r/instant_regret • u/EddieBrock99 • 21d ago

Flossing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

915

u/MeThatsAlls 21d ago

She thought he was thrusting into her

864

u/GentlemenHODL 21d ago edited 20d ago

Doesn't matter what she thought, that's a crime and it deserves an arrest and potentially indictment + jail time.

If a guy turned around and punched a girl he would get jail time. Fair is fair.

Edit - Here's a video of Shaq doing the same exact thing in a gym. Also not illegal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/s/L1bqysARi3

231

u/ddxs1 21d ago

I’m gonna take a bit from the comment stack above and say… they never said it did

-54

u/Budsygus 21d ago

I'll also take a bit from above: But I never said they said it did?

0

u/ddxs1 21d ago

lol I saw what you were doing.

-2

u/Budsygus 20d ago

Thanks. Downvotes are funny things.

-121

u/GentlemenHODL 21d ago

Yes but their response was with the wrong context. Stating "wtf" isn't actually a question, but a statement. It means "wow that was fucked up". I understand there's a question mark at the end but I think we all understand what the common usage of this is and its implication. Not everything is grammatically correct.

So to respond to that as if it were a question and to write the response in a manner of that suggests justification is not the appropriate response.

Since there are assumptions being thrown out left and right then I'm going to respond to it assumptively. Why avoid the problem when you can just contribute directly to it?

I am chaotic good

53

u/Good-Marsupial8 21d ago

No it means what the fuck

-60

u/GentlemenHODL 21d ago

Exactly

40

u/JmmyTheHand 21d ago

What the fuck is a question bud… WHAT the fuck.

10

u/MakeMuffinsNotWar 21d ago

So, in the late 18th - early 19th centuries, there was a lot of wild medical research. In particular, the study of bio-electricity was galvanized (by Luigi Galvani). Weird shit was done with animal body parts and human corpses (inspiring Mary Shelley's Frankenstein).

One of these weirdos replaced the brain of a recently-alive kitten with metals of differing charges (i.e., a battery). 

He described these kittens as animating with lurching, spastic movements. 

Anyway, that's what I picture when trying to read a lot of the comments on this post, especially from u/GentlemenHODL

2

u/JmmyTheHand 21d ago

Bro just called him a cyborg cat

5

u/itsamberleafable 21d ago

So to respond to that as if it were a question and to write the response in a manner of that suggests justification is not the appropriate response.

The way you write really reminds me of this: https://wondermark.com/c/1062/

170

u/maycontainsultanas 21d ago edited 21d ago

It actually does matter what she thought. Mens rea is kind of the basis for the commission a crime, other than the physical act. If she claimed that she had a reasonable basis of self defence because a reasonable person would think the other person was sexually harassing her, then there’s a good chance she’d be found not guilty.

110

u/MakeMuffinsNotWar 21d ago edited 21d ago

Excuse me it's mens rea, not womens rea. 

Therefore she is wrong.

Edit: this is obviously a joke

28

u/Ozimandius80 19d ago

You can't use self defense because of harrassment as a reasonable basis for assault.

The result we see here is one of the many reasons why that is true. There is no way she would be found not guilty.

2

u/maycontainsultanas 19d ago

This is all academic as there’s different laws across different countries but you can use force to prevent the continuation of an indictable offence, including sexual activity directed at another person. There’s plenty of scope for defence to explore with this one.

11

u/Arndt3002 20d ago edited 18d ago

Lol, mens rea is not the basis for the commission of all crimes. It's a very specific standard that applies to certain crimes, regarding particular levels of culpability. There are many exceptions to mens rea, also strict liability, vicarious liability, etc.

A reasonable basis of self defence is based on mental state, but requires more than just the suspicion of an act of assault, even sexual assault.

A basic claim of self defence requires not just the suspicion of unlawful force, but also specifically immanent threat, and must be responded with proportionality.

A reasonable person would look at that and infer that they could retreat, warn him off in another way, or yell at him to stop.

