Mum attacks bus inspector, inspector takes her out.

Carlos Orange

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yet you'd also disapprove of her leaving her kids home alone. Damned do, damned don't. This is separate to her assault btw - before some clown says I'm defending her vile behaviour towards the guy.

If you make enough bad decisions or have enough bad luck you can eventually only be left with bad options. That doesn't magically make one of them a good idea.

Potatoeman

You dont know how you would react in this situation. The guy was right to defend himself and could have done far worse to her and still be in the right. Dont assault someone and expect the victim to be restrained. It nothing to do with size or gender.
We also dont know if she was alone. Some of the people there could have been with her so holding her down would be risky.

the_syco

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Well if she had no babysitter, she couldn't just leave them home alone.

Instead she'll expect the hospital staff babysit them? Fecking white trash!

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

She'd be torn to shreds if she left them at home alone! At least they'd have adults around in a hospital.

Sick ones. With diseases.

And her carelessness towards her kids adds to our perspective of her attacking the bus marshal.

Potatoeman wrote: »

We also dont know if she was alone. Some of the people there could have been with her so holding her down would be risky.

At 00:28, the biggish guy in a grey top, green bottoms seems to push either her or him. He was the same guy whom she wanted to get the scooter from to use as a weapon.

=-=

Remember folks; if they're smaller than you, they can do whatever the funk they want at you, because if you respond, you're automatically bad.

Kettleson

Kiith wrote: »

I loved how the two guys who were watching decided to step up...and record it.

Well done lads :pac:

I'd hazard a guess that those two blokes contributed to winding the girl up into a state where she attacked the worker. Then hey presto! They start filming....they are all over the web complaining how dreadful it was for the girl, with half hidden grins on their faces. (Bus ****'rs).

smcgiff

Kettleson wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that those two blokes contributed to winding the girl up into a state where she attacked the worker. Then hey presto! They start filming....they are all over the web complaining how dreadful it was for the girl, with half hidden grins on their faces. (Bus ****'rs).

Any links to other discussions on this?

I'd die a little inside if the general consensus was against the inspector.

bodice ripper

smcgiff wrote: »

Couldn't see anything, but I love that NSFW is used in German.

'Dit item is NSFW. Zeker weten? Klik dan bovenaan om NSFW items aan te zetten.'

Dutch. German makes more sense.

Fukuyama

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

****ing hell.

But anyway, yes, she was being a horrible violent weapon and deserved retaliation, but the guy went too far. Probably a split second reaction, but no excuse for her head and back hitting the concrete with such impact.

Nobody's saying that he should have walked away, and it is not "bleeding heart" to view his reaction as too excessive. People going on about "bleeding heart" and "PC" just look idiotic.

Pure BS.

If she was threatening YOU with a scooter you'd be willing to see someone jump in and piledrive her.

You've obviously never been in a situation where you're at work and being attacked for doing your job. I have.


She hit him numerous times. A full force punch from him would have been justified in my opinion. However he put her down gently. Her head bumped off the concrete. Big deal. She didn't seem to worried about head injuries when she set about trying to acquire a heavy weapon to attack a bus inspector. Maybe next time she'll think twice,

If you attack someone, expect to be immobilized. Regardless of your gender.

Fukuyama

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yet you'd also disapprove of her leaving her kids home alone. Damned do, damned don't. This is separate to her assault btw - before some clown says I'm defending her vile behaviour towards the guy.

She's a scumbag.

Who the hell acts like that with their kids around? If that was a bloke going nine bells with a bus inspector, as little Johnnie and Susie watches on, you'd be calling for the kids to be taken away.

She's a violent little fcuk and I'd be shocked if she wasn't partial to knocking her kids around. A slight mistake by a bus inspector and she's calling for a heavy weapon.

Get a grip.

smcgiff

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'd be shocked if she wasn't partial to knocking her kids around.

Pure speculation, but it might also explain why the kids were crying. Maybe they see their parent all too often in this state and with direct consequences for them.

I can't believe anyone honestly sees a problem with what the guy did, if he'd punched her or slapped her there'd be howls, if he'd tried to grab her there could've been an accident. He tripped her, which is generally a pretty low-risk action and she was unlucky to hit her head on the ground, it's not and shouldn't be his problem.

Fukuyama

smcgiff wrote: »

Pure speculation, but it might also explain why the kids were crying. Maybe they see their parent all too often in this state and with direct consequences for them.

Speculation sure. But look at the evidence.

