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.

 

What is your opinion (dealing with mentally disabled?)

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


Yes. Who the hell let Robert Wadlow's ghost in there with that camera?

MOTF!




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

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


I'm not sure why the father would be safe in assuming the first kick was the last. It was less than two seconds between when the child got kicked and his father punched the man, the man instantly took down a threat to his child's safety, and once that threat was eliminated he stopped (from what we can tell) he didn't continue to pummel him once on the ground, he just hit him once to end the threat.

I don't see how you can judge the father for not intercepting the initial kick, the disabled man was a distance from the child and facing the opposite direction, and he instantly turned around and lunged at the child. I'm sure the father reacted as quickly as possible, but didn't have time to stop the kick.

So I ask again, why do you think it would be safe of the father to assume the first kick was the last? Again, we are talking two second here. Put yourself in his place. You see your child kicked by an adult man, THAT IS the situation, there is nothing more to figure out. You have no idea what the man will continue to do as he is still near your child, you take the man down ASAP. If the man did have a weapon acting quickly would have been of great importance. It's obvious the father was fit enough to quickly take the man down, there was no other way possible for the father to better defend his son, even pulling out a gun and drawing down on the man would have taken longer.

Now, if after the initial kick, the man quickly backed up and put his hands in the air, some sort of a "sorry! i'm backing up now!" thing and the father still went after and punched him, then I'd totally agree with you that it's only revenge. But I think it's incredibly unfair to judge the father's actions as a lashing out of revenge instead of a simple case of removing a threat to your child.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

CJCrawley
I was sickened by the video.

And by all the posts defending the indefensible actions of the father.

Tut tut.

For shame.


Would you care to elaborate on the reasons for your opinion? Do you believe someone with mental disabilities has the right to go around physically assaulting others, and those people don't have a right to defend themselves?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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.


And having a mental disability doesn't give you carte blanche to go around in public kicking stranger's small children.

If this same situation happened, but the man wasn't disabled, but looked the same, would you still take issue with the father's actions? Is your main problem that the father punched a disabled person, or is your main problem that the father used excessive force?

If it's the issue of excessive force, I can understand that. A strong push to the man's chest probably would have accomplished the same thing. But I don't think it's anybody's right to judge the amount of force used in such a quick and testy situation. You attack a mans kids his instinct will go into overdrive. In literally a split second I don't see how you can demand a person to think out "hmmm, maybe instead of punching him I'll just push him'

But past that, I cannot understand the double standard with a disabled person. He has the body of an adult man. If he has a child's mind, that's unfortunate, but strangers shouldn't be required to risk their children's safety in order to better accommodate the outbursts of the mentally handicapped.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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


That's what I don't get. It seems some people's idea on how to deal with the mentally disabled is to just let them do whatever they want, they can do no wrong, they are just idiots. It seems insulting to play the whole "they have no idea of right or wrong" card. While I'm not mentally disabled myself, as I mentioned already in this thread I know two people with downs that I would consider friends, and I find it a bit upsetting when people label them as basically brain dead (as in, they can't comprehend kicking someone is wrong)

They definitely know right from wrong, and that hitting/kicking is WRONG. One of them is better off than the other, and has a funny sense of humor and seems quite intelligent as he is able to discuss complex topics and it doesn't seem like things go over his head.

The other is more withdrawn, but still a good person and he knows for sure not to kick or hit people. These are the people I think of when I hear stories about downs people or those with mental disabilities. I know everyone is different, but I think it's very likely the man who kicked the child knew what he was doing was wrong. Mentally disabled people are capable of being a-holes too, you cannot write off everything they do as out of their control.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

eletheia

Lol!... Handy there was someone there ready with camera. After all they were

(initially) taking a video of a 'down syndrome' youth on a mobile? ... Why? would a

third party be doing that? ... Hardly an interesting subject??


The child was obviously not hurt ... no crying, no holding on to body parts etc.


