Protect your child, go to jail.

[john turner]

Don't even get me started on our Attorney General's reaction, or lack of reaction regarding this.

Any one of us would have laid this pervert out too.

Link Removed

yes, i have a daughter. and yes, i would have done the same thing, if not worse. and yes, i would have expected to be arrested for my actions in the process.

we have laws for a reason, and our actions have consequences.

 

[john turner]

More nonsense from the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Remember that in MA, self-defense is pretty much illegal. C'mon, you need a firearms license to own pepper spray in that state. I'm not surprised at all that they charged the father for protecting his kid.

they didn't charge him for protecting his kid, they charged him for assault. he did not have to hit the guy to protect his child.

 

[Bassic83]

Two words- MANUAL CASTRATION!!!

 

[Marlat]

they didn't charge him for protecting his kid, they charged him for assault. he did not have to hit the guy to protect his child.

+1

I'd imagine the police have a better idea of the facts than we do:

Police charged Beatrice with assault. Police said they empathized with the boy's father, but would have preferred if Beatrice had detained the suspect until police arrived.

"People get upset and sometimes they do things that aren't quite within the law, and that is job security for us. That is why we are there. That is why the police are there," said Raynham Police Chief Louis Pacheco.

Source: Link Removed

Rubble rubble rubble!

 

[wazzel]

they didn't charge him for protecting his kid, they charged him for assault. he did not have to hit the guy to protect his child.

He was arrested for the method in which he chose to protect his kid. This is humbug.

 

[Curtybob]

I know that reading a few articles in the paper isn't a substitute for witnessing the situation, but every written description I've read only says that he touched the kid's leg, and the newer articles say he touched the kid's calf.

I don't make it my business to take up for perverts, but just from the written articles, it sounds more like the guy needs to be evaluated and placed in assisted living than tried for child molestation and beat up.

One article says that the kid was standing on a bucket or something to use the bathroom (urinal stall). It says that the man reached under the bathroom partition and touched the kid "high on the leg". I have a hard time seeing a 71 year old dude reaching under a pisser stall and touching very high on anything standing on a bucket.

Honestly, sounds like the Beatrice fella (kid's Dad) is manipulating the media with his flyers and turning a bad situation into something much, much worse.

 

[wazzel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by john turner
they didn't charge him for protecting his kid, they charged him for assault. he did not have to hit the guy to protect his child.

+1

I'd imagine the police have a better idea of the facts than we do:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Police charged Beatrice with assault. Police said they empathized with the boy's father, but would have preferred if Beatrice had detained the suspect until police arrived.

"People get upset and sometimes they do things that aren't quite within the law, and that is job security for us. That is why we are there. That is why the police are there," said Raynham Police Chief Louis Pacheco.

Source: Link Removed

Rubble rubble rubble!

I would not be to sure on either of those points. Unless there were eye witnesses or a camera then it is a he said/he said issue. Second point is that no citizen of the US in entitled to protection by the police. The police are there to act as a general deturant.

Here is an article that has links to three SCOUS cases that back this up.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy83.html

Police are not bound to do anything for you and have no repercussions if they don't.

 

[Marlat]

I would not be to sure on either of those points. Unless there were eye witnesses or a camera then it is a he said/he said issue. Second point is that no citizen of the US in entitled to protection by the police. The police are there to act as a general deturant.

Here is an article that has links to three SCOUS cases that back this up.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy83.html

Police are not bound to do anything for you and have no repercussions if they don't.

Even so, who is the arbiter of facts in the US in a he said / she said matter?

 

[Son of Sanford]

Even so, who is the arbiter of facts in the US in a he said / she said matter?

The TalkBass Off Topic Forum.

 

[Marlat]

The TalkBass Off Topic Forum.

Rubble rubble rubble, I'm offended, rubble rubble rubble.

 

[wazzel]

The courts are the arbiter of facts. You can not count on the police to protect you or your famiy. Tthe SCOTUS says so. Seeing that the police don't have to protect you they need to allow you to protect yourself and family. Did the dad overreact? That is a matter of opinion, but when it is your kid that is being groped what are you going to do? I think the dad was well within his right to use extreem force to protect his kid.

 

[Marlat]

The courts are the arbiter of facts. You can not count on the police to protect you or your famiy. Tthe SCOTUS says so. Seeing that the police don't have to protect you they need to allow you to protect yourself and family. Did the dad overreact? That is a matter of opinion, but when it is your kid that is being groped what are you going to do? I think the dad was well within his right to use extreem force to protect his kid.