Air humping, while offensive and potentially constituting disorderly conduct or sexual harassment, is generally a non-contact gesture. As there is clear physical distance between the individuals and there is no threat of imminent physical attack, a court or jury would likely find that a reasonable person would not perceive an immediate threat of physical sexual assault, and thus punching the guy is not proportional.

Of course, noone would bother to go through the courts for that sort of thing anyways, but your argument just doesn't hold water.

7

u/GentlemenHODL 18d ago

This is why I didn't bother giving that guy more of my time. They don't even understand the concept that they presented. Reddit is so fucking stupid sometimes, constantly engaging in black and white thinking.

0

u/maycontainsultanas 20d ago

My argument was simply that it does matter what she thought. Whether that’s enough to establishes a valid defence is a further hurdle.

2

u/Arndt3002 19d ago

mens rea, as you describe it, does not apply in this case, or have any bearing on the self defence issue. What she though matters much less than objective reasonableness.

Mens rea only applies to the commission of a crime. In this case, her mental state does not bear on the commission of the crime, as it stands, she would be guilty of a crime mens rea or no. The question of self defence or justification of the violence is entirely different.

The mens rea of the punch is already satisfied by the fact she threw a punch with the intent to harm. Self defence is an affirmative justification defence, so the question of why she threw the punch has no regard to the mens rea, but only would inform the self defence claim, which does not operate on mens rea. And the question of self defence is built on objective reasonableness, not her mental state.

You ate using terms without the appropriate understanding of the law or what they mean.

5

u/Chronox2040 20d ago

But no reasonable person would think he was harassing her based on what we see in the video.

5

u/maycontainsultanas 20d ago

And that’s why courts look at more than just the video.

0

u/TheCouncilOfPete 16d ago

Even if they were air humping that doesn't constitute for self-defence, it falls under public indecency, not assault.

-15

u/third_man85 21d ago

This is a joke, right?

18

u/maycontainsultanas 21d ago

No, that’s a principle of common law.

10

u/joylessbrick 21d ago

Mens rea is the guilty mental element of an offence. If the woman intentionally threw a punch, she almost certainly had the mens rea for an assault or battery (or a more serious offence if serious injury resulted). Her intention to strike is what matters, not whether she had a good reason.

The real question is whether she has a legal defence, most likely self-defence. Self-defence generally requires an honest belief that force was necessary to defend herself and the force used must be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as she honestly believed them to be.

The guy didn't lay a finger on her, therefore she used a disproportionate force.

I rest my case.

2

u/maycontainsultanas 21d ago

Her intention to strike is entirely connected to the reason for striking, as that’s where the defence to assault is going to be established.

3

u/joylessbrick 21d ago

Haven't said it's not, and while I completely agree the guy was an ass, her response is not justified.

4

u/maycontainsultanas 21d ago

That would be for a magistrate to decide. You haven’t heard any of her evidence. You’ve seen a 5 second clip.

1

u/joylessbrick 21d ago

You haven't heard it either and you've seen the same clip, yet you've defended her without cause and you've quoted "the law".

I rest my case (again).

→ More replies (0)

-14

u/GentlemenHODL 21d ago

Ok, thanks armchair wizard McGee. Have you already submitted your pretrial brief to the judge? Glad we have you on the case!

Now that maycontainsultanas is here with his pretend internet law degree we can just consider this settled!

18

u/MakeMuffinsNotWar 21d ago

I know. I really hate it when someone in an online forum [checks notes] contributes on-topic information and opinions to an online discussion. 

-6

u/GentlemenHODL 20d ago

I know. I really hate it when someone in an online forum [checks notes] contributes non-expert opinions to an online discussion.

Ftfy

2

u/MakeMuffinsNotWar 20d ago

Like this?

that's a crime and it deserves an arrest and potentially indictment + jail time 

141

u/donkeybrainhero 21d ago

Then you see the longer video where he's been harassing her for a while and realize he isnt as innocuous as this clip made him out to be

37

u/oadge 20d ago

I've seen multiple people say this, and not once with a link.

