Skangers getting a bashing on Talbot St, Dublin !!!

chin_grin

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'm not sure how you zoom or take a photo of just the video...

His level in mspaint is over nine thousand. :pac:

hardCopy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just to skotch any talk of the umbrella being used as a weapon, here's what you would be presented with in a court. Look at the sequence of photo's and you will see plainly that the 'kick' starts, long before the umbrella even moves, in fact, the umbrella is used as an instinctive protection. As soon as he sees the guy raise his head, his intention is to do what he did...seriously assault.
You can 'suppose' all you want, the evidence is that the umbrella was not a threat, or used as a weapon at that point.

That's a nice comic, but the real question is: "Who cares?"

You pick a fight, you get smashed up. You don't get to dictate what you feel is an acceptable or excessive response. If you don't to be kicked in the head, don't poke people in the chest with an umbrella.

hardCopy

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Okay, that makes no sense, but okay.



Okay let's skip back to the beginning of the vidoe where it was a f**king weapon and intended to be used as one.

I try smash a bottle over your head, you stop me and then I pick the bottle back up when you're calmly walking towards me, what are you going to do? Ask if I'm planning on using it a second time? Regardless of his intentions he tries grabbing it first. I'm not sure how you zoom or take a photo of just the video but you can clearly see the man grab the umbrella and then the other man spots this and goes from "walking" to "run and kick him to keep him and his nice attack weapon he attacked me with down on the ground".

If he had never used it in the first place (to provoke the fight), then you'd have a case. But again, see the bottle argument above.

Apparently you stand on the bottle :rolleyes:

Degsy

I suppose this is a racist attack on an innocent black youth

chin_grin

Degsy wrote: »

I suppose this is a racist attack on an innocent black youth

Have you watched the movie of this? With Danny Trejo? Must pick it up...

Happyman42

If he was concerned about the umbrella, as a weapon, he had several opportunities to remove it.
I stress again, I am not defending these guys, I am saying that this kind of reaction is equally as wrong ond ott as anything the two so called 'skangers' might have done.

chin_grin

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he was concerned about the umbrella, as a weapon, he had several opportunities to remove it.
I stress again, I am not defending these guys, I am saying that this kind of reaction is equally as wrong ond ott as anything the two so called 'skangers' might have done.

Riddle me this, have you EVER been in a fight? You can see from the second pic that his attention is now on "guy number 2", thus completely forgetting about "Guy number 1" and his umbrella-as-a-weapon (as he's on the ground).

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he was concerned about the umbrella, as a weapon, he had several opportunities to remove it.
I stress again, I am not defending these guys, I am saying that this kind of reaction is equally as wrong ond ott as anything the two so called 'skangers' might have done.

This isn't WWE. It's not a tag team match where you take on one scummer and your friends takes the other.

The man with the brolly uses it as a weapon, the lads take him down. THEN the other man has a can (which they assume in the tense moment was filled and from what I can see was also) so they go for him.

It's not a "take him down, disarm him and I'll go after the nice man with the can that can bash our heads in". It's a fight, two unarmed against one man with a weapon that can take your eyes out and another with a heavy enough weight that could knock you out if flung hard enough.

If you look at the can it bounces with a good amount of force off the man's back. So it was fairly full. If he gets that in the face it can do some real damage. I dunno if it'll knock you out though but it can still break noses, jaws, etc and you don't need to worry about it like your hands. You won't break your hands using it.

And in either case, the scumbag STILL picks up the brolly after the lads are leaving and threatens them again.

Let's say they didn't deserve any of it, they're still f**king gobshítes and are going to get a battering sooner or later acting like that.

listermint

chin_grin wrote: »

Riddle me this, have you EVER been in a fight? You can see from the second pic that his attention is now on "guy number 2", thus completely forgetting about "Guy number 1" and his umbrella-as-a-weapon (as he's on the ground).

All comments point to bleeding heart syndrome. Which would change dramatically if he was in a similar situation himself.

