Search the Community

Hello folks in these disturbing youtube video chokes a wive her husband out and applies pressure when he has already fainted, which could have led into choking him off. Which at this point AFAIK she turned into an aggressor - if she wasn't one already. Nobody interferes as if this was some kinda MMA fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aceeTlaM4zE He failed to escape the lock, that doesn't mean he deserved anything, like some folks imply? Given that is a brief moment, the audience don't know what has happend before but from an moral standpoint it seams irrelevant to me, cause applying principles to a hypothetical but likely situation doesn't change the moral imperative which is the NAP. My assumption based on some evidences about women who generally get away with attacking a man in public whilst the other way arround, even if in selfdefense, a guy gets beaten up by a mob of so called white knights. There would be an uproar if he hit her and a follow up attack like the aforementioned occured. Given she attacked him and he didn't defend himself properly and ended up in those choking head-scissor grip. Did she realy think that she could choke a guy relentlessly without consequences which in the worst case scenario ended up strangling him? What is so funny about choking someon conciousless and why does nobody interferes but cheers her on instead? Are the bystanders mental zombies like Stef mentioned? I hope that the pros enlightening me. Cheers Christian.