"Glitch" in prosecutors' presentation of Greenwich Village McDonald's Incident obscures some footage

the cellphone video should be played for the judge and jury.
case dismissed. these "women" got exactly what they deserved. and I would bet that they have learned a very painful lesson.

they were bullying and intimidating this guy and they cornered him. he has every right to defend himself. and he also held these thugs until the police could get there. he should be given a medal for that.

oregon dad

If two men had used racial slurs, hit him, jumped the counter, and followed him as he retreated to the back of the store, this would have been treated very differently. You can see in the video, these women were still trying to get up to attack him even after he beat them with the tool. If he hit them any less, it probably wouldn't have been enough to subdue their attack. So I would say it was justified as self defense. Who the hell is dumb enough to attack workers in a kitchen, anyway? They're lucky he didn't stab them with a chef's knife and throw a pot of boiling oil over their heads.

Is society still so blind that in a case of self-defense like this, they still consider the man to be the instigator? So, let me get this right, if a woman attacks you, and you defend yourself, you go to jail on felony charges, yet if you let her attack you, she most of the time doesn't even get charged. I guess that's what feminists consider 'equality'. No wonder they're so concerned about violence against women, seeing that they likely instigate it and bring it on themselves most of the time.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

I'm surprised at the comments above! Don't you guys know the rule? It's never OK to hit a woman! Haven't you heard that before? It doesn't matter if you're defending yourself, or even if you are going to die. Men are supposed to be always self-sacrificing. The only viable option, under this very twisted legal system, is to retreat.

A case I've done some research on involves a woman who took a loaded gun to a meeting in which she planned to confront her husband over an affair. She ultimately emptied the contents of her gun into her husband, then found another gun and shot him another two times. He apparently became "violent" at some point and the DA ruled it a "justifiable homicide."

So why did he become violent? One option: He was an abusive husband. Second option: he was acting in self-defense. According to the wife, he had been abusive before, though she had never filed charges and he had never been convicted of DV.

But what if he was simply acting in self-defense? If so, this case gets very close to establishing is that if a woman tries to kill her husband and he fights back, he is guilty of DV, therefore she is justified in killing him. So, even if your wife is trying to kill you, you're not supposed to fight back.

(Google Ann Tatum/Jim Tatum for more.)

This is true el cid. So it seems feminists will eventually defend "a woman's right to be violent" and this will not only mean a woman has a right to be violent but that a woman is right to be violent. The obvious conclusion to be drawn then is a woman's violence is its own justification. So then that means women will be above the law.

Just as feminism demands...

A recent case in Boulder, Co., involved a woman named Molly Midyette (now Bowers). She was convicted of child abuse in the death of her child and sentenced to 16 years. Her husband apparently did the actual killing, and he also got 16 years.

In her defense, she tried to use the "battered woman syndrome." She couldn't do anything about the abuse because BWS rendered her unable to act and incompetent to help in her own defense. The usual suspects came to her defense, claiming she was the true victim. She asked for a new trial, but the (female) judge denied it, saying she was clearly competent and her reports of abuse not credible.

It was an interesting case of trying to extend the use of BWS to include the death by neglect of a child. BWS allegedly justified her failure to act to protect him. The judge didn't buy it, but more and more, anyone near a woman is fair game, just as you say.

On a previous thread some months ago I suggested feminism's ultimate aim is to bring about a form of anarchy, in which women are beyond the reach and scope of legal restrictions on their behaviour, and that in effect women will not just be above the law, but will in effect be the law, and anything they do will by virtue of it being a woman's act be completely legal.

Now the above scenario does sound pretty far-fetched I admit, but unless people stop believing the tired old stereotypes about innocent women and guilty men this is just where we might end up.

This I suppose Gyno-anarchy would make today's p*ssy-pass dealing justice system seem fair and equitable. Let's just hope it never happens.

Feminism wants to achieve two things for women:

Freedom from any responsibility, duty, or obligation to children, men, or society, while establishing even more responsibilities, duties, and obligations of men and society to women. Any female responsibility is defined as a form of "oppression."

Freedom from any accountability for their own actions, while using the law to establish even greater accountability for men. We see this already in the area of sexual harassment: if the woman wants sexual attention, it's okay. If not, the man loses his job or pays a fine, though he rarely knows if she wants his "sexual attention" until he tries making a pass at her.

Even if we don't have Gyno-anarchy yet, it seems to be the feminist ideal we're heading towards.

Two attitudes helping the feminists:

Men in power usually side with the women folk.

A lot of men believe other men are the problem, not themselves. They support laws favoring women because of the other bad men out there, believing these laws will never affect them. Thus, a lot of guys get married believing what happened to other men won't happen to them. They believe men are at fault, not the system, but since they're good guys and those other guys are bad guys, the same thing won't happen to them.

You're absolutely right el cid. And all of that can be summed up in one word: liberation.

When a feminist talks about liberating women this is what is really meant, in effect making women a special class of people above and beyond all accountability and censure whether that be legal, interpersonal or whatever.

Feminism is about women's liberation, not equality.