Whether or not the police will protect you is a red herring. No one is arguing that the police should have protected the child.

Based on the three online articles its sounds like the kid "had been" (note past tense) groped and was not in the process of being groped when the guy was punched. The danger to the child had subsided. It was a natural reaction for the dad, but it wasn't to protect his child from immediate danger, it was to beat the guy who groped his child up. If that is true, the courts should determine whether he should be punished or not.

I'd contrast this with a case where he walked in on a guy trying to break into his child's stall. In that case protected the child would be warranted as someone is in the process of trying to attack the child.

 

[mjolnir]

I'd have done the same. Thing is, I agree that the father got charged with assault. That's just the way our justice system works. I'll bet $10 right now that the father gets off with a slap on the wrist or less, given the mitigating factors here. Charged with a crime is one thing. Convicted of it -- or even punished, once convicted -- is another matter entirely. Let the system do its thing. The guy who took the whuppin' will get his.

I have to agree with this. Were it my child, I would probably react in exactly the same way, rough the guy up a bit, but I would also calm down and wait for the police, and I wouldn't object in the slightest if they told me I was being charged with assault. What the old guy did was wrong, but resorting to beating him senseless is wrong as well, and accepting the consequences of one's actions is the only thing one can do and still be a good role model for their kids.

 

[wazzel]

Based on the three online articles its sounds like the kid "had been" (note past tense) groped and was not in the process of being groped when the guy was punched. The danger to the child had subsided. It was a natural reaction for the dad, but it wasn't to protect his child from immediate danger, it was to beat the guy who groped his child up. If that is true, the courts should determine whether he should be punished or not.

From what I got from the artics is the "had been" was about 10 seconds before the dad punched the guy. Can you be 100% sure the guy was not going to try again?

 

[Marlat]

From what I got from the artics is the "had been" was about 10 seconds before the dad punched the guy. Can you be 100% sure the guy was not going to try again?

No, isn't that what the courts are for?

 

[wazzel]

Whether or not the police will protect you is a red herring. No one is arguing that the police should have protected the child.

Based on the three online articles its sounds like the kid "had been" (note past tense) groped and was not in the process of being groped when the guy was punched. The danger to the child had subsided. It was a natural reaction for the dad, but it wasn't to protect his child from immediate danger, it was to beat the guy who groped his child up. If that is true, the courts should determine whether he should be punished or not.

I'd contrast this with a case where he walked in on a guy trying to break into his child's stall. In that case protected the child would be warranted as someone is in the process of trying to attack the child.

It is not a red hearing. Where were the police at the time of the incident? Even if they were standing right next to the kid that are not obligated to do anything.

Would have it been better for the kids and dad just to be good victoms and then call the police after and hope that something was done.

 

[wazzel]

No, isn't that what the courts are for?

Courts are for after the fact. Are you implying the dad should have stood by and let the guy do what ever to his kid then let the couts sort it out? That's what it souds like to me.

 

[Marlat]

It is not a red hearing. Where were the police at the time of the incident? Even if they were standing right next to the kid that are not obligated to do anything.

Would have it been better for the kids and dad just to be good victoms and then call the police after and hope that something was done.

You've just repeated the same straw man argument. Who is arguing that the police should have protected the child? Can you quote them?

 

[Marlat]

Courts are for after the fact. Are you implying the dad should have stood by and let the guy do what ever to his kid then let the couts sort it out? That's what it souds like to me.

No, you're misreading my posts if you think that. My point is that the police arrived and obviously took statements and thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant a charge against both men. Maybe the father said something which incriminated himself. We don't know. The point is that its entirely possible that the father was not protecting the child, but merely taking revenge. The law does not permit you to exact revenge. It allows you to defend someone in immediate danger. It is not for us to determine whether the father beleived the child was in immediate danger, that is the job of the courts. If the police feel that a charge is warranted, it is then up to the courts to determine the facts and whether any defence is established.

 

[mjolnir]

I am sure he would get off anyway, regardless of different laws, as the jury would be pretty sympathetic to the situation, but that doesn't mean that if the DA thinks he broke the law, he shouldn't be charged. Having just anybody exacting revenge is not really in society's interests. Which is why we have a justice system.

That's not to say that I wouldn't react the same way as the father did in the sitaution. Merely that I would do so in the knowledge that it was the wrong reaction.

Courts are for after the fact. Are you implying the dad should have stood by and let the guy do what ever to his kid then let the courts sort it out? That's what it sounds like to me.

Missing a little reading, are we?...