Mess with my daugher will ya ... - Page 10 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

davidmash · #**136** 03-21-2014, 01:28 PM

I'm willing to bet it will be accurate enough to insure he is viewed as the protective father coming to the rescue of his innocent daughter.

Similar smell to SYG in FL. So long as you reasonably feel threatened, you can take out who ever you want with out repercussions. Never mind the fact that no threat existed and your beliefs were based upon a lie. Kids dead. So long as he felt threatened it's all good.

Botnst · #**137** 03-21-2014, 01:31 PM

If I reasonably believed I was imminently threatened with deadly violence you betcherass I would use any means necessary to remove that threat. Deal with consequences later.

I applaud people who sing hymns walking into the coliseum, brave souls. But I'll stay outside.

davidmash · #**138** 03-21-2014, 01:42 PM

So long as you agree that if your feelings are incorrect you will also be executed or at the very least lose your freedom for the rest of your life then I guess I am good with that.

cmac2012 · #**139** 03-21-2014, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If I reasonably believed I was imminently threatened with deadly violence you betcherass I would use any means necessary to remove that threat. Deal with consequences later.

I applaud people who sing hymns walking into the coliseum, brave souls. But I'll stay outside.

This is why balls are important. You can realize when you have the upper hand and remain calm. Shooting people dead cuz your're askeered and stuff has a down side.

In this case, he and his daughter look like jerks and will now deal with unknown difficulties for some time. Hard to imagine ever putting something like this fully behind you.

Your hymns, coliseum analogy is just a tad off the mark.

BAVBMW · #**140** 03-21-2014, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

your feelings are incorrect

Well, I guess that would be the hard part. Determining if others feelings are "correct" or not.

I know the basis for California self defense law(s) work on the premise of trying to determine if another reasonable person in the same or similar situation would feel threatened. And that's always a tough one. Trying to sit around in a conference room and try imagining how you might feel in different situations, well, I can certainly say that in my life thus far, there has been more than one time I found myself in a situation, feeling differently, than I ever thought I would if presented with that situation.

That said, I think this particular case merits some further looking. Something isn't adding up quite right, and it does seem the father might have reacted, uh, poorly. Personally, I feel the daughter shares a significant of the responsibility as well. Saying you don't know a person in your room in the middle of the night? Inviting disaster. And this time, it seems disaster was able to make it to the party.

MV

davidmash · #**141** 03-21-2014, 02:32 PM

The whole "I don't know him" thing seems weird to me as well. Someone says they d not know me I'll be rattling off all the stuff I know about them. Classes we took, people we know... Etc.

I get the girl claiming that. She knows she should not have the boy in her room. She says it to divert blame. I doubt she thought her dad would kill the kid. I guessing she figured he'd get kicked out and that's it. While I agree she was stupid to say that how many times do kids blame someone else for their actions not realizing that there might be undesirable repercussions for the person they blamed? From the sounds of it the dad has some serious explaining to do. I hope he is held accountable for his actions. Further evidence not with standing, the daughter was dumb for saying what she did but she did not make dad fly off the deep end and kill the boy.

INSIDIOUS · #**142** 03-21-2014, 02:59 PM

I'll guess the kid didn't have time.

cmac2012 · #**143** 03-22-2014, 02:32 AM

Word was that there was some sort of argument between kid and dad. I'm guessing it was 'yes she does too know me!'

TwitchKitty · #**144** 03-22-2014, 08:16 AM

Where's Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson when you need them?

cmac2012 · #**145** 03-22-2014, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Right. That's why the Irish and Scots called it "The Terror" for 500 years or so.

S'funny, I don't recall you being as sympathetic to people conquered and deprived of land and property by a more advanced culture when it involved Palestinians or Native Americans.

I can only imagine that I would be less than happy did a band of Vikings storm into my village and cart off my daughter and property, cutting my throat in the process. And my ancestors fall on both sides of that divide: Norwegian, Swedish, Scottish, and Irish.

Not pretty but the way of the world for a long time. Even wise old Moses directed his forces to slaughter every last man, woman, and child of this or that piece of territory.

INSIDIOUS · #**146** 03-22-2014, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

S'funny, I don't recall you being as sympathetic to people conquered and deprived of land and property by a more advanced culture when it involved Palestinians or Native Americans.

I can only imagine that I would be less than happy did a band of Vikings storm into my village and cart off my daughter and property, cutting my throat in the process. And my ancestors fall on both sides of that divided: Norwegian, Swedish, Scottish, and Irish.

Not pretty but the way of the world for a long time. Even wise old Moses directed his forces to slaughter every last man, woman, and child of this or that piece of territory.

Seems he missed a few.

John Galt · #**147** 03-22-2014, 05:03 PM

It's often easy, but also rather ignorant, to characterize groups of people with stereotypical generalizations. A people might interact with some groups much differently than with others. The Norse, or Vikings as they're sometimes known, are a good example. The legends of English speaking people characterize the Vikings as brutal, barbaric, conquers. However, the fact remains that the Norse and the Inuit maintained a relatively peaceful co-existence on either side of Davis Strait between Baffin Island and western Greenland between 900 and 1200. They maintained a mutually beneficial trade for hundreds of years, and did not seek to conquer each other. People living in harsh climates usually find that it's much better for mutual survival to cooperate and trade rather than conquer and enslave.

bad news travells further, faster and persists longer in proples memories.

cmac2012 · #**148** 03-23-2014, 03:33 PM

I think it unlikely they could have made a go of their settlements in Scotland if they were uniformly rapacious invaders. I gather that Christian forays into Scandinavia had spawned some ill will and that in some areas, non-Christian traders were put at a considerable disadvantage. If so, the raids of plunder and conquest might not have been simply a manifestation of some inherent brutish nature.

At any rate, it's pretty hard to know much with any accuracy, so scant are actual records of events.