Where are the Parents

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2019, 03:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol "charged 3 times". Outright lying about what was on the video isn't going to sway anyone. 

Quote:In a video posted online, the group surrounds a man and a girl wearing a black top pushes him.

1st time

Quote:The same girl steps forward to confront him again and he pushes her away.

2nd time

Quote:When she charges at him, he knocks her out cold to the ground.

3rd time




But don't let that stop you from calling someone a liar; it's the Liberal thing to do. 

[GMDino]

(01-15-2019, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1st time


2nd time


3rd time




But don't let that stop you from calling someone a liar; it's the Liberal thing to do. 

"charged him"

 

An 11 year old girl...."charged him" by stepping forward.

Frigging sad.  "Alpha"

[jj22]

This is a depressing thread. Even if it's only 1 person defending this, a 51 year old should be universally slammed for knocking out a 11 year old girl. Where they accept that behavior at? Russia? You don't live in Russia, you live in America (in my Wyche voice) Trump supporters...

Scary to think how young Bfine is willing to go (since he wouldn't answer). 10 year old? 9 year old? Is Bfine willing to knock out an 8 year old? Sheesh. We live in a scary world.

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2019, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1st time


2nd time


3rd time




But don't let that stop you from calling someone a liar; it's the Liberal thing to do. 

lol "steps forward to confronts" = charges?

[jj22]

Maybe Bfine thinks he's trolling Liberals. But there's no shame in being a liberal if that means you don't knock out 11 year old girls at the age of 51....

[Dill]

(01-15-2019, 03:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol "charged 3 times". Outright lying about what was on the video isn't going to sway anyone. 

I do think the last time was a "charge." She put her fists up and stepped into him like she meant business. 

Just before that, she shook her finger at him.  Not a charge.  And he was already way out of line when he pushed her down. He was not just pushing her away or deflecting her.

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2019, 05:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: "charged him"

 

An 11 year old girl...."charged him" by stepping forward.

Frigging sad.  "Alpha"

I mean, he's standing there and an 11 year old girl simply walks up to him and says something. That's totally "charging" and when he placed his hands on the female minor's chest and shoved her back 10 feet, he wasn't attacking, he was protecting his space and eliminating the threat...

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2019, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I do think the last time was a "charge." She put her fists up and stepped into him like she meant business. 

Just before that, she shook her finger at him.  Not a charge.  And he was already way out of line when he pushed her down. He was not just pushing her away or deflecting her.

Agreed, the last one was a charge. I'm just laughing at the absurdity of calling the first two interactions, including him shoving her as she stood there, her "charging". 

I don't understand his need to lie about what happened. 

[Dill]

(01-15-2019, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: None of the nobility in this thread changes my original question. Where were the parents and should they be held accountable?

As I said we do not know the man's level of flight or fight and I have no issue with a Samaritan trying to restore peace. As I said we all wish he would have taken less physical measures, but I don't see where he "attacked" anyone. The child charged at him 3 times.

As to a man doing that to my 11 year old. I'd feel a level of responsibility that I left my 11 year old child unattended in such an environment. I,m the one that put my child in harm's way.

The parents were at work.  Maybe.  I don't know what they could be accountable for. Their daughter did not knock out a 51 year old man. She was knocked out.  Like JJ says, no excuse for a 51-year-old man decking a kid.  Sure, 11-year-olds can do damage, but not that unarmed GIRL with her fists up.  I am 67, out of shape, and confident I could manage that "assault." If we were in a courtroom discussing HIS case, that's all that matters, not where the girl's parents were.

Still, I absolutely share your anxiety about the larger cultural-social implications of this incident. I don't want to just talk about one guy's bad judgment.  How is it that a bunch of un-supervised tweens can get into fight in a public area like that?  Why do so many, not just the girl who was clocked, assume they can sass and defy an adult stepping in to break up the fight?  In what world can an 11 year old 80 lb girl seriously think she can trade punches toe-to-toe with a 200 lb man? 

