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

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][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?

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?

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.

We're not talking about just assault, but also attacking an innocent person that you saw winning a fight perhaps because this person was robbed. I'm sure you would go to jail for that which is what I've been explaining to you.

[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.

And that's the problem, what you're saying depends on thinking about something calmly. If some adult intentionally hurts your kid out of nowhere your first reaction is going to be to take him down quick. Say the father noticed the kick was far from lethal, and even noticed that something was off with the adult. Then I guess he knows that a potentially unstable person has just kicked his child and he still doesn't understand why, or if it could escalate into something more violent. He removed the uncertainties by knocking the guy down with a punch. He didn't flip out and start stomping the guy, or make any effort to kill him, all he did was take the guy down.

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.

Kritical_Strike

Um, the guy with DS physically attacked someone unprovoked. You choose to kick someone, the possibility of bodily harm exists. The guy with DS is guilty of assault and battey. You know people get charged with assault just for touching people, right?

My brother is a police officer. I ask him about the law and his job constantly. People engage others with violence and then get owned by the other guy all the time. This classic vid is an example of that. Dumb pimp goes after a karate instructor. Karate instructor drops him like a sack of bricks. Karate instructor did nothing wrong, despite using force that was most likely far beyond what the pimp was capable of using through similar means.

Again, if someone hits me. I am going to, as I am legally allowed, hit them back as hard as I can. It doesn't matter if I can hit them much harder than they hit me or not. Its the act itself. You chose to hit me, I'm going to hit you. I don't give a **** if the punch you hit me with doesn't even leave a bruise, you chose to attack me, therefore you get the same in return.

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]

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.

Cloud_Insurance

Um, the guy with DS physically attacked someone unprovoked. You choose to kick someone, the possibility of bodily harm exists. The guy with DS is guilty of assault and battey. You know people get charged with assault just for touching people, right?

My brother is a police officer. I ask him about the law and his job constantly. People engage others with violence and then get owned by the other guy all the time. This classic vid is an example of that. Dumb pimp goes after a karate instructor. Karate instructor drops him like a sack of bricks. Karate instructor did nothing wrong, despite using force that was most likely far beyond what the pimp was capable of using through similar means.

Again, if someone hits me. I am going to, as I am legally allowed, hit them back as hard as I can. It doesn't matter if I can hit them much harder than they hit me or not. Its the act itself. You chose to hit me, I'm going to hit you. I don't give a **** if the punch you hit me with doesn't even leave a bruise, you chose to attack me, therefore you get the same in return.

Then what we're really debating is whether he should be doing what is legal, or what is morally right (which is subjective). Legal =/= Right.

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]

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.

Cloud_Insurance

Um, the guy with DS physically attacked someone unprovoked. You choose to kick someone, the possibility of bodily harm exists. The guy with DS is guilty of assault and battey. You know people get charged with assault just for touching people, right?

My brother is a police officer. I ask him about the law and his job constantly. People engage others with violence and then get owned by the other guy all the time. This classic vid is an example of that. Dumb pimp goes after a karate instructor. Karate instructor drops him like a sack of bricks. Karate instructor did nothing wrong, despite using force that was most likely far beyond what the pimp was capable of using through similar means.

Again, if someone hits me. I am going to, as I am legally allowed, hit them back as hard as I can. It doesn't matter if I can hit them much harder than they hit me or not. Its the act itself. You chose to hit me, I'm going to hit you. I don't give a **** if the punch you hit me with doesn't even leave a bruise, you chose to attack me, therefore you get the same in return.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but the child might have done something to provoke him to attack. Maybe he responded to some sound or the child who seemed to present himself noisily could have startled him. He has Down so he may or may not respond differently to what you and me would do. So i wouldn't say it was unprovoked, in his own way it was provoked or, agreeing with you, he got mad because he couldn't hear what the person on the other line was saying (perhaps he may have been playing with it, I don't know) and he reacted, in anger, in his own way, to silence the child. I just think their are to many possiblities that it's hard to pinpoint the reason why it happened. It would have been nice to have sound.

I still agree the father was right to protect his child in the way he did. But I just thought i'd make that point.

