Guy with Down syndrome gets KO'd for kicking 4 year old

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]You cant ask questions to find out if someones retarded either, if someones kicking your kid you gotta put them down.Leejjohno

You can tell when somebody has downs dude.

if you see someone kicking your kid, you arent gonna ask, dude.

You don't have to dude, you can tell by their facial features...

dude :P

i think the only way he would have gotten a good look at the guys face is if his fist had eyes

He must have swung pretty quick that's all I can say. Not to mention the times leading up to the event. Did this guy with downs come out of nowhere?

watch the video

If I saw somebody with downs assault one of my nephews, I would walk over and shout like a drill instructor, what I wouldn't do is give him Joe Frasier's left hook.

Leejjohno

This is ridiculous. The father had no idea the guy had downs and should not have waited to investigate the situation. You see physical harm being inflicted upon someone you know, a family member, your frigging kid and you respond in kind. Hell, I hope you would anyway.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

If I saw somebody with downs assault one of my nephews, I would walk over and shout like a drill instructor, what I wouldn't do is give him Joe Frasier's left hook.

Cloud_Insurance

This is ridiculous. The father had no idea the guy had downs and should not have waited to investigate the situation. You see physical harm being inflicted upon someone you know, a family, your frigging kid and you respond in kind. Hell, I hope you would anyway.

its pretty clear he wouldnt value his kid over some random guy

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Sure, another bystander could come out of nowhere and knocked the father out, but why would he do that? Unless the guy with DS was someone he knew or his relative, why would he interfere? When you see people fighting, do you get in the middle of it? Not unless you know someone involved with the fight or feel that YOU yourself are in jeopardy.

Cloud_Insurance

So you would only interfere with a fight that involves someone you know? Suddenly you've lost a lot of what little credibility you can have on OT. Well done.

You are the one in the minority here, who bizarrely wouldn't respond to physical violence against his family with physical violence.

That doesn't remove you from being in a minority yourself - by your logic you wouldn't jump in and help an elderly lady being curb-stomped by two grown men.

And when did I say I wouldn't respond with violence? I would respond reasonably and proportionately. That doesn't make sense? Am I missing some odd train of thought here?

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Sure, another bystander could come out of nowhere and knocked the father out, but why would he do that? Unless the guy with DS was someone he knew or his relative, why would he interfere? When you see people fighting, do you get in the middle of it? Not unless you know someone involved with the fight or feel that YOU yourself are in jeopardy.

Kritical_Strike

So you would only interfere with a fight that involves someone you know? Suddenly you've lost a lot of what little credibility you can have on OT. Well done.

You are the one in the minority here, who bizarrely wouldn't respond to physical violence against his family with physical violence.

That doesn't remove you from being in a minority yourself - by your logic you wouldn't jump in and help an elderly lady being curb-stomped by two grown men.

And when did I say I wouldn't respond with violence? I would respond reasonably and proportionately. That doesn't make sense? Am I missing some odd train of thought here?

For all you know, that old woman could have just shot up a bank and those grown men's relative was shot. Calling the police would suffice, especially if you don't know beans about the situation. There's nothing wrong with acting out of self-preservation if you have no clue why some type of violence is taking place.

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]

I think a threat, grabbing him by the scruff of his neck and looking intimidating would of been sufficient. People seem to be too inclined to just start hitting things.

And EVERYONE that has replied to this post has missed the part of the ****ing point - it is NOT wrong to protect your loved ones, but what that father did was an OVERREACTION. He should of reacted, I would of no doubt. But knocking someone out for nudging your kid? NO, just no. That man would of been a better father if he had handled things proportionate to what happened rather than spazzing out with violence.

Cloud_Insurance

You don't grab someone and intimidate them after they have used physical violence. Looking at them trying to intimidate them? Are you crazy? The DS guy ACTED, you don't respond to actions with talking or threats. You REACT.

The father didn't overreact at all. He responded to physical violence using physical violence. And once the threat was eliminated, he stopped. Did he seriously injure the guy with DS? Did he use a weapon? Did he try and kill him? Did he continue to hit the guy after he was laid out? No.

If I'm in a fight and punch a guy and he responds by hitting me hard enough to knock me out, should I be complaining?

And he wouldn't have been a better father for handling things differently. He showed unconditional love for his child by ending a threat against him. LOL, someone attacks my kid, I'm gonna give them a stern talking to. GTFO.

Why, WHY are things so black and white with you? You're just throwing some vast blanket statement over all "physical violence". Do you not realize that much of what falls under the category of "physical violence" is VERY different? Both poking someone in the ribs and stabbing them in the jugular fall under the category of "physical violence", but obviously one would react differently to each of those actions respectively right? RIGHT?

