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

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ever used a stick to chase an aggressive dog away but never intended to actually hit it?
I'm not saying what his intention was with the umbrella, but it is possible that these the two, in white and green where the aggressors and he is attempting to ward them off. The guy in green is moving backwards with his fists up, tuanting the other guy 'to come on'. The other guy in red, with something wrong with his arm is holding back...way back, at the start of the vid.
Their quick exit suggests to me that they want to get away as quick as possible...I wonder why?

I am just saying, remove your 'skanger' prejudice and it isn't that simple a case.

There's a difference between chasing a dog with a weapon and using it to prod them into snapping.

IT IS NOT TAUNTING TO ASSUME A DEFENSIVE STANCE.

Are you honestly telling me that if someone has a weapon that can blind you and is approaching you, you drop your guard? Are you that f**king stupid? No, of course you're not. So why would you expect anyone else to do the same?

People are calling them skangers because of what they did no other reason.

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

There's a difference between chasing a dog with a weapon and using it to prod them into snapping.

IT IS NOT TAUNTING TO ASSUME A DEFENSIVE STANCE.

Are you honestly telling me that if someone has a weapon that can blind you and is approaching you, you drop your guard? Are you that f**king stupid? No, of course you're not. So why would you expect anyone else to do the same?

People are calling them skangers because of what they did no other reason.

He raises an umbrella in a situation we know NOTHING about and for a reason we don't know. This comes after we see the guy moving backwards with his fists up in a 'come on' way. The other so called 'aggressor' is a long way away, not involved and only comes back into the picture when the guy is being kicked on the ground, shouting 'leave hm alone'. He makes no effort to, strike, knife, or issue any physical threat at all. He is then 'set upon' by the guy in white. The other guy, picking himself up from the ground gets savagely kicked in the head by a running man.
On the basis of that, we can only say that the guys in green and in white where the aggressors.
Where does the other guy with his arm wrapped offer any physical threat in the video?

If you see something different, point it out please. But don't fill in gaps.

btw, the only time I have seen somebody wrap an arm like that is to tackle a dog or somebody wielding a knife. It doesn't on closer examination look like a cast or bandage.

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

He raises an umbrella in a situation we know NOTHING about and for a reason we don't know. This comes after we see the guy moving backwards with his fists up in a 'come on' way. The other so called 'aggressor' is a long way away, not involved and only comes back into the picture when the guy is being kicked on the ground, shouting 'leave hm alone'. He makes no effort to, strike, knife, or issue any physical threat at all. He is then 'set upon' by the guy in white. The other guy, picking himself up from the ground gets savagely kicked in the head by a running man.
On the basis of that, we can only say that the guys in green and in white where the aggressors.
Where does the other guy with his arm wrapped offer any physical threat in the video?

If you see something different, point it out please. But don't fill in gaps.

btw, the only time I have seen somebody wrap an arm like that is to tackle a dog or somebody wielding a knife. It doesn't on closer examination look like a cast or bandage.

Okay let's start over with defense 101: when you raise your fists in self defense, you are defending yourself.

The other lad had a can about 500ml in size, wanting to use it as a weapon.

But I have to admit, both your clients would get away with it, mostly because you tell a great sob story.

Chucky the tree

Happyman42 wrote: »

He raises an umbrella in a situation we know NOTHING about and for a reason we don't know. This comes after we see the guy moving backwards with his fists up in a 'come on' way. The other so called 'aggressor' is a long way away, not involved and only comes back into the picture when the guy is being kicked on the ground, shouting 'leave hm alone'. He makes no effort to, strike, knife, or issue any physical threat at all. He is then 'set upon' by the guy in white. The other guy, picking himself up from the ground gets savagely kicked in the head by a running man.
On the basis of that, we can only say that the guys in green and in white where the aggressors.
Where does the other guy with his arm wrapped offer any physical threat in the video?

If you see something different, point it out please. But don't fill in gaps.

btw, the only time I have seen somebody wrap an arm like that is to tackle a dog or somebody wielding a knife. It doesn't on closer examination look like a cast or bandage.

