I was going to give the Britain-is-fucked thing a rest for a few days but readers Rick and Wayne sent me another example and this one? On a personal level. These little shitstains are talking about men like my grandfather, who died so that said shitstains could someday be born. And I now completely mean it when I say that I wish he had not bothered.
The daughter of a Second World War RAF pilot who reprimanded a teenager who she accused of vandalising a war memorial has been convicted of assault.
Julie Lake, 50, believed the 15-year-old was one of a number of youths who had damaged the remembrance garden in her village dedicated to those killed fighting for Britain.
But Mrs Lake was arrested after giving a boy, whom she believed to be the ringleader, a talking-to and a ‘cuff round the ear’.
She tackled him after she saw at least one youth riding a BMX bike through freshly-laid flower beds.
…Mrs Lake claimed she was performing a ‘moral obligation’ following months of anti-social behaviour and vandalism at the memorial. But weeks later she was arrested and yesterday was convicted of assault, criminal damage and a public order offence at North Avon Magistrates Court in Yate, near Bristol.
She was found guilty of criminal damage for angrily throwing a bicycle belonging to one of the youths into the road…
The judge rejected her claim that she was trying to perform a citizen’s arrest and ordered her to pay £400 towards costs.
He said: ‘I’m sure that having seen the damage to the flower beds, you simply lost your temper. I can understand you lost it, particularly because of your family relations in the war, and it is hardly surprising that you did. You reacted spontaneously, without thought for the consequences. You confronted the child with no plan in mind. The throwing of a bike into the road shows a complete loss of self-control, not the actions of someone executing a citizen’s arrest.’
The trial – estimated to have cost taxpayers more than £100,000 – earlier heard how Mrs Lake was surrounded by up to 25 jeering youths by the memorial at the end of last year.
She told how the gang surrounded her, pushed her and shouted: ‘You can’t touch us, we’re 15, we can do what the f*** we like.’
When the 15-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was questioned in court about the war memorial, he replied: ‘It means nothing to me, I guess it’s for some people who died in the war.’
There are no words.
You know what Britain needs? It needs for maybe a few hundred or a few thousand Americans to come over there and be strategically placed around the country, and to be allowed a special dispensation to follow the laws of the U.S., including being armed. Instead of spending tax dollars funding trials for decent people like Mrs. Lake, they could use that money to supply these Americans with room and board so that all they have to do with their time is ENFORCE SOME COMMON FUCKING DECENCY.
I want to be one of these American mercenaries of decency. I would ensconce myself at that war memorial, and I promise you that if you give me just a few days, I’ll solve your problem of worthless little punks disrespecting fallen veterans. No one will get hurt that doesn’t deserve it, but I’m sure I’d be pretty busy for a while nonetheless.
A few months of being reminded what happens when decent people are armed would hopefully leave a lasting impression, and maybe before we leave, we could re-train the dozen or so Britons who still have any balls whatsoever how to take over our shitstain-removal activities.
It just might work. I don’t know what else would, because clearly, even when upstanding folks like Mrs. Lake try to do something, they get nothing except assault convictions. Britain’s become a case study in what happens when you let liberals have their way for years on end, and it is truly disgusting. People ask me why I hate liberals/liberalism. This is why.
UPDATE: Yes, maybe she had the wrong kid on that particular day and maybe all he did was ride through some flowerbeds. He’s still a punk and he’s still the one who’s quoted in the title to this post. Everyone can debate the “law” all they want, but like I keep saying, it’s not about correcting someone else’s child, it’s about the unwavering propensity of British law enforcement to punish the adults and decent people who finally have had enough shit and finally fight back.
In other words, this comment by Eric:
Some of you seemed to be ignorant of the overall situation in the UK as regularly reported by their own press, but regularly ignored in the US, except by a few blogs.
There aren’t just a few bad apples in a huge barrel of good ones — there are lots of “juveniles”, in chronological age from their pre-teens to well into their 30s, who are out of control and know that the justice system will do little to control them. The police are generally useless in dealing with them, issuing “cautions” if they even bother to show up to the crime scene and catch someone.
However, anyone who chooses to defend him- or herself is very likely to be arrested for assault, regardless of whether the person or propery is private, public, or in his or her very own house. The Labour government has successfully stamped out of the system any notion of self-defense or dealing effectively with actual criminals — the legal focus has now shifted to making sure wage-earning citizens keep their rubbish bins sorted properly, and their recylables int the proper box, and not don’t make it too heavy, and oh by the way don’t wear a hat in the pub because the surveillance camera can’t see your face. And damn you if you use an English measurement instead of a metric one. And don’t you dare say something about “Asians” even as the muslims are marching in the street calling for death to the infidels. And do like the one UK police chief advised: leave your car keys by the front door so when the thugs break it down, they can easily find them, and maybe they won’t climb the stairs to your bedroom and beat you senseless to give up the keys.
It is much easier and more lucrative to enforce laws against honest people who make money through actual jobs. Remember the old line about asking a robber why he robs banks? “Cuz that’s where the money is!” Same with the UK’s enforcement of the law — go where the money is, not where the actual crime and violence is — no profit there!
Go check out PC Copperfield at The Policeman’s Blog () and go back thru the archives. He anonymously documented the nonsense that British policing has become, became fed up with the whole stinking mess, and emigrated to become a policeman in Canada. He still maintains the blog to provide venting for other cops who want to be good cops, but are trapped in a leftwing bureaucracy, and haven’t realized they either need to revolt or flee the country.
That’s why I am with the lady who smacked the kid. He deserved smacking, and yes if it was your kid there he deserved smacking too for desecrating a memorial to the WWII Britains. Of course the little yobs are so busy desecrating the rest of the country, I suppose it doesn’t matter any more.
And Rachel, you wrote this:
“It needs for maybe a few hundred or a few thousand Americans to come over there and be strategically placed around the country,…”
No, it is too early for that. What Britain needs is a few years under the sharia administration that is coming to the UK. Let them know what it is really like to live in society that does not honor genuine western values. Perhaps they will then have their own “Anbar Awakening” and realize what they have given up. Of course, since they will long have been disarmed, they won’t be able to do a bloody thing about it. THEN — maybe — some US troops will do some good. Altho I will be hard pressed to support bailing them out again. At least during WWII the Brits gave some evidence of being worth saving, but look how that has turned out since.
Maybe “A Clockwork Orange” was prophetic…?
What you’re seeing is a society that does not have the right to bear arms in their own protection. If the citizens actually had the right to protect themselves, the society wouldn’t be so f****d up, and those thugs would have been put in their place ages ago.
I say next time we liberate or protect a country that we insist on some sort “bill of rights” for the citizens of said country that comes from the citizens, not the politicians. Something simple, resembling ours. Not that monstrosity of a constitution that the EU has.
I would’ve beat the shit outta that little punk, assault arrest be damned :P
This is happens when parents don’t raise their children properly. Like Proverbs says – “Those who spare the rod of discipline hate their children. Those who love their children care enough to discipline them.”
I love, love, love Britain, but damn they need some American machismo. SRSLY.
Devil’s advocate time.
The magistrate involved said:
I agree. One needs to remain in control of oneself when confronting wrongdoing. Crim-J majors, and subsequently, police officers, take several semesters-worth of classes and follow-up seminars to learn to maintain control. And many still can’t learn to do it.
I don’t want anybody attacking my 15-year-old son if he smarts off. I want to do that myself. In the privacy of my own home. If someone catches him misbehaving, they need to call the cops on his ass. Believe me, if he got smacked by this lady he would have smacked her back, and I would have encouraged him to defend himself. And then I would have switched his ass after I bailed him out of jail, made him perform community service and pay his own damned fine. We have laws, and I want him punished to the fullest extent of them. And then, as I said, he’d face me.
After all, you can’t hit your own child in public in America without being arrested for it, what makes you think it’s okay to hit someone else’s? I might restrain this little hooligan for the cops, but I am damn sure not going to smack him in the head. He might pull out a gun and shoot me for my trouble.
But then again, my son would never be in this situation in the first place. I raised him to understand and appreciate the sacrifices made on his behalf, but I also raised him that it is right and proper to defend himself when attacked, even by an adult.
And I note that Rachel has a geneology site in a banner ad as I type this — which brings up the point “why didn’t these kids know about the signicance of the memorial?” The reason — our schools are too busy teaching our children about sex, popular culture and feelings to teach them about history and its import.
I don’t know man.
If I trashed a war memorial at 15, and somebody smacked the shit out of me, do you know what my parents would’ve done?
They would’ve smacked the shit outta me again. Especially my old man.
So I don’t know, I guess maybe it’s different when you’ve got kids of your own, yadda yadda, but I can tell you what, my parents would NOT have had sided with me against this woman.
Edit:
Also, if I had fought back against the woman, and hit her? Yeah, that’d be a double-smacking. I’m telling you, with my parents, in that situation, there is no way I could’ve come out with any sort of honor or dignity intact. They were … unsympathetic when it came to getting in that kind of trouble.
14k,
You have a point, and so had the judge, BUT, if I were that judge, I’d have ‘sentenced’ Mrs. Lake to community service — replanting the flower beds. With plantings and court costs paid for by the shitstains’ parents!
The shitstains? Need their backsides warmed by the tender ministrations of some civic-minded veterans!
Yep. Agreed, f!
Don’t get me wrong, BoB, I am too … but it’s not for someone else to smack my kid in anger. Too much can go wrong in that sort of scenario, which might include my son getting killed for being stupid. Call the cops, PLEASE!
I mean really, BoB, if we all started randomly attacking strange kids in public for being stupid, don’t you think there’d be a lot more bodies laying around?
It’s not like he’s attacking a person. He’s attacking an object. He needs to be punished OBVIOUSLY, but no one needs to be physically damaged as a result (until later, grrrrr … I wish this was *my* kid).
And yes, I WILL tell my son to defend himself against ANYONE who physically attacks him, anytime, except for the police, because even if you’re right and the cops are wrong you just can’t win that battle.
14k,
Yes, yes, but I’m still arguing for leniency for Mrs. Lake — who shouldn’t have hit the punk, shouldn’t have thrown the bike, and “convicted of assault, criminal damage and a public order offence,” should not have been punished!
“It needs for maybe a few hundred or a few thousand Americans to come over there …”
Well, no. What it needs is what it’s getting: sinking into a liberal multi-culti quicksand. Which they are doing with a passion.
Check the recent news story about a British group (we’d call it a “think-tank” here) that advised kindergarten and nursery-school teachers to be on the lookout for children who says “yuk!” to “foreign foods” (by which we know exactly what they mean), and report it – yes, report it – as a “racist incident”.
I call it “Formerly Great Britain”. It won’t be long before they adopt sharia law. Thank God that Nelson and Churchill didn’t live to see this.
Van Helsing does a great job posting about how fucked up the left is in Britain and elsewhere at his website, .
We need a new Lend Lease program for the UK. I’ll donate my extra 12 ga. pump.
Man, I so want to get a “Mercenaries of Decency” tattoo. In an arc over a rendering of a Miss Manners book. And perhaps the words “Etiquette from Above” across the bottom.
And I’m only half kidding. Sign me up.
That sucks. Unless you can be within visual range of him at all times to intervene, I guess you’d better start an immediate, intensive crash education in the art of not behaving like an uncivilized juvenile delinquent, hadn’t you?
What good would calling a bobby have done in that situation? You’re thinking like an American.
One of the sorts of Americans who storms into schools and makes it impossible for teachers or administrators to maintain discipline, because they’re being unfair to your little Moompkins, the way I read you. One of the sorts who makes me sympathetic to teachers from time to time.
I know our hostess has a low tolerance for flamewars at this point, so I will end with the simple observation that nothing you have written, 14 Karat, makes me in the least sympathetic to you, or your hypothetical out-of-control little shitstain thug of a 15 year old “kid”.
If they were just being stupid, yeah I’d agree with you – and my parents probably would too.
But they were committing a crime. She was stopping them from committing crimes. (I’m assuming here that vandalism is still a crime in Britain. I don’t know it might not be anymore XD) But this is, I believe, the vital difference. Should she have called the cops? Sure. But it sounds like, from the story, that she wasn’t near a phone, wasn’t watching from a distance – that she saw the kids tearing through the flower garden and tackled one. She then gave them a stern talking to and cuffed one upside the head. That to me? Not assault. If she beat the crap out of one with his own bicycle – yeah. If she knocked one out – maybe. But a smack upside the head?
I’m not saying her actions should be condoned – but they should expected at the very least, and her punishment should be very light if anything at all. She shouldn’t be facing an assault conviction.
The Tories are so going to win when the next election is called. And that is going to be sooner rather than later, as confidence in the wisdom of Gordon Brown (and New Labour) is at an all-time low.
14K – “I don’t want anybody attacking my 15-year-old son if he smarts off. I want to do that myself. In the privacy of my own home. If someone catches him misbehaving, they need to call the cops on his ass.”
The problem is that this happened in England. Good luck getting the cops to respond in less than 4 hours.
You could not have misinterpreted 14 Karat’s post any more than if it had been translated into Japanese and back into English.
Good god, did you read her first comment about playing devil’s advocate?
Problem is, the “Juvies” ARE untouchable for all practical purposes. Back in the mid 80’s I personally collared a young perp who had stolen my lawnmower and was a few blocks down brazenly mowing yards for quick money(points for initiative and enterprenurship, I guess)The cop I called said thussly: “I advise not to press charges, he’ll be out of jail before I’ve filled out the paperwork and I’ve more important things to do. Sorry, in the old days I’d have taken him around back, slapped the shit out of him, put the fear of God in him, and hauled him straight to his Mother’s. If I did that now I’d get arrested–plus probably sued.”
Brave New World indeed.
14 Karat – I have to disagree with you this time, because the article says that not only she had been trying to get them to stop for over a year, she HAD called the cops and they didn’t do anything.
Oh, and BoB- as far as them being 15 is concerned, we could send other 15-year-olds over there, like my 15-year-old, who is 6’1″, 240lbs, and while he hasn’t had formal training, works out in the yard with a makeshift staff all the time.
I don’t know what it is but the action of the 15 year olds just reminds me of all my interactions with british teen boys online, and what I have heard about them from others. I’ve done some online gaming so the contact happens. And teenaged boys from Britain just come off as being completely immature. And what I mean by that is even less mature than American teenagers. Its just a complete lack of common sense and anything approaching rational thought. I mean seriously what is wrong with these little snots?
14karat said:
I mean really, BoB, if we all started randomly attacking strange kids in public for being stupid, don’t you think there’d be a lot more bodies laying around?
A trip to my local mall would look a scene from Day of the Dead.
This whole situation looks like a scene from a “Teens Gone Wild” kind of show. I can’t figure out who I feel worse for: the woman, the fact that these teens are so lacking in any sort of decency – and parents who so very much need to teach them, or England itself…
An excellent point. I’d be surprised at your stats on your kid there, but I actually knew a 15 year old who was 6’2″ and 220 pounds when I was younger.
Okay Rachel – new plan. We gather up all the Sons of Anak and Nephilim that we’re growing over here and send over an army of 15 year olds as the Mercenaries of Decency – what could the adults do? They’d be untouchable.
Gotta disagree, felicity. The law says one just can’t go around beating on kids, no matter how much they deserve it.
She paid a fine for her actions, and I personally would be glad to do so — remember what everyone was saying at the other “dumb teenager” post, about:
Hers was just a little more expensive.
I do, however, agree with your proposition that:
But I’d heve my “shitstain 15-year-old” right next to her, and he wouldn’t be sitting on his ass, because he wouldn’t be able to.
Oh, did I mention that I’d be standing over the top of him the whole time reading aloud from “Memoirs of the Second World War?”
tee hee evil mother i am….
I say: No blood, no foul. If the little shitstain didn’t have to visit the doctor, it doesn’t count as a beating XD
I did. And I can tell you that a devil’s advocate appearing on behalf of the hypothetical 15 year old shitstain in question, even one as heart-tugging and eloquent as 14 Karat, is still unlikely to get my vote for acquittal.
Did you read the linked article? Months of vandalism of a monument to the honored dead? A gang of “kids” surrounding a respectable lady? The cops showed up and arrested the respectable lady. Pah.
Heh. He’s a freakin’ monster. Then again, he was almost 11lbs when he was born, and has consistently been in the 90th-95th percentile on height and weight since. He’s already taller than my 6′, and I kept growing until I was 20. Scares the crap outta me.
Where the hell did you get that from? Do you just like randomly attacking people on forums? I can’t see anywhere in 14k’s post where that was mentioned. And over the weeks that I’ve been reading her comments, I’ve never got the impression that is how she would react. I fail to see how you can extrapolate that from a post that basically boils down to, “I’d rather you sic the cops on my kid as things can unpredictably get out of control otherwise” But whatever, you couldn’t justify your little rant without some ad hominem…
And I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. For someone who wants to avoid a flame war, you pile a lot wood on there.
I love this so much I want to marry it.
I wish my son was already 15 so he could join!
There are a few Brit-tard adults I’d like him to offer a Louisville-slugger kneecap decency reminder to on behalf of his momma …
I seriously can’t really fathom how this happened to the UK! I mean, WTF do the cops over there actually DO to control REAL crime? Why weren’t those boys be punished by the cops or their parents earlier? What did the whole rest of the community do about it for the 2 YEARS PRIOR? I do think that she went too far, but it should have NEVER have gotten to that point in the 1st place, and it certainly wasn’t assault.
Therein lies the whole problem. Society has abdicated its responsibility in developing citizens. Watch and see that it will happen here, too.
No, I don’t have a solution.
Hillerich and Bradsbury model K55. 33 inches long, stout handle, thick hard barrel, choice hickory, tight grain.
Wrap the handle in friction tape. Wrap the barrel in barbed wire.
I just had a flash back to The Untouchables, where an elevator opened to show “touchable” scrawled on the back in blood. Whoever’s in the pilot’s seat in Formerly Great Britain had better pull up hard before this occurs to less stable folk as well. If, you know, it hasn’t already.
I teach fifteen year olds. Trust me, I understand their psychology. The very best of them, the ones that have been properly trained by their parents, are only just beginning to develop a moral conscience. The majority, especially adolescent males, live in an amoral world where the only restraint comes from fear of being caught and punished. If older males do not dominate the adolescents, you create something out of Lord of the Flies. Boys are savages until they become properly socialized. It is precisely the threat of a good ass-kicking by an older man that keeps anti-social behavior in check. The swifter and more vigorous the punishment, the more likely the lesson will stick. Indulging adolescent nihilism will lead to arrested psychological and social development. These kids will grow into physical adults with boy’s brains: whiney, spoiled, demanding, and utterly selfish. They need a good taste of the lash, in public, as does the judge.
Here is where I would admit you had a small little point, I grant you, although I plead that my use of the word “hypothetical” makes clear I do not believe we are talking about 14 Karats actual child. 14 Karat, it would be nice of you to forgive me for personalizing it in that fashion, little though I deserve it, please.
My, we jump right away to the barfight language, don’t we? Well, they say everone’s a tough guy on the Internet.
Try to remember the outrageous context of the subject of the post, why don’t you, and perhaps grant me the smallest space to take on the argument of those appearing as devil’s advocates on behalf of 15 year old shitstain little thugs who vandalize war memorials. Asking the audience to conceive of the offender as their child invites one to wonder about the circumstances which led to the selfsame child knocking over monuments and tearing up flower beds and ganging up on respectable ladies, or am I being, at base, unfair?
BoB — It’s not the stern talking and the cuffing that concerns me.
It’s the escalation of these types of situations that bother me.
Now if the Brit-tards operated like their down-under brothers in …
Cheese Louise! I go for a walk to the post box, and . . .
Then I respectfully submit that you read her entirely wrong! Did you miss the bit about how she would have disciplined her ‘Moompkins’? 14k is not ‘that sort’ of parent. On the contrary, if I were her kid’s teacher, I would consider myself very fortunate indeed!
If you’ve been around here long enough to know that, you should have more insight into the character of 14k!
With the laws, courts and judges in England protecting the criminal and prosecuting the innocent, England is finished with no hope of recovery short of a bloody civil war.
It’s gone beyond completely mad.
Is anyone else wondering why we’re seeing all these “Brittain is going down the tubes” articles on the right side of the blogosphere all of a sudden?
Big group of volunteers, American or British, casted in the mold of . Free shotguns for all said volunteers loaded with rock salt (unlimited refills). Repeat as necessary.
I read her character as defending a hypothetical 15 year old juvenile delinquent who defaced public monuments as if it were her actual child. I don’t think that is her character, but I took it as read. “Devil’s advocate”, and all that.
Other commenters above have pointed out some characteristics of 15 year old adolescent males that are useful to keep in mind during this discussion. I pointed out, in the real life example of the article, that it was the upstanding citizen who ended up getting arrested, and so I can tell you that the plea to call the cops is at best of limited value in the matter being discussed. I’ve already asked 14 Karat to forgive me, and I hope she does, I do seem to have personalized it a bit. I don’t require forgiveness from anyone else.
14k, You said to think of the bodies laying around if we went around attacking 15year olds; but stop and think about it. Those little shitstains are NEVER going to grow up, at least mentally; and one fine day, they are going to take that one last step over the line, and some nasty, unenlightened, unsympathetic old fart is going to plant a couple of 240grain hollow points in his (or her) chest or head – thereby saving society untold amounts of frustration, time wasted on “rehabilitation”, and money. And when it happens, the poor, misunderstood little shitstain’s last thought will be “I gots my rights”.
I don’t mean to say that her actions shouldn’t be examined before the law. (Remember the discussion about how best to deal with the Phelpsians?) But, under the circumstances, in her case, the punishment was way out of line.
I agree that she has to be willing to accept consequences of actions — how else do you set an example for kids?? — but I still think the judge should have worked out a way to avoid making her pay even her court costs.
If I were a Brit, I’d try to set up a legal defense fund for people like her!
Ok, you got me there (although I remember it as Telephone Toughguy). That last bit on my part was a bit unnecessary. I do tend to pull the trigger quickly, but it appeared to me an attack on 14K using pejorative and emotive language. And it seemed a bit unfair given her posting history here.
I do understand what you are saying, and you do have a point. I disagree with how you made that point. I also think you were mischaracterizing what 14K was saying, but I suppose she can fight her own battles if she thinks it important enough.
My personal theory is the whirlpool effect is happening in Britain.
