Man accused of fracturing 13-year-old’s skull for not removing hat during national anthem

[Angry Floof]

The point is there are assholes who have a tendency to resort to violence that aren’t the kind of cowards that resort to gun use just because of fear or lack of self control. There are real men people that resort to violence when there might not otherwise have a good cause to do so, but many of the same such people have enough about themselves not to succumb to the pressures.

First, real men people are not violent assholes. That bears emphasis: real men people are not violent assholes. Real men people can control their emotions and do not resort to senseless violence. Real men people do not attack children for wearing hats during the national anthem. Real men people do not hit women people for failing to bring the ice in their tea.

Second, there is no way to know for sure that these "real men" who are violent assholes will not at some point use a firearm during a violent asshole episode.

FTFY.

Though in all honesty I believe that HUMANS do all of the above, because humans are really bad at being people. Which is why humans shouldn't generally have guns. Granted some are much better at being proper people than others, as a function of education, self reflection, and emotional mastery.

Bullshit. You have to trip over literally hundreds of violent males to find a woman doing anything similar. No one says "real women" should be aggressive or violent or own guns or dominate or bully. That's an overwhelmingly male thing. What exactly are you defending by using this lazy, cowardly, hand waving bullshit here?

 

[cycomiko]

"In that 2010 incident, Brockway pulled up to a parked vehicle, got out and pulled a gun on a family and stated he was going to kill them."

Perfect time for those red flag laws (or whatever we're calling them) to swing into action. This dude is obviously violent and shouldn't have access to weapons.

I don't always remove my hat during the anthem and have never had anyone say one cross word to me. It's just a song and not sure why anyone would care. I'm also not a 13 year old boy for some cowardly tough guy to pick on.

This isn't a reason for red flag laws--those are about actions which are scary but not illegal. This is a reason to deny weapons to someone that should be (I don't know if he is) a felon.

good point. this guy should certainly have had his gun rights removed once he showed he was incapable of owning them responsibly back in 2010.

 

[cycomiko]

But do they use the guns during their violence?

No. No way. Why would they?

When I was younger, I knew never to point a gun at someone. But, in the back of my mind, I thought (mistakingly thought) that if the situation was dire and pointing a gun could deescalate a highly volatile situation, it might be okay, but no. No no no. No one I know is going to point a gun to scare someone. If they do, they need to have the shit knocked out of them—even if it was for good intentions.

Knocking someone on their ass with your fists is one thing, and being quick-tempered is one thing; hell, talking shit is one thing, but let’s say you’re a stranger amongst me, my ole lady and a bunch of my friends. You talk some flirtatious shit to her and I tell you to watch your mouth. You’ve now been warned, and everybody now knows your ass been warned, but drunk ass you persist and I cold-cock the hell out of you. You get up and we scrap. If I go for a gun, not only will my friends consider disowning me, my old lady will probably threaten me.

We don’t play with guns. Whether you’re the piece of shit that’ll slap a bitch or the emotionally frazzled mofo that’ll throw bricks through strangers windshields for turning around in a drive-way, you don’t ever (ever) take out a gun and point it at someone, period.

I guess a violent asshole can still be a responsible violent asshole.

That was concise. I wish I could learn that.

I see and accept your point. I've also known people prone to fighting that would never pull a gun on someone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is something I like, we need red flag laws to prevent potentially violent people from getting guns.

What is one said red flag? A person buying a gun.

There is a hole in my bucket Liza.

 

[Jarhyn]

FTFY.

Though in all honesty I believe that HUMANS do all of the above, because humans are really bad at being people. Which is why humans shouldn't generally have guns. Granted some are much better at being proper people than others, as a function of education, self reflection, and emotional mastery.

Bullshit. You have to trip over literally hundreds of violent males to find a woman doing anything similar. No one says "real women" should be aggressive or violent or own guns or dominate or bully. That's an overwhelmingly male thing. What exactly are you defending by using this lazy, cowardly, hand waving bullshit here?

See, you're losing an ally here. I am defending the idea that everyone has a responsibility to not be violent assholes. Whether that is achieved by not calling for police when a black person happens to appear, or not punching/scratching/biting/hitting someone because they think they will get away with it due to a social asymmetry, whether the gun is chrome or matte or pink, whether the bullying is physical or social.

Everyone has an obligation to be a good person.

Quit making it about gender.

Edit: to emphasize, the lines I draw are between people and things that merely happen to be shaped like them. Of course there are different behaviors that the ones who happen to have vaginas are prone to that cause me to judge them likewise, but we aren't talking about that. The standards apply to everyone, though.

Edit2: or another way, as per my principles, I don't believe in delegitimizing someone's identity merely because they are a fucking asshole. That's what fucking assholes do.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Why shouldn’t a violent asshole with a gun not have a gun?

Because violent assholes should not have guns.

This concludes today's episode of simple answers to stupid questions!

 

[Toni]

FTFY.

Though in all honesty I believe that HUMANS do all of the above, because humans are really bad at being people. Which is why humans shouldn't generally have guns. Granted some are much better at being proper people than others, as a function of education, self reflection, and emotional mastery.

Bullshit. You have to trip over literally hundreds of violent males to find a woman doing anything similar. No one says "real women" should be aggressive or violent or own guns or dominate or bully. That's an overwhelmingly male thing. What exactly are you defending by using this lazy, cowardly, hand waving bullshit here?

