91
Crowd cheered as two transgender women were attacked in Minneapolis, advocates say
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
91 points (96.0% liked)
Minneapolis - St. Paul Metro
564 readers
77 users here now
About
A community for leftists and progressives within the Minneapolis - St. Paul Metro Area, including all suburbs and exurbs.
Community banner courtesy of @maven@lemmy.zip ❤️
Guidelines
-
Be nice
-
Comment substantively
-
Probably some other stuff
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don’t get into gunfights in train stations ffs
Counterpoint: get into a gunfight anywhere someone is trying to beat you to death and you have a gun
Fistfights exist everywhere but rampant gun violence does not. “Buy a gun to deal with that hypothetical problem” is terrible advice compared to, idk, deescalation training. Yeah if you’re already on the ground getting punched in the face it’s too late to deescalate but there were choices made before that. Buying a gun so you can shoot up a train station isn’t exactly the most beneficial way to deal with bigots as a society.
Non-fatally shooting one or two among a group of men that's got you down on the ground attacking you is not "rampant gun violence."
The problem is not hypothetical, we're discussing it as it just happened.
It's important to de-escalate, you're right. Owning a firearm comes with many responsibilities that you must uphold as a gun owner, and responsibly weilding the firearm (including and especially not using it as an excuse to threaten whomever you may) is one of them. But in this situation, it seems as though the men struck first, last, and hardest.
You're right also, that they could have just ignored it. And, without video, there's no way to tell how intense the initial conversation was. But do you think asking to not be called slurs on the train deserves a response in physical force? And do you think being beaten by a group with a 2:1 ratio on your own does not deserve a response in physical force?
I'm not suggesting "shooting up a train station," I'm suggesting using a firearm to deter a group of men that are beating you.
There are more guns than people in the US. Gun violence there is rampant, more children are killed by guns than by cars. The cause of the gun violence IS the gun ownership. It’s the idea that when you have a problem - even a physical one - that the solution is a gun. That idea is unique amongst war-torn countries and the US. So no, shooting up a train station isn’t rampant gun violence. But the idea that you ought to is.
But that's not the idea: self defense is not the same as a mass shooting, and you refusing to differentiate that gives me the vibe you aren't arguing in good faith.
The UK doesn't have gun violence, they have knife violence. So are you going to tell someone not to carry a knife for self defense because it's a potentially deadly weapon?
Sometimes it is, bud, welcome to the real world. If you're being attacked, especially if you're outnumbered, your argument is basically "you should have talked your way out if it, or just taken the assault, rather than use a tool you may legally be allowed to use to protect yourself." Do you ask rape victims what they were wearing before the assault too?
They clearly couldn't rely on bystanders to intervene, like people attempted to for George Floyd, and the victims were outnumbered and clearly overpowered. Had one of them been carrying a firearm, the assholes who just assaulted two people for existing may have been deterred.
Or just, you know, walk away? Try to deescalate the situation maybe? Pulling out a gun and blasting away seems like the worst option here.
Yeah I'll try that if I'm ever on the ground being beaten by five grown men... Walking away.
Obviously you de-escalate when the situation calls for de-escalation. In this case, it was probably a good idea to just ignore those guys from the get-go. But you know what? That's implying getting assaulted was the victims' fault.
All those women did was ask to not be spoken to the way they were, and the man's response to that was a sucker punch. That's not a situation you can de-escalate, he already assaulted her. Maybe it would have been wiser to run off and lawyer up. But quite frankly, I respect that she stood her ground and clocked him one back.
Those women were assaulted, and maybe I would have dealt with one jackass smacking me differently. But if I'm on the ground with five grown men beating me senseless, sorry not sorry but one of us is gonna be limping for the rest of their life after this and it's not gonna be me.