The kid WAS not hurt at all, he was four years old and obviously if the kick was enough to do any serious harm it would of action moved him back, or sent him moving back - not to mention recoiling in pain. That kid was doing NO such thing, it was as much of a nudge as it was a 'kick'. You don't seem to understand that.

Knocking someone out for hurting your kid? Fair enough. Doing the same for someone who at most irritated your kid? Not so much.

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]

I think a threat, grabbing him by the scruff of his neck and looking intimidating would of been sufficient. People seem to be too inclined to just start hitting things.

And EVERYONE that has replied to this post has missed the part of the ****ing point - it is NOT wrong to protect your loved ones, but what that father did was an OVERREACTION. He should of reacted, I would of no doubt. But knocking someone out for nudging your kid? NO, just no. That man would of been a better father if he had handled things proportionate to what happened rather than spazzing out with violence.

Kritical_Strike

You don't grab someone and intimidate them after they have used physical violence. Looking at them trying to intimidate them? Are you crazy? The DS guy ACTED, you don't respond to actions with talking or threats. You REACT.

The father didn't overreact at all. He responded to physical violence using physical violence. And once the threat was eliminated, he stopped. Did he seriously injure the guy with DS? Did he use a weapon? Did he try and kill him? Did he continue to hit the guy after he was laid out? No.

If I'm in a fight and punch a guy and he responds by hitting me hard enough to knock me out, should I be complaining?

And he wouldn't have been a better father for handling things differently. He showed unconditional love for his child by ending a threat against him. LOL, someone attacks my kid, I'm gonna give them a stern talking to. GTFO.

Why, WHY are things so black and white with you? You're just throwing some vast blanket statement over all "physical violence". Do you not realize that much of what falls under the category of "physical violence" is VERY different? Both poking someone in the ribs and stabbing them in the jugular fall under the category of "physical violence", but obviously one would react differently to each of those actions respectively right? RIGHT?

The kid WAS not hurt at all, he was four years old and obviously if the kick was enough to do any serious harm it would of action moved him back, or sent him moving back - not to mention recoiling in pain. That kid was doing NO such thing, it was as much of a nudge as it was a 'kick'. You don't seem to understand that.

Knocking someone out for hurting your kid? Fair enough. Doing the same for someone who at most irritated your kid? Not so much.

if you see someone kicking your kid you dont debate them.

you kid should be more important than the well being of some randomer who appears to be attacking him.

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]

I think a threat, grabbing him by the scruff of his neck and looking intimidating would of been sufficient. People seem to be too inclined to just start hitting things.

And EVERYONE that has replied to this post has missed the part of the ****ing point - it is NOT wrong to protect your loved ones, but what that father did was an OVERREACTION. He should of reacted, I would of no doubt. But knocking someone out for nudging your kid? NO, just no. That man would of been a better father if he had handled things proportionate to what happened rather than spazzing out with violence.

Kritical_Strike

You don't grab someone and intimidate them after they have used physical violence. Looking at them trying to intimidate them? Are you crazy? The DS guy ACTED, you don't respond to actions with talking or threats. You REACT.

The father didn't overreact at all. He responded to physical violence using physical violence. And once the threat was eliminated, he stopped. Did he seriously injure the guy with DS? Did he use a weapon? Did he try and kill him? Did he continue to hit the guy after he was laid out? No.

If I'm in a fight and punch a guy and he responds by hitting me hard enough to knock me out, should I be complaining?

And he wouldn't have been a better father for handling things differently. He showed unconditional love for his child by ending a threat against him. LOL, someone attacks my kid, I'm gonna give them a stern talking to. GTFO.

Why, WHY are things so black and white with you? You're just throwing some vast blanket statement over all "physical violence". Do you not realize that much of what falls under the category of "physical violence" is VERY different? Both poking someone in the ribs and stabbing them in the jugular fall under the category of "physical violence", but obviously one would react differently to each of those actions respectively right? RIGHT?

The kid WAS not hurt at all, he was four years old and obviously if the kick was enough to do any serious harm it would of action moved him back, or sent him moving back - not to mention recoiling in pain. That kid was doing NO such thing, it was as much of a nudge as it was a 'kick'. You don't seem to understand that.

Knocking someone out for hurting your kid? Fair enough. Doing the same for someone who at most irritated your kid? Not so much.

That may not be what he saw. For all you know what the father saw was a man doing bodily harm to his child. It's different when you can sit back and think about the situation, but he reacted in seconds, probably without thought. At least that's my opinion anyway. It doesn't show the dad until he goes for the punch. so we don't know if he was fully aware of the situation until the very last moment.

