Guy Kicks Kids Seat For Not Standing

[Marine Cpl]

I always was taught never start a fight with someone unless you intend on killing them, because you may have to. You do not get a vote in the reaction. If more people thought this way the would would be a better place.

I'm done here. You are either trolling me or are one sick fuck.

 

[dsdmmat]

About as foolish as everything you are writing. We must not be tracking here then. Who the hell said anything about guns. You are taking it to that level. It's a kid's fight for Christ's sake. Holy cow.

Kids in my high school in Californina in the 80s had guns and knives on them all the time. We had a lot of gangs and a scenario just like the one in the video could very well have ended up deadly in my school days. Just because they are kids doesn't mean there won't ever be a weapon in the mix. The kid kicking the chair was a fool and if the kid got up off the floor and shot him I would not have been suprised by it.

 

[Airborneguy]

That wasn’t assault FYI.

 

[dsdmmat]

I just have to say that as far as I go. The opinions that I have expressed in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with
whether or not I agree with the sentiment. That has nothing to do with any of my opinions that I have posted.
I just think the kid should of went back at the kid who did that to him and send a message is all.

When the kid got back up of the floor it looked like he immediately looked at the teacher for help.
A snowflake in the making. He will go through his whole life like this unless he can find a safe space.
When I was in school this shit happened all of the time. It had nothing to do with someone's opinion on any given subject.
No one got hurt, but a pecking order was established. Kids being kids, jerks being jerks. Just sayin...

Even in the adult world a pecking order is established, it's a natural thing.
That's what I think partly happened in the video. A alpha male establishing his dominance over a beta.
I think that had as much to do with it as the fact that he wouldn't stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance.

School kids, they do this sort of thing... I still don't understand what the big deal is.
Do I agree with what happened? NO --- Do I agree that it is a big deal? NO again.

This is not a hill that I am not willing to die on... So I think that I will go check out the rest of the forum for now.

A snowflake or a future Columbine shooter or Adam Lanza type.

 

[DoD1776]

Most people here aren’t saying it’s okay as I stated before. But he got what he deserved. No one is saying let’s start beating up people who don’t stand. We’re not antifa where we say we’re anti fascist then go beating up people who don’t agree. You don’t know this kids political background. Hell who even said this happened the other week.
He got what he deserved and what the guy did was wrong we don’t agree with him doing it but it’s a lesson to be learned for that kid.

 

[Darth]

"Most people here aren’t saying it’s okay as I stated before. But he got what he deserved."

Contradictory statements.

In what manner did he "get what he deserved?"

People that express themselves in a manner you disagree with deserve to be assaulted?

 

[kev74]

Eh. Whatever.

I've seen nuns dish out worse than that kid got.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Most people here aren’t saying it’s okay as I stated before. But he got what he deserved.

Besides these two sentences contradicting each other... Why did he "deserve" what he got? Besides maybe him sitting for the pledge making a chair shoot out from under someone why did he deserve it exactly? People are saying kicking the chair wasn't right but support the reason for kicking the chair ???

 

[Marine Cpl]

@dsdmmat , I think I may have misunderstood you. Were you saying that the attacker shouldn't have done that because the kid sitting down could have killed him aka Adam Lanza or that the kid sitting down shouldn't have done anything to defend himself because the attacker could have killed him or both?

I'm really confused.

 

[Doc8404]

That wasn’t assault FYI.

My layman’s ass already covered this legal lesson bro.

 

[Doc8404]

I think the kid is an asshole for not standing.
But that is his right.
I think the kid kicking the chair is an asshole.
But that’s his right.
And the principal has the duty to handle this and kick his ass out for assault. Not assault as in penal code but as in “you’re a dumbass and need to be suspended.”
Can’t have smokers anymore so something has to happen.

 

[dsdmmat]

@dsdmmat , I think I may have misunderstood you. Were you saying that the attacker shouldn't have done that because the kid sitting down could have killed him aka Adam Lanza or that the kid sitting down shouldn't have done anything to defend himself because the attacker could have killed him or both?

I'm really confused.

The attacker should not have done what he did. He (rightly so in this case ) figured there would be no concequences from his actions. Had he figured wrong and the victim (who may have been tired of being bullied) pulled a weapon and killed the attacker. We would be talking about another scenario. In that case the attacker would have created the situation that lead to his own death. Hence the lesson I was taught as a child and taught my children. "Never start a fight with anyone you are not prepared to kill because you may have to." You do not get a vote in the response you will get by being the attacker, you may get the reaction you were counting on or may have to defend your own life from the response you get from your victim that you did not count on.

