This video will make your day: Sikh immigrant shop owners teach thief a painful lesson

[dead0man]

Before Santander’s comment, a frankly quite disturbing set of reactions in this thread to an act which clearly went beyond mere self-defence and arguably bordered on sadistic revenge (notwithstanding the possibility that DrScholl points out).

eff that dude.  He made his sandwich, he deserves to eat it.  It's super easy to not get your ass beat by a shop keeper.

[dead0man]

Before Santander’s comment, a frankly quite disturbing set of reactions in this thread to an act which clearly went beyond mere self-defence and arguably bordered on sadistic revenge (notwithstanding the possibility that DrScholl points out).

How is it sadistic to protect your own livelihood? These Sikhs immigrated with nothing and they aren’t going to let some psycho destroy their business. Your indifference to what the Sikhs in that video saw with some guy openly destroying their livelihood tells a lot. I am sure that you, someone who lives in a affluent suburb of London and doesn’t presumably know many people who own businesses like this.

Lol you do know that Sikhs errrr do live in affluent London suburbs?

what does that have to do with the people in the video?  Poor people can't defend themselves if other people in their ethnic group are rich?

[dead0man]

I thought the people in this video were small business owners? I’d be rather surprised if they were “poor”.

in America you can be poor and a small business owner.  In fact, it's encouraged.  But lets say they ain't poor, are non-poors not allowed to defend themselves?

[dead0man]

Of course they are, I was just trying to rebut whatever specific ridiculous point you and Ishan were trying to make here,

my only "point" was that it was super easy for him to avoid getting his ass beat.

but of course it’s tangential to the main issue at hand, which as I said is that this goes well beyond simple self-defence (being either a fairly nasty piece of violent revenge, or a rather weird and pathetic attempt to generate online content).

what do you suggest they do instead?  Stop whacking him when he asks?  What do you suggest they do when he gets up and starts to walk away?  Let him go?  Do you believe they never should have intervened in the first place?  You have hindsight, plenty of time and almost no stress so this should be far easier for you than for the victims. 

More broadly, even if you think what the owners did here was grimly necessary, it should be viewed as no more than that - grim necessity - and the tone of outright glee from many in this thread strikes me as very odd. In general, having to resolve disputes through extrajudicial interpersonal violence (and I think we all know what the subtext of this video as far as race relations go is) is not a sign of a healthy society!

I generally agree with this, but nobody should lose any sleep over this ass beating (except for the criminal who might find it hard to get comfortable for the next week or two).  If the courts keep letting repeat criminals out, we will be seeing more "community justice" beatings like this.

[dead0man]

Uh, continue to restrain him until the police arrive? It was clear that they had already accomplished that before they brought the pole out. I’m pretty sure that in most scenarios like this, that is in fact what happens without having to resort to extra ‘punishment’.

we clearly watched different videos if you think the guy was restrained when the broomstick started hitting him.

I would suggest that America does not have a problem with underincarceration…

if there are criminals walking around unpunished for their crimes it does.  You can have both some people in jail incorrectly and others not in jail that should be.  In fact, I'd assume that's the norm everywhere.

[dead0man]

Some of you guys aren't right in the head.

This irony? Looters and shoplifters who steal from hardworking people making an honest living deserve this treatment.

Where does it stop though? Death? Outside of very violent and heinous crimes there is no justifiable reason to wish brutal violence on someone. You open the door to that and the threshold to violence becomes even lower.

IMO lethal (or what a reasonable person would expect to be lethal) should be the line.  Currently, it generally isn't legal for a private citizen to use force on a shoplifter at all.  I believe this is a mistake and ideally they should be allowed to use non-lethal force without liability.   

well, you aren't allowed to walk up and sucker punch a shoplifter, but you can attempt to restrain them (as is suggested by the bleeding hearts in the thread) and if they fight back, you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself.  At least in theory, DAs and judges aren't always going to be on the victim's side.

[dead0man]

I wonder which call will get answered by the police first:
1."hello, yes, my shop is being robbed by an armed man, come quick"
2."hello, yes, my shop was being robbed by an armed man, two of my employees are currently risking their lives trying to keep him restrained, come quick"
3."hello, yes, I went to the store to buy a pack of smokes and this guy tried to rob them and now the store owner is beating him with a broom, come quick"

[dead0man]

How long should these guys go to prison for Fergy?