We’re told not to resist during a robbery. Injury or death isn’t worth whatever the thief wants. Tell that to Lindsay O’Brien….
When career criminal Vaughn Matthews decided to snatch a woman’s purse and run from a stopped El train last Wednesday, he perhaps thought Lindsay O’Brien – who is nearly three months’ pregnant – would be an easy target.
When O’Brien tried wrenching her bag from Matthews’ grip, he twisted her right arm and broke her wrist. O’Brien countered by kicking Matthews in his leg. A visibly pregnant O’Brien told CBS that Matthews used his forearm to hit her in the abdomen.
That’s when she planted a kick that broke Matthews’ tibia in two places and sent him limping away, defeated.
Richard Pryor warned that it’s not like the old days when you could beat up a woman. They work out and if you mess with one on the wrong day….
h/t Devon C
Sounds like the cops got the little goblin – can Lindsay have just one more crack at him? Pleeeeeeeze?
Next time I hear " Give me a break" I will think of Lindsay O'Brien.
Don't mess with Mama Grizz . . . . . . you'll get mauled.
I agree with RockThisTown. Brilliant performance. I wish her a quick and uneventful recovery, and that her child is unharmed.
She responded as someone who is fully vested. It's clear that Matthews was unaware of the concept and what it entails.
Matthews should have waited for the government or its private sector supporters to execute redistributive change. He would have remained anonymous, healthy, and the beneficiary of progressive involuntary exploitation without the pain.
THAT's the problem, n.n, the only ones feeling the pain of the redistributive "change" is the donor. You and me.
I *still* say Flat Tax. Tax EVERYbody, and all of a sudden everybody will have skin in the game. Watch the poly-tick-shuns scurry for cover if that ever happens!!
Precisely.
As for the tax, flat or otherwise, what should be eligible? Whatever it may be, it should not be progressive, it should not undermine individuals with lower incomes, it should not punish pioneers who accept risk, and others who are more successful. Also, taxes should be applied to the only beneficiaries of wealth: people.
As for "skin in the game", I have previously remarked that I do not oppose "safety nets" in principle, but I do oppose them as currently realized. In fact, I believe the principle you have cited must be a mandatory part of any form of social economics.
I do not support class warfare waged by either the upper or lower classes. I do recognize that individuals will occasionally falter, and it is in the best interest of society to "teach them to fish". I believe the principle you cited is absolutely necessary in order avoid corruption of both the manager and recipient, since both are beneficiaries of redistributive change (whether it is voluntary or involuntary).
The problems we are experiencing are comprehensive. While the root of the crises is described by individual corruption, there are both domestic and foreign issues that need to be resolved in order for Americans to have full opportunity and to remain competitive with the rest of the world.
I got ahead of myself. The first thing we need to do is identify the issues of merit, then we can decide what is "fair" and what is necessary. You know the principles that I consider a priority. So, I will leave any discussion of details to the coming days, weeks, and months. Between Bob, and his guests, I think we have already had a fairly comprehensive exchange of ideas.
Whatever we do, we must control the causal factors of progressive corruption (at all levels), and it must optimally preserve individual dignity (both fully formed and developing). The various campaigns of war (e.g., class, gender, race, etc.), the progressive nonsense, must end. We have sufficient knowledge and experience to determine a proper course of action, which will benefit both Americans and others, without sacrificing anyone needlessly. Of course, the wrinkle in all of this, is that there are people who do not accept our principles, and they pose a credible threat to our civilization and to us individually. Well, that too is part of reality on Earth and must be considered when preparing any plan.
re: progressive nonsense
The knowledge and experience to guide us has existed for around 3000 years and maybe longer. We are well aware of the ideal, we are well aware of reality, and I believe we are capable of determining an optimal compromise between the two. Unfortunately, there will be no instant gratification, and that is an obstacle to executing any plan that we may conceive.
I'd definitely go for a "flat tax", though at heart, I'm a "FairTax" guy. The biggest transfer of power from the "political class", to the people in history.
Tibia crushed?
I smell a practitioner of the martial arts…
You go, girl.
Edit Delete
I'm too old, fat, and slow for the Martial Arts (although I had Combat Karate in the Military…). Nowadays I practice the .38 Special Arts, with an occasional refresher course in the .40 Arts as well…
And it's a lot of fun to practice with my .357 mag, but it's not exactly easy to carry inconspicuously… heh.
I hope that psycho does hard time. To hit a pregnant woman is absolutely despicable. What a sicko, low-life scumbag.
She broke his tibia? Dayum!
Bob, the link is dead. Here is the new one.
Matthews faces charges of aggravated assault, robbery, theft, receiving stolen property and reckless endangerment.
He should be charged with two counts of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. She was visibly pregnant and he attacked her with the intention to harm her child. This would be the proper charge if we intend to reverse the normalization of "pro-choice".
"Matthews used his forearm to hit her in the abdomen."
Attempted murder, anyone?
I considered that possibility.
MURDER, ATTEMPTED
In order for a person to be found guilty of attempted murder the government must prove:
First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.]
– lectlaw.com
I'm hesitating on the second point, "attempted to kill someone". He certainly intended to cause injury, but it is questionable if he intended to kill the developing human life.
i call bs on the pregnancy AND the attack.
Edit Delete