Son-in-law assaulted

[JesseL]

If the children of people you don't know are engaging in horseplay etc., advise them in a calm, friendly manner to be careful. Don't act nasty and yell angrily at them.

If you do it in a friendly way, you probably won't get more than a dirty look from their parents. If you act nasty, you'll probably get punched out like the OP's SIL, or perhaps even beaten worse.

You think some snotty children aren't above lying to their parents (either about the extent of their horseplay or your response), possibly in hopes of seeing their parent punch you?

 

[JWarren]

mbt2001 wrote:

Even if the idiot gets away with it, he carries in him his own torture chamber.

I really wish that were the case. But there's a very good chance that it's not.

I just turned the TV off 4 minutes ago from watching the National Geographic Documentary entitled LA Gang Wars.

There are MANY in our culture that simply do not have the programming within their character to feel remorse for anything.


-- John

 

[FCFC]

He was sitting in the bleachers with his two youngest daughters (10 and 3) watching the oldest (12) compete. Some pre-teens and younger teens were running around in the bleachers and almost knocked his 3-year-old over, and he yelled at them to be careful.

It's very clear that the incident started from something that was said by the SIL to some kids. I wonder exactly what the SIL said to whom and how he said what he said. That may be the key to the whole incident. OP didn't provide the comment(s) so it's a big missing piece of the situation.

But after all is said and done, let's face it--there was not real danger of loss of life in the incident. There might have been some real fear of severe bodily injury but even that is a stretch.

A very forceful sock in the jaw and a blow to the pride is all that happened. How big was the "big guy" who verbally confronted the SIL? How big was he compared to the SIL? Did the "big guy" hit the SIL or was it someone else? If someone else, how big was he compared to the SIL?

So, the conflict shouldn't have been handeled any other way

He did as well as he could.

What could the SIL have done better? Probably nothing.

I pretty much agree with this, given the location and circumstances. It's unclear how many guys the SIL was really up against-one, thirteen or more. Anyway, no CCW would have been available.


But, really this looks like a good example of how we do have to deal in a civil way in an uncivil world. That sucks sometimes. But, if there really is no danger of death then it probably is better to take a couple of shots to the jaw than to have gunplay and death. Especially when there are tons of children around.

Again, the key to the incident was the SIL "yell[ing]" at the kids who were apparently doing something wrong. We don't know what he actually said.

What SIL can do now is follow up with the court system and be a good witness. Hopefully, other witnesses will be able to testify too.

The CCW application is a separate question. But the OP had very wise advice about it, as others have already noted.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Yep. I grew up around these type guys.
And, I've had more than my share of run-ins with worse people than a guy who would sucker punch someone and leave him there stunned.

I think that strategically, or tactically, this case makes a good point for not raising your kids to be clingy. Don't have little kids who need to be carried everywhere. That way, if you do have some trouble, you aren't hamstrung by having a kid in one arm.
And, put your stuff in a bag. Don't tote it in your hand.

This may sound harsh, but situations like this are what wake you up out of condition white and make you start watching your environment and keep you from getting caught up in your own sphere with your kids.
People don't surround you because they want to talk. So, don't think that because he's talking that it'll be your turn when he's done.

In my view, the Son In Law got off lucky with only a sucker punch. A slightly meaner guy would not have been so lenient. Or, if the beta and gamma males had been a bit more eager, it could have turned into a stomping. A stomping with that 3 year old in the middle of it.

 

[joop]

Shouldn't the "big guy"'s friends be charged as accomplices?

 

[CrawdaddyJim]

Defensory,

The OP left out some defining information I am sure. But it can be deduced partially by his statement of "track meet" and his approximate location "Tampa". He was truly in a different society.

Urban thugs have a large chip in regards to perceived slights and insults. He may have been completely calm and non aggressive. This behaviour would have been seen as weakness to the U.T.s. And would have increased the chances of confrontation and if so immediate escalation of aggression on the U.T.'s part.

Jim

 

[JWarren]

wheelgunslinger wrote:

In my view, the Son In Law got off lucky with only a sucker punch. A slightly meaner guy would not have been so lenient. Or, if the beta and gamma males had been a bit more eager, it could have turned into a stomping. A stomping with that 3 year old in the middle of it.

VERY true.


