• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man slammed 13 year old boy to ground for not removing hat during national anthem

Peter King said:
Except he did nothing that was this guys business. That he caught the attention of that idiot was the idiots problem, NOT THE BOYS problem but he made it the boys problem by first (without any justification or right to do so) demand that the boy takes off his hat. After that he compounds that interference with the boys civil rights by attempted murder (no other thing to call it when a full grown man slams a child like that with such aggravating injuries as a result.

And no, the boy did nothing to cause this attack, you are denying reality by claiming he was to blame for what followed (even if you disapprove of the violence committed against him) because you are blaming a child did something wrong that deserved this guy to demand something of him.
Click to expand...

Is leaving your hat on during the National Anthem traditionally seen as a sign of disrespect?
 
Sheepdog said:
Is leaving your hat on during the National Anthem traditionally seen as a sign of disrespect?
Click to expand...

She should not have worn that dress........
 
mike2810 said:
Seems some here believe the US Code is out of date. Till Congress changes the law one should show proper respect during the National Anthem.

36 U.S. Code § 301.National anthem
36 U.S. Code SS 301 - National anthem | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

I do not believe the kid should have been attacked. There is better ways to inform someone on the proper edicate during the National Anthem.

imo, some are using "free speech" as an excuse without really thinking about what "free speech" means. It seems there is a double standard going on in this and other threads. Some say the kid had a right under "free speech". Yet, some of the same posters criticize anyone wearing a MAGA hat in public. They feel it is fine for someone to verbally or physically attack that person because they hate Trump.

I don't like Trump. I also don't like the direction this country is going. The direction away from common courtesy started way before Trump.
Click to expand...

1. we were not talking about MAGA hats. Also when it is an adult wearing a MAGA hat that is one thing, this case was a young minor who was wearing a regular hat. Nothing offensive about it at all.

2. if burning a flag is not unconstitutional, laws forbidding burning of that flag illegal due to freedom of speech, why is keeping your hat on as a person suddenly not free speech?
 
Peter King said:
1. we were not talking about MAGA hats. Also when it is an adult wearing a MAGA hat that is one thing, this case was a young minor who was wearing a regular hat. Nothing offensive about it at all.
Click to expand...

There is nothing offensive about a MAGA hat. Wearing a hat during the anthem is offensive given the tradition of taking your hat off during the anthem.

That said, MANY more people have been attacked for wearing a MAGA hat in the 3-4 short years of its existence than have been attacked for not removing their hat during the anthem since it was adopted in 1931.

That is pretty telling on how VIOLENT the left wingers are these days.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Only problem being, of course, is that flag code isn't actually law for which punishment is enforced. For lack of a better term, it's merely advisory rules. It's recommended etiquette.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's why it has the words should and may.

The part that applies to this thread:
should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart
 
Sheepdog said:
Is leaving your hat on during the National Anthem traditionally seen as a sign of disrespect?
Click to expand...

It used to be that wearing a hat indoors was disrespectable. Now it's readily accepted.

The man was triggered by the hat being worn, just like those that attack people because they wear a MAGA hat. Neither of the victims are complicit.
 
Sheepdog said:
He can tell the kid to take his hat off, he has 1st Amendment rights as well. The kid was doing something traditionally seen as disrespectful. Disrespect is always the wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...

Except it was not the attackers right to demand the boy to do so. He was not the child's parent or the responsible adult for that child. Now if it were an adult than he could have politely asked if he would be so kind as to remove the hat. But this is a child and he had NO BUSINESS ordering that child to do anything.

Sheepdog said:
Yes, because that is what happened.
Click to expand...

No, that is how you see this case.

Sheepdog said:
That is the appropriate place to place the initial blame. Can we agree that 1. The kid left his hat on during the anthem. and 2. Leaving your hat on during the anthem is traditionally seen as a sign of disrespect. Can we at least agree on that?
Click to expand...

No, the blame lies 100% with the man who attacked the CHILD!!!!!

No, as said before, in the past it may have been very disrespectful but we are not living in 1776 anymore nor in 1866 or in 1945.

And again, A CHILD!!!! This adult had no business/right, moral or legal to demand anything of that child.

Sheepdog said:
No I do not. I have said the entire time that this man should not have done what he did. I do not justify what he did in any way, shape, or form. I do not support violence especially on kids even though kids can be total little ****ing punks especially 13 year old boys. I was one when I was 13 and trust me I had to fight a LOT back then and I enjoyed every minute of it.
Click to expand...

You do justify it because you law the blame at a 13 year old for it happening in the first place.