A bus inspector made a mistake, so she assaults him. In public.

Whats happening behind closed doors when one of the kids spills milk or does something bold?

If that was the father assaulting a bus driver everyone would assume he's a violent thug who not only believes he should be knocked out, but also locked up with his kids taken away.

She should get the same treatment.

Femme Fatal repeatedly suggests that because the guy is bigger than her (looks like fat, tbh), he deserves to be some kind of punching bag and can only hold her arms (as though restraining her will calm her down).

I'd never hit a person for no reason (as she did). I'd hit a man (if provoked) before I'd hit a woman because I'm bigger than 95% of women. When I've been attacked in work (twice) by skanger females for doing my job I just kept walking away while using words to defuse the situation. I had a huge scratch across my neck from some bints nails and I still didn't retaliate.

These kind of women are aware of the fact that most men will put up with spitting, hitting, shoving etc... without reacting. Whereas I think most men realise that if they started something most men would have no bother fighting back.

There's a stupid suggestion that men, purely because we're (statistically) bigger and stronger than most women, must become some kind of punching bag with the restraint, experience and knowhow of a police officer. If he had started to restrain her on the ground to wait for the police he'd be out of a job and all over the Australian news in an even bigger way.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Should nailed her with a stone cold stunner the tool.

In all seriousness she attacked someone despite being repeatedly asked to calm down, and then started looking for weapons. What the hell was he supposed to do. Even if he had backed off she would have chased him. I'd love to know what the people defending the woman would have done if placed in the same situation.

KERSPLAT!

To me it's like the video of the kid getting picked on, has had enough and piledrives the scrawny bully into the ground. They both got what they deserved. She won't be doing that again in a hurry

Hierro_4

Good on the inspector. It's not often you see scobes getting put in their place. Nice to see.

smcgiff

Dean0088 wrote: »

If he had started to restrain her on the ground to wait for the police he'd be out of a job and all over the Australian news in an even bigger way.

Can you just imagine the shock...

Huge fatty holds down teeny person with his paws all over his captive, who only wanted to get to her screaming kids to give them the hugs they so desperately needed.

Carlos Orange

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

To me it's like the video of the kid getting picked on, has had enough and piledrives the scrawny bully into the ground. They both got what they deserved. She won't be doing that again in a hurry

That one is a little more extreme but it illustrates the same point. Also in Australia I think.
It is wrong to start a fight but it is downright idiotic to start one with someone who can kick your ass.

SparkySpitfire

smcgiff wrote: »

I didn't say he/they couldn't restrain her. I think there's a doubt as to whether he'd be able to do it in such a way as to not look like a big meanie.

Good point raised above, what legal right has he and his co-worker to restrain the person?

If he has legal justification to restrain her (dodgy I'd say) he's enough to do what he did.

I've looked at that video again, and the only person that comes out of the whole thing looking well is the inspector. Australian TV and the other participants look ridiculous.

Oh sorry the only response you people are looking for is:

WHAT A HERO, HE'S SO AMAZING, LOOK AT HIM WOOHOO.

Satisfied?

Since smgiff is the only person who replied to me that can talk rationally I'll bite...
I don't believe he acted in the best way possible. You believe otherwise. He's justified to do anything that will prevent harm to himself and her. That kick could have gone wrong, you can bet her scummer family would take him to the cleaners if she hit her head harder. He should be looking out for himself legally and physically. I still think he's in the right, and I couldn't care less if people disagree.

vicwatson

psinno wrote: »

That one is a little more extreme but it illustrates the same point. Also in Australia I think.
It is wrong to start a fight but it is downright idiotic to start one with someone who can kick your ass.

Ha ha that learned him !!

Paramite Pie

silverharp wrote: »

looks like a very basic Judo move. Well done sir, she assaulted him first and he reacted with a very measured defensive move

Yes it is but when doing those moves you have control how fast the person falls and could avoid smacking her head on the concrete. The videos stupid sound effects makes the fall more painful than it probably is but it's easier to let 'em fall (landing on her back will wind her) and then restrain her until the police arrive.

He could have handled it better but women should not attack men thinking men do not have a right to defend themselves. However his life was not in danger. He could have restrained her but he'd probably be in the ****house for that too.

Caliden

How many times does she need to be told to stop before he can do something?

If I were him I would file charges because if he doesn't she will sue him.

Fukuyama

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Oh sorry the only response you people are looking for is:

WHAT A HERO, HE'S SO AMAZING, LOOK AT HIM WOOHOO.

