I am going to give you a chance to rephrase and rethink your post and mine. Don’t knee jerk, just give it a thought. 
No thought needed. I, however, am going to give you a chance to rephrase and rethink your last two posts. Don’t knee jerk. Just give it a thought…
That is a foolish suggestion, secondly, what happens in US is not in the virtue by default, though some US citizens use to live in this illusion.
Going by your logic, a doctor should also be hanged by his neck because he also stabs his patients with the knife during operations.
If you exclude the intent of the doctor and focus purely on his actions, what is the difference between the actions of a doctor and a killer?
My friend, you cannot decide anything unless you take intent into account.
With love,
Sanjay
No, your response was foolish, though. We’re talking about America and what goes on in America. If you want to talk about another country, perhaps you should move to another forum.
No, that is a false equivalent that doesn’t go by my logic at all. A doctor using his knife in surgery is not committing a violent act; a parent assaulting her child is. I’m almost surprised you couldn’t figure that out.
I answered that in my above response.
I’m not your friend and probably won’t be. I did take intent into account; you just misread my post and missed that.
Just go all the way down that slippery slope. If that’s what you think is valid. There’s a difference between touching a fire, and exercising a constitutional right.
Peripheral,
First of all, is somewhere mentioned in the rules and regulations of ILP that it is an exclusively American forum, and only “what happens in the US” can be discussed here?
I think that you need to check this with owners and mods before making such declarations on your own.
Secondly, would you mind to explain a layman like me on which other grounds you decided that stabbing from a doctor is not a violent act but a killer’s is, if you exclude the intents?
With love,
Sanjay
“We weren’t talking of a pre-cognitive child who cannot understand verbal advice or admonition. We were talking about a grown child who can listen to and understand verbal language. So, the woman had no ethical or legal right to verbally assault him.”
The grown child was willfully endangering himself and others, he knew that what he was doing was wrong. So according to you a parent that loves their child should stand by to let their teenaged child get severely harmed or killed. A highly emotional danger filled situation and the parent is supposed to simply say please don’t and then shrug it off when the child continues down a dangerous path.
That to you is a loving protective parent… just let your kid be truly harmed and hurt the entire family.
Wow.
I never said the mother should do nothing. That’s a false straw man of your creation…as I said before, try to do better. All she needed to do was grab him or, if necessary, strike him once into awareness. She certainly didn’t need to strike him over…and over…and over…and over…and over. According to your logic, a husband would be perfectly in his rights to repeatedly strike his drunken misbehaving wife who was assaulting someone in a club…and that’s terrible.
Again, I never said that. That’s another straw man of your own creation. Try to focus more on making cogent arguments and focus less on constructing false straw men.
I never said this was an American forum; I said we were discussing America and American law…big difference.
I already perfectly explained why a doctor cutting into a patient is not a violent act: It is a beneficial action the patient his or herself requested. And you can’t exclude intent or context from physical acts to determine violence; they’re essential to that determination.
Now, since you clearly aren’t reading my posts well and are simply repeating your arguments, I’m putting you on my foes list and on ignore. I won’t be engaging you further.
Actually we are discussing the merits or otherwise of Law Enforcement Officers wearing chest cameras. Do you have a view?
No, we aren’t. The OP post doesn’t remain the de facto topic of discussion after 15 pages. So, if you want to re-phrase that question more politely, I might answer it.
Do you have a view, please?
Body cameras and car cameras should be definitely required. However, that wouldn’t prevent disturbed individuals like George Zimmerman from harassing, instigating, and eventually killing pedestrians like Trayvon.
Did this guy seriously put zinnat of all people in foes list? He’s one of the most polite people here.
The intent behind the act mustn’t be overlooked: The kid is her own child, she never intended to seriously injure him but to prevent him from getting himself injured, or worse, killed. She slapped him once, it didn’t do it, so she did it again, and when she noticed he stopped putting himself and his family in danger with his adolescent, immature idiocy, she didn’t hurt him anymore. Is it that hard to understand?
Some of you act like human morality is the product of laws and not the other way around.
You make numerous mistakes in your post above. I will enumerate them for you.
- A parent doesn’t have the right to assault her own child. That’s why parents get arrested for child abuse. Striking your child numerous times is assault. Do you understand?
- There was nothing in the boy’s behavior suggesting he didn’t “get it the first time.” Do you understand?
- Assault isn’t predicated on damage. That’s why it’s illegal to slap your grown child or spouse. Do you understand?
You’ve never seen an actual assault, did you? Do you know how people look like, after an assault? Do you know what is their mental state, after an assault?
Nothing in his behavior suggesting it, except for the fact that he utterly ignored her, further indicating that his mother’s slaps didn’t phase him much.
If something is an assault or not will ultimately depend on intent, the way it is carried out, and damage. In this case, intent is benevolent, and damage is nil. The act itself is necessary evil done for the greater good.
You clearly don’t understand the word “assault” and the difference between it and battery. You have my sympathies. Slapping somebody is an assault; go read the law, Arby. And I have seen real battery; I was in a fraternity for four years…as if that’s even relevant.
You have to watch the tape again. He was just reacting and defending himself from the onslaught of slaps…which were all assault.
You are so ignorant of the law. Good intent does not negate an assault, nor does the absence of damage. Do you actually think a husband can slap his wife out of “good intent” and it not be assault? So, at this point, I’ve grown tired of your ignorance of the law, as well as your poor use of logic. So, I’m putting you on ignore to never have to deal with you again. Ciao.
I value my personal morality above the law.
The law had Nazis kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I personally would rather die, than bend to a law like that. You do as you will.
If a child is putting his life, and the lives of his family in danger, and the mother is in the position to stop him by mild violence that won’t have any lasting effects on the child, and her intent is to preserve the lives of her own family, including the misbehaving child, I will always support the mother, despite of what the law says.
It’s like in states/countries where women aren’t allowed to have an abortion, I will always personally support their right to have an abortion, even if the law doesn’t permit it.
To propose that a woman should just stand there and do nothing while her child is endangering her, her other children and his own is monstrous.
Then start your own country and let your own morality be the law there. But in the US, I’d prefer it if people weren’t applauded by mobs when they assault other people.
Oh, so you’re still ignoring what actually happened.
Different scenario: A large woman attacks a young boy biologically unrelated to her and significantly physically smaller and weaker than her, using a weapon, and pounds his face in relentlessly until the people in the street stop her, leaving the boy bloody and bruised. She is known to hate the boy.
Can you tell me if you think there is a relevant difference between the scenario we discussing and the one above?
Or are they basically the same, and the imaginary woman is no better or worse?