SD Question - Pizza Parlor Attack

Hi All,

Having sat and watched the video and read everyone's responses, I only have a couple comments.

I don't disagree that the victim probably brought this on himself, but blaming him seems a little harsh given the beating that he took. The attacker was clearly aware that this was no match and showed no restraint whatsoever. This attacker should go to jail and I hope he serves the entire 4 years.

I'm too new in Aikido to make comments re: techniques for situations like this, but I certainly agree with the many posts that speak to de-escalation or leaving the pizza place ASAP. I also agree with earlier posts that the bystanders should have made some sort of effort, although easier said than done given the enormity of the attacker.

I now remember why I prefer frozen pizzas!

Mark

Here's what an office mate asked me: what exactly would I do as a bystander. My answer was

a) use a cell phone (from the appropriate distance) to call 911
b) loudly start telling the attacker to leave that man alone
c) try to inlist two or three other men to toss that nut's butt out the door.

The problem with b and c is that you don't know for sure if the guy is armed! Even if 3 of you approach him, if he pulls out a gun and starts shooting, everyone in the place is now at risk.

What would YOU do as a bystander?

Ron

Interesting posts.

My main thoughts when looking at the video, as far as the victim goes - no sense of awareness of personal space (talking on the cell phone in the midst of a physical altercation??) and of keeping good distance from an aggressor, bad decisions in playing tough guy one moment and then trying to de escalate when the Big Guy comes into the fray and then failing to run out the door (regardless of whether the woman was blocking or not) after he got the first shot. The problem was he did nothing to actually try to defend himself. Or at least nothing even remotely effective based on the different stages of the encounter. He pretty much went automatically into victim mode.

To me this video shows a single important thing - how unprepared many of us are for dealing with "real", serious and targeted violence and how we behave (or fail to adequately adjust) when it suddenly shatters our glass house of "expected civilised social behavioural norms". It's interesting that at no point did the basic animal instinct to escape or run for one's life trigger. Imo the victim had a few opportunities to escape the altercation, well before the physical attacks started and also during the attack before he was put out on the floor. At his size the woman blocking the door could not have stopped him if he was seriously motivated and intent on running for his life. He'd have plowed right through her. This to me says something about the mental conditioning involved. Is it that when we get attacked in the "civilised" world that we are thinking "call 911" and "lawsuits" instead of basic survival first?

As far as head being down when he got the punch, he was pretty much looking at the striking hand (or at least looking in its specific direction) as the punch came. This should have triggered at least some sort of primitive reflexive/flinch defence mechanism such as raising the hands to protect the face or something. After already being accosted by the woman in a hostile manner he should have been in some sort of heightened alert state which would have allowed this, as is normal with our basic untrained responses to aggression.

As far as what I would do in that situation I think it's easy with hindsight to say anything. But having been in a very similar one I know what I'd do and have done - someone above said Shomen Ate, I was thinking along similar lines - Shomen ate carried straight thru towards the door and into the woman, letting his off balanced weight take her with him and clear the door for my escape - I'd forget joint locks, at that degree of danger I'd be snapping not subduing, but one never knows, if it presents itself, hey why not. The good thing about big guys is that when they do go down they go down HARD, so take out the structure and pray the don't know ukemi.:: Going to the floor could be suicide unless you are an exceptional grappler. As a pretty big guy myself I know what a little knowledge about using bodyweight can do in a ground situation, and then there is the woman there waiting to kick your brains in - not my first choice.

But to be very honest I'd not have been in the situation to begin with, since I don't let anyone get as close as that woman got with any sort of aggressive energy to start. Also, due to awareness I'd kinda sense that the guy who came storming in the door in a huff after the manager probably had something to do with the woman who was making trouble, so I'd make my escape right after the big guy entered (since the victim was also a target of the woman's rage before she tackled the manager). Judging by the aggressive and agitative energy she alone possessed I can only imagine what Big Guy would be compelled to do even if he were not so willing.