What possessed that guy to kick the kid?

Anyway I dunno. I don't think it was necessary to knock the guy out, but it was definitely an understandable knee-jerk reaction.

bradleybhoy

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but the child might have done something to provoke him to attack. Maybe he responded to some sound or the child who seemed to present himself noisily could have startled him. He has Down so he may or may not respond differently to what you and me would do. So i wouldn't say it was unprovoked, in his own way it was provoked or, agreeing with you, he got mad because he couldn't hear what the person on the other line was saying (perhaps he may have been playing with it, I don't know) and he reacted, in anger, in his own way, to silence the child. I just think their are to many possiblities that it's hard to pinpoint the reason why it happened. It would have been nice to have sound.

I still agree the father was right to protect his child in the way he did. But I just thought i'd make that point.

FallofAthens

Um, outside of being verbally threatened, you can't really respond to words using physical attacks. Unless someone is threatening you or physically attacks you first, hitting them is unprovoked.

And again, it doesn't matter if the guy had downs or not. Is it bad that the guy who got knocked out probably didn't know exactly what he was doing because he had downs? Sure. However, the father acted appropriately. Physical violence against your child is met with physical violence. End of story. Guy with downs was in the wrong place at the wrong time and made a bad decision. What happened afterward is not the fault of the father of the child. Its an understandable and appropriate response to someone hitting your child.

[QUOTE="FallofAthens"]

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but the child might have done something to provoke him to attack. Maybe he responded to some sound or the child who seemed to present himself noisily could have startled him. He has Down so he may or may not respond differently to what you and me would do. So i wouldn't say it was unprovoked, in his own way it was provoked or, agreeing with you, he got mad because he couldn't hear what the person on the other line was saying (perhaps he may have been playing with it, I don't know) and he reacted, in anger, in his own way, to silence the child. I just think their are to many possiblities that it's hard to pinpoint the reason why it happened. It would have been nice to have sound.

I still agree the father was right to protect his child in the way he did. But I just thought i'd make that point.

Cloud_Insurance

Um, outside of being verbally threatened, you can't really respond to words using physical attacks. Unless someone is threatening you or physically attacks you first, hitting them is unprovoked.

And again, it doesn't matter if the guy had downs or not. Is it bad that the guy who got knocked out probably didn't know exactly what he was doing because he had downs? Sure. However, the father acted appropriately. Physical violence against your child is met with physical violence. End of story. Guy with downs was in the wrong place at the wrong time and made a bad decision. What happened afterward is not the fault of the father of the child. Its an understandable and appropriate response to someone hitting your child.

Your missing my point. To him the child may have provoked him. I'm not claiming to be an expert on Down syndrome but do they not think in a different fashion than most people? I'm not saying what he did was right, the attacker, but in his mind-eyes he could have saw it as a right to attack the child whether it was a tap or a hard kick. He may not grasp law as we do, his moral views could probably be much different due to Downs. Because, if I'm not mistaken, most people with Down's Syndrome shut themselves off and focus on their world, he, what he may have viewed was corret, attacked the child because it was a threat to his world. To him it may have been self defense but of course to us it's different. I'm not saying he should get away with it, far from it, I was just making the point that to him he could have felt provoked.

Again, if someone hits me. I am going to, as I am legally allowed, hit them back as hard as I can. It doesn't matter if I can hit them much harder than they hit me or not. Its the act itself. You chose to hit me, I'm going to hit you. I don't give a **** if the punch you hit me with doesn't even leave a bruise, you chose to attack me, therefore you get the same in return.

Cloud_Insurance

I really hate that mindset, innocent people die due to that mindset. So what if you were "defending yourself", harming another innocent human being is negligent at best.(whether the DS guy was innocent or not) Violence is suppose to be a last resort, not a first response.

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Again, if someone hits me. I am going to, as I am legally allowed, hit them back as hard as I can. It doesn't matter if I can hit them much harder than they hit me or not. Its the act itself. You chose to hit me, I'm going to hit you. I don't give a **** if the punch you hit me with doesn't even leave a bruise, you chose to attack me, therefore you get the same in return.

munu9

I really hate that mindset, innocent people die due to that mindset. So what if you were "defending yourself", harming another innocent human being is negligent at best.(whether the DS guy was innocent or not) Violence is suppose to be a last resort, not a first response.

