Father of son who died in Iraq beaten by pro-war hate mongers "Gathering of Eagles"

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Roonie

If someone was yelling at me they better be damn ready to back their speech up because I would be right in their face quick. I am not one to back down physically so the fact that all he did was tackle the guy who stole his pic is in itself shows a lot of restraint. I would have been throwing punches pretty quick especially if it was personal like a son lost. The fact that he did tackle the guy is awesome as the guy was yelling at him and then stole his son's pic. Do I think the dad was in the wrong absolutely not. I wish he would have done some more damage instead of a lame tackle. It reminds me of bullies at school and then the victim finally stands up for themselves. Funny how people are calling the victim the aggressor now.

So because you'd chose to handle yourself in that manner that makes it ok? Dont think so...

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Roonie

If someone was yelling at me they better be damn ready to back their speech up because I would be right in their face quick.

What makes you think the anti-war protesters weren't yelling back just as much crap? Keep in mind they were the ones getting arrested constantly for charging at police and shit.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

More like a physical retaliation.. but yes:

prov·o·ca·tion
1. the act of provoking.
2. something that incites, instigates, angers, or irritates.

Put the dictionary away, cowboy. We all know what we're talking about. If I take your paper and walk away and then a few minutes later you notice, you do NOT have the right to jam me into the ground.

Guy steals a picture of his son off a coffin memorializing him, it provoked, angered, etc.. it seems pretty clear cut. What do you disagree with specifically?

The fact that the guy retaliated by injuring him. I actually don't think it's kosher that the guy took the picture. But that's not the issue. The issue is the father physically injured the guy. While taking the picture wasn't cool, it wasn't illegal. The father broke the law by attacking the guy when it was clear he was in no physical danger.

]I'm not saying it was the best way to handle the situation, but I think given the situation, the fact that this was a memorial to his son, who he was obviously very emotionally distressed over losing.. his actions are reasonable.

So if I'm upset...I mean really REALLY upset, it's ok for me to smack the shit out of you?

I agree he didn't feel physically threatened by the other guy taking the picture, but I still think it's a reasonable response given the situation

Again...............if you're not threatened then you have no business touching someone else.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So because you'd chose to handle yourself in that manner that makes it ok? Dont think so...

Never said it was right or wrong. The point is the father showed a lot of restraint in that circumstance. He was clearly being provoked. Then was robbed of his picture by said provokers. He tackled the theif to retrieve it. Got jumped by 5 or 6 of the provokers.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

The fact that the guy retaliated by injuring him. I actually don't think it's kosher that the guy took the picture. But that's not the issue. The issue is the father physically injured the guy. While taking the picture wasn't cool, it wasn't illegal. The father broke the law by attacking the guy when it was clear he was in no physical danger.

Correct. The guy never should have taken the picture. But that doesn't excuse Carlos.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

So if I'm upset...I mean really REALLY upset, it's ok for me to smack the shit out of you?

If one of your kids had died and I just decided to do something to disrespect your memorial of them, I'd say that response from you is reasonable, yes.

Wouldn't you say I had it coming for being such a douche as to do something like that?

Originally Posted by 7960

Again...............if you're not threatened then you have no business touching someone else.

Maybe not legally, but I think a justification defense would work in this case.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Never said it was right or wrong. The point is the father showed a lot of restraint in that circumstance. He was clearly being provoked. Then was robbed of his picture by said provokers. He tackled the theif to retrieve it. Got jumped by 5 or 6 of the provokers.

Restraint? What restraint did he show? He attacked and physically assaulted a crowd of people!

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

If one of your kids had died and I just decided to do something to disrespect your memorial of them, I'd say that response from you is reasonable, yes.

Wouldn't you say I had it coming for being such a douche as to do something like that?



Maybe not legally, but I think a justification defense would work in this case.

So in this instance you're ok with taking the law into your own hands?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Wouldn't you say I had it coming for being such a douche as to do something like that?

So now the guy had it coming? The "victim" of a physical attack had it coming. Very nice to blame the victim. Do girls who dress slutty instigate their rape?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Restraint? What restraint did he show? He attacked and physically assaulted a crowd of people!

You have it backwards.. the crowd attacked and physically assaulted him after he retaliated against the guy who stole property from his sons memorial that he was carrying around with him that day.

[Ardentfrost]

The guy was provoked. He probably felt the integrity of his son was being questioned since the memorial he had created to mourn him was defaced (literally).

Was he acting rationally in his response? Certainly not. However, that doesn't mean the taking of the picture was not a provocation for some sort of response.

The guy has been through a lot with the loss of his son, and to me, he's probably taking it a bit far, but he certainly has the right to honor his son. The old man's excuse for taking the picture is utter bullshit, and just goes to show that one side is being presented just as biased as the other.

The pro-war guys had the right to press charges and didn't, good for them. Legally, they would have probably won. However, the other guy's response was character to the amount of distress he had endured. Irrational, sure, but understandable if nothing else.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Never said it was right or wrong. The point is the father showed a lot of restraint in that circumstance. He was clearly being provoked. Then was robbed of his picture by said provokers. He tackled the theif to retrieve it. Got jumped by 5 or 6 of the provokers.

so suddenly now everyone involved "provoked" him because one guy picked up the picture?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So now the guy had it coming? The "victim" of a physical attack had it coming. Very nice to blame the victim.

The thief wasn't the victim, he was the instigator of the incident..

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

You have it backwards.. the crowd attacked and physically assaulted him after he retaliated against the guy who stole property from his sons memorial that he was carrying around with him that day.

The crowd did not attack him or physically assault him first. One man took his picture. He attacked a crowd of people.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by motivez

You have it backwards.. the crowd attacked and physically assaulted him after he retaliated against the guy who stole property from his sons memorial that he was carrying around with him that day.

So he physically assaults multiple people in retaliation for someone picking up a picture, and somehow he is in the right and the people retaliating against HIM for attacking THEM are in the wrong?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

You have it backwards.. the crowd attacked and physically assaulted him after he retaliated against the guy who stole property from his sons memorial that he was carrying around with him that day.

The eagles physically attacked him? That is not what some eyewitnesses said, nor is it in a police report. Carlos instigated the attacked and several eagles pulled him off the guy...big difference

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The crowd did not attack him or physically assault him first. One man took his picture. He attacked a crowd of people.

Are you purposely ignoring facts, or what?

He retaliated against one man who provoked him and instigated the incident, and then the crowd of eagles (5 or 6 of them) assaulted and attacked the father for attempting to retrieve the picture of his son from the thief.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by motivez

The thief wasn't the victim, he was the instigator of the incident..

so if you steal my morning paper and I beat the shit out of you for it, I'm right and you're wrong? Sweet.