Is your first instinct gun owner or parent?

[LogGrad98]

It's fine to sit on a soapbox and imagine only one wrong happening here. But we've got a series of problems that need to be addressed. At any one place, doing something different would have prohibited the further. I'll break it down further

1. Kids were riding a dirt bike up and down the street.
   1. Unlicensed drivers on a public road
   2. Uninsured drivers on a public road
   3. Unregistered vehicle?
   4. It's loud as ****, common courtesy mang!
2. A guy punched a kid/kids in the head
   1. Child Abuse(and the litany of charges)
3. A guy approached a man with intent to beat him up/tackle him
   1. Assumed Assault
      1. Caused a reasonable level of fear
4. A man pulled a gun?
   1. IIRC, stand your ground laws of Utah allow the use of Lethal force if threatened.
      1. Admittedly, I am not an expert, but some SYG laws allow for lethal force even if retreat was reasonable
5. A man barricaded himself in his home in an attempt to stalwart police intervention
   1. Really?

This situation could have been avoided at any of these parts of the timeline.

It would seem as if your first instinct would be that the gun owner was wrong. You're not wrong saying that. In my opinion, you are wrong saying there aren't reasonable problems that should have been addressed better by everyone here.

It's a matter of scale. Punching a kid in the face >>>>>>>>>>> a kid riding a dirt bike on the street. Pulling a gun on the guy defending his child >>>>>>>>>>> making a threatening gesture with fists

Does the father of the child who was punched have the right to defend his child? If so then his approach was not assault in any way.

 

[Wayne_Kenoff]

It's a matter of scale. Punching a kid in the face >>>>>>>>>>> a kid riding a dirt bike on the street. Pulling a gun on the guy defending his child >>>>>>>>>>> making a threatening gesture with fists

Does the father of the child who was punched have the right to defend his child? If so then his approach was not assault in any way.

It is more than that, the article says the guy fired shots.

 

[Harambe]

It's a matter of scale. Punching a kid in the face >>>>>>>>>>> a kid riding a dirt bike on the street. Pulling a gun on the guy defending his child >>>>>>>>>>> making a threatening gesture with fists

Does the father of the child who was punched have the right to defend his child? If so then his approach was not assault in any way.

Why is it a matter of scale to say that there isn't a point/problem with the children, as well as the dad, in the approach?

 

[LogGrad98]

Why is it a matter of scale to say that there isn't a point/problem with the children, as well as the dad, in the approach?

That's the way the legal system works. See, if I threaten to punch you I get a different possible penalty than if I shot a gun at you.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Why is it a matter of scale to say that there isn't a point/problem with the children, as well as the dad, in the approach?

And why stop there? A wife that didn't step in and stop the Dad from buying the 6yr old a dirt bike. A paternal grandma that didn't teach her boy well enough so he wouldn't even think of buying a bike for his kid. She clearly didn't teach him to deal with his feelings in a positive manner, why would his first instinct be to beat up some adult that just pounded on his 6 year old? Where was his Ghandi lessons? There is plenty of blame to go around. Why does the city not have a law that 6 year olds can't drive dirt bikes near other humans? Why didn't the cops come stop the kid? Why did the stupid developer not put more miles between houses so this kid could ride a bike in peace without fear of being assaulted by adults? Why did the city not put in noise cancelling roads and walls so it wouldn't annoy the neighbor so much? Why does the federal government not step in and force States, Counties, and Cities to outlaw small dirt bikes that cause anger and violence? Why didn't one of the other neighbors step in and help? Didn't they break the good samaritan law or something? I see your point. Why stop the blame at the biggest offender? There is plenty of blame to go around so that we can point out all at fault parties that may have played a role in this no matter how small.

 

[Harambe]

That's the way the legal system works. See, if I threaten to punch you I get a different possible penalty than if I shot a gun at you.

Why would you be happy with that?

Better question, why would you want to deny the kids and the dad empowerment to feel in control of their lives?