Nope, sorry, its not negligent at all. The father responded in kind. Goes with the laws of nature and society to do so. He did what he had to do to end a threat.

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

kingyotoX

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

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.

Cloud_Insurance

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.

That means that it would be okay for you to hit him so hard that he dies. You can also see in the video that the kick seemed to be somewhat held back, which is something worth observing by the father. I know that if anybody here had truly thrown a kick a child of that size would have been seriously injured, but he didn't even fall over.

I would also point out in this country people don't sue each other quite as much, nor is assualt blown out of proportion. I'm not sure which law for assault that would come under but actual bodily harm did not take place. It's more likely to be common assault, in which case the father overreacted.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"][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.

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.

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.

Getting out of what? Your the one trying to state I put some kind of value on a child, not me. Given that I am saying you are supposed to react to the situation without using excessive force. To put this into perspective; the child didn't actually get injured, whereas the DS guy was knock off his feet and probably knocked out.

No it's not okay to go all out. If it was somebody else doing the kicking I might agree with you.

Not only do I not think that, but it is also not clear at all.

[QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Funky_Llama

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

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

Getting out of what? Your the one trying to state I put some kind of value on a child, not me. Given that I am saying you are supposed to react to the situation without using excessive force. To put this into perspective; the child didn't actually get injured, whereas the DS guy was knock off his feet and probably knocked out.

No it's not okay to go all out. If it was somebody else doing the kicking I might agree with you.

Not only do I not think that, but it is also not clear at all.

' it has everything to do with being sued and going to jail for using percievable excessive force.'

thats the value you placed upon him.

YOU PLACED VALUE ON THE WELL BEING OF YOUR KID.

Yes i am stating you did, because you in fact, did.

You're afraid of giving "excess force", the consequence to you is apparently too much.

I dont care if the kid got injured. That has nothing to do with anything. You dont know if he WOULD have gotten injured. If I saw anyone attacking my kid, theyre going down. THATS THE VALUE I PUT ON MY KID. As opposed to the cheap value that you put on yours, just to appear more "moral"

give me a break.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Super_Socialist

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Funky_Llama

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

i think it sets a really good example. it shows his dad isnt a wuss, which makes his kid respect him more. it also shows that theres certain boundaries people have and not to cross them.

using violence to solve things isnt always bad. its only bad if youre the one doing it first, without justification.

dad wouldnt have had time to see if hes disabled, he saw someone as a threat to his child and attacked him. just instinct. and just cos hes disabled doesnt mean he cant seriously hurt a childlulzfactor

ive seen too many "disabled" people hulk up and really hurt someone.

they get really crazy adrenaline rushes or something

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Super_Socialist

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

i think it sets a really good example. it shows his dad isnt a wuss, which makes his kid respect him more. it also shows that theres certain boundaries people have and not to cross them.

using violence to solve things isnt always bad. its only bad if youre the one doing it first, without justification.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Funky_Llama

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

I think it sets a very good example. It shows the kid that he's safe with his dad, and that his dad will protect him.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Super_Socialist

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

i think it sets a really good example. it shows his dad isnt a wuss, which makes his kid respect him more. it also shows that theres certain boundaries people have and not to cross them.

using violence to solve things isnt always bad. its only bad if youre the one doing it first, without justification.

The child was 4 years old. I don't think that he quite understands the manner of respecting someone yet for any reason. His father did the right thing IMO but punched a man right in front of him. What does that teach the boy?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

MrGeezer

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

I think it sets a very good example. It shows the kid that he's safe with his dad, and that his dad will protect him.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Funky_Llama

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

i think it sets a really good example. it shows his dad isnt a wuss, which makes his kid respect him more. it also shows that theres certain boundaries people have and not to cross them.

using violence to solve things isnt always bad. its only bad if youre the one doing it first, without justification.

It should hopefully give the impression that violence is good and acceptable IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. Protecting your family is absolutely one of those situations.