That's dismissing all the actions that led up to being beaten. Once the first punch is thrown, sure do whatever you can to defend yourself. Unless we get video of the incident, we probably won't know for sure what happened. But at least according to the article the victims "confronted" their harassers. I ride the MSP light rail everyday. Been harassed by, mostly mentally ill or drug addicted people, dozens of times. It sucks, but every time I keep my mouth shut and I walk away. One guy did try to punch me, but he missed and I was long gone before he had another chance. Don't "confront" these psychos if you're not ready for a fight.
See how ridiculous your argument sounds now?
No, not really. I don’t think the two situations are all that comparable.
I'm really not dismissing anything. I'm saying that they absolutely could have ignored those men. But I also do not think they did anything wrong in confronting them - unless they used force themselves, which we won't know unless a video comes out.
Those men threw the first punch, and I'm saying that you should be ready for something like that, and you should do whatever you can to defend yourself.
"Confronted" does not imply violence, I have no reason to believe the women were violent initially. You're acting like they started the fight when confrontation could range anywhere from a full-on shouting match to asking them to stop saying that bullshit.
A guy did try to punch them, he didn't miss, they weren't long-gone after that because more men joined in. All I'm saying is it's wise to keep a firearm (or Taser, or pepper spray) in case of an assault like that, and they're right to defend themselves in that case.
I don’t think they started the fight. Apologies if that was my implication. I just have a vivid image in my mind of the people who committed this crime. You can’t reason with that type of person. If they say something fucked up you’re better off just ignoring it. These are not citizens in the traditional sense. They’re looking for a reason to start a fight. They have nothing to lose.
More victim blaming. You're disgusting.
Besides that, not everyone's gonna live just like you. Though you say we may not know for sure what happened, you assume that they straight-up started a fight with five guys because they did anything at all, which is wrong because it's not what you would do. For all you claim to know the "confrontation" was them just saying "Hey, don't call us that!" but you openly insist that they brought that brutality on themselves.
What a great way to make a better world, just sit down and shut up unless someone's calling out a problem, at which point they're the problem.
I’m just going by what the article says. If we find something different happened, I’d be willing to change my stance.
Aren’t you victim blaming as well, at least by your definition? They could have defended themselves if only they had a gun is putting the blame on them. I don’t really think either of you are victim blaming but at least be consistent.
The assailants are to blame, period. But that does not mean that the victims could not have avoided this. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying it was their fault and they are to blame. It is acknowledging their agency as people being assaulted (first verbally, then physically) and acknowledging that their options go beyond doing nothing, being assaulted, and buying and carrying a lethal weapon with them everywhere, much less shooting in a public building.
Nobody's really saying they couldn't have walked away in the beginning. We're saying that there's nothing wrong with addressing verbal abuse, and you should carry a weapon in case you find yourself outnumbered, on the ground, being beaten.
Ffs fill in the gun blank with a weapon you're comfortable with. Pepper spray, taser, trebuchet, whatever. The point is don't get caught off-guard by an assault because you asked someone to stop harassing you. They have their friends as backup, I have mine. It's just my friend's made of steel.
I didn't say anything about a gun. I don't think anyone here said what you're accusing me of saying.
I don't really have anything new to say to your gross-ass insistence that people focus on how the victims are ~~to blame~~ "able to avoid such situations." Their attackers could've avoided that situation. Are you sure the victims could have, just by wearing less revealing clothing- wait, wrong situation. By simply walking away? No one's ever been hurt trying to get away in your world?
This argument really doesn't feel worth my time. Either you respect someone's right to exist or you don't.
This whole discussion started with several people saying “buy a gun and get into a gunfight.” You’re awfully angry and opinionated about a comment thread you didn’t read.
I can respect someone’s right to exist and also respect the bystanders at the train stations right to not get caught in the crossfire over an argument. Yeah, even one with bigots.
You keep making this about victim blaming. I’m sure that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. But it’s not a real discussion. It’s a way for you to shut down discussion of how to non-violently deal with bigots. Not everyone is prepared to escalate or kill over an argument. And encouraging victimized people to confront their assailants in public for some reason is not making them less likely to be victimized.