Also, what Tony S. said about the possibility of help from others being determined by how many people were there, I'd say that is about correct. The more people watching, the more people who think someone else is gonna help. Hence why when something happens and 911 needs to be called you pick someone (hopefully who has a phone) and say "YOU - call 911" else everyone else assumes that someone will do it. Weird if you ask me, but true.

Just my 2 cents.
LC

Regarding the bystanders 'just watching because they're scared.'

I would of just watched to. Not because I was scared, but because I watched that guy inviting it. I'm a big fan of people minding their own business. Seems to me that that guy wanted to fight. Who am I to impose my values (breaking up the fight he wanted)?


Regarding 'looking down' at the cell phone.

No doubt, he shouldn't of done it. However, recheck the film with this in mind. The motions were a part of the "tough-guy" routine. His gestures were saying,"alright, now I'm going to set this down and take care of you."

Regarding 'I don't know any Aikido that would of been handy here.'

Haven't you been practicing your side strikes as uke? Duck and side-strike the back of the head. He was vulnerable when he followed through on the punch.

What about your step-in thrusts? Haven't you noticed that it's a palm-heel strike to the chin? When he rears back to strike, he was susceptible.

Aikido's a study in balance, with that in mine, we have a few more rudimentary options: If fatty's left foot was forward, when his weight was forward through the swing, you could duck, slide between his right side and the on-lookers, grab his leg (which being all his weights on the front foot, should be pretty easy to lift), let him fall on his face, walk out while slapping his g.f. for the trouble

If his right foot is forward, duck, grab his leg and make him fall back as he's recovering his balance from all of it moving forward. Then slide out to your right, slapping the g.f. for the trouble on the way out


I once used the step-in thrust/palm heel like that. It works.

Humph, when any of my instructors see me 'duck' they tell me 'this is japanese martial arts...no ducking...enter....'

I'd like to think a palm strike (shomen ate, which has been mentioned in this thread) would do the trick...but frankly, with someone that big, I don't think I'm going 'inside'...I prefer to chip around the edges, let him lean toward me, and extend him. But hey, its all monday morning quarterbacking, so who can tell?

just my experience

Hindsight is, of course, 20-20. Of course you don't lip of to a woman with a 300-lb. bully. Of course you don't face off with said bully. What could be simpler?

Hmm. Far as I can see; this was as close to an unavoidable incident I've ever seen - good example of why 'if you don't look for trouble, trouble won't find you' doesn't always work.

As I read these posts; opinion is almost unanimous that the guy 'got what was coming' to paraphrase. One even said he would have stood by and watched - not because of the risk of getting involved which is either sensible or cowardly, depending on your outlook but because he's a 'big fan of people minding their own business'.

NOW let's look at it from the victim's point of view.
He's in a line waiting for pizza talking on his cellphone when some woman pushes rudely ahead of him. He makes the comment that is apparently the one acceptable reason for violence: "It's going to be a bit later..."
Just to be clear, I would not have said that myself. I'd have said "Hey! Get to the back of the damn line, you!" Go ahead - call me rude.
Ohhhhhhh - but you don't say that when her boyfriend is 300lbs!!!!!
Well yeah - but he wasn't there at the time was he?

This was flat-out an unplanned trap. Unplanned in that these two had no intention of going in to beat some guy up, but a trap nonetheless. Both were a ticking time bomb - she much worse than he. The 'Bully' is nothing more than a p-----y puppet 'standing up' (in his little peanut brain) for his girl, and using the excuse to get some free ego points at the same time.

OK, well the victim certainly shouldn't have squared off with the big dude, right?
Yo - Where was he gonna go?!? He was cornered - jammed in by 2 walls, customers, a psycho b*tch and a meat wall. Apart from that initial "WTF is your problem?" when she cuffs him, his attitude looked to me like the usual "Hey look now..." useless conciliation many people show. He was outclassed, he knew it, he was trying to be nonconfrontational.
No awareness skills, no defensife skills, he left himself wide open for the attack - not that it would have mattered.

IMO there was nothing the victim could have done given the situation to avoid the beating - the perp wanted to cause violence and didn't care one whit about anything else.