'so called skangers' open your eyes happy face. Talbot street and the north quays have been turned into a bloody ghetto of scumbags during the day. Its any wonder why we dont have any concerted effort by the authorities to address the situation on what is one of our main thorough fairs in the capital.

And here you stand defending useless little pr**ks that go around daily making life hell for the average person.


Get up the garden will you.

chin_grin

listermint wrote: »

Get up the garden will you.

H'up the yard! :pac:

Happyman42

chin_grin wrote: »

Riddle me this, have you EVER been in a fight? You can see from the second pic that his attention is now on "guy number 2", thus completely forgetting about "Guy number 1" and his umbrella-as-a-weapon (as he's on the ground).

We don't see what he does to the guy on the ground, as the camera follows the guy in white. What we KNOW is, he gets up and saunters over to his drink, unconcerned about what is happening behind him. If the 'umbrella' was a threat, if it was a 'knife' for instance, would you turn your back? Would you leave the guy in possession of it, when you had ample opportunity to remove it?

Bad Panda

chin_grin wrote: »

Have you watched the movie of this? With Danny Trejo? Must pick it up...

Real 80's throw back type. It's quite enjoyable...and of course cheesy!

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

We don't see what he does to the guy on the ground, as the camera follows the guy in white. What we KNOW is, he gets up and saunters over to his drink, unconcerned about what is happening behind him. If the 'umbrella' was a threat, if it was a 'knife' for instance, would you turn your back? Would you leave the guy in possession of it?

Because when you give someone a beating that shows you can easily do it again, you don't think "hey, maybe they'll get back and be stupid enough to have a second go".

And if it was a knife and if they had gotten kocked out, what would you have said? They deserved it or it was too much?

I think your problem is you're looking at this from a logical point of view. Don't. It's a fight. Neither of the four lads are well trained SWAT or anytihng like that. They don't have a priority list. As far as I can see the two bigger lads were just trying to get the f**k outta there. It's evident in how they carry on after they get a full can hurled at them and it hits one of them.

inforfun

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just to skotch any talk of the umbrella being used as a weapon, here's what you would be presented with in a court. Look at the sequence of photo's and you will see plainly that the 'kick' starts, long before the umbrella even moves, in fact, the umbrella is used as an instinctive protection. As soon as he sees the guy raise his head, his intention is to do what he did...seriously assault.
You can 'suppose' all you want, the evidence is that the umbrella was not a threat, or used as a weapon at that point.

Nice one.
You should use these pictures only and open a new thread titled "Bodybuilder kicks disabled man in the head".
you might get more sympathy for your way of thinking then.

Again and hopefully this time it gets through to you, that muppet with the umbrella tries to stab a guy in the face with that same umbrella. I wouldnt even exclude the possibility the umbrella has its point sharpened.

When you are pure scum that is able to go for someones eye(s) with a pointy weapon but you run into the wrong guy, every kick and slap you get is exactly what you deserve.
I almost admire the way those 2 just walk away, not sure if i would be able to after someone tried to take my eye out.

Next time he pulls off the same stunt with someone less capable of defending himself although the little lesson he got now might stop him from trying it again.
Not very hopeful of that though.

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Because when you give someone a beating that shows you can easily do it again, you don't think "hey, maybe they'll get back and be stupid enough to have a second go".

And if it was a knife and if they had gotten kocked out, what would you have said? They deserved it or it was too much?

I think your problem is you're looking at this from a logical point of view. Don't. It's a fight. Neither of the four lads are well trained SWAT or anytihng like that. They don't have a priority list. As far as I can see the two bigger lads were just trying to get the f**k outta there. It's evident in how they carry on after they get a full can hurled at them and it hits one of them.