-- John

 

[CrawdaddyJim]

Blaming the victim is incorrect. He was doing what any adult should do when presented with that situation. The thug chose to respond by escalating to physical violence.

Jim

Quote:
He was sitting in the bleachers with his two youngest daughters (10 and 3) watching the oldest (12) compete. Some pre-teens and younger teens were running around in the bleachers and almost knocked his 3-year-old over, and he yelled at them to be careful.
It's very clear that the incident started from something that was said by the SIL to some kids. I wonder exactly what the SIL said to whom and how he said what he said. That may be the key to the whole incident. OP didn't provide the comment(s) so it's a big missing piece of the situation.

But after all is said and done, let's face it--there was not real danger of loss of life in the incident. There might have been some real fear of severe bodily injury but even that is a stretch.

A very forceful sock in the jaw and a blow to the pride is all that happened. How big was the "big guy" who verbally confronted the SIL? How big was he compared to the SIL? Did the "big guy" hit the SIL or was it someone else? If someone else, how big was he compared to the SIL?

Quote:
So, the conflict shouldn't have been handeled any other way
Quote:
He did as well as he could.
Quote:
What could the SIL have done better? Probably nothing.
I pretty much agree with this, given the location and circumstances. It's unclear how many guys the SIL was really up against-two, twelve or something in between. Anyway, no CCW would have been available.


But, really this looks like a good example of how we do have to deal in a civil way in an uncivil world. That sucks sometimes. But, if there really is no danger of death then it probably is better to take a couple of shots to the jaw than to have gunplay and death. Especially when there are tons of children around.

Again, the key to the incident was the SIL "yell[ing]" at the kids who were apparently doing something wrong. We don't know what he actually said.

What SIL can do now is follow up with the court system and be a good witness. Hopefully, other witnesses will be able to testify too.

The CCW application is a separate question. But the OP had very wise advice about it, as others have already noted.

 

[KiltedClaymore]

Urban thugs have a large chip in regards to perceived slights and insults. He may have been completely calm and non aggressive. This behaviour would have been seen as weakness to the U.T.s. And would have increased the chances of confrontation and if so immediate escalation of aggression on the U.T.'s part.

thats why i said bean him with a nice big "walking stick"

 

[JesseL]

It's very clear that the incident started from something that was said by the SIL to some kids. I wonder exactly what the SIL said to whom and how he said what he said. That may be the key to the whole incident. OP didn't provide the comment(s) so it's a big missing piece of the situation.

I don't see how it's relevant. It doesn't matter what the OP said to the kids, anyone who reacts to anything some guy says to their kids with physical assault is a person with no place in civil society.

Of course it's still wise to realize that your words can draw physical consequences.

But after all is said and done, let's face it--there was not real danger of loss of life in the incident. There might have been some real fear of severe bodily injury but even that is a stretch.

Patently untrue. It's not even remotely uncommon for somebody to killed or permanently injured by a single blow to the head.

 

[FCFC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensory
If the children of people you don't know are engaging in horseplay etc., advise them in a calm, friendly manner to be careful. Don't act nasty and yell angrily at them.

If you do it in a friendly way, you probably won't get more than a dirty look from their parents. If you act nasty, you'll probably get punched out like the OP's SIL, or perhaps even beaten worse.

You think some snotty children aren't above lying to their parents (either about the extent of their horseplay or your response), possibly in hopes of seeing their parent punch you?

Do you think that a grown SIL with a swollen jaw and damaged pride is above spinning some of the details to his benefit, possibly in the hopes of getting extra sympathy?

We don't know what SIL said or how he said it.

Now that I think about it, it might have been better for SIL to identify the parent(s) of the offending kids and communicate with the parent(s) directly. Hard to tell, but most parents seem to assume their kids are in the right. So, one has to be a little delicate in letting them know they aren't. Might've been better to deal with the dad, man to man. I don't know if that was possible.

Another alternative would have been to have security deal with whatever problem the kids who were running amok, according to the SIL. Hard to say.

 

[JWarren]

Patently untrue. It's not even remotely uncommon for somebody to killed or permanently injured by a single blow to the head.

I have to agree with this. I've known more than one person that has been seriously injured in unarmed fights. A friend of mine got a detatched retina from a blow in the ring-- WITH gloves on! I've had 27 bones broken from fighting in the ring-- including 4 broken ribs from one kick, and a fractured eye socket from one jab-- both using protective gear.