IMO it's a set up.



A couple of years ago my grandson and friends were doing similar videos for a laugh,

one of the things they had me doing was making it look like they were holding me

back in my small car in superman outfits!



Reminds me of that old TV programme 'Candid Camera' anyone on here remember

that TV programme?
edit on 6-11-2013 by eletheia because: (no reason given)


Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. Honestly I hope it IS a hoax as I would prefer that whole scenario never happened. But the footage looks just like standard counter-shot security footage at an McDonalds in my area. You should see the drive throughs, they have 3-4 cameras all pointing in the same area lol.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


Yikes you really are hardcore!



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

webedoomed
It's unclear to what extent the father was aware of the retards condition. It doesn't even matter if he was retarded or not. It's not as if a retarded person is incapable of going ballistic for no good reason. Being retarded doesn't make you physically inferior.

The man did what any decent father would have done to someone striking their child for no good reason. He defended his own, instinctively.

As for what should be done about retarded people? It's just a shame that they exist. If they have the potential to lash out indiscriminately as is seen in this video, keep them locked up in the house so as only to be a burden on the family. I could never care for a retard. Makes no sense to me. Kick them out of the herd.


You seem to have a rather low opinion of the disabled, it's a very complex subject so I find it hard to judge others for such opinions so I'll leave that at that. I understand the realities of the world, but I think there is far more room for compassion and help than you know.

There are those who truly are never going to be anything but a danger to society, and they need to be locked up for the safety of others. But that's the thing, I don't think THIS case is one of those situations. I think this situation is just a man with mental disabilities who wasn't taught to deal well with others in public. I see no reason to believe he is beyond help, people just need to start holding him accountable for his actions. And while I don't condone a punch as punishment (only as defense) perhaps that day left a lasting memory that taught the man to respect other people's rights. But then again maybe not.

There seems to be a strong current that pushes for zero accountability on the behalf of the disabled. Anything they do gets ignored and/or justified, and anyone they victimize is expected to accept their victimization and do nothing about it. This is completely unacceptable. How do you think someone will end up being, when they don't get called out on it when they screw up? A "normal" person that never gets punished ends up being a spoiled entitled brat that doesn't respect other people's rights. It makes sense a disabled person treated the same would end up similarly.

In the past I have read some online forums targeted towards people with downs, aspergers, autism, and other common mental disabilities. My goal was to try and get a better understanding of my two friends with downs. After reading around a bit there was a very very common theme- that of the disabled on the forums sharing experiences where they admitted they did something wrong, but shared the story as if the other person was in the wrong.

One story I remember in particular was that of a man in his mid twenties, who said that he was unable to express himself well in front of others. He said he would get frustrated when he couldn't think of the right words, and would end up literally just screaming and yelling at the people he is trying to talk to. The people would understandably get offended that they were being screamed at, so they would leave and people avoided talking to him.

I felt incredibly bad for this poor guy until I read the second half of his post. He quite literally and plainly said that it's the other people's fault for not understanding what he is trying to say, that he expects them to deal with him screaming in their faces as a matter of fact, and that they are being rude and selfish for avoiding him. I then became shocked when replies by other members basically supported his views on the matter.

There were a few people who tried to explain that the poster was being inappropriate towards people and needed to change his expectations of others. These people were then attacked by the other posters, with basically the same stuff a few members here have thrown around "you can't blame him for anything, he's disabled" The kicker was that they literally had a term for "normal" people. It was some acronym that they used when referring to "normal" people that more often than not appeared to be used more as a derogatory term or insult.

That is the problem. It's not that the person is disabled that is the problem, it's how that person deals with their disability that is wrong. They expect everyone else to bend to their will, deal with abuse, all for the comfort of the disabled person. They are the center of the universe and it's the world's responsibility to make them comfortable.


edit on 6-11-2013 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 




There are other things look very wrong to me in that scenario :-

# If that is a Mcdonalds security camera surely they cannot put it out to public
view without permission of those on camera?

