Yes, and imo any reasonable person would have done exactly that instead of intentionally causing an incident he could film and maybe profit from, or at least get some world star views.

She's married to a black dude, so I'll go out on a limb and say she isn't afraid of black men more than other men.

Of course, there's the possibility that she's actually a captive of her husband, forced against her will to marry and live with someone she feared and didn't respect because of their skin color just to torture her because she's really a racist bitch, but I seriously doubt it.

If the answer is yes, she's done this before to white guys they just didn't film it to publicly shame her and instead just used their fob again like a reasonable neighbor, would you change your position?

No, he has no obligation beyond the building's written rules to engage her at all, but that's exactly why she was suspicious, he violated building rules and stupidly refused to be reasonable....whatever his reason might have been, likely a mistaken assumption she was racially motivated and not just a good neighbor looking out for the safety of her building as the management had repeatedly requested everyone living there do.

What do you think he would do if a few 6'6" skinheads barged in when he opened the door, shoved past him, and rudely refused to prove they belonged there while filming him, snidely commenting about the dumb black boy who thinks he's security? Would you then excuse the hundreds of death threats he started getting from random racists for daring to confront white men? I hope not.

On one hand, he could have easily defused the situation by backing off, waiting a second and using his key fob.

But on the other hand, why should he? Maybe's he's an attention seeker, or maybe he's just sick of constant low-level racism and decided "fuck it, I'm not putting up with this bullshit today."

Let's be honest, would she have confronted him if he wasn't a black dude? Does she apply this rigorous security policy to everyone? Also, he has no obligation to tell her what apartment he lives in.

He could have definitely shown her the fob or asked her to close the door so he could prove he had access. Not being black, I can't say if he is just a dick or if he maybe was tired of everyone second-guessing him because of his race.

Both sides were confrontational, both could have backed down and handled it differently. I probably should have put more thought into the title because it does make it sound one sided.

I think the HOA board needs to front the money for security so that they do not have to ask individual residents to act as informal security. It's too risky and it leads to situations like these, where you can't be 100% certain who is right.

It would be unjustified if it's not true, but what I read was a man said the same things and worse to him earlier this summer in a more confrontational way with no penalty.

I wonder what would happen if someone actually walked out there and confronted her like she wanted. I bet that drunk pussy would back down really fast, or get fucked up.

I'm not horrified by what was shown in the video. Not in the least. I'm just interested in the gender bias and how it affects application of the law.

With regards to your comment about physical size, what if a young (or just petite) male server weighing 130-140lbs, was groped this way by a heavier woman? Would he then be justified in throwing her down? I suspect the media outcome would still be different and result in the male server being charged. This is gender bias because men are supposed to "suck it up".

As I said, if a man grabs a woman or shoves another man, he should expect to get blasted in the face. I was brought up to never hit a woman (or anyone really) and do believe men need to show more restraint in confrontations with aggressive women because men are typically stronger and, probably on average, more physically capable in a fight.

Getting off topic a bit, but the problem I have with the modern feminist movement is that it is becoming much less about equality between the sexes and more about gaining an upper hand on men. Many modern radical feminists seem to want to be treated equally until it doesn't suit them. So I agree with you that modern society has gone a bit crazy trying to say that there are no differences between men and women. But that is getting off topic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of the same mindset but aren't we all supposed to be treating each other equally now? Aren't we trying to get rid of these stereotypes (e.g. you don't think women should just be house-wives and get back to the kitchen, do you?) Therefore, women are the same as men and the law should apply equally to all? Clearly, that isn't the case.

As I said, I don't really care that this woman knocked the idiot down but she could have just as easily grabbed his arm and confronted him that way, without yanking him by the neck and throwing him backwards - it's not a proportional response to the sexual assault. Once detained - and I'm sure other employees or customers would have assisted - the police could have been called with the same outcome (i.e. the man being charged with sexual battery). But then she wouldn't have been able to "feel empowered"...

HAHAHAAHAHAAHAH!

This made me smile. I've had people park in my parking spot before and one of them, when confronted, told me she had nowhere else to park.

So seriously, fuck these people.

This is such a great feature.
Seeing him being confronted with the harsh reality, essentially breaking his heart, is quite a lot to bear.

I guess you could call this a lesson about globalism...

This. Self defence instructors seem to be pretty universally agreed on step 1 in confronting someone with a knife:
1: Run away

They are also pretty universally agreed on the best way to win a knife fight if running isn't an option, bring a gun.

@dag Looking at the members who up voted this "kids" sift .
..
Fred Rogers believed the pain that exists in our lives every day is even more difficult to process. For this reason, he kept it real on his show, despite how much of his target audience couldn't even spell "real." In fact, he believed that it was even more important to equip them early on with the tools they needed to navigate life's most treacherous moments.

If you watched his show, you might recall that he covered a wide-range of topics, and many of them involved things that even adults struggle to confront. In one episode of Neighborhood, the prince has gone missing, and people correctly assume that it's because he can't deal with his parents' constant fighting at home. In a story arc that lasts several days, people search for him and, when he is found, a classmate tells him that he had been scared the prince was dead.

You know why that's important, that the prince disappeared because of real reasons and not "evil dragon" ones? Because kids at home probably wondered the same thing when Mr. Rogers and his friends couldn't find the prince. Instead of skirting around the issue, he faced it head on, as he did with many issues on his program, showing children that they can learn to cope with difficult emotions like fear, shame, and anger. He understood that kids might be innocent, but they still needed to understand how to live in the real world. He taught them to be open, brave, and resilient while owning their feelings, which was something they could carry with them for the rest of their lives. It wasn't all sweaters and fish-feeding, you know.
Read More: http://www.grunge.com/

Your video, Ars Technica confronted children with 1980s technology, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You're not reading the verse correctly

Maybe this will help..here is 3/4ths of the verse:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

Jesus is saying here that nothing in the law will be altered until Heaven and Earth pass away..which is basically a way of saying it won't ever happen. Its the same as saying that something won't happen until pigs fly. Now comes the exception:

till all be fulfilled

Jesus is saying here that the law can be done away with when all is fulfilled. You are putting the fulfillment together with Heaven and Earth passing away for some reason. It doesn't say Heaven and Earth passing away is when the law will be fulfilled, does it? He just said in the previous verse that He came to fulfill it!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

So if the law can't pass away until all is fulfilled, and He fulfilled it, that means He can establish a New Covenant, which He did. God told us this would happen in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

The bible tells us that Jesus followed the law perfectly. It doesn't mean that He killed anyone. When the Pharisees brought a women caught in Adultery and told Him to stone her..He confronted them with their sins and then forgave the woman. Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins.

Now that I've answered your questions, could you answer mine?

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

Your video, Axl Rose Confronted Jim Jefferies High on Shrooms, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment on Man confronts Superintendent about Bullying in Katy ISD publ has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.