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Sure, another bystander could come out of nowhere and knocked the father out, but why would he do that? Unless the guy with DS was someone he knew or his relative, why would he interfere? When you see people fighting, do you get in the middle of it? Not unless you know someone involved with the fight or feel that YOU yourself are in jeopardy.

LikeHaterade

So you would only interfere with a fight that involves someone you know? Suddenly you've lost a lot of what little credibility you can have on OT. Well done.

You are the one in the minority here, who bizarrely wouldn't respond to physical violence against his family with physical violence.

That doesn't remove you from being in a minority yourself - by your logic you wouldn't jump in and help an elderly lady being curb-stomped by two grown men.

And when did I say I wouldn't respond with violence? I would respond reasonably and proportionately. That doesn't make sense? Am I missing some odd train of thought here?

For all you know, that old woman could have just shot up a bank and those grown men's relative was shot. Calling the police would suffice, especially if you don't know beans about the situation. There's nothing wrong with acting out of self-preservation if you have no clue why some type of violence is taking place.

I can honestly say that I'm glad most people don't think like you, because if everyone was, criminals would jump people regularly in public areas without fear of interference from random bystanders.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Sure, another bystander could come out of nowhere and knocked the father out, but why would he do that? Unless the guy with DS was someone he knew or his relative, why would he interfere? When you see people fighting, do you get in the middle of it? Not unless you know someone involved with the fight or feel that YOU yourself are in jeopardy.

Kritical_Strike

So you would only interfere with a fight that involves someone you know? Suddenly you've lost a lot of what little credibility you can have on OT. Well done.

You are the one in the minority here, who bizarrely wouldn't respond to physical violence against his family with physical violence.

That doesn't remove you from being in a minority yourself - by your logic you wouldn't jump in and help an elderly lady being curb-stomped by two grown men.

And when did I say I wouldn't respond with violence? I would respond reasonably and proportionately. That doesn't make sense? Am I missing some odd train of thought here?

For all you know, that old woman could have just shot up a bank and those grown men's relative was shot. Calling the police would suffice, especially if you don't know beans about the situation. There's nothing wrong with acting out of self-preservation if you have no clue why some type of violence is taking place.

I can honestly say that I'm glad most people don't think like you, because if everyone was, criminals would jump people regularly in public areas without fear of interference from random bystanders.

Well I never said I thought that way. I'm just defending people that don't step into a confrontation for the right reasons. If you stepped in one because who you thought you were defending was right and you had to go to jail for it, then obviously what you were doing wasn't right.

EDIT: Was it worth the jail time?

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

If I saw somebody with downs assault one of my nephews, I would walk over and shout like a drill instructor, what I wouldn't do is give him Joe Frasier's left hook.

Super_Socialist

This is ridiculous. The father had no idea the guy had downs and should not have waited to investigate the situation. You see physical harm being inflicted upon someone you know, a family, your frigging kid and you respond in kind. Hell, I hope you would anyway.

its pretty clear he wouldnt value his kid over some random guy

This is starting to get hilarious. Value? It's got nothing to do with value, it has everything to do with being sued and going to jail for using percievable excessive force.

I would respond to such a situation appropriately.

In the vid the guy had to take about three long strides before he hit the downer, that's enough time for your mind to identify that the guy wasn't normal. I don't know about you but when I see a guy with downs I know right there that he isn't just some wino attacking a child for fun.

The irony in this conversation is I have anger problems.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Sure, another bystander could come out of nowhere and knocked the father out, but why would he do that? Unless the guy with DS was someone he knew or his relative, why would he interfere? When you see people fighting, do you get in the middle of it? Not unless you know someone involved with the fight or feel that YOU yourself are in jeopardy.

Kritical_Strike

So you would only interfere with a fight that involves someone you know? Suddenly you've lost a lot of what little credibility you can have on OT. Well done.

You are the one in the minority here, who bizarrely wouldn't respond to physical violence against his family with physical violence.

That doesn't remove you from being in a minority yourself - by your logic you wouldn't jump in and help an elderly lady being curb-stomped by two grown men.

And when did I say I wouldn't respond with violence? I would respond reasonably and proportionately. That doesn't make sense? Am I missing some odd train of thought here?

For all you know, that old woman could have just shot up a bank and those grown men's relative was shot. Calling the police would suffice, especially if you don't know beans about the situation. There's nothing wrong with acting out of self-preservation if you have no clue why some type of violence is taking place.

I can honestly say that I'm glad most people don't think like you, because if everyone was, criminals would jump people regularly in public areas without fear of interference from random bystanders.

uh... how does a reality check sound?

