you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -41 points 1 week ago* (35 children)

That clearly didn't come out of nowhere. They were already arguing for some amount of time. I'd appreciate more context of what lead to that before I make any judgement.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    The context is that throwing someone to the ground like that is illegal even when you've been arguing for a while

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    That's certainly a fact that it's illegal; Almost no matter the context. It could be considered part of the broader environmental context. Like it's not raining.

    But I'm more looking for the actions of the three people involved, during the several minutes leading up to the head slamming. Longer possibly. Maybe one or more of them has a criminal history.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    Yeah, man. We gotta find if the victim is to blame, here.

    /s

    What the hell, man?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    Not to blame him. To understand why. Attacks like that don't just happen in a vacuum.

    Why were they stopped in the middle of the road? How long had they been arguing? What we're they arguing about? Did they know each other prior to this encounter? Should there also be traffic tickets, in addition to the criminal charges? We know literally nothing about the event. Why is everyone satisfied with ignorance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Attacks like that don't just happen in a vacuum.

    Right, they happen when entitled motor vehicle drivers feel disrespected. The cyclist may have even done something stupid beforehand that put everyone in that car in danger.

    But it almost certainly doesn't matter, because there is almost nothing that cyclist could have possibly done that would justify the violence in that video.

    I think that's why no one here seems to care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

    I'd say there's absolutely no justification. Even if the cyclist killed the man's wife first, it wouldn't justify it. But it would make it understandable.

    As it is there's no way to understand what happened. And everyone seems content assuming they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Even if the cyclist killed the man's wife first, it wouldn't justify it.

    Uh, no. That's a load of horseshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Revenge is horseshit.
    It's literally just "I hurt them because they made me feel bad". That's never a justification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    It is actually justification, you just choose not to accept it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    So it is okay to hurt people if they make you feel bad.
    That's scary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Yeah i really don't know if i should side with tge guy who has his skull smashed in or the coward who did it and drove away. Maybe the cyclist called him a pussy, or even worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago*

    You aren't? That's odd. Who else would you side with?

    What makes the criminal a coward? The driving away? Would it be brave for him to stay, waiting to be arrested? Or is that just some dismissive rhetoric?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago* (11 children)

    There's an article, and it's as I expected:

    A Scottish motorist left a cyclist with a serious brain injury following a violent road rage incident in Edinburgh. Joseph Hedley became involved in a confrontation with cyclist Iain Brown before violently attacking the man without provocation at the city’s Cowgate in September 2024.

    Why would you assume anything different?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    I wouldn't assume at all. That's what everyone else is doing.

    And the "without provocation" is almost certainly wrong. People don't act like that without some internal reason. Better phrasing would be "without any known provocation".

    With the various responses, I get the impression that people assume any known reason would be a justification. As if reason itself is a justification. Of course that's not true at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    I don't know if you've done much cycling on public roads, but your mere existence is enough 'provocation' for some of these nutjobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

    Have. It's a part of why I stopped almost 20 years ago.
    But still that's just guessing. We don't know much of anything that happened here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

    We know enough to know that nothing justifies that kind of response.

    Honestly, I too would like to see the events leading up to it, but I accept that's unlikely to happen. In my view, as soon as a driver gets out of their car to do anything except exchange details after a crash, they've lost any moral high ground regardless, if they had any in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Of course not. Nothing would justify it. But explain it? Sure. Maybe there was an understandable reason for it, beyond bad impulse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    :sigh: Let me spell out for you, then.

    Maybe there was an understandable reason for it, beyond bad impulse.

    That's one of the most fucking stupid things I've ever read on Lemmy, and that's saying something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    You're absolutely assuming, because you assume the article is wrong to make up your own interpretation of events.

    Sometimes motorists are just jackasses that want to hurt cyclists. That's a real thing that happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago

    The article isn't wrong. It never states any reason. It never makes an assumption beyond saying it was unprovoked. The article is quite factual realy.

    It's everyone else here who's assuming the man's state of mind, motivation, and sanity even. I'm not assuming you all are wrong. But I'm also not assuming any of you are right. Because the article has no information about your judgments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    What context could possibly make it ok for the ecocidal narcissist to assault the cyclist?

    You don't need any more context than what's in the video to know that this shitbag need the dildo of consequences to arrive unlubed and covered in sandpaper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    No context would make it okay. If the cyclist was a mass murderer who killed the man's entire home town, it still wouldn't be okay.

    But while we can acknowledge it's bad no matter what, we also might be able to understand his reaction reaction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments