Well, anyway at least she wasn't in london. They would have
shot her 20 times there....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050803-1111-girlcharged.html

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

Well, anyway at least she wasn't in london. They would have
shot her 20 times there....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050803-1111-girlcharged.html

Jim


I mentioned it earlier - but didn't have the right city - or the radio station
didn't. Hum. Heard it was Sack-of-tomatoes myself, not FRESNO as stated.

Took a lawyer to just do what parents might have done earlier. - like 20 years earlier.

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
Well, anyway at least she wasn't in london. They would have
shot her 20 times there....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050803-1111-girlcharged.html

Jim

Sounds like a good case to ban rocks in California. ;-)

When I was a kid, she would have been put up on a pedestal and
congratulated for standing up to a bunch of bullies.......

I guess it's not politically correct to stand up to bullies these days -
whether they be 11-year-old boys or bomb-carrying terrorists.

jim rozen wrote:
Well, anyway at least she wasn't in london. They would have
shot her 20 times there....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050803-1111-girlcharged.html

Jim



Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. And the victim of the crime is the one
who committed battery (with help, according to the story) in the first
place.

"JohnM" wrote in message
m...
jim rozen wrote:
Well, anyway at least she wasn't in london. They would have shot her 20
times there....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050803-1111-girlcharged.html

Jim



Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. And the victim of the crime is the one
who committed battery (with help, according to the story) in the first
place.

Well, ya gotta admit. She is a pretty good shot with a rock. What I heard
was she only threw one rock, and got him square on the noggin.

Maybe the upshot of this is that the little ******* who started the
rockthrowing learned a lesson.

Steve

JohnM wrote:

jim rozen wrote:
Well, anyway at least she wasn't in london. They would have
shot her 20 times there....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050803-1111-girlcharged.html

Jim



Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. And the victim of the crime is the one
who committed battery (with help, according to the story) in the first
place.

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

Pete C.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:04:24 GMT, Pete C. wrote:

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

Yup, and they favor unilateral disarmament of the victims. Makes you
wonder what side they're relaly on, doesn't it?

Well, ya gotta admit. She is a pretty good shot with a rock. What I heard
was she only threw one rock, and got him square on the noggin.

Maybe the upshot of this is that the little ******* who started the
rockthrowing learned a lesson.

Yes he did. And the lesson is:

"The best bullying tactic is to get the law to think you are a victim"

In article , Pete C. says...

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote in news:dcvq0f0r87
@drn.newsguy.com:

In article , Pete C. says...

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

Jim



The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney Legislators]
pass them. G

In the Peoples' Republik of Kaliphornia, it would seem, "Self Defense" is
no longer "Politically Correct" and, at all costs, must be punished.

In Texas she'd be drafted for the local baseball team! (ESPECIALLY in
Dallas!] G

In article , Eregon says...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney Legislators]
pass them. G

I think that beat cops have a great deal of latitude dealing
with 'crimes' like these. Honestly I think the only reason the
girl got charged with a felony is to justify the harsh treatment
she received while being 'apprehended.'

A smarter cop would have finessed the issue. The term
'jack-booted thug' comes to mind. It's rare that left wing
loonies earn that moniker.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote in
:

It's rare that left wing
loonies earn that moniker.


Not from a Texican's perspective. G

Given the Left Coast's dedication to Socialism, it's obvious that a large
number of the Left-wing Looneys migrated there during the late '60s and
early '70s and have indoctrinated their children accordingly.

Do you remember the "Good Old Days" in Haight-Ashbury? They never really
ended. G

They just expanded the party to Sacramento. g

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:12:55 GMT, Eregon wrote:

jim rozen wrote in news:dcvq0f0r87
:

In article , Pete C. says...

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

Jim



The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney Legislators]
pass them. G

In the Peoples' Republik of Kaliphornia, it would seem, "Self Defense" is
no longer "Politically Correct" and, at all costs, must be punished.

In Texas she'd be drafted for the local baseball team! (ESPECIALLY in
Dallas!] G
The last time I looked, the Republicans were running California. I
haven't seen them do anything to get rid restrictive laws on the
citizens of California. They did pass a law outlawing 50 caliber
rifles.

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Eregon says...


No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?