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]You cant ask questions to find out if someones retarded either, if someones kicking your kid you gotta put them down.Super_Socialist

You can tell when somebody has downs dude.

if you see someone kicking your kid, you arent gonna ask, dude.

You don't have to dude, you can tell by their facial features...

dude :P

i think the only way he would have gotten a good look at the guys face is if his fist had eyes

He must have swung pretty quick that's all I can say. Not to mention the times leading up to the event. Did this guy with downs come out of nowhere?

watch the video

I have watched the video, I was being sarcastic.

if you see someone kicking your kid you dont debate them.

you kid should be more important than the well being of some randomer who appears to be attacking him.

Super_Socialist

That may not be what he saw. For all you know what the father saw was a man doing bodily harm to his child. It's different when you can sit back and think about the situation, but he reacted in seconds, probably without thought. At least that's my opinion anyway. It doesn't show the dad until he goes for the punch. so we don't know if he was fully aware of the situation until the very last moment.

FallofAthens

I totally understand, I'm just saying that someone with better judgement could of handling things better. A strong shove and some harsh words would of been FAR more appropriate imo.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

If I saw somebody with downs assault one of my nephews, I would walk over and shout like a drill instructor, what I wouldn't do is give him Joe Frasier's left hook.

Leejjohno

You should go over the video again because the father was practically right next to his son whenever the man kicked the child. I don't think that your anger problems would show unless you were in the particular situation.

This is ridiculous. The father had no idea the guy had downs and should not have waited to investigate the situation. You see physical harm being inflicted upon someone you know, a family, your frigging kid and you respond in kind. Hell, I hope you would anyway.

its pretty clear he wouldnt value his kid over some random guy

This is starting to get hilarious. Value? It's got nothing to do with value, it has everything to do with being sued and going to jail for using percievable excessive force.

I would respond to such a situation appropriately.

In the vid the guy had to take about three long strides before he hit the downer, that's enough time for your mind to identify that the guy wasn't normal. I don't know about you but when I see a guy with downs I know right there that he isn't just some wino attacking a child for fun.

The irony in this conversation is I have anger problems.

This is starting to get hilarious. Value? It's got nothing to do with value, it has everything to do with being sued and going to jail for using percievable excessive force.

I would respond to such a situation appropriately.

In the vid the guy had to take about three long strides before he hit the downer, that's enough time for your mind to identify that the guy wasn't normal. I don't know about you but when I see a guy with downs I know right there that he isn't just some wino attacking a child for fun.

The irony in this conversation is I have anger problems.

Leejjohno

you JUST placed value on your kids well being, the only thing thats hilarious is the fact that you have no idea what the words mean that you type.

you just said getting sued and going to jail isnt worth it if someones kicking your kid.

the father responded in the best way possible.

if someones kicking your kid, no debate, no moral questioning, hes going down. It stops.

what if he found out he was normal? then thats more time he needs to use.

The guy deserved worse. I would probably have beaten him down, not just knock him out.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

if you see someone kicking your kid you dont debate them.

you kid should be more important than the well being of some randomer who appears to be attacking him.

Kritical_Strike

That may not be what he saw. For all you know what the father saw was a man doing bodily harm to his child. It's different when you can sit back and think about the situation, but he reacted in seconds, probably without thought. At least that's my opinion anyway. It doesn't show the dad until he goes for the punch. so we don't know if he was fully aware of the situation until the very last moment.

FallofAthens

I totally understand, I'm just saying that someone with better judgement could of handling things better. A strong shove and some harsh words would of been FAR more appropriate imo.

I think if he did anything less then hes irresponsible and shouldnt be a dad.

Well I never said I thought that way. I'm just defending people that don't step into a confrontation for the right reasons. If you stepped in one because who you thought you were defending was right and you had to go to jail for it, then obviously what you were doing wasn't right.

EDIT: Was it worth the jail time?

LikeHaterade

If what you were doing was truly right, you *probably wouldn't go to jail for it. It depends what legal system you happen to be under at the time.

oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.serjitup

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

if you see someone kicking your kid you dont debate them.

you kid should be more important than the well being of some randomer who appears to be attacking him.

Kritical_Strike

That may not be what he saw. For all you know what the father saw was a man doing bodily harm to his child. It's different when you can sit back and think about the situation, but he reacted in seconds, probably without thought. At least that's my opinion anyway. It doesn't show the dad until he goes for the punch. so we don't know if he was fully aware of the situation until the very last moment.

FallofAthens

I totally understand, I'm just saying that someone with better judgement could of handling things better. A strong shove and some harsh words would of been FAR more appropriate imo.

understandable. I get what your saying and agree to an extent. In a way it does show how much he would do to protect his son; but nonetheless i do feel sorry for the man with down syndrome.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Well I never said I thought that way. I'm just defending people that don't step into a confrontation for the right reasons. If you stepped in one because who you thought you were defending was right and you had to go to jail for it, then obviously what you were doing wasn't right.

