reply to post by James1982
I do not agree with father´s behaviour. It was impulsive and unjustified behaviour. He was trying to defend his son, although he could have just have
acted as an adult, gone between and try to talk it out, rather than going for violent solution. This would solved the issue. Instead he chose the
violent way, which could have possibly killed the man with Down Syndrome. The man with Down Syndrome was lucky that the father was not some
It seems as if the woman in the line is the guardian of the one with Down Syndrome. Based on body languge I would say so. She was paying and when
somebody called him, she lost him for a second. She reacted fast though when the one with Down Syndrome hit the kid. She made a mistake, but the
person whom she was looking after got attacked.
People with Down Syndrome have quite distinct looks and body language. Considering the father also saw the man with Down Syndrome kick the kid
lightly, he should have recognised autism based on looks, that the guy was not "normal". I do not justify the behaviour of the man with Down
Syndrome, although it has to be recognised that it was not his "fault". He needs treatment and support (from guardians and also other members of
society) to overcome the issues he has.
When dealing with mentally disabled people, it is important to understand that they can not understand what is right and what is wrong. They can not
control themselves. Should they be punished or attacked because of that? That is something many people can not understand. If you have not had any
issues yourself, it is very hard to be emphatic and understand how the person sees the world, but that is an issue that requires significant attention
in the society, whether we are talking about autism, psychological disorders or other syndromes with psychological/physical symptoms.
You can not simply say a person with ADHD who can not concentrate is lazy and does not want to.
You can not simply say a person with thyroid issues is gaining weight because of laziness.
You can not simply say a person with adrenal gland problems (exhaustion from doing nothing is common symptom) is lazy or does not want to do
You can not simply say a person with Aspergers (social communication problems) is a weirdo.
I just listed some or more common problems, although there are thousands of diseases having symptoms which are out of control of a person and that is
something that should be understood by other members of the society, not attacking the people because they are different or do not want to be
"normal". You can not hold someone responsible for something they have no control over. It is the same as I would blame you for the bad weather or
hurricane that destroyed the city. Whether it is mental or some other disease, the symptoms are out of control of the people who have these issues and
their problems should be recognised and understood.
It is easy to make assumptions based on your own, although often these are wrong, as everyone is not you.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)
Thanks for replying, I was hoping someone with your viewpoint would comment.
I too assumed the woman to be the man's caregiver based on the interaction between her and the other people. When the disabled man starts walking
towards the little boy, the woman instantly takes notice and starts to feign intervention. To me it just looked like she was trying to make it LOOK
like she was trying to stop the man from interacting with the the child, but was putting in very little effort. To me this suggest she knows the man
is likely to physically harass strangers.
While I agree that it's usually fairly easy to spot people with downs, I don't know if the father would have been able to notice in the time before
striking him. Unfortunately because of the narrow angle of the camera we don't see the father until almost the last second, but it's very quick
after the kick that the father punches the disabled man. After seeing his child get kicked by an adult man, I could easily see him overlooking the
signs of mental disability in the other man in the short time before he strikes him.
But, again I maintain it doesn't matter if the father knew the man was disabled or not. The man presented a threat to his son's safety, and the
father responded to eliminate that threat. You bring up that the disabled man didn't know right from wrong, and didn't know what he was doing,
therefore can't be held responsible for his actions. Well, if he truly doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, then legally speaking he
cannot be held responsible for his actions.
But we are not discussing whether or not to prosecute the disabled man for kicking the child, we are discussing whether or not it was justified for
the father to react the way he did. The disabled man presented a threat, it doesn't matter if he knows better or not.
I think your disapproval of the father's actions stems from you viewing his actions as a thought out punishment against the disabled man. If the
disabled man truly didn't know right from wrong, then it's not right to punish him for his actions, I agree. But there is a difference between
punishing someone for their actions, and responding to their actions as needed. The father wasn't punishing him for misbehaving, he was neutralizing
a threat to the safety of his child.
Let's look at a different scenario. Imagine the disabled man had a gun, and was pointing it at the child. The disabled man doesn't know what he is
doing, and has no concept of right or wrong. Does that change the fact that he is pointing it at the child, and that needs to be taken care of?
I realize the threat level there is drastically different than the situation here, but it's the underlying concept that I'm driving at: a threat is
still a threat, whether or not it's willfully being a threat. A person, who doesn't know right from wrong, making threatening moves or physically
attacking someone is still a danger.
It's unfortunate that situations come about such as these, but when you frame it as a father responding to a threat against his child, I cannot
understand how you can disapprove of the father's actions.
You could argue the kick was very gentle and the child wasn't in any real danger, but the father might not have been able to tell it was only a
gentle kick from the angle he was at, or just due to the short time involved. And even if the father could tell it was a gentle kick, that does not
mean the man doesn't pose a threat. If an adult stranger kicks a small child, even gently, that sends up red flags to any sane man that the person is
likely to be a threat and should be dealt with accordingly.
Thanks again for your post, please don't take my reply as arguing or attacking your viewpoint. I'm just attempting to get you to see it from my side
as it were.