Satisfied?

Since smgiff is the only person who replied to me that can talk rationally I'll bite...
I don't believe he acted in the best way possible. You believe otherwise. He's justified to do anything that will prevent harm to himself and her. That kick could have gone wrong, you can bet her scummer family would take him to the cleaners if she hit her head harder. He should be looking out for himself legally and physically. I still think he's in the right, and I couldn't care less if people disagree.

He didn't kick her.

A kick is using your leg as a blunt force weapon.

He 'swept' her legs while holding her arm to make the fall as soft as possible. Tbh, a police officer would have been a lot more heavy handed if she'd given him the same treatment.

She got off very lightly and is luck the guy decided not to press charges. Despite what scumbag 'journos' want us to believe, had it gone through a court of law, he'd be 100% in the right.

Xeyn

To be fair from what ive read is that the police were only concerned about her anti social behaviour and wanted to know if the inspector wanted to press charges which he declined to do so.

Eutow

Dean0088 wrote: »

He didn't kick her.

A kick is using your leg as a blunt force weapon.

He 'swept' her legs while holding her arm to make the fall as soft as possible. Tbh, a police officer would have been a lot more heavy handed if she'd given him the same treatment.

She got off very lightly and is luck the guy decided not to press charges. Despite what scumbag 'journos' want us to believe, had it gone through a court of law, he'd be 100% in the right.

"Journalists" lying and not telling the truth. What else is new.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Like for like - regardless of size. She punched him in the face, too bad he didn't punch her in the face.

Well done to him for remaining as calm as he did. Had that been a female inspector that was assaulted by a male, it'd have been an entirely different story.

That's what has so many scumbag women going around assaulting men, you'd see it in a nightclub or on the street after, nobody bats an eye when a woman tears into a man but jaysus, hold fire, should it be the other way round. They think that it's fine for them to hit a man because its not acceptable for a man to hit back, but once you throw the first punch, all bets are off and be prepared to take what's coming to you.

Too bad he didn't hurt her tbh

pundy

it's great. love seeing cvnts getting what they deserve like that. what a b!tch

Ray Palmer

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Like for like - regardless of size. She punched him in the face, too bad he didn't punch her in the face.

Here the law says equal and opposite force not like for like action. So if somebody hits you in the face you don't get to hit them harder than they hit you. Given the size difference a punch from him would not have been equal.

He showed amazing restraint and was trying to restrain her from what I saw.It was her own actions that caused her to hit the ground theway she did. The journalism in this article was a worse crime. Did we reallyneed to hear the mother of the guy who videoed the events telling us whatshe saw in the video?


Doesn’t the video guy also refer to the woman as a “bird”

Fukuyama

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Here the law says equal and opposite force not like for like action. So if somebody hits you in the face you don't get to hit them harder than they hit you. Given the size difference a punch from him would not have been equal.

He showed amazing restraint and was trying to restrain her from what I saw.It was her own actions that caused her to hit the ground theway she did. The journalism in this article was a worse crime. Did we reallyneed to hear the mother of the guy who videoed the events telling us whatshe saw in the video?


Doesn’t the video guy also refer to the woman as a “bird”

Equal and opposite force is applied to type of force - not power of force.

So if she punched him at HER full force, it's okay for HIM to punch her at HIS full force.

However, it would not be okay for him to use a weapon.

You can't expect someone in a self defence situation to start adjusting the power settings on their bicep. :rolleyes:

You're allowed put someone on the ground and walk away - regardless of the size of the victim - it wasn't the victim who came looking for a punch up.

Femme_Fatale

Dean0088 wrote: »

Femme Fatal repeatedly suggests that because the guy is bigger than her (looks like fat, tbh), he deserves to be some kind of punching bag

Lol, what a liar you are. :pac:
Find one example of where I said he "deserves to be some kind of punching bag". The attempts here to pretend people who are being devil's advocate are defending her and critical of him are hilarious.

I said she was a horrible bitch whose violence was appalling and she deserved retaliation - why are you pretending I didn't? More enjoyable for you to get angered by stuff that's not there?
I only said a move by a much bigger person, thus increasing impact (I never said anything about gender - you and others are making that up) landing the back of her head to concrete looks excessive and could have landed the guy in trouble - I do acknowledge it was the heat of the moment too though. I would say the same if it were a small guy on the receiving end of it. To me it looks excessive anyway - I'm not au fait with such manoeuvres, and I'm more than happy to concede that and more than happy to acknowledge I'm wrong and it's not excessive. People pick up things wrongly though - don't get upset by it.