I've never been in a physical alteration in my entire life, but if someone attacks my wife or my mom or my child then they are going down. I'm not a violent man by any means, but you do NOT **** with my family. And I'd sure as hell expect my kids to follow that example.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Funky_Llama

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

I think it sets a very good example. It shows the kid that he's safe with his dad, and that his dad will protect him.

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

It should hopefully give the impression that violence is good and acceptable IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. Protecting your family is absolutely one of those situations.

I've never been in a physical alteration in my entire life, but if someone attacks my wife or my mom or my child then they are going down. I'm not a violent man by any means, but you do NOT **** with my family. And I'd sure as hell expect my kids to follow that example.

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]

I assume your one of those left wing types who thinks defending youself and your family is wrong.

Funky_Llama

I cant see it. I think if the dad did anything less it would be irresponsible and would be a bad example for the kid

i think it sets a really good example. it shows his dad isnt a wuss, which makes his kid respect him more. it also shows that theres certain boundaries people have and not to cross them.

using violence to solve things isnt always bad. its only bad if youre the one doing it first, without justification.

the kid can clearly see why his dad did that.

In that case, its totally acceptable.

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

Funky_Llama

I dont think so. I think the kid knew he was getting kicked. 4 year olds arent retarded afterall.

4 year olds often know right from wrong, they just like to push buttons.

the kid can clearly see why his dad did that.

In that case, its totally acceptable.

Super_Socialist

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

Super_Socialist

I dont think so. I think the kid knew he was getting kicked. 4 year olds arent retarded afterall.

4 year olds often know right from wrong, they just like to push buttons.

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"]dad wouldnt have had time to see if hes disabled, he saw someone as a threat to his child and attacked him. just instinct. and just cos hes disabled doesnt mean he cant seriously hurt a childSuper_Socialist

ive seen too many "disabled" people hulk up and really hurt someone.

they get really crazy adrenaline rushes or something

Disabled or mentally ill?

My mother who works on a mental health ward can confirm that some mentally imbalanced people have unnatural strength (like the ability to resist being arrested by 8 coppers). I highly doubt that DS is an illness that brings this on though.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

the kid can clearly see why his dad did that.

In that case, its totally acceptable.

Funky_Llama

You know, I was told as a kid before I went to kindergarten that if someone hits me I have every right to hit them back and I wont get in trouble from my mom and dad.

I was told this from an even earlier age and when I went to kindergarten I never even got into a fight. Clearly a young mind can figure out when theyre being attacked.

That being said, the 4 year old has the ability to figure out hes being kicked. Just like you would be able to, when you were 4.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

the kid can clearly see why his dad did that.

In that case, its totally acceptable.

Super_Socialist

You know, I was told as a kid before I went to kindergarten that if someone hits me I have every right to hit them back and I wont get in trouble from my mom and dad.

I was told this from an even earlier age and when I went to kindergarten I never even got into a fight. Clearly a young mind can figure out when theyre being attacked.

That being said, the 4 year old has the ability to figure out hes being kicked. Just like you would be able to, when you were 4.

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

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

Funky_Llama

I dont think so. I think the kid knew he was getting kicked. 4 year olds arent retarded afterall.

4 year olds often know right from wrong, they just like to push buttons.

kids arent idiots, maybe the kids you know are. but I have a lot of neices and nephews who havent started school yet (so theyre about 3-4) and they could certainly tell the difference.

Actually if youve ever been around kids, you always hear them say "he hit me first"

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

the kid can clearly see why his dad did that.

In that case, its totally acceptable.

Funky_Llama

You know, I was told as a kid before I went to kindergarten that if someone hits me I have every right to hit them back and I wont get in trouble from my mom and dad.

I was told this from an even earlier age and when I went to kindergarten I never even got into a fight. Clearly a young mind can figure out when theyre being attacked.

That being said, the 4 year old has the ability to figure out hes being kicked. Just like you would be able to, when you were 4.

its so clear that im surprised you even said that.

he was kicking his kid.

he even looked as if he explained it to the lady, but that dosent matter anyway because it was obvious. 4 year olds arent as stupid as you think

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

It should hopefully give the impression that violence is good and acceptable IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. Protecting your family is absolutely one of those situations.