You said the kid should have defended himself. Yes and no. The victim was obviously not as aggressive as the attacker. Retaliating without a weapon may have lead to more injuries to the victim. In that case any aggressive response from the victim without a weapon to make him superior in force would have been the wrong answer for him. It would have been foolish for the victim to volunteer to get further abuse.

The old saying God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal applies to this line of thought, if the victim had a weapon and defended himself it could have been deadly for the attacker. In that case the lesson I learned as a child would have been very appropriate, in other words don't start nothing, there won't be nothing.

Everyone has a natural right to defend themselves, that right does not limit the response or type of weapons used in the defense. If you are attacked you have a natural right to preserve your own life. Only man's law makes the response required to be proportional to the force applied, natural law does not require that. An animal in the wild is not restrained by artificial restraints of mans law. Humans under 25 do not have their reasoning powers fully developed and often resort to fight or flight responses that are programmed in our DNA. Like I said, if the victim had pulled a gun and killed his attacker it would not have suprised me.

The attacker's actions may have repercussions further down the line in creating a "Columbine Shooter or Virgina Tech shooter" response in motion.

 

[Podmonkey]

Hmnn, blue hair, skinny jeans, effeminate male born after 1979. Yup, would have gotten a laugh if it was a vid of it being feed into a wood chipper. Feet first.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The attacker should not have done what he did. He (rightly so in this case ) figured there would be no concequences from his actions. Had he figured wrong and the victim (who may have been tired of being bullied) pulled a weapon and killed the attacker. We would be talking about another scenario. In that case the attacker would have created the situation that lead to his own death. Hence the lesson I was taught as a child and taught my children. "Never start a fight with anyone you are not willing to kill because you may have to." You do not get a vote in the response you will get by being the attacker, you may get the reaction you were counting on or may have to defend your own life from the response you get from your victim that you did not count on.

You said the kid should have defended himself. Yes and no. The victim was obviously not as aggressive as the attacker. Retaliating without a weapon may have lead to more injuries to the victim. In that case any aggressive response from the victim without a weapon to make him superior in force would have been the wrong answer for him. It would have been foolish for the victim to volunteer to get further abuse.

The old saying God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal applies to this line of thought, if the victim had a weapon and defended himself it could have been deadly for the attacker. In that case the lesson I learned as a child would have been very appropriate, in other words don't start nothing, there won't be nothing.

Everyone has a natural right to defend themselves, that right does not limit the response or type of weapons used in the defense. If you are attacked you have a natural right to preserve your own life. Only man's law makes the response required to be proportional to the force applied, natural law does not require that. An animal in the wild is not restrained by artificial restraints of mans law. Humans under 25 do not have their reasoning powers fully developed and often resort to fight or flight responses that are programmed in our DNA. Like I said, if the victim had pulled a gun and killed his attacker it would not have suprised me.

The attacker's actions may have repercussions further down the line in creating a "Columbine Shooter or Virgina Tech shooter" response in motion.

I agree that you shouldn't fuck with anyone because you do not know what they are capable of. That we are in agreement with.

I was trying to see if I should retract my earlier statement but I cannot because you are basically saying not to defend yourself unless you are going to use deadly force. That I cannot agree with and think that you have to be crazy to only be able to use deadly force to defend yourself.

Under that logic, every cop should kill you if they encounter any type of resistance from you whether imagined or real. If a man cuts in front of you in a line, you either need to keep your mouth shut or kill him. If a guy cuts you off and bangs your front bumper, if he gets agitated after the stop and gets in your personal space, you must run away or kill him. That is basically what you are saying.

 

[Podmonkey]

I agree that you shouldn't fuck with anyone because you do not know what they are capable of. That we are in agreement with.

I was trying to see if I should retract my earlier statement but I cannot because you are basically saying not to defend yourself unless you are going to use deadly force. That I cannot agree with and think that you have to be crazy to only be able to use deadly force to defend yourself.

Under that logic, every cop should kill you if they encounter any type of resistance from you whether imagined or real. If a man cuts in front of you in a line, you either need to keep your mouth shut or kill him. If a guy cuts you off and bangs your front bumper, if he gets agitated after the stop and gets in your personal space, you must run away or kill him. That is basically what you are saying.

I think I'll go with the latter choice in your examples.
I'm in an angry mood today. Probably cause its cold and snowy and dark and I'll have to drive through it all night. Again.

 

[dsdmmat]

I agree that you shouldn't fuck with anyone because you do not know what they are capable of. That we are in agreement with.

I was trying to see if I should retract my earlier statement but I cannot because you are basically saying not to defend yourself unless you are going to use deadly force. That I cannot agree with and think that you have to be crazy to only be able to use deadly force to defend yourself.