As for the bringing her kids to the hospital with her - I only can't understand why this is so much concern for people when the real issue is her getting violent in front of her children. I'm not saying the hospital should look after the kids either, but who knows what the story is there - seems like a pointless side issue. Maybe she didn't have a babysitter - who knows.

I suggest you, as you lamely advised me for no reason, be the one to "get a grip" actually.

smcgiff wrote: »

Any links to other discussions on this?

I'd die a little inside if the general consensus was against the inspector.

Vast majority of people on this thread are defending him and anyone who slightly deviates is clusterf*cked. Surely that's enough to stop you from "dying a little inside"...

I... get the feeling people actually want the woman to be defended on this thread so they can be outraged. And she isn't being defended so they make up that she is.

smcgiff

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Vast majority of people on this thread are defending him and anyone who slightly deviates is clusterf*cked. Surely that's enough to stop you from "dying a little inside"...

I... get the feeling people actually want the woman to be defended on this thread so they can be outraged. And she isn't being defended so they make up that she is.

I don't see this as a male/female thing.

The inspector was protecting himself with reasonable (very reasonable, and the added sound effects by the tv muppets doesn't help) and for anyone to suggest he should have sucked it up or put himself in more danger (walking away and not dealing with it) or risk losing his job (restraining her for god knows how long) have a very different world view to myself.

Very few people (if any) are defending the woman, but some are saying the inspectors actions weren't justified. I strongly disagree.

Fukuyama

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Lol, what a liar you are. :pac:
Find one example of where I said he "deserves to be some kind of punching bag". The attempts here to pretend people who are being devil's advocate are defending her and critical of him are hilarious.

For example:

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

A move that lands someone (male or female) on their back and head on concrete when the other person (who is entitled to defend themselves) is way bigger than them and could just grab their arms.

There are repeated suggestions from you that the guy should have just held her arms (a stupid thing to do) and you insinuate that because he's bigger than her, he should control his retaliation.

You seem quite ignorant of even the most basic school yard self defence. You suggest he should have responded 'in kind'. He's a big bloke. So, using your suggestion that he adjust the power of his responce and exchange like-for-like, he should have hit her. This would have caused an uncontrolled fall for her - potentially onto the train tracks.

Throughout the video you can hear him give the girl repeated verbal warnings (despite the news footage trying to cover this audio up). She was asked dozens of times to move away, whilst hitting the guy repeatedly. :rolleyes:

Even when she's making a move for a heavy weapon he's still asking her (politely) to calm down. In no way is ever aggressive or does he use any force at all.

He handled her with kid gloves when he was left with no choice to retaliate. He grabbed her arm and swept her legs. She bumped her head and it was entirely her own fault. At no point did he strike her at all.

The guy is easily 225 pounds and I'd say a well landed punch off him would send me down no bother. And I have a feeling that if I was repeatedly hitting him he'd have no problem leveling me. And everyone on here would worship him as some kind of God (as we seen with that bouncer video from the UK a few weeks ago where he floored a guy who was repeatedly coming at him).

The simple fact is that SOME women (who tend to be of a certain ilk), know that they can repeatedly strike a man with little fear of retaliation. These same women wouldn't hit another women because they know they'd likely get a retaliation. The reason I brought her gender into the equation is because it's obviously a factor - both in how the journalists portrayed the story and how people reacted to it.

I've been in that guys position. It's not nice having to stand there and take it (because you're at work in an 'official' capacity) while strangers look on with camera phones. Of course, you're damn well aware that you can't very well just deck a woman in the same way you would a man. It just isn't done in society and these types of women know that. You'd more than likely get four or five scobey mates of hers jumping in. The net result is having to stand there being shouted at, scraped, hit and only really being able to extend your arms to keep the attacker away. All for minimum wage and a sense of no feeling safe in your workplace.

You also mention size difference. So what. If I walked up to an seven foot Russian dude that's built like a tank, started throwing digs at him I think society wouldn't bat an eye lid if he decked me with full force. You can't pull a 'size difference' card if you're the main aggressor.

As for the bringing her kids to the hospital with her - I only can't understand why this is so much concern for people when the real issue is her getting violent in front of her children. I'm not saying the hospital should look after the kids either, but who knows what the story is there - seems like a pointless side issue. Maybe she didn't have a babysitter - who knows.

