|
EDIT: COR Version:
1. Assault > Prank
2. Totality > Rationalization
3. !!! > ???
4. Profit > Loss
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
...prank... ...at least it can be enjoyed/condemned from a perspective that has nothing to do with the victim's archetype? |
I wouldn't call it a prank. In fact, the act itself is nothing less than simple assault - per its legal definition.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
| quote: | Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant. |
That said, there is a strong case for vehicular assault as a vehicle is the instrument through which the assault was conveyed.
As yet, it cannot be determined how or why this victim was chosen but, regardless of her victimology, the salient feature is her inherent vulnerability. The assholes clearly didn't choose someone they thought capable of defense or retaliation. They didn't, for instance, commit the same act outside of a known Hell's Angles gathering place. They weren't driving in East L.A., gunning their engine past an unwitting MS13 member.
What is known about it, barring the woman being in on the "joke" herself (in which case I've been trolled lolollercopter!), is:
The victim was a white woman, alone.
The woman was a pedestrian, possibly in her early twenties, dressed in denim shorts, wearing a bikini top.
She was presumably walking in an area normally accessible to the public.
Her attackers were two men, presumably (90% certain) white, in their late teens to early twenties, operating a vehicle capable of off-road driving.
Her attackers were also towing a speed boat.
(It's reasonable to assume, given the woman's state of dress and the fact of the towed boat, that this occurred near a natural body of water.)
The woman was a stranger to her assailants.
The assault had malicious intent, including but not limited to, humiliation of the victim.
The woman was lured into a brief conversation with her attackers, whereupon she increased, or allowed for there to be an increase in, her proximity to the vehicle and her assailants.
The woman was clearly unaware of what her assailant's intention was.
The woman was, at no time, in any position to defend herself from the assailant's deliberate action.
The assault was unprovoked.
The assault was filmed, by the attackers.
Footage of the assault was posted on YouTube.
No effort was made to either disguise or protect her identity.
You can discount the importance of victimology, as far as your own enjoyment is concerned, but only to a limited degree. Being that there is no other victim profile, apart from a woman dressed in revealing clothing, there is no reason to believe that the assault would have happened to anyone else other than an isolated woman who stood little chance of being able to retaliate.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i am an equal opportunity humiliator. any target would have done. but anonymous certainly works well, because it removes any imperative to feel empathy when all you want to do it giggle. anonymous victims may as well be fictional characters. |
One would have to assume, however, that if you were a witness to a female acquaintance (friend, girlfriend, sister, mother, et al) being similarly assaulted that, given the ability and/or authority to address the situation, you'd have done something about it. It is only because she is far removed from you, existing as a low-resolution, two-dimensional caricature through which any number of surrogate-effigies would have sufficed, that your enjoyment may be rationalized.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
does this fill you with rage too?
Youtube
|
No. But the same elements aren't present, either. There's a difference between water splashed on indistinguishable figures and subjecting someone to a 90dB engine roar along with 7 atmospheres worth of diesel exhaust, road dust, and tire smoke and posting the humiliation of the ordeal, on YouTube. I've been intentionally splashed with water by passing motorists, when I was a kid and I make sure, when I'm driving, that I don't inadvertently do it to pedestrians because it pissed me off. Still, it didn't piss me off enough that I thought about it, the next day, either - other than to be mindful of my proximity to small bodies of water and passing motorists.
What has pissed me off is the asshole who threw his tobacco spit on me - to the degree that I fantasize about showing up to our high school reunion to publicly ridicule him for what a fat piece of shit he's turned out to be. There was also the asshole in Denver who, when I was walking home from work, made a habit of shouting, "fag" along with threats to kick my ass, at the top of his lungs.
THE COMMON DENOMINATOR between the tobacco spit, the drive-by shoutings, and these assholes in the YouTube video has been the vehicle - validation for the meaning of the word, homeovestic. Everyone of them was white, drove a 4x4 vehicle with wheel and suspension modification (with the possible exclusion of the last, already installed with stock reinforced suspension and off-road tires), and exhibited and/or expressed an overwhelming desire to dominate their target.
While water splashing tends in both your YouTube and my experience, to be the penchant of the sedan driver, spit is bodily fluid, and no matter how much you may enjoy the money shot, bodily fluid (spit, blood, semen) is always and expression of domination. As are threats of physical violence against a mistakenly perceived weaker target. (Funny thing is the shouting stopped, once I found out where he lived - no less than right next door to a fucking gay bar.) As is the accumulation of smoke engulfing the woman, in the video. As is posting the video, very clearly depicting the woman so that she could easily be identified by someone who knew her, on YouTube.
The problem I have with your rationalization (and that is what it is) is that it dismisses the considerable totality of the event. Never-minding the suspension of empathy, you've tried to equate it with a prankster splashing high-school students with water, at the bus-stop, but, in order to do that, you have to make a wholesale discount of the other features of the assault - those which weigh, in no small measure, the balance of my anger. > ...
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Schadenfreude > Rhetoric |
I see your inequality and raise you a compound inequality!
___________________
Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012
Last edited by EddieZilker on Sep-04-2011 at 19:30
|
