|
Dr. Phil kicks the Bumfights guy off of his show [video] (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Engine9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chris Allen
Why would you have someone on your show if you're going to kick them off without speaking to them.
Dr. Phil is just as moronic as the creator of Bum-Fights.
Edit - The guy has a point though, Dr. Phil does greatly sensationalize people's stories. Best part about how ironic this is, is that if you look at the comments on the Youtube link, a lot of the people hadn't heard of Bum-Fights until the video. Way to go Dr. Phil. |
hahaha true, and dr phill says he wont publisize that, well he did cuz he showed it on his show, and then kicked him out, what a moron honestly. The other Buddy even shaved his head to look like dr. Phill (so it seemed) may be he kicked him out cuz of that ahaha |
|
|
| spitty |
BIG difference between dr phil and this guy.
these people are drug addicts/alcoholics/people with serious mental disorders and hes dangling money in front on their faces. money they desperately wants and making (under duress) them HURT themselves or HURT other people
to compare is just ridiculous
and by dr phil inviting him on the show just to kick him of is to send the msg to that ing creep that he is SO despicable that he isn't worthy of an honest conversation. there IS no explanation this guy can give that can justify what he is doing. it is morally wrong on all counts. this equals kicking a dog or a child.
ps. since when does tranceaddict have spellchecker? |
|
|
| rT19 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chris Allen
Why would you have someone on your show if you're going to kick them off without speaking to them.
Dr. Phil is just as moronic as the creator of Bum-Fights.
. |
loool i thought the same thing..
it was kinda funny how they both has the same kinda head. |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_cookie
I don't think they are on the same level.
the bumfights guy is in a league of his own.
ing nutjob. |
I'm not the biggest Dr. Phil fan, but he's at least an educated man.
This other guy is a clown with no respect |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by spitty
BIG difference between dr phil and this guy.
these people are drug addicts/alcoholics/people with serious mental disorders and hes dangling money in front on their faces. money they desperately wants and making (under duress) them HURT themselves or HURT other people
to compare is just ridiculous
and by dr phil inviting him on the show just to kick him of is to send the msg to that ing creep that he is SO despicable that he isn't worthy of an honest conversation. there IS no explanation this guy can give that can justify what he is doing. it is morally wrong on all counts. this equals kicking a dog or a child.
ps. since when does tranceaddict have spellchecker? |
TOTALLY agree.
There should be a law against that . No one should be able to pay another to cause harm to themselves or anyone else. Why isn't there some sort of law for that???? |
|
|
| spitty |
its banned in 7 provinces in Canada. others give it an 18+ rating.
this only includes the sale and showing of it.
why the US hasn't made this type of behaviour illegal is beyond me. i'm sure theres something in canadian criminal code that would make this illegal.
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;
465. Conspiracy
(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable;
i think it would fall under the above
ps. after the Jobidon case, even if you both consent to the fight, you can be charged with an assault/manslaughter. u cannot legal consent to getting your ass beat, so consent is vitiated. so basically both bums are guilty and then the guy would be charged with conspiracy and receive their punishments
anyone with a proper law background have anything on this? |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by spitty
its banned in 7 provinces in Canada. others give it an 18+ rating.
this only includes the sale and showing of it.
why the US hasn't made this type of behaviour illegal is beyond me. i'm sure theres something in canadian criminal code that would make this illegal.
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;
465. Conspiracy
(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable;
i think it would fall under the above
ps. after the Jobidon case, even if you both consent to the fight, you can be charged with an assault/manslaughter. u cannot legal consent to getting your ass beat, so consent is vitiated. so basically both bums are guilty and then the guy would be charged with conspiracy and receive their punishments
anyone with a proper law background have anything on this? |
I personally don't think the homeless people should be held responsible.
When you are homeless, possibly mentally ill, and starving... you would probably do just about anything for some money in your pocket. It should be illegal to exploit people who are mentally ill, and it should be illegal to give money as an incentive to kill, or harm yourself or others.
I think this would be on the same level as hiring a hit man, but instead, for entertainment.
I hope that guy gets beaten by a homeless guy.
That is purely disgusting, and people who watch and enjoy that are twisted in the head. |
|
|
| spitty |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I personally don't think the homeless people should be held responsible.
When you are homeless, possibly mentally ill, and starving... you would probably do just about anything for some money in your pocket. It should be illegal to exploit people who are mentally ill, and it should be illegal to give money as an incentive to kill, or harm yourself or others.
I think this would be on the same level as hiring a hit man, but instead, for entertainment.
I hope that guy gets beaten by a homeless guy.
That is purely disgusting, and people who watch and enjoy that are twisted in the head. |
agreed 100% (u and me have been doing a lot of back-patting lately)
i would think that in cases such as this the courts would use their discretion. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by spitty
agreed 100% (u and me have been doing a lot of back-patting lately)
i would think that in cases such as this the courts would use their discretion. |
I think we are very like-minded in regard to political/moral issues.
It's like 70% liberal, 30% conservative. :D
It's nice to have someone else agree with me though :) |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by spitty
its banned in 7 provinces in Canada. others give it an 18+ rating.
this only includes the sale and showing of it.
why the US hasn't made this type of behaviour illegal is beyond me. i'm sure theres something in canadian criminal code that would make this illegal.
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;
465. Conspiracy
(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable;
i think it would fall under the above
ps. after the Jobidon case, even if you both consent to the fight, you can be charged with an assault/manslaughter. u cannot legal consent to getting your ass beat, so consent is vitiated. so basically both bums are guilty and then the guy would be charged with conspiracy and receive their punishments
anyone with a proper law background have anything on this? |
Although in essence I agree with you, the above stated hardly applies to the bumfights video.
The word 'force' is meant as some sort of physical harm, and no where is it stated that physical harm can't be inflicted on one's self, which is the essence of those videos.
It is a sick idea. Nothing more really needs to be said about it. It should go against the basic moral code of most individuals. But how many do you suppose (on this board) perhaps probably find this funny to some degree?
As much as its easy to dismiss Dr. Phil as a joke, at least he goes to some length to educate his limited-scope audience towards the greater good.
Should we be frustrated at the stupidities he spews, or should we be frustrated by the plethora who are stupid enough to not know the basics he preaches...? |
|
|
| spitty |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
Although in essence I agree with you, the above stated hardly applies to the bumfights video.
The word 'force' is meant as some sort of physical harm, and no where is it stated that physical harm can't be inflicted on one's self, which is the essence of those videos.
|
no, the laws i have quotes only applies to when they fight each other, which i think they do. any consensual fight where someone suffers bodily harm is potentially an assault. i'm not sure if conspiracy would be the appropriate charge for the instigator though. never come across a case like this
as for the cases where they harm themselves..i couldn't think of anything. i wouldn't be surprised if there was something, but i think it would be far-fetched. we do have several sorta "general" laws that cover anything that is detrimental to social utility. disturbance of the peace might work
i'm interested in knowing for sure. i'll go thru the CCC once i right my exam this morning. or if my prof is there, i'll ask him |
|
|
| zokissima |
| /\/\ Post if you find anything. I'd be interested to read about it. |
|
|
|
|