It's clear the lad in red with the umbrella is the aggressor. At the start of the video he is in the one moving forward and then tries to strike them with his umbrella. The other two lads are constantly backing away until he tries to strike them. Then the lad with his arm runs towards them aggressively and the guy in white doesn't want to risk anything so he does the right thing and hits him a few digs. If the lad in blue doesn't want to get involved he should stay away, he doesn't though.

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Okay let's start over with defense 101: when you raise your fists in self defense, you are defending yourself.

The other lad had a can about 500ml in size, wanting to use it as a weapon.

But I have to admit, both your clients would get away with it, mostly because you tell a great sob story.

At what point before his beating do you see a 'threatening can' in his hand? Give me the timing, because I can't see a can until the very end of the clip, when the two are moving away, and he doesn't threaten with it, he just throws it. And it would have been a futile threat as the guy in green had his back to him and doesn't see the can until the last minute.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's clear the lad in red with the umbrella is the aggressor. At the start of the video he is in the one moving forward and then tries to strike them with his umbrella. The other two lads are constantly backing away until he tries to strike them. Then the lad with his arm runs towards them aggressively and the guy in white doesn't want to risk anything so he does the right thing and hits him a few digs. If the lad in blue doesn't want to get involved he should stay away, he doesn't though.

Yes, he is advancing towards them, that is what we see. Why he is doing that, is what we don't know. The umbrella is carried by his side, not raised in a threatening way until they reach the corner. The guy in green is without a doubt 'rolling his fists' in a classic 'come on' pose, though. Couple that with the fact, that his drink is left on the post office box or bin, and his coat and stuff is in the other street with that of the guy in white and there is definite evidence that this is a more lenghty dispute, the nature of which, we don't know.
The guy in blue is several yards away when the first beating takes place and make a half hearted attempt to stop the beating, he DOES NOT aim a blow, shape to throw a blow but only tries to rescue his mate. You cannot assume anything else here. The video just doesn't support another view.

Monty Burnz

Happyman42 wrote: »

He raises an umbrella in a situation we know NOTHING about and for a reason we don't know.

Ludicrous. He assaulted someone with it. 'A situation we know nothing about' - they captured it on video somewhere, have you seen it all? 'For a reason we don't know' - to hurt the guy. That's the reason.

It's actually funny to see people falling over themselves to excuse the knack bags.

Galwayguy35

The kick in the head seems to be the issue here. Personally if I ended up in a confrontation with some junkie who was hassling me instead of minding his own business I would also give him a kick to make sure he stayed down rather than running the risk of getting a jab of a needle or stabbed with a knife.
And these skangers aren't just in Dublin, they are everywhere.

Happyman42

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ludicrous. He assaulted someone with it. 'A situation we know nothing about' - they captured it on video somewhere, have you seen it all? 'For a reason we don't know' - to hurt the guy. That's the reason.

It's actually funny to see people falling over themselves to excuse the knack bags.

I can only judge on the basis of what I see, not on what I presume. Sorry to ruin the vigilante buzz.

Happyman42

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The kick in the head seems to be the issue here. Personally if I ended up in a confrontation with some junkie who was hassling me instead of minding his own business I would also give him a kick to make sure he stayed down rather than running the risk of getting a jab of a needle or stabbed with a knife.
And these skangers aren't just in Dublin, they are everywhere.

Depends of course on what you call hassling...would somebody asking for a spare fag, warrant a running kick to the head? Why don't we just allow certain members of society to carry guns and do a Clint Eastwood anytime somebody 'skangerish' comes into view. :rolleyes:

Rhand

Happyman, I just hope you're no judge in this city. Although it would explain a bit the state of this city...

Happyman42

Rhand wrote: »

Happyman, I just hope you're no judge in this city. Although it would explain a bit the state of this city...

I think you'll find the 'judges' are all on this thread!