Now if the victim was trained? Diff story maybe, but I don't know, I doubt it. I'll bet anything big dude was armed - no need to pull it while everything was his way. If it turns around well......

As usual, DaveO nails it.

Of course you look at it and think of what could have been done differently. Work on your deescalation skills. Work on tactics for when the deescalation doesn't work. But I doubt as many as 0.1% of the general population would have been able to avoid a busted face if you were in that guy's position.

Much less of a size disparity and equal or greater viciousness/ferocity and willingness to hit first-- maybe.

Insanely great deescalation skills, about Ghandi level, perhaps Houdini-like illusion ability -- maybe.

A really good fighter, with training and experience to deal with that first bomb -- maybe.

Hey, it's easy to look at the video and see that first punch coming. Maybe not so easy when down on the ground. In fact, the slow windup can actually help hide the coming punch -- it may look like he's just slightly turning away and get "lost in the noise". Looks like Big Guy may have had practice with that little trick. A lot of practice.

And hey, I wouldn't spend too much time criticizing the victim's actions after that punch lands. Unless you train regularly when semi-conscious.

=wl

Why is the loser always the victim? It just depends from which time you start watching. In my youth I witnessed several nasty fights and in most cases, both started it. If the not-so-little-guy had suddenly pounced on and trampled the big guy you might all be discussing what the new victim did wrong. Fighting is stupid - and sooner or later that big-guys recklessness will be reveresed upon him. Indeed, he got videoed beating the hell out of someone for little apparent reason - not so smart.

Willy Lee wrote: And hey, I wouldn't spend too much time criticizing the victim's actions after that punch lands. Unless you train regularly when semi-conscious.

Well that's interesting. I guess as soon as we get hit hard by someone we should just curl up and kiss it all goodbye and not even try to escape (not fight mind you, escape). Interesting concept.

I have a few folks (Boxing types) who train and get hit a lot, sometimes I join them for the experience of getting hit. I agree one's options can get quickly and extremely limited after the first shot lands (especially if you are dumb enough to let it land at full force), but in the video the "victim" was punched in a way that placed him nearer to the point of escape than he had been before the altercation. In fact he was in the doorway at one point and still standing. Instead of turning to go back towards danger (which is what he did), primal instinct dictates "run away from danger" until one's legs gave out if necessary. This has nothing to do with training. To me, it appears the "Victim" may have believed his own bad boy BS so much that he did not know what to do when placed on the receiving end of Bullydom (is that a word?).

Dave-O said:

Far as I can see; this was as close to an unavoidable incident I've ever seen - good example of why 'if you don't look for trouble, trouble won't find you' doesn't always work.

I totally agree with Dave. What I am wondering though is if we are placed in an "unavoidable incident" as Dave says above, do we do nothing because the guy is decidedly bigger, stronger etc.? Given whatever training we do I mean. Last time I checked (in Aikido) one did not allow the attacker to take one's energy and will to survive via intimidation tactics, and even when it does happen, do we not even make an attempt to survive? This last part has not much to do with the video, but the second part of the question. What would you do? Remember, self defence is not about fighting (which is what happens after you have failed at the more effective aspects like conflict evasion), it is about surviving and escaping. Do we give up as soon as we get hit or realise the guy is bigger, stronger or has friends and we can't run away, or do we try something that helps us get into a favourable escape situation at some point during the conflict?

Just my 2 cents. I reserve the right to be wrong.
LC

Hi Larry.