The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney Legislators]
pass them. G


I think that beat cops have a great deal of latitude dealing
with 'crimes' like these. Honestly I think the only reason the
girl got charged with a felony is to justify the harsh treatment
she received while being 'apprehended.'

A smarter cop would have finessed the issue. The term
'jack-booted thug' comes to mind. It's rare that left wing
loonies earn that moniker.

Jim


My guess is - and since the parents didn't charge her .. is the cops
came much after the fact. Directed by the DA....

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

nobody wrote in
:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:12:55 GMT, Eregon wrote:

jim rozen wrote in news:dcvq0f0r87
:

In article , Pete C. says...

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

Jim



The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney
Legislators] pass them. G

In the Peoples' Republik of Kaliphornia, it would seem, "Self Defense"
is no longer "Politically Correct" and, at all costs, must be
punished.

In Texas she'd be drafted for the local baseball team! (ESPECIALLY in
Dallas!] G
The last time I looked, the Republicans were running California. I
haven't seen them do anything to get rid restrictive laws on the
citizens of California. They did pass a law outlawing 50 caliber
rifles.


Who said anything about a specific Political Party? G

nobody wrote in
:

The last time I looked, the Republicans were running California. I
haven't seen them do anything to get rid restrictive laws on the
citizens of California. They did pass a law outlawing 50 caliber
rifles.

The last time *I* looked the DNC was still running both houses of the
Legislature... G

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:54:11 -0700, nobody wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:12:55 GMT, Eregon wrote:

jim rozen wrote in news:dcvq0f0r87
:

In article , Pete C. says...

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

Jim



The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney Legislators]
pass them. G

In the Peoples' Republik of Kaliphornia, it would seem, "Self Defense" is
no longer "Politically Correct" and, at all costs, must be punished.

In Texas she'd be drafted for the local baseball team! (ESPECIALLY in
Dallas!] G
The last time I looked, the Republicans were running California. I
haven't seen them do anything to get rid restrictive laws on the
citizens of California. They did pass a law outlawing 50 caliber
rifles.

Which Republican Majority are you talking about? Arnold is just about
the only Republican in California politics with any clout at all.

And he was voted in as a protest vote to get rid of that surrilous
******* Grey Davis..the Liberal cocksucker

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:34:08 GMT, Eregon wrote:

nobody wrote in
:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:12:55 GMT, Eregon wrote:

jim rozen wrote in news:dcvq0f0r87
:

In article , Pete C. says...

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

Jim



The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney
Legislators] pass them. G

In the Peoples' Republik of Kaliphornia, it would seem, "Self Defense"
is no longer "Politically Correct" and, at all costs, must be
punished.

In Texas she'd be drafted for the local baseball team! (ESPECIALLY in
Dallas!] G
The last time I looked, the Republicans were running California. I
haven't seen them do anything to get rid restrictive laws on the
citizens of California. They did pass a law outlawing 50 caliber
rifles.


Who said anything about a specific Political Party? G
Iffen you are cussing liberals, they usually aren't Republicans. G

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 04:58:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:54:11 -0700, nobody wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:12:55 GMT, Eregon wrote:

jim rozen wrote in news:dcvq0f0r87
:

In article , Pete C. says...

The wingnut leftist loonies think self defense is a crime...

No, the right-wind police state cops were the ones to
handcuff the kid. Storm trooper nazis, eh?

Jim



The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney Legislators]
pass them. G

In the Peoples' Republik of Kaliphornia, it would seem, "Self Defense" is
no longer "Politically Correct" and, at all costs, must be punished.

In Texas she'd be drafted for the local baseball team! (ESPECIALLY in
Dallas!] G
The last time I looked, the Republicans were running California. I
haven't seen them do anything to get rid restrictive laws on the
citizens of California. They did pass a law outlawing 50 caliber
rifles.

Which Republican Majority are you talking about? Arnold is just about
the only Republican in California politics with any clout at all.

And he was voted in as a protest vote to get rid of that surrilous
******* Grey Davis..the Liberal cocksucker

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

You are right about the DNC. My mistake.

The cops only enforce the laws - the LLL [Left-wing Looney Legislators]
pass them. G

In the Peoples' Republik of Kaliphornia, it would seem, "Self Defense" is
no longer "Politically Correct" and, at all costs, must be punished.

