Adult runs onto football field knocks over kid

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
the kid is playing tackle football. getting knocked down by an adult isn't that serious when he has probably been knocked down by kids on the other team all day.

so by that logic it should be ok for people to shoot at marines that are coming back from iraq using the defense that they are used to getting shot at.

no, you have the analogy wrong. if you are going to say that the fathers kid was playing paintball with the other kid except the bully kid used a real loaded gun and shoots the fathers kid, and the father shoots the bully afterwards.

that would be a more accurate analogy.

yes even better. either way are you trolling or really this stupid?
 

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,189
87
91
madgenius.com
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage

your kid cant stand up for himself, so you have to beat some 10 year old?

why do you have to assume option b?

I'd prefer if the kid was mearly held to the same standards. assault= jail.

if you really think little kids need to goto jail for a school yard brawl you have mental problems.

yup, exactly!

So, why does it change as an adult? Whats so special about turning 18 that suddenly a slap in the face can lead to jail time, when previously it never did?


I think it is because it is a standard in america.

You are now 'legal'.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage

your kid cant stand up for himself, so you have to beat some 10 year old?

why do you have to assume option b?

I'd prefer if the kid was mearly held to the same standards. assault= jail.

if you really think little kids need to goto jail for a school yard brawl you have mental problems.

yup, exactly!

So, why does it change as an adult? Whats so special about turning 18 that suddenly a slap in the face can lead to jail time, when previously it never did?

think these questions through before you ask. a little critical thinking will allow you to discover that a 13 year old is not the same as a 31 year old. and a 10 year old is also quite different in many ways from an 18 year old. This is also why we dont hand out drivers liscences, hand guns and cases of vodka to kids in middle school. just think about it for a few more minutes if your still stumped ill explain it to you.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
I'd like to see the guy get community service. That's all he deserves for a first time offense like this.
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
yes even better. either way are you trolling or really this stupid?

Truthfully, I don't think what I saw in the video was worthy of jail time. The father ran over to his son, and knocked over the other kid. That was the end of it. If he wanted to assault the kid, he could have kicked him in the face or broke his ribs or broke his arm or something and really ruined his life, but he didn't.

What he did was wrong, sure.

Was it child abuse? No.

 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
think these questions through before you ask. a little critical thinking will allow you to discover that a 13 year old is not the same as a 31 year old. and a 10 year old is also quite different in many ways from an 18 year old. This is also why we dont hand out drivers liscences, hand guns and cases of vodka to kids in middle school. just think about it for a few more minutes if your still stumped ill explain it to you.

Yet, you think a 19 year old is the exact same as 70 year old?

A 17 year old is the exact same as a 3 year old?

Because they aren't... yet in the eyes of the law they are.

The system is messed up, in my opinion. You don't have to agree, but you can't honestly say that a 17 year old who kills someone doesn't know what he is doing.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
yes even better. either way are you trolling or really this stupid?

Truthfully, I don't think what I saw in the video was worthy of jail time. The father ran over to his son, and knocked over the other kid. That was the end of it. If he wanted to assault the kid, he could have kicked him in the face or broke his ribs or broke his arm or something and really ruined his life, but he didn't.

What he did was wrong, sure.

Was it child abuse? No.

I am not arguing that he should go away for years in jail here. I am arguing that A) it was assault and B) if I was the kids father who was knocked down the fvcker would be toast

 

tyler811

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
5,385
0
71
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Did you even watch the video? The fathe pushed the kid, and knocked him down, big deal. He doesn't hit him or kick him or do anything that would cause the kid to even seek medical attention, much less get "put into traction". If Amused is being honest, then he is just a big bully and destined to spend a lot of time in prison when he assaults the wrong person. Or maybe he is just acting tough because this is an internet forum :p

It's an adult assaulting a child. Again, were it my child that father would be in a world of hurt... and no jury would convict me.

And no, I'm 39 years old and have never been arrested for a crime (besides an unpaid traffic ticket in my teens), much less in prison.

