If this were a fight that would be one thing. Heck, if this stupid kid even pushed the ump and then socked him that would be one thing. And if this kid were smaller than the ump that would be one thing.
From what I've read, this "kid" (I use the term loosely when it comes to a 17 year old) was bigger than the ump. This kid cheap shotted him out of nowhere, thus giving the ump both no time to prepare for the hit so he could move (if he could move the impact of the hit would have been lessened and it may not have hit him in such a critical area). And this kid decided he was not only going to cheap shot the ref, but decided he was going to punch him in the head, which happens to be one of the worst areas you can punch someone.
So with all three of those factors, **** him. The odds of a piece of crap like that becoming a productive member of society are minimal.
You act like an oversized 17 year old knows how big and strong they are. Like this kid had murder on his mind when in the heat of the moment during a competition he got called for a foul (or whatever they call it in soccer) and swung on the ref.
YES IT ENDED IN THE DEATH OF THE REF. THE KID SHOULD BE PUNISHED.
THE KID. THE KID. THE KID.
How long you figure he's been the size he is? Anyone have any information that he's punched anyone else in the last year or so? But yet, a dumb (as all teenagers are dumb) oversized 17 year old soccer player supposedly knew that his impulsive punch was deadly. He's supposed to have an old man's sense of just how big he actually is when in reality he probably doesn't see himself realistically.
In high school I was on the newspaper. I wrote a count/counterpoint article with a girl I had a secret crush on. The article was about kids being charged as adults. I took the position that kids SHOULD be charged as adults for serious crimes. My points were that serious crimes had serious consequences for the victims and should also have serious consequences for the perpetrator. I argues that teenage kids know the difference between right and wrong, they know the crimes they are committing are wrong and they know that as a juvenile they'll likely got off easy even if they get caught. I argues that these "kids" were engaged in adult activities and adult crimes, they understood what they were doing and they deserved to be tried as adults. I was pretty sure I nailed the article.
Her response was essentially that as a society we owe our kids a childhood and an opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them. That kids needed a chance to grow up. That if we make the distinction between child and adult in every other part of society we needed to make the same distinction when it comes to justice.
Anyway. Take this kid out behind the woodshed and shoot him. I don't care. He's a murderer. He took a father and a husband away from his family forever. He's a violent menace to society.
Forgive me if I don't take any joy or solace from this kid's condemnation. I've never been one to revel in anyone's pain, no matter how vile they are. I'm jealous of those of you who find some sort of satisfaction in knowing that a person will be made to suffer. In this case possible for a very very long time, so even better.