The closer to the drain it gets, the faster it becomes. And honestly, Britain is getting really close to the drain.
Hey, 14 Karat, I have four kids and if anyone caught them committing a crime and cuffed them on the head, that is exactly what I would expect her to do.
How stupid are we, that we expect our parents to parent and everyone else to leave them entirely alone? In my neighborhood, there are eyes on everyone’s kids. I’ve had other moms report to me that they yelled at my kids for acting improperly, and I thank them and reinforce it.
At baseball games, when things get out of hand at the playground with the younger kids I tell the kids to settle down. One kid snottily said to me: “I”m not your kid!”
“I’m not your mom, but I’m A mom,” I said. “Now settle down or I will march you over to your mom and we will have words.”
He settled right down. I don’t expect this in Britain, which has descended into savagery, but I certainly expect all adults to behave this way in America whether or not you have kids.
And if a kid is committing a crime, they deserve a cuff on the head from a little old lady.
Phil, spoken like a gentleman.
I’ll leave now, because if I’m at a party and I begin to wonder if I’m not giving the impression of being an asshole, why, maybe I am.
Well, you may not, but I do! I hastily responded to your earlier post without noting the more recent one.
You did misread, but if you and she have sorted it out, then I needn’t have piled on!
I think ‘tubes’ may be the operative word — the 7th was the third anniversary of the London Tube bombing. All this stupid stuff has been ongoing, but the anniversary has perhaps called greater attention to it?
The behavior of the 15 year olds in only tangential to the issue. There will always be bad 15 year old boys in every society. That’s what 15 year old boys are (some of the time) and there’s no getting around it. Likewise regarding their ignorance of what happened in their country starting 70 years ago. That is so remote from their experience, that it will ever be rare for such boys to really understand it.
The news article is far from clear about the events that occurred, mish mashing background with the event in question.
It would seem that she did indeed commit an assault on a 15 year old in the absence of a threat. I’m sorry folks, but you can’t do that in this country, either. You can’t use force to protect property that is not your own in most states of the union, either, and this is especially true of public property and doubly true with minors.
So, from what was reported, it’s cut and dried that she was guilty in the specific act she was charged with.
But this is where prosecutorial discretion comes into play. I don’t think any US prosecutor would take this to court in these circumstances. The kid wasn’t hurt, he deserved much worse than he got, and the lady was frazzled. If she kept doing it in the absence of a threat, then sure, that’s a different story.
If the prosecutor is elected he or she should know that failing to prosecute the boys for vandalism and the police chief for safeguarding the property would be big issues in their next election.
Sorry Skylar, I must disagree.
This is a direct cause and effect relationship. We can’t take this attitude of “oh bother, boys will be boys..” In my eyes the boy is guilty of public defacement of a landmark and Mrs Lake was doing her duty to stop him. Throwing the bike in the road might have been a bit extreme, and she should have to pony up to pay for a new bike if it was damaged. Teach the boy early to respect the rule of law. End of story.
14K, I’m with you. You don’t smack somebody else’s kid. Period. Holler at them. Deny them privileges if they’re your guests. Depending on the situation, MAYBE grab them by their arm to drag them to their mother or father for proper immediate discipline. But smack them? Nope. That is indeed assault.
The problem here is that the British courts and police seem to have ample time to deal with reasonable, normal, sane people who understandably lost their temper, but no time to deal with ungovernable youth who have been reared wrong perhaps from the day they were born.
Barney Fife was right. When it comes to young delinquents, you’ve got to “nip it in the bud.” The time to intervene, either by parents or society in general, is at the earliest signs of narcissism and a belief in their untouchability. By the time they’re 15, they’re so far down the wrong path (and have grown so physically large) that only massive amounts of severe course correction are likely to make a difference.
Interesting, though, to watch the conservatives here supporting the right of unrelated adults to physically assault a minor as punishment for vandalism. They’re (likely unintentionally) echoing Hillary Clinton: It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.
Although I have never read a page of that book, much less likely have ever even seen its cover, I kind of doubt the idea to smack some unruly vandal upside the head even if he’s not your kid, is in Hillary’s book.
And I believe the title is merely It Takes a Village. The full phrase existed before she decided to use it for her book.
Do we get to pistol whip the ever loving shit out of the British police in the process?
You say that now, but when someone has to pay the hospital bill for your injured child, I’m not sure I would be able to keep myself from suing. And I am most definitely not litigous. And God forbid if this “little old lady” was packing or forgot her happy pill that day.
Defacing a public monument is a crime. So is smacking my kid. I don’t advocate doing either. And I am not defending the child, and you damn well know that. You were being an asshole, and that was in your character, at the time. You are forgiven for rude behavior emanating from an impassioned argument, Mr. James.
Yes, I read the article.
EDIT: Just in this century:
My great uncle gave his life in WWII.
My father would have been better off if he had died in Vietnam.
My brother-in-law is in Iraq.
They believe(d) in democracy.
Our law says you can’t smack a 15-year-old.
If you don’t like the law, change the law, or leave the country.
Until that time, expect to be punished for smacking 15-year-olds.
Tee, hee. I’z a bad conservative : )
I’m a libertarian, and I wholeheartedly agree with what the woman did. I have relatives who fought in every war the U.S. has been in. If I were in her position, the punk’s face would be like a Dali painting by the time I was done with him.
I have ancestors who fought in the Revolution.
I have ancestors who fought in the War of 1812.
I have ancestors who fought for both sides in the Civil War.
I have relatives who fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
All of them would say that you’re an ass for goosesteppingly obeying an ass of a law whose sole function in this instance is to protect vandals and facilitate dischord in the community.
Do what’s right and good for your neighbors, not just whatever the law says.
14 karat said:
Ditto!
So you advocate anarchy? WTF are you suggesting that I do? I SAID prosecute my kid to the fullest extent of the law. I also said keep your fucking hands off my child, and I will beat his ass myself.
I am most certainly not an ass. Who are you to call me such names? I have not called you any names for suggesting it is okay to implement martial law because someone defaced a monument!
And where the hell do you live that it’s “right and good for your neighbors” to smack up up on someone else’s 15-year-old in public for making a mess? Compton? Yeah, go do that, sir, and enjoy your death-by-glock.
I volunteer my 15 year old sister for the Mercenaries of Decency. She’s built, plays softball and swings a mean bat, and she’s seen our brother do two tours in Iraq and would willingly beat the smack out of someone her own age for disrespecting soldiers. And our brother could stand in the background, in uniform and looking menacing, and none of these punks would dare to lay a hand on her.
I think she’d love a trip to England!
Why spend anything on room and board? These guys are Brits! Let’s quarter our soldiers in their houses, without the consent of their owners in time of (relative) peace, in a manner not prescribed by law. It’s about time we got them back for that one.
Actually, I’ve been wondering why they have only been seen on the right. But not wondering very much.
Phil, you are a gentlemen and a scholar. I know you now, and you have my permission to beat the hell out of my 15-year-old if he enters your yard and pisses in your cornflakes.
Thanks so much.
Your logic and reason are much appreciated. A cool and level head needs to prevail, particularly where crimes are concerned.
Mrs. Lake admits she lost her temper. You just can’t do that when dealing with children. That is the most common excuse for abuse and domestic violence and just plain old crimes of passion.
Aside from the “smack my kid and I’ll get you, bub” argument (which for most Rachel fans is moot because we’re of the “if my kid needed a smack that bad, good on ya”) — we have got to find that old woman’s info and get her a paypal account.
Because I’d like to toss some cash her way to defray expenses. And to put some pretty little caltrops in the garden.
Hooray for you. Now pay your fine, do your sentence, enjoy your lawsuit and move on to the next punk, cuz’ you’re making such a statement and societal difference beating up other people’s kids for vandalism. If it really means that much to you to engage in this practice, you won’t mind paying the societal price for doing so.
Baxtrice, you misunderstood me. I meant that the behavior of these boys, by itself, is not something we should condemn a nation for. The boys should certainly be condemned. But this happens in all nations from time to time. It’s the nation’s reaction to their behavior that is important, not the existence of the behavior itself that is an indicator of a nation’s character.
Personally, I don’t think throwing a bike in the road is extreme at all. I think hitting a child is a bit much — in the absence of a threat. In either case, I would hope that discretion would stop any prosecution in this case, and if not, a much more lenient sentence should be handed out.
All right, 14K, I have to ask, what SHOULD be done in the face of law enforcement refusing to do anything about the issue?
By the way, please realize that, “Grab them by the arm and take them to their parents”, as PatHMV said, wasn’t going to happen here. Even if she had any idea who the parents were (I’m sure the kid would have refused to tell her), before she got any reasonable distance, she would have been surrounded again, and have no chance to continue. On top of that, based on the other stories we’ve seen lately, she would have STILL been prosecuted, just for holding the little creep by the arm.
Gettin kinda warm in here. (taking a deep breath)
Excellent Friday discussion.
I think Mrs. Lake was remarkably restrained in just throwing the bike, considering her astounding LACK of options to deal otherwise.
The Mercenaries of Decency™ might just be the best idea.
Might have to get the tattoo myself.
What is with the freakin’ cops in Britain, though? Can’t arrest the wild kids destroying the town, but they’ll still arrest the decent lady who lost control for a bit but didn’t hurt anything but a bicycle owned by a 2-bit punk? They ought to have told the punk if he really wanted to press charges against the lady for assault, they’d have no choice but to investigate the entire incident and file charges on the vandalism and threats of violence, too.
I can’t say. I’m not from Britian.
I also can’t say the measures that were taken to curb the vandalism were proactively adequate or not, since the article doesn’t specify. One or two calls, or an outright urban letter-writing and protest assault on the local cop shop? Doesn’t really matter, violence just isn’t justified.
My old neighborhood was right next to a school and the local drug-sales park (this was before I moved to the country, and now my nearest neighbor is 1/2 mile away). We had an active neighborhood watch to keep things protected, and teens earned community service hours toward school-related projects for being involved. When I (or neighbors) called the cops, we damn well kept calling until we got a response or else we camped out at city hall.
Again, I’m rural. I know mostly everyone in a 50 mile radius, and my kids know they’d GET a beatdown from some adult they know for misbehaving — because I have given all my adult friends permission to spank them if needed. Anyone they didn’t know would not touch them, but would be on the phone with me before the dust settled on their bullshittery.
It’s never been needed. People tell me my kids are the most polite they’ve ever met. (I don’t get to see that — they are always ARGUING when I’m around — swear to god they save it for me.)
IN CONCLUSION:
Do I want to take a baseball bat to these fuckers? YES.
Can I do so without being arrested? NO.
Would I confront them verbally? YES.
Would I lay my hands on them (strangers)? NO.
Would I lay my hands on them (children of friends)? YES.
Do I want a stranger laying hands on my kids? FUCK NO NOT FOR ANY REASON!!!
Would I pay the fine if I couldn’t restrain myself? CHEERFULLY.
Why then do I restrain myself? PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
And why is that? MORALS, VALUES, DECENCY, COMMON SENSE, LOVE OF COUNTRY, AND ORDER.
Do I want to see that returned to society? FUCK YEAH!
Do I think violence is the way to get there? FUCK NO!
Do I have the home number of the county sheriff, commissioners and district court judge on speed-dial? YES.
Why, you ask? I took the time to become politically active, campaigning for these people and getting to know my community. Quid pro quo.
There it is, people.
First of all, I didn’t call you a name. You brought out your family members in the military as some sort of weak trump card about democracy. I have a number of relatives who fought to liberate this country from the British Empire, and that tradition has gone through to the conflict in Iraq. Not a single one of them, that I know, would fault this woman for her actions.
Anarchy? You want to talk anarchy? Look at what the police did. That’s anarchy. You have a community straight out of Clockwork Orange, and all the mealy mouthed cunts in the local police force can do is muster up the gumption to bust a pensioner. That’s why people like me are more likely to get the idea to beat the tar out of the punk, so badly that he pavlovianly stands at attention whenever he comes within eye sight of a war memorial, rather than calmly call the police.
In case you haven’t noticed, the police in Britain frequently ignore people until they’ve reached their wits’ ends and take matter into their own hands. Then they bust them for doing that. THAT is your breeding ground for anarchy, not a civic minded citizen slapping around a yob when she knows that the police aren’t going to give a rodent’s posterior about anything he does to a war memorial.
What else was Mrs. Lake to have done? Well, how about recruit some neighbors to maintain a vigil to protect the monument? How about exercise some political pressure to embarrass the police into taking some action. Vocally demand a change in the law, if the law is the problem, try to change the law. Take pictures of the children, find the parents, and shame the parents into taking action.
Resorting to personal violence in this situation is NOT the first step in regaining civilization, it is a renunciation of the tools of civilization and a sinking to the level of those who are in the process of trying to destroy civilization. These youth will not gain more respect for the law as a result of her flouting the law. To the contrary, as a result of this, those little shits probably feel even MORE untouchable as a result of her actions than they did before.
I’m a southerner. In most parts of the South, if a teen punk got his ass tore up for damaging or destroying a war memorial, the police would be more inclined to hand a nightstick to the person doing the beating than to take them to the station.
The bad neighborhoods in the U.S. which have been saved are NOT those in which the good citizens declare open season on the drug dealers and thugs and start shooting them. No, they organize themselves and take non-violent actions (resorting to violence for self-defense, of course) to bring change. I know one neighborhood that got tired of the white middle class folks coming to the “hood” to buy drugs, so they started taking pictures of the white folks, got their license plate numbers, and sent letters to their houses asking them not to come to the neighborhood any more. One neighborhood got tired of the prostitutes in their midst, so they started taking photos of the johns and posting them in public places. Dried up the customers real fast, and got the police to get much more involved.
MikeT… I’m from the South, too. And in those areas you describe, the police tend to let the rich and powerful do as they please and enforce the laws only on the poor, black, or otherwise politically powerless. “Rough justice” has its occasional uses, but on the whole, I’d much rather the cops just did their job like they’re supposed to. If the cops had bothered doing anything about the vandalism and threatening behavior beforehand, then Mrs. Lake would never have reached the point she did.
Ouch! Fun to watch the effect on the little turds’ tires, but probably prosecutable :).
Haha! Do we have the same kids? Your services are badly needed on the next thread, don’cha know!
Thank you!
It’s funny – I volunteer with a teenage boy, and my brother is 15 year younger than I, so I’ve had some experience with this age group. My brother’s friends and my “volunteeree” are not always what you would consider to be the promise of a bright future. I can see some of them defacing a monument like that. And when my brother’s friends were in my mom’s home and some of them were less than respectful, I found that the best way to handle them was to verbally humiliate them. In other words, act like a common animal and expect me to treat you like one. Act like a decent human being and find out how absolutely fabulous I can be.
I can’t say that I know the answer to Mrs. Lake’s problem – I can say that I would have no issue locating parents, contacting newspapers, writing editorial letters, writing schools, etc.
It’s a valuable lesson to learn to realize you can hit someone without ever laying a hand on them.
I agree that in a society like the US this makes sense. However, you and 14 Karat are simply not looking close enough at how rotten the British state has become. It is actively siding with its criminal class against law-abiding citizens.
Let’s bold that last point:
The reason that none of the “civil” means of reducing crime are working is that the British government flouts the pleas for help from its law-abiding citizens. Very few governments in the United States are as wanton in that regard as the British municipal governments. They culturally have to at least put up a good show of caring about the safety and well-being of their residents.
You said that the yobs feel more empowered because of her violence? You’re wrong. They’re empowered by the fact that the police never came when these thugs terrorized and terrorized the community, and then only came to save the day for the yobs when a pensioner finally had enough and slapped around a yob who was desecrating a very important public memorial.
One of the reasons why I would never have to realistically think about beating someone in the U.S. for desecrating a war memorial like that is that it would never be tolerated. Not by the police, not by the prosecutor, not by the eye-witnesses. First call to the police, a cop would be out there throwing the punk to the ground and hand-cuffing him.
We saw how well that worked in this story.
Reactions like this are precisely why Britain is falling apart. I don’t know what the answer is either, per se, but I recognize that none of the usual civil responses seem to work in Britain anymore. Stories like this one, where the police swoop in to save the criminals are all too common from Britain now.
The fact is that the yobs and their parents could care less what you write or say about them. The police will probably find an excuse to retaliate for making them look bad.
I think the only thing that would, were it still possible, be able to save Britain is a revolution.
Rachel, I’d be happy to let you billet at my house.
Upside: I love dogs so you could bring Sunny and Maggie along, and I know a really cheap way of calling people in the US.
Downside: You’d probably waste half of your ammo on shooting at my socks. They’re so bad, they’ve achieved a kind of malevolent sentience.
Seriously, I once considered joining the police force, but there’s absolutely no way that I’d consider it now, with a lot of them more concerned with meeting targets and ticking boxes than actual, you know…policing.
I might still do it as a Special Constable for a while before I move to the US – it’s voluntary, you don’t get paid, and you only have to do it for a minimum of 4 hours a week. So if I make a mountain of paperwork by arresting genuine thugs rather than easy targets like generally law-abiding citizens who’ve been pushed to their limits, then so what?
What are they going to do? Fire me?
No, I most certainly did NOT do that, and my family has sacrificed more than you deserve to know for this country. That statment is beyond insulting, and you absolutely know that.
I said this:
You said this:
Hedge your bets and “you” say that “they” think I’m an ass. No, they don’t. They might not agree with the law, but they damn sure were fighting for the political entity and the couuntry that created that law.
Screw you. You climbed my shit without even having the first clue what I’m about. I most certainly didn’t do that to you. I did not personalize this argument until you “cleverly” called me an ass.
Why don’t you crawl back into the hole from whence you originate.
The following is a true story. We were one minute into first period on the first day of school. I was taking the roll and only as far as last names beginning with B.
Me: “Bourne.”
Kid: “Present.”
Me: “Josh, sit up straight, please.
Kid: “No.”
Me: “I beg your pardon? Sit up straight when I tell you.”
Kid: “I don’t wanna.”
At which point I lashed out with a booted snapkick to the back of his thigh.
Kid: “Owwwwwwwww!”
Me: “The rest of you sit up straight.” (Instant compliance)
Kid from the back row: “Whoah! Paules is taking no prisoners this year.”
You will not find my technique in any teaching manual. And, no, I wasn’t worried about getting sued because I knew the kid’s father. Here’s the point: When dealing with adolescent males, the reaction to insubordination must be swift. They need to be disabused of the idea that they are somehow out of reach. By taking decisive action the first time I was challenged, I put that entire class on notice. I did not write a discipline referal all year.
What I did is not child abuse; it’s good psychology. I gave him two chances to comply and spoke to him politely. Then I gave him a lesson in discipline that he understood. The issue is compliance. The very worst thing a teacher can do is negotiate, bribe, or cajole. “You know if I can’t get your cooperation, we’re going to have to put you on a behavioural contract.” Noooo! Such techniques only give a kid more chances to break the rules. Because all he’s thinking is “how much more can I get away with?” I reinterate my earlier point; adolescent males are savages. If you want to be successful in the classroom, or anywhere else for that matter, keep it in mind. Act accordingly.
If I’d have pulled a stunt like that as a kid, the first thing my parents would have had to do is take me to the oral surgeon to repair the damage done by my friends in the stomping it would have earned me.
The second thing done would be to take me down to civil court to pick a new name, because I’d sure as hell not be a member of the family anymore.
My folks put up with a shit load of crap from me as a kid. But there were lines I knew not to cross.
I just have to say:
The fact that the “victims” in this case were “children” never even entered into my feelings about it. I have a really hard time seeing 15-year-old criminal boys as “children.”
So my wish to smack them around has absolutely NOTHING to do with trying to raise somebody else’s kids. In my mind, it is 100% about preventing anybody – 15 years old or not – from abusing a war memorial.
Also I think it’s important to note the parts of the article that say many, many people have been complaining about these “children” for many, many years, and nothing has been done about it.
Also the part where the woman was surrounded by a group of them and taunted. I’m sure she felt threatened in that situation. She was not acting with no provocation.
I just don’t see this at all the way some of you do; it’s nothing at all about correcting “someone else’s child.” It’s about preventing a crime, with force if necessary. She didn’t go to the kid’s house and punch him and trash his bike; she did it at the very site of HIS crime. Do you see where I’m coming from with this?
14k, I fully understand your devil’s advocate position and I love you to complete shreds, but I just want you to know that the fact that these little punks are someone’s children never entered into my mind.
And even if it did, my general theory about this kind of thing is that if a parent has so utterly failed to teach their child the most basic decency and respect for others, then that parent has forfeited his or her right to be indignant if someone else punches that kid in the nuts.
I know in my soul that no one will ever feel a justified need to punch any of your kids in the nuts, because you are raising your kids right. Other parents, not so much. And I really do believe that those particular parents can shove it right up their ass if they want to be mad that someone out in the world decides not to put up with the shit that their stinky kids are dishing out.
And one last thing, the rage I have about this whole issue has very little to do with how British people are raising their children. It is about the police and court systems over there so blatantly and wantonly pandering to the idea that no one has a right to defend themselves or, in this case, sacred property. It’s about how the cops do NOTHING about the original perpetrators of these conflicts and over and over again, only go after the pensioners who have finally had enough.
It makes me sick.
Paules… I’ve got no problem with your approach, but it’s a very different thing than what Mrs. Lakes did. You were in a position of authority over the children, you were in a controlled environment, and you were fully in control of your temper, inflicting a physical sensation on the kid strictly in order to reinforce a lesson. None of that was the case in the situation under discussion.
MikeT. You’re absolutely right about the problem with British society as a whole. Which is PRECISELY why your course of action (vigilantism) is exactly the wrong approach. The nasty little shits of teenagers doing as they please is a symptom. By not undertaking the actions I describe, Mrs. Lake is letting those most responsible for the problem (the misguided cops, the idiot politicians, etc.) off the hook. Even if she weren’t arrested for assaulting the kid, would that actually have deterred the gang of kids growing up in an environment like exists in England in those areas today? Of course not. What needs to change is the rest of the society and culture. Fix that, and the kids will come along quickly. By targeting the kids alone, nothing will be done about the larger problem.