# Surely a security camera would be less hazy and much clearer?

# If it is a 'personal' camera how convenient that 'unknown' public figures
enacted that scene, at that time in that particular Mcdonalds

# The child concerned is totally unfazed ... and you must be aware how
children milk any possibility of attention and can 'cry' almost on demand!

# The concerned parent? walks away doesn't even check if the child is
OK or hurt in any way! Most parents would get down to child level and check on
how they were!

# Mcdonalds 'fast food'? I've never seen a Mcdonalds with so few customers

have you? perhaps they were keeping the set free for the show?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
AS unfortunate as these things are, they happen.

If I had a child and someone struck them, I am almost certain my action would be taken instantly and swiftly to defend my child.

I'm sure the man must have felt horrible after the fact, at least I know I would have, but I do not look down on the child's father. Nor do I think badly on the handicapped person, as they obviously are incapable of understanding what is really going on around them.

As for "dealing" with them (horrible choice of words by the op I think too, no offense) I believe something like this couldn't have been prevented even with close supervision, things happen spontaneously like this and no one has time to prevent it. I do believe that the more severely handicapped should be closely supervised so they can enjoy life as much as possible without incident, such as the one here.

I would never condone to some negative manner of "handling" these people. They have no say in their genetics, they have no way of choosing, and we have no right to treat them different than anyone else when it comes to the right to a prosperous life.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
You'd have to be blind not to notice there was something wrong with the guy doing the "kicking." If his appearance didn't give it away, the fact his "kick" barely touched the young child should have. The father over-reacted to a threat of his own imagining, but I'll give him some credit for immediately recognising his error and not continuing his attack.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Hi, I liked your take on the matter but would like to add this: If we are to suppose that equal opportunities & rights means exactly that, then we are all to be held accountable for our actions (if we aren't in the position of getting away with the deed.) In the facade that is 2013 land of democracy and civil rights we are led to believe that we no longer have prejudices or shouldn't in any case. Well that must also work on the basis that no body gets special treatment above another either. Why is there a perception that certain sections of society such as the elderly or disabled are in some way all nice ppl . I think we have come to the conclusion that you get good & bad in all shades and sexes so why the belief that disabled means saint? I do feel that allowances must be made in issue with the actual disability ie: wheelchair ramps, low counters, hearing loops in public buildings, alternative educational methods etc... Im not a fan of the word retard, perhaps the PC brigade caught me early on that score. In the case of obvious learning/social disabilities in the minority where they are known to act or lash out (their family would be well aware of this) then a compulsory chaperon should be in place on any outings whether that be their family, carers or social services in the instance that the person has a turn of some sort. I also feel this should be the case with known violent schizophrenics and mentally ill patients who have shown violent outbursts towards the public in any way. Now being a true gemini I could argue (with myself) that is that not showing prejudice towards these minorities because we do not have a probation officer following an ex-violent offender on all outings forever more. Well that is the point we do have prejudices and we do make split second decisions about a person, it is an animal instinct that has gone a long way to making sure the human race has not as yet become extinct, without these judgments we would simply be sitting ducks. Now being born & raised in london I know how very important these internal alarms can be. I am NOT uncomfortable in any sense to tell you that I have crossed the road or gotten off of a bus or darted into a shop for my own protection (& my childs) many times while I still lived in the big smoke. My childhood home and my school were in close vicinity of a mental hospital as we used to call it & as a young child I was smacked in the local park by a very obese (due to meds) grown man who was a patient at the hospital across the road. He was told off by my mother who knew his elderly parents from the area, she comforted me & told me that he was very ill and to always avoid him in future. That has left me with a direct fear of being in close proximity of anybody who I feel may be even slightly unhinged. The other day I was on a bus and I could hear a man talking to himself in an agitated manner. I turned to look behind me and the man caught my eye and then looked out of the window only to continue to mutter. I had a rush of adrenaline inside and felt very vulnerable being sat in front of him. So I stood up & moved to the seat 2 rows behind him. I felt perfectly fine then. This is not a one off. I do Not however believe that anybody well or unwell should be treated in an inhumane way .
Phew the end



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

webedoomed
It's unclear to what extent the father was aware of the retards condition. It doesn't even matter if he was retarded or not. It's not as if a retarded person is incapable of going ballistic for no good reason. Being retarded doesn't make you physically inferior.