Could you see a prosecution lawyer making a case that these guys 'intention' was to administer a beating, from the fact that they lay their jackets neatly on top of each other, out of the way, in a side street?
Why would they do that, if it was a spur of the moment reaction to one sided provocation?
We don't have enough information to decide who the agressors where here and the 'kick' was way over the top and could have been lethal.
But hey, don't let the facts or lack of them, get in the way of a good old drool.

hardCopy

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he was concerned about the umbrella, as a weapon, he had several opportunities to remove it.
I stress again, I am not defending these guys, I am saying that this kind of reaction is equally as wrong ond ott as anything the two so called 'skangers' might have done.

But why would you bother? It's so much easier and safer to just kick him in the head.

You don't seem to understand that the safety of the guy on the ground is of zero importance. The only thing that matters is that he's incapacitated as quickly as possible, if he can be taught a lesson along the way, all the better.

The reaction is not wrong, it's totally justified.

hardCopy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you see a prosecution lawyer making a case that these guys 'intention' was to administer a beating, from the fact that they lay their jackets neatly on top of each other, out of the way, in a side street?
Why would they do that, if it was a spur of the moment reaction to one sided provocation?
We don't have enough information to decide who the agressors where here and the 'kick' was way over the top and could have been lethal.
But hey, don't let the facts or lack of them, get in the way of a good old drool.

I don't see any lawyers in that video. Can you screenshot that bit for me?

Degsy

Happyman42 wrote: »

We don't see what he does to the guy on the ground, as the camera follows the guy in white. What we KNOW is, he gets up and saunters over to his drink

You're trying to make it sound like it happened in a pub.:rolleyes:

See,he didnt have to "saunter" away..he could've stayed and kicked that bloke til he stopped moving..that would have been the safe thing to do but he cut the engagement short because he didnt want it in the first place.

Happyman42

Degsy wrote: »

You're trying to make it sound like it happened in a pub.:rolleyes:

What difference does that make?
The more I look at it, the more I see two guys who had every intention of administering a beating for an unknown reason. We simply don't know what occured before the vid starts, therefore you can't judge the two so called 'skangers', you can however, judge the intentions of somebody who kicks a man on the ground to the head. A reasonable, responsible person would have subdued the guy and taken the weapon off him when he had the chance.

RoboRat

This thread reminds me of why for so long, the onus was on the owner of a property to retreat in their own home in the face of an attack.

Anyone who thinks knacker 1 and 2 are innocent are deluded. As stated already, the big guys were backing away with knacker 1 pursuing them and trying to poke an umbrella in the eye of one of the big guys before they took action.

Some people may think the kick was excessive but its justified - what would have happened if he didn't kick him? He would have been up and at them with his mate again (seeing as the mate was after them anyhow) thus leading to more risk. In an attack situation you need to neutralise any threats, you don't leave it to chance. By leaving it to chance or turning your back is how you end up with a screwdriver in your head. If they were excessive they would have followed up with hammer fists to the head until he didn't move.

Bottom line, if you don't want to get a beating, don't start a fight with someone you know nothing about. Same applies to people who break into houses, if you don't want a beating, stay the f*** out of other peoples houses.

The scum in this country and not willing to take responsibility for their actions and they are being encouraged by the PC brigade. I am sick to my ears of hearing how such and such only commits crime because they have nothing to do or he robs cars because he is bored etc etc. Its bull****. Whilst there may not be an equal an opposite reaction to every action, there are consequences and scumbags are not immune when these consequences are bad.

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you see a prosecution lawyer making a case that these guys 'intention' was to administer a beating, from the fact that they lay their jackets neatly on top of each other, out of the way, in a side street?
Why would they do that, if it was a spur of the moment reaction to one sided provocation?
We don't have enough information to decide who the agressors where here and the 'kick' was way over the top and could have been lethal.
But hey, don't let the facts or lack of them, get in the way of a good old drool.

That's not a side street. And your argument is what? They put their jackets down neatly (you have no proof from the video) to administer a beating?

Right, okay, I'm going to play the same card:
Your honour, after the two men put the jackets down, they followed the two scumbags deprived lads and then decided to back off, only to be viciouslly and brutally attacked. All the two men did was want to talk, it was a hot day, they were sitting on the path when these two scumbags deprived lads wanted to provoke them.