EDIT: Was it worth the jail time?

Kritical_Strike

If what you were doing was truly right, you *probably wouldn't go to jail for it. It depends what legal system you happen to be under at the time.

I suppose your personal opinion is that it's worth the risk to defend the person that is in the wrong perhaps because of a specific age or feebleness and you go to jail for it when you weren't there to begin with:|. I suppose I'll probably be taking some of your future posts in this topic a little less serious now.

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.MrGeezer

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

This is starting to get hilarious. Value? It's got nothing to do with value, it has everything to do with being sued and going to jail for using percievable excessive force.

I would respond to such a situation appropriately.

In the vid the guy had to take about three long strides before he hit the downer, that's enough time for your mind to identify that the guy wasn't normal. I don't know about you but when I see a guy with downs I know right there that he isn't just some wino attacking a child for fun.

The irony in this conversation is I have anger problems.

Super_Socialist

you JUST placed value on your kids well being, the only thing thats hilarious is the fact that you have no idea what the words mean that you type.

you just said getting sued and going to jail isnt worth it if someones kicking your kid.

the father responded in the best way possible.

if someones kicking your kid, no debate, no moral questioning, hes going down. It stops.

what if he found out he was normal? then thats more time he needs to use.

The guy deserved worse. I would probably have beaten him down, not just knock him out.

No, what holds value is both party's force when they physically assaulted somebody else. The second party is still responsible for their own actions; this force must be gauged proportionately to the first party's or it may be viewed as excessive (which is then illegal and unnecessary). That is the bit you seem to misunderstand. It's not okay to go 'all out' because it was a kid.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.Super_Socialist

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.FallofAthens

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

a blind guy might bump into your kid, hes not gonna throw a punch or a kick

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

This is starting to get hilarious. Value? It's got nothing to do with value, it has everything to do with being sued and going to jail for using percievable excessive force.

I would respond to such a situation appropriately.

In the vid the guy had to take about three long strides before he hit the downer, that's enough time for your mind to identify that the guy wasn't normal. I don't know about you but when I see a guy with downs I know right there that he isn't just some wino attacking a child for fun.

The irony in this conversation is I have anger problems.

Leejjohno

you JUST placed value on your kids well being, the only thing thats hilarious is the fact that you have no idea what the words mean that you type.

you just said getting sued and going to jail isnt worth it if someones kicking your kid.

the father responded in the best way possible.

if someones kicking your kid, no debate, no moral questioning, hes going down. It stops.

what if he found out he was normal? then thats more time he needs to use.

The guy deserved worse. I would probably have beaten him down, not just knock him out.

No, what holds value is both party's force when they physically assaulted somebody else. The second party is still responsible for their own actions; this force must be gauged proportionately to the first party's or it may be viewed as excessive (which is then illegal and unnecessary). That is the bit you seem to misunderstand. It's not okay to go 'all out' because it was a kid.

no you placed value on it, as i clearly pointed out. you arent getting out of this one.

you clearly think your childs well being is less important.

being illegal makes no difference one way or another.

if someones hitting your kid, you knock them out before they can throw another kick.

Yes it is okay to go all out.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.FallofAthens

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

The Down's Symdrome man didn't "accidentally" kick the small child. :|

And yes, if a blind person were to, let's say take his walking stick and intentionally hit my child with it, then I will be knocking out a blind dude.

[QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.Super_Socialist

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

a blind guy might bump into your kid, hes not gonna throw a punch or a kick

Maybe said blind guy freaked out and hit the kid. :P My point being, if I knew this person had some kind of disability or something that they may not be able to control, I wouldn't hit the guy. Maybe, if I have to, restrain him, but I would get him away from my child rather than punch is lights out. Again, I don't think his actions are necessarily justified, but in his situation, I'm sure I would have done the same thing; which I believe he had just showed up, knew nothing of the guy and reacted to what he thought was a serious attack to his son.

[QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.MrGeezer

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

The Down's Symdrome man didn't "accidentally" kick the small child. :|

And yes, if a blind person were to, let's say take his walking stick and intentionally hit my child with it, then I will be knocking out a blind dude.

not my best example, I'll agree. ;)

It may not have been accidental, but something triggered his attack on the child. It's not exactly the Down Sydrome man's fault.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.FallofAthens

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

a blind guy might bump into your kid, hes not gonna throw a punch or a kick

Maybe said blind guy freaked out and hit the kid. :P My point being, if I knew this person had some kind of disability or something that they may not be able to control, I wouldn't hit the guy. Maybe, if I have to, restrain him, but I would get him away from my child rather than punch is lights out. Again, I don't think his actions are necessarily justified, but in his situation, I'm sure I would have done the same thing; which I believe he had just showed up, knew nothing of the guy and reacted to what he thought was a serious attack to his son.

if he freaked out and hit the kid, then hes going down.

blind people arent usually mentally handicaped and can figure out not to hit people too. So theres REALLY no excuse.