Skylar,
I’m not going to condemn Great Britain for a gang of idiotic 15 year olds, I think the assault charge might be a bit “fancied” especially since the article says Mrs Lake tackled the boy and “scruffed” him. While I’m not sure what that means in British slang, it’s probably just a slap or a tug on the ear, I seriously doubt whatever she did was anything damaging to a 15 year old boy who “don’t give a f*ck”. The details are sketchy on what exactly a “scruff” is. I don’t condone violence, and I don’t think she intended to do violence, she lost her temper and smacked him the way most parents would smack their children on the bottom or up side the head. (That’s how my parents corrected my sister and I. It wasn’t abuse or violence or assault.) I understand 14 Karat’s devil’s advocate point but I also grew up in a small town where if my neighbor caught me misbehaving, I would catch hell from her AND my parents. Besides, who knows if the 15 year old is lying through his teeth? (I don’t trust anyone under 25)
It was best left up to the magistrate, but arrest? Nah, fine, community service, or fixing a bike. Not arrest.
(oh please don’t think I am trying to be mean or start a flame war.)
Rachel… take a look at the article again. The surrounding her and being threatening appears to me to have occurred at a different time than when she assaulted the kid. That taunting (and I agree, very threatening) scenario happened “last year,” according to the section you quoted. It’s not entirely clear, but the impression I got was very much that the 25-person threatening session was an entirely different incident (and my bet is that it took place after the incident for which she was convicted, as part of retaliation, making it all the more shameful that the police have done nothing to the little shits). So it wasn’t self-defense.
Secondly, here’s the description given of the incident itself: “She tackled him after she saw at least one youth riding a BMX bike through freshly-laid flower beds.”
Note that it does not say she tackled him after she saw HIM riding the bike through the flower beds. It also says she “believed” the boy to be the ring-leader. Nowhere does it say that she had just observed him vandalizing the flowers, nor does it even clearly say that he was actually with the kids she did see in the act of vandalism.
Now I grant you that the article is sadly lacking in details of what she did. It uses the word “tackled,” but I rather doubt the woman pictured actually did a dive-tackle of a 15 year old on a bike (by the way, what kind of self-respecting 15-year-old would admit that he couldn’t get away from an “old lady” like that?). The next line says that he hollered “that’s assault” when she grabbed him by the collar. If all she did was grab him by the collar, then I would agree that that doesn’t constitute battery under these circumstances.
14K, what say you? If all she did was grab the kid by the collar, maybe as he was riding by on the bike, is that ok with you? I’m leaning yes, along the lines of my “grabbing by the arm to take home to mama” scenario I described earlier. Personally, I’ve got no problem with what she did to the bike. If it turns out she got the wrong kid, I’m sure she would have happily paid for a new bike. I draw a big line between violence to a person and just property damage.
So on the one hand, if she really did violence to the kid, based on the article’s apparent conclusion that she had no reason to be certain that this kid had just committed any vandalism, then I stand by my opinion that she’s in the wrong on that. But on the other hand, if all she did was grab the guy by the collar (she was acquited of punching a kid in the stomach) and destroy his bike, then I would switch my vote to not guilty.
But even if she was in the right, she should have been finding some way much earlier to get the community involved to stop this before it got out of hand… because as Rachel points out, the real problem IS the idiotic attitude of the cops and courts, and unleashing wrath on one stupid kid ain’t gonna fix THAT problem.
That’s all well and good, until you reach the point where the police are flat out not doing their job with these punks. What is she supposed to do, “hold the police responsible” by letting her and her community by systematically victimized?
I know you mean well, but this is the simple, hard truth. Her act of violence isn’t the sort of thing that’s damaging Britain. The unwillingness of the British government to enforce the law consistently, and its bleeding heart love of the criminal class is the issue.
You seem to have an unending confidence in the use of the power of persuasion to get things done there. I don’t agree with that. I think things have deteriorated to the point where violence may be necessary to save what’s left of the civilization there from both the criminals and their friends in the government.
It doesn’t do anyone good to pretend that if they just write enough letters, make enough phone calls and vote hard enough that this will change. Britain’s government needs an enema, or worse, and I doubt that that will come about peacefully.
I think it should goes further than prosecutorial discretion. I feel the situation calls for salutary neglect. The woman shouldn’t be prosecuted at all. This reinforces the belief already held that idiotic teenagers can act with impunity and efforts to restrain than will be punished. The opposite needs to be projected. An example should be made of huligens like these to discourage their rampant assault on civilized society. Britian should get back in touch with an old practice they once pioneered… CANNING!
And for those who think I’m being a fascist for suggesting bending the rules a little, tell that to Thomas Jefferson:
MikeT…. how has violence in this instance helped anything? SHE was arrested. The kids weren’t. Are they more or less likely to be arrogant and believe themselves to be untouchable? Are they more or less likely in the future to taunt somebody along the lines of “we’re 15, you can’t fucking touch us”? I suspect that their belief in their untouchability will be strongly enhanced by the fact that she got arrested and they didn’t. And I doubt she hit any of them hard enough that they’ll be scared of her or someone like her in the future.
How many people were motivated to start turning Britain back into a civilized nation again by her actions? Not many, I suspect.
Democracy is more than just “writing letters.” Yes, the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered with the blood of tyrants, but the government here is not tyrannical. The problem is a LACK of government action. And government does respond to political pressure and persuasion. Not even TRYING is itself an act of giving up and succumbing to lawlessness… exactly what you claim is the problem in England.
Put them into hot baths and hermatically seal them in jars?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Just funning you, Roguepolymath, because you have an extra “N” in the word “caning”!
Agreed, RL, but that unfortunately does not change the law, and your ass is STILL grass, as unfair as that absolutely is. Punch away, but be prepared to pay the price for doing so, and whether or not the parent has the right to be indignant won’t matter because your car and house (oh yeah, and probably even your heffa-lumps) will be just as pmned by the parents of the poor little bastard you belted.
The question you should be asking yourself is what kind of society is largely unmotivated in the face of the crime that is starting to plague Britain these past several years since their gun ban. If anything is going to get people desperate enough to demand change, it’s going to be seeing people like this woman beaten down by a pro-criminal government. That’s when people may have to stop ignoring the fact that their peaceful methods have failed to give them a government that works for them. If people like this woman just take it on the chin everytime, they can maintain the illusion that the government is still on their side, and not a hostile, parasitic organization that is aiding those destroying their country.
Rachel, I think you misread the very poorly written article. The woman was not being threatened at that time.
She has no right to defend public property, and that is consistent with US law as well. In the US, but not in Britain, she would be able to defend her own property but in almost every US jurisdiction she could not defend someone else’s property or public property.
Baxtrice, not even in ANY jurisdiction in the US can you assault a minor who is not threatening you. The article is poorly written, but I think the only conclusion we can come to is that she sought him out to attack him, and she was not being attacked.
Now, emotionally, it’s very satisfying to see a punk get an ass whipping, but the woman was clearly in the legal wrong. Moral wrong is another issue and that’s why she should not have been prosecuted once the background was learned.
We aren’t told if anyone was prosecuted for vandalism, if they were then that would ruin the gist of the story and Brit papers are very high on sensationalism.
You only pay the price if you get caught. That’s why no one in their right mind would take matters into their own hands around witnesses if they can avoid it.
Best typo evar! Tinned yob — nomnomnom!
But 14k,
“Canning” aside, his argument was very well put. The Jefferson quote could not have been more apropos — as good an argument as any in favor of the legal system’s looking the other way in the case of this particular adult.
(Which, I think, cuts to the heart of the matter — whereas many are specifically addressing this case, wherein the adult in question looks awfully justified, and the judge and police just plain foolish, I think you’re arguing general principles which, while valid, I argue should not be applied in this particular case.)
Will you not address it?
Quoth the lawyer:
‘I don’t feel that common sense has prevailed and that the protagonists who are responsible for the damage have yet to be questioned about their conduct.’
So, yes we are, and no, they aren’t!
Now, I would call that a gross exaggeration. To accost? Yes. To attack? Hardly!
In that, we are in total agreement!
Are you asking me morally or legally, PatHMV?
It’s clear where I stand morally on this issue regarding “my” kids. If I don’t know you, don’t touch them no matter what they are doing. Some of you here know why this philosophy goes against my conservative nature. Don’t ask me to explain. Even if my short man is being a total fucktard (which 15-year-old boys are wont to do no matter how well raised they have been), unless he is physically assaulting you or someone else, DO NOT touch him. Period.
Aa for the legal aspect, depending upon where you live, assault can be almost as trivial as farting in someone’s general direction. I got arrested for assault when I was in college for hawking back a snot rocket and blasting it into the face of some prick who groped me. I was charged with “fourth degree assault.” He wasn’t charged at all, because we were at a bar and I was asking for it.
Morally and legally, I just think what she did was a bad idea. While I applaud her willingness to take action, I don’t agree with her method — she put herself in a situation where she was compelled to use violence, and that’s never a good idea.
Now would I want you as a friend and neighbor to pluck my little squirming turd off his bike and kick his ass for being one, hell yeah! Give me a call, let me know he’s needing some home training, and let him have it!
Hell yeah! Publicly flog my precious little Moompkins in a public forum in a controlled environment … I’ll take the first whack!
If that’s the law of the land, I would most cheerfully tie his ass to the whipping post. I’ll get out the old Suburban and gather all his little fucktard buddies and make them watch as a deterrant!
Careful, felicity. That “pick and choose to whom the law applies” can really be a slippery slope.
Cops handing nightsticks to people beating on a kid who was involved in vandalism? You’ve got to be fucking kidding. That’s just wrong, and that’s why the south has a reputation for being backward.
I’m reminded of a couple of recent threads — the Phelpsians and the asshatted, flag stomping ‘artists.’
In both cases, veterans were being subjected to disrespect, and the reaction here was one of fury.
The veterans in England deserve no less sentiment, and that’s what prompted Mrs. Lake — after literally years without any help or cooperation from the police — not even now!
But the picking and choosing is happening there already — in the exact opposite of any reasonable application of justice!
The yobs go scott free, while the one person attempting to defend order gets arrested!
Oh, I agree with you 100%, 14k, as is probably obvious by now. Morally, I would make a distinction, though, between “attacking” a kid and grabbing him by his clothing to make him hold still while you’re ascertaining his identity or delivering a lecture. You’re absolutely, correct, though, that once you start down that road, there’s a high risk of rapid escalation caused by the teenager’s inherent stupidity… particularly when he’s part of a gang like this.
I recall a case I prosecuted once. A teenager did day labor lawn work for an employer who picked that kid and others up every day to drive them to the job and back. One day, the kid was acting up in the back of the pick-up truck, and the employer pulled over, got out, and yanked the kid off the back of the truck in order to get his attention and lecture him. When yanked on, the kid fell out of the truck and banged up his knee or a rib or something (the employer didn’t hit him, just grabbed his sleeve or arm and pulled, not intending to like body-slam the kid or anything). His mother was quite upset and called the cops, who cited the employer for misdemeanor battery based on the yanking.
I prosecuted him and the judge convicted him, as I continue to believe was appropriate. On the stand, the teenager admitted he had been acting up, and admitted that the employer had generally treated him well in the past. Throughout, though, it was quite clear that both my boss and many others thought that the employer’s actions were acceptable (using the legal theory of implied consent to such touchings based on the teen’s age and the rough nature of the work being done). Even the judge, though he did the right thing and convicted the man, clearly had no sympathy for the teen and his mother and thought that they should not have insisted on pressing charges.
Skylar,
I see that you are saying assault is assault is assault. I just don’t see it as assault. Taking a baseball bat to the kid is assault to me. Punching him in the face and breaking his nose is assault to me. I’m still not clear on what happened because as you said this article is terribly written. (OMG TEH DRAMZ!)
I believe in law. I don’t advocate going outside the law, but in a case where police don’t respond and this is ongoing for 2 months, I cannot fault her. However this is all just a humble opinion and if I had been watching this I would have helped Mrs Lake tackle the little snot. :)
Let me guess, you’re a lawyer, aren’t you? *tee hee*
I’m reposting this for you to read, baxtrice, in case you missed it before.
Sorry. It doesn’t matter what “you” see as assault. What matters is what the “law” defines it as.
Yep. It’s a shitty world.
For felicity, b/c I …
14 Karat Says:
I think he was (at least I hope so!), and yes, it would be!
But that kind of vigilantism and police brutality doesn’t follow logically from a lenient decision in the case at hand.
Dirty pool! Purring me to passivity! Luvs you too :)
I know. Life is not fair — tell my kids that all the time! BUT, in this situation, the judge had an opportunity, through the exercise of discretion, to make it a little less unfair. And he didn’t. Which stinks!
Which is why Rachel thinks they need to import a little good old fashioned Murrican Justice — except they’d never go for it. For the very same reasons that they need it so badly to begin with!
14 Karat,
I think you missed my point. You’re right, Law is Law. My opinion is my opinion. I was just expressing that I didn’t see the assault and the article doesn’t exactly give us the details of what truly happened. I’m not here to flame you or anyone else.
Law is sometimes hard to pin down, it can be quite open to interpretation as well, that’s why murderers and killers get off sometimes — and it gets a bad rep.
Think nothing of it. I love intelligent discourse as much as the next trailer-parkian. : )
Law is indeed fluid in its interpretation, and that is what makes it so compelling and dynamic.
No, I got your point. I got your point so much that it makes me want to join a cult and hide my children from these kind of influences to protect them.
And you were correct. From this very muddled article I gleaned that the assaulted kid was NOT the one who was doing the damage or had cursed at her. That is my biggest fear — my 15-year-old will be the fucktard wingman who gets shot not for doing the stupid but for wearing the “i’m with stupid” t-shirt. Oh, and he’s so nice that after everyone else ran he’d be the one who stayed behind because he felt guilty about it — the cannon-fodder.
He’s got a brain in his head, but my theory is without groupthink herds of teenagers would just simply forget to breathe.
We have lost blood and treasure saving Britain’s ass during two world wars. Esp. WW II.
Once the Islamists take over, no more saving them. We don’t have to defend or save them. And, we won’t. When Big Ben is renamed Big Bin Ali, they will have to form their own underground fighting units and save themselves. It will be the ONLY way they can redevelop any responsibility and sense of what their core values are. If not, then their core values will be the core values of Islamism.
Groovy. It’s so hard to have discussions on the internet without it breaking down into the usual flame war of “you suck/f*cker/nazi” etc.. langauge. (like the atheists that came over here and infested Rachel’s blog –the bad ones)
I think what infuriates us all is that the country that we are descended from, the country that helped form “The Great Idea” that is America, is slowly sliding into chaos and disorder. We see it quite clearly and we know it can happen here. And it’s hurting decent people like Mrs Lake.
Encourage your son to think with his brain and not his libido, to not follow the groupthink. Buck the mainstream culture and follow his own path. If he does this and you support him, you won’t ever hav to worry about this happening to your son.
It appears to this old Sergeant that what the Brits need is a version of the Patriot Guard Riders to keep an eye on the war memorials. I’d even consider buying a motorcycle and going over to help with that. I think a few run-ins with crotchety old American Veterans on Harleys might teach them a lesson.
RW Donn… where do you get Islamists out of this? There’s no indication in the article that any of these kids were Arab or Muslim.
D.W. Now that’s a fine idea.
And look, folks, is not like there’s NOBODY with any sanity left in Britain. I’ve been reading today quite a few conservative blogs over there of people who clearly wish to fight back against the darkness. Let’s encourage them to do it in a smart way, fighting the real problem (the attitudes of their countrymen which refuse to enforce the laws against the real lawbreakers), and to find smart, civilized ways to protect public things from vandalism.
Individual retaliatory action will do nothing in the long run. Working together (in a Patriot Riders sort of way) can help create and restore social order across the board in all sorts of ways.
It would seem that what I learned from being married to a lawyer(ess) once upon a time is true: The Law and Justice are two completely diametrically opposed entities; And Law has absolutely nothing to do with Justice.
Personally, I believe in Justice, so I avoid contact with the Law. And yes, I have acted on occassion outside of or beyond the Law in order to obtain Justice – and never lost a minute’s sleep about it. If that’s anarchy, so be it.
You are a well reasoned, intelligent and honorable person, PatHMV. As Bill said, justice is not necessarily law, and I am grateful to see that others recognize this fact.
I am glad to know you.
And had the punk declined — as he almost certainly would, under those conditions — she would have gone unpunished. An outcome that here, at least, you do not seem to condemn.
Perhaps I’m being above-average thick, but I still don’t see what harm the judge in this case would have done by being more lenient, or even dismissing the case altogether!
A.ka. doing his job and upholding the law, the converse being applying justice as his conscience dictated. There should have been charges filed against the rotten kids, but leniency due to circumstances aside, the law is the law. No waling on other people, no matter how richly deserved. This leaves the gist of the problem: not the school system, not the police force, but yeah, the parents. Unlike 14K (you do SO rock, girl), and the good people here, (mmodestly including myself: got two, 17 & 20), there are parents who will leap to the defense of their children no matter how heinous the behavior–and impose no consequences on their little darlings, even bestowing the gift of self-righteous indignation: “They can’t treat you like that.” Witness the public school system and lack of standards due to parental threat of lawsuits. Here in South Florida, all but the very worst end up with only in-school suspension. They have to perpetrate something that makes the papers to be expelled. Because whatever passes for a parent might sue.
Poot the boots to him. Medium style…
Heh… What kind of injures are usually the result of bicycle accidents?
D*MN TYPO! I HATE YOU LEFT HAND AND RIGHT HAND!
Put the boots to him…. Medium style….
You know what, Mr. James?
That was beyond the pale, and now I am really pissed. I just got home to find my shitstain son sore, tired and stinky as hell but happy to have worked a full day with his father cleaning grain bins. And he has been working on our farm. All summer. He’s 12.
Oh, and as a “respectable lady” myself, I don’t smack other people’s children, even though I have had had ample opportunity to want to do it. When I choose to assault ANYONE, I give up the title “respectable”.
Damn. I still forgive you for jumping to an erroneous conclusion regarding my character, but just damn. That really hurts.
To my mind attitudes like 14K’s amount to enabling this crap. As MikeT properly points out, the very reason the situation escalated as it did is precisely because civil authorities tolerated it year in and year out. The law says I can’t put my hands on your kid? It also says that your kid can’t trash a war memorial. I’ll support robust enforcement of the former when the police demonstrate a commitment to enforcing the latter. Until such time, I support citizens making do in what is, essentially, a breakdown of civil order. If that means 14K’s kid gets his roof beat in by a non-badge-wearing adult, so be it.
“Acting up in the back of [a] pick-up truck” can be lethal! Unless I misunderstand the situation, what the employer did was akin to a parent spanking a child to keep him from running out into traffic.
Had the mother shared my opinion and not filed the complaint, there would have been no trial — in other words, it was deemed an assault worthy of conviction only because she complained, and even though her complaint was generally regarded as frivolous, even by the judge? And that’s a useful outcome?
Ours is “a government of laws, and not of men,” but if the exercise of discretion has no place in the application of law, then wherefore judges?
Beat up a kid because he trashed a park? Go ahead. That parent will enjoy owning you.
It is obvious to me that you are an asshole trying to provoke a flame war. I am not now nor have I ever been an enabler. I kick ass regarding my own, and if you had even remotely read this thread you would know that.
When I become a civil authority who ignores it, then you can denigrate me unilaterally.
You want a war? Bring it on. I am fully prepared to deal with a breakdown of civil order.
14k,
At the risk of incurring the anger of both you and Mike James, but because I hate to see you stung, I want to beg you to reread Mr. James’ post with the first part in mind. The part where he says:
He doesn’t go down the “invites one to wonder” path until later, so mightn’t he have just been extending that hypothetical ‘one’s own child,’ rather than impugning your actual, decent, hardworking, good one?
Surely he wouldn’t apologize in one breath and deliberately give offense in the next?
No, that degree of asshattery is for thoroughgoing asshats, like those who can’t be bothered to read threads before getting nasty and personal — right, BC?
So now you and Mr. James can both beat me up all you like, but I couldn’t keep quiet — sorry!
Is this the part where I roll my eyes at being called an asshole and threatened with additional harsh language by some anonymous goober on the Internet? Apparently.
Lookit, 14K: When civil authorities cease to protect the community, it is manifestly unreasonable to insist that John Q. Public continue to make futile attempts to enlist the assistance of said authorities lest — horrors! — a non-badge-wearing adult cuff around Mommy’s Dearest.
Calling the police and subjecting Mommy’s Dearest to legitimate legal authority isn’t an option. The police haven’t been interested for eight years. They’re not going to develop a sudden interest today. They don’t care. They’re not coming, and as such the “Prosecute the little shit!” remedy you propose is off the table.
Of the range of remaining remedies, you want to limit legitimate response to some value N, where N excludes the use of physical force against Mommy’s Dearest by a non-badge-wearing, non-parental adult. The regrettable reality is that Mommy’s Dearest may not be stopped or deterred by anything less than physical force. In which case, holding back until we can identify and involve his parental units — who, if we’re ever able to learn who they are, may or may not even give a shit — simply permits him to continue in whatever objectionable conduct he was engaged.
I’m glad you raise your own kids right. And this sort of thing would never happen in the United States, because American police haven’t abdicated their basic responsibility to protect their communities. But taking a “Obey the law and do not lay your hands on my child!” attitude in a different context, where your (hypothetical) child is unencumbered by practical limitations on his behavior, is, sorry to say, enabling, in my book.
f and MJ,
Apologies and concessions. However, this was posted at 1:51, and the request for forgiveness that I saw was posted at 2:08.
Now, I just went back and reread. How can you ask for forgiveness in one part of the comment and then post this in the same comment:
and then ask the recepient to “gee, please forgive me?”
Therefore, I believed this was still directed at my hypothetical, yet all too real, son.
I will never disagree again. Lesson learned. DONE.
BC:
When I suggest your child should have his head beaten in because you had the audacity to use him in a hypothetical, you can call me an asshole, too. And I won’t “roll my eyes” because I will deserve it.
Additionally, I made no such threats regarding further harsh language. You upset me, I reacted, and that is precisely what you intended to happen. You would be transparent to deny that.
Did you even read what I posted earlier? Please, do tell me, as you seem to think I am a freakshow liberal “entititle my children to a free pass” person. I am not.
I want strangers to keep their fucking hands off my children. Trust me, if and when you have some, you will want the same thing.
felicity,
Yes, here’s the original post. My satellite keeps timing out, or I would have been able to offer this in my comments of earlier.