Seriously, give it f**king over would you? Even if the two lads did want to have a fight, they're backing off and being provoked further, with a dangerous weapon and then another scumbag deprived lad had a near full can and felt fine with trying to attack the other lads with it.

But let's say you're 100% right. It was the other two larger lads at fault and that started the fight.
Why would you go back for more? Are you that stupid that you can't tell when you got a beating? I doubt you are. The scumbags (and they are scumbags) in the video are that stupid.

So either they're idiots who don't know when to stop or else prícks who don't know when to stop. What one?

Happyman42 wrote: »

What difference does that make?
The more I look at it, the more I see two guys who had every intention of administering a beating for an unknown reason. We simply don't know what occured before the vid starts, therefore you can't judge the two so called 'skangers', you can however, judge the intentions of somebody who kicks a man on the ground to the head. A reasonable, responsible person would have subdued the guy and taken the weapon off him when he had the chance.

But your honour! I can judge the intentions of a man trying to swing a can and then throwing it at someone, just like I can judge the intentions of a man trying to use an umbrella as a lethal weapon.

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

That's not a side street. And your argument is what? They put their jackets down neatly (you have no proof from the video) to administer a beating?

Right, okay, I'm going to play the same card:
Your honour, after the two men put the jackets down, they followed the two scumbags deprived lads and then decided to back off, only to be viciouslly and brutally attacked. All the two men did was want to talk, it was a hot day, they were sitting on the path when these two scumbags deprived lads wanted to provoke them.

Seriously, give it f**king over would you? Even if the two lads did want to have a fight, they're backing off and being provoked further, with a dangerous weapon and then another scumbag deprived lad had a near full can and felt fine with trying to attack the other lads with it.

But let's say you're 100% right. It was the other two larger lads at fault and that started the fight.
Why would you go back for more? Are you that stupid that you can't tell when you got a beating? I doubt you are. The scumbags (and they are scumbags) in the video are that stupid.

So either their idiots who don't know when to stop or else prícks who don't know when to stop. What one?



But your honour! I can judge the intentions of a man trying to swing a can and then throwing it at someone, just like I can judge the intentions of a man trying to use an umbrella as a lethal weapon.

Difference is here, is that your version is riddled with supposition. There is no way that you can arrive at some of your conclusions based on just the video, you can though, arrive at them based on your prejudice.
I have at no point made a 'guess' at who the guiltier party is.
I simply refuse to join in with the youtube bottom-feeders cheering this kind of behaviour from the sidelines. That's just more skanger behaviour and every bit as reprehensible.

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Difference is here, is that your version is riddled with supposition. There is no way that you can arrive at some of your conclusions based on just the video, you can though, arrive at them based on your prejudice.
I have at no point made a 'guess' at who the guiltier party is.
I simply refuse to join in with the youtube bottom-feeders cheering this kind of behaviour from the sidelines. That's just more skanger behaviour and every bit as reprehensible.

It's skanger behaviour to say "well they tried assault with a deadly weapon and got beaten up and got to walk away chase ater the men that did it in self-defense"?

I don't think I've ever been called a skanger in my life but then again I'm not the one that defends the vicious cúnts. Call me one (And everyone else) all you like. Bottom line is if the situation got worse and the two scumbags did manage to smash your man wit hthe can and take his eyes out, the judge would say "aw shure they're all poor like, they're on the dole, they come from the broken homes, we'll let them go".

One hypocrital man you are.

puffishoes

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

It's skanger behaviour to say "well they tried assault with a deadly weapon and got beaten up and got to walk away chase ater the men that did it in self-defense"?


I don't think I've ever been called a skanger in my life but then again I'm not the one that defends the vicious cúnts. Call me one (And everyone else) all you like. Bottom line is if the situation got worse and the two scumbags did manage to smash your man wit hthe can and take his eyes out, the judge would say "aw shure they're all poor like, they're on the dole, they come from the broken homes, we'll let them go".

