Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Violence never solves anything. You have absolutely no right to ever lay your hands on someone. Punching someone is a crime! Strange how you condone violence when you feel it's appropriate.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
You actually DO have every right to "lay your hands on someone" as a defense.
Not for being yelled at you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
A teenager texting on a phone isn't creating any kind of public disturbance at all.
It creates a family disturbance, when someone is trying to talk to another who has their head buried in a cell-phone.
Teenagers don't have a right to a cell-phone. The father was correct to take the issue outside.
Here's the thing. There's a reason cowards go to restaurants to break up or deliver really awful news. Because it's not acceptable to create a scene in a restaurant so the deliverer of the breakup news is shielded from really negative consequences. Usually.
A teenager texting on a phone isn't creating any kind of public disturbance at all. In fact, they are silent. It's the dad who was apparently creating such a public disturbance they had to take it outside.
A teenager texting on a phone is being disrespectful to others at the table.
Please keep this up. I find your thought processes intriguing. (Though we really should move this to the Psychology forum.)
So now the 63 year old Dad is, in your words, a "coward." And was creating a public disturbance because, in your words, he wanted to be shielded from really negative consequences of telling Junior he was leaving them.
I don't think you thought this one through.
Because, if that was the reason they went to a restaurant, how could Dad possibly be "shielded from really negative consequences" when they got HOME?
I think you need to decide which of your imaginary scenarios is your favorite. Remember the one where you stated that Dad was abusing Junior and punching him was Junior's way of lashing out? How does that reconcile with Dad leaving them? Junior would be relieved his abuser was moving out.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat
A teenager texting on a phone is being disrespectful to others at the table.
Please keep this up. I find your thought processes intriguing. (Though we really should move this to the Psychology forum.)
So now the 63 year old Dad is, in your words, a "coward." And was creating a public disturbance because, in your words, he wanted to be shielded from really negative consequences of telling Junior he was leaving them.
I don't think you thought this one through.
Because, if that was the reason they went to a restaurant, how could Dad possibly be "shielded from really negative consequences" when they got HOME?
I think you need to decide which of your imaginary scenarios is your favorite. Remember the one where you stated that Dad was abusing Junior and punching him was Junior's way of lashing out? How does that reconcile with Dad leaving them? Junior would be relieved his abuser was moving out.
No, I think you've misunderstood. Dad didn't take junior to the restaurant to deliver bad news.
I have no idea why the restaurant wasn't a fine place to have a discussion about putting your phone away, unless he intended to physically yank the phone away from the boy, or hit him, or shout at him and berate him.
I don't understand father/son relationships like this because I don't have any like this out of my 3 adult sons when they were teens. If my son REALLY wanted to finish a text conversation, I'm pretty ok with that. If I REALLY wanted to have a discussion, they'd put their phone away. I've never had a son scream at me, or call me unflattering names, nor have I done that to them.
We're living in a world of people who are suffering extreme insecurity. Also extreme paranoia which is a slightly different subject to the one under discussion. Insecure people are addicted to their social media, Facebook, Twitter, cell phones, constant texting, etc. etc. and this has become accepted by most of society as 'a norm'. Why?? Because most of society shares the VERY same insecurity and zombie-like addiction. Just look at the threads on this topic on CD ...people lash out in defense of their addiction. How dare you bring my addiction to my attention! This is probably a similar case here between father and son.
I've said it before and I'll say it again ...people are becoming dumber and dumber and more and more manipulated by some - as someone mentioned elsewhere on this thread - nefarious power.
I doubt people are inherently much different than a decade or two ago. They say character is revealed (not created) by stress or unusual circumstances. This is simply how people are dealing with a new factor. Kids used to sit and act bored sometimes. Now they play on their phones.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I'm guessing it was an argument that was probably a little more mutual than just the kid belting the innocent dad out of the blue. Still, even if dad was slapping him around, punching your dad probably deserves a few weeks in juvie.
Punching out your own dad, just because he told you to put your device away at the restaurant dinner table, is a bit far to take "entitlement". I wonder if there's more to this story, and the family dynamic or history.
The ONLY possible justification for the son hitting his father is IF his father hit him. Even then, there are courts that would say I am wrong. Hitting is an attack and not a defense. I am allowed to defend myself, but taking a punch at someone is not a defensive posture to assume.
Whatever the family dynamic is, unless this child is autistic or some other mental defective, there is no excuse for reacting to his father with violence. Luckily, he is charged with a felony at age 16. It's not too late to learn from this experience.
The ONLY possible justification for the son hitting his father is IF his father hit him. Even then, there are courts that would say I am wrong. Hitting is an attack and not a defense. I am allowed to defend myself, but taking a punch at someone is not a defensive posture to assume.
Whatever the family dynamic is, unless this child is autistic or some other mental defective, there is no excuse for reacting to his father with violence. Luckily, he is charged with a felony at age 16. It's not too late to learn from this experience.
It's one thing to smack a hand away. It's something entirely different hitting someone to the ground and causing a brain injury.
Sometimes you have to work backwards from the end of the story.
He was released on $40 bond to his mother pretty quickly.
My guess is, the father isn't blameless and the boy didn't intend to inflict such damage.
Or at least it appears mom isn't afraid of him.
Just like the Mom's who scream whilst crying "he's such a good boy, he never hurt anyone so let him go" as the police are handcuffing their kid for multiple homicides...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Strange how you condone violence when you feel it's appropriate.
