From Russia With Love: Russian Motorists Viciously Beat Drunk Driver On Video - Polidicks

The douche deserved it, but the cops still should have done something (other than help beating him) about it.

I can't say he didn't deserve it, but modern societies have a justice system in place for a reason. Of course, having the shit beat out of you certainly beats a Russian prison.

And Russia is hosting world cup.

this is disgusting.

[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;26712640]I would say he deserved it[/QUOTE] You're a fucking savage animal, and so is everyone who agreed with you. [editline]15th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Tu154M;26716508]I would most likely still be overcome with various shades of rage and anger - and that not because he might run some kids over but because he actually did run into my car. My car is one of the most important things in my life and when you damage it, you'll have to live with whatever consequences my brain comes up with at the time. Might it be yelling or just kicking the shit out of you which is physically tricky for me anyway.[/QUOTE] So to you Car > Human Sure, I get it, you're crazy.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;26717930]And Russia is hosting world cup.[/QUOTE] What makes it worse is that Russians HATE tourists. The ones that don't speak russian that's it.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26718198] So to you Car > Human Sure, I get it, you're crazy.[/QUOTE] If you like to think that it's okay hun. You don't have to worry about your reading disabilities, i still love you the way you are.

[QUOTE=JDK721;26712768] it's called vigilantism, and vigilantism has no place in modern society[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMJqzWydZzQ&feature=related[/media] Aww, this made me nostalgia a bit.

[QUOTE=Vinze;26716101]You don't think it has more to do with how this egotistical prick potentially risked the lives of the innocent people walking around? I mean, drunk drivers kill tons of kids and stuff.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, I'm positive that had something to do too. I really dislike drunk drivers, they're the lowest piece of shit in this world. I approve of this, and I hope that fucker learned his lesson.

In America, you break law. In Russia, law breaks you. [editline]15th December 2010[/editline] Regardless, this [b]is[/b] entertaining.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;26719181]Oh yes, I'm positive that had something to do too. I really dislike drunk drivers, [B]they're the lowest piece of shit[/B] in this world. I approve of this, and I hope that fucker learned his lesson.[/QUOTE] Rapists, serial killers, child molesters, etc etc Also vigilante justice is an incredibly bad idea and you are all immature savages for thinking otherwise. The modern world has an organized criminal law system for a reason. Also lol @ people saying "1 night in the drunk tank and 6 points". DUIs are taken p. seriously.

[QUOTE=JDK721;26716575]so you care more about your car than the possibility of kids being run over, and your car being damaged would result in you having a knee jerk reaction possibly consisting of physically assaulting someone? good to know[/QUOTE] Well, it does make me look sane again, amirite? :smug:

[QUOTE=JDK721;26716433]so vigilantism consisting of a bunch of people beating the shit out of him to the point where he could've died is justified?[/QUOTE] completely. i'd kick a man to death if it stopped him killing a bunch of innocent people on a sidewalk because he was a selfish drunk driver. are you saying its justified to [B]not[/B] attack a man attempting to flee the scene of a accident, whilst drunk, and with a massively high percentage of killing innocent bystanders trying to escape. Because literally, if you are thats even more messed up than beating him up.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;26720444]completely. i'd kick a man to death if it stopped him killing a bunch of innocent people on a sidewalk because he was a selfish drunk driver. are you saying its justified to [B]not[/B] attack a man attempting to flee the scene of a accident, whilst drunk, and with a massively high percentage of killing innocent bystanders trying to escape. Because literally, if you are thats even more messed up than beating him up.[/QUOTE] Tackle, restrain, hold for police. Hey a legal method of dealing with the problem that doesn't involve committing assault yourself.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720479]Tackle, restrain, hold for police. Hey a legal method of dealing with the problem that doesn't involve committing assault yourself.[/QUOTE] Obviously, i wouldn't always choose the violent option. If it was possible i'd tackle him yes. But in some circumstances it's completely justified to use force. Anyone saying vigilante justice is wrong in EVERY circumstance is an idiot.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;26720535]Obviously, i wouldn't always choose the violent option. If it was possible i'd tackle him yes. But in some circumstances it's completely justified to use force. Anyone saying vigilante justice is wrong in EVERY circumstance is an idiot.[/QUOTE] In any situation that can be solved by legal means it is. Civilized societies have a legal system for a reason.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720592]In any situation that can be solved by legal means it is. Civilized societies have a legal system for a reason.[/QUOTE] what good is a legal system if the offender isn't held to trial. what if in your attempts to "peacefully" restrain someone, they escape and go on the run? What if that drunk driver gets away from you and kills someone else. what good would your 'legal means' point do?