Mike James Says:
Phil Says:…I can’t see anywhere in 14k’s post where that was mentioned…
Here is where I would admit you had a small little point, I grant you, although I plead that my use of the word “hypothetical” makes clear I do not believe we are talking about 14 Karats actual child. 14 Karat, it would be nice of you to forgive me for personalizing it in that fashion, little though I deserve it, please.
And I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. For someone who wants to avoid a flame war, you pile a lot wood on there.
My, we jump right away to the barfight language, don’t we? Well, they say everone’s a tough guy on the Internet.
Try to remember the outrageous context of the subject of the post, why don’t you, and perhaps grant me the smallest space to take on the argument of those appearing as devil’s advocates on behalf of 15 year old shitstain little thugs who vandalize war memorials. Asking the audience to conceive of the offender as their child invites one to wonder about the circumstances which led to the selfsame child knocking over monuments and tearing up flower beds and ganging up on respectable ladies, or am I being, at base, unfair?
And thanks for your help, felicity, but I did accept the apology earlier. Mr. James’ comments are in bold.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I suggested your (hypothetical) child should have his roof beaten in not because you had the audacity to use him in a hypothetical, but because in that hypothetical he trashed public property while police steadfastly refused to do anything about it over an extended period of time. If that makes me an asshole in your book, then I wear the title as a badge of fucking honor.
I did read what you posted earlier. It amounts to just what you’ve said here: “Keep your fucking hands off my children.” (Exceptions noted for self defense and defense of others, of course.) You want parents, or the police, to have the sole authority to use physical force on children. Okay.
As I have said, now for the third time, that’s fine in a world where parents and the police are willing and able to control kids’ behavior.
We’re not talking about that world. At least, I’m not. I’m talking about the world as it exists in England, where gangs of adolescents rip the shit out of war memorials while parents and the police do nothing. For eight years.
In that world, respecting a parent’s wishes that I keep my fucking hands off their kid is secondary concern to keeping their fucking kid from destroying fucking property. The parent who disagrees is enabling the kid’s vandalism. And the law that disagrees is an ass.
That is NOT hypothetical, BC.
Read again. I want people he knows to KICK HIS ASS if he is messing with our community. Otherwise, hands off my son.
I own 8,000 acres of fucking property (family farmland) and several fucking houses (farmhouses). Don’t tell me about property destruction. I still won’t beat up a kid because the went four-wheeling and I caught them or took a dookie in the dry toilet of one of my rental houses — or even shit on the graves of my in-laws in our family cemetery. I still won’t beat up a kid for property damage.
I will, and have, made their parents pay for the damage done to the property in question.
Try reading the five sentences prior to that one. Then tell me again I wasn’t speaking hypothetically.
As you like it. My point is unchanged. If parents, law enforcement, and “people he knows” all punt, then “hands off my son” is a secondary concern to preventing him from destroying property.
You a tedious habit of whipping out personal details as if they’re moral trump cards.
Yup. You are so right, Malcolm. Violence is the answer.
And as to my tedious habit of whipping out trump cards, (cuz I KNOW you are still reading this), I only divulge what I need to divulge, when I need to do it.
If you want to know for sure what I actually can whip out, give me your email address and I will most certainly offer you a tour of my family life and the farms we own, as well as my son, daughters and the rest of the aspects of my life. Come see me, and I will show you exactly what rural conservatives look like.
Just don’t smack my son, because I have a problem with that.
I recommend remedial reading comprehension, then.
Conversation over.
BC, if the kid is about to (about to, not just did) destroy YOUR property, and the only way to stop him is to physically restrain him, fine. But if it’s somebody else’s property not entrusted to you for particular supervision, or if the physical attack is to apprehend him after the fact or punish him for what you think you just caught him doing, then HANDS OFF. In laying hands on another for purposes of punishment, you are the uncivilized one, you are the one breaking the law, and you are the one we need laws to protect us from… because you are willing to act first without benefit of law and without due process to discover what you think you saw is actually what happened.
See, because if you beat up one of my teenage siblings like that, I’d be quite irate, so I would want to come after you and repay the favor. And then you and your relatives would come after me, and next thing you know, we’re as insane as the “honor”-based societies in the Middle East and Latin America, with everybody going around retaliating against each other.
If the law’s not solving the problems it’s there to solve, then the solution is to fix that, not to take the law into your own hands.
Your solution for England, BC, is that the remaining decent people entirely give up on the law (and law is the fundamental basis of civilized society) and descend to the level of the street hoodlums. That itself is a sign of the decay going on. The specific hoodlum kids are not the problem, the problem is the larger system. You’re saying, screw the rest of the system, look out just for yours. Ignore the larger problems of society and just start beating the crap out of people you THINK are the bad guys, all on your own.
No matter how bad the legal system may have become, you won’t strengthen it by breaking the law.
Damn my spelling! :) How silly of me. Although, now that I think about it, didn’t the Ancient Chinesse can people as a capital punishment? Anyway, if vigilante justice is the only justice citizens can get, they’ll likely opt for that rather than keep getting walked on. Britain’s criminal ‘justice’ system has on protecting citizens.
From the Declaration of Independence:
I heard a few commenters mention England’s need for revolution. In lue of such dire straits, taking a legalistic view condemning Mrs Lake’s actions seems almost trite in comparison.
PatHMV:
Am I erroneous in assuming that this entire thread is a gut-level reactionary response to the destruction of the society from whence our culture originates? Otherwise, I am baffled by the response. Either I do not explain myself well or I have elicited a most-heinous-visceral response regarding morality and the laws governing our nation. Care to elucidate?
I feel like ensign expendable right now for articulating what I think is the “typical” conservative response, which I have always believed to be protecting and guiding your own, without the intervention of others, and obeying the laws of the land — not to a totalitarian degree, but to the degree within which a democracy functions.
And thanks again for your rational discourse today.
I’m out. When is when to say when.
HJLC.
Sorry, PatHV, but it doesn’t always work.
I live in Italy and there are some bad neighbourhoods in my city – everybody knows which part they are, police included.
The criminal vs. normal citizen rate here has become so bad that if the latter tried to take pictures or videos, the former would find out their names and wait for them outside their houses when they come back for work.
It would not end well for the upstanding citizen, I assure you.
The only pictures I have seen posted where those of the policemen.
Specifically, plain-clothes policemen. They had been posted by people of the radical left.
It was months ago and I still feel like breaking something.
I seriously need a printer. I want to clip all of these ads and hand them to my neighbor who believes that crime is down in Britain and that it would be a great place to live…he is getting fed up with “Murrica”. I TRIED to have an intelligent conversation with him about the statistics but that was pointless. Fine, then. Let him read it in black and white. And, believe it or not, he votes Republican.
Time to visit Kinkos, I guess.
Edited: Bah, “ads”. I meant news stories. It IS 6 in the morning, after all.
Speechless… This story says much about Briton’s failings that I’m at a loss for words.
What the hell are they teaching schools??? It’s obviously not history.
Where the hell are these kids parents? If had done anything like that when I was 15 my father would’ve kicked my ass one end of the street to the other.
(sigh)
I am a mother. I recently had an incident where my son stayed overnight at another’s boys house and unknown to me there were no adults. The behavior got wild. Windows broken, placed messed up. Now these males are 16-18. The next morning the boy who had the party came over crying that his brother in law was going to beat the crap out of him and he needed help. I told my son since he was there to go and fess up to his part. Both his father and I expected him to get hit. Rough justice. Turned out my son was slammed his head into the car and then struck and fell to the ground. He was bit woozy but fine. He was angrier about the damage to his car. When he came home I said that he had earned that punishment. The man’s wife called, worried about assault and I said punishment is done and I apologized for the condition of her house. I said no charges that this was between us. I expected the assault and felt it would be justified. My son also knew it was expected and went to accept the punishment. I felt that built better character then any thing else. When you do wrong you face up to it and take the consequences.
So I disagree with 14 K. There are times that a stranger should smack your child, they deserve it.
I did not want charges and countercharges and a vandalism charge. The smack was cheaper and more effective.
There is just so much wrong with this statement, Lisa, that I am just going to pretend you didn’t post that comment, and kindly request that you get some therapy and take some parenting classes to learn the importance of taking responsibility for the actions of your minor children.
14k,
I asked and received — sorry I shoved in my oar where it wasn’t wanted!
Well handled Lisa. Your son did get a lesson in responsibilty. I’ll bet he never makes that mistake again. After the event, did he do anything afterwards to help undo what was done?
14K, if society is unprepared to discipline errant young males as and when it is needed, but instead coddles them and protects them from everything then this abberant behaviour is what you are going to get.
Kudos to you that you have raised your son so well that he’d never do anything that would require a remedial crack upside the head.
Unfortunately, there are times it is needed.
PatHMV,
I’ve tried to engage on this previously, only to be politely ignored, so perhaps I was merely illustrating my stupidity. That has never stopped me in the past, however, so I will make one last attempt.
Your scruples are admirable, but I think you carry them one step beyond what is reasonable and sensible when you imply (which I take you to have done by your personal anecdote) that a judge should not exercise his discretion and opt for leniency in such a case.
Am I effectively arguing for vigilante justice by suggesting that a judge might consider the spirit as well as the strict letter of the law?
I’m confused. How can acknowledging that prosecuting/convicting a man would be an injustice, before proceeding to do just that, be considered the ‘right thing to do’? In the case of the judge, who on one hand believes that charges should not have been pressed, while on the other decides ‘oh, I’ll convict him anyway’. This is right why exactly?
Unless what you mean by ‘right’ is ‘not putting our principles (against unjust prosecutions, say) into practice’. Saying one thing and doing another can’t really be called anything but ‘hypocrisy’…do you consider hypocrisy to be ‘right’?
I am all for leniency in this case, and think the fine imposed (about $800 US) probably does reflect the judge’s consideration of the spirit of the law. There wasn’t any doubt as to guilt pertaining to the charges that were filed; the judge’s statement summed up his empathy with her circumstance as well as condemnation of her methods, hence addressing the vigilante question. The extenuating circumstances are in the WHY of the incident of course, and the $800 seems to take this into account. But I’m with 14K all the way on this one–you can’t beat on other people’s kids, ever. Ever. This was not self defense.
felicity… sorry I missed your earlier attempt to engage on the issue; certainly had no intent to ignore you.
I’ve no problem with leniency. A creative punishment (as others have suggested, for example, requiring her to pay the price of the bike, but direct it to new flowers which the kid is required to plant or something). What I don’t agree with is acquitting her entirely; she committed a crime and so should be convicted of that crime. The penalty in this case, however, should be light.
And, as Maggie33076 says, the penalty in this case might indeed be rather light.
As to the appalling statement made by Lisa above, I’d point out that while all teens are stupid at one level or another, hardly all of them reach the point where they gratuitously destroy that much property like that. There may be a connection between those families’ willingness to discipline their kids with that level of violence (I’ve got no problem with spanking or even a light box on the ear to gain attention, but slamming a kid’s head on a car is absurd) and the fact that the kid at that point in his life didn’t think twice before engaging in such property damage.
PatHMV,
Thank you! I hope your assessment of the lenience of $800 is correct — though from the support she had in her community and from veterans, I like to think she was spared even that. (So in addition to going to Hell, I’m now a closet anarchist — d’oh!)
Frankly, I did very much enjoy your earlier stated position that the police ought to have accepted the boy’s charges against Mrs. Lake only on the condition that the surrounding circumstances be fully investigated — that struck me as both lawful and just :).
As viscerally satisfying as the thought might be, however, I am entirely with you on the subject of doling out actual physical discipline to other people’s offspring without the express permission of the parents — not done! And — Good Lord! — bashing heads is not anywhere near my list of acceptable, loving corrections! (A nice, sanctioned caning from a volunteer Veteran of WWII, now? Given my affection for ‘Dangerous Old Men,’ is there any doubt?)
OTOH, I still have a beef with the decision against the employer in the other case you described. My impression — which, I grant you, is based on my extremely limited knowledge of the facts — is that he was in loco parentis, he was acting in the boy’s best interest (given the danger of “acting up” in the bed of a moving pick-up truck), and he had a legitimate need to protect himself from the liability of having an under-age employee, for whom he was responsible, get himself killed! In fact, had the boy managed to get himself killed, do you doubt that the same mother would have sued the employer for not stopping her son’s risky behavior? But as I say, this is mostly surmise.
Anyhow, thanks!
You might have said this earlier, girl! : )
Oh, and shove your oar in when- and wherever you want. I’m a tad impassioned regarding this subject, from personal experience.
I have to agree. As was heatedly discussed in an earlier posting, people are willing to pay for the privilege of getting physical. She didn’t go to jail over this, she just leased herself a smack down.
Oops! Glad I got around to it! :)
Of course you’re right, PatHMV. But only 99% of the time.
And that 1% is damned important. Ask Rosa Parks.
I agree entirely, Jim.
The Kusabi: The man broke the law. The young man’s mother was very upset and certainly did not believe that “justice” would be served by letting the man who assaulted her son pay no price for doing so. You see, we all have different personal opinions about what constitutes “justice.” So we adopt a process by which we adopt laws to govern all of us. As a public servant employed by ALL the people, not just those who think the same way I do or my boss does, it is my responsibility to enforce the law, not pick and choose what I think constitutes “justice.”
Yes, in some cases it is appropriate for prosecutors to exercise their discretion to ameliorate a harshness that might follow a blind application of the law. But that wasn’t present in the case I described. There’s a legitimate difference of opinion about whether such manhandling is warranted. Personally, I don’t think what the man did was appropriate, though whether it should be criminal or not, I don’t know. But it WAS criminal under the law, and so it was my sworn oath to prosecute that case, and the judge’s sworn oath to apply it.
....but in almost every US jurisdiction she could not defend someone else’s property or public property.
in my favorite US jurisdiction, Texas, she could
PatHMV
I thought you were against blind application of the law? But then we get this from you:-
The man broke the law.
No, rather you and the judge decided that his actions would be written off as having ‘broken the law’ even though you and the judge were of the apparent opinion that he did little wrong and didn’t necessarily break the law. You haven’t made a convincing case that saying one thing and doing another isn’t gross double standards, you know, it takes more than blanket declarations that ‘the man broke the law’ – blanket declarations betrayed by your own understanding of the case that you chose not to go with.
You can try to tell yourself it’s about it being your job to apply the law for the benefit of everybody all you want. From what you’ve said it looks more like you just decided to throw him in jail to keep some obnoxious ‘my little Johnny wouldn’t hurt a fly’ woman happy. That sort of crap is exactly why there’s such a big problem over here (yes I’m in the UK). Everyone knows that the present situation – ignoring assaulted decent people and pandering to assaulted yobs – is unjustiable but by God, every individual prosecution ticks all the boxes for absolute legal correctness (plus helps te police hit their targets with minimum risk/effort).
As for the US, isn’t it the case that in some states, where two or more burglars break into occupied dwellings and one gets killed by the occupier, the police charge the remaining burglars with murder over the death rather than charging the occupier who in fact killed them?
I don’t know how that could possibly be described as absolutely legally correct, after all, the occupier killed someone and broke the law so you’d better charge him with murder, after all the law’s for everybody so you’d better make sure murderous householders don’t get off scott free. Plus I’m sure home invaders would love it if you went to bat for them like you went to bat for this worky-ticket in the truck so you’d better think about how you can accommodate their wishes, hadn’t you?
It would appear that Mrs Lake had attempted to avert the vandalism legally and appropriately for 8 years. So, after law enforcement’s colossal failure to handle the problem, she apparently snapped and gave in to her frustration —
Mrs Lake’s reaction was fairly mild. She did not beat up the vandal. (A cuff to the ear is akin to a slap or smack; hardly assault and battery.) Her frustration was understandable. She may or may not have felt threatened. Under the circumstances, I think she showed remarkable restraint by throwing the bicycle and not the teen.
Had I been the judge, she would have received a reprimand and a suspended punishment/fine. Ultimately, the local law enforcement is to blame here for failing to keep public order, and they should bear the responsibility. By punishing Mrs Lake, the judge is complicit with the vandals and the impotent local police.
PatHMV Says:
Hi PatHMV,
You’ve been very gracious in discussing this, and it’s not quite fair to expect you to divulge every detail, but do I gather from this statement that, in your opinion, either the employer actually intended to do harm, or at least, that his intention was not to prevent the boy’s doing harm to himself, but merely to express his anger at the behavior? In either of which case, justifiable as that anger was, I can see your point!
Kusabi under Louisiana law, the crime of is defined as follows:
is “a battery committed without the consent of the victim,” and is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, 6 months in jail, or both.
The employer in question intentionally grabbed hold of the young man (who did NOT consent to being touched forcefully) with sufficient force to pull him out of a pick-up truck and onto the ground, where he landed hard enough to enough damage to his body to require several thousand dollars of medical treatment. The employer used force on the peron of another without his consent. He was, therefore, guilty of battery.
None of the general “” statutes applied. I suppose he might have argued that he qualified as a “teacher or tutor” imposing reasonable discipline on the child, but “tutor” is actually a very specifically defined term of law in Louisiana (for purposes of Louisiana law, it’s somebody with the legal guardianship of the child, not just some extra teaching help). “Teacher” might fit, if read very broadly… but given the fact that the man was a for-profit employer of the young man, I doubt it would apply here. At any rate, under Louisiana law, the employer would have the burden to prove justification. He didn’t.
You’ll notice if you go back and read that I never said I believed he had not broken the law. My boss thought through some possible legal defenses and justifications which might apply, but I disagreed with him, and it was my case. The judge was certainly convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man broke the law and committed a criminal offense.
Note that whether he broke the law is an entirely different question from whether his actions were “right” or “wrong.” Sometimes, doing what is right requires breaking the law. And even then, sometimes it is still the right thing to convict the person for breaking the law, even if we think he was maybe “right” in doing so. For example, few people around here would probably raise a sweat if a father shot, in cold blood, some scum who had molested his daughter. But it would still be 100% appropriate for the prosecutor to prosecute him for murder (or perhaps manslaughter, depending on the circumstances), and it would be right of the jury to convict…. even while saying to themselves “I’d do the same thing in his shoes.” Why? Because the people as a whole have decided NOT to make “he had it coming to him” a defense to murder.
As to your ludicrous hypothetical, it is indeed the law that where one of two robbers is killed in legitimate self-defense by a property owner, the surviving robber can indeed be charged with his murder. It’s called the “felony murder” doctrine. In Louisiana law, it constitutes , and it’s committed when a human being is killed:
See? It doesn’t require that the offender be the one who did the killing. It requires only that SOMEBODY killed the human being while the defendant was engaged in one of those crimes. Thus, the LAW provides in that scenario that the robber is indeed guilty of murder and the property owner is not (thanks to the statute.
Not to be offensive, but the reason why you don’t know “how that could be legally correct” is because you don’t actually know what the law is. Perhaps if you stopped assuming that people who disagree with you are morons intent on ruining Western civilization and asked questions more politely, you could be educated out of your unfortunate ignorance of the law.
felicity: I love a good conversation with polite people like you! If the employer had done something like yanking the guy down into the bed while the truck was still moving in order to prevent an immediate dangerous situation, he’d have been on safer ground. Here, he stopped the truck on the side of the road, got out, walked around to the back of the truck, and grabbed the guy for the purpose of “teaching him a lesson.” So while his intent may have been to stop the boy from doing harm to himself, his method of doing so was by administering discipline (as distinct from preventing harm by yanking his hand away from a very hot object before he touched it). And he was also clearly angry at the time… he didn’t mean to actually cause the injuries he did, though. If he had, that would be a higher degree of battery.
Also, felicity, I would point out that the judge imposed a very nominal fine. Plus, when the young man’s mother didn’t have exactly the right paperwork for the medical bills, the judge (rather than give her time to get them in order) simply ruled that she hadn’t proved the medical damages and thus didn’t order any restitution. The man was convicted, which was proper, but his penalty was quite light, which was probably also proper.
[Added]: Also, felicity, I’ll confess that I don’t remember all the details (it’s been probably 10 years since I prosecuted the case). I don’t remember if the kid was 17 or 18 or 19 at the time, and I don’t remember exactly what he was doing in the back of the truck, so I can’t say whether it constituted some immediate safety hazard. I don’t think the latter matters, because after the boss stopped the truck, it became a matter of discipline rather than violence to prevent an immediate injury. I doubt that even in the most dangerous of jobs we’d want a rule where a supervisor can punish a worker for a safety infraction by using physical force on him.
As a philosophical note, I’d add that you don’t give up your rights under the law not to be battered just by being young and stupid. Suppose this were not an employer-employee situation, but a boyfriend out with his girlfriend and her friends, and he thought she was cutting up too much in the back of the truck, so he grabbed hold of her and yanked her to the pavement in oder to send a message and lecture her. Would we consider that appropriate, if the woman objected?
PatHMV,
Thank you! It’s such a pleasure to have a forum for discourse — Bless you and Bless Rachel!
The judge, especially in not allowing the medical costs, does seem to have been very generous and sympathetic — so a reasonable outcome after all!
Glad to know it — and again, thanks!
Edit: On your philosophical point, you have me in either case at “yanked to the ground.” That can’t be ignored.
Your original language, though — “When yanked on, the kid fell out of the truck” — had me under the impression that the employer had never intended to bring the boy to the pavement, only to grab his arm for attention. Hence my assessment — but I did say I was operating with limited knowledge :).
I am considerably late to this party, but since almost everyone is gone, I’ll take a quiet moment to brag on my own progeny.
Like Deanna who volunteered her excellent teenage sister, I proudly volunteer my own teenage son for the Mercenaries of Decency.
It is already far too late for Britain, but it’s not too late for America when we have red-blooded young men like this:
Jonathan will be a freshman in HS this year. He is 13 years old, 6’2″, 175 lbs – and still growing. (We grow ’em big in Texas.)
He was the Battalion Commander of 120 cadets in his Jr. ROTC unit last year, and will continue in ROTC throughout HS and college. He is a disciplined athlete, pitches a mean fastball and swings a lightning bat. He loves dogs – and cats. He is respectful of rightful authority, but not submissive. He defends others against bullies. He is fiercely patriotic, scary-intelligent, and honorable.
He is a Rachl Lukis admirer (which underscores his damn good sense).
He is a good
boyyoung man and he will kick ass as a member of Rachl Lukis’ Mercenaries of Decency.I love him deeply and couldn’t be prouder.