And a friend of my father got his head caved in from an hit with a concealed trailer ball cupped in a hand. He was dead before he hit the ground. You really don't know what someone will bring to bear-- and you don't want them close enough to find out if you can help it.



-- John

 

[Defensory]

Posted by JesseL:
You think some snotty children aren't above lying to their parents (either about the extent of their horseplay or your response), possibly in hopes of seeing their parent punch you?

Go ahead and be a tough guy if you want. When you end up like the guy in another thread who got severely beaten up at an amusement park, don't come crying to me.

I've lived a long time, and I've found that the friendly approach always beats the nasty approach when dealing with people I don't know.

I've told kids in a nice way to behave plenty of times, and haven't had even one run and lie to his/her parents.

Even if they do lie, it's still better that you talked to them in a nice way. This incident occurred in a public place with witnesses. There will very likely be witnesses testifying at the court proceeding.

It will be much better for the victim if witnesses get up in court and are able to testify that he spoke nicely to the kids, but still got punched.

But if witnesses get up in court and testify that the victim acted nasty toward the kids, the perp's defense lawyer may be able to convince some of the people on the jury that the victim "provoked" the punch.

Whenever possible, always handle these types of situations in a calm, friendly, mature manner. Acting nasty and tough toward other people's kids might just get you a trip to the hospital.

 

[CRITGIT]

Treat enough folks like dogs............ don't be shocked when they bark.......and bite!

CRITGIT

 

[JWarren]

CRITGIT wrote:

Treat enough folks like dogs............ don't be shocked when they bark.......and bite!

CRITGIT

Ahhh... Uhm... well.... I'm not willing to go there. I'm not willing to blame the victim here.

If some kids almost knocked my kid off a bench, I'm will likely tell them to stay away if they are going to continue running around.

I don't see anything that indicates that the SIL treated anyone like a dog. And surely nothing that deserved getting hit over.


-- John

 

[wheelgunslinger]

JWarren wrote:

I have to agree with this. I've known more than one person that has been seriously injured in unarmed fights. etc

Totally agree.
Most empty hand hard style martial arts have techniques for wounding and maiming a person with a single blow to the head. Not to mention striking the nose, breaking the jaw, and blinding someone permanently. All of which can be permanently debilitating or fatal.
Toss in the televised UFC stuff, and you get more and more guys trying to use their knees and elbows in streetfights.

Even the dumbest of trailer park or ghetto thugs gets in a lucky shot form time to time, despite how resilient the body can be.

 

[rainbowbob]

FCFC wrote: It's very clear that the incident started from something that was said by the SIL...

The OP wrote: Some pre-teens and younger teens were running around in the bleachers and almost knocked his 3-year-old over, and he yelled at them to be careful.

Repremanding children causing a ruckus and nearly injuring a 3-year-old is NORMAL behavior. I can remember when a kid causing enough trouble to be repremaded by a stranger would be further repremanded (at least!) by their parent.

Reacting to such a repremand by assaulting the repremanding parent is ABNORMAL and UNACCEPTABLE behavior and should be punished by real time in a real prison.

But after all is said and done, let's face it--there was not real danger of loss of life in the incident. There might have been some real fear of severe bodily injury but even that is a stretch.

Where did you come up with that idea? A guy died last week in my town from a sucker punch. It appears his skull was fractured when he hit the pavement - but he may have been mortally injured by a punch that caved his facial bones in.

It's unclear how many guys the SIL was really up against...

...a large man and 12 or more of his friends surrounded my son-in-law...

 

[JWarren]

wheelgunslinger wrote:

Totally agree.
Most empty hand hard style martial arts have techniques for wounding and maiming a person with a single blow to the head. Not to mention striking the nose, breaking the jaw, and blinding someone permanently. All of which can be permanently debilitating or fatal.
Toss in the televised UFC stuff, and you get more and more guys trying to use their knees and elbows in streetfights.

Even the dumbest of trailer park or ghetto thugs gets in a lucky shot form time to time, despite how resilient the body can be.

And let's not forget that none of us fight anywhere as good as we think we can. And even people that think that they can take a punch (I am one of them) can get hit with the WRONG one.

I've got no illusions.


-- John

 

[CrawdaddyJim]

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensory
If the children of people you don't know are engaging in horseplay etc., advise them in a calm, friendly manner to be careful. Don't act nasty and yell angrily at them.