[QUOTE=Benf199105;26720637]what good is a legal system if the offender isn't held to trial. what if in your attempts to "peacefully" restrain someone, they escape and go on the run? What if that drunk driver gets away from you and kills someone else. what good would your 'legal means' point do?[/QUOTE]Not any good but that's a problem with russia not here. We have a (semi) working legal system here. And come on, if you can beat the shit out of someone i'm pretty sure you can restrain them. If you can't restrain them, then you can't beat the shit out of them and we wouldn't have this choice anyways.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720822]Not any good but that's a problem with russia not here. We have a (semi) working legal system here. And come on, if you can beat the shit out of someone i'm pretty sure you can restrain them. If you can't restrain them, then you can't beat the shit out of them and we wouldn't have this choice anyways.[/QUOTE] What if it takes a beating to restrain someone? Why do policemen carry truncheons or tazers? Why when a policeman takes someone down with a truncheon or a tazer, thats acceptable? but compared to a citizen doing the same, it's vigilante-ist? Police are not averse to beating a criminal down to subdue them, thats what the public did here. Although they were over zealous, they did exactly what a policeman would do if a suspect tried to flee and resist arrest.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;26720895]What if it takes a beating to restrain someone? Why do policemen carry truncheons or tazers? Why when a policeman takes someone down with a truncheon or a tazer, thats acceptable? but compared to a citizen doing the same, it's vigilante-ist? Police are not averse to beating a criminal down to subdue them, thats what the public did here. Although they were over zealous, they did exactly what a policeman would do if a suspect tried to flee and resist arrest.[/QUOTE] Really? You think a violent beating is anywhere comparable to an incapacitation by tazing? Or the use of a truncheon to incapacitate? Ever heard of a thing called police brutality which is what these civies did except they're not police?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26720966]Really? You think a violent beating is anywhere comparable to an incapacitation by tazing? Or the use of a truncheon to incapacitate? Ever heard of a thing called police brutality which is what these civies did except they're not police?[/QUOTE] really? you think not incapacitating a potential murder, a drunk driver attempting to flee, by any non lethal means is not acceptable? give me a good reason why in this situation they should not have acted as they did. Do you honestly support his right to not be beaten down? HE COULD HAVE KILLED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. Honestly, if you got off your computer for 10 minutes and walked into the street to see some drunk guy crashing into cars i'm pretty sure if you have any sort of mental capability you would do something. or maybe people are just so liberal these days they don't realise that you forgoe your freedoms by deliberately and consioucly acting in a way that is detremental to others safety and lives. He has no rights. None. He got in a car, drunk, then tried to escape. I'm glad they beat the shit out of him. I hope you don't ever have to experience how bad drunk driving is first hand. But if you ever do you may look back on this and think again. He got what he desevered and i hope he rots in jail and is banned from driving for life.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;26721099]really? you think not incapacitating a potential murder, a drunk driver attempting to flee, by any non lethal means is not acceptable? [B]give me a good reason why in this situation they should not have acted as they did. [/B] Do you honestly support his right to not be beaten down? HE COULD HAVE KILLED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. Honestly, if you got off your computer for 10 minutes and walked into the street to see some drunk guy crashing into cars i'm pretty sure if you have any sort of mental capability you would do something. or maybe people are just so liberal these days they don't realise that you forgoe your freedoms by deliberately and consioucly acting in a way that is detremental to others safety and lives. He has no rights. None. He got in a car, drunk, then tried to escape. I'm glad they beat the shit out of him. I hope you don't ever have to experience how bad drunk driving is first hand. But if you ever do you may look back on this and think again. He got what he desevered and i hope he rots in jail and is banned from driving for life.[/QUOTE] I've given you multiple. And i'm pretty sure he still has rights because it would be assault to beat him up. Thousands of drunk drivers have been arrested without getting the shit beat out of him, it's obviously not their only choice or their best choice.