Under that logic, every cop should kill you if they encounter any type of resistance from you whether imagined or real. If a man cuts in front of you in a line, you either need to keep your mouth shut or kill him. If a guy cuts you off bangs your bumper, if he gets agitated, you must run away or kill him. That is basically what you are saying.

you are either intentionally trying to be dense or just trying to get a rise out of me.

That is not what I was saying at all. I am saying you do not get a vote in the way someone responds to your attack. You may get the response you were counting on (fists) or you may not (gun). Once you start something you may have to defend yourself from a counter attack you did not count on and have to use deadly force yourself to get yourself out of a mess you created.

The kid that was attacked did what he thought was best. Look to an adult to assist instead of volunteering to bet beaten down by a superior attacker. If the victim reasonably figured he could go toe to toe with the attacker he most likely would have taken that route. If he was in a different state of mind he may have used a weapon to teach the attacker a lesson. The frame of mind of the victim is not known at the time of the attack.

 

[Marine Cpl]

you are either intentionally trying to be dense or just trying to get a rise out of me.

That is not what I was saying at all. I am saying you do not get a vote in the way someone responds to your attack. You may get the response you were counting on (fists) or you may not (gun). Once you start something you may have to defend yourself from a counter attack you did not count on and have to use deadly force yourself to get yourself out of a mess you created.

I'm not trying to do anything regarding getting a rise out of you. I respect you and thought I looked up to you in a way. These are your words below. I'm trying to understand. Because right now, I think that's crazy talk.

"You said the kid should have defended himself. Yes and no. The victim was obviously not as aggressive as the attacker. Retaliating without a weapon may have lead to more injuries to the victim. In that case any aggressive response from the victim without a weapon to make him superior in force would have been the wrong answer for him. It would have been foolish for the victim to volunteer to get further abuse."

What I'm getting out of those words is not to do anything unless you have a weapon to kill him. We are talking about school kids here. You are saying to keep getting bullied unless you have a weapon to kill the bully. Then you can defend yourself but only if you are ready to kill him.

 

[dsdmmat]

I'm not trying to do anything regarding getting a rise out of you. I respect you and thought I looked up to you in a way. These are your words below. I'm trying to understand. Because right now, I think that's crazy talk.

"You said the kid should have defended himself. Yes and no. The victim was obviously not as aggressive as the attacker. Retaliating without a weapon may have lead to more injuries to the victim. In that case any aggressive response from the victim without a weapon to make him superior in force would have been the wrong answer for him. It would have been foolish for the victim to volunteer to get further abuse."

What I'm getting out of those words is not to do anything unless you have a weapon to kill him. We are talking about school kids here. You are saying to keep getting bullied unless you have a weapon to kill the bully. Then you can defend yourself but only if you are ready to kill him.

Not at all what I meant. The kid was facing a superior attacker (real or perceived). In that case it would have been foolish to counter attack without a weapon to equalize the situation. The kid did what he thought was best, look to an adult. It is only reasonable to counter attack if you believe you can inflict the same abuse on your attacker. If not the way to go is call for reinforments (adult), retreat or use superior force to prevent further damage to yourself.

If you were sucker punched by a 300 pound octagon fighter it would be foolish to counter attack unless you thought you could come out ahead, would it not? If you figure out you cannot go toe to toe with your attacker, you would be forced to choose one of the three options above.

I am not going to go toe to toe with a golden globe boxer, That would be foolish. I am not going to go toe to toe with a mob, that would be equally foolish. if I am attacked I will use the force I deem necessary to come out on top, the attacker is not going to get a vote in my response.


However the lesson still applies, never start a fight with anyone you are not prepared to kill, because you may have to. Doesn't mean you will have to but, you may have to just to save your own life. It is a lesson of peace. Never underestimate your enemy or overestimate your capabilities. Same lesson as above if you attack you may be in the fight of your life.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not at all what I meant. The kid was facing a superior attacker. In that case it would have been foolish to counter attack without a weapon to equalize the situation. The kid did what he thought was best, look to an adult. It is only reasonable to counter attack if you believe you can inflict the same abuse on your attacker. If not the way to go is call for reinforments (adult), retreat or use superior force to prevent further damage to yourself.

If you were sucker punched by a 300 pound octagon fighter it would be foolish to counter attack unless you thought you could come out ahead, would it not? If you figure out you cannot go toe to toe with your attacker, you would be forced to choose one of the three options above.

I disagree. I've won fights and lost fights in school. After each fight, I was respected and never fucked with again by that kid.