From what I see; the victim's body language is - after the "WTF?" from the female's initial strike (Which to be honest - who wouldn't do?) entirely conciliatory. He's not presenting a 'tough guy' stand - his arms are down, palms outward, shoulders slumped etc. Classic submissive behaviour.
While we're blaming one guy or the other here; let's not lose sight of the true instigator: the female. She was the one that was causing/inflaming this whole thing. Bid dude was following her lead; even though he might not have believed so himself. Not to justify in any way his actions, but they are understandable. (To be clear; I mean that not as justification but in the same way that we understand why a mugger will go after a little old lady instead of a seven foot biker.) She was completely out of control, her 'boyfriend' followed suit.
Quite frankly, the guy was toast the second the big guy walked in - the determination to do violence had already been made.
Now - to the victim's actions: Yes, the attacker's first strike knocked him near the door, but this was no boxing punch, it was a full-power bare knuckle shot to the head. The guy might have been in the open door, but for the second he was there was far too stunned to take advantage of it. No-one I believe would take a hit like that without getting his jingle jangled.
The victim is clear for approx. a second - though the second strike doesn't come for about 4 seconds after the first; the attacker has a hold of the victim by the right arm, or at least appears to. Also, keep in mind the shot knocked the guy to the door, which pushed the woman, who was blocking the door, outside. IOW, keeping him in. In any event, he does try to move to the door when the attacker strikes again with a hammerhand in the back of the skull. Effectively, lights out at that point.

Now; as to your other point:

What I am wondering though is if we are placed in an "unavoidable incident" as Dave says above, do we do nothing because the guy is decidedly bigger, stronger etc.? Given whatever training we do I mean. Last time I checked (in Aikido) one did not allow the attacker to take one's energy and will to survive via intimidation tactics, and even when it does happen, do we not even make an attempt to survive?

Sorry Larry; I'm not really sure what you mean by this. In the video, the guy had given up simply because there was no fight in him - he was a rag doll after those two massive hits. Aikido-wise; I suppose its possible - highly doubtful, but possible - that a highly experienced practicioner (Say 8th dan or so) could effectively redirect that shot. Undoubtedly could on the mat; but again, we're talking about two different things here. Aikido is one answer - it is not the whole answer.
As for myself and what I would have done, I'd have struck first - attacked full-force high and low - to the head and knee simultaneously. Hardly aiki and likely not effective, but in that situation given the environment the only real chance I'd have. The big guy was in control of the situation - he chose the moment of the attack and held the initiative. Tactically, you have to take the initiative yourself and force the opponent onto the defensive if you're to escape an SD situation and in this case; the only real way to do that is a sudden blast attack. Remember; the guy thinks like a Grizzly bear: "I'm the Biggest Baddest Dude, I can Do What I Want." He's not expecting an attack; especially a paired destabilization/antistructural strike. It's the only shot I'd get, I'd make sure it was the most effective possible.
Is that aiki? No way - the very antithesis. Is it legal? Possibly - it's definitely in that blurry area in which you'll be convinving a judge. But letting a monster like that keep the initiative is like trying to tenkan with a freight train.
Now; from a purely aikido perspective: going frame by frame; it's possible (again assuming a high degree of control and ability - far, far above what I posess) the victim could have at the moment of attack slidestepped into a modified tenkan to avoid the initial strike. Of course; that'd send him directly into the psycho girlfriend, who was blocking the door. From that point, the 'maybe's' start to build exponentially.
End result: A two-on-one attack in which the victim had no real means of escape or avoidance. He was targeted, he was isolated, he was taken out and nothing - save every person in that building jumping on the pair and likely even not that - could have stopped it.

Did anyone notice? After it's over the big guy drags his 'victim' about - as though with some purpose in mind - then picks up the 'victim's phone and walks off with it.

Dave Organ wrote:
I suppose its possible - highly doubtful, but possible - that a highly experienced practicioner (Say 8th dan or so) could effectively redirect that shot.

Redirect that? Are you joking? Not even remotlely possible (although part of me would like it to be possible). The average 8th Dan Aikido is usually over 65-70 years old - unless you are referring to some of those 8th Dan+ young guns from the Bad Budo section of E-Budo (not possible for them either). More likely, the 8th Dan Aikido would not get into such a situation in the first place.

Rupert Atkinson wrote: Did anyone notice? After it's over the big guy drags his 'victim' about - as though with some purpose in mind - then picks up the 'victim's phone and walks off with it.

I saw it. Good news too because it will add to the list of charges but also interesting because it suggests a degree of impunity when it comes to this sort of thing.

Dave, nice posts.