/proud American mom soliloquy
As I recall felicity (again, 10 years after the fact), he wanted to pull the kid out of the truck, but he was expecting the kid to land on his feet when so pulled, not fall to the ground. It was more than just the kind of tugging you might apply if you were having an argument with somebody and tugged on their arm to make them turn around and look at you.
I suspect that if he had offered to pay the medical bills (after all, he caused them, and the kid was on the job at the time), then the family might not have been quite as dead-set on the prosecution.
Redhead Infidel,
Only 13? Darn! My younger one is nearly 15 — so much for an arranged marriage :)!
And then there’s the short man — he will be 13 in three months, is 4’9″, 92 lbs of solid muscle (he pulled up his shirt the other day to proudly show me the six pack he has built this summer from hard work). What he lacks in size he more than makes up for in heart and tenacity. My only worry — must you be this —- tall to join Rachl Lukis’ Mercenaries of Decency? : )
So is mine. When he and I talked about this, he was absolutely incensed that these “teenagers” would behave in that manner. He read some of the comments I made and his response was “mom, jeez. Are you trying to start a riot?” I had to tell him that while I agree with the “justice”, the law simply doesn’t.
Both he and the hubby agreed that, while he would never do this, we would want him to defend himself against any attack by a stranger. Period.
Ditto here, redhead, except he’s a wrestler and works with his father on the farm on weekends and during the summer.
I can totally understand why you are so proud. I am too. The way we’ve raised our young men is why I am so baffled by this entire situation. I just don’t get any parenting mentality that would permit one to abdicate enough authority regarding their children that they would turn into such entitled little bastards. Allowing this situation to happen in the first place just *does not compute*.
My children are children, not friends, so it is my job, and my honor, to be their parent. When they are adults (like my 21-year-old) then we can work on being friends.
Redhead,
Congratulations. I am srsly impressed. As for closing the attribute tag on the proud American mom soliloquy, please don’t. You gotta take up for all the slackers who barely qualify as mom, much less proud.
Update for 14 Karat: Congratulatory dittos for the Golden Offspring. As much fun as the Idiocracy concept is, deep down I think future leaders like your thirteen-year-olds will save the future masses from themselves.
Oh my, PatHMV! Now I begin to feel like Emily Litella!
If the boy’s behavior did not contribute to his injuries, and mine obviously had, then I, as the employer, would have felt morally obligated to offer help with medical costs, regardless of the outcome in court.
Congratulations, Mr. Prosecutor! As self appointed judge, jury, and executioner, I hereby declare you to have won your case — again! :)
Thanks, felicity! I’ve spent 5 years as a prosecutor (handling everything from minor misdemeanors to major corruption and fraud cases) and another 4 years as the pardon attorney (among many other duties) for the governor (2 administrations ago now, alas). I’ve spent just a wee bit of time thinking about the philosophies underlying crime and punishment in our society. When you have to actually decide (not just pontificate!) whether to put someone through the harrows of a trial, whether to let somebody out of jail or clear their record years after they served their time, whether real justice demands this action or that action, whether this is one of the times to temper justice with mercy or not, these questions all get a lot harder, and you become a lot less sure of which answer is “right” in any given circumstance. I liked to call my work “applied philosophy,” some days.
14k and Redhead,
What Jim said! It is young men like yours that will stand between us and our ending up like the Brits!
That 18 month difference won’t matter in 10 years, ladies ; )
Some of the happiest couples I know have a 4+ year age difference (male or female), me included!
Law and morals in the same package?
I nominate PatHMV as commandant (or should that be attoney general) of Rachl Lukis’ Mercenaries of Decency.
[blush] That would indeed be a signal (and entirely undeserved) honor, 14K…. Can I have the role of consigliere instead? That’s more my forte
Secretary of Legal Asskickery and Moral Outrage for the Mercenaries of Decency, Republic of Texas.
How’s that grab ya, PatHMV?
You need a title with some TEETH!
Hey, Redhead & 14K:
I’ve got girls!!
15 mths, 12, 13, & 14 years old…
Is an arranged marriage out of the question? There seem to be so few good guys around these days.
Well, okay, but we might want to wait a few years for the youngest to become a sister-wife …
Tee hee!
Let’s just say my oldest daughter agrees. She says right now her idea of a good catch is someone who has enough IQ points to get their pants in the right size.
God. Four girls. As the oldest of four girls myself (and three boys) I hope you have at least three bathrooms, window locks and a therapist on speed dial. : )
The youngest one’s the spitfire – red hair and the personality to go with it.
Only three bathrooms. They are always fighting to see who gets to use mine.
There’s an 8 y/o boy in the mix, too. For a while there he was a little “confused”.
Oldest of four myself, with one sister and two brothers. Sister is the youngest, so there were never any bathroom issues.
Okay,
Now that I’ve really read about this “Mrs. Lake”, I just have to say that she was taking out her frustrations on a kid that she thought crushed some flowers with his bike tires, and not “desecrating a memorial”. That’s a different distinction altogether. Where I used to live, if I had smacked up on every kid who rode their bike through my yard, flowerbed, etc, my hand would have been broken.
doesn’t talk about hitting, just grabbing ..
Her was used to defending these cases:
And she made a mistake in who she confronted in the first place.
That’s exactly what I was worried about — the kid in the “i’m with stupid” shirt getting smacked around.
And she had even admittted to being out of control.
And here’s what the kid had to say IN COURT.
Doesn’t appeear to me she was in danger and therefore had to attack anyone. Court records indicate that the surrounding incident and the attack incident were two SEPERATE occasions.
And finally, the of the teenager, who COURT RECORDS indicate was actually sitting on his bike at a Tesco station and not, as she believed, “rid[ing] his bicycle over a flower bed surrounding the memorial.”
Ultimately, this whole thing boils down, in my mind, to:
That sums it up, no? A mistake was made, the perpretator of the crime was fined, the vandalism was brought to the international stage to be dealt with. It all worked out.
Whoa! Interesting — good follow-up!
Okay, 14k, now I really do feel like Emily Litella, because that is “very different!”
I should have looked further before passing judgment, considering what we know about bias in reporting!
Oh, and one last thing …
After the hearing Lake said she respected the judge’s decision.
Source:
Sorry I couldn’t get this posted earlier. The new ads keep timing out my satellite every time I try to load something new on the bus!
I’ll take that title, 14K, thanks!
Great job on the extra research. Precisely why we try to discourage vigilantism. We have “due process” for a reason… because the wisdom of crowds is often matched by the madness of crowds.
Oh, and maggie and pat, you were right!
The more I read about this the more pissed I get at the media. It’s just not right to play off the righteous indignation of the masses with deliberately erroneous and overly hyped information. Also, the story continued to inflate from a few kids, to 10, to 15, to 15, to infinity. I guess we’ll never know for certain without the trial transcripts.
Well, it does sell tabloids, I guess.
One last point of interest, which I take with a grain of salt as it was in a newspaper and not taken from court records:
Source:
Oops, I meant “25, to infinity”.
Sorry.
Precisely why this is so disturbing; the story pushes emotional buttons right and left and seems to have been manipulated to an extent to be expected in advertising, but reprehensible in straight reporting. Brings to mind the hideous, shameful way the media tore Patsy Ramsey apart. Sheer malevolent viciousness. And no consequences for anyone for causing all that pain.
I admire 14k’s passionate defense of her points. The big difference between her and the mothers and fathers of the teeenage turds in England is that 14k is a parent and the people who produced the 15 year old shitstains in England are merely breeders.
Now this is why I love to sit at this dining room table. As badly as I wanted this thread to end last night, I’m now delighted that it has come to such an evolution!
14k quotes:
Wait — earlier on, didn’t you say:
And not only that, just as you feared, she had the wrong kid!!!
Spot on much??????
14k, Maggie, and PatHMV,
Kudos to your superior restraint and powers of perception!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I toppled over just then, and I need to adjust my booster seat, so I can crawl back up on my big girl chair :).
I thought so — how little I knew! — but that’s part of why I kept pestering you for details, since historically, your comments have struck me as most reasonable and informed! (Okay, that and my innately stubborn and obnoxious nature.)
Well put! With such counsel, perhaps there may be a Kallipolis yet :)!
Felicity, 14K and PatHMV, et al.
Thanks y’all–I’m so glad I stayed til the end of the party! The conversation’s always the best after the table’s been cleared. :)
Most excellent discussion. Those of you who are the *best* know who you are.
Once the little ones toddled off for their nappies, the rest of us could take out the extra table sections, unbutton our hypothetical pants, sit back, and comfortably digest some spirited and rational discourse.
Now, I am off to lecture incoming freshman pre-health sciences students on the best practices for being successful undergraduates.
Just think — young liberal minds. I iz’ warpin’ ’em!
Our motto would be the words of Ben Franklin: “Doing well by doing good.”
I’m still a little freaked out that a parent on here thinks it’s acceptable that her son got his head smashed into a car for doing some damage to a friend’s house.
It makes me kind of shake my head in shame….I’m all for a solid spank/smack when they are little but a teenager? Smacking a teenager doesn’t clean up my house. A hit where a kid is smashed into his car is not a “punishing” hit, but one that comes from anger – and thus missing the point.
Hitting after a certain point just shows a lack of creativity, in my opinion. Sure, I can hit you and you’ll suffer for a bit – but I’m sure I can come up with a way to make you *really* think about what you did that won’t involve me laying a finger on you.
Me too. I just don’t have the words to say how totally not okay that entire comment was.
That does not amount to reperations for the damage and the clean-up of the premises. This parent opts to abdicate responsibility and take the easy way out by allowing her child to take a beating rather than open her checkbook or take her lazy ass over to the neighbors to do the actual work.
And I would consider this an isolated opinion, were it not for the cheering section:
pdwalker Says:
If I knew who these people were, I would call the police. I am normally not a busybody, but I know child abuse when I hear it. Condoning an adult-style beating of your child is beyond disgusting. Adults get arrested for beating the shit out of each other — in this incident, all involved should be arrested, including the parents. This is just ridiculous.
This mother needs help, and so do her children.
Look, y’have to realize. Some kids just need to be pistol-whipped from time to time.
Didn’t hurt me none, although the blackouts, vision problems and Tourettes episodes are sometimes a bit annoying.
No, I’m sticking with my idea of there’s far better ways to punish a teen without ever laying a hand on them.
You dont want anyone interfering with your parenting, or your children, but you want to interfere with someone else’s parenting, and thier children. And, you want -me- to pay for it?
I”m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
On the contrary. I didn’t say I didn’t want anyone interfering with my parenting, as a matter of fact I invited the appropriate crime-enforcement agencies and friends of my family to handle my hypothetical out-of-control children in the event of my absence. I appreciate parenting advice and assistance, as this is definitely a different world than I grew up in. What I specifically said was: “don’t hit my son, stranger”. If my kid showed up at school bruised after a beat-down, I’d expect someone to intervene.
Besides, allowing another adult to beat up your child is a crime. Slamming a child’s head repeatedly into a car to where it damages the car is beating up a child — in ANY state. If the “child” is 18, then it becomes an adult on adult assault crime.
This is not parenting. This is a crime. Period.
Are you suggesting you would walk away from a situation where a child was enduring a beat-down so you wouldn’t have to pay to prosecute that crime?
Right. “Bad samaritans” such as yourself are why that little boy was recently beaten to death by his father along the highway: many cars went by, many people saw what was happening, and NO ONE INTERVENED.
You are correct in that one can’t have it both ways, Mr. House. One cannot condemn others for not getting involved in stopping a beating for one child in one breath and condone beating another child in the other. A child is a child: and is a person under 18.
It’s called being a man and facing the music! Lisa sent her boy over to do what a man does. Face up to his own actions and take responsibility for what he did. The actions were his, and the consequences of those actions are his. Getting beat up is an awfully small price to pay for learning a valuable lesson that will serve you the rest of your life. No mother is doing her son any favours by circling the wagons and shielding him from reality. The reality is that if you destroy someone else’s home they are not going to feel all warm and fuzzy towards you, and you will pay a price.
Lisa’s boy went over there by himself and told the people he had wronged what he had done. That took courage and builds self-respect which are the first steps to being a man. That is the point of raising a boy isn’t it? The end product is supposed to be something close to a man.
You -specifically stated- that “If I knew who these people were, I would call the police.”
That means -You- want to use force, specifically a hired man with a gun, to make someone else conform to your standards of behavior. And you want to use my money to pay for this service. Without asking me how I feel about it.
There is a vast difference between a man stomping an infant to death, and beating the crap out of someone’s 15 year old fuckstain who is trying to light my house on fire. And you -know- this. Furthermore, you make assumptions about my character and morals. I seem to recall you getting quite bent out of shape when it was done to you -in this thread-. Some intellectual honesty here, please.
I most certainly -can-. One size does not fit all.
Lets define a few terms shall we?
Infant: age 1-5 essentially harmless, effectively innocent, no excuse for -intentionally- injuring one.
Child : age 6-12. Not so harmless, capable of vast amounts of distruction, but -with proper guidance- usually harmless. Still deserves ‘protected status’
Minor : age 13-18. Dangerous little bastards, fully capable of taking out a grown human. Travel in packs. Protected under law, and are aware of it.
If an Infant is in my yard, peeing in my flowerbeds, or digging up my garden, I’m going to pat him on the head, shoe him home, and call his momma and ream her a new one for letting her offspring loose with no supervision.
If her Child is keying my car, driving his bike thru my flowerbed or ( actual case here ) shooting my cat with his air rifle. I’m going to yell at him good ,long, and loud. and -then- I’m gonna ream his momma a new one.
If her -minor- is shooting at my cats, keying my cars, what have you, I’m going to beat his ass. drag him to his house by the neck, and have him explain to his parents what he was up to.
His parents can feel free to press charges. If so, I will insist that the minor be tried as an adult for whatever he was up to.
Before you get excited, take a good long look at the -size- of some of the minors mentioned in this thread. They are the size of full grown men. They’re at no real disadvantage in a fight, barring experience.
And frankly, there comes a time when you need to learn that Momma isnt always going to be there to protect you from the consequences of your stupidity.
I -remember- being 15. It would have done me no end of good to have an adult kick my ass for being a shithead. I used to -be- one of those ‘fuckstains’ as I so charmingly refer to them. It took a 5 on 1 beatdown in a park for me to realize I was a ‘stain, and needed to smarten the fuck up. Grnated that was almost 20 years ago, but the lesson hold true. “being an asshole will get you hurt.”
I realize your temper may be running a bit… ‘warm’ at the moment, but do try to remember. I’ve not insulted you, your children, your parenting, or your morals. I -do- disagree with you, but I’m being ( I think.. ) polite. Please return the favor.
Someone explain to me how slamming a teenager into a car to the point where it damages is a car “teaches him how to be a man”? And if so, what KIND of man? The one who knows how to take a beating – or one who hands them out? Again, what really does this serve?
Damages to the home are still there.
No payment for the damages was received.
So aside from him being physically harmed, what did he learn? NOTHING.
In response, Mr. Homes.
Yes I would, because beating a child is a crime, and it is my duty as a citizen of this country to report crimes against children. This is not my definition of “standard of behavior”, it is society’s. If I know a crime has been committed and choose to ignore it, I can be charged as an accomplice after the fact. Not going to happen to me, sir!
Not according to the law. And I never said anything about arson. I was referring to an incident in which a teenager was stomped for “messing up a house”.
Yep. Exactly. Somebody trained and charged with enforcing the laws of the land, and not someone who might get a little rougher than he intended when he was slamming my child’s head in a car door and crush that child’s skull.
And then you will be arrested, charged and convicted. It doesn’t matter if the parents want to charge you with anything or not; if the state gets wind of it you will be prosecuted under domestic violence laws. Enjoy that.
Please cite where this source is the law regarding the definition of “people under the age of 18.” One size most certainly does fit all when it comes to beating on a child. Beating a child is a crime. There is not point arguing with me about it, because I can neither change, nor do I want to change, the law in that regard.
Not at all. I am right and you are wrong. Until you change the law, you will be arrested for your actions when you attack a child, regardless of how either of us “feel” about it. The only time this would cause me to have a temper would be if you were the perpetrator.
Travis,
Agreed. My child would be working his ass off to pay for the damages and also working to fix that damage. I would be standing on the porch of that house asking for forgiveness with my pen poised over my checkbook asking if my child should be prosecuted, as I am responsible for his actions until that child is 18. After I paid the full amount to the people whose property was damaged, that child would be PAYING ME BACK!
Damages can’t be fixed by someone breaking my child’s face or limbs. They can only be fixed by the ones responsible if those children are whole enough to fix them.
He learned something called RESPONSIBILITY. Look it up! It’s an interesting concept that has a lot of applications in everyday life. The beating is beside the point. The damage to the house is beside the point. The situation was settled without a lot of anger, sniveling and tears in court. Why should this have ended up in a court of law and how would that have helped the kid be a better person?
And yes, knowing how to take punishment when you deserve it is important. The moral dimension here is a lot more important than some kid getting smacked. It’s just pain, bruises and a bloody nose, whoop-te-do.
A checkbook is just money, and it isn’t your place to be asking forgiveness for someone else’s actions! Your son is a person in his own right and your responsibility extends to the influence you had in raising him, not to his every action. He should be the one asking for forgiveness, not you!
In the case of Lisa’s son that forgiveness was granted after being smacked around, and that was a lot less than what a court of law should have handed out.
You are legally responsible for your son, but he is a moral being independent of you and his choices are HIS, not yours. He should be given the credit for the good he does in the world as well as the evil.
Travis,
Actually, it IS my responsibility until my child is 18. But honestly, do you really think I would be standing on that porch alone?
Everyone is constantly complaining about parents not wanting to take responsibility for the actions of their children, you know, the “where were the parents” lament.
Here I am offering to take that responsibility and I am being told it’s better to let violence prevail?
What gives?
… ok, now that’s just -funny- right there. Considering the number of incidents, reported and unpreported of police officers pounding the -shit- out of minors for things I wouldnt even blink about.
You -believe- you are right and I am wrong.
It’s clear you’re more interesting in being ‘right’ and ‘winning’ that having an honest debate on how to deal with ‘problem children’.
I’m kind of dissapointed really. I was hoping for an intelligent discussion on the merits and flaws of various means of teaching young men how not to be wild animals. You dont seem to be interesting in that idea at all.
Still, I should know better, I forgot rule #1 of teh intarwebs. “Arguing on the net is like running in the special olympics. win or lose, you’re still a retard.”
Cheers, we wont be speaking again.
My point is, what is in the long term best interest of the kid.
Mommy’s checkbook VS the lonely walk over to face his comeuppance. Which makes a better man in the long run?
Lisa’s kid had to go over by himself and face responsibility by himself. It must have been terrifying for him, but he did it and the price was just getting smacked around a bit.
He also gets to brag to his friends what a hard ass his mother is, and he gets his friends looking at him with greater respect because of what he did, even if he was forced into it. They will recognize that what he did (and they didn’t) took guts and he did it doing the right thing, rather than some idiotic vandalism stunt.
If you were looking for that, Mr. House, you shouldn’t have begun the conversation with an attack on the motives behind my comment.
You should have opended with a request to discuss dealing with problem children. If you had read earlier comments, I was quite literally being attacked for stating “the law is the law”, and by your comment that “I” wanted to interfere I could only assume more of the same.
Not true. I *am* right that the law is the law. As for winning, none of us win when our boys don’t have enough guidance to turn into good men. Now if you want my OPINION, just ask for it. I am more than happy to oblige.
Golly gee darn.
I have failed at grammar too. I meant: If my son is acting like that at 15, I have failed as a parent.
14 Karat,
I understand your point from a legal aspect (I’m looking to go to law school in a couple of years), but morally, it’s just not right. If we go with your idea of punishment, how do I know you’d actually punish your kid? No offense, but I don’t trust anyone today to do the right thing. I’ve seen way too many instances where little Jonny and Jane get away with ten tons of dogcrap in retail stores with the parents looking on and giving me stupid smiles. Also, from a historical standpoint, your legality defense would mean that the blacks would be slaves. Legality didn’t free the slaves, a moral war from 1861-65 did (with lots and lots of bloodshed). If the law cannot or will not protect their citizens, then they have the right to vigilante justice.
Did anyone even READ the part where this woman was charged because she ATTACKED THE WRONG KID!!!
Again, if a teenager helps to trash my house and their parent sends them over to take responsibility, I feel that I will have given up my sense of responsibility if all I do is smack them around. You know, to the point where it causes damage to a vehicle because I’ve slammed the kid so hard against it. And just because I don’t beat the shit out of a legal child doesn’t mean that I’m taking his ass to court where there will be “sniveling” and “tears.” Like I said, beating a kid up only proves that you really have no sense of imagination in terms of a punishment/reparation.
Sure, beating a kid might make them “responsible”. But really, what have they learned? That they can do what they want provided they can take a beating? Go hang out at a boys’ school for young men who are dependent/delinquent. They can take a beating – in spades. But that has never been what taught them any lessons.
Travis,
If this is the route you opt for with your own children, than just be prepared to face the consequences.
It is illegal to send your child for a beat down. Please refer to the law. It is also immoral to beat down someone else’s child. Please refer to common sense.
I need to do research, but I would wager that the selfsame boys who grew up in a home that condones adults beating on children will simply lead to a vicious cycle of violence in adulthood.
What makes a better man is standing up and doing what is right, not getting beaten to the ground so he can bow down at the feet of another and learn what’s right.
14 Karat,
I did, in fact read the article. The fact is that there was a gang there. I reiterate the point concerning vigilantes…
Mat,
For god’s sake. You’ll have to do better than this straw man if you want to be an attorney.
And you are wrong. Lincoln freed the slaves as a political move to
This Civil War was about state’s rights, and the moral aspect was a secondary “tack on” and not the reason behind the war itself.
Please don’t try to equate these two topics, unless what you are saying is that you want to change the laws to where it’s no longer illegal to beat children.
And there was no gang! This kid was sitting on a bike and she grabbed him from behind.
Now I agree that not enough parents discipline their children. That’s definitely a conundrum. But we can’t go around arbitrarily meting out justice based on what might “not” be happening.
“Mat,
For god’s sake. You’ll have to do better than this straw man if you want to be an attorney.””
I’m not an attorney yet. And I suggest you look up the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision if you want to look at legality regarding the pre-Civil War U.S. Citizens took the law into their own hands and hid slaves (hence, the Underground Railroad).
“And you are wrong. Lincoln freed the slaves as a political move to cripple the economy of the south.