Sheepdog said:
He definitely had his hat on, which is seen as a sign of disrespect. I believe that the kid DID say something back to the guy which ultimately set him off. Its a normal reaction to respond to someone who talks to you. I think the guy said something to the kid, the kid said something back, and the combination of the hat + smartmouth comment led to the violence.

That is what makes the most sense to me. And for the millionth time, that does not mean I think that is an appropriate situation for violence, that doesnt mean I support this guy, Im glad hes facing prison, and every other stupid disclaimer I have to keep repeating.

I am merely describing the story of what happened in the most likely timeline.
Click to expand...

Except you are again not, you can believe he talked back to the guy but that is not a certainty and also the man had no right to demand of a child to obey him.

Sheepdog said:
The guy had the right to say something (1st Amendment) but he did not have the right to be violent.

The kid definitely was wrong when he disrespected the anthem/flag/country and potentially (most likely scenario) smarted off.
Click to expand...

No, the guy might have the right to say to another adult that he would appreciate if he would take off his hat, but this is a child, not an adult. He had no business to demand anything of this child.

You are of the opinion the child was disrespecting the flag, etc. etc. etc. and he deserved to be told to take off his hat, but there is no law that gives this guy the right to demand this, or enforce that refusal of that demand with consequences.

Let us call it like it is, you are blaming the start of this incident with the 13 year old and not with the adult and that is illogical and wrong.
 
Peter King said:
1. we were not talking about MAGA hats. Also when it is an adult wearing a MAGA hat that is one thing, this case was a young minor who was wearing a regular hat. Nothing offensive about it at all.

2. if burning a flag is not unconstitutional, laws forbidding burning of that flag illegal due to freedom of speech, why is keeping your hat on as a person suddenly not free speech?
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is a limitation on the government from preventing it - it has absolutely nothing to do with the acts of private citizens.
 
Sheepdog said:
Im going to stay on course, its working well so far. I just owned you soooo have fun.
Click to expand...

I said that you were defending the morals of what he did... not him. It is a nuance that you might gain someday...

Yes of course but why are you so obsessed with rape?
Click to expand...

The logic works for other things like murder too... if a guy tells you to give him your money and you don't and he kills you... you were asking for it by not complying. I can own you in so many ways... it is really easy.
 
SCrider said:
She should not have worn that dress........
Click to expand...

Sheepdog is an "you asked for it" kinda apologist... I have already owned him on this.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I said that you were defending the morals of what he did... not him.
Click to expand...

I wasnt defending that either. Im someone who is against violence (except in self defense), but Ive made that crystal clear.

The logic works for other things like murder too... if a guy tells you to give him your money and you don't and he kills you... you were asking for it by not complying. I can own you in so many ways... it is really easy.
Click to expand...

So give him the money and live...or kill him first since he threatened you and live, take your pick. Actions have consequences.
 
Sheepdog said:
Is leaving your hat on during the National Anthem traditionally seen as a sign of disrespect?
Click to expand...

1. 13 year old CHILD

2. there is no hat police

3. people have on their hats during the playing of the anthem all the time. Traditions change but what does not change is the fact that you have no business as a total stranger to order people to take their hats off.
 
BWG said:
The man was triggered by the hat being worn, just like those that attack people because they wear a MAGA hat. Neither of the victims are complicit.
Click to expand...

I didnt say they were complicit, I only said that actions have consequences. I would never wear a MAGA hat in public...not because I dont support Trump...but because I prefer to be invisible in public and not put myself at risk of things like getting my skull cracked by some nutjob.
 
Sheepdog said:
I wasnt defending that either. Im someone who is against violence (except in self defense), but Ive made that crystal clear.



So give him the money and live...or kill him first since he threatened you and live, take your pick. Actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point... actions have consequences relates to you making a decision that effects you. Biking down a hill fast and you crash... not biking down a hill fast and some other guy telling you to slow down and doesn't like you saying no so he swerves hitting you with his car... not to mention that not taking off your hat is an inaction.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is the whole point... actions have consequences relates to you making a decision that effects you. Biking down a hill fast and you crash... not biking down a hill fast and some other guy telling you to slow down and doesn't like you saying no so he swerves hitting you with his car... not to mention that not taking off your hat is an inaction.
Click to expand...

I didnt say the consequence was appropriate. You dont get to choose the reaction but you get to choose the action. And actions do not require physical movement, so not removing your hat when prompted to remove your hat is still an action. Ugh.
 
Sheepdog said:
I didnt say the consequence was appropriate. You dont get to choose the reaction but you get to choose the action.
Click to expand...