To all of you talking about the bystanders, mayhaps you should also be thinking about gang affiliation which also means guns. As a bystander you dial 911, get ready to be a damn fine witness if called upon and put out nice thoughts. Plus, maybe the bystanders recognized that in the guy which is why they got the hell out of the way.

So, what do you do? You do something crazy or outside the box. You get your ass behind the counter with the staff, if you can. You drop to your knees and bow profusely per the Terry Dobsen technique. You deck the guy next to you. You start a verbal confrontation with the guy next to you. You beat the crap out of your jacket per the Richie Cunningham technique. You grab some furniture (tables and chairs) and start throwing it around while making an even bigger ruckus than psycho woman, plus a chair can be a weapon. You break out in song. Anything to break the pattern of disorientation by the woman and assault by the guy. But really, who is going to do this stuff?

Fighting is also a no-win for one more reason. If you had precognitive abilities and knew what was coming then you have to deck the woman before the guy comes in. Remember, she might have a weapon so she HAS to go down, and stay down, in my opinion. Anyone up for that? I'm not?

Then you have to attack him, first, with murderous intent, hopefully while he's tending to the woman. But you can only do that IF you know what's coming and even then it just might get you killed rather than concussed. Plus, then you get to go to jail where he's certain to have more friends than you do. And, as Dave pointed out the guy is probably armed. So, basically, you have to kill him. Something else I'd prefer not to be up to.

Honestly, a beating and a few brain cells isn't that harsh a price given some of the alternatives.

I think it's good to reflect upon what happened here. Clearly you can get the crap beaten out of you, and it will leave you permanantly injured, and no one will help you until after the fact.

Larry Camejo wrote: I have a few folks (Boxing types) who train and get hit a lot, sometimes I join them for the experience of getting hit. I agree one's options can get quickly and extremely limited after the first shot lands (especially if you are dumb enough to let it land at full force), but in the video the "victim" was punched in a way that placed him nearer to the point of escape than he had been before the altercation. In fact he was in the doorway at one point and still standing. Instead of turning to go back towards danger (which is what he did), primal instinct dictates "run away from danger" until one's legs gave out if necessary. This has nothing to do with training. To me, it appears the "Victim" may have believed his own bad boy BS so much that he did not know what to do when placed on the receiving end of Bullydom (is that a word?).

Hi Larry,

I've watched it a couple of times now, I just go "oooof" everytime I see that first punch. Ignoring the who started it, who said what, who deserved what arguments, personally, I think that it's a hell of an assumption for any of us to say the guy should have done this or that after he got hit. None of us were on the end of the punch. We may train in Aikido or other arts, we may practice with boxers at getting hit. We understand things such as ma ai and tai sabaki, and using these to protect ourselves to the best of our abilities, but does he? We have no idea. Everyone takes punches differently, some have harder heads than others, some have different pain tolerances, some absorb punches better, there's a whole load of factors involved here that we just didn't experience. Of course, "armchair quarterbacking" a term mentioned above, allows us to give our opinions, but we shouldn't assume that he was capable of anything.

If someone hit me with a big punch like that, I reckon I'd be out for the count, if not I reckon I'd be in a very, very dazed state like, even if I was on my feet. Looking at the guys reaction, I don't think he was on his feet for any reason other than the door stopped him from falling down, if you look closely you'll see his knees buckle a bit after he stands still, then the second panch rains in. He was out for the count. I was ringside when Lennox Lewis caught Razor Ruddock with a big punch on the side of the head, Ruddock jerked upright like a coiled spring and went down like a sack of potatos, that was a guy trained to take punches.

despite our experiences of training and getting hit, I just don't think that any of us really know what the guy felt, or what he could do after.

If it was me in the pizza parlour, I'd just hope that I didn't get into that type of situation in the first place .

rgds

Bryan

This is why I hang out in Dojos rather than Pizza Parlors - far safer.

As Bryan said, I think that first punch really did the guy in. It didn't look like he could think or anything.

His only chance would probably have been to somehow (even accidently) block the punch so he could run. Maybe when he got knocked to the door he could've tried to throw the woman at the big guy, but that would probably have enraged everyone even more.

