Brawl at Jets Game

[Shadowschmadow]

The other thing to consider is that we do not have the full story. For all we know, the marine could have just started a fight over the situation, or he could have asked the guy to get off his phone politely, and the guy responded rudely.

As of this point, any justifications or speculations about who is right or wrong are invalid.

[MC]

Moral right or wrong notwithstanding, you can't hit someone for not being quiet at an event for which they paid for entry.

This is where lawyers make their bread and butter.

And that marine better hope he has a really good lawyer to get him out of this one.

"I'm a patriot" isn't going to be enough in a court of law to wiggle out of the assault charges.

Doesn't matter how any of us feel about him being on the phone (and he did have the right to be on the phone, although many of us would agree it was in very bad taste), you can't assault someone over using their phone.

If we allow people to assault others in public over personal moral objections, we are headed down a dangerous path.

[Shadowschmadow]

I think you'd typically be right, but in this scenario he whipped out a stun gun, which was brought into the facility illegally. Notice how he was arrested, and no mention of the marine being arrested as well.

[MC]

And he should face charges for having the stun gun and tasering people if we was not assaulted first.

He does seem to have a defense of "being intimidated" and "fearing for his safety" but, until this goes to court or whatever, we won't know.

I don't like that gang mentality, however, because I have seen it used in some not so cool ways.

[Shadowschmadow]

Originally Posted by *MC*

I don't like that gang mentality, however, because I have seen it used in some not so cool ways.

I do agree with you on that, but let's look at some facts here:

1.)He was a Dallas fan, sitting in an area of Jets fans.
2.)He was in New York, dishonoring the remembrance of an important event in American history, specifically that of New York where things hit home for a lot of residents.
3.) What he did seems offensive to many, including ourselves, so it should not surprise you that multiple people around him were offended, and therefor involved.

Again, depending on what was said (which we all agree is unknown and important), he very well could have snowballed himself into this situation. IMO, that may very well have been what happened. Think about it, if you felt that you were not in the wrong by talking on your cell phone, and someone said something like "hey asshole, get off your ****ing phone", how would you respond?

[MC]

Originally Posted by Shadow

Think about it, if you felt that you were not in the wrong by talking on your cell phone, and someone said something like "hey asshole, get off your ****ing phone", how would you respond?

I'd probably tell the person to suck my **** and shut the **** up (if my kids weren't with me and there weren't children and old ladies around). But honestly, I am never on my phone someplace where it is "rude" to be on it (movies, elevator, etc.).

[Shadowschmadow]

Originally Posted by *MC*

I'd probably tell the person to suck my **** and shut the **** up (if my kids weren't with me and there weren't children and old ladies around).

Exactly, and that would spark an altercation most likely, especially with someone who is probably a proud person; such as a marine.

But honestly, I am never on my phone someplace where it is "rude" to be on it (movies, elevator, etc.).

Knowing what I know about you, I already know that.

[J_Byrd]

Try doing that one in Jacksonville NC, home of Camp Lejune. It will not go over well.

[Tannhauser]

Originally Posted by Chillen

Good stuff.

My 2 cents (or 2 pence):

I know this won't be a popular view, but I feel very strongly that failing to observe 'two minute silences' and the like is by no means disrespectful or reprehensible.

The whole practice of respectful silences rests on a series of questionable assumptions. For a start, who chooses which events to be marked and which aren't? It doesn't seem to be chosen democratically, it just appears out of nowhere. I seem to recall a two minute silence for the 7/7 bombings in London (56 dead), but not the Haiti earthquake (at least 46,000 dead). Presumaby I'm supposed to feel more empathy with the former than the latter - but personally I don't - they are both utterly ghastly tragedies - so why should I be obliged to mark one rather than the other?

Secondly, if you feel strongly about a tragedy, keeping quiet at a given time - that you haven't chosen - is only one way of showing your feelings. There are lots of other ways. You might feel that you would rather show your solidarity by, say, helping the victims. With reference to other tragedies (not 9/11, I can't speak about that), I know plenty of people who will happily observe a minute's silence - but that's all they will do. Try asking them to stick their hands in their pocket and actually do something, or give up a bit of time, and the empathy evaporates.

Thirdly, there is an atheist objection to 'silent moments' that runs like this: the separation of church and state, and a secular government, means that no one can force you into a religious observance. However, by calling it a 'moment of reflection,' and just announcing 'there will be a minute's silence, it's prayer sneaked in by the back door. It's prayer in everything but name - what else are you actually supposed to be doing by standing there silently? I'm not sure I completely buy it, but you can see why a committed atheist or someone of another faith might feel that way.

Fourthly, I can't help feeling that it's an exercise in conformity. regardless of what your personal feelings are, this is the behaviour that's been adopted by the group, and you'd better toe the line. Not doing so marks you out as a deviant, who does not share the in-group values, and therefore a legitimate target for anger and attack.

I guess people like to take arbitrary - often nonsensical - behaviours, imbue them with meaning and then vent their wrath against anyone who refuses to do the same. I can imagine a parallel universe where everyone has to put on a top hat to mark some terrible tragedy, and anyone who doesn't is disrepecting the dead with his unspeakable hatlessness.

Everyone likes to think that he/she is a free thinker, and that they walk their own path, yadda yadda yadda. Everybody says that about themselves. Yet when these individuals, commited body and soul to individualism, are confronted with someone who truly takes a different stance on widely accepted practices (say, someone who won't go a funeral, or who doesn't celebrate Christmas, or who has their own way of marking terrible events) it's funny how quickly groupthink emerges.

So essentially, my take (and response to those guys at the game) would be this: if you want to mark someone's passing by standing silently, with others, at a pre-designated time - fine. I can see that there is a power to that, aesthetically if in no other way. But don't form sort of grief police, forcing everyone else to do the same. Don't do it explicitly and don't do it tacitly. And don't ever take the moral high ground and make the risible assumption that just because you fell into line, and they didn't, that you care and they don't.

[Chillen]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

Agree.

Breaking this code of respect is a low thing to do. This does not mean he deserves retribution, obviously. But he is an asshat. I will say this though...if you do something despicable in public, someone will most likely react. Not saying this is how it should be, but it is how it is.

Continuing from my other post.

I am not defending this person, but looking at logic as it relates to the freedoms we all enjoy, and in some cases, take for granted. Which code of respect are we favoring here? All persons involved have a Code of respect: is it a selection process and select as you go where it is in agreement with one person or group, but not another? An "unwritten law or a tradition" in life that you respect though it contradicts one's traditional constitutional rights, and gives one a right to encroach, become violent, and potentially become criminally liable?

Sure its normal for some to encroach another persons constituational right when the persons or persons "personally" feel there are morally correct. If you do, be prepared for what life brings you, as you will be responsible for your actions, and will be judged by persons in powerful positions to make your life miserable. All the while the person that was deemed morally irresponsible (but not morally criminal), walks away uncharged.

But, here is an example: Some could view this response to a non-violant moral code being broken, as "immoral conduct" because the response induced violence, and produced additional violence, when the person whom was viewed as being inconsiderate (or immoral, etc), was not violent. As a society, (saying for lack of arguement) the person was in deed rude/immoral, can we have people running around taking inordinate violent acts and sometimes with debilitating weapons upon people were not aggressive or violent?