black guy, anywhere in the US. The original, verbal assault may be a
misdemeanor but it is not a physical threat, so it doesn't justify
physical
retaliation. Because the white guy walked away, there can be no claim of
immanent danger.

Most prosecutors would treat this without all of the complication. The
fact
that simplified it tremendously is that the black guy was a parole
violator.
g

Your legal analysis is spot on in the first two paragraphs.....with
the possible exception of the verbal assault being a misdemeanor. More
likely it is a civil law infraction, the bus service being a public
service under CA's civil rights law. (I do not know what constitutes a
Federal "Hate Crime"). "Tyronne's" legal remedy would be to sue EBM.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a verbal threat to
commit bodily harm is a crime in almost every state. I couldn't hear the
exact words that "Epic Beard Man" used, but it sounded like he was
threatening to beat Tyronne up. Then, allegedly, Tyrone threatened EBM at
the front of the bus before poking him. But I also saw some comment about
the civil infraction that you mention, so I say "he could be." I wouldn't
try to conclude anything. I consult lawyers. g


Unfortunately, proving monetary damages (probably on an intentional
infliction of emotional distress theory) would be very difficult since
he probably suffered no permanent injury emotionally. He can sue for
economic damages if, due to having to take his time to report this
matter he suffers damages to earnings. Probably can collect attorney's
fees also.

When approaching a civil litigation, it is necessary to do a
collectability assessment of the defendant. I believe Epic Beard Man
may be sort of uncollectable.

In the third paragraph you are factually incorrect (as is Epic Beard
Man [EBM]): "Tyronne" (as he has come to be named on YouTube....this
is not his real name) is not a parole violator, and further, EBM
asserts that Tyronne pulled a switchblade on him. Tyronne denies this
and no knife is visible in the vid.

Yes, I see that I was taking EBM at his word on that. That was a big mistake
on my part.


FYI: "Tyronne" says call an ambulance. But because he just got his
clock cleaned it sort of sounds like "Amber Lamps". So naturally, by
the logic of YouTube, the hot looking brunette in the blue tights is
now know as: Amber Lamps.
Dave

The world is getting a little too weird for me. I think it's time to retire
to the mountains. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

FYI: "Tyronne" says call an ambulance. But because he just got his
clock cleaned it sort of sounds like "Amber Lamps". So naturally, by
the logic of YouTube, the hot looking brunette in the blue tights is
now know as: Amber Lamps.
Dave

The world is getting a little too weird for me. I think it's time to retire
to the mountains. d8-)



Go sail, Ed.

Come back when you start missing all this mess.



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:23:02 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:59:48 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?


Watch the videos and make your mind up on who is the guilty party in the
incident. IMO the guy who actually provoked the incident and then threw the
_punches_ is the aggressor, who now seems to be being feted for his actions.

We didn't hear what was said before the camera went on, but it
appeared that Tyrone had some attitude. Tommy may be a loud mouthed
jerk, but that walk up the aisle (after Tommy retreated) and the punch
which started the actual fist fight was all on Tyrone. Yes, I heard
the "I'll slap the **** out of him if he comes up here." and that's
exactly what happened when Tyrone tried to be a bigshot. Tyrone walked
up the aisle of the bus and physically hit Tommy. That makes Tyrone
the aggressor, no matter what was -said- earlier or later.

Most words aren't illegal, but punching is, in both our countries, I
believe, Mark. If you want to toss in "inciting to riot", which is
illegal here, charge the black lady who was urging Tyrone to fight.
There may have been others doing that, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ7Yx4aw5l0 There appears to have been
more later according to the interview with Tommy. Evidently, Tyrone
misheard Tommy regarding his mother's funeral and the shoe shine.
According to the interview, Tyrone is the one in jail (probably after
the cops saw the film.)

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:51:35 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus26960
scrawled the following:

On 2010-02-25, lid wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:37:20 -0600, Ignoramus26960
wrote:

You are incorrect. The video was shot by a young black women who was
completely unknown to either of the parties involved in the fight. It
was not set up by either of them. Not for YouTube entertainment or for
any other reason.

I have hard times believing this. It does not seem credible. The video
was posted by "fans" of that white man.

Listen to the videographer when Tyrone sits down. "We can press
charges (unintelligible). I got it on videotape." She certainly
sounds like a black woman to me. 2:40 into the film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

FYI: "Tyronne" says call an ambulance. But because he just got his
clock cleaned it sort of sounds like "Amber Lamps". So naturally, by
the logic of YouTube, the hot looking brunette in the blue tights is
now know as: Amber Lamps.
Dave

The world is getting a little too weird for me. I think it's time to
retire to the mountains. d8-)



Go sail, Ed.

Come back when you start missing all this mess.



You have to realize, Richard, that talking about sailing in February to a
guy in New Jersey -- who's facing 10" more snow tomorrow -- has little
effect. It's like the thought of chasing New Jersey beach bimbos when you're
over 60. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:05:54 -0500, lid wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:55:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Not to judge the case, but in the US, the "fighting words" assault by the
white guy is not protected speech. He could be arrested for assault in many
states but wouldn't be, unless it led to further altercation.