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Depends of course on what you call hassling...would somebody asking for a spare fag, warrant a running kick to the head? Why don't we just allow certain members of society to carry guns and do a Clint Eastwood anytime somebody 'skangerish' comes into view. :rolleyes:

Right, I don't think the man had the can in his hand all the time. What I do f**king know is your moral sense of "right and wrong" is out of order. There is no reason whatsoever that "asking for a spare ciggy" or whatever bull excuse you wanna give means "poke someone with an umbrella".

But sure, again you're going to say "we dont see what happened before" but you seem to think they did nothing wrong before hand.

Why is it you get to judge things you don't see and I can't do the same?

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But sure, again you're going to say "we dont see what happened before" but you seem to think they did nothing wrong before hand.

You have proved you have problems seeing and now you have reading issues.
Where did I say, 'they did nothing wrong beforehand'?

questionmark?

quizalot wrote: »

Thinking two unfortunates getting beaten up on the streets is fun?
Get some compassion, will you...

Ya I feel sorry for the two guys having to waste their energy on the two sub-human scumbags. The type of people that provide a reason as to why so many are afraid to walk the streets.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have walked city streets for years and have come across all types and I have never gotten into a scuffle like that. If approached by those two (and we have no idea how this kicked off, despite any amount of unverified 'roommates and eyewitnesses who where ther and (suprise, suprise)happen to be in agreement with the 'summary justice' meted out.) I would have attempted to calm the situation first and if it escalated into a physical confrontation my approach would have been to subdue, which, judging on the capibilities on show, should not have been too difficult. What I would NEVER ever do, is kick a prone man, on the ground, in the head. That's called, 'personal responsibility'.

Calm the situation? Scumbags thinks that means the person is weak and they should kick the ****e out of the person who "calms" the situation worse.

I've been the victim of a unprovoked attack by two scummers whilst walking home in the early hours luckily for me I'm more than capable of defending myself and ended up on the winning side.

Tombi!

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have proved you have problems seeing and now you have reading issues.
Where did I say, 'they did nothing wrong beforehand'?

I said you seem to think. You're adamant you think the scumbags are the victims. Then you seem to think if we disagree we're some loosely-put-together mob out for their blood.

Most of us don't even give a flying f**k about them.

All we seen (along with yourself) is 4 men. One man has an umbrella, uses it to attack and his mate came along and both men got beaten up because of it.
Then, after the beating, the first man attempts to get up while grabbing his umbrella and one of the other two men seeing this, sprints and kicks him.
The man that did the kick and his friend then attempt to leave but one of the other two men tried to goad them back by throwing (what looks like) a 500ml can at them.

So, can you tell me why we would assume that the two scumbags weren't at fault? And please, don't say anything like "well we don't know what happened".

We do know what happened in the video we saw and thats all that matters. There isn't time for "ifs, buts, maybes" or "Damo is on the dole, he didn't know what he did". No guesses, just plain simple facts in the video. So stick with them.

And nice personal attack, but let's try to keep with the posts and not bout us personally.

Actually, you're the guy who said calm the situation and claiming the man was prone. He was not f**king prone so I'm done talking to you since you clearly don't want to go by facts.

Murdstone

What did the fellah in blue do wrong?

there's no indication in the video that him and Red are friends. When red was getting the head kicked off him, he approached and shouted to leave him alone, and got a beating for his trouble.

Rhand

Murdstone wrote: »

What did the fellah in blue do wrong?

I'm sure the gardai can answer that question better than us.

bryaner

Murdstone wrote: »

What did the fellah in blue do wrong?

there's no indication in the video that him and Red are friends. When red was getting the head kicked off him, he approached and shouted to leave him alone, and got a beating for his trouble.

He might know better the next time, but being a skanger probably not!

Murdstone

"I'm sure the gardai can answer that question better than us. "

All we know is that he owns at least one tracksuit, is from Dublin and intervenes when he sees someone getting a hiding.

bryaner

Murdstone wrote: »

"I'm sure the gardai can answer that question better than us. "

All we know is that he owns at least one tracksuit, is from Dublin and intervenes when he sees someone getting a hiding.

His name is Adam, the other lads name is Paul..