Sometimes you need to teach people respect the only way possible

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.FallofAthens

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

a blind guy might bump into your kid, hes not gonna throw a punch or a kick

Maybe said blind guy freaked out and hit the kid. :P My point being, if I knew this person had some kind of disability or something that they may not be able to control, I wouldn't hit the guy. Maybe, if I have to, restrain him, but I would get him away from my child rather than punch is lights out. Again, I don't think his actions are necessarily justified, but in his situation, I'm sure I would have done the same thing; which I believe he had just showed up, knew nothing of the guy and reacted to what he thought was a serious attack to his son.

A person who can't control his aggressive urges is even MORE dangerous. If he literally CAN'T control his aggressive urges, then that's MORE of a reason to put the dude down before he SERIOUSLY hurts the person he's attacking. You seem to forget that mentally disabled people actually KILL people.

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Well I never said I thought that way. I'm just defending people that don't step into a confrontation for the right reasons. If you stepped in one because who you thought you were defending was right and you had to go to jail for it, then obviously what you were doing wasn't right.

EDIT: Was it worth the jail time?

LikeHaterade

If what you were doing was truly right, you *probably wouldn't go to jail for it. It depends what legal system you happen to be under at the time.

I suppose your personal opinion is that it's worth the risk to defend the person that is in the wrong perhaps because of a specific age or feebleness and you go to jail for it when you weren't there to begin with:|. I suppose I'll probably be taking some of your future posts in this topic a little less serious now.

Uh, I don't know about where you live but there's no way I'd go to jail for defending someone with reasonable force.

[QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.MrGeezer

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

a blind guy might bump into your kid, hes not gonna throw a punch or a kick

Maybe said blind guy freaked out and hit the kid. :P My point being, if I knew this person had some kind of disability or something that they may not be able to control, I wouldn't hit the guy. Maybe, if I have to, restrain him, but I would get him away from my child rather than punch is lights out. Again, I don't think his actions are necessarily justified, but in his situation, I'm sure I would have done the same thing; which I believe he had just showed up, knew nothing of the guy and reacted to what he thought was a serious attack to his son.

A person who can't control his aggressive urges is even MORE dangerous. If he literally CAN'T control his aggressive urges, then that's MORE of a reason to put the dude down before he SERIOUSLY hurts the person he's attacking. You seem to forget that mentally disabled people actually KILL people.

hmm, I suppose that's true, still, personally, I wouldn't simply straight out and take down the person (that is if I knew they had something like Down Symdrome) but if the man/woman can't seem to control themselves them by all means then I would probably use more agressive force.

not my best example, I'll agree. ;)

It may not have been accidental, but something triggered his attack on the child. It's not exactly the Down Sydrome man's fault.

FallofAthens

And it's not the kid's fault that he's getting physically assaulted by an adult just for BEING THERE. In the end, it was the mentally disabled man who walked over to the kid and attacked him. So I'm siding with the kid. Sucks for the mentally disabled dude. But if he can't control himself in public then his caretaker needs to keep him on a short freaking leash.

[QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="FallofAthens"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="serjitup"]oh stop defedning him cuz he has DS, if anyone gets the sudden urge to kick a kid they should not be out in public, poor little kid was happy to get a happy meal or something and then some dude kicks him ( it doesnt matter how hard ) that must have ruined his whole week.and im so happy to see a fast food fight that is justified.MrGeezer

Exactly. Nothing against people with Down's Syndrome. But just because his mental disability isn't his fault doesn't mean he can physically assault people. If he can't exist in society without attacking children, Down's Syndrome or not, then he shouldn't be allowed in society.

Personally, I DON'T CARE if he had Down's Syndrome or not. Someone attacks my child, it's on. I don't give a **** what mental disabilities they might have.

exactly, if some guy is kicking your kid the only thing that matters is that he stops. the fastest way to make him stop is to hurt him, not yell or conciously debate society as to whether thats the correct thing to do.

I don't know... I may give said person the benefit of the doubt if they seriously couldn't control it. But in this case I think it was jusifiable because I don't think the father knew. (Or maybe he just agrees with you :P)

I find it this way: A blind guy accidentally hits my son, (or could not help it) I wouldn't go punch the man because of that because he may not be able to help it.

