Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Terrorists now throwing rocks
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 ================================================== |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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. ;-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 ================================================== |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT - Blue & Red | Metalworking | |||
OT-Sympathize with the Terrorists..sniffle. | Metalworking | |||
tiny white powdery rocks coming out of hot water taps... | Home Ownership | |||
OT Why do all terrorists seem to drive Nissans? | Metalworking |