The poke by the black guy is going to be treated as battery in most states,
because the "fighting words" assault is NOT a defense for the poke by the
black guy, anywhere in the US. The original, verbal assault may be a
misdemeanor but it is not a physical threat, so it doesn't justify physical
retaliation. Because the white guy walked away, there can be no claim of
immanent danger.

Most prosecutors would treat this without all of the complication. The fact
that simplified it tremendously is that the black guy was a parole violator.
g

Your legal analysis is spot on in the first two paragraphs.....with
the possible exception of the verbal assault being a misdemeanor. More
likely it is a civil law infraction, the bus service being a public
service under CA's civil rights law. (I do not know what constitutes a
Federal "Hate Crime"). "Tyronne's" legal remedy would be to sue EBM.

Unfortunately, proving monetary damages (probably on an intentional
infliction of emotional distress theory) would be very difficult since
he probably suffered no permanent injury emotionally. He can sue for
economic damages if, due to having to take his time to report this
matter he suffers damages to earnings. Probably can collect attorney's
fees also.

When approaching a civil litigation, it is necessary to do a
collectability assessment of the defendant. I believe Epic Beard Man
may be sort of uncollectable.

In the third paragraph you are factually incorrect (as is Epic Beard
Man [EBM]): "Tyronne" (as he has come to be named on YouTube....this
is not his real name) is not a parole violator, and further, EBM
asserts that Tyronne pulled a switchblade on him. Tyronne denies this
and no knife is visible in the vid.

FYI: "Tyronne" says call an ambulance. But because he just got his
clock cleaned it sort of sounds like "Amber Lamps". So naturally, by
the logic of YouTube, the hot looking brunette in the blue tights is
now know as: Amber Lamps.
Dave

Thanks for that. I wondered how she became known as Amber Lamps. Too
funny.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
FYI: "Tyronne" says call an ambulance. But because he just got his
clock cleaned it sort of sounds like "Amber Lamps". So naturally, by
the logic of YouTube, the hot looking brunette in the blue tights is
now know as: Amber Lamps.
Dave
The world is getting a little too weird for me. I think it's time to
retire to the mountains. d8-)


Go sail, Ed.

Come back when you start missing all this mess.



You have to realize, Richard, that talking about sailing in February to a
guy in New Jersey -- who's facing 10" more snow tomorrow -- has little
effect. It's like the thought of chasing New Jersey beach bimbos when you're
over 60. d8-)


Ok, I got your (snow) drift.

But Ed, don't worry about chasing those cute little beach bimbos.
Worry about what to do if you CATCH one...

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:23:02 +0000, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:59:48 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?


Watch the videos and make your mind up on who is the guilty party in the
incident. IMO the guy who actually provoked the incident and then threw the
_punches_ is the aggressor, who now seems to be being feted for his actions.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Who did actually strike the other first, escalating from verbal
exchange to physical violence? I thought it was the black guy but
perhaps I missed something.

The white guy showed remarkable restraint or ineptitude if he really
is a combat vet.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:26:06 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, lid wrote:

( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.


Hear Hear!

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:19:10 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
FYI: "Tyronne" says call an ambulance. But because he just got his
clock cleaned it sort of sounds like "Amber Lamps". So naturally, by
the logic of YouTube, the hot looking brunette in the blue tights is
now know as: Amber Lamps.
Dave
The world is getting a little too weird for me. I think it's time to
retire to the mountains. d8-)


Go sail, Ed.

Come back when you start missing all this mess.



You have to realize, Richard, that talking about sailing in February to a
guy in New Jersey -- who's facing 10" more snow tomorrow -- has little
effect. It's like the thought of chasing New Jersey beach bimbos when you're
over 60. d8-)


Ok, I got your (snow) drift.

But Ed, don't worry about chasing those cute little beach bimbos.
Worry about what to do if you CATCH one...

You simply treat the bimbo like you would when you were 25...you just
dont do it so many times. So give her head until her eyes roll back
into her head and she goes limp..and then finish up..trust me..she wont
mind a bit.

Gunner, been there, done that 2 weeks ago.

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on or
about Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:13:55 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
You have to realize, Richard, that talking about sailing in February to a
guy in New Jersey -- who's facing 10" more snow tomorrow -- has little
effect. It's like the thought of chasing New Jersey beach bimbos when you're
over 60. d8-)

Ok, I got your (snow) drift.

But Ed, don't worry about chasing those cute little beach bimbos.
Worry about what to do if you CATCH one...

It's the chasing which is the problem.

You simply treat the bimbo like you would when you were 25...you just
dont do it so many times. So give her head until her eyes roll back
into her head and she goes limp..and then finish up..trust me..she wont
mind a bit.

"Takes all night to do what I used to do all night." People say
that its like a bad thing. I mean, you're still spending all night at
it. And experience counts for a lot.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!