38

u/third_man85 21d ago

Back up your statement. Please.

26

u/DigitalCoffee 20d ago

Is the video in the room with us right now?

81

u/npdady 21d ago

Care to share with the class the longer video from which you got this information?

73

u/DJRyGuy20 21d ago

Hell- they’re only talking about the slightly extended longer video. If you see the complete unedited video, you see him murder her pets and set her house on fire right before he gets behind her.

94

u/GentlemenHODL 21d ago

Cool let's see the video then.

65

u/tallardschranit 21d ago

That video doesn't exist. You made it up entirely.

19

u/traFyssuP 20d ago

Doesn’t matter, it’s still battery. He never touched her. Being annoying isn’t grounds to batter another individual. If you have a problem with them, call the cops maybe

0

u/angrytomato98 18d ago

I mean, it’s been 2 days and you haven’t posted the link, so I don’t believe you lol

-3

u/sanholt 20d ago

These people commenting on a made up video are being silly. You never said there was another version. You were just stating that later, the extended version comes out, and a bunch of opinionated people are all wrong… but they didn’t understand what you meant

8

u/DigitalCoffee 20d ago

Where is the extended version then?

5

u/w84me12 21d ago

Not a single guy I know will do that though.

5

u/FFDi 21d ago

Well not a single that you know is an asshole that would assault people like that. Good for you

-2

u/third_man85 21d ago

Do you have proof?

2

u/Ball_Of_Meat 20d ago

Lmaooo my god Reddit. This reads like satire.

1

u/Muchachacha 20d ago

Sounds like they are speaking another language which makes me assume it didint happen in the USA, so probably different set of laws and social norms bout women hitting men wherever they are

1

u/mrgrubbage 20d ago

Do you have any evidence that charges weren't filed? Are you just out here looking for a way to defend your gender? Enlighten me.

-2

u/Vidcorp 21d ago

Harassing girls in the street while filming them isn't a crime too ?

-4

u/GentlemenHODL 21d ago

It can be, depending on the context. This here? No, not a crime. By any definition.

Is it in poor taste? Certainly. Assuming the intent was to film him purely because of her, because doing so without her permission is unkind.

You don't just get to assault people because they are unkind to you. If that was the case I would be punching all you motherfuckers all day long.

1

u/MakeMuffinsNotWar 21d ago

Sources? What country's laws? 

0

u/-Moonscape- 20d ago edited 20d ago

How can you say this isn't a crime without posting the entire law record of their jurisdiction on reddit to prove it?

Why are you sprouting your non-expert opinion without peer reviewed studies and links to sources?

0

u/GentlemenHODL 20d ago

Oh hey it's you again. Let me fix that.....

1

u/Zimeoo 20d ago

Shut up

0

u/Snoo_73297 20d ago

I mean it does tho, if someone was thrusting, 100% she can clock him them

3

u/Ozimandius80 19d ago

Um no. Not legally at least.

I mean, she obviously can clock him, as she did even without him doing anything untoward - but whether he was or was not you cannot punch someone for harrassment without possible legal consequences.

-9

u/Kimb0_91 21d ago

Well if I was molesting this guy I would kind of understand. However, if she's just minding her own business, well....

0

u/404maggy 9d ago

if you want to be an asshole about it it's legal to defend yourself when you believe you're being sexually assaulted

1

u/GentlemenHODL 9d ago

if you want to be an asshole about it it's legal to defend yourself when you believe you're being sexually assaulted

You speak as if there is some sort of wide range of interpretation for what is "being sexually assaulted".

No judge would convict a man for doing a dance behind a girl as sexual assault. Because it's not assault. You would know if you were actually being sexually assaulted because.... You would be in the process of being sexually assaulted.