This Civil War was about state’s rights, and the moral aspect was a secondary “tack on” and not the reason behind the war itself.”
On the contrary, if you look at the situation politically, the abolitionists had a major hand in swaying the political parties during the 1850’s. Again, please refer to “Bleeding Kansas” and the Compromise of 1850. Moral groups such as the abolitionists absolutely had a major say in what eventually happened. Lincoln didn’t want to admit it, but even he had to admit that the slavery issue wasn’t going to be swept under the rug (hence the Emancipation Proclamation, which was mostly designed to keep Britain and France from declaring for the South).
“Please don’t try to equate these two topics, unless what you are saying is that you want to change the laws to where it’s no longer illegal to beat children.”
I fail to understand how a 15 year old is a “child.” A 15 year old is generally one who thinks he/she is an adult and demands adult status (I was one once). Very well, so be it. Be punished as an adult. Given the way kids act today, we may have to take more time for self-defense classes anyway. Or carry guns…
You seem to be equating law and morality. Just because something is immoral does not make it illegal and just because something is illegal it does not make it immoral.
Society cannot operate on the basis of laws alone! Without an underlying morality we are lost.
I am NOT suggesting raising children in the equivalent of a Drunken Sailors Bar. I do not think that punching out kids of any age is the moral way to discipline them. However infants, children, and young adult males are not the same thing. The Hitler Youth Division in Normandy was made up of ‘children’ in the 15-18 year range and they had a disturbing habit of shooting prisoners. Kids in this age group tend to be amoral and follow along with the peer group.
If they are not socialized and tought how to deal with violence they can become very dangerous. We as a society are currently failing at this.
No I do not, nor have I ever struck my child. I have however paddled her bottom when she needed it.
Brooke;
At the risk of being rude, I will repeat myself. The beating isn’t the point! The acceptance of responsibility, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, is the point. I mean we are not talking about taking him out behind the house and shooting him! A kid who gets a punch in the nose gets an introduction to the idea that his conduct is not acceptable. Too often kids are left to wander off the reservation with minor legal disputes, parental talks, teacher conferences, etc. By the time that anyone starts taking it seriously, the kid could have started down a path, which ends up in jail, or with someone, dead or seriously injured. Boys in the 14 to 18 year old range will test the limits of conduct and milder forms of punishment are not doing them any favours if they do not curtail their behaviour quickly.
This does not mean that there are no other ways of dealing with the situation, but Lisa’s way was quick and effective.
Mat,
Just an FYI regarding the motives and verbiage of the most noble president.
But there it is, all nice and legal. Maybe when you become an attorney you can work to change these laws. Personally, I believe 15-year-olds still need guidance, and are being forced to grow up too fast with lack of parental guidance, which is a societal problem. These types of kids are, in my mind, being neglected and abused and end up stunted, violent and criminal in nature.
And I am already armed! : ) I run around a college campus, sometimes very late at night, and thus protect myself accordingly.
Keep an open mind, Mat, and you will become a fine attorney. Please remember, all is never black and white. You will have a 15-year-old yourself one day, and will be fiercely protective of that child as he navigates through the stumbling blocks of learning how to be a man.
Why do you think I made the distinction?
But illegal and dangerous as hell, Travis. Ultimately, as taxpayers, we would be forced to accept responsibility if that child’s skull ended up fractured.
Under this scenario, the parent should have been handling, supervising and teaching the lesson, which to me is more palatable, versus the parent who said she “sent” her child for a beating.
I keep proposing that through the law and parental accountability, but people keep saying that beating the child is the most responsible course of action and the most effective way for that child to learn. Having had the shit kicked out of me until my “parent” went to prison, I can, and will, vehemently disagree from an educated and experienced perspective. And you can bet your ass that if anyone ever lays a hand on ANY of my children without my permission I won’t mind the prison stay after I show that person what rough justice REALLY looks like because frankly, I could use the vacation.
The law cannot take the place of moral action. It comes into effect when moral action has failed.
The acceptance of responsibility is a personal thing. A parent cannot accept personal responsibility on behalf of their child. It’s a logical absurdity.
The boy in this case faced that responsibility. Something which the English crowd of Yobs certainly never had to do. Shielding children from danger is a parents responsibility, but with that should come the understanding that sometimes they have to walk alone. If that day comes when they are 18 years of age, you will have a social cripple on your hands.
Travis, you say the beating is not the point, the acceptance of responsibility is. As 14K has made quite clear, she is all for requiring a child (or a “young man”) accepting responsibility for his actions. It is YOU who is insisting that violence, slamming the kid’s head onto the hood a car sufficient to dent the car, constitutes “taking responsibility.” That’s not responsibility.
I think you learned a very wrong lesson by that 5-on-1 beat-down you took. You became a man disposed to solving problems with violence, a man who equates “responsibility” with “taking a whooping.”
You see, a kid who is not “punched in the nose” but is required to actually repair the damage he caused ALSO “gets an introduction to the idea that his conduct is not acceptable.” And he gets that lesson in such a way that he is not also taught that physical violence (we’re not talking about spankings here, but slamming a head into a car) is an appropriate punishment for anything.
From my own observations of grown criminals, a great many of the violent ones were “taught lessons” with violence. It didn’t turn them into peaceful, well-behaved men. It turned them into cowards, bullies, and criminals for the most part.
I can assure you that if I were armed and happened upon someone like you smacking a kid’s head into a car, my gun would be on you in about a second flat. If I adopted the attitude of some of these commenters about taking personal action, I’d likely shoot you to stop the beating before I even bothered to inquire about the circumstances. Violence for some purpose other than self-defense only begets more violence.
Lisa’s way was the idiot’s way out. She’s too stupid to think of some better way to make her child accept responsibility and consider the consequences of his actions than having him beaten.
Yes, Travis, kids have to grow up and learn to walk alone. They don’t have to be SENT by their parents to be BEATEN. You’re a sick, sick man.
PatHMV:
Pat, I hear you, but I’m afraid I’m a lot more pessimistic about the situation. I agree with you that there are still sane people in Britian, but I’m afraid that with the government and the police on the side of the bad guys, the tipping point has been passed and democratic methods aren’t going to work. Once the social contract between the citizenry and the government has been destroyed, then by definition law no longer exists.
To put it more bluntly, Great Britian today is in a state of low-grade civil war. The anti-civilization side is using the tools of civilization, such as law, as weapons against the pro-civilization side, while granting themselves immunity from same. Law should not be a suicide pact. In the particular case we are discussing here, perhaps you are right and the judge in the case really did reach the correct decision according to civilization’s rules — but the other side is not playing by those rules. Consider the more egregious situation (which I believe Rachel posted about on another thread) of the family which must tolerate nightly brick and rock throwing through their windows, and the resident of that house who was arrested for yelling at the criminals assulating him. Or, going back a bit, consider the case of Tony Martin. I’m afraid the time when protests and letter-writing might have worked has passed.
14 Karat,
I wasn’t talking about Lincoln. He was the end result of the political turmoil that occurred in this country at the time. I’m well aware of what his sentiments were.
I’m talking about the political situation that started in the 1830’s, when the Liberty Party was formed by abolitionists. These people looked at the problem from a moral standpoint, not a legal one. The Liberty Party wasn’t successful enough, so the Free Soil Party replaced it. At this time, you had the Democrats split into regional bodies (northern and southern) as well as a the dissolution of the Whig Party (which also went through regional differences, though not as much). The Republican Party was formed primarily on the ashes of the Free Soil and Whig Parties where you had an alliance of sorts. Lincoln won his election primarily because the Democratic Party split (look at the three-way election of 1860).
I spent an entire semester studying this stuff. You had better believe that slavery was definitely one of the major issues of the Civil War, regardless of what revisionists claim.
“But there it is, all nice and legal. Maybe when you become an attorney you can work to change these laws. Personally, I believe 15-year-olds still need guidance, and are being forced to grow up too fast with lack of parental guidance, which is a societal problem. These types of kids end up stunted.”
I wasn’t aware that my personal opinions were the same as legal fact. I doubt I’d change the laws. Personally, I think this country is pretty far down the road to becoming Britain. Whether I like it or not, Obama will be the next president and with a leftist Congress, all sorts of doozies will be placed into law. But that’s what we want, apparently. Regarding 15 year olds, is it possible that the Founding Fathers were beaten as kids (oh yeah, I’m sure 15 years old was actually fairly old at the time)? Look how they turned out. Not too bad, I’d say and hardly stunted. There is no parental guidance because there is no discipline involved. The two go hand-in-hand.
“Keep an open mind, Mat, and you will become a fine attorney. Please remember, all is never black and white. You will have a 15-year-old yourself one day, and will be fiercely protective of that child as he navigates through the stumbling blocks of learning how to be a man.”
I know what’s right or wrong. Keeping an open mind these days seems to be a euphemism for anything goes (which is precisely the problem with kids today, hence, 1/4 of girls have some sort of venereal disease and 1/5 out of everyone has herpes). And I don’t plan on having kids, as I don’t plan on getting married. That’s one of those pitfalls in life I will absolutely avoid.
For you, PatHMV:
Tee-hee. Thanks!
What on earth are you talking about? I have never been in any ‘beat down’ whatever that might be.
You cannot seem to grasp the concept that violence is not inherently evil. It is part of life and all members of the military are not criminals despite their acquaintance with violence.
So now the individual who is upset with a punch in the nose is threatening murder? This was a rapid descent into lunacy! “I’d likely shoot you to stop the beating before I even bothered to inquire about the circumstances. But vigilante justice is wrong?
I would far rather have her as my neigbour than some lunatic threatening murder “before I even bothered to inquire about the circumstances.
Jeez, Mat!
That’s NOT what I meant at all … I MEANT where the law is concerned and making changes accordingly when given the opportunity.
I actually live an extremely conservative rural life on a family farm and my kids are my world. I would do anything short of allowing someone to beat on them to guide them in becoming the kind of people they intrinsically are.
Agreed, but discipline is not a beatdown. Believe me, I know how to do worse to my kids, and I am not, nor have I ever been, above a nice, hard spanking when it’s called for. I just don’t want anyone else doing it.
“Jeez, Mat!
That’s NOT what I meant at all … I MEANT where the law is concerned and making changes accordingly when given the opportunity. ”
Well, the law is not meant to be open-minded, but rather based on technicalities, or at the higher level, ideological motivation. You should have clarified that.
I never had any problems with how you handle your kids, but I’m afraid that the vast majority of parents out there (here or Britain) don’t see discipline the way you do, hence my attitude towards vigilante justice. Discipline can take many forms, and doesn’t necessarily require a “beatdown.” Unfortunately, as I said, most parents don’t even understand the basic concepts of disciplining a child, hence all of the leftist nonsense that occurs in Western society. Personally, I blame the Boomers for what is going on now, but that’s merely my opinion.
Travis, you’re now a liar, to boot. Why don’t you quote exactly what I said, huh? Here it is:
In other words, idiot, IF I adopted the same vigilante attitude which you seem to support, THEN I would likely shoot without asking. Get it? Sheesh. That’s not what I would do, but what somebody with YOUR attitude would do. All I said I would do is pull a gun on a person I observe beating a teenage boy (and order them to stop). That’s an entirely appropriate reaction. And justifiable under the law, too! Deadly force is allowable if I reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent the infliction of death or great bodily harm to another person.
And who said all violence is evil? You noticed the specific exception I laid out for self-defense? That includes soldiers acting to defend the interests of our country, nit wit. I’m only saying that slamming a teenager’s head against a car hood to punish him for some stupid thing he did is evil.
Yep, I was a pre-law major before I got my com/poli sci degree, so I know a little about setting precedent and the penumbra of the law, as well as the flexibility of the Supremes to work within those parameters.
I also know about the flexibiity of a defense attorney to research and utilize precedent and case law in a proactive and adaptable manner. It was that ability to which I referred.
Agreed, in part. It appears that a segment of permissive ’60s personalities seem to be imparting/have imparted a lack of responsibility and wisdom in their progeny. But we also have a pathetic lack of follow-through among young fathers, as well, which cannot be solely blamed on the Boomers.
Thank god I’m a ’70s vintage and thus missed all that hippy-dippy, lovey-dovey nonsense : )
PatHMV
No pulling a gun on someone is not an appropriate reaction unless someone is in mortal danger and that was clearly NOT THE CASE here. You seem to play pretty fast and loose with both insults and threats of violence.
I might suggest you read what I actually wrote instead of using your emotions to inform you of what I believe. I said I DO NOT believe in using anything more than a spanking to discipline children.
Is that difficult to understand? It’s plain English and very clear.
A discussion with you is a waste of time as you lack the capacity to reason, or argue constructively without letting your emotions run away with you.
“I also know about the flexibiity of a defense attorney to research and utilize precedent and case law in a proactive, flexible manner. It was that ability to which I referred”
That’s not really being open-minded but rather opportunistic. Not necessarily the same thing. Not that I have any issues with that. That’s the way legal stuff is done.
I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I just think what you’re saying is totally wrong (not to mention dangerous) because you’re not allowing citizens to stand up for themselves when they see something that is wrong. It is what has morally bankrupted Britain and will eventually do us in. And that’s when the Muslims will come marching in…
So what you are saying is that when I see that kid being beaten up for “making a mess” I have your permission to see it as wrong and thus intervene …? Or are you saying that the person beating him up has the right to do so because he saw his actions as wrong?
Remember, as I have said all along, physical self-defense and defense of others is exempted — I 100% believe in the right to kick ass and take names in those circumstances. Lay on finger on me and mine and you will meet Mr. Taser, or may I introduce you to Ms. Ladysmith?
Open-minded or opportunistic, depending upon your particular affiliation at any given time!
Slamming a kid’s head against a car hood might not reasonably appear to a person passing by to be mortal danger? If you saw somebody being beaten up, your first reaction would be “hey, they must be learning some responsibility,” I’ll just continue on my way?
As for your last bolded statement, have we been misunderstanding you? Are you now saying that it was immoral of Lisa to send her son to have his head slammed against the car hood? You said that pretty clearly, earlier, I thought. Could you clarify which of your posts is your actual opinion? Is it the last one, or the earlier ones where you said:
Or when you said:
Or:
Which is it, Travis? In your opinion, was it right or wrong (morally) of Lisa to send her son over to be beaten by having his head smacked into the hood of a car hard enough to dent it? Can you understand how we might have taken your earlier statements as a defense of using actual violence in order to discipline a kid?
Mat, no offense, but having been a young and zealous law student once upon a time, I can assure you that you’ve got a lot to learn, buddy. It ain’t black and white out there in the real world.
OMG LOL!!! “Larnin’ dat bowah sum ‘sponsibulness!”
The only boy is 8, so we’re not to the point of dealing with an adolescent male yet – the girls however…
If any of the kids trashed someone’s house we would have a garage sale.
Every item in their room that was not essential would be hauled out and they would have to sell it THEMSELVES at a garage sale specifically for reparations for the damaged house.
Nintendo DS & games? Gone.
X-Box? Gone.
Game Cube? Gone.
Television? Gone.
Computer? Gone. (They’d be stuck using the communal computer in the living room.)
Bike? Gone.
In short, everything they own other than their bed, bedroom furniture, clothes, and books would be sold and they would personally have to march over to the damaged party’s house to hand over the proceeds. Oh, keep in mind that their father starts selling everything for $1 after a while just to get rid of it.
…then begins the additional tasks to make sure that the victim of their vandalism is fully compensated.
They all know that we are capable of depriving them of any and/or all of their “toys”. We don’t tend to have many problems…
On the “beat/don’t beat” the kid. Well. By the time they’re 15 your pretty much stuck with how you parented (or didn’t parent) them up to that point. A smack on the thigh, bottom, or hand works for a toddler because a toddler doesn’t understand if-then statements, but does understand direct consequences.
A teen, however, needs something that will stay with them.
I fully believe in consequences for actions. But having a 15 y/o beaten by a grown man seems a bit…excessive.
“Mat, no offense, but having been a young and zealous law student once upon a time, I can assure you that you’ve got a lot to learn, buddy. It ain’t black and white out there in the real world.”
Actually, if you’re defending or prosecuting, you’d better believe that it’s black or white. Attorneys don’t get paid to stay in grey areas. They get paid to win, which means their client is right and the other is wrong.
Well, Mat, having been a prosecutor for 5 years, a pardon attorney for our governor, and a variety of other positions, I can tell you that YOU better believe that it’s often not black and white.
If you’re prosecutor, your job is to promote the interests of justice which usually involves a straight-forward “let the jury decide” approach, but quite often also requires a fair amount of judgment about the specific facts at issue. And on the question of sentencing (which you don’t get to decide, but do get to have an opinion on), it’s ALL gray.
And in the business/government/corporate world, where you’re asked to render an opinion as to whether some course of action is legal or not, only a fool would give a hard black-or-white answer in anything but the most clear-cut case. Much of the time, your client pays you precisely to find the gray, so they can get what they want done while staying, hopefully, just this side of the line. And where the line falls, precisely, is rarely if ever clear.
Oh, and quite often it falls to the lawyer to warn his client while he may be legally in the right, the negative repercussions in other areas or in long-term strategy may be disastrous, or he may lose money despite winning the case.
But hey, I know where you’re coming from. You’re a law student. You know EVERYTHING. It’s an occupational hazard. The best attorneys get over it pretty quickly. ;-)
-shrugs-
we’ll see.
Mat… after my first semester, one of my professors was going over my test with me. He said: “Pat, when I was reading your paper, I could almost see you pounding on the table, going ‘it MUST be THIS way.’ It doesn’t. There’s at least 2 sides to every argument.” Once I got that through my head, my grades improved, as did my usefulness to my future clients.
As another professor told me: “the motto of the lawyer is: ‘have license, will argue, either side, for fee.'”
Rarely is your opponent insane or devoid of all reason. There’s some merit to his position, or they would have already settled. To be effective, you must be able to understand his argument at least as well as you do your own. Ever read Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card? I recommend it. The lesson Ender learns about how to destroy one’s mortal enemy is important.
Yes. Absolutely, yes. I had to do something similar with my oldest when she was acting like an entitled little bitch regarding “all the other 15-year-olds get to stay out late and party and …” So she tried it, and you know that cell phone ad where the father is looking for the daughter? Let’s just say I found her, and she didn’t like the scene I made.
Fine. You want to act like that, then all I have to do is provide you with the basics, little miss K darling; you want to act like a dipshit-stupid adult, go out and buy your own adult things.
Into storage goes everything except Wal-Mart attire, sheets and comforter. And out come the water works. Her father buckled, I did not, we had an “i wanna live with my dad” war, which we soon discovered was totally futile because I wasn’t going to be swayed and she didn’t want to be away from her friends forever.
Nearly nine months later, after she’d earned it all back through a series of behaving well and doing chores, I bought her a car, because I wanted to prove to her that she had worked hard to earn my trust (after a few efforts to see just how far I was willing to take this, of course; let’s just say it was the one and only time I’ve ever had to smack one of my kids in the mouth after I physically removed her from a “boy party” and she told me to go fuck myself.)
And I’ll be damned — that kid has never received a ticket or been in any trouble since, (believe me, this is a SMALL area and I have sources) and she’s 21 years old, in pre-med (not sure if doc or nurse) at a local university, and actually thanked me for teaching her the “entitled leetle beetch” lesson shortly after she turned 20. She was a high school all-star athlete, graduated salutatorian and got the most scholarships of anyone in her class (I helped with that — ulterior motive), won gold medals at the national FCCLA convention for three years, and was a volunteer at the local library.
She also said she was glad I tolerated her because she hated pretty much everyone, including herself, for her entire 15th year. She now laughs about the entitled little bitches she sees all the time and is thrilled and grateful that she is not one of them. Young men and every adult she runs into like her attitude and versatility, and more importantly, she likes herself.
Granted, this is a girl, and also granted, I did smack her once, but this is just a personal anecdote that there are alternatives to beating up a kid who needs some guidance. Sometimes humiliation and deprivation work WAY better than getting violent with a kid.
Actually I would ask what was going on, rather than wiping out the old pistola and blazing away.
No not really. You seem to be unable to distinguish between parental discipline and the course that life takes. If you tell a young child not to shake a can of pop and they keep doing it, you might very well let them open it and find out for themselves why it is a bad idea. This is not an endorsement of pouring soda drinks on children as a disciplinary method.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that children are independent of you and your desires?
They are the ones that have to learn how to be moral and productive individuals in life. Part of that learning is them accepting responsibility for their own actions.
Yes, it was the morally correct action for Lisa to send her son over to face up to what he had done. Mommy cannot always be the one to determine the course of events nor should she try. A teenage boy is never going to be a man if his mommy holds his hand as he blubbers out an apology.
They have to be able to stand on their own!
PatHMV:
Uhh…what exactly are you trying to convince me of here?
Was that addressed to you, Travis? I think not. It was very clearly addressed to PatHMV.
I promise, when the center of the universe is discovered, sir, it will NOT be you.
PatHMV,
I guess we shouldn’t bring any open flame around this forum:
But I AM thirsty for some soda pop … how about you?
I could go for a coke, 14k, you bet! Love the strawman poster! Did you do it?
Pat,
Yes, I have read Ender’s Game. I’m well aware of the outcome of that book. But isn’t that my point? He and his team won, totally. The enemy was crushed. It was literally a black and white conflict. One or the other was going to be destroyed (even you can’t deny that). Of course you look at the “grey” areas to see how your opponent thinks. That’s all part of basic strategy. But staying in the grey isn’t a goal, but a means to an end.
Personally, I think what’s happening in Britain is a very interesting microcasm of what occurs when you over-legalize a culture (yes, I believe that’s possible). Right and wrong disappear and what’s left is a grey meandering notion of law that solves nothing and weakens everything (which is why I noted the Muslims marching in part earlier).
Like I said…we’ll see.
PatHMV:
Don’t I wish! But I am now inspired, so here is a little fun. I intend to save this and pull it out when I have had enough “oh yeah, but this XYZ ridiculousness is analogous (at least, in the empty void that is my head), and thus you are compelled to extrapolate ABC, incorporating said outrageousness into your worldview post-haste” bullshittery.
14 Karat:
Bravo!! It takes guts to stand up to the little…yeah.