The Down's Symdrome man didn't "accidentally" kick the small child. :|

And yes, if a blind person were to, let's say take his walking stick and intentionally hit my child with it, then I will be knocking out a blind dude.

not my best example, I'll agree. ;)

It may not have been accidental, but something triggered his attack on the child. It's not exactly the Down Sydrome man's fault.

And it's not the kid's fault that he's getting physically assaulted by an adult just for BEING THERE. In the end, it was the mentally disabled man who walked over to the kid and attacked him. So I'm siding with the kid. Sucks for the mentally disabled dude. But if he can't control himself in public then his caretaker needs to keep him on a short freaking leash.

That, too. I agree its not the kids fault neither. Just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why, WHY are things so black and white with you? You're just throwing some vast blanket statement over all "physical violence". Do you not realize that much of what falls under the category of "physical violence" is VERY different? Both poking someone in the ribs and stabbing them in the jugular fall under the category of "physical violence", but obviously one would react differently to each of those actions respectively right? RIGHT?

The kid WAS not hurt at all, he was four years old and obviously if the kick was enough to do any serious harm it would of action moved him back, or sent him moving back - not to mention recoiling in pain. That kid was doing NO such thing, it was as much of a nudge as it was a 'kick'. You don't seem to understand that.

Knocking someone out for hurting your kid? Fair enough. Doing the same for someone who at most irritated your kid? Not so much.

Kritical_Strike

Oh come on. Do I really need to explicitly state the difference between hitting someone with your fist and using a weapon to stab them in the jugular? Just stop already. The attacker chose to physically attack the kid, he gets the same in return.

It doesn't matter if the kid was hurt at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether or not you chose to inflict physical damage on someone has nothing to do with whether or not you are successful in doing so. Thats no different than saying if you shoot at someone and miss, you shouldn't expect to be shot at in return. You want to throw down, expect the same in return. Especially if you attack someone who cannot help themself.

This is honestly unbelievable. Someone hits your kid and you want to talk to them about it. Thats borderline disgusting. Its pathetic really.

This is starting to get hilarious. Value? It's got nothing to do with value, it has everything to do with being sued and going to jail for using percievable excessive force.

I would respond to such a situation appropriately.

In the vid the guy had to take about three long strides before he hit the downer, that's enough time for your mind to identify that the guy wasn't normal. I don't know about you but when I see a guy with downs I know right there that he isn't just some wino attacking a child for fun.

The irony in this conversation is I have anger problems.

Leejjohno

This is just as ridiculous. You expect someone to identify someone has downs while they are engaging them getting ready to attack. Lol, he took three steps so he should have said to himself "hmmm...this guy that just kicked my child has an enlarged head, he must be mentally handicapped, therefore I shouldn't drop him like 3rd period french." Ridiculous.

Someone strikes a child who isn't theirs in public, they should expect to get the same in return.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Well I never said I thought that way. I'm just defending people that don't step into a confrontation for the right reasons. If you stepped in one because who you thought you were defending was right and you had to go to jail for it, then obviously what you were doing wasn't right.

EDIT: Was it worth the jail time?

Kritical_Strike

If what you were doing was truly right, you *probably wouldn't go to jail for it. It depends what legal system you happen to be under at the time.

I suppose your personal opinion is that it's worth the risk to defend the person that is in the wrong perhaps because of a specific age or feebleness and you go to jail for it when you weren't there to begin with:|. I suppose I'll probably be taking some of your future posts in this topic a little less serious now.

Uh, I don't know about where you live but there's no way I'd go to jail for defending someone with reasonable force.

Would you go to jail if you were defending the wrong person with reasonable force?

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]

Why, WHY are things so black and white with you? You're just throwing some vast blanket statement over all "physical violence". Do you not realize that much of what falls under the category of "physical violence" is VERY different? Both poking someone in the ribs and stabbing them in the jugular fall under the category of "physical violence", but obviously one would react differently to each of those actions respectively right? RIGHT?

The kid WAS not hurt at all, he was four years old and obviously if the kick was enough to do any serious harm it would of action moved him back, or sent him moving back - not to mention recoiling in pain. That kid was doing NO such thing, it was as much of a nudge as it was a 'kick'. You don't seem to understand that.

Knocking someone out for hurting your kid? Fair enough. Doing the same for someone who at most irritated your kid? Not so much.

Cloud_Insurance

Oh come on. Do I really need to explicitly state the difference between hitting someone with your fist and using a weapon to stab them in the jugular? Just stop already. The attacker chose to physically attack the kid, he gets the same in return.