FELON FELON HELP POLICE ;)

 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
think these questions through before you ask. a little critical thinking will allow you to discover that a 13 year old is not the same as a 31 year old. and a 10 year old is also quite different in many ways from an 18 year old. This is also why we dont hand out drivers liscences, hand guns and cases of vodka to kids in middle school. just think about it for a few more minutes if your still stumped ill explain it to you.

Yet, you think a 19 year old is the exact same as 70 year old?

A 17 year old is the exact same as a 3 year old?

Because they aren't... yet in the eyes of the law they are.

The system is messed up, in my opinion. You don't have to agree, but you can't honestly say that a 17 year old who kills someone doesn't know what he is doing.

you can be tried as an adult for certain crimes like murder 1 when you are less than 18 and they do a prelimiinary pyschological investigation to determine if you have the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong. There are some people who have mental disabilities who will never mentally mature beyond the age of 10 or 12. They can read and write and communicate but they do not grasp concepts in the same way that a mature adult can. For this reason they may not be tried as an adult. its not a perfect system but a perfect system is jusst a pipe dream anyways.
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,504
12
56
Originally posted by: tyler811
Text

A footall player lays a late hit on a kid. Dad runs full steam onto field and sends the other kid flying. Sorry no audio caught it too late to switch over audio over. The best view is at the end. Kinda of a big file 22.6 MB Dont have the right editing software on lappy, used WM encoder :eek:

EDIT If someone can make the file size smaller feel free and faster let me know I will send you the original
saw this on the news. freakin wackjob father needs to be banned from attending all juvenile sport's events.

 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
Well, I thought the only funny part of the news is when he tried to high tail it over the fence like no one knew who he was.
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,504
12
56
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

The kid made his choice, it was the wrong one. An eye for an eye.

 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

The kid made his choice, it was the wrong one. An eye for an eye.

You're an idiot.

First of all, the kid was not hit in the back. When you get hit in the back, you don't fall like that. If he was, he would've sprawled out instead of curling it. He was probably hit from the side. On top of that, if it was a full on sprint, getting hit in the back probably would've straight up flattened him, and he would've been in a world of pain afterwards.

Second of all, if you're away from the ball and you don't realize the play is dead, you have no way of knowing you shouldn't hit the guy. The whistle wasn't blown until after the hit already occurred.

Thirdly, like I said before, late hits are a part of the game. They happen at every single level of the sport. It was not malicious, it was not done in a way to injure, which he could've easily done. You'd be suprised at how damn effective a chop/cut block after a full sprint is at tearing ACLs. Or how effective a spear is at breaking bones.

And to my last point, it's a hell of a lot different when two 100lb kids go againt each other, compared to when a grown man, weighing 180+, takes a full sprint and throws a shoulder tackle/knee into somebody.

You've obviously never played any sorts of tackle football, at any level.
 

tyler811

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
5,385
0
71
Well two things to consider.

1 The dad ran at the full speed at the kid and the kid fell over not flying thru but more like tripped over his own feet.

2.The dad took off running leaving his kid by himself.

So 1+1=2 noooooo

1+1= dads a bigger pvssy then kid on the field.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

The kid made his choice, it was the wrong one. An eye for an eye.

You're an idiot.

First of all, the kid was not hit in the back. When you get hit in the back, you don't fall like that. If he was, he would've sprawled out instead of curling it. He was probably hit from the side. On top of that, if it was a full on sprint, getting hit in the back probably would've straight up flattened him, and he would've been in a world of pain afterwards.

Second of all, if you're away from the ball and you don't realize the play is dead, you have no way of knowing you shouldn't hit the guy. The whistle wasn't blown until after the hit already occurred.

Thirdly, like I said before, late hits are a part of the game. They happen at every single level of the sport. It was not malicious, it was not done in a way to injure, which he could've easily done. You'd be suprised at how damn effective a chop/cut block after a full sprint is at tearing ACLs. Or how effective a spear is at breaking bones.

And to my last point, it's a hell of a lot different when two 100lb kids go againt each other, compared to when a grown man, weighing 180+, takes a full sprint and throws a shoulder tackle/knee into somebody.

You've obviously never played any sorts of tackle football, at any level.

I'm not saying the guy was right in how he handled the situation, he wasn't, but the kid definately was in the wrong here.