As far as today as a 42 year old man, if I was sucker punched by Brock Lesner for no reason, I would attempt to fight back even if I knew my ass was going to be kicked. Failure to do so would encourage him and others to sucker punch me again at a later date. A bully doesn't want someone who fights back.

And we are talking about kids here.

 

[dsdmmat]

I disagree. I've won fights and lost fights in school. After each fight, I was respected and never fucked with again by that kid.

As far as today as a 42 year old man, if I was sucker punched by Brock Lesner for no reason, I would attempt to fight back even if I knew my ass was going to be kicked. Failure to do so would encourage him and others to sucker punch me again at a later date. A bully doesn't want someone who fights back.

And we are talking about kids here.

your story. I don't get into fights, haven't since grade school. Maybe I am lucky or a wimp who knows.

There is also another rule of fighting- no such thing as a fair fight, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

 

[Podmonkey]

There is also another rule of fighting- no such thing as a fair fight, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

 

[Marine Cpl]

your story. I don't get into fights, haven't since grade school. Maybe I am lucky or a wimp who knows.

There is also another rule of fighting- no such thing as a fair fight, if you ain't cheating you ain't trying.

I don't either anymore. Most adults don't. If they do, it's usually in defense to a robbery, or other such crime. In that case, you are fighting for your life. Adults don't usually fight just ty test you for stupid reasons like kids do.

 

[Justincase]

I am actually kind of surprised that so many think this acceptable behavior.

I do not.

I don't think it's acceptable, I just thought it to be poetic justice. Of course any of us would be pissed if it were our child who had this done to them. Likewise, I hope most on here would be pissed if it were our child who kicked the chair out. None of us would or should raise our children to do things like that. But looking at it from the outside, with no relation at all to either kid, it's a lot easier to look at the incident with impunity and just see it for what we'd love to see happen or do to somebody, but wouldn't because we know it's inherently wrong and because know better.

 

[Darth]

I didn't "rape" your wife bro. It was just a prank. I've seen Catholic priests play "hide the salami" deeper than that.

If she didn't want to get assaulted (or for fun let's play semantics on this one ) she should have not worn that skirt.

Back in my day the Mises would get a good backhand and shiner if she didn't have me three fingers of rye waiting when I got in. Snowflakes nowadays get offended at a little butt play.

She needs to understand there are consequences for dressing like that.

 

[Darth]

Whoops, that we meant for the Harvey Weinstein thread...

 

[Bigfoot]

Dayten posts a video of,

1.) Kid gets chair kicked out from under him.
2.) Kid falls on his ass, (less than a 2 foot drop)
3.) Kid gets up from the floor.

And this thread turns into a shitshow of epic proportions... LOL
Fractured Pelvis, Closed Head Injury, Assault, Handcuffs, Going After the Family, Adam Lanza, guns, etc.

This whole thread is a series of "over reactions" IMO.
All over a kid that fell less than 2 feet onto his ass... Big F-ing deal.

The over reaction to the video is amusing LMAO.
The over reaction here is so over the top and ridiculous that I wouldn't of believed it if I didn't see it.

 

[nortatoga]

Dayten posts a video of,

1.) Kid gets chair kicked out from under him.
2.) Kid falls on his ass, (less than a 2 foot drop)
3.) Kid gets up from the floor.

And this thread turns into a shitshow of epic proportions... LOL
Fractured Pelvis, Closed Head Injury, Assault, Handcuffs, Going After the Family, Adam Lanza, guns, etc.

This whole thread is a series of "over reactions" IMO.
All over a kid that fell less than 2 feet onto his ass... Big F-ing deal.

The over reaction to the video is amusing LMAO.
The over reaction here is so over the top and ridiculous that I wouldn't of believed it if I didn't see it.

You left out Darth in skinny jeans!!!

 

[Celt]

I understand the frustration of the "kicker", the gender confused teen has no idea why he is sitting, but he has the right to do so. turning it into a physical situation is not legally right (even if i would have the same urge to smack that little turd).

 

[kev74]

The over reaction to the video is amusing LMAO.
The over reaction here is so over the top and ridiculous that I wouldn't of believed it if I didn't see it.

That's how Benghazi happened too!

Susan Rice told me so!

 

[Phazer]

As far as today as a 42 year old man, if I was sucker punched by Brock Lesner for no reason, I would attempt to fight back even if I knew my ass was going to be kicked.

As a grown man with no fighting prowess (except when armed), I'd just call the police and press criminal charges. After a conviction, I'd file a civil suit and take as much of his property as I could. Unless they kill me, I'd use my resources to access the legal system and ruin my attacker's life forevermore.