Father of son who died in Iraq beaten by pro-war hate mongers "Gathering of Eagles" - Page 8

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I never said that, I said he should come to grips with it, accept it, deal with it however he needs to but it must be legal. You can't burn things down and hurt people because you feel bad, NO MATTER HOW SHITTY you feel.

I agree.

motivez · 09-26-2007, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

And that is where the lie is. They pulled him off the guy. Is that assault? Wow, your thread is lost Mot. Just get over it. You want to believe a false story so bad it's clouding your common sense. You just need to step back and take a breath.

They did more than that, he was treated for injuries from being kicked and beaten, and eyewitness accounts confirm that.

I'm really not surprised at your feelings about this, and I'm pretty sure if the ideological shoe was on the other foot for the players in this incident you'd be singing a different tune, but whatever.

7960 · 09-26-2007, 05:21 PM

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.

If you are not threatened, it's not reasonable to injure someone.

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

"Had it coming" ......... so it was ok to jam a guy's face in the pavement because he was angry?

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

"I hit him because he made me mad".......I'll try "I hit her because she made me mad" and see if the cops won't arrest me for beating my wife.

JaJae · 09-26-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm really not surprised at your feelings about this, and I'm pretty sure if the ideological shoe was on the other foot for the players in this incident you'd be singing a different tune, but whatever.

ditto

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

When you consider what they were yelling at him, in his mind it certainly did, and it's not for them to decide anyway..

I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing. Why? Because the guy said he was "liberating" the picture.

They have every right to say whatever they want to him. And considering they're a pro-war and pro-military group, I doubt they were saying anything about his son's military service, they were talking about him.

One man crossed the line by taking the picture. Carlos crossed the line by attacking that man. The crowd crossed a line IF they actually attacked Carlos rather than just pulling him off the man he attacked, but I have yet to see any real proof that this occurred. What I have seen proof of is that Carlos attacked at least one other member of the crowd aside from the man that took the picture.

motivez · 09-26-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

ditto

I've already stated that the ideology doesn't matter to me and I'd feel the same way, try reading my posts instead of ASSuming

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm really not surprised at your feelings about this, and I'm pretty sure if the ideological shoe was on the other foot for the players in this incident you'd be singing a different tune, but whatever.

I used to think you were above being clouded by your ideological stance, but threads like this, particularly with comments like this one, make me question that.

JaJae · 09-26-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I've already stated that the ideology doesn't matter to me and I'd feel the same way, try reading my posts instead of ASSuming

I'm sure he's also willing to make the same claim that ideology doesn't matter in this case, but someone else ASSumed as well.

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I've already stated that the ideology doesn't matter to me and I'd feel the same way, try reading my posts instead of ASSuming

We won't know that unless we see it happen. I could say the sky is green, doesn't make it true just because I say it.

motivez · 09-26-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

They have every right to say whatever they want to him. And considering they're a pro-war and pro-military group, I doubt they were saying anything about his son's military service, they were talking about him.

Sure they have the right to say it, but I still don't think it's their place to decide

motivez · 09-26-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

We won't know that unless we see it happen. I could say the sky is green, doesn't make it true just because I say it.

Saying the sky is green is different than taking you at your word about your feelings on a subject

Ardentfrost · 09-26-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

What I have seen proof of is that Carlos attacked at least one other member of the crowd aside from the man that took the picture.

"attacked," "defended himself," in a situation like that, it's impossible to differentiate. What they were thinking they were doing might not be what he thought they were doing. It was out of hand before that happened.

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Saying the sky is green is different than taking you at your word about your feelings on a subject

my point is that you're making assumptions about how HE would react, so others have every right to make assumptions about how YOU would react, word be damned. Don't throw stones at people if you aren't willing to accept others throwing stones right back.

Stylerod · 09-26-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

They did more than that, he was treated for injuries from being kicked and beaten, and eyewitness accounts confirm that.

I'm really not surprised at your feelings about this, and I'm pretty sure if the ideological shoe was on the other foot for the players in this incident you'd be singing a different tune, but whatever.

There are two sides to every story, and you refuse to listen to one of those. You even refuse to admit he shouldn't have attacked the guy in the first place.

Should he have been pissed. Yes (and I don't care what the definition of theft is, good God), someone STOLE his picture. Should he have jumped on the guys back to get it back. Never. He should have gotten a cop and tried to have the guy arrested and gotten the picture back. Or, he should have gone over there and demanded it back. Did the guy know it was his sons picture? Did he think that maybe this man was just another hippy using a dead soldier to make a point? That makes a difference as well. Not as in right or wrong, it was wrong. But in the motivation behind it.

You just need to calm down and wait for more facts before taking such a strong stance.

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

"attacked," "defended himself," in a situation like that, it's impossible to differentiate. What they were thinking they were doing might not be what he thought they were doing. It was out of hand before that happened.

That's very probable. I'm willing to entertain the idea that he thought he was being attacked, but just because he thought it doesn't make it true, though it may well BE true. There is no definitive proof (in police report form, or video evidence, or anything) that they attacked him, whereas there IS proof that he attacked at least one member of the crowd.

motivez · 09-26-2007, 05:31 PM

I said it wasn't the best way to handle it.. but given the emotions at the event and the fact that the item was of such a personal nature, and everything else surrounding the incident I certainly understand what he did and I think it was a reasonable response.. although I'm not talking about legally here.. and haven't been for the entire thread.

As far as more facts, there are several eyewitness accounts floating about that essentially confirm the story, and the pictures help illustrate it.. not to mention the thief's statement confirms the timeline of what happened.

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I said it wasn't the best way to handle it.. but given the emotions at the event and the fact that the item was of such a personal nature, and everything else surrounding the incident I certainly understand what he did and I think it was a reasonable response.. although I'm not talking about legally here.. and haven't been for the entire thread.

As far as more facts, there are several eyewitness accounts floating about that essentially confirm the story, and the pictures help illustrate it.. not to mention the thief's statement confirms the timeline of what happened.

Eyewitnesses can be biased and can't see everything. A group of men trying to pull him off of someone else can very easily look like a group of men beating up on a man. Especially if he is resisting their efforts to pull him off of the man he is on top of. Eyewitness accounts would be inconclusive at best as to EXACTLY what happened.

Pictures are snapshots of a single moment and don't explain what is going on. Pictures can't show you motivations, or even necessarily the exact order of events. It's easy to see whatever you want in a snap shot.

Timelines don't explain what is happening, but rather the series of events. As far as I can tell, no one is disputing the events that took place in-so-far as the picture was taken, the man was tackled, the crowd surrounded Carlos and pulled him off (and may or may not have been attacking him at the same time) while he tried to fight his way through the crowd.

Publius · 09-26-2007, 05:38 PM

There are plenty of more mature ways to handle the situation that would have made Carlos in the right. He chose one way which made him equally at fault. What he did was the equivalent of ramming another person's car on the freeway because that person intentionally cut you off. Unacceptable response to an idiotic action.