That is a lame argument because everything is therefore an action... guy tells you to take off hat and you think about it for a second but he wanted it immediately... attacked. at some point nothing a person does is responsible for what the other guy does.

And actions do not require physical movement, so not removing your hat when prompted to remove your hat is still an action. Ugh.
Click to expand...

And no, not doing something is an inaction... hence the word's definition.

Yeah, I can see that you don't condone the guy's action... it is that you are assigning blame to the victim that is the problem that you don't seem to get, or care about, understanding.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Only problem being, of course, is that flag code isn't actually law for which punishment is enforced. For lack of a better term, it's merely advisory rules. It's recommended etiquette.
Click to expand...

True. Interesting how some are drifting away from the etiquette.
 
Sheepdog said:
You forgot to answer the question.
Click to expand...

So now you are changing other people's responses, classy.

And what question, all you are doing is using etiquette as a justification for the man's initial actions and putting the blame on the CHILD.
 
Peter King said:
So now you are changing other people's responses, classy.

And what question, all you are doing is using etiquette as a justification for the man's initial actions and putting the blame on the CHILD.
Click to expand...

If theres some really asshole take on a story Sheepdog is gonna provide it guaranteed. Somehow punching down is the new counterculture or something...
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is a lame argument because everything is therefore an action... guy tells you to take off hat and you think about it for a second but he wanted it immediately... attacked. at some point nothing a person does is responsible for what the other guy does.

And no, not doing something is an inaction... hence the word's definition.

Yeah, I can see that you don't condone the guy's action... it is that you are assigning blame to the victim that is the problem that you don't seem to get, or care about, understanding.
Click to expand...

Inaction IS an action. The kid was put in a situation to do or not do, he chose to not do, he acted upon his choice, and he faced the consequences of his choice. He is responsible for that even as a 13 year old. Did he deserve the assault? Obviously not, it is shocking and disgusting that a 13 year old had his skull cracked open for a minor etiquette "violation" but there is no argument that his choice led to the assault. That is not defending the attacker, it is merely describing the timeline.

I think the problems here are you arguing emotion, I am arguing logic.

Peter King said:
So now you are changing other people's responses, classy.

And what question, all you are doing is using etiquette as a justification for the man's initial actions and putting the blame on the CHILD.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the question I asked, probably because it would force you to see things my way. We agree on everything here, but you are apprehensive to finally cross the bridge to complete understanding of this situation. Thats your problem not mine.
 
bomberfox said:
If theres some really asshole take on a story Sheepdog is gonna provide it guaranteed. Somehow punching down is the new counterculture or something...
Click to expand...

Behavior tends to repeat when it's rewarded. What baffles me is what encourages people like that. The only consistent trend that I've noticed is that they experience a childish glee when they shock, horrify, or bother people who think differently than they do. If that's the case, society is somehow reinforcing sociopathic behavior.
 
Sheepdog said:
Inaction IS an action. The kid was put in a situation to do or not do, he chose to not do, he acted upon his choice, and he faced the consequences of his choice. He is responsible for that even as a 13 year old. Did he deserve the assault? Obviously not, it is shocking and disgusting that a 13 year old had his skull cracked open for a minor etiquette "violation" but there is no argument that his choice led to the assault. That is not defending the attacker, it is merely describing the timeline.

I think the problems here are you arguing emotion, I am arguing logic.



You are avoiding the question I asked, probably because it would force you to see things my way. We agree on everything here, but you are apprehensive to finally cross the bridge to complete understanding of this situation. Thats your problem not mine.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're still belaboring this point after so many days. The teenager's choice to leave on his cap was the cause of the assault as much as my choice to walk across a field was the cause of my lightning strike. It's a thoroughly asinine argument that you keep repeating while other posters tell you that the characterization, however logically accurate, is entirely irrelevant.
 
Sheepdog said:
Inaction IS an action. The kid was put in a situation to do or not do, he chose to not do, he acted upon his choice, and he faced the consequences of his choice. He is responsible for that even as a 13 year old. Did he deserve the assault? Obviously not, it is shocking and disgusting that a 13 year old had his skull cracked open for a minor etiquette "violation" but there is no argument that his choice led to the assault. That is not defending the attacker, it is merely describing the timeline.

I think the problems here are you arguing emotion, I am arguing logic.



You are avoiding the question I asked, probably because it would force you to see things my way. We agree on everything here, but you are apprehensive to finally cross the bridge to complete understanding of this situation. Thats your problem not mine.
Click to expand...

There you go making excuses for the criminal again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom