patrick.net

That dude was a badass. His moves resulted in sound effects sure to please. The sound of that dip was delightful lol.

Black, white, brown or yellow, I've never understood why you'd steal or try to harm another human physically unless it's defense. Outside of combat sports of course. That's a job. Makes no sense to me. Kids will make mistakes, but it's a pure lack of parenting in this instance. Gun crimes by anyone under 18 the parent/guardian should be charged as well. Watch gun crimes plummet.

I don't like to restrict 2A, but how in the flying fuck does that kid have a gun? Obviously stolen or grabbed from criminal mom or dad. Hence why I think parents should be legally be held accountable. Be a god damn parent. That video was in daylight too. Can't these kids go play baseball or some other activity with friends?

Very good body slam as you mention Patrick. Not sure that kid will try stupid shit like that again. I swear a lot here, but I love that he told him to get the fuck out of here. I'm very disciplined with my kids and nephew. Sometimes harsh in all honesty. Young boys though just can't be allowed to do what they want.

I hate football, but my nephew plays and I do see the benefit of the discipline now. I was an individual sport guy and did very well with that. My competitiveness is not compatible with team sports. You'd get your ass chewed out if you sucked. So the coaches didn't like me either. lol.

Clearly a case of a missing dad though. Or a weak/lazy/drugged mom.

That’s pretty hectic.
The punks miscalculated big time.

I’m going to try to completely avoid places where young blacks might be around.

HunterTits says

At least criminally. And I bet the parent doesn't have two nickels to rub together to ne worth suing, too.

I agree. But you could solve crime in a heartbeat if you held parents accountable. I'd venture to guess 30-40% of violent crime goes away if the parents are also held responsible. Maybe not life in jail for a murder, but at least hit them up for 30-90 days.

If there's a consequence to being a shit parent, there should be less shitty kids. I don't like regulating stuff that way, but at what point is it enough? Parts of Chicago and major cities are more dangerous than war zones currently.

WookieMan says

I don't like to restrict 2A, but how in the flying fuck does that kid have a gun?

The working theory I've seen elsewhere is that this was an airsoft/replica gun and that's why the guy felt comfortable confronting and fighting back. Up close and personal it's easier to spot, versus 20 feet away in an armed conflict with the police.

WookieMan says
“Hence why I think parents should be legally be held accountable”
Hunter Tits says “ Because that would be unconstitutional” HunterTits says
“At least criminally”
Who says parents can’t be held liable ? where is it written that it’s unconstitutional ? Why can’t a parent be found criminally ( negligent) if found that they contributed to a minors ( children) actions knowingly or unknowingly?
Can parents be held liable for child shootings? The incredibly tragic act of one child shooting another seems to be occurring far too often these days, unfortunately.

Along with these sad acts occurring, there are usually an endless list of questions that beg to be answered.

One of them is most definitely going to be about the parents of the child who committed the act: Can they be held liable for the shooting?

Parental Liability in General

Parental liability for a minor child's acts fall under the umbrella category of vicarious liability (in other words, liability for actions of others).

In general, if a parent were to be held liable for their child's acts, it would only start when the child is around 7 to 10 years old (depending on your state), up until the child reaches the age of majority. After that, children are responsible for their own actions.

In which situations can parents be held liable for a child's shooting? Here are a few:

Liability for a Child's Torts

Every state has its own laws regarding a parent's liability for the torts committed by her child.

For a child's torts, many states will commonly hold parents financially liable for the damages and injuries caused by their children. The extent of this liability varies as well, but generally covers such things as vandalism and destruction of property. Some states also cap a parent's liability at a certain dollar amount.

Liability for a Child's Criminal Acts

Criminal acts are treated differently. If a parent knows that her child has a penchant for criminal behavior -- that the child is capable of, and has committed acts that require a parent's restraint -- then courts may see this as a reason to hold parents accountable.

When it comes to child shootings, many states have laws which explicitly impart liability on parents for their child's criminal acts involving firearms. Many of the provisions contained in the acts look at whether or not a parent keeps guns in the house, has them stored safely and in a place unreachable by the child, and just how easy it is for the child to gain access.

Depending on the circumstances, parents can also potentially be charged with failing to supervise their child, or even contributing to their child's delinquency. The recent spate of child shootings should serve as a lesson for parents who may have firearms in the house to ensure that all safety measures are taken.

Related Resources:

Dad charged in New Jersey child-on-child shooting death (New York Daily News)
Parental Rights and Liability (FindLaw)
Are Parents Liable if Their Kid is a Bully? (FindLaw's Blotter)
Am I Civilly Liable for My Kids' Actions? (FindLaw's Injured) By Entry Wang JD
Fourteen states and the District have statutes that hold adults criminally liable for negligently storing guns where children can reach them Since 1999, children have committed at least 145 school shootings. Among the 105 cases in which the weapon’s source was identified, 80 percent were taken from the child’s home or those of relatives or friends.
Yet The Washington Post found that just four adults have been convicted for failing to lock up the guns used.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/08/01/feature/school-shootings-should-parents-be-charged-for-failing-to-lock-up-guns-used-by-their-kids/

EBGuy says

The working theory I've seen elsewhere is that this was an airsoft/replica gun

I think he may have had some martial arts training. When a punk is waving a gun around close to you there will be a time when the gun is not pointed at you and you have the chance to disarm him. The speed at which the punk was disarmed and body slammed also indicates a trained fighter.

I have hefted and shot a full blowback .177 caliber Berretta 9mm replica. This pistol looked and functioned exactly like the real thing except for weight, sound, and recoil. As long as you're not looking straight down the barrel and see the BB hole, you can't tell the differnce.

Having said all that I suspect the gun was an obvious fake as perp number two made no attempt to pick it up.



This little pistol is FULL AUTO! Check out the video:
https://www.airgundepot.com/beretta-m92a1-bb-pistol-full-auto.html#gallery

EBGuy says

The working theory I've seen elsewhere is that this was an airsoft/replica gun and that's why the guy felt comfortable confronting and fighting back. Up close and personal it's easier to spot, versus 20 feet away in an armed conflict with the police.

Don't disagree. If it was a real gun though and the guy knew it that kid might be dead.

Let's all be honest, there are dead beat parents out there. This kid was a piece of shit. Not his fault totally. Parents need to parent. Problem is in most black communities there is no dad and mom is MIA as well. That doesn't work. It leads to this type of shit and worse.

Misguided? That assumes they are capable of compensatory guidance rather than just totally fucked up to begin with.

If you apply 'compensatory guidance', you are racis'.

HunterTits says

So if your kid murders someone. You can't be charged for that crime. It's unconstitutional.

Wiretapping the entire population is unconstitutional.

Using a drone strike to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, is unconstitutional.

Silencing political opinions is unconstitutional.

Closing Churches over a "pandemic" (real or not) is unconstitutional.

Taking the nation to war without the Congress declaring war, is unconstitutional.

Our government doesn't care about enforcing the Constitution, and frankly, US citizens don't seem to care either. We don't even have 4th amendment rights.

Parents can however be charged money for the incarceration of their juveniles, from what I understand.

richwicks says

Our government doesn't care about enforcing the Constitution, and frankly, US citizens don't seem to care either. We don't even have 4th amendment rights.

The downside of being ruled by a foreign City State of Washington DC that regards the American people as beguiled vassals?

Remember the part where they changed the Constitution and Bill of Rights from 'of' the people to 'for' the people, meaning they took authority to use the Constitution and Bill of Rights any way they pleased for the foolish herds, but ignored for themselves?

Onvacation says

Coat the BBs in cyanide, and you are ready for home invasion.

Show me the Wiretapping Clause in the Constitution.
Hell, the government has the write to read your mail,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

I would say the term "effects" and general tone "the right to be secure" would include wiretapping and mail.

What an outcome! Bravo

Kid got off easy

Looks pretty clear to me.

On December 18, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States, expanding the Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" to cover electronic wiretaps.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/katz-v-united-states-the-fourth-amendment-adapts-to-new-technology/

But it was debated for decades before that.