posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 11:56 PM
I've noticed that in these kinds of news stories, the attackers are always being called "teens".
Why not address them as the "thugs" that they are?
Is there a law that prohibits the media from calling a thug one, before he is convicted?
Tabloid papers usually do, not sure why others won't besides some sort of image or professionalism thing.
There was an attack on some people in my town recently of a group attacking two innocent people, not exactly this game (though may have been), but
doesn't really matter, as this 'game' is nothing but assault or murder with fancy name, and anyone who beats up vulnerable or anyone without any
reason is playing the 'game'.
I'd say if you are threatened, then you have full right to defend yourself. To what length, up to whatever you are capable of.
I don't consider a threat gone until the person is in fear to even go near you or till they can not possibly be a future threat, perhaps enough to
even deter them from doing it again in future, as long as the person learns from their mistake.
Thankfully only faced one bad situation which I came out okay, when a guy tried to grab my wallet or money/card at an ATM, grabbed his arm to push him
away, scuffled a bit with punches thrown but missed, till I just got his neck to choke him for a few seconds. He pretty much ran in fear, hopefully
not to repeat it with someone else.
One thing that happened here: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Then there is the case of the farmer shooting dead a burglar.
Pretty much, people who play these 'games', do need to be met with equal or greater force, since they are they are the ones with foul intentions,
they may or may not have limits with what they intend to do.