Happyman42

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I said you seem to think. You're adamant you think the scumbags are the victims.

I didn't say that either, stop assuming.

All we seen (along with yourself) is 4 men. One man has an umbrella, uses it to attack and his mate came along and both men got beaten up because of it.

Because we don't know what happened prior to the umbrella we don't know what provoked the guy in red to do what he did. What we do know is his mate is a good few feet away uninvolved at this point.
For instance, how do you know he is not doing what you claim our 'two heroes' are doing, i.e. attempting to ward off agressors?
There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the guy in blues demeanour and approach to suggest that he is doing anything other than stopping a vicious attack on his mate.

Then, after the beating, the first man attempts to get up while grabbing his umbrella and one of the other two men seeing this, sprints and kicks him.

Wrong, quite wrong, look at the sequence of stills again...he starts into the sprint BEFORE he even touches the umbrella....an umbrella that could have been taken away at a number of points.

The man that did the kick and his friend then attempt to leave but one of the other two men tried to goad them back by throwing (what looks like) a 500ml can at them.

That could quite easily be seen as leaving the area qucikly as the rest of the people on the street start to intervene.

So, can you tell me why we would assume that the two scumbags weren't at fault? And please, don't say anything like "well we don't know what happened".

But that is the case, we do not have enough information to reach that conclusion

We do know what happened in the video we saw and thats all that matters. There isn't time for "ifs, buts, maybes" or "Damo is on the dole, he didn't know what he did". No guesses, just plain simple facts in the video. So stick with them.

And nice personal attack, but let's try to keep with the posts and not bout us personally.

Actually, you're the guy who said calm the situation and claiming the man was prone. He was not f**king prone so I'm done talking to you since you clearly don't want to go by facts.

Lying on the ground is 'prone' by my book. There where many other things they could have done to subdue him.

LH Pathe

@ 0.19 .. Sweet as a nut. More f this type of thing! Ragdolls for the slaughter let's clean up this town, buffed or not

smellslikeshoes

Murdstone wrote: »

All we know is that he owns at least one tracksuit, is from Dublin and intervenes when he sees someone getting a hiding.

At the end of the vid after throwing the can the guy in blue takes the umbrella and starts following the bigger guys across the road pointing it at them. If he was just some good Samaritan trying to stop the fight he's hardly going to pursue them waving around an umbrella is he?

Murdstone

"At the end of that vid the guy in blue takes the umbrella and starts following the bigger guys across the road pointing it at them. If he was just some good Samaritan trying to stop the fight he's hardly going to pursue them is he?"

Would he not? He just got a beating himself, can't imagine he was too happy about it.

Tombi!

See here's the problem, that's not prone.
But since we're going "by my book".

Here's my book: scumbags attacked the two men, they got beaten up, they deserved it. I'm done with you.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Happyman42 wrote: »

There where many other things they could have done to subdue him.

What would you have done to subdue him?.

Monty Burnz

Chanel Nutritious Tag wrote: »

What would you have done to subdue him?.

Debated him until he lost the will to live.

Jesus Shaves

Chanel Nutritious Tag wrote: »

What would you have done to subdue him?.

Probably sat on him

Happyman42

Chanel Nutritious Tag wrote: »

What would you have done to subdue him?.

If he was the 'aggressor', I'd have taken the weapon off him for a start. The guy in red was not a threat and didn't show any signs of wanting to be physically involved. He could have easily been kept at bay while the other guy, held down, calmed down. If he wasn't going to calm down, call for help.

But that of course wouldn't have got the bottom feeders on youtube excited.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he was the 'aggressor', I'd have taken the weapon off him for a start. The guy in red was not a threat and didn't show any signs of wanting to be physically involved. He could have easily been kept at bay while the other guy, held down, calmed down. If he wasn't going to calm down, call for help.

How would you have taken the brolly from him?.

And how would you have held him down and called for help?.

Not loaded questions btw, I'm genuinely interested and I'd appreciate people not making stupid replies like sitting on the guy or giving him cuddles or your posts will be deleted.