[QUOTE=JDK721;26716142]and if someone is driving drunk, then they most likely have an addiction problem along with other issues (mental illnesses such as depression and substance abuse often co-exist), and beating them up would be the wrong way to handle the situation[/quote] lol no, every single person i know who drink drives just does it because they can't be fucked hailing a cab/paying money for one.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26721156]I've given you multiple. And i'm pretty sure he still has rights because it would be assault to beat him up. Thousands of drunk drivers have been arrested without getting the shit beat out of him, it's obviously not their only choice or their best choice.[/QUOTE] As i already said, OBVIOUSLY. You don't automatically beat everyone down, but saying, like you and that other guy, that beating him down was wrong, is incorrect. Yeah there are always ones that go quietly. Just like many gun men are taking peacefully, or murderers, or any other criminal. But there's always a few that won't go quietly, or that try to escape, and man, if i ever came across one that could be subdued i'd put him down without a second's thought. You're probably just a selfish kid, too scared to stand up and stop this kind of thing, so you hide behind some twisted form of offender rights so you don't have to act. Someone who murders someone, or puts themselves knowingly in a situation where they can easily kill people... why do they have rights? Liberalism gone too far.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;26721300]As i already said, OBVIOUSLY. You don't automatically beat everyone down, but saying, like you and that other guy, that beating him down was wrong, is incorrect. Yeah there are always ones that go quietly. Just like many gun men are taking peacefully, or murderers, or any other criminal. But there's always a few that won't go quietly, or that try to escape, and man, if i ever came across one that could be subdued i'd put him down without a second's thought. You're probably just a selfish kid, too scared to stand up and stop this kind of thing, so you hide behind some twisted form of offender rights so you don't have to act. Someone who murders someone, or puts themselves knowingly in a situation where they can easily kill people... why do they have rights? Liberalism gone too far.[/QUOTE] Lol I like how i'm making reasonable points and you're going "YOU'RE A KID! LIBERALISM!" Of course you should subdue someone trying to escape but you don't subdue someone by fucking beating them half to death. I'm not sure how this point escapes you but it seems like it does. I support using physical force to subdue an especially non compliant suspect. I do not support beating someone nearly to death.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26721352]Lol I like how i'm making reasonable points and you're going "YOU'RE A KID! LIBERALISM!" Of course you should subdue someone trying to escape but you don't subdue someone by fucking beating them half to death. I'm not sure how this point escapes you but it seems like it does. I support using physical force to subdue an especially non compliant suspect. I do not support beating someone nearly to death.[/QUOTE] Whats the limit on violence? How can you assign a line in the sand about what level of violence is acceptable. When does subduing become brutality. The point doesn't escape me, kid (since you pulled that phrase out of the air i'll use it). I know exactly what your saying, but it's not logical. You can't say here is the limit, this is where this practice becomes brutality, because people are different; every person can take a different amount of subduing, or punches or kicks, or volts from a tazer. You can't assign a value on something so intra-personal as that. What if subduing one suspect IS beating him half to death, where do you go then? Your argument is inconsistent. You must be a "kid" because the short sightedness of your argument is so obvious.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;26721435]Whats the limit on violence? How can you assign a line in the sand about what level of violence is acceptable. When does subduing become brutality. The point doesn't escape me, kid (since you pulled that phrase out of the air i'll use it). I know exactly what your saying, but it's not logical. You can't say here is the limit, this is where this practice becomes brutality, because people are different; every person can take a different amount of subduing, or punches or kicks, or volts from a tazer. You can't assign a value on something so intra-personal as that. What if subduing one suspect IS beating him half to death, where do you go then? Your argument is inconsistent. You must be a "kid" because the short sightedness of your argument is so obvious.[/QUOTE] There's a distinct difference from physically restraining and subduing someone and beating them up. If someone gets injured while being subdued that's not a crime. If they're wantonly beaten up after being subdued that's obviously a crime. Look at the dude in the OP, he's not on the verge of getting back up, nowhere even close. That's clearly over the line and it wasn't to restrain or subdue him so much as just to harm him as much as possible. Seeing as how there's an actual legal definition of police brutality and assault, I think a line can be drawn. My argument is completely consistent, you just don't understand it. Also "You're probably just a selfish kid" != out of thin air e: [img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2010/12/russianbeating.jpg[/img] Does that look like a guy that got reasonably subdued?

That's some really shitty policework.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26721520]There's a distinct difference from physically restraining and subduing someone and beating them up. If someone gets injured while being subdued that's not a crime. If they're wantonly beaten up after being subdued that's obviously a crime. Look at the dude in the OP, he's not on the verge of getting back up, nowhere even close. That's clearly over the line and it wasn't to restrain or subdue him so much as just to harm him as much as possible. Seeing as how there's an actual legal definition of police brutality and assault, I think a line can be drawn. My argument is completely consistent, you just don't understand it. Also "You're probably just a selfish kid" != out of thin air[/QUOTE] Fair enough, i didn't actually say kid to infer anything, more of the image of a sheltered child defending his "rights". But. Yes, and i agreed with you about 4 times, they went to far, but i disagree that vigilantism has no place in the world. Sometimes you need to subdue and restrain people. You don't keep beating a guy thats knocked out, of course. I never said i condoned beating him whilst he was down, but while he's running around, swinging punches and trying to drive off, he's fair game. You put his ass down in any way possible. If that's what your saying, i have no problem.

Wow facepunch, you really disappoint me with your mob justice ways. The thing that you guys seem to be missing is that they weren't beating the fuck out of him to stop him from driving off (note how the first guy tried that and it made him crash into another vehicle), but they starting assaulting him after he was out of the vehicle, unable to really hurt anyone else (fatally, with a vehicle, at least). If someone tackled him to the ground and held him until the police came, it would be fine. There was no need to kick him until he's bleeding from his fucking eyes.