I had a similar situation with my eldest. Unfortunately my ex lives 5 minutes away, and he is so consumed with being the “friend” and “good guy” that I became the “bad guy”, since I had no problem taking the car away when curfew was broken, grounding her when she trespassed…and he was always sympathetic to her, rather than reinforcing the “oh, you broke the rules, you know the consequences”. Believe me, those were discussed and agreed to by both of us beforehand.
Here’s the problem with a lot of divorced families – one parent, or both parents view it as a popularity contest, rather than looking at what is best for the child. It is not only bad for the child, but bad for society, as these children tend to grow up with a sense of entitlement that is not healthy.
That not only happens in Great Britain, but here as well. Thankfully, we are still enforcing a code of conduct here – at least in the community I live in.
I am not my kids’ buddy or pal. I am their mother and I have a responsibility and a job to do. I wish my ex felt the same, but he doesn’t. And his attitude is unfortunately very common among boomer parents. AARGH!
Mat,
Good luck to you in:re your law school goals, and please keep commenting. Your offerings are refreshing and reflect your passion and, as Pat says, your zeal.
Exactly what the practice of law entails. The greyness of right and wrong. If you choose that course, whether prosecution or defense, you must shade the coloration of your client to provide the best possible defense of the entity you have opted to represent. Guilty defendants are degrees of guilty (first, second, third, etc.) and thus shades of innocent. If there was only black and white guilty, the guy who worked too many shifts, fell asleep at the wheel and killed a family of six would be just as deserving of the death penalty as the serial killer who kidnapped, raped and murdered six 12-year-old girls. All 12 of these people are just as dead no matter what happens to the defendent. What does matter is how you, as the attorney of record, argue the shades of each case.
This is inherent in the democratic law and justice system. This is a reality you must accept in order to function to the best of your ability in your job. I, and the rest of society, expect nothing less than the best you can offer your client.
Again, thank you for the discourse. As I said, very refreshing.
ElvenPhoenix:
I know your pain. I spent many a night with my husband agonizing over my decision to follow-through with the disciplinary actions I felt compelled to implement regarding the actions of “our” daughter. I cried a lot with him, and put on my game face with the divine miss K. But she was so worth it.
Her father, who, despite certain legal issues I wanted to have in her life, said I was a hardass, and I was causing her popularity problems. I countered with the reality that she was causing those problems for herself. I had no choice but to stick with it, as she was not deserving of anything but the basics until she proved that she was deserving of any extras I was willing to offer.
We have them, and thus we sign on to provide them with guidance. Believe me, it was tough to do that with a child who was only 16 1/2 years my junior, and thus could be my sister/buddy. But I was, and still am, determined that she would not end up making the mistakes I did. She knows “she” was not the mistake (we do laugh about her being my high school whoops, and she does not now, and will never, know the circumstances under which she was conceived) but she knows that many of my choices were.
Never give up. I hope you have the same support I did with my Mr. M. He went through a period during which he also thought I was a hardass, but he did not articulate that opinion in front of her. Otherwise, I think I would have given up and she would not have become the person who now fills me with pride and hope for the future.
Ack — PatHMV, this is the correct one I was making and posted the prelim — sorry!
Rachel, this one is for you when you are facing the proverbial strawman:
14 Karat
I *heart* you.
So very very much.
Mat… it’s not actually all gray, and part of the problem with society is indeed the insistence that everything is gray. There are blacks and there are whites, and there’s very dark gray and very light gray. But in between, there also is in fact a great deal of real, honest-to-goodness gray.
As for Ender’s Game, note that Ender, when he understood the bugs really and truly, also understood that they did not need to be the enemy, and he spent the next several books trying to undo the damage he had done in the first book… even while he understood the necessity of his original actions.
14K… LOVE those. I’m totally stealing them to use regularly over at StubbornFacts. My co-blogger Tully will love ’em.
Societies that have become feminized will be ruled by societies that haven’t. Plain and simple. This is why Britain will go Islamic within 20 years and Texas and Australia won’t.
Yeah, there’s a sense here in which, if she was going to get busted for assault, one wishes she’d have made it far, far more worth her pains. ;-)
I mean, if she’s going to be chided for losing self-control, she might as well have REALLY lost it.
Everytime I read a story like this I think of the movie Secondhand Lions. Some ruffians are rude to Robert Duvall in a restaurant so Duvall singlehandedly kicks the crap out of 4 of them then drives them back to his ranch where he gives them steaks to put on their blackeyes and feeds them (“What are we eating?” “Meat!”). Then he lectures them on what it means to be a man.
We need to institute this kind of thing as public policy.
Some of you seemed to be ignorant of the overall situation in the UK as regularly reported by their own press, but regularly ignored in the US, except by a few blogs.
There aren’t just a few bad apples in a huge barrel of good ones — there are lots of “juveniles”, in chronological age from their pre-teens to well into their 30s, who are out of control and know that the justice system will do little to control them. The police are generally useless in dealing with them, issuing “cautions” if they even bother to show up to the crime scene and catch someone.
However, anyone who chooses to defend him- or herself is very likely to be arrested for assault, regardless of whether the person or propery is private, public, or in his or her very own house. The Labour government has successfully stamped out of the system any notion of self-defense or dealing effectively with actual criminals — the legal focus has now shifted to making sure wage-earning citizens keep their rubbish bins sorted properly, and their recylables int the proper box, and not don’t make it too heavy, and oh by the way don’t wear a hat in the pub because the surveillance camera can’t see your face. And damn you if you use an English measurement instead of a metric one. And don’t you dare say something about “Asians” even as the muslims are marching in the street calling for death to the infidels. And do like the one UK police chief advised: leave your car keys by the front door so when the thugs break it down, they can easily find them, and maybe they won’t climb the stairs to your bedroom and beat you senseless to give up the keys.
It is much easier and more lucrative to enforce laws against honest people who make money through actual jobs. Remember the old line about asking a robber why he robs banks? “Cuz that’s where the money is!” Same with the UK’s enforcement of the law — go where the money is, not where the actual crime and violence is — no profit there!
Go check out PC Copperfield at The Policeman’s Blog () and go back thru the archives. He anonymously documented the nonsense that British policing has become, became fed up with the whole stinking mess, and emigrated to become a policeman in Canada. He still maintains the blog to provide venting for other cops who want to be good cops, but are trapped in a leftwing bureaucracy, and haven’t realized they either need to revolt or flee the country.
That’s why I am with the lady who smacked the kid. He deserved smacking, and yes if it was your kid there he deserved smacking too for desecrating a memorial to the WWII Britains. Of course the little yobs are so busy desecrating the rest of the country, I suppose it doesn’t matter any more.
And Rachel, you wrote this:
“It needs for maybe a few hundred or a few thousand Americans to come over there and be strategically placed around the country,…”
No, it is too early for that. What Britain needs is a few years under the sharia administration that is coming to the UK. Let them know what it is really like to live in society that does not honor genuine western values. Perhaps they will then have their own “Anbar Awakening” and realize what they have given up. Of course, since they will long have been disarmed, they won’t be able to do a bloody thing about it. THEN — maybe — some US troops will do some good. Altho I will be hard pressed to support bailing them out again. At least during WWII the Brits gave some evidence of being worth saving, but look how that has turned out since.
I’m a first time visitor with an interest in this topic, who laments the social death spiral that seems to be afflicting formerly Great Britain. Here in the U.S. things have not gone so far, but from the standpoint of looking back more than 50 years to when I was 15, I see major changes. Although it doesn’t really prove anything, I’ll cut and paste a short excerpt from a long reminiscence I posted to another board, about a tough, bullying, delinquent kid who was in my class from kindergarden through High School, whom I first interacted with in the 1st grade, and who crossed paths with me many times thereafter. Perhaps relevant to this thread, the last time was when I was a Captain at an Air Force Base, heard him call out my name in the base Commissary, and turned to find him standing as part of a group of 3 USAF Master Sergeants. The next time I heard his name was in the “In Memoriam” section of my 40th High School Reunion program. I gave him the fictitious name of “Paul Boudreau.”
EXCERPT:
My freshman year in High School was, as it is for so many of us, my first experience with moving up to “the big time”. Suddenly we were walking in the same halls with kids who drove to school in cars, who were stars on the sports teams representing the whole city, some of whom had real jobs, guys who had 5 O’Clock shadow, people who were going to college or into the Army next year —– this wasn’t the comfortable old Roosevelt School or dinky Junior High. This was it, the real thing! And at that time and place, the teachers treated us like adults, — and what teachers they were! The new environment was brought home to us green freshmen by a legendary incident, that once again involved Paul Boudreau.
My freshman general history teacher (and cross country coach), and freshman algebra teacher were both retired Marines. These were guys who’d joined the corps well before WWII, served throughout, retired after 20 or 25 years of service, and were pursuing a second career as secondary school teachers. We hadn’t encountered this sort in the lower grades. They were small men, wiry, with deeply seamed faces, which were perpetually bronzed. They were soft spoken but firm. The comment went around that we’d heard that Marines were called “leathernecks” —- well, maybe so, but these guys definitely had leather faces. The algebra teacher worked summers as the pari-mutual odds calculator at our local track, Scarborough Downs. This was in the pre-computer, pre-calculator era. When he would drill us at the blackboard, he’d describe how fast and accurate you had to be with your formulas, to reset the constantly shifting odds right up to the moment that bets were closed.
One day, a month or so into the freshman year the algebra teacher called on Paul, who was in my class. he muttered something in reply, which most of us didn’t catch (a few people nearby who did, later said they thought they heard the f-word, but no one was sure). Evidently the teacher’s ears were sharper. With no change in expression, he simply walked down the aisle, Plucked Paul (who was taller than him) from his seat, lifting him effortlessly by his shirt collar, and silently frogmarched him out into the corridor. The rest of the class exchanged puzzled looks, no one quite knew what was happening. There was a brief, largely inaudible converstaion from out in the hall, and then shockingly, a tremendous crash, as Paul was hurled forcefully into the metal lockers which lined the hallways. Through the doorway we saw the half-filled pack of cigarettes that Paul kept rolled up in the sleeve of his T-shirt (yeah, would-be, James Dean, hoody types actually were doing that in 1956) arc through the air and lie in the doorway. The teacher’s foot lashed out and booted this contraband down the hallway, spinning around and flinging out cigarettes in every direction. As the expression goes “You could have heard a pin drop!” The class sat in stunned silence. Then loudly and clearly came the voice of the teacher addressing Paul: “You march yourself down to the principal’s office and tell him what I just did. See what he has to say about it. And back into the room came our ex-Marine sergeant, and calmly picked up where he had left off describing how to factor a quadratic. It truly was a different era. I can’t imagine this happening in today’s High Schools. Paul returned to class. We never heard what the principal had to say; evidently, it wasn’t anything Paul was happy to pass on. He never gave any teacher at SPHS any lip again that I ever heard about.
The only hope for Britain is for the law abiding folks to become as fearless of the rotting society’s legal system as the criminals are. Only then will they be willing to take matters into their own hands sufficiently to curtail the lawless rampage. I doubt anyone spends real time in jail for assault in Britain anyway, so one might as well really earn one’s sentence by doing a proper job of it.
So, some Brit cop got disgusted and moved to Canada? Canada? Man, is he in for a jolt. A couple more years and he’ll have to move to an American Red State if he has any chance of escaping the kind of garbage he put up with in Poofter Land.
A Hell of a lot of fence straddling going on here. I think she should have beaten the living Hell out of him. Put some real hurt on him. Yeah, I’m a barbarian, I fight back when thugs attack what I hold dear.
It’s surprising how quickly they learn empathy once they have experienced some pain, administered by someone who doesn’t love them, and therefore gives them an idea of what to expect if they continue in their thuggery.
I don’t care if Mrs. Lake lost her temper and reacted spontaneously. It was warranted.
I truly pity people who water down principle to be considered acceptable. That simply means they have no principle, they are just playing to the crowd and searching for the membership card in the ‘nuanced’ crowd. BAH!
Pardon my intrusion. I am an American and know no better… However, reading your report and outrage made me wonder “Where are the adult men?”.
The role of men in society is to tame and civilize the next generation of men. We give examples of behavior. We step forward when the young are full of themselves and in need of deflating. We provide guidance and counsel. We provide private consultation in the arts of living among a larger society.
We are not paid. We are not approved by any official body. It is simply our duty as men. This duty is encouraged by our women who smile, provide small tokens of kindness, and help us in our dotage…
Without men educating the young, our society devolves much as the young male elephants in Africa who were attacking the rhinoceros… And for the same reasons…
Were this my neighborhood, I’d collect some other men and provide lessons this evening. No need for guns or violence. A quiet word or two in private would solve the problem.
You do not have to go over to GB to find people vandalizing war memorials and the police and newspapers ignoring what is happening. Just go to DeWitt park in Ithaca, NY. When I lived there 15 years ago they had a spring festival and one for the attractions was a dancing exhibit in the war memorial square in DeWitt park. The dancers from the various groups giving demonstrations of their dances used the war memorials as billboards to post information about themselves. When I objected to this defacement and tried to call this to the attention of the police and the local news paper I was told that it was no big deal and to mind my own business. So if you want to protect the memorials of those who have given their lives for their country, just go to DeWitt park in beautiful super liberal Ithaca, NY
If this has been mentioned in the 200+ comments I missed it.
We English do not need the assistance of any revolting ex-colonials. We’ll manage the job ourselves just fine so long as we aren’t handicapped by having our own police and judiciary take the side of the yobs.
Oh and arms, firearms that is, are probably not the correct solution. A few simple things like bike chains, cricket bats and the like will do fine just as long as we can be sure that the law will be on our side.
14 Karat asked, “you know that cell phone ad where the father is looking for the daughter?” Yeah, I’ve seen that AT&T advert and consider it further evidence that the world is run for the benefit of the class interests of females, especially the irresponsible ones. Otherwise, the school-age daughter becoming dating-anathema after neglecting to ask permission of her parents for her change of plans would be considered not a bug, but a feature. (I haven’t bought cell service from AT&T since, btw.)
Fellow Americans, I wouldn’t be too quick to hurl stones at the English. Recall that then-President bill clinton indulged in slimy excuse-making for another hooligan of US citizenship who had committed vandalism in Singapore. What clinton’s embarassing whining amounted to was nothing more than special-pleading that like girls,* Americans have more delicate heinies.
* Remember Susie Derkins?
This article makes me very sad. I love the British, but I cannot deny the apparent trend toward incivility and an unwillingness of its leaders to address such matters. They seem intent in disarming law abiding citizens while emboldening thuggery. I honestly don’t know what can be done as those in power appear to at least tacitly agree with what is going on.
PatHMV Says:
MikeT…. how has violence in this instance helped anything? SHE was arrested. The kids weren’t. Are they more or less likely to be arrogant and believe themselves to be untouchable? Are they more or less likely in the future to taunt somebody along the lines of “we’re 15, you can’t fucking touch us”? I suspect that their belief in their untouchability will be strongly enhanced by the fact that she got arrested and they didn’t. And I doubt she hit any of them hard enough that they’ll be scared of her or someone like her in the future.
I would point out to everyone here who is bemoaning the use of violence, that a) it was very mild violence; b) I have never met anyone who didn’t believe in violence, despite their protestations. Those are the people who don’t want to take responsibility or risk for the judicious application of violence when it is called for. That is cowardice, both physical and moral. Because those are the people who will hire their violence done by others, either through the military or the policing forces. Pretending one doesn’t believe in violence is an almost universal lie. I challenge all of you who make such claim to lobby for disarming of police and military. That would be the only honorable stance you could take. Pointing out the need for authority to be armed and/or willing to engage in violence to protect you despite your non-belief in it, is hypocrisy; c) were it not for the judicious application of violence, all mankind would still be living in caves, with all the downside that portends, fearfully hoping that the marauders don’t find their particular cave. Hoping against hope that the marauders robbed, raped and murdered their neighbors to the point of satiation well before they themselves were discovered.
It saddens me greatly that we have people who believe that way and advocate for it. It is even more sadly obscene to realize they don’t even realize what their position really is.
Violence can be justified in defense of you, your family, or your country. No one here is “bemoaning” the need for violence in the appropriate venue. As I have repeatedly said, fuck with me and I will introduce you to my companions Mr. Taser and Ms. Ladysmith.
Violence is not justified over squished flowers.
I respectfully disagree. This is like saying because you were hanging out on a bad street during a driveby and you know someone who is a banger it’s okay for someone to shoot at you because you might have committed a crime. Guilt by association. If you were an “innocent victim” and merely in the vicinity when someone snapped, you’d want justice, too.
Or perhaps we should punish this kid “just in case” he did something, or because he verbalized that his society was too negligent to teach him the significance of the memorial in the first place. He’s not advocating shitting on the memorial or blowing it up in terrorist fashion, he’s simply ignorant as to why it’s there in the first place and apparently was never taught to care. Which is of course, a pathetic statement, but not a crime. I’ll bet he’s not ignorant now, even though his parents deny that this is the kid who actually said that in the first place. Kids aren’t born with this knowledge; patriotrism is not intrinsic. They must be educated and guided regarding history and love of country, as I said in my original post here.
Just as an FYI, court records indicate that the kid whose bike she threw was in when it happened, so this kid couldn’t have been riding through the memorial at the time Ms. Lake says: “I lost my temper in frustration…” and “attempted a citizens arrest” (her words).
Yes, somebody had caused damage to the memorial in the past. But not these kids at this time.
I agree that there is something royally fucked up in England, (rotten in Denmark, I *believe* the euphamism goes) but vigilante justice will just make things uglier, and even MORE totally innocent people who just are trying to do the right thing will wind up beaten up, or worse, killed.
For those of you who believe in punishing a strange kid with physical violence, believe me I can empathize. Just please do so with caution and the foreknowledge that you will be arrested, as I would hate to see you shot for your efforts or surprised at the cost of bail.
Oh, and if it’s my child who gets yanked off his bike from behind and slapped while minding his own business, you can just go ahead and liquidate your assets and then make the check out to my business account at “HHKK, Somewhere in Washington, USA” : )
I disagree with 14K. If 15 y/o dumbasses knew that if they acted like a moron they would get an immediate painful ass-beating, then those incidences of being a moron would go down. IF you can’t control your frakking kid, we’ll do it for you. And let the bodies pile where they may, for dead morons are not a tragedy. If anything, dead morons would be a blessing.
And violence IS justified. Because if you want someone to really do something, threaten them with crippling violence. Talking doesn’t work, it never has. It’s a liberal fantasy. Look at what no-violence policies have made of the UK. If the beatings of malicious teens occurred more often in the UK, they wouldn’t be having this problem.
Mighty frustrating but 14 Karat says it right:
Nix on the bashing anyone’s children but your own. Unless of course the little bugger is armed and dangerous or beating someone else’s little bugger and you have to intervene to protect them or yourself.
Of course.
Many of them do know this. It’s called having decent and loving PARENTS! My kids all got spanked growing up. Now, we use respect for each other to get things done, or fear when it is appropriate.
My short man — and both of my daughters — WOULD get an ass whuppin’ from me, my husband or my husband’s family if he needed it, even as a young adult.
I am not going to change anyone’s mind, and no one is going to change mine, so NOW can we please get to this:
as per the request of the hostess?
I agree with fighting back. I really do. But the simplest, best, safest and least “arrestable” method for dealing with neighbor hood crime is to implement a neighborhood watch, as we did in my community when the local park became dealer central. Even punks are reluctant to mess with two people with walkie-talkies, stunners and a direct like to the sherrif’s office. It’s simply too messy to shoot two people.
But, as I said earlier, I am rural, conservative and Catholic so a lot of this behavior mystifies me.
When it comes to desecrating vets’ memorials, I tend to subscribe to the Brick Top method of discipline…
“Feed him to the pigs, Errol!”
Seriously. Kids like that don’t need to be breathing my air, the world would be a better place without them or their delinquent parents who let them behave like that.
And for lesser infractions? A smack in the face works, or a knuckle sandwich for self-defense.. Give them the beating their family should have, and teach them what it means to push a man past his limits.
What do you expect from a country where one can be sued for libel and it is up to the DEFENDANT to prove his/her innocence?
Growing up, my dad would occasionally repeat this advice he claimed to have been given by a colleague:
“When you go home in the evening, hit your kid and kick your dog. You won’t know what it’s for… but THEY will.”
He was joking. It’s a funny joke. It’s not funny to do in practice, however. Punishing people for something they didn’t do merely drives them insane; it certainly doesn’t teach respect for the law. Seriously. Studies with rats show that shocks when they do something wrong will teach the rats to stop doing that. But shocks on a random basis when they haven’t done anything wrong turns them paranoid and useless.
You know, it’s fascinating to me to see these fond remembrances of the “good old days” when men were men and regularly kicked the ass of shitstain teenage boys to teach them to be men. Judging from some of the comments on this thread, this was the approach taken by large numbers of the parents who lived through WWII…. that is, the parents of the Baby Boomers. All that “man-making” sure didn’t seem to actually turn out that many men, if all the wailing about how terrible today’s society is is to be believed. The Baby Boomers are almost universally reviled as the most over-indulgent generation of people ever. If they were being raised in this good old fashioned, beat ’em when they’re bad, method, how come they turned out so crappy?
Wow! Quite a thread; I’d say 14K must have finger cramp from all the entries.
Analysis: the original story was very flawed. The woman should not have become violent with that particular individual since he was not the perpetrator.
She, however, apparently was driven to her actions through her sense of frustration with the police who refuse to enforce the laws concerning vandalism of public property. All involved in this discussion agree that this is a large and increasing problem in Britain. I was last there in 2005 and concur with the general assessment.
Law-abiding people are unhappy with the law enforcement, or lack of same, in both America and
Britain. In America, at least, people are safer simply due to the Second Amendment. With firearms fairly readily available they can, in the final extremity, defend themselves successfully against the increasingly vicious criminal element.
Deprived of their firearms, the British cannot do so. The smarter Britons realize they are effectively at the mercy of those who would rob, rape and despoil because their police are perceived, justly, as not enforcing the laws against the lawbreakers. This situation is increasingly resembling a condition aptly described as “anarcho-tyranny.”
The posters here are justly concerned about this since, although mostly American, they see the same trendlines occurring over here and deeply fear becoming like Britain. The question that occupied most of this thread was the determination concerning when violence from a private citizen in defense of the public domain becomes acceptable.
