not PARFy at all, it's a perfect example of taking out a dangerous person before they inflict damage, the Bush Doctrine, one aspect of it anyway. Sorry about those panties.

Pretty shocking that so many can justify such behavior. Clearly the situation could have been diffused without such a dangerous blow from behind.

One would never live down making such a cowardly attack where/when I grew up. From my experience, those who live by the cheap shot, die by the cheap shot.

Totally agree, pretty cowardly thing to do.

There is even a campaign in the UK called one punch can kill. Its amazing the number of people killed with one punch when they weren't ready for it.

What was the venue, some spring break location with lots of booze and drugs involved.

I would agree with Fint. I didnt see the bully actually touch anybody, he was just acting like an a$$. Not sure a sucker punch was deserved. Only a ******* sucker punches somebody.

I guess there are two sides to the question of responsibility.

1. Personal responsibly. if you start "tough guy air boxing" and actually hit 2 people in the face, there is a reasonable likelihood something bad will happen to you.

2. Responsibility for your fellow man: why wait for the belligerent ruffian to actually do damage to someone, guys and girls alike? If you have a chance that could prevent someone innocent from getting hurt, you may want to take it.


or maybe the crowd should have reasoned with the poor little lad, it's not his fault. Just a few minutes of calmly talking the situation over and everyone would have left the scene as friends. Probably gone out for milkshakes.

Actually, the adults in the crowd just walked away.

You must have been watching a different video than me, the guy got sucker punched right after he hit a guy in the face who clearly did not want to fight and had his hands up and did not retaliate.

Not sure why people are defending this guy saying he needed to hurt someone before he got put down himself. And those people that say "the puncher should have stepped in and calmed the guy down" have clearly never dealt with a drunk guy looking for a fight.

Looks like 6th street. A notorious place to get your azz whipped. My brother had a friend a decathlete on the UT track knifed in his car in a backed up traffic 35years ago when you could still drive down the street at night.

My son has had two friends beat and robbed on 6th street in the last 6 years. Both tough guys but alone and jumped by alleged gangs. One of those guys was 6'2" and a former ranger. Fought back and ended up in intensive care the next morning. The other guy managed to run before the beat down.

Oh please - the Marques of Queensberry Rules do not apply to a drunken beligerant looking to hurt someone, anyone. The thing to do here is to stop him as quickly and expeditiously as possible, with as little risk as possible to anyone else. The guy who decked him did the right thing.

I suppose you think any unprovoked attack should turn into some sort of a sporting event, where the attacker is given a fair chance. Nonsense. The proper response is to stop him, as "unfairly" as possible, with as little risk as possible. If the sumbeach winds up dead for his troubles, well, so be it. His well being is absolutely not a factor.

A fair fight, involving two willing participants, is an entirely different affair. Now we have rules.

I agree in principle, but I think the law would think differently. Not worth going to jail for many years to put a bully in his place.

Here's a different way to think about it:

What if he was walking around the crowd hitting WOMEN who didn't want to engage with him?

Then you would likely call the sucker-puncher a HERO!

Why is this different? Because they were MEN who didn't want to engage?

What a way weird situation. How dangerous did the crowd really see this guy when red shirt walks right through at the beginning. What was the beef with the guy that got hit? With his head up against a tree, he took it a lot better. Just stood there stunned until his.opportunity opened up for a nut kick. All the cameras around? Everyone's looking for some action and they got it. Glad I'm not that age any longer.

The only panty problem I have is Democrats like Kennedy or Clinton getting into someone elses other than his wife and everyone thinks he's such a great humanitarian. You want to talk about political doctrine? Take it to PARF (or are you claiming that Bush's political doctrine is not the P in PARF?)

Ok, I watched the video again, this time full screen. The bully did throw some slaps towards the victims. But I still dont think he deserved to be sucker punched. If a true man wanted to do something about the bullying, he would have stepped up and been a man, not throw a sucker punch. And yes I have been around (and in) TOO MANY drunken bar fights. Usually a bully will step down if somebody stands up to him. They prey on the perceived weaker.

Hence the term "bully" since his actions would force peaceful people to have to leave where they are due to his rude and violent behavoir.
Agreed up to the point where the defender becomes a bully. Our carnal nature states that the jerk got what he deserves. Our civilized nature states that two wrongs don't make a right. The bully may have threatened his attacker before the camera came on and he got clocked. Yes, he could have been hurt but he brought it on himself. No one fights to tie. You fight to win. Who is the coward? The guy going around threatening and hitting peaceful people. Could there have been less dangerous way for the guy to subdue the bully. Perhaps. Should we feel bad for the bully? No. He brought it upon himself. He was itching for a fight with people that wanted nothing to do with him. Looks like he reaped what he sowed.

That rationale only works if you call that a fight. It was no better than if the other fellow had used a baseball bat and hit him from behind.

I don't understand why you want to keep bringing politics into this.

I would not have called that a "fight". Not even close. There was no need for a "fight", but there was a need to stop the guy from attacking random people.

Again, if someone if behaving like this, no one has any obligation to engage him in a fair fight.

That would have been just fine, too, in light of the situation.

This guy wanted a fight. No one else did, and no one else had any obligation to oblige him. Further, no one had any sort of obligation whatsoever to put themselves at risk to stop this guy. So yes, in light of that, a baseball bat to the back of the head would have been entirely appropriate.

Who the hell wants to fight fair? I don't get that. I wouldn't get involved with an assailant hoping to give him a fair shot. A bat to the back of the head by a total stranger would have been just fine. How far should the bully have gotten before that would have been justified? Would he need to drop someone and still be hitting him before it was ok to stop him from behind? Why in the world would someone give him a chance to hit back?