The man did what any decent father would have done to someone striking their child for no good reason. He defended his own, instinctively.

As for what should be done about retarded people? It's just a shame that they exist. If they have the potential to lash out indiscriminately as is seen in this video, keep them locked up in the house so as only to be a burden on the family. I could never care for a retard. Makes no sense to me. Kick them out of the herd.


We should kick you out of the herd. Here's a newsflash, you're not as great as you think. You're hardly superior to any of the mentally handicapped. What have you done with your life that makes you so much more important? Nothing. There are roughly 7 BILLION people on this Earth. If you were to suddenly die, the only miniscule difference would be one. One from 7 billion.

The epic people at the special Olympics are immortalized forever. You will be forgotten shortly after your corpse is put in the ground. The next time you want to talk down on someone, you may want to really take a look at yourself first, because some of those people have accomplished greater things in half their lives than you could possibly ever hope to achieve.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

IvanAstikov
You'd have to be blind not to notice there was something wrong with the guy doing the "kicking." If his appearance didn't give it away, the fact his "kick" barely touched the young child should have. The father over-reacted to a threat of his own imagining, but I'll give him some credit for immediately recognising his error and not continuing his attack.


I assume you have never seen or heard of what happens in the wild when one animal threatens another animals young?

I have seen videos of house cats that will maul bears to protect their young, and they do. Then once the threat is removed, they go back to normal.

We are animals too, mammals. We have the same instincts, but you can only really understand them once you have your own children.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Vortiki
 


You decided to make this personal, why?

I've never considered myself important.

Your appeals to emotion will not work on me.
edit on 6-11-2013 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Vortiki
 

We are mammals that supposedly prize the ability to reason, and you are touting our primitive instincts as if they can never be wrong.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by Vortiki
 


You decided to make this personal, why?

I've never considered myself important.

Your appeals to emotion will not work on me.
edit on 6-11-2013 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)


Your inhumanity would cause the blood of any sane human being to boil. You're cruel to those whom you deem "lower" than yourself. I do not personally dislike you as a person, but I do dislike your perception of those around you. However I suppose it is merely your right to feel such a way. In order to keep civility, and as to not infringe on your right of freedoms I shall engage in ignoring your existence. I hope that perhaps one day you may broaden your perception of the less fortunate.


(post by webedoomed removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Vortiki
 


On the contrary, this incident could of quite easily have been prevented by the child not wondering around the shop. When my son was a young child I always had a hold of his hand in such places or at least instructed my lad to sit or stand in one place. No running about in a shop for starters. I cant stand parents that dont instill/expect at least a basic level of good behaviour whilst in public. Parks & such obviously dont count in the aversion I have regarding kids running about in public LOL. No im not some sergeant major with my son by any stretch of the imagination but I do buy into the old fashioned philosophy of children not knowing what is acceptable behaviour unless they are taught and im my eyes his lil bounce around the place was not correct in a shop. Old school, shoot me down. Well the boy will think twice before galloping around in the chicken shop next time.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Vviena1606
 


Your point is rather valid and well heeded. Even still, not every situation is preventable, what would have happened if the father had been holding the child and the handicapped guy still struck the child? Hind sight is always twenty twenty, and I agree with you on the fact that the father should have had a closer eye on his child.

I still also believe in some instances prevention is impossible. You could say "well they should have done this" or "if this was done it could have been prevented", but at the end of the day foresight and reaction are sometimes not enough.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join