Nobody cares that a mother brings her kids around town with her. People were drawing the obvious conclusion that she was traveling for an operation with kids to the hospital. Childcare was an obvious issue and it's a parents responsibility to make sure their kids are looked after (they all look very young). Not having a babysitter isn't an excuse to leave your kids unattended. If you can't see that as an issue then your judgement is off the wall.

The fact that she seemed perfectly at home assaulting people with her kids looking on is the main concern. Social Services should extract those children from her care. Simple as. If I ever have kids, and went around assaulting people with them in tow, I'd expect Social Services to come and remove the children from my care and I'm surprised the Police didn't.

There is zero responsibility on the victim here - regardless of his size.

Femme_Fatale

Dean0088 wrote: »

For example:

How on earth did you interpret that as me saying the guy "deserved to be a punching bag"? Quit making sh1t up in your desperation to be outraged ffs. ":rolleyes:"

You seem quite ignorant of even the most basic school yard self defence.

Sue me. Not everyone can know about it. But I admit that I was wrong - now please do the same yourself in relation to the deliberate fallacies you're attributing to my posts. To the ignorant, untrained eye (like mine), letting someone's head hit concrete seemes too extreme and maybe a less dangerous looking move could have been deployed by him - is that really so unreasonable? Can people not just try to see where that perspective is coming from rather than jerking the knee and deciding I'm defending her/condemning him?
People can say what I said without thinking the woman was innocent or that the man deserved the violence (still baffled as to how anyone would take that from what I said) and shouldn't have defended himself. It's not a case of one or the other.

El_Dangeroso

dodderangler wrote: »

I've never hit a woman but that thing is a fcuking weapon. Yes she fully deserved it.
Maybe a sneaky boob grab while she's down there
But no she deserve it

Sexual assault is sooooo funny. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

dr.bollocko

dodderangler wrote: »

Maybe a sneaky boob grab while she's down there

mod:
Any more of this kind of crap gets bans.

Fukuyama

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

How on earth did you interpret that as me saying the guy "deserved to be a punching bag"? Quit making sh1t up in your desperation to be outraged ffs. ":rolleyes:"

Sue me. Not everyone can know about it. But I admit that I was wrong - now please do the same yourself in relation to the deliberate fallacies you're attributing to my posts. To the ignorant, untrained eye (like mine), letting someone's head hit concrete seemes too extreme and maybe a less dangerous looking move could have been deployed by him - is that really so unreasonable? Can people not just try to see where that perspective is coming from rather than jerking the knee and deciding I'm defending her/condemning him?
People can say what I said without thinking the woman was innocent or that the man deserved the violence (still baffled as to how anyone would take that from what I said) and shouldn't have defended himself. It's not a case of one or the other.

You're critisising the actions of a victim of assault.

Intentionally hitting someone elses head off the pavement is a no no. He did not do this. The fact that she hit her head (very softly, I might add) is her own making. Not his.

If you can tell me what 'move' he could have executed that would have been any better, fine. I'm at a loss.

All I see in that video is a man with excellent self control handling an aggressive chav piece of scum with kid gloves.

walrusgumble

FearDark wrote: »

The awful awful report aside[the repeated showing of the bus inspector tripping the woman up combined with sound effects and calling him a monster], what does AH think of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o94XTOuGLk8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o94XTOuGLk8

I'm totally on the side of the bus inspector. Sure she is late for hospital but there is absolutely no need for violence, the woman even calls for a more dangerous object at one stage to hit him with, he repeatedly tells her to stop and when she won't the guy uses force to take her down. Was it excessive? I don't think so. If you are being attacked you take out the threat.

Was he right to take her out?
Should he have restrained her instead?
Was it excessive?
[Don't get me started on the mum who is "proud" her little scrotes filimed the incident]

What say you AH?

Fair play to the driver. She uses violence, knock her bloody head off and teach her a lesson. He should have punched her in the baby maker

Femme_Fatale

dr.bollocko wrote: »

mod:
Any more of this kind of crap gets bans.

Feminazi. It's only a tit grab like.

walrusgumble wrote: »

He should have punched her in the baby maker

He should have? No he shouldn't. What he did was sufficient. And if the little witch was a man, he shouldn't have punched him in the balls.

El_Dangeroso

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Feminazi. It's only a tit grab like.

That's so subtle it's almost subliminal.

