It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CJCrawley
I was sickened by the video.
And by all the posts defending the indefensible actions of the father.
Tut tut.
For shame.
rival
I say no harm no foul.
The man protecting/defending his son reacted immediately-
-no malice aforethought.
As it also seems the down-syndrome child did as well.
The responsibility lies with the down-syndrome child's caretaker.
CJCrawley
I was sickened by the video.
And by all the posts defending the indefensible actions of the father.
Tut tut.
For shame.
semperfortis
Life is decisions...
Just because a person can do a thing, does not necessarily mean they should do a thing.
The child was already kicked.. Did hitting the handicapped person make the father feel more like a father?
More like a man?
Protective instinct would mean the father would try and prevent the initial assault. Action taken after is only revenge..
As a father myself I am not sure what I would have done, but I do know that just striking out without at the least finding out the reason for the initial action is wrong on many levels
Cabin
reply to post by Dianec
This does not require being a mental health specialist to recognise people with autism like Down Syndrome, at least in stronger cases like this one. Despite the bad quality of the video, his facial and behavioural characteristics it is clear that that guy had autism or some syndrome.
reply to post by James1982
I understand the need for eliminating the threat. Although this could have done far less violently. You have to consider that you do not know whether you will knock somebody out or not. Even if the father was not aware of the man having autism (which I find doubtful), he could have made the situation even more risky for himself and the child by starting a fight with a stranger, who might have had a weapon. The best way for eliminating threat for him would have been going for the arms of the man with Down Syndrome between the man and son. This would have eliminated the threat of the stranger grabbing a firearm or a knife from pocket, eliminated the threat towards son and given enough time for the woman and employee to interfere. Considering the father had stronger build he would not have had any trouble eliminating the problem that way.
This was harsh and impulsive decision, especially considering that he could have killed the man with Down Syndrome that way(These are rare, but sometimes the one-hit kills happen if one hits the wrong spot in the head or the person who gets knocked out unluckily ) or created a situation which I described before.
There are way too many people who make such decisions out there. Even when some people might find this particular case justified, there are others who find it justified to impulsively react to insults or something they do not agree with.
Best way of defusing situations like that is by taking it calmly. If needed using defensive methods (like the one I described before) rather than attacking ones, which can have significantly worse consequences for both.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)
How are these actions indefensible?
Cabin
reply to post by NavyDoc
If you go for arms, you prevent the person on grabbing the knife from pocket and eliminate fist attacks at the same time.
You think its smarter to hit first and wait what the other guy does than trying to disarm the assailant?
I´ve used the method several times, when my friends have gotten to fight or somebody has tried to hit me. Works like magic, unless the other is significantly stronger or is very good at martial arts. Although haven´t come across that yet.
These might be uncomparable, but violence is violence. Only defensive positions meant to disarm opponent or stop the attack are justified in my eyes, never attacking ones, as in most cases these just hurt the other instead of defusing the situation and eliminating the threat.edit on 6-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)
CJCrawley
reply to post by NavyDoc
How are these actions indefensible?
Because the father could clearly see that he was dealing with a slightly-built, bespectacled person with a compromised brain.
And having your sprog in tow doesn't give you carte blanche to go full psycho in public at the least opportunity.
rickymouse
A person with downs syndrome can be taught right from wrong action most times. It is a lot harder though. Sometimes the special forgive and accept treatment people use can make the person unable to adapt to living in public later. A person with Downs has to be trained to suppress their socially unacceptable behavior even though they do not really understand the concept of why.
If there were no laws, most people today would do more uncivil things. The fear of repercussions from your actions keeps people civil most times and society grows. When you spoil a kid and get them out of trouble it often leads to more trouble by the kids as they get older. They get used to being able to get away with things. They hang around with others of their kind, and later become politicians or work with the stock market