In Texas she'd be drafted for the local baseball team! (ESPECIALLY in
Dallas!] G

In this case the issue is definitely one of enforcement. She was to be
charged with assualt with a deadly weapon. A charge that exists in
practically every jurisdiction in the states, thus nothing to do with
the liberal bent of the legislature. I think it had more to do with
the fact that the cops were upset that an 11 year old girl clawed them
when they went to arrest her.

-Opossum

In article .com, Justin
says...

In this case the issue is definitely one of enforcement. She was to be
charged with assualt with a deadly weapon. A charge that exists in
practically every jurisdiction in the states, thus nothing to do with
the liberal bent of the legislature. I think it had more to do with
the fact that the cops were upset that an 11 year old girl clawed them
when they went to arrest her.

Yep. The cops have to keep control over all those renegage
brownie troops. They're gonna have to make an example of
her or else all the california cub scouts will realize the
cops are only paper tigers.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article .com,
Justin says...

In this case the issue is definitely one of enforcement. She was to
be charged with assualt with a deadly weapon. A charge that exists
in practically every jurisdiction in the states, thus nothing to do
with
the liberal bent of the legislature. I think it had more to do with
the fact that the cops were upset that an 11 year old girl clawed
them when they went to arrest her.

Yep. The cops have to keep control over all those renegage
brownie troops. They're gonna have to make an example of
her or else all the california cub scouts will realize the
cops are only paper tigers.

Jim

Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being hit by
a water baloon inappropriate.
What's going to be her next move?
Taking out a squegee kid with her beamer?

Ken.

In article , Ken Davey says...

Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being hit by
a water baloon inappropriate.

Five kids pelting an 11-year old with water balloons sounds inappropriate
to me.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ken Davey wrote in article
...


Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being hit
by
a water baloon inappropriate.

I believe I read in the story that things had escalated from water balloons
being thrown at the girl to rocks being thrown at the girl prior to her
responding in kind.

Besides, if you poke at a bear with a stick, he oftens responds in a MUCH
stronger manner.

Why was it acceptable for the boy to throw water balloons and NOT expect
some sort of retaliation?

Also, do you expect that little punk who started it all will EVER throw
ANYTHING at ANYBODY again?

Ken Davey wrote:
jim rozen wrote:

In article .com,
Justin says...


In this case the issue is definitely one of enforcement. She was to
be charged with assualt with a deadly weapon. A charge that exists
in practically every jurisdiction in the states, thus nothing to do
with
the liberal bent of the legislature. I think it had more to do with
the fact that the cops were upset that an 11 year old girl clawed
them when they went to arrest her.

Yep. The cops have to keep control over all those renegage
brownie troops. They're gonna have to make an example of
her or else all the california cub scouts will realize the
cops are only paper tigers.

Jim


Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being hit by
a water baloon inappropriate.
What's going to be her next move?
Taking out a squegee kid with her beamer?

Ken.



I think I see your point, Ken, but I don't agree. You always have to
draw a line somewhere, in my book if you're assaulted with anything you
defend with what you please, and tough luck to the assaultor who regrets
his actions.

John

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ken Davey says...


Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being hit by
a water baloon inappropriate.


Five kids pelting an 11-year old with water balloons sounds inappropriate
to me.

Jim


Same here. If they are gonna pick on someone, they should expect a
response. The attacker got what was coming to him and the girl got
screwed around by the system.

mj

In article , JohnM says...

I think I see your point, Ken, but I don't agree. You always have to
draw a line somewhere, in my book if you're assaulted with anything you
defend with what you please, and tough luck to the assaultor who regrets
his actions.

Legally I think you are allowed (in many places) to only use up to
and including the same level of force, to defend oneself.

HOWEVER in this case there were several boys attacking - and only
one of her. If I were the judge/jury in this thing, that would
tip the scales. She was justified in knocking the kid down.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , JohnM says...

I think I see your point, Ken, but I don't agree. You always have to
draw a line somewhere, in my book if you're assaulted with anything you
defend with what you please, and tough luck to the assaultor who regrets
his actions.

Legally I think you are allowed (in many places) to only use up to
and including the same level of force, to defend oneself.

HOWEVER in this case there were several boys attacking - and only
one of her. If I were the judge/jury in this thing, that would
tip the scales. She was justified in knocking the kid down.

Jim

Too bad the responding officers blew it so bad. It seems to me like it was
a case of self defense, and the other side (all of them) should be the ones
in hot water.