I am just as disturbed by that defiant girl as I am by the guy.  So while I don't see any legal accountability for the parents here, I do wonder what she has been taught.  Seems like she was presuming way to much "child privilege" here. Were she my daughter and i found out that this happened, I would not be all up an arms about the guy who punched her (assuming the law takes its course).  I would be seriously concerned about HER judgment. What social map already in her head opened up "fistfight a large adult man" as a viable way through the conflict, and is likely still there? I suspect she has been very defiant before with no consequences. Friends have probably reinforced this ("teachers can't hit you if you talk back or THEY will get in trouble"). 

And I am disturbed by what I suppose the rest of those tweens will learn from this, if the guy gets jail time and nothing happens to any of those unruly defiant children. The message is hardly that both sides were out of order, if there are legal consequences for only one party.

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2019, 06:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol "steps forward to confronts" = charges?

Use whatever term you want:

Confront, attacks, charges, ect........

None of that take away from your propensity to call someone a liar that was not lying. But don't worry your BFF has your back. He likes to call folks liars too. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2019, 07:01 PM)Dill Wrote: The parents were at work.  Maybe.  I don't know what they could be accountable for. Their daughter did not knock out a 51 year old man. She was knocked out.  Like JJ says, no excuse for a 51-year-old man decking a kid.  Sure, 11-year-olds can do damage, but not that unarmed GIRL with her fists up.  I am 67, out of shape, and confident I could manage that "assault." If we were in a courtroom discussing HIS case, that's all that matters, not where the girl's parents were.

Still, I absolutely share your anxiety about the larger cultural-social implications of this incident. I don't want to just talk about one guy's bad judgment.  How is it that a bunch of un-supervised tweens can get into fight in a public area like that?  Why do so many, not just the girl who was clocked, assume they can sass and defy an adult stepping in to break up the fight?  In what world can an 11 year old 80 lb girl seriously think she can trade punches toe-to-toe with a 200 lb man? 

I am just as disturbed by that defiant girl as I am by the guy.  So while I don't see any legal accountability for the parents here, I do wonder what she has been taught.  Seems like she was presuming way to much "child privilege" here. Were she my daughter and i found out that this happened, I would not be all up an arms about the guy who punched her (assuming the law takes its course).  I would be seriously concerned about HER judgment. What social map already in her head opened up "fistfight a large adult man" as a viable way through the conflict, and is likely still there? I suspect she has been very defiant before with no consequences. Friends have probably reinforced this ("teachers can't hit you if you talk back or THEY will get in trouble"). 

And I am disturbed by what I suppose the rest of those tweens will learn from this, if the guy gets jail time and nothing happens to any of those unruly defiant children. The message is hardly that both sides were out of order, if there are legal consequences for only one party.

This is a very rational reply. I'm just not sure I agree with the assessment that the child's parent(s) should not bear any legal responsibility.

The most important question to be answered in my mind is: Who put the kid in harm's way? 

The guy may have issues and as I've saying everyone here saying "no excuse" has no idea the situation he felt he was in.

Some may wait for the courts to render a verdict. 

[*jason*]

(01-15-2019, 10:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a very rational reply. I'm just not sure I agree with the assessment that the child's parent(s) should not bear any legal responsibility.

The most important question to be answered in my mind is: Who put the kid in harm's way? 

The guy may have issues and as I've saying everyone here saying "no excuse" has no idea the situation he felt he was in.

Some may wait for the courts to render a verdict. 

There's always a reason or excuse to hit anybody. Doesn't mean you should do it.

Here's how I see it though. I don't care about his assessment of the situation that he felt he was in. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation. I have a general rule that I live by in similar situations. I only try to break up or stop fights from happening if they involve two people that I know. I'm talking about knowing both if them. You know why? Because there's a very good chance that you are going to be drawn into the fight, or become a victim of it. That's exactly what we see happen in that video... It's not his damn job or place to get involved in that.

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2019, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Use whatever term you want:

Confront, attacks, charges, ect........

None of that take away from your propensity to call someone a liar that was not lying. But don't worry your BFF has your back. He likes to call folks liars too. 

I call people liars after they repeat a lie multiple times. 

Someone standing in front of someone arguing with them =/= charging. Repeating it multiple times still doesn't make it charging. You said she "charged" at him three times and then defended it multiple times. That's called lying. Everyone here knows she didn't charge at him three times, yourself included. 

Your need to defend this pathetic person doesn't change reality. Stop lying.

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2019, 11:32 PM)jason Wrote: There's always a reason or excuse to hit anybody. Doesn't mean you should do it.

