You would argue black is white just for the hell of it ya daft ****. Violence on a randomly chosen victim is random violence. Such attacks are also reported as such. I think you've popped yer heid up yer arse again and are beginning to ponder random theory rather than what we're actually talking about.
only with a select few, who do deserve it for talking ****e though If its predetermined it cannot be random, can it?
Now you're being as obtuse as I expected you to be. You carry on talking random theory while the rest of us discuss random violence.
Using the reason that because they thought before they went out about attacking someone or because they were drunk is no reason to justify it not being random, at the end of the day they are just picking fights for the sake of picking fights which is not only stupid but by assaulting people they don't know or because they are bigger or they are drunk or they thought about fighting before they left the house is no excuse at the end of the day so it is random violence.
Well that wasnt my intention here I genuinely do accept your view that the victim may be random However from the perpetrators perspective it is not random
If anyone wants a practical example of the meaning of the phrase "dog with a bone" they just need to read TWFNN's contributions on here.... Have to applaud the staying power though. I think it's a question of semantics though really. As far as the victim is concerned I would imagine they consider it to be a random attack - e.g I got chinned in a nightclub once and the bloke's mates said he only did it as he wanted to look hard by smacking someone with glasses. Given there must have been 30 or so people wearing them it was still a bit random.
I agree there is no justification whatsoever for their actions and no excuse either Its certainly mindless but not random if they have thought about it
Carrying out an attack on a random person is random so there is no justification for it, if they have wronged you in some way and you've been drinking yes there is reason behind it but otherwise it is random violence directed on random people. So how would you explain this, fits my description perfectly but thanks goto trev for posting it elsewhere. [video=youtube;5CR5RfrKVhw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5CR5RfrKVhw[/video]
No semantics, your focus is wrong. The victim is just that a victim. He/she suffers from the violence However the person who is being violent has not done so randomly As i said previously the victim may 'happened to be there' but the perpetrator was not being random
I prefer this link in the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...-bares-new-nude-shoot-Industrie-magazine.html
how does that fit your description? The guy is drunk and in the guys face, even the title is 'guy asking for it' He gets told to go away, gets pushed away and then gets sparked
Do you think the guy in the white top knows who that one person is out of the thousands that are clearly at a large festival? No so therefor him being drink and hurling abuse at a random person for no good reason what so ever is the perfect example of random violence.
I see fan has jumped in both feet first, as usual he's being a tad economical with the truth (in fact he's a ****ing liar), he said he would attack anyone who insulted his family, a slight difference between that and protect his family which he is now saying. Tell him from me he's a ****.
Surely a 'spark' would have to be something actually happening? As in a spark setting a fire off? If it's something silly like someone being big then spark is probably the wrong word.
Last post going in circles. The bit that was random was him shouting abuse, him continuing to shout abuse after being told politely to get to **** and then attacking a random person because he was drunk (which is and never will be any excuse for randomly attacking a random person)