Unless you are in Kalifornia, and then normal rules do not apply.

And yes, you are only allowed to use the equal level of force in
retaliation. And once you get the advantage you have to stop. And let the
other guy get his breath, and give him another chance to come back at you
again.

Steve

On 7 Aug 2005 06:49:03 -0700, the opaque jim rozen
clearly wrote:

In article , JohnM says...

I think I see your point, Ken, but I don't agree. You always have to
draw a line somewhere, in my book if you're assaulted with anything you
defend with what you please, and tough luck to the assaultor who regrets
his actions.

Legally I think you are allowed (in many places) to only use up to
and including the same level of force, to defend oneself.

Sucks, doesn't it? When in fear for your life (5 attackers), why must
you limit your choices as to a way out of the situation?


HOWEVER in this case there were several boys attacking - and only
one of her. If I were the judge/jury in this thing, that would
tip the scales. She was justified in knocking the kid down.

Agreed. If I'd been in her shoes, I'd have picked up two rocks.
One to throw and one to use as a weapon if they came any closer
after I'd nailed (or missed) the target. That she was harassed
by the police is inexcusable, especially when you take into account
that the bully's parents didn't press charges.

--
"I'm sick and tired of having to rearrange my life
because of what the STUPIDEST people *might* do or
how they *might* react."
-- Bill Maher

Larry Jaques wrote:
...That she was harassed by the police is
inexcusable, especially when you take into
account that the bully's parents didn't press charges.

I think there's part of the story we're not getting here.
If the "victim" (the boy and his parents) doesn't
press criminal charges, then there effectively
is no crime. There's nobody to go to court and
claim "I was injured".

If you (anyone) and I get into a fight and
you kick my ass, if I choose NOT to press
charges against you, that's the end of
the case. The rare exception to that, in
most states, is spousal abuse. Husband and
wife have a fight, she's bloody but refuses
to press charges. In that case, LE officer
can press charges against the suspect. But
that deals with domestic abuse where the two
parties will be oblig forced to be together
once the cops leave (husb/wife). I've never
heard of that applying to kids playing or
even kids maliciously injuring each other.

Who called the cops in the first place?
Maybe it was in the story but I don't recall.

I suggest that, typical of "news stories" it's
adding in "facts" and assumptions that aren't there.
Maybe the boy's parents didn't press "civil" charges
but they did press criminal charges.

Battery, robbery and related crimes are based on the
"perception of the victim". ie if I hold up a bank
with toy gun that looks real, and the bank teller "thinks"
that the gun is real, and is genuinely afraid for their
life, I'm typically charged with the same level of crime
had the gun been real.

With rare exceptions, cops can't simply arrest someone
without a complainant.

Sgt Lumpy

jim rozen wrote:
In article , JohnM says...


I think I see your point, Ken, but I don't agree. You always have to
draw a line somewhere, in my book if you're assaulted with anything you
defend with what you please, and tough luck to the assaultor who regrets
his actions.


Legally I think you are allowed (in many places) to only use up to
and including the same level of force, to defend oneself.

I know you guys are correct in this, I guess it's just an area where my
personal philosophy doesn't exactly overlap with the law. I don't like
gray areas, ideas like levels of force for self defense and whether or
not an attacker was actually still attacking when he was shot the final
time.

John


HOWEVER in this case there were several boys attacking - and only
one of her. If I were the judge/jury in this thing, that would
tip the scales. She was justified in knocking the kid down.

Jim

nobody wrote in
:

Iffen you are cussing liberals, they usually aren't Republicans. G


Given that Jack Kennedy was a Liberal, there are lots of Republicans who
are Liberals. G

Barry Goldwater was a Moderate.

"Ken Davey" wrote in
:

Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being
hit by a water baloon inappropriate.


It's you. G

She was very restrained in her response: she only beaned the leader of the
pack. EG

"Ken Davey" wrote in
:

Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being
hit by a water baloon inappropriate.


It's you. How big of a rock could a child that age throw any distance?

Inappropriate? Let me smack you in the head with a water balloon (water
weighs quite a bit) and see if it rings your clock. Or raises your ire.

Steve

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:52:12 -0700, the opaque "SteveB"
clearly wrote:

"Ken Davey" wrote in
:

Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to being
hit by a water baloon inappropriate.