If you do it in a friendly way, you probably won't get more than a dirty look from their parents. If you act nasty, you'll probably get punched out like the OP's SIL, or perhaps even beaten worse.
You think some snotty children aren't above lying to their parents (either about the extent of their horseplay or your response), possibly in hopes of seeing their parent punch you?
Do you think that a grown SIL with a swollen jaw and damaged pride is above spinning some of the details to his benefit, possibly in the hopes of getting extra sympathy?

We don't know what SIL said or how he said it.

Now that I think about it, it might have been better for SIL to identify the parent(s) of the offending kids and communicate with the parent(s) directly. Hard to tell, but most parents seem to assume their kids are in the right. So, one has to be a little delicate in letting them know they aren't. Might've been better to deal with the dad, man to man. I don't know if that was possible.

Another alternative would have been to have security deal with whatever problem the kids who were running amok, according to the SIL. Hard to say.

I believe you are projecting at this point. There is no reason to think that the OP's SIL would embellish his story. The police were called and arrests made.

For the leader, this is his 17th conviction.

So his story is most likely legitimate.

Jim

 

[Defensory]

Posted by rainbowbob:
Repremanding children causing a ruckus and nearly injuring a 3-year-old is NORMAL behavior. I can remember when a kid causing enough trouble to be repremaded by a stranger would be further repremanded (at least!) by their parent.

Nobody's blaming the victim.

And don't give us that "back in the day" stuff. I can remember the 1960's well, and there were PLENTY of parents then who would get bent out of shape if they thought you even looked at their kids wrong.

Common sense, maturity, situational awareness, and life experience tells me that there's a right way and a wrong way to talk to the children of people you don't know.

You can advise somebody else's kids to be careful without yelling and being a jerk about it.

And personally, if I have a three year old kid with me in some bleachers, I'm going to be holding on to them in the first place.

 

[JesseL]

Defensory,

I agree that it's always best to handle things calmly, rationally, and politely.

I just don't think it's appropriate to blame anyone but the guy who initiated physical violence.

There are some mad dogs in the world and some of them walk on two legs. Some people will do their best to mess you up regardless of how perfectly and politely you handle the situation. Stuff like this just isn't 100% avoidable.

 

[rainbowbob]

You can advise somebody else's kids to be careful without yelling and being a jerk about it.

Well yeah...and they can ignore you too until you finally raise your voice and let 'em know you're serious. That doesn't necessarily make you a jerk.

And you're right about the "back in the day" stuff. There are parents today (my daughter being one of them) that would repremand their children properly if they had caused enough trouble for a stranger to have to raise their voice to them.

 

[roo_ster]

I long to live in a society where such ilk as you have described are dealt with in a manner appropirate to their deeds.

He got arrested and is most likely going to go to jail. Honestly, I think he got what he deserved. What did you have in mind???

Perhaps for some men in the crowd to observe what was occurring, step in to assist the guy who got punched, make sure his kids were OK, and to give the ghetto/trailer trash a beating HE would never forget.

 

[CRITGIT]

Ahhh... Uhm... well.... I'm not willing to go there. I'm not willing to blame the victim here.

If some kids almost knocked my kid off a bench, I'm will likely tell them to stay away if they are going to continue running around.

I don't see anything that indicates that the SIL treated anyone like a dog. And surely nothing that deserved getting hit over.


-- John

The point is gangs /thugs / outcasts aren't born but created and the products of exclusion.
For every action there's a reaction and a price to pay for our behaviors as a society.
We're reaping what was sewn generations ago.
Ya can't build a wall around it nor can it be eliminated with a gun.
There's a micro view of the pain of this incident but also a macro view which addresses the larger issues of cause.

CRITGIT

 

[JWarren]

CRITGIT wrote:

The point is gangs /thugs / outcasts aren't born but created and the products of exclusion.
For every action there's a reaction and a price to pay for our behaviors as a society.
We're reaping what was sewn generations ago.
Ya can't build a wall around it nor can it be eliminated with a gun.
There's a micro view of the pain of this incident but also a macro view which addresses the larger issues of cause.

CRITGIT

No offense, sir, but that is psycho-babble at its finest. Some of the worst bullies I've ever witnessed or encountered were children of privilege.


-- John