Pat Mustard

Dean0088 wrote: »

There are repeated suggestions [...] that the guy should have just held her arms (a stupid thing to do)

Quite right, I would think. I would say that if he had attempted to do this, he would leave himself exposed to kicks, bites, and possibly a headbutt. Human bites can be fairly nasty. I don't think that it would have been safe to simply attempt to pin her arms.

It would be a different matter if he was trained to apply an effective armlock or other method of subduing violent criminals.

The big guy was awkward in his movements. He didn't appear to be trained. I think that it is unrealistic to suggest that an untrained man should have selected a less powerful but still effective self defence response from a repertoire of techniques, in a pressurised situation.

seamus

The Mustard wrote: »

The big guy was awkward in his movements. He didn't appear to be trained. I think that it is unrealistic to suggest that an untrained man should have selected a less powerful but still effective self defence response from a repertoire of techniques, in a pressurised situation.

I'm not sure if he was untrained. He seemed pretty deft at it. It's a great little move, it's a tiny tap to the back of the leg with minimal force, so involves zero injury to the attacker and couldn't be classed as assault in any rational mind.
Yet it has the effect of knocking the attacker on their arse without escalating the violence.

I'd say he was taught that move either at some extra-curricular "simple self defence" class or as part of his official training.

His options were limited to be fair. I wouldn't turn my back on her and walk away, you'd get smacked in the back of the head with a scooter. He only had one hand free, he's way bigger than her and is surrounded by mates of hers, so restraining her isn't really a good option.

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure if he was untrained. He seemed pretty deft at it. It's a great little move, it's a tiny tap to the back of the leg with minimal force, so involves zero injury to the attacker and couldn't be classed as assault in any rational mind.
Yet it has the effect of knocking the attacker on their arse without escalating the violence.

I'd say he was taught that move either at some extra-curricular "simple self defence" class or as part of his official training.

Now that you say it, maybe so, yes. He got her first time, both times. Maybe he had done some training previously. He doesn't look like a guy who trains regularly though. His technique, which worked, looked a little sloppy, and there was probably at least an element of compensation for poor technique with sheer size.

seamus wrote: »

His options were limited to be fair. I wouldn't turn my back on her and walk away, you'd get smacked in the back of the head with a scooter. He only had one hand free, he's way bigger than her and is surrounded by mates of hers, so restraining her isn't really a good option.

Absolutely agree.

hardCopy

Proper order. What a horrible aggressive bint

old hippy

pundy wrote: »

it's great. love seeing cvnts getting what they deserve like that. what a b!tch

She done wrong and there's no call for violence. Absolutely but some of the women hating comments here are a bit disturbing.

LordSutch

listermint wrote: »

Laughable, Id say she is looking for compo, people that attack people like that are gutter trash. They just dislike people who have a remote air of authority be in bus inspectors or police. The two lads come across as scrotey too.

The lad trips her but also grabs her arm so she doesnt hit the ground hard. Its a defensive move.

I noticed that too, and I thought he was very restrained in the face of full on provication, by someone who looked like they were on drugs?

Potatoeman

old hippy wrote: »

She done wrong and there's no call for violence. Absolutely but some of the women hating comments here are a bit disturbing.

I thought they were skanger hating?

Dyr

The Mustard wrote: »

. In case anyone is interested, here is a demonstration of how it should be done.

In case anyone is interested, that's not a demonstration of how it should be done because he didnt use o soto gari. :pac:

Potatoeman

Bambi wrote: »

In case anyone is interested, that's not a demonstration of how it should be done because he didnt use o soto gari. :pac:

Yeah it was a sweep not a throw.

up for anything

dodderangler wrote: »

I've never hit a woman but that thing is a fcuking weapon. Yes she fully deserved it.
Maybe a sneaky boob grab while she's down there
But no she deserve it

That might have sounded funny in your head but on screen it just shows that you are probably at the same level as you seem to class that thing in. Do you hate all women? :rolleyes:

Pat Mustard

Bambi wrote: »

In case anyone is interested, that's not a demonstration of how it should be done because he didnt use o soto gari. :pac:

Looked at that video clip again. You're right, Bambi. Been donkeys since I did Judo. Ah, one of those days where attention to detail goes out the window... I'll go back and edit my previous post now, in case anyone believes it.

Potatoeman wrote: »

Yeah it was a sweep not a throw.

Osoto Gari is a sweep, not a throw, not that it matters.

PizzamanIRL

Reminds me of this classic video.
Bus people, eh?

Pat Mustard

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Reminds me of this classic video.
Bus people, eh?

Bill Cosby don't take no crap on his bus these days.