One hypocrital man you are.

we.....don't.....know.....who....started.....what...........

we.....don't.....know.....who....started.....what...........

judging what may have happened before the video starts based on someones clothes is f*cking stupid.

chin_grin

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's just more skanger behaviour and every bit as reprehensible.

So are your posts that seem to lean in favour of the two "inner-Dublin-youths".

I'll agree that most of us can discuss til the cows come home about who started what with whom. All we know is who ended it and then decided to walk away and who looked like the aggressors not wanting to lose face from the video (I'm assuming because they were in their "patch" or "turf" or whatever the cool kids are calling it these days).

And to address your point about those who are cheering this sort of behaviour are usually coming from the background of "finally, someone sticking it to these people who harass for no reason and we live in fear from these packs of miscreants". Usually from first hand experience or from being too afraid to confront them.

Tombi!

puffishoes wrote: »

we.....don't.....know.....who....started.....what...........

we.....don't.....know.....who....started.....what...........

judging what may have happened before the video starts based on someones clothes is f*cking stupid.

I know so we go by the following: two men backing off, one man attacks with an umbrella. So that's what we know and that's what started it. Scumbags.

chin_grin wrote: »

All we know is who ended it and then decided to walk away and who looked like the aggressors not wanting to lose face from the video (I'm assuming because they were in their "patch" or "turf" or whatever the cool kids are calling it these days).

Just my take on that: I assume the two bigger lads weren't Irish and that's why the scumbags continued. Skangers seem to feel that if you're not Irish you'll automatically be an easy target.

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

It's skanger behaviour to say "well they tried assault with a deadly weapon and got beaten up and got to walk away chase ater the men that did it in self-defense"?

I don't think I've ever been called a skanger in my life but then again I'm not the one that defends the vicious cúnts. Call me one (And everyone else) all you like. Bottom line is if the situation got worse and the two scumbags did manage to smash your man wit hthe can and take his eyes out, the judge would say "aw shure they're all poor like, they're on the dole, they come from the broken homes, we'll let them go".

One hypocrital man you are.

What is hypocritical in objecting to bottom-feeders lauding the kicking of a man on the ground in the head?
Don't you have any lines that shouldn't be crossed? It is clear and incontrovertible that they had ample oppurtunity to subdue and remove the 'weapon'. From WHAT WE CAN SEE it was the guy in white who chose to escalate a minor incident to a serious assault.
Is it open season on anybody who appears to be a 'skanger' just for the edification of the youtubers?
Would your opinion change if he had killed him? This is not a video game, it's a real person, if you want to get your jollies, I suggest you get some sugared popcorn and watch a Bruce Willis movie.

Degsy

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is hypocritical in objecting to bottom-feeders lauding the kicking of a man on the ground in the head?
.

Why was the "man" on the ground in the first place?

If he'd been minding his own business it wouldnt have happened.

puffishoes

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I know so we go by the following: two men backing off, one man attacks with an umbrella. So that's what we know and that's what started it. Scumbags.

right we get it, you have no clue as to why the men were backing off or to what happened previously. e.g. one of the men physically assaulting the guy with the umbrella and knowing know he was going to retort so back's off.

you're getting better at this. so what we know for a fact is your making judgements about people you know nothing about based on well, their clothes.

You'll get there in the end.

bryaner

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is hypocritical in objecting to bottom-feeders lauding the kicking of a man on the ground in the head?
Don't you have any lines that shouldn't be crossed? It is clear and incontrovertible that they had ample oppurtunity to subdue and remove the 'weapon'. From WHAT WE CAN SEE it was the guy in white who chose to escalate a minor incident to a serious assault.
Is it open season on anybody who appears to be a 'skanger' just for the edification of the youtubers?
Would your opinion change if he had killed him? This is not a video game, it's a real person, if you want to get your jollies, I suggest you get some sugared popcorn and watch a Bruce Willis movie.

I didn't see any man getting kicked in the head, what I did see was some mutant skanger getting what he deserved..