Jean de Rochefort wrote:
First, that guy was looking for it by the way he acted. Therefore, this is not an instance of "when not looking for trouble..."
Two, "not getting involved," as I said, isn't smart or cowardly. It's respecting the privacy of the "victim" who initiated the trouble.
Three, as far as someone cutting the line, it's not the consumer's job to maintain order in someone else's business--it's the business owners job. If you say something to someone cutting the line and it's not your business--expect a problem.
I think we've left the field of self-defense tactics and entered into life choices and/or options. So, let me ask, are you suggesting:
1. Being displeased with someone smacking you in the face - enough to stand up for yourself (but not returning the gesture in kind) is "asking for it"? Should we not draw the line or mark the difference between what he actually did - which was a response - and what some other person is doing when they initiate such hostility? In other words, and specifically, isn't what the woman did (hitting him when he was on the phone) the "asking for it," and what the man did (as was said earlier in the thread) what any other person might do (were her mate not there and were he not intent on such an act of violence)?
2. If what I'm asking in the above question allows for us to consider the victim as someone different from who was "asking for it," does he really posses a privacy bystanders should "respect." To be sure, it is a kind of terrorism that took place then and there (it's just not at a political level - rather at a personal level), and in this age of terrorism, is that a kind of privacy we should be so prone to respect? What if it was a political type of terrorism? Are we supposed to respect the government's "due coming" just because we didn't vote for the current administration and/or do not agree with its policies? Or are we right in saying that whereas terrorism against our government does indeed effect us, terrorism in our neighborhoods when it is aimed a personal level does not? One would be hard pressed to make that distinction - I feel. Hence, I think folks in the thread that are noting apathy, cowardice, a lack of concern for one's fellow man and/or one's culture, etc., might be dead on here.
3. I agree, it's the business' job to keep order in the line. However, saying something, and expecting something, are entirely different from deserving what actually came to occur. At least where I live, that kind of beating for speaking up over someone cutting in line is never going to be understood as a natural consequence of things that happened. It's always going to be seen as "out of the ordinary." This is one reason its on Ebaum's World - right? While I hope that we all live in a world where that kind of thing never happens, I more hope that we all live in a world where when that kind of thing does happen it's always considered out of the ordinary - never a natural consequence of speaking up and/or for reminding folks of the way we all expect business cues to operate.