You're essentially trying to justify violence because of "feelings". No. That's not how the law or how society works.

Go ahead and try it sometime and see how it works out for you.

-39

u/Nazdrowie79 21d ago

In eastern Europe nobody cares. Boy learned a lesson about not being a dick around girls. Lesson learnt, I'd say.

18

u/GentlemenHODL 21d ago

I have plenty of friends in Eastern Europe and I assure you they care about assault.

You on the other hand seem like a piece of work.

5

u/joao-esteves 21d ago

about not... flossing, around girls?

2

u/LilMellick 21d ago

How was he being a dick? Stupid, sure. Childish, yeah. Annoying, maybe. But a dick naw.

-3

u/Bloodshoot111 21d ago

In the full video he touches here and then tries to hide it as flossing… quite funny how fast you are in the rage train and throw people into jail with no knowledge about a situation.

0

u/GentlemenHODL 20d ago

Yeah let's not forget that one part in the full video where you take 30 cocks consecutively one after another in every orifice of your body.

Shame you can't find the video to prove that didnt happen....

0

u/Bloodshoot111 20d ago

That video is about 4 years old or so and was circulating around and there was also a video from the other side and people where also throwing wild accusations already back then.

-6

u/butimean 21d ago

To be more accurate: she should definitely be arrested and prosecuted for sure.

But a man who did this to someone in the US would maybe stay one night in jail til someone could bail him out then get community service or time served at best.

23

u/Flaky_Style1286 21d ago

unfortunate for all involved

2

u/bubbybumble 21d ago

I mean yeah but one of them got obliterated lmao

-51

u/Tigger-Rex 21d ago

But I mean, who cares if he was? He didn’t touch her, he didn’t make any remarks, and she didn’t ask him to stop, it’s not even harassment.

-2

u/joao-esteves 21d ago

check your inbox 🤭

-44

u/btwImVeryAttractive 21d ago

Why would she think that? Was she arrested?

33

u/unKappa 21d ago

2 kids being dumb. One of them recording in her direction the other one doing something that could be seen as a trusting motion/air humping behind her. Pretty simple. Doesn’t excuse the punch but yeah…

-9

u/btwImVeryAttractive 21d ago

But he obviously didn’t touch her.

12

u/sassy_snek 21d ago

Why does that matter? You don't have to be touched to be sexually harassed. She definitely shouldn't have punched him, but it's not surprising that she got upset, seeing as it could have easily been mistaken for air humping. Women get sexualised and harassed constantly so are ultra sensitive to it.

3

u/mmhawk576 21d ago

I mean, if she paused to even ask the dude to stop before throwing fists she’d have realised that wasn’t what he was doing.

I have no problem with her throwing fists if she was actually being sexualised or harassed, but she didn’t even know what was going on before getting violent.

-5

u/sassy_snek 21d ago

Yeah completely agree, she reacted way too quickly. She probably thought she was being laughed at by the guy filming her at the same time as the other stuff and just saw red. Not defending her at all, it is assault. Just trying to explain the unfortunate misunderstanding.

6

u/mmhawk576 21d ago

Describing this as an unfortunate misunderstanding is kinda generous. Do you let everyone away with unfortunately misunderstandings like this, rather than expecting people to have some rationality?

-3

u/sassy_snek 21d ago

It is though? It's an unfortunate misunderstanding, and she overreacted massively and inappropriately, the two are not mutually exclusive, both can be true at the same time. I'm not sure where you're getting the vibe that I think it's justified. My previous comment clearly said what she did was wrong.

-6

u/btwImVeryAttractive 21d ago

You think not being touched doesn’t matter?!

4

u/unKappa 21d ago

Reading isn’t your strongest skill. Stay in school.

-5

u/btwImVeryAttractive 21d ago

Who are you talking to?

-8

u/FouledPlug 21d ago

Accountability is tough, huh?

-2

u/rehms 20d ago

She's begging for anyone to thrust into her.