Given the increasing lack of consensus as to what constitutes acceptable behavior in public and the ongoing balkanization of American society, this is a very serious matter. What hasn’t been explicitly brought out in this discussion, but should have been, is the extent to which people apparently feel such privately inflicted violence is likely to be necessary now or in the near future. I’d say most people who commented here feel that it may well be necessary and are concerned only about the proper circumstances under which it should be applied. To me, this speaks volumes about the confidence, or lack of same, in the police forces of the U.S.
My opinion on this thread is that most of the posters were intelligent and their positions relatively well argued. It’s a serious issue, possibly one of life and death, and one America as a nation cannot run from. Like it or not, the diversity America has irrevocably committed itself to has made such questions not only inevitable but inevitably more frequently brought up for intense consideration.
Sorry 14K
I don’t believe for a minute that your kid is under control. That 15 year old got a lot less than he deserved, and his parents should have been grateful that someone cared enough to try to teach him a lesson. I’ll bet his parents also “discipline” him at home. As a teacher, I find that students with discipline problems in public have parents who “discipline” them at home…….whatever!!!! Sorry, just don’t believe it for a minute. Hope I’m wrong, and I would have to have another’s opinion of your child behavior to believe you. Many parents do not have an objective view of their children’s behavior; some do, however. I find that if a child has the balls to misbehave in public….then God only knows what he feels free to do in his own family.
mignon:
And for your information, my children would rather chew off their own arms than embarass me in public or anywhere else. They have too much respect for me to be anything but polite. You see, I am the parent whose kids you would walk by in the grocery store with their noses in the corner while I finished my shopping if they opted to publicly misbehave.
Oh, and as an academic advisor/instructor myself, I am sorry that you are so jaded. It is indeed a shame that you have reached such a point that you would pre-judge young people based on the writings of their parents. I am grateful for us both that my children do not attend your school.
Please stop being personal and focus on the abovementioned topic out of respect for our fine and most gracious hostess. Thanks!
Sheesh, 14K… I can’t believe you won’t let strangers beat your children. You are SUCH a bad mother!
I’m really starting to get creeped out by this thread. What about you?
If Britain has middle-aged women willing to stand up to a gang of 25 teen-age boys, there’s no need to import gun-toting Americans.
I wonder how police heard she’d slapped the boy and thrown a bicycle. Did the boy complain?
I’m really not sure what to think, Pat. Apparently I am not only a bad mother, but also a bad conservative, and my comments would be more palatable and better appreciated elsewhere. Either that, or I should hand my children off to the lynch mob so they can learn to take a beating like good little Americans.
Again, you are truly a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.
I have two boys, 14 and 17, and while I would want an adult to intervene if they were engaged in delinquent behavior, I would not support an adult who started physically punching my kid for trampling a flower bed- after all, I get mad at the boys when they get into a punching match with each other instead of working out conflicts in a more rational manner.
Having said that, I think the behavior of the kids and the adults is predictable in the given social climate. No matter how hard parents have worked to raise their kids right, unless these kids are brain dead they can see that there is little opportunity for them to prosper by hard work, so they turn their energy to petty crime. There is little incentive to follow the straight and narrow, while the petty crimes offer at least a momentary thrill of power and daring. The hard working adults have been betrayed by the social institutions they have supported, they feel frustrated and helpless to deal with the delinquents in their communities, and at some point they break and lose control.
These problems will not be solved by higher level government, but by small communities coming together to establish and enforce those laws that actually secure the rights and liberties of the citizens. The problem will be keeping the national government out of the way long enough for small communities to establish civil order, and citizens who can stand firm against crime while remaining calm and rational.
Well, the upside, 14K, is I got to get to know you better through all this, and you’re good people in my book! :) It’s always good to make new friends.
Not brain dead, Jean. Please don’t use sweeping generalizations to insinuate children are stupid because they don’t and won’t engage in petty crime. This is the type of mindset that contributes to teenage peer pressure and groupthink.
Some children live the value of hard work every day and thus have developed the morals to refuse to engage in such behavior.
It is not because they are stupid.
Absolutely agreed. As I discussed earlier, neighborhood watch programs are the first line of defense in this scenario. Training and expertise will keep people calm and rational in these situations. I have personally seen and been involved with these programs. If a kid is invested in his community, he is less likely to destroy it (no hard data — just an anecdote).
Ditto, PatHMV. I love your blog — it uses ATTRIBUTION! OMG!
I hadn’t had a chance to check it out before, and once I got there I immediately made the connection that Tully is one of your blogmates.
After perusing, I get the impression that some of my opinions would be most welcome there. It *is* pretty intellectual, though! : )
No disrespect, but I think your sentiment does little to honor your grandfather, who deserves much honor and credit.
Put it this way. Go up to the 50 year old lady referenced in this article. The one who bravely faced down a mass of punks and defended the memory of men like your grandfather. And then tell *her*, after all the grief she went through, tell her she wasn’t worth it.
Screw the punks. They are scum. But her? She seems like she and your grandfather, God rest his soul, had much in common.
AndyJ,
I missed your comment of earlier. Good on you, sir. Neighborhood humiliation, old-school style. This is exactly the respect issue I have been advocating.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks, glad you like it! You’re always welcome over there. We have fun with it. I’ve been blogging very lightly myself the last couple of months, but I think I’m about ready to start blogging on a daily basis again. We’re really still trying to build up our comment section with people who like to argue, but politely and armed with facts and logic. A bit of a rare commodity in the blogosphere, I’m afraid! We’re a bit dryer than some places, but I think we do a pretty sound take on issues of the day.
Oh, and we enforce a pretty high standard for our commenters. No cussing is an ironclad rule, and we demand some real thought, not just knee-jerk rants, usually. I think you’ll enjoy it if you come by more often!
Consider me tutored. I ran a state-licensed in-home child care facility for nearly 10 years while I was at home raising the short man and Becs, and I am compelled to navigate the liberal mindset of higher education. I knowz how to keepz the f-bombs at bay, as required.
On a most hysterical note, as I was typing this, the state representative for our district just called me to assist him — he wants me to fire up the 992 and load his truck with gravel from our pit! So, the culmination of this discussion — I really have taken the time to get to know the law enforcement officials and politicians of our area, and thus, perhaps, I am very cognizant of working within the system to bring about change.
And now, off to assist Rep. Cox, R-Colfax.
EDIT: Call back — he wants the load tomorrow. Still. It’s 8:30 p.m. here, and I am grateful that our rep is comfortable asking me for a favor at this time of night. Quid pro quo.
The law may indeed say certain things and proscribe certain behaviors that reasonable people would do. I’m certain 14k never, ever sped by even five miles per hour on a nice, straight road with minimal traffic.
The point to that is there is a difference between reality and the law, and between morality and the law. And this has to be the case. The law is a subset of reality, it cannot match point for point the greater set.
Thus human discretion is called for. In effect, 14k seems to be against this in the area of the law.
14k goes on to explain her knowledge of people in a 50 mile radius, and how we should organize a crusade to take on city hall.
All these three examples reveal a bias toward professionalization, I think.
I also think it was PatHMV who criticized the woman for losing control. Not everyone can be like Paules kicking the punk in the leg. His action was admirable, but not everyone has that degree of skill, foresight, planning, and cool control of emotion and body. Again, a bias toward professionalization is revealed.
Just what are the ordinary man and woman who aren’t qualified to start picketing city hall, and who freak out when faced with violence, and who have not created a well thought out philosophy of personal violence supposed to do? Leave it to the professionals? Leave it to the elites among them? Hardly. One is allowed to defend one self against a criminal even if your hands are shaking and your voice goes two octaves higher when you order them to ‘freeze’.
The strong among us are there to show the way. 14k certainly should lead in the formation of a n’hood watch. But she should not deny the individual his own due rights.
And to the notion that enforcing order on thugs weakens the law…bwahahhahahaha. The government gets its right to justice from me. If it comprehensively fails, then that right devolves back to me. And even when it succeeds, still the Law is the top 1/10th of the glacier, the Culture is the bottom 9/10ths. The Law cannot and should not deal with every situation. Attempts to use the Law for more than it is able to do only ruin the Culture and the Law. The Law is meant to be an Awesome Majesty that is striking in its severity, and spare in its application. Too much Law, and reliance on the same is bad for a Nation.
And Pat, the baby boomers were raised by Dr. Spock. People feared that authoritarian led to fascist so they turned from authority. Later Dr. Spock admitted he had been wrong.
Tennwriter —
Are you stoned, drunk, retarded or just ridiculous? Seriously. Your preceding denigration makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The only rational aspect I gleaned was that you are certain that I was driving 5 MPH over the limit.
What rights are you referring to? The rights to beat up a minor child when said child pisses you off? Otherwise, I have not remotely suggested that I strip you of one single inalienable right.
WTH? What coherent examples are you offering? And insinuating I am elitist, rich and powerful? Please. Point that argument elsewhere. Nobody bought my place in life. I worked damn hard with no assistance to get where I am. I saved every dime, and married well in the process.
Nevermind. Please feel free to direct your criticisms toward me again when you are either literate, sober, or I can assist you with a 12-step program. I have a great amount of empathy for people in your apparent, *ahem*, situation.
Good luck to you, sir.
What is perhaps the worst aspect of this is that sharia, or something like it, may in the end become the alternative to this utter rot. One reason so many British Moslems feel no loyalty to Britain as their country is the obvious moral decay. I don’t approve of the way Moslem fathers cage their daughters, but when “British” 13-year-olds are reprimanded for leaving their childrens unattended while they go out and get drunk, it becomes somewhat understandable.
Apologies. That should have said “denigration of my commentary …”
Leave, troll.
Strange response, 14k. One wonders if I got too close to the target to provoke such an extreme response to a mild comment.
You may apologize if you like.
I made two points:
1. The Law does not cover everything, nor can it, nor should it. I understand why this point annoys you because it undercuts the whole focus of your arguements. If we only look through the lens of the Law, then yes, you’re right. However, I do believe the hostess has pointed out in an update that she does not care about the law in this particular case. So once we move beyond a limited to the Law viewpoint, then we realize you’re wrong.
I pointed out that despite your focus on the Law, that no doubt you, like 99% of other Americans finds it acceptable to speed a little bit. Thus proving that most Americans are respectful but not totally bound by the Law. And I rather suspect you fit in with the rest of Americans.
2. Professionalization. This has nothing to do with how hard you worked to achieve whatever. Congratulations on your hard work and your successes. This has to do with ‘let the professionals handle it’.
There is a certain streak in American life that wants the cops to handle problems. This streak is generally gun controllers, but not always. In any case, I stand with Thomas Jefferson in preferring yeoman farmers as the bulwark of society rather than a large collection of sheep and a few highly trained watchdogs.
The second part of professionalization is elitism. Please read what I say carefully instead of going ballistic. That word ‘elitism’ seems to be a flashpoint for you.
Certain people have certain gifts or talents which other people lack. You speak casually of organizing pressure groups, and bending city hall and the police to your will, and of knowing everyone in a fifty mile radius.
I can’t do this.
Most Americans can’t do this. Now, I have other talents you don’t have, but the talent of organizing a march on city hall is not one of my talents.
So…
1. The Law does not cover every situation in its full complexity.
2. Not everyone can organize a petition drive, especially in the face of an establishment that is actively hostile.
So what is the ordinary person supposed to do here?
Your answer seems to be ‘leave it to the professionals and the natural leaders’. I don’t find that to be an acceptable answer.
We need two answers here. One, the answer for the common person. Two, the answer for the leader type.
In other words, you’re not capable of civilized behavior and are only capable of responding to acts you believe to be wrong with violence, is that it? You should not be resorting to violence if you’re not, as you put it, able to exercise a certain level of control over that violence.
There are, as we have explained, any number of non-violent responses that the English woman could have made. Some of those involve petitions and pressuring government, others involve getting a couple of neighbors together to do a neighborhood watch. If you can’t muster that level of getting other people to agree with you to take action, then personally I wouldn’t trust your judgment sufficiently to let you get away with using violence, especially violence against teenagers whom you did not actually see in the process of committing a crime.
None of what either 14K or I have discussed applies to using self-defense to protect yourself or your own property from being harmed. It does apply to using violence to punish teenagers who are strangers to you for bad behavior AFTER it has already happened.
As for the law, you are certainly correct that it is not for every occasion. But it is for many. And one of the things it is for is to stop people from using violence on each other as punishment without allowing for due process of law, a process by which we determine what REALLY happened, as opposed to what you just THOUGHT was happening at the time your emotions and fear were running high and you decided to beat the crap out of somebody because you THOUGHT they had done something wrong.
By the way, you may have missed it, but “yeoman farmers” make up no more than about 1% of the population today. We no longer live in an agrarian economy. That has caused a great many changes in our culture, laws, and society as a whole. Rules appropriate for small, rural communities where everybody knows everybody else do not always work in large, urban environments where most folks do not know many of their neighbors.
Our answer is not “leave it to the professionals and natural leaders.” Our answer is: “Do not hit kids who are not yours without permission, except as necessary for self-defense.” And self-defense means immediate self-defense, not pre-emptive, smack him today so he’ll be scared of me tomorrow self-defense.
Your comments demonstrate the old adage: “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” You can’t think of anything else to do, so you just smack the kid you don’t like.
I am just finishing a personal memoir by George MacDonald Fraser, the Flashman series author, screenwriter and journalist, about his experiences in Burma fighting the “Japs” as he calls them, called “Quartered Safe Out Here” (2001). There are several asides with his take on current attitudes in Britain. Here is the money paragraph:
“They [the WWII vets] did not fight for a Britain which would be dishonestly railroaded into Europe against the people’s will; they did not fight for a Britain where successive governments, by the weakness and folly, would encourage crime and violence on an unprecedented scale; they did not fight for a Britain where thugs and psychopaths could murder and maim and torture and never have a finger laid on them for it; they did not fight for a Britain whose leaders would be too cowardly to declare war on terrorism; they did not fight for a Britain whose Parliament would, time and again, betray its trust by legislating against the wishes of the country; they did not fight for a Britain where children could be snatched from their homes and parents by night on nothing more than the good old Inquisition principle of secret information; they did not fight for a Britain whose Churches and schools would be undermined by fashionable reformers; they did not fight for a Britain where free choice would be anathematised as ‘discriminisation’; they did not fight for a Britain where to hold by truths and values which have been thought good and worthy for a thousand years would be to run the risk of being called ‘fascist’ – that, really, is the greatest and most pitiful irony of all.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Fraser, and most of his generation, have now passed away. Who will remember a once great country?
Sweetie, we weren’t even on the same shooting range, let alone you being anywhere near my target.
Again, to you.
PatHMV.
Ditto, my friend, ditto. Well done.
Baton passed.
Wow, does no one ever move on? I didn’t even know this thread was still active. And nothing is substantially different.
14K presented a very reasonable statement. I may or may not agree with her, but who cares? Really folks, there’s more important things than trying to convince her she’s wrong. Guess what? Not gonna happen. If that hasn’t sunk in after reading the last six (six!) days of posts, it never will.
Arguing about child discipline is like arguing religion. Each is convinced the other is going to burn in hell. And it can create pretty nasty feelings all around.
A quick aside about the burning in a mythological construct. It’s pretty much a consensus view from all that I am going to burn in hell (for actually uttering that “mythological” statement at a family gathering), just ask my mom (Love ya, mom!). Note to self: make sure I’m buried with marshmallows, graham crackers and chocolate. Mmmm… Hell S’mores!
Dead Horse.
Tenderized from all the beating.
You’re right, Phil.
I will never EVER subscribe again, because everytime I get a notification about how stupid I am for refusing to gibber; “gee, I would be honored if you’d smack my kids around”, I simply lose my head and go all pavlovian-drooling-rabid on my keyboard.
Found this apropos quote somewhere:
It’s EXACTLY like that.
Never. Subscribe. Again.
OH SHIT! Was that a bell?????? : )
Hi. I just wanted to say that I have read almost all the things that you guys wrote and I feel like it might be ok sometimes to hit people when they do some sort of bad things to you. But it is not fine for teachers to say it is ok to hit other people and students. Because that won’t help my classmates learn how to be a student and be good people like a real parent. I wouldnot say things or be physical or mean to you but I would not let you hit me or my family and my mom would not ether.
I like your website and I read it Rachel because you are smart, you have interesting things to say, and my sister likes the dogs and my mom says it is okay to read you and El Captin and sometimes Grouchy Cripple and Nikki when she has looked it over first and also sometimes I read Ace but it is hard to understand some of the stuff they say unless my mom and I are looking at it together. but my mom does know I am looking but not that I am putting it on here.
Anyways I am not 15 yet and I guess my mom said I was in a secenario way and that is not true. But she is a really good mom and i love her, so I am sorry that everyond is mad at her. I told her is she should stop defending my honor because it won’t be me to do bad.
So it is unfortunate that there are bad kids age 15 but there are good kids age 15 in alot of places. My sister kayla is good but she was not fun a few years ago and she had to learn how to be happy.
Anyways I like to read all the things you have to say here and it is fun that you give my mom a challenge and it makes her happy.
So now you know me some and I am real. I like to work on the farm and also wrestle and read. Mom and I are working on the clasics, like Lord of the Flies, and the Pearl, and the others like the Red Pony and a poetry book with the nothing gold can stay and what happens to a raisin in the sun and Animal Farm and Tom Sawyer books that we just read. And we liked Angel Experimtent books by James Patterson, too. She made me read Little Women so I coul tell her why I hated it in a report but she made me read Of Mice and Men, … too?
I have to work tommorow and my mom won’t like me up too late because I lnow that Iam nicer when I have my sleep. So i am going to bed before my mom gets back from working on the house over in the neighbor place.
So goodbye and thank you for listening to my story.
REC:
What a nice comment, big guy.
Why weren’t you in bed at 10:55 p.m.? : )
I respectfully request that if anyone has any responses regarding REC’s comment that you please point them in my direction.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your understanding.
14K… what a delightful son you have! Excellent taste in literature you have for your family, too. Have you introduced him to Where the Red Fern Grows, yet? Tragic story, but certainly an important classic for every young man. Hey, if you don’t mind, drop me an e-mail, will you? I’ve got a link to a photo you’ll appreciate, from my family’s menagerie of animals.
If you’ll forgive me one tiny little response directed at REC himself…
REC, you have a very fine mom, so you be very thankful for her! (and go to bed when she says to…) And don’t worry, not everybody is mad at your mom. All the smartest, coolest people like her a lot.
Most definitely! We have hunting dogs (well, we’ve had three over the years) and old Dan and little Ann have a place in our hearts. I actually read that one aloud when the little ones were little. We really don’t like Hemingway or Salinger; so far we have also examined Harper Lee, Faulkner, Crane, Defoe, London and O’Henry (especially “Gift of the Magi”.) This is fun for all of us (except hubby, whose idea of fine literature is SnowGoer and Playboy, which doesn’t bother me one whit), especialy me as I am compelled to revisit the classics in order to coherently discuss them with the kids. But tell me, Pat, what the point of “Catcher in the Rye” was? This was my third read through and I still don’t get it … : )
I called my son a little while ago and he said to apologize for misspelings and some juvenile verbiage, but he had a hard time trying to write in a small space, since he’s used to typing in a full, letter-size document with spell-check. He tried to edit, but he said that just made it worse for him. I told him his point came across and was well taken, regardless of how it appeared to himself (he’s a bit of a tenacious perfectionist — go figure).
Thanks for your kind words, and I will shoor you an email later!
My grandfather served in the Wehrmacht, and my great-uncles in the Afrika Korps, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe and I can assure you that if it hadn’t been for the resistance of these brave Allied men, my family would own some property in London.
On the other hand, I can assure you that there would have been NO desecration of ANY war memorial by any “wayward youths” had my grandfather been around.
JULIE LAKE COMMENT
First of all, thank you to every-one of you for your comments and support.
It’s been some time but until now, i have been unable to legally speak out. This is due to the case going to a full four day trial.
It has been frustrating not being able to answer the false “Mistaken Identity” issue raised by my local paper.
The facts are as follows.
In court, the youth’s cheif witness gave evidence damning his friend. He also admited his friend had lied to police in his statement.
Other youths also told the court that it was indeed the correct youth and he was doing “Star Jumps” deliberately on the flower beds.
I thank those youths who told the truth under oath of British law. Well done to all of you. Your decency came good in the end.
Whilst giving evidence, the guilty youth was indeed asked “what doe’s the war memorial mean to you”. There were gasps of horror from the public gallery full of war veterans when he replied with a shrug “It means nothing to me” He was then asked, if he knew what the memorial was there for?. He replied “I guess for people who died in the war or something, i don’t know”.
In the judges summing up, he stated “That he was in no doubt from evidence heard throughout the four day trial that the youth was in the act of damaging a war memorial by deliberately riding through flower beds.”
He also ruled out all claims for compensation from the youth.
I was convicted due to my behaviour after i caught him red handed.
The court also heard that the parents did not initially lodge a complaint of assault to their youth. The court heard a full transcript of a 999 call (911) by a concerned member of the public asking for police due to 50 youths fighting with 2 adults. (Myself and my husband). The operator asked “Is that five zero, or one five”? She replied “Five zero” 999 transcripts do not lie. Police attended to find that the 2 adults had left the scene but the youths still present. It was only then that the youth claimed i had assaulted him.
I did not strike the youth as reported in the press. The judge was satisfied from youths evidence, along with mine, that i merely grabbed his clothing above his coller. However, the judge did not believe i had done this to restrain him and found me guilty of assault.
I never denied throwing his bike, however, police failed to photograph or even view the alleged damage. In court, the youth could not even produce a reciept. I was found guilty because i admited it.
Since my trial, residents have said that they are over-joyed that these youths do not gather at the war memorial any more.
I’d like to thank Staple Hill Branch Of The Royal British Legion and local Tory councillors who stood by me right the way through and never doubted me for one moment.As ever, the loyal support of my family, especially Martin & Mint.
The paper who reported that i had got an innocent youth has apologised to me in e mail and offered £500 as a gesture of good will. They have admited that an inverview with the youth claiming he was a case of mistaken identity was taken weeks before the trial and before witness evidence was heard. As a guilty verdict came in late afternoon, the inadvertantly rushed to press. The paper in question did print a retraction the following day.
A note of interest. On day one, 6 youths turned up to give evidence in court. They arrived together with other youths without one parent between them barr one lad. That just about sums up the whole sory story does it not??
Thankyou once more for all your interest in my case. As you can imagine, it has raised serious concerns about the future of our country.
JULIE LAKE