Here's how I see it though. I don't care about his assessment of the situation that he felt he was in. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation. I have a general rule that I live by in similar situations. I only try to break up or stop fights from happening if they involve two people that I know. I'm talking about knowing both if them. You know why? Because there's a very good chance that you are going to be drawn into the fight, or become a victim of it. That's exactly what we see happen in that video... It's not his damn job or place to get involved in that.

Of course he shouldn't have hit the child; but as I said in the beginning we don't know his level of fight or flight fear. I said this before reports came out that dude suffers from PTSD  and has brain damage.

Reports are the youths were harassing a woman (different than fight) and he went to the woman's aid. Once this happened he was surrounded and assaulted stepped toward. 

I cannot begrudge anyone that comes to the aid of a lone woman being harassed by a group of unsupervised youths. I'm sure all parties regret the outcome, but that does not change my question that no one is answering: Who put the child in harm's way? Answer that and I'll tell you who should be held accountable. 

[BmorePat87]

Adding to my response, you also claimed early on that she "attacked him three times", which she didn't do. It's incredibly pathetic to describe her standing in front of him arguing as her "attacking him" when he is the one that then places his hands on her chest and shoves her 10 feet. When I said she didn't attack him three times you responded with "amazing how you never saw the child attack the dude" when I said "I never saw her attack him three times". That was another lie from you.


So we're at 3 confirmed lies at this point.

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2019, 11:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Adding to my response, you also claimed early on that she "attacked him three times", which she didn't do. It's incredibly pathetic to describe her standing in front of him arguing as her "attacking him" when he is the one that then places his hands on her chest and shoves her 10 feet. When I said she didn't attack him three times you responded with "amazing how you never saw the child attack the dude" when I said "I never saw her attack him three times". That was another lie from you.


So we're at 3 confirmed lies at this point.

Sure I may have used attacked, assaulted, charged, ect... This doesn't mean there were not 3 confrontations, you just disagreed with the verb and chose to call someone a liar. Insert whatever verb you wish; but dude did not strike her until 3 "meetings". 

No one is going to deny your right to call whomever you want a liar. Hell you can even call them a multiple liar; I'm sure you have a reason. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2019, 11:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I may have used attacked, assaulted, charged, ect... This doesn't mean there were not 3 confrontations, you just disagreed with the verb and chose to call someone a liar.

Describing them as three confrontations versus three attacks or charging three times is incredibly different, especially when you're making the argument that he is justified in slugging a child. 

This isn't a semantics argument. They all mean very different things and the two you chose to use suggest a threat of force against him. 

Quote:Insert whatever verb you wish; but dude did not strike her until 3 "meetings". 

He shoved her after two. 

Quote:No one is going to deny your right to call whomever you want a liar. Hell you can even call them a multiple liar; I'm sure you have a reason. 

The reason is that you lied three times. First about her attacking him three times, then about me saying she didn't attack him at all, and then about her charging at him three times. 

[BmorePat87]

She is standing a few feet from him



He approaches her, she isn't moving forward. She raises a finger to point, he raises his hands



He places his hands on her



He shoves her


So what about this is her "attacking" or "charging"? How is he not the aggressor in this "meeting"?

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2019, 12:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Describing them as three confrontations versus three attacks or charging three times is incredibly different, especially when you're making the argument that he is justified in slugging a child. 

This isn't a semantics argument. They all mean very different things and the two you chose to use suggest a threat of force against him. 




He shoved her after two. 



The reason is that you lied three times. First about her attacking him three times, then about me saying she didn't attack him at all, and then about her charging at him three times. 

(01-16-2019, 12:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

She is standing a few feet from him



He approaches her, she isn't moving forward. She raises a finger to point, he raises his hands



He places his hands on her



He shoves her


So what about this is her "attacking" or "charging"? How is he not the aggressor in this "meeting"?

You have 0 idea how she got "a few feet from him".  As i said: no one is going to deny you your right to call someone a liar; you don't have to defend it so hard. Let's just go with 3 meetings. 

[GMDino]

So the guy has PTSD and brain damage?

And this is still being used to ask "where were the parents".

That's sad man.

It's a sad situation made worse by someone trying to make some kind of "point" about it on a message board.

Lock it up.