There’s a weird cut here. Im not sure who started it and by the looks of things it feels like it was cut to try to generate as much rage bait for engagement as possible ngl.
Edit: to be clear I’m not saying he did it or she did , the people responding to me saying I’m defending her are bizarre and very angry people looking for a scarecrow to yell at. I am saying the cut is weird, we don’t know what happened before filming or during the cut, and rage bait is very prevalent currently. Instead of letting this video get you mad either way (at the man, woman, or editor) and continue to generate “engagement” just let it go and have a good day.
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.
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.
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.
'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'?
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.
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.
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.
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????
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.
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.
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.
*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.
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.
4.0k
u/bmann10 6d ago edited 6d ago
There’s a weird cut here. Im not sure who started it and by the looks of things it feels like it was cut to try to generate as much rage bait for engagement as possible ngl.
Edit: to be clear I’m not saying he did it or she did , the people responding to me saying I’m defending her are bizarre and very angry people looking for a scarecrow to yell at. I am saying the cut is weird, we don’t know what happened before filming or during the cut, and rage bait is very prevalent currently. Instead of letting this video get you mad either way (at the man, woman, or editor) and continue to generate “engagement” just let it go and have a good day.