IrresistibleB1tch said:

Exactly.

In the video I see a man use his phone and walk up to a little kid and try to kick him. I don't see a drooling mentally incompetent "hands curled up to his chest" retarded boy.

See to me the boy about to be kicked is a little child.
At first glance, without the title to help you out it seems like a man just wants to beat up on a little child.
I am sorry the man with DS was punched so hard, but this dad reacted instinctively and quickly. If he knew the man had DS then maybe he wouldn't have done that.

There are too many assumptions being made here. The greater point that should be made is
"At what point do we hold a person with DS responsible for his own actions? Where do we draw the line? Can a person with DS brutally beat a child? What about the child? No the child wasn't hurt THIS time... but what if the child was?

Violence is not an answer, but if some grown person lays a hand on my child it is my duty as a parent to protect my child. If that young man can't be controlled then maybe this mother shouldn't have her son in a place were these things can happen. She should protect her child too.

can to can't edit.
[Edited 4/16/09 12:30pm]

I always punch people with down's syndrome first, before they have a chance to attack my children.

Works for me.

mcmeekle said:

Preemptive eye for an eye the latest trend in America

In the video I see a man use his phone and walk up to a little kid and try to kick him. I don't see a drooling mentally incompetent "hands curled up to his chest" retarded boy.

See to me the boy about to be kicked is a little child.
At first glance, without the title to help you out it seems like a man just wants to beat up on a little child.
I am sorry the man with DS was punched so hard, but this dad reacted instinctively and quickly. If he knew the man had DS then maybe he wouldn't have done that.

There are too many assumptions being made here. The greater point that should be made is
"At what point do we hold a person with DS responsible for his own actions? Where do we draw the line? Can a person with DS brutally beat a child? What about the child? No the child wasn't hurt THIS time... but what if the child was?

Violence is not an answer, but if some grown person lays a hand on my child it is my duty as a parent to protect my child. If that young man can't be controlled then maybe this mother shouldn't have her son in a place were these things can happen. She should protect her child too.

can to can't edit.
[Edited 4/16/09 12:30pm]

I feel sorry for the boy with DS because he probably did not realize he did anything wrong and he probably still doesn't know why he was hit. But the man protecting his kid had no way of knowing that or no way of knowing what the guy was going to do next.

paintedlady said:

While the greater point of holding a DS person responsible should be addressed, it shouldn't be at the expense of addressing whether or not someone is out of control in their reaction.

The oness is absolutely on the mother but that father wasn't attending to his child either.

paintedlady said:

Great response.

It is not immediately obvious the boy has DS, at least by the video, and he was on the phone and actually looked like a normal adult.

If I was just shown the video without any headlines or comments it would look to me like a man or at the very least an older teenager who was more than twice the size of the little boy on the phone then just attacked the little boy without being provoked.

Again, it is very easy to now sit back, take your time and analize the situation with the help of a video and commentary after the fact but as it happens very quickly in real life, the persons involved don't have that luxury.

My question is has the boy with DS ever lashed out like this before? And if so, why wasn't he being looked after more closely or why was he put into a situation where this could happen?

I feel sorry for the boy with DS because he probably did not realize he did anything wrong and he probably still doesn't know why he was hit. But the man protecting his kid had no way of knowing that or no way of knowing what the guy was going to do next.

if we take some of the comments here to their logical conclusion, then the mother or guardian of the Down Syndrome kid should have immediately beaten the crap out of the father.

of course we all feel protective of children, whether they are ours or not. but there are ways to do so without immediately resorting to violence. the young man could have been seriously hurt.


grammar nazi edit
[Edited 4/16/09 9:47am]

. I agree the father has a right to protect his offspring however that kind of reaction to what was obviously not harming his child was uncalled for.

paintedlady said:

While the greater point of holding a DS person responsible should be addressed, it shouldn't be at the expense of addressing whether or not someone is out of control in their reaction.

The oness is absolutely on the mother but that father wasn't attending to his child either.

