Mike Wyck Criminally Charged

I'm going to do a little "victim blaming" here. Not that I think Wyck's actions are excusable. Isn't Nippard—by tellling his camera man to keep filming "in case... funny business"—essentially admitting whatever he planned was going to result in an altercation?
No. You called it right that this would be victim blaming, but another word for it is gaslighting. Van Wyck instigated the incident, and Van Wyck escalated it into a physical confrontation on his own. Full stop. Nippard having his guy record as Nippard went to get clarification from Van Wyck as to what he meant was prudent as it guaranteed Nippard had an accurate record of the interaction for law enforcement if it were needed.

Van Wyck is an abusive, toxic individual who relies on verbal and physical bullying and intimidation. Van Wyck's apologists are in fact enabling his bad behavior and every bit as much of the problem as Van Wyck himself. People who are abusive to others only feel empowered to be abusive when others around them help them blame their victims.

For fuck's sake! Is having a dash cam going during a traffic stop demonstrating intent to escalate the situation? Is having home security cameras demonstrating any intent other than protecting oneself, one's family and one's property? No! That's tantamount to telling someone that if they defend themselves in any way from an aggressor, they are just as guilty for the incident as the other person.
 
No. You called it right that this would be victim blaming, but another word for it is gaslighting. Van Wyck instigated the incident, and Van Wyck escalated it into a physical confrontation on his own. Full stop. Nippard having his guy record as Nippard went to get clarification from Van Wyck as to what he meant was prudent as it guaranteed Nippard had an accurate record of the interaction for law enforcement if it were needed.

Van Wyck is an abusive, toxic individual who relies on verbal and physical bullying and intimidation. Van Wyck's apologists are in fact enabling his bad behavior and every bit as much of the problem as Van Wyck himself. People who are abusive to others only feel empowered to be abusive when others around them help them blame their victims.

For fuck's sake! Is having a dash cam going during a traffic stop demonstrating intent to escalate the situation? Is having home security cameras demonstrating any intent other than protecting oneself, one's family and one's property? No! That's tantamount to telling someone that if they defend themselves in any way from an aggressor, they are just as guilty for the incident as the other person.
So, we are in agreement:
1. Victim blaming: yes.
2. Wyck's actions inexcusable: yes
3. Record actions in case of altercation: yes
Right?
It's what I said in my previous post bro. No need to go as far as "gaslighting." C'mon.

I don't know either of these men. It seems you know, or know of, this Wyck guy, and his notoriety. If a raging lunatic threatened me in a gym, I'm going to inform management of the problem. Why take a chance? It was only a question.

I've made light of this fight since it was first posted. As posts have been added, I see that some find the altercation seriously disturbing. I understand. I respect your and everyone's view on this. Don't take my "light" or "question" posts as conclusive to anyone's actions. If that didn't come through before, I'm on record here now.
 
Maybe everybody that knows him knows that he is ready to boil over. Best to film any interactions with such a person if possible.

Right or wrong, I would feel so unmanly telling someone please film this interaction incase I get my ass kicked and need evidence.

I wish I was born many years earlier when men usto be men. All these cameras everywhere and social media is kinda gross. Entertaining I guess but gross.
 
The second Youtube guy presents Jeff Nippard's narrative and the CCTV video out of order to create a false impression.

Nippard wrote, as shown on the video, "I then asked him, 'What did you mean by that?' and I made sure my camera man was filming in case he tried any funny business." See around 7:20 on the video.

And that is what the CCTV shows. Nippard walks several steps toward Mike Wyck, and very obviously says something to his camera man and to Wyck.

That is exactly what is shown on the video. It matches Nippard's narrative.

This YouTube commenter, however, says Nippard leaves this part of the video out of his narrative. The YouTuber does that by going on in the narrative to say Mike comes over and shoves him backward, which, again, is exactly what the video shows, but the YouTuber presents this part of the narrative, and only then, after, shows the part of the video where Nippard asks Mike "What did you mean by that?" and instructs his camera man to film "in case he tried any funny business." Basically, he presents the CCTV video out of sequence with the narrative to pretend Nippard was lying.

Nippard never claimed he did not walk toward Mike to ask him the question. He says he asked the question and told his cameraman to film just in case. You see that is exactly what happens on the video.

The narrative fits exactly with the video if you are not looking to present them out of order from each other to create a false impression that Nippard is lying.

His narrative and the video do not contradict each other.

You just now figure out how content creators get clicks? Jk

They make up some fake hyped bullshit or outright lie. This drama already has a lot of traction so if a YouTuber can flip the script or make people think they're privy to some exclusive information, they'll sit through all the ads.
 
Right or wrong, I would feel so unmanly telling someone please film this interaction incase I get my ass kicked and need evidence.

I wish I was born many years earlier when men usto be men. All these cameras everywhere and social media is kinda gross. Entertaining I guess but gross.
For real, nowadays a man can't even whip his wife without getting cancelled SMH
 
Back
Top