Glad it wasn't me. Hope I don't get there. Glad to have read the points brought up on this thread though.

cheers,

--Michael

Interesting coments.

I like Peter's the best.

I guess it comes down to what you train for and how true to yourself you are about that. And I totally agree that anyone, including myself can say what woulda, shoulda, coulda happened after the fact and not being there. The only thing I made indications to were primal untrained instincts of the human animal towards survival even when in a semi conscious state, which I guess are not as common as I might think.

Having been in a very similar one though, I know there are options, both within and outside of Aikido to survive that incident, taking initiative is key. But then again I don't expect that to apply to everyone else either, since folks train for many different reasons. As far as 8th Dans being the only capable Aikidoka to handle an unarmed situation such as this, well I don't agree with that at all, but then again, just my opinion. Like I said, it depends on your reasons for training.

Just my opinion. I reserve the right to be wrong.
LC

Dave Organ wrote: opinion is almost unanimous that the guy 'got what was coming' to paraphrase. One even said he would have stood by and watched - not because of the risk of getting involved which is either sensible or cowardly, depending on your outlook but because he's a 'big fan of people minding their own business'. This was flat-out an unplanned trap. Unplanned in that these two had no intention of going in to beat some guy up, but a trap nonetheless. Both were a ticking time bomb - she much worse than he. The 'Bully' is nothing more than a p-----y puppet 'standing up' (in his little peanut brain) for his girl, and using the excuse to get some free ego points at the same time. OK, well the victim certainly shouldn't have squared off with the big dude, right?

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.

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.

Yes, I realize that Self-Defense has need for us to consider our life-choices most carefully, it's just when we start talking about "deserving this" or "deserving that" we are more making moral statements than we are addressing concerns of Self-Defense - in my opinion.

Jean de Rochefort wrote: Regarding the bystanders 'just watching because they're scared.' I would of just watched to. Not because I was scared, but because I watched that guy inviting it.

I would respond to this by saying I will keep the same sentiment in mind when a woman wearing a short skirt and acting provocatively is raped, but I will not because a couple of things called class and compassion prevent me from doing so.

Although the victim may have puffed a bit, it was in no possible way enough to warrant this type of response. This is especially true given that the man could have been justifiably annoyed at the truly obnoxious behavior of the woman cutting in line and screaming. Although taking a passive approach may be best, I would not blame the victim for expressing annoyance. Blaming the victim, however, appears to be something with which you are quite comfortable.

Dan Herak wrote: Blaming the victim, however, appears to be something with which you are quite comfortable.

There's no call for ab-hominem attacks here. Nor call to respond to them. Let's please keep this civil and argue the points.

One of my mentors once told me that the core of his art is that "There are no victims, there are only volunteers". Everyone but the most helpless child must take at least some responsibility for everything that happens in their life.

David Valadez wrote: 1...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. .... 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.

Regarding 1) Whenever a situation develops, you've got the choice between escalation and de-escalation--nothing else. If you're a party to the escalation, it's your choice--he made that choice by saying something.

Now, I'm not saying she was right. But he was definitely wrong(this is personal opinion formed out of the belief that the property owner has the right to run the business how he likes without my interference). Again, it's the business owners business. If you don't like people cutting the line, go somewhere else. If every business allows people to cut the line and you don't like it, start your own pizza shop where you'll take care of people who cut the line.

Regarding 2) Irrelevant being that I still see the pizza man as asking for it.

Regarding 3) I think this one boils down to personal beliefs. Apparently, I believe that the solution to such a problem is to stop supporting a business who doesn't care enough about me to handle such an issue. The solutions, again, is to leave and pay people who, in this case, keep order.

For those who disagree with me, it appears to me, that you have the belief that you have the right to direct the order of someone else's business.

My thought on that is that you subscribe to the same ideology as the line cutter. You have a belief about how things should be run and then you implement them.


Dan H., I do believe that a woman acting in a certain way is asking for it--in the same way that if I were tap dancing in front of a rattle snake, I'm asking to get bit. It's nature. You can't change that.