It doesn't matter if the kid was hurt at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether or not you chose to inflict physical damage on someone has nothing to do with whether or not you are successful in doing so. Thats no different than saying if you shoot at someone and miss, you shouldn't expect to be shot at in return. You want to throw down, expect the same in return. Especially if you attack someone who cannot help themself.

This is honestly unbelievable. Someone hits your kid and you want to talk to them about it. Thats borderline disgusting. Its pathetic really.

To be honest, I don't think the DS guy had the intent to hurt the kid. The kid obviously wasn't hurt, and hurting a 4 year old is VERY easy, so if the DS guy really wanted to he would have.

In other words he didn't want to "throw down" as you might put it, meaning it KOing him wasn't as justified as you have lead yourself to believe.

I don't blame the father for attempting to 'give back what was given', but when you think about it, he didn't. He gave back FAR more that what was given and hence my argument that it was an overreaction and could of been handled better.

No, what holds value is both party's force when they physically assaulted somebody else. The second party is still responsible for their own actions; this force must be gauged proportionately to the first party's or it may be viewed as excessive (which is then illegal and unnecessary). That is the bit you seem to misunderstand. It's not okay to go 'all out' because it was a kid.

Leejjohno

If someone physically attacks you, you are legally allowed to respond in kind to protect your person (and in most states your property). Its not my fault if someone decides to kick me or throws a punch at me and it has absolutely no force behind it. His intent was bodily harm. That said, I can legally respond in kind with as much physical force as I can harness. If someone hits me with a right and I barely feel it, I can still knock his ass out. The father did not continue to hit the DS guy after he was down. He didn't escalate the conflict by using a weapon. He responded in kind and stopped when the threat was gone. You people who disagree with this simply feel that way because the other guy had DS, something you knew after the fact.

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Well I never said I thought that way. I'm just defending people that don't step into a confrontation for the right reasons. If you stepped in one because who you thought you were defending was right and you had to go to jail for it, then obviously what you were doing wasn't right.

EDIT: Was it worth the jail time?

LikeHaterade

If what you were doing was truly right, you *probably wouldn't go to jail for it. It depends what legal system you happen to be under at the time.

I suppose your personal opinion is that it's worth the risk to defend the person that is in the wrong perhaps because of a specific age or feebleness and you go to jail for it when you weren't there to begin with:|. I suppose I'll probably be taking some of your future posts in this topic a little less serious now.

Uh, I don't know about where you live but there's no way I'd go to jail for defending someone with reasonable force.

Would you go to jail if you were defending the wrong person with reasonable force?

Not to jail, as long as you didn't cause any serious bodily harm the worst that could happen would be you going to court and having to pay a fine. That's assuming you get caught, and I'm pretty sure most people involved with violent altercations don't.

The kid didn't seem like it hurt him at all. But I can see myself possibly doing what the dad did. I'm sure he's not proud of whay he did, but sometimes it's just the way things go.

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]

Why, WHY are things so black and white with you? You're just throwing some vast blanket statement over all "physical violence". Do you not realize that much of what falls under the category of "physical violence" is VERY different? Both poking someone in the ribs and stabbing them in the jugular fall under the category of "physical violence", but obviously one would react differently to each of those actions respectively right? RIGHT?

The kid WAS not hurt at all, he was four years old and obviously if the kick was enough to do any serious harm it would of action moved him back, or sent him moving back - not to mention recoiling in pain. That kid was doing NO such thing, it was as much of a nudge as it was a 'kick'. You don't seem to understand that.

Knocking someone out for hurting your kid? Fair enough. Doing the same for someone who at most irritated your kid? Not so much.

Kritical_Strike

Oh come on. Do I really need to explicitly state the difference between hitting someone with your fist and using a weapon to stab them in the jugular? Just stop already. The attacker chose to physically attack the kid, he gets the same in return.

It doesn't matter if the kid was hurt at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether or not you chose to inflict physical damage on someone has nothing to do with whether or not you are successful in doing so. Thats no different than saying if you shoot at someone and miss, you shouldn't expect to be shot at in return. You want to throw down, expect the same in return. Especially if you attack someone who cannot help themself.

This is honestly unbelievable. Someone hits your kid and you want to talk to them about it. Thats borderline disgusting. Its pathetic really.

To be honest, I don't think the DS guy had the intent to hurt the kid. The kid obviously wasn't hurt, and hurting a 4 year old is VERY easy, so if the DS guy really wanted to he would have.

In other words he didn't want to "throw down" as you might put it, meaning it KOing him wasn't as justified as you have lead yourself to believe.

I don't blame the father for attempting to 'give back what was given', but when you think about it, he didn't. He gave back FAR more that what was given and hence my argument that it was an overreaction and could of been handled better.