Umm... I don't see that at all. I just don't see facial expressions mentioned. That does not mean the above.
It doesn't state they are the only people in the club. Where are you making this **** up from?
It doesn't assert that at all.... ... Have you lost your marbles? It is only describing THIS fight.. WHICH HAPPENS TO BE between two people.
Again, I see that nowhere, this is getting quite ****ing retarded to read.
They would..... but that won't matter because Bob threatened and then attempted to carry out that threat.
It does mention a bouncer. And it isn't necessary to mention what class and staffing look like to tell the story.
Please don't, Your list is ignorant.
There is no need to FLEE if you aren't in engaged in a fight.
Simply walking her out the door without so much as a word to Joe would have sufficed. I have seen **** like that done plenty of times.
If you think my list is ignorant, then you have joined the world of zippy pinheads living in a pipedream fantasy world of niceness.
Why won't you at least be honest of what you claim is a person's moral and should-be legal duty:
That a person MUST morally and ethically run away from all bullies OR give the bully anything he wants OR have a duty to allow him/her/themselves to be assaulted to any degree the bully(s) wants to.
Tell me, do you think it then is just fine if the man runs away faster than the woman thus leaving her alone if that is what is necessary to get away before being assaulted? It would seem your answer is an obvious yes.
The world and psychology of "civilized" white people. I can not count how many times I saw them "assaulted" (understatement) it their view that only when direct express statement of intent to do harm is stated or when actually under assault can they take pro-active offensive actions for defensive reasons. This also may be why my wife, who grew up in such civility, found all men interested her to be clumsy, physically incompetent and too danger to consider marrying. He wanted, among other things, an unconfused man who does not have ideals, fears or other distractions in terms of defense of her children, herself or himself - and proven willing and capable to do so - as willing to do so as she herself is.
I saw that instinct in her one time way back before we were a romantic couple - though that her goal. Despite knowing she had never been in any fight of any kind in her life, when she saw 3 guys coming towards me from behind after I had shoved a Joe-like-drunk over a table, she did not hesitate to start pulmetting those 3 men with pool balls like little cannonballs driving them back until I could turn to face them and some of my buddies coming into this too. Yet those 3 men hadn't actually DONE anything yet. Rather, they coming into position to do massive damage to me from behind. That impressed me greatly about her.
Bob warned Joe to stop and he didn't. Instead, Joe directly once more escalated is aggression and now directly at Bob - rather than indirectly at Bob via his fiancé. What Bob did wrong in my view in that he tactically acted incorrectly. Injecting Joe hits his head and dies is just to create the stance that anything but running away from a bully in-your-face makes you a murderer.
What I see is that it was the bully and instigator who died, and Bob and his fiancé - the target of the strong drunk bully - were fully uninjured. I'm a-ok with that outcome. Joe was a bully, substance abuser who cannot control himself, and is abusive towards women including picking strangers to abuse. I don't care that Joe is dead and think the world better of without him. I don't like men who abuse and intimidate women. A lot.