I'm not going to argue with you.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

The kid made his choice, it was the wrong one. An eye for an eye.

You're an idiot.

First of all, the kid was not hit in the back. When you get hit in the back, you don't fall like that. If he was, he would've sprawled out instead of curling it. He was probably hit from the side. On top of that, if it was a full on sprint, getting hit in the back probably would've straight up flattened him, and he would've been in a world of pain afterwards.

Second of all, if you're away from the ball and you don't realize the play is dead, you have no way of knowing you shouldn't hit the guy. The whistle wasn't blown until after the hit already occurred.

Thirdly, like I said before, late hits are a part of the game. They happen at every single level of the sport. It was not malicious, it was not done in a way to injure, which he could've easily done. You'd be suprised at how damn effective a chop/cut block after a full sprint is at tearing ACLs. Or how effective a spear is at breaking bones.

And to my last point, it's a hell of a lot different when two 100lb kids go againt each other, compared to when a grown man, weighing 180+, takes a full sprint and throws a shoulder tackle/knee into somebody.

You've obviously never played any sorts of tackle football, at any level.

I'm not saying the guy was right in how he handled the situation, he wasn't, but the kid definately was in the wrong here.

I'm not going to argue with you.


uhh you said.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the righ

sow as he right or not?


 

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
yes even better. either way are you trolling or really this stupid?

Truthfully, I don't think what I saw in the video was worthy of jail time. The father ran over to his son, and knocked over the other kid. That was the end of it. If he wanted to assault the kid, he could have kicked him in the face or broke his ribs or broke his arm or something and really ruined his life, but he didn't.

What he did was wrong, sure.

Was it child abuse? No.

The crime sounds like battery IMO.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

The kid made his choice, it was the wrong one. An eye for an eye.

You're an idiot.

First of all, the kid was not hit in the back. When you get hit in the back, you don't fall like that. If he was, he would've sprawled out instead of curling it. He was probably hit from the side. On top of that, if it was a full on sprint, getting hit in the back probably would've straight up flattened him, and he would've been in a world of pain afterwards.

Second of all, if you're away from the ball and you don't realize the play is dead, you have no way of knowing you shouldn't hit the guy. The whistle wasn't blown until after the hit already occurred.

Thirdly, like I said before, late hits are a part of the game. They happen at every single level of the sport. It was not malicious, it was not done in a way to injure, which he could've easily done. You'd be suprised at how damn effective a chop/cut block after a full sprint is at tearing ACLs. Or how effective a spear is at breaking bones.

And to my last point, it's a hell of a lot different when two 100lb kids go againt each other, compared to when a grown man, weighing 180+, takes a full sprint and throws a shoulder tackle/knee into somebody.

You've obviously never played any sorts of tackle football, at any level.

I'm not saying the guy was right in how he handled the situation, he wasn't, but the kid definately was in the wrong here.

I'm not going to argue with you.


uhh you said.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the righ

sow as he right or not?

He had the right idea, but overreacted. He should have defended his son, just not gone out and rammed right into the other kid.
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,504
12
56
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

The kid made his choice, it was the wrong one. An eye for an eye.
you're a tool.

 

tyler811

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
5,385
0
71
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Extelleron
The kid who hit the other kid from BEHIND, WAY after the play was over is the one really at fault here. It's not like he was ready to tackle and suddenly the whistle was blown. I'm pretty sure it was intentional, he hits the kid IN THE BACK a few seconds after the play is over, and then just walks away like it was nothing.

In the end, the kid deserved what he got, the father overreacted, yes, but he was still in the right.
what?!?!?! no adult has the right to go onto the field and push over a kid like that. he is now being charged with a crime.

was the kid wrong who pushed his kid? yes, but let his coach, the school, handle it. the father was not "in the right" to retaliate.

The kid made his choice, it was the wrong one. An eye for an eye.
you're a tool.

Can I borrow you I have some rusty nuts that need loosening?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
its being reported on CNN that the idiot did not show up for court. so now he has an arrest warrant


edit: oops he was late for court and the judge issued a warrant. but he showed up.

anyway its a video on cnn's front page.