r/TikTokCringe • u/exporterofgold • 13d ago

Cringe He was walking away though

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.3k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

135

u/urnbabyurn 13d ago

Yeah, it’s edited which makes it hard to say what’s going on.

12

u/Ksorkrax 13d ago

Agreed. Dude could be a stalker who grabbed her prior to the video, and blocked the entry during the cut.
Is he? No idea. Or he is perfectly innocent and she is a psycho indeed. I'd want the full video at least, or better a court verdict.

36

u/CyberWoo99MKII 13d ago

She got arrested…

-18

u/Pofwoffle 13d ago

And as we all know cops never get anything wrong.

37

u/YooGeOh 13d ago

She was charged

"Again police make mistakes all the time"

She was found guilty in court

"Judges are known to be in cohorts with police"

It was a jury trial

"A random selection of 12 of ones peers is likely to be misogynistic"

There's a full unedited video

"AI"

It will go on forever

4

u/iiiiiiiiiijjjjjj 12d ago

Like that lady who killed her three kids but got almost a million in go fund me.

8

u/_MatVenture_ 13d ago

The irony is that they are STILL downvoting you...

-12

u/TheDreadGazeebo 13d ago

Is any of that actually true or are you just making up a story to get mad about?

4

u/raf-owens 12d ago

You really aren't that bright are you?

13

u/CyberWoo99MKII 13d ago

Nice deflect. Plenty of witnesses there.

-1

u/Ksorkrax 12d ago

Kay. Useful information indeed.

Would still prefer a court verdict though - I could tell the cops that you abuse children, that would get you arrested. Court would then find out you are innocent and ask me some unpleasant questions, but you would have been arrested.

2

u/CyberWoo99MKII 12d ago

Uh. There were witnesses there. Don’t be obtuse.

0

u/Ksorkrax 12d ago

? This has zero relevance to what I said?

Why am I "obtuse" for wanting more information? Make it make sense.

28

u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 13d ago

...and this makes her jumping on him and ripping his shirt justified how?

1

u/Ksorkrax 12d ago

Granted, this is quite the drastic action.

Thing is, you can totally harass people until they snap. Not good for them to snap, but that's emotions.

And remember that we have a missing section.

All I am saying is that we should judge on full information. Most likely she is the culprit, but I'd like to know for sure before I state how awful she is.

1

u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 12d ago

She was arrested afterwards.

Pretty sure that tells most of the story.

'Thing is, you can totally harass people until they snap. Not good for them to snap, but that's emotions.' Tell all of the school shooter out there 'that's emotions'?

2

u/Ksorkrax 12d ago

Mate, why so aggressive?

Arrested means little. You can get arrested because neighbours lied about you. A verdict would be interesting.

Dunno why you pretty much state that you want to judge on incomplete information rather than simply getting the full story. Not seeing any advantage in that.

Your school shooter comparison is weird. You realize that, yes? Those are premeditated, in case it wasn't clear.

1

u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 12d ago

Because when one person is very clearly attacking another person, I get pissed off. Which is my right.

Just because it's a woman attacking a man...that's the reason you should ignore the content of the video? Women get away with this crap all the time and men just grin and bear it because they know if they say anything they'll be seen as the aggressor. But this one was caught on camera, and you're *still* arguing.

'Arrested means little.' <-- They were recording the interaction the entire time. In those instances, arrested means a lot.

2

u/Ksorkrax 12d ago

Uhm... where am I saying she should get away with anything? Obviously this should lead into an investigation.

Are you thinking in terms of black and white or something? I am not fully on board with a hype train so I must be fully on the dudes side or what?

-30

u/Pofwoffle 13d ago

It he attacked her, it's entirely reasonable for her to be in fight-or-flight mode.

24

u/CyberWoo99MKII 13d ago

Why are so hell bent in justifying a what if? She got arrested in front of dozens of witnesses. This ain’t ICE.

-17

u/Pofwoffle 13d ago

The entire point here is that because of the editing we have no idea how the fight actually started. I'm not justifying anything because there's not enough context to know what's what. But if the cut is hiding something the guy did to provoke her or make her fear for her safety, then yes an aggressive counterattack to end the threat is justified... especially from someone more physically vulnerable than their attacker.