I've never been in a physical alteration in my entire life, but if someone attacks my wife or my mom or my child then they are going down. I'm not a violent man by any means, but you do NOT **** with my family. And I'd sure as hell expect my kids to follow that example.

Funky_Llama

Yeah, I mean god forbid that the dad would actually explain why he hit the guy.

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

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

Super_Socialist

I dont think so. I think the kid knew he was getting kicked. 4 year olds arent retarded afterall.

4 year olds often know right from wrong, they just like to push buttons.

kids arent idiots, maybe the kids you know are. but I have a lot of neices and nephews who havent started school yet (so theyre about 3-4) and they could certainly tell the difference.

Actually if youve ever been around kids, you always hear them say "he hit me first"

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

the kid can clearly see why his dad did that.

In that case, its totally acceptable.

Super_Socialist

You know, I was told as a kid before I went to kindergarten that if someone hits me I have every right to hit them back and I wont get in trouble from my mom and dad.

I was told this from an even earlier age and when I went to kindergarten I never even got into a fight. Clearly a young mind can figure out when theyre being attacked.

That being said, the 4 year old has the ability to figure out hes being kicked. Just like you would be able to, when you were 4.

its so clear that im surprised you even said that.

he was kicking his kid.

he even looked as if he explained it to the lady, but that dosent matter anyway because it was obvious. 4 year olds arent as stupid as you think

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

It should hopefully give the impression that violence is good and acceptable IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. Protecting your family is absolutely one of those situations.

I've never been in a physical alteration in my entire life, but if someone attacks my wife or my mom or my child then they are going down. I'm not a violent man by any means, but you do NOT **** with my family. And I'd sure as hell expect my kids to follow that example.

MrGeezer

Yeah, I mean god forbid that the dad would actually explain why he hit the guy.

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

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

Funky_Llama

I dont think so. I think the kid knew he was getting kicked. 4 year olds arent retarded afterall.

4 year olds often know right from wrong, they just like to push buttons.

Kids may be idiots, but not nearly as much as you're suggesting. How old are you gonna let your kids get before you start teaching them that it's wrong to lie and steal? You start teaching morals to children as soon as possible, because they absolutely do pick up on it.

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

When you see a grown man physically attacking your 4 year old son, then violence IS good.

Funky_Llama

I dont think so. I think the kid knew he was getting kicked. 4 year olds arent retarded afterall.

4 year olds often know right from wrong, they just like to push buttons.

kids arent idiots, maybe the kids you know are. but I have a lot of neices and nephews who havent started school yet (so theyre about 3-4) and they could certainly tell the difference.

Actually if youve ever been around kids, you always hear them say "he hit me first"

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

the kid can clearly see why his dad did that.

In that case, its totally acceptable.

Super_Socialist

You know, I was told as a kid before I went to kindergarten that if someone hits me I have every right to hit them back and I wont get in trouble from my mom and dad.

I was told this from an even earlier age and when I went to kindergarten I never even got into a fight. Clearly a young mind can figure out when theyre being attacked.

That being said, the 4 year old has the ability to figure out hes being kicked. Just like you would be able to, when you were 4.

its so clear that im surprised you even said that.

he was kicking his kid.

he even looked as if he explained it to the lady, but that dosent matter anyway because it was obvious. 4 year olds arent as stupid as you think

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

It should hopefully give the impression that violence is good and acceptable IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. Protecting your family is absolutely one of those situations.

I've never been in a physical alteration in my entire life, but if someone attacks my wife or my mom or my child then they are going down. I'm not a violent man by any means, but you do NOT **** with my family. And I'd sure as hell expect my kids to follow that example.

MrGeezer

Yeah, I mean god forbid that the dad would actually explain why he hit the guy.

Ive seen too many instances to realize that kids do actually know the value of restraint.

a lot of my neices and nephews would get picked on in pre school and when the kids eventually try hitting them they would then hit back. It happened to my first neice. She didnt get in trouble with anyone because everyone saw how it went down.