Fred Reed's column on the incident is quite good, Ken.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...reed072605.htm

"The 'Free Cuevas' movement even generated negative international
attention. No wonder the world suspects our abilities in Iraq. A
country that brags about its smart bombs can't manage a rock fight."
From Robert Kirby http://www.sltrib.com/homeandfamily/ci_2922654


It's you. How big of a rock could a child that age throw any distance?

Inappropriate? Let me smack you in the head with a water balloon (water
weighs quite a bit) and see if it rings your clock. Or raises your ire.

Yeah, Steve, it's him. He needs to understand, so let's make it more
like the real thing. Line up 5 guys, all taunting him, then one throws
the first balloon. Now the rest are taking aim. What's he gonna do?

Normal response: First, you cry and tell them all to stop. Then, when
they don't listen to you, you attempt to protect yourself by fighting
back with the first thing around which catches your eye: a rock!
That's human nature and it's perfectly natural. If a stick, a toy, or
a softball had been handy, she probably would have thrown one of those
instead.

For Maribel, survival instinct was used only long enough to stop the
torment. For young Palestinian, Israeli, etc. teens, rock throwing is
suicide. They're trying to kill soldiers, and anyone taking a rock to
a gunfight is a complete (and suicidal) idiot.

--
"I'm sick and tired of having to rearrange my life
because of what the STUPIDEST people *might* do or
how they *might* react."
-- Bill Maher

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 21:52:12 -0700, the opaque "SteveB"
clearly wrote:

"Ken Davey" wrote in
:

Is it just me or is the throwing of a large rock in response to
being hit by a water baloon inappropriate.

Fred Reed's column on the incident is quite good, Ken.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...reed072605.htm

It's you. How big of a rock could a child that age throw any
distance?

Inappropriate? Let me smack you in the head with a water balloon
(water weighs quite a bit) and see if it rings your clock. Or
raises your ire.

Yeah, Steve, it's him. He needs to understand, so let's make it more
like the real thing. Line up 5 guys, all taunting him, then one throws
the first balloon. Now the rest are taking aim. What's he gonna do?

Normal response: First, you cry and tell them all to stop. Then, when
they don't listen to you, you attempt to protect yourself by fighting
back with the first thing around which catches your eye: a rock!
That's human nature and it's perfectly natural. If a stick, a toy, or
a softball had been handy, she probably would have thrown one of those
instead.

For Maribel, survival instinct was used only long enough to stop the
torment. For young Palestinian, Israeli, etc. teens, rock throwing is
suicide. They're trying to kill soldiers, and anyone taking a rock to
a gunfight is a complete (and suicidal) idiot.

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight thing but
rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury in response to a
(weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage one's dignity.
I do areee that the response of authority was 'over-the-top' and could have
been handled better.

Without actually being present during the incident we have no way of knowing
if the actions and reactions of everybody concerned were appropriate.

Regards.
Ken.

In article , Ken Davey says...

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight thing but
rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury in response to a
(weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage one's dignity.

OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ken Davey says...

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight
thing but rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury
in response to a (weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can damage
one's dignity.

OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim

In a word - NO!

Ken.

Peter Wiley wrote:
In article , Ken Davey
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ken Davey says...

My point of view in this is NOT the bring a knife to a gunfight
thing but rather the use of a weapon that can cause serious injury
in response to a (weapon?) water balloon which, at worst, can
damage one's dignity.

OK, but how do you square that with the 5 to 1 difference in
numbers? Do five water balloon throwers equal one rock tosser?

Jim

In a word - NO!

Don't think anyone else agrees with you. What, IYO, was she supposed
to do? Stay there & cop it? Run off to mummy? Throw her shoes at them?
Walk up to one & punch him out? What?

Hey. 5 kids started it by throwing water balloons. That was totally
unacceptable behaviour. One copped a rock in return. Had it been my
kid that copped the rock, he woulda copped a kick in the ass to go
with it, for being a bully.

PDW

Was it unacceptable behavior?
Had the girl been 'trolling for trouble' for some time and it was just her
turn?
You or I were not there so comments like bullying (or the above) from us are
meaningless.
Was her response reasonable? I don't know because I don't know all the
circumstances that led up to the rock.
Bottom line; All things being equal it is NOT appropriate behavior to
attempt to injure when no such attempt was directed toward her.

Ken.