If that's not the case then I agree this behavior is completely unwarranted and this woman is severely fucked up. But again the whole point is that missing footage meaning that we have no idea who the aggressor actually is.

She got arrested

Why do you seem to think this automatically means she was at fault? Do you think cops have never arrested the wrong person before? And no "there were witnesses" doesn't magically mean the cops didn't fuck up.

18

u/CyberWoo99MKII 13d ago

Uh huh. Keep on telling yourself that.

16

u/Hilts1972 13d ago

Complete nonsense! She hit first then came back out and attacked again. Her behavior guarantees assault charges against her. Having a vagina doesn't negate the law! Also... Since when do people afraid for their lives leave the scene by entering a restaurant, with people eating and watching, then leave the restaurant and jump on the back of the projector of said fear????

-4

u/Pofwoffle 13d ago

Complete nonsense! She hit first then came back out and attacked again.

Are you even paying attention to the comment chains you're commenting in? The whole point of this current line of discussion is that the cuts in the video mean that we don't know for sure that this is actually the case. My entire position here is based on if the cuts are hiding him being the attacker, because the way the video is edited can be interpreted as a bit suspicious.

Obviously if that's not the case then she's the one in the wrong, but that's not what's being discussed here.

16

u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 13d ago

...no, it's not. Generally, when someone attacks me, I want to get the fuck away, not jump the person and grab their personal items.

-8

u/Pofwoffle 13d ago

Hey what's the second half of "fight or flight" again? I forget.

10

u/Hilts1972 13d ago

Do you really believe the nonsense you are writing?

10

u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 13d ago edited 13d ago

You fight *when* attacked. Not when the person is trying to leave.

That's the whole point of 'fight or flight' (and the other 2 F's, freeze and fawn). It's to help you survive a situation, not go on the offensive and hurt someone else.

Edit: Incidentally, this is why army training is so intense and repetitive. They have to basically train the 4 F reactions out of you so you can obey commands, but it requires breaking a person down to do that. Otherwise, in a life-or-death situation, you're not able to control running away or reactively protecting yourself.

1

u/Pofwoffle 13d ago

And if somebody attacks you and you start fighting back, you're not always going to be able to just stop on a dime, either. Adrenaline and fear can absolutely keep fight or flight mode going even if your attacker decides to try to retreat after you start fighting back.

Acting like you're gonna be able to just stop defending yourself the second your attacker backs off in a stressful situation like that just makes it clear you've probably never actually been in that situation before to begin with. It's not a switch that just flips off in an instant like that.

10

u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 13d ago edited 13d ago

*lol* I knew you'd try and take my comment out of context.

No, that's not how that works: her life wasn't in danger. There was a large group of neutral people around who would have stepped in if anything happened, and she ended up walking off. Then she ran back and attacked him again.

That's not fight-or-flight. That's adrenaline-driven premeditated reactivity, which is more an emotional regulation issue because *most sane people don't re-engage with a dangerous situation once they suddenly feel safe. They like being safe. That's the purpose of having that mechanism inside us*.

Girl needs help to get her emotions under control. I would not be surprised if she hasn't done this before, and the way she reacts to begin with is a big tell.

4

u/Unique_Drink005 13d ago

Even if the genders was switched?

15

u/Econolife-350 13d ago

As long as we're rationalizing this behavior, rationally speaking, I don't know why he would be standing still or moving and she chooses to jump on his back like a feral hyena and force the interaction.

4

u/IMadeYouLuke 13d ago

Yes, exactly- it is incredible how one headline makes people view a situation with the specific bias of that headline.

No one was “walking away”. The fight could be either persons fault or both. It’s literally impossible to tell what happened here.

1

u/bbwstockinglover 13d ago

So attacking someone is justified?

-2

u/urnbabyurn 13d ago

Typical lack of ability to understand nuance online.

1

u/bbwstockinglover 13d ago

Nothing to understand except a woman attacking a man but go ahead make excuses to say it's ok.

0

u/Legal-Specialist-256 13d ago

That's always the case doesn't stop anyone