Joe Schilling sucker punching drunk guy

Joe put his hands on him first unprovoked and then goes back and puts his hands on him again. The guy didn't walk into him Joe walked into the guy on purpose he intended to assault him from 10 feet away you can see his body language as he approaches he intends to put his hands on him.

The correct solution is get the guy's attention and yell at him to not stand in the way like an idiot. You don't just go and grab someone on purpose from behind that in itself is illegal.

In another world if someone comes up from behind and puts their hands on another man he turns around and guts him.

Corrupt judge.

That's ok, karma always comes for bullies like Joe he'll get his eventually. Guaranteed. They always do. Saying this was self-defense is a fucking joke.
You're an idiot
 
Blatant lie, he was standing still not stumbling when Joe approached. Balboa stops moving and is standing still when Schilling is still 4 feet away.

Schilling takes a purposeful step directly into Balboa who isn't moving. The FACT is Schilling purposefully walked into him and put his hands on him first initiating the entire situation. You can try to spin whatever bullshit you want but the fact is Schilling assaulted the dude twice.

Walking into someone from behind who isn't moving isn't getting stumbled into... you fucking psycho. Fuck...

You're looking at the situation all wrong. The guy sidesteps right into the path that Joe is walking. Is Joe supposed to stop walking....wait to see where the clown will move to next and then pass when it's safe? That sounds ridiculous.

Schilling actually steps to the right to get around him. I've done this many times in tight spaces as well as people have to me. But all this wasn't good enough for the loud dancing fool. So he decided to run his mouth and aggressively feint like he's going to throw a punch.

Joe was put in a position to react and he did.
 
Ain't a lawyer, so I don't know. I presume they did. Now what you're implying is that since Joe was found not guilty in the end, that it was a non issue to the judge, it still doesn't explain his motive to why he would film it in the first place, if not to capture a reaction or an imminent event. I personally find it very questionable. I guess we'll never know. I guess Joe had very good lawyers.

People testified the guy came up to their table previously in the night and they had to ask him to stop and leave .
I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve it, but all of you acting like Joe did the right thing and didn't escalate the situation are out of your mind.
He did and the court agrees. You're wrong, get over it
 
The most retarded take I've ever seen on Sherdog, like ever. To "justify" deadly force?

Bodycams are there to keep the civilians, and the wearers in check. The body cams are there to keep track of "what happened". They are in no way shape or form a Right To Kill badge lmfao.
Are you dumb? The purpose for bodycams has nothing to do with having “wearers in check” LOL. Police has full control over turning a cam on or not.
The original purpose for bodycams was to get FPV of justified killings.

Thanks for learning bud.

so again by your logic, bc they decided the turn on a camera just to make sure theyll have evidence of a person acting erratically and claim self defense, it’s premeditated?

Again, then all cops that turn their bodycams on are committed a premeditated crime.
<TheDonald>
 
Are you dumb? The purpose for bodycams has nothing to do with having “wearers in check” LOL. Police has full control over turning a cam on or not.
The original purpose for bodycams was to get FPV of justified killings.

Thanks for learning bud.

so again by your logic, bc they decided the turn on a camera just to make sure theyll have evidence of a person acting erratically and claim self defense, it’s premeditated?

Again, then all cops that turn their bodycams on are committed a premeditated crime.
<TheDonald>
You're the one comparing law officers bodycams to a civilian clearly recording himself for an eventual assault. Apples and oranges. Now if you think Joe had any intentions other than knocking the drunk dude out, you're very naive. Joe isn't a cop, he didn't turn on his bodycam to serve the law, and have video proof of wrongdoing, if any. See how it's not fucking comparable? Jesus.

So by your logic, every cop can kill anyone if their bodycam is on because "FPV of justified killings", come on man. Justified killing can only be justified if the actions taken in the recording were justified. Are we on the same planet?

I just don't see how Joe can justify filming himself going to the guy and claim selfdefense when he purposely put himself right next to the guy. You can't go to a drunk guy, film the encounter far away, pray the dude reacts and knock the fuck out of him and claim selfdefense, this shit is fucked LOOLL

Case closed anyway, Joe's a hero for what he's done, right? MERICA.
 
Blatant lie, he was standing still not stumbling when Joe approached. Balboa stops moving and is standing still when Schilling is still 4 feet away.

Schilling takes a purposeful step directly into Balboa who isn't moving. The FACT is Schilling purposefully walked into him and put his hands on him first initiating the entire situation. You can try to spin whatever bullshit you want but the fact is Schilling assaulted the dude twice.

Walking into someone from behind who isn't moving isn't getting stumbled into... you fucking psycho. Fuck...
But…. It went to court. It was tried. By a judge. And youre objectively wrong. It isn’t even a matter of opinion.
 
This aged well. Good thing you're not a lawyer
I never claimed to be a lawyer. I was having a discussion on a forum.

You also don't seem to understand the purpose of lawyers. You do realize there were 2 lawyers involved in this case, both arguing opposite stances right? One was arguing it was self-defense, the other argued it was assault.

The fact that the jury/judge decided that Joe was indeed under a valid threat, is because his lawyer argued the POSITIVE evidence he saw in that clip (the dude coming forward). I personally still don't believe Joe Schilling was truly fearing for his life, but hey, he managed to convince the people he need to, so good for him.

Anyway, I hope you had a fun Friday quoting dozens of people on a 2 year old thread lol.
 
Blatant lie, he was standing still not stumbling when Joe approached. Balboa stops moving and is standing still when Schilling is still 4 feet away.

Schilling takes a purposeful step directly into Balboa who isn't moving. The FACT is Schilling purposefully walked into him and put his hands on him first initiating the entire situation. You can try to spin whatever bullshit you want but the fact is Schilling assaulted the dude twice.

Walking into someone from behind who isn't moving isn't getting stumbled into... you fucking psycho. Fuck...

Haha Balboa. Did he get up off the ground and say "yo Joe, I didn't hear no bell?".
 
Will @Sanserif show his face after being wrong for two years and 100 pages? I'm hopeful

I posted immediately after the verdict came out which u would know if u looked.

And i wasnt wrong. Just because the judge ruled against the plaintiff doesn't make schilling right. Judges are human and rhey don't always get the verdict right especially when the lawyers for the claimant dont make the case properly.

I am not sure why u r so happy over the result as it means that a pro fighter got away with unnecessarily and disproportionately assaulting a guy in a bar for getting into an verbal with him.
 
I posted immediately after the verdict came out which u would know if u looked.

And i wasnt wrong. Just because the judge ruled against the plaintiff doesn't make schilling right. Judges are human and rhey don't always get the verdict right especially when the lawyers for the claimant dont make the case properly.

I am not sure why u r so happy over the result as it means that a pro fighter got away with unnecessarily and disproportionately assaulting a guy in a bar for getting into an verbal with him.

Sorry guy. Actions have consequences. The guy not only called Schilling to him, he lunged at him like he was going to punch him.

Maybe don't pick a fight with a big jacked dude in a bar and you won't get your lights punched out.
 
Sorry guy. Actions have consequences. The guy not only called Schilling to him, he lunged at him like he was going to punch him.

Maybe don't pick a fight with a big jacked dude in a bar and you won't get your lights punched out.
He didn't lunge at him. He leaned forward with his chin exposed in the air and his chest out with both hands behind him. It was the worst position to start an attack. It is the usual posture of someone involved in a verbal argument...
 
He didn't lunge at him. He leaned forward with his chin exposed in the air and his chest out with both hands behind him. It was the worst position to start an attack. It is the usual posture of someone involved in a verbal argument...

Somebody needs to go and watch the clip again....
 
Back
Top