 

[Harambe]

And why stop there? A wife that didn't step in and stop the Dad from buying the 6yr old a dirt bike. A paternal grandma that didn't teach her boy well enough so he wouldn't even think of buying a bike for his kid. She clearly didn't teach him to deal with his feelings in a positive manner, why would his first instinct be to beat up some adult that just pounded on his 6 year old? Where was his Ghandi lessons? There is plenty of blame to go around. Why does the city not have a law that 6 year olds can't drive dirt bikes near other humans? Why didn't the cops come stop the kid? Why did the stupid developer not put more miles between houses so this kid could ride a bike in peace without fear of being assaulted by adults? Why did the city not put in noise cancelling roads and walls so it wouldn't annoy the neighbor so much? Why does the federal government not step in and force States, Counties, and Cities to outlaw small dirt bikes that cause anger and violence? Why didn't one of the other neighbors step in and help? Didn't they break the good samaritan law or something? I see your point. Why stop the blame at the biggest offender? There is plenty of blame to go around so that we can point out all at fault parties that may have played a role in this no matter how small.

Great question, JazzSpazz! I'm only stopping where I did for visibility; these are the only things we know with the data presented.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why would you be happy with that?

Better question, why would you want to deny the kids and the dad empowerment to feel in control of their lives?

Wow, what lines were you pretending to read between. I didn't say anything remotely related to what you just posted.

So to read between your lines, you are saying that threatening to punch someone is exactly the same severity as shooting at someone.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Great question, JazzSpazz! I'm only stopping where I did for visibility; these are the only things we know with the data presented.

And by data presented is it fair to say that it is very little data with plenty of gaps between points, so most of the conclusions we come to are probably conjecture.
What we seem to know 100% is that some kids were riding a dirt bike before 3pm, then some dude(61 yrs old) punched a 6 year old multiple times in the head. 6 year olds dad came at dude, who pulled a gun on dad, shot at him but did not hit, then barricaded himself in his house around 3pm.

Out of all of this you seem to be most worried about internet hacks judging the wrongs committed by the kid and the dad that caused the dude to do all of that?
Strange. Sounds a little like victim blaming if you ask me.

 

[Harambe]

Wow, what lines were you pretending to read between. I didn't say anything remotely related to what you just posted.

So to read between your lines, you are saying that threatening to punch someone is exactly the same severity as shooting at someone.

I could dissect for you, but I feel like that's what you expect.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's truth to everyone was wrong, and that starting with the kids, any one of them could have made a different outcome. Instead of conceding that there's a point to be made(of value), you were happy with "Yes, the cosmos is full of wrongs that even out", and "It's a matter of scale".

IIDSSM, it feels like you're being obtuse to be obtuse. Something I've been accused of, and perhaps even guilty of sometimes. Maybe you were under the impression that my thread was a trap to **** on X/Y. But it wasn't, and isn't. I'm not skirting around that old kantakerous bastard needing a change in attitude. That is pretty obvious, but the article does address his charges.

What does the article not address is what I'm really after. Getting your squeaky brakes fixed doesn't mean your wipers work.

 

[Harambe]

And by data presented is it fair to say that it is very little data with plenty of gaps between points, so most of the conclusions we come to are probably conjecture.
What we seem to know 100% is that some kids were riding a dirt bike before 3pm, then some dude(61 yrs old) punched a 6 year old multiple times in the head. 6 year olds dad came at dude, who pulled a gun on dad, shot at him but did not hit, then barricaded himself in his house around 3pm.

Out of all of this you seem to be most worried about internet hacks judging the wrongs committed by the kid and the dad that caused the dude to do all of that?
Strange. Sounds a little like victim blaming if you ask me.

You're almost a little bit correct there. Write it out a bit differently

"Out of all of this you seem to be most worried about internet hacks NOT judging ANY OTHER WRONG"

 

[Stoked]

I’m willing to allow the 6 year old a pass. They kid is 6! It’s not like they sit down and think things through.
Nothing this child did, if he did something big like stabbing someone it would be in the story, deserved getting hit on the face multiple times.

One deserves a “hey, can you stop?” And the other deserves jail time.