Sowhat said:

And this is why his child shouldn't have been unattended.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I don't see that.. child walks up to counter... dad is close behind. The punch was dealt a second after the kick. Mom of the young man didn't even have time to react. She's stopping angry dad from hitting him AGAIN it seems. The toddler is not at any fault, neither is dad (as far as being in a restaurant). Is dad a violent mofo and outta control? No, not in my eyes. Overprotective?.. maybe.

I think if this were a young woman with DS hitting a little boy, I would see dad as "too violent". But to me I see it as more as a mano-a-mano thing at first glance.

I really hope mom (of the toddler) was there instead though. This may have gone differently. Thank goodness the toddler wasn't hurt, but who expects this sort of thing to happen really?

I would hope that both parents learn to keep there kids closer. Because as the video clearly shows... it never takes long for something bad to happen.

Sowhat said:

There is a difference between protecting your kid and payback. This, to me, was payback. Some eye for an eye shit.

The fact that the kid had Downs is not even relevant.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

The child wasn't unattended. The Father was right behind him, probably not more than 5 feet if that. Just look at the reaction time between the boy kicking the toddler and the Father hitting the boy.

Come on Supa...you are an Uncle. You know it is impossible to be right next to a little kid at all times. It's not like the Father was a cross the restaurant or in the bathroom or something.


And I bet even if the Father was holding the little boys hand, the exact same thing would have happened because it is just not expected that a grown kid is going to walk up to a 4 year old kid and kick him for no apparent reason at all.

JustErin said:

I have to respectfully disagree. IMHO the Fathers reaction time was too fast. He didn't pause or really even have time to think about payback. He looked like he just reacted instinctively.

And I bet even if the Father was holding the little boys hand, the exact same thing would have happened because it is just not expected that a grown kid is going to walk up to a 4 year old kid and kick him for no apparent reason at all.

Sowhat said:

I think so too... looks like teen/big person strikes little kid, dad strikes back.

Nothing more, no time to think, just instinct. Some folks instinct is different than others... one things for sure, this man was just looking out for his child. I don't think dad goes around looking to hand out "payback", that's just unfair to say.

If a dad lets someone kick his kid and did nothing, then I think dad would have been criticized for that as well.

Sowhat said:

I think so too... looks like teen/big person strikes little kid, dad strikes back.

Nothing more, no time to think, just instinct. Some folks instinct is different than others... one things for sure, this man was just looking out for his child. I don't think dad goes around looking to hand out "payback", that's just unfair to say.

If a dad lets someone kick his kid and did nothing, then I think dad would have been criticized for that as well.

Sowhat said:

You mean, instinctively for him - which is to react violently immediately.

Many people may have that kind of response, but many do not.

Immediate payback may very well be an instinctual response for some.

Sowhat said:

Not too long ago my niece got snipped at by the dogs and it took all my self control not to beat the living daylights out of that dog. But I had to realize that the animal was acting like his nature dictates. I feel the same about this.

paintedlady said:

You surely do not believe that the only choices are to respond violently or do nothing???

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I think there is a huge difference in being snipped at by a dog and being kicked by an adult or older teenager. That kid was big and could have done some serious damage in a very short period of time. I think you are talking about two very different levels of perceived threat.

If it was obvious that the kid had a disability or if the kid much was smaller/younger, or if it was a girl, then yes I think the Fathers reaction would not have been appropriate.

But again, it appeared to me that a normal adult or bigger kid attacked a little toddler for no reason at all. At that point, talking as a parent, your natural instinct to protect and defend your kid kicks in. It's not about revenge or payback. It's about neutralizing the threat to your child/children as fast as possible to protect them.

PANDURITO said:

JustErin said:

No... but it was split second... so he could have pulled the guy away? Pull his son away? Who knows? Was dad wrong? No, dad did what dad thought was appropriate.

He did what he could to protect his child. Simple as that.

Sowhat said:

Um, a dog can kill a baby.

paintedlady said:

In your opinion, you mean.

I think the father was flat out wrong in the way he responded.

100% in the wrong.

paintedlady said:

It's as equally unfair to declare him father of the year. Looking at the tape, the mother was right there attending to her child and the boy had stepped back from the little kid and there was not a continuing attack. Then you have the dad lunging in for the kill when things are more or less under control. I see this as someone just flexing their manhood.