I don't disagree that it is overwhelmingly a male behavior but the truth is that women are capable of violence as well. All people are.

The more well known instances tend not to involve guns but they exist: Lizzie Borden and the several cases of women drowning their children or otherwise killing them, not generally with a gun but I'm sure that's happened. Half of all mass shootings are domestic violence related or are preceded by domestic violence. Most people are murdered by someone they know. Most murdered children are killed by a parent and it's not always the father.

 

[starwater]

Women definitely bully - in very subtle ways - I have been a victim many times. Their bullying though is usually a passive aggressive form that is easily dealt with. Men however are violent.

 

[ZiprHead]

Man Who Attacked Boy for Wearing Hat During National Anthem Thought He Was Acting on Trump’s Orders: Attorney

 

[blastula]

Man Who Attacked Boy for Wearing Hat During National Anthem Thought He Was Acting on Trump’s Orders: Attorney

Cesar Sayoc's attorneys tried to use Trump's influence as a defense too. There's also a Qanon doofus who killed someone because of his conspiracy delusions, and his lawyers are citing Trump as well.

He Wasn’t Seeking to Kill a Mob Boss. He Was Trying to Help Trump, His Lawyer Says. - The New York Times

 

[Angry Floof]

FTFY.

Though in all honesty I believe that HUMANS do all of the above, because humans are really bad at being people. Which is why humans shouldn't generally have guns. Granted some are much better at being proper people than others, as a function of education, self reflection, and emotional mastery.

Bullshit. You have to trip over literally hundreds of violent males to find a woman doing anything similar. No one says "real women" should be aggressive or violent or own guns or dominate or bully. That's an overwhelmingly male thing. What exactly are you defending by using this lazy, cowardly, hand waving bullshit here?

I don't disagree that it is overwhelmingly a male behavior but the truth is that women are capable of violence as well. All people are.

The more well known instances tend not to involve guns but they exist: Lizzie Borden and the several cases of women drowning their children or otherwise killing them, not generally with a gun but I'm sure that's happened. Half of all mass shootings are domestic violence related or are preceded by domestic violence. Most people are murdered by someone they know. Most murdered children are killed by a parent and it's not always the father.

Yeah, but no one said that. But someone did try to say that "all humans can be assholes" specifically regarding violence, where there is no comparison between men and women. The vast majority of violence committed by women is either in defense or following a pattern of abuse. Violence overall is not a human problem so much as a male aggression problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't disagree that it is overwhelmingly a male behavior but the truth is that women are capable of violence as well. All people are.

The more well known instances tend not to involve guns but they exist: Lizzie Borden and the several cases of women drowning their children or otherwise killing them, not generally with a gun but I'm sure that's happened. Half of all mass shootings are domestic violence related or are preceded by domestic violence. Most people are murdered by someone they know. Most murdered children are killed by a parent and it's not always the father.

Yeah, but no one said that. But someone did try to say that "all humans can be assholes" specifically regarding violence, where there is no comparison between men and women. The vast majority of violence committed by women is either in defense or following a pattern of abuse. Violence overall is not a human problem so much as a male aggression problem.

No. I said people is a category that excludes violent assholes, not merely "real men" or "humans". All these words mean different things.

"Men" is referent to an identity that may be claimed by entities.

"Real men" is a term that fundamentally delegitimises the identities of some subset of "Men" through a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

Humans is referent to members of genus Homo Sapiens.

People is a category in ethical discussion that pertains to a thing that should not be considered "other" for determining social/ethical value.

My statement is that People, a set that is independent of "men" or self-selected identity in general, is mutually exclusive with the set defined by violent assholes.

You have incorrectly implied that violent fucking assholes are a subset of the set of "Men" or near enough that the distinction is irrelevant.

You are attempting to drag gender into a discussion of ethical basis. Gender has no place in this discussion. Or to clarify it is my perception that it is your view that violent assholes cannot be "(edit: real) men", whereas I don't strictly see violent fucking assholes as People.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Okay -- okay -- common sense & setting priorities time. Here's the case file on Citizen X. The warning signs:
> has bragged that he, habitually, walks up to unsuspecting women and sexually assaults them -- and suffers no consequences
> brags that he could commit murder on the street and suffer no consequences whatever
> claims that the DOJ and FBI are filled with people who have 'committed many crimes' and constitute a 'criminal deep state'
> further claims that these people are out to get him and have committed the capital offense of treason
> talks about demographic groups as being "infestations" largely composed of murderers and rapists
> has offered to pay legal fees of anyone who assaults his enemies
> sees public talk of shooting down various demographic groups as humorous
> has referred to non-Nordic and third world countries as "Shithole Countries" (apparently, 'mud people' didn't quite express his feelings strongly enough)
> repeatedly talks about inflicting 'fire and fury such as the world has never known'
Should Citizen X be able to buy a Bushmaster?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting read:

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

They seem to be using a wider definition of mass shootings, getting some private matters in the mix.

As for their suggestions:

1) Background checks. Huh? They said 1/3 of the shooters were ineligible. That implies either that the system messed up (as with example they cited where the offenses weren't put in the system--no background check will work in that case!) or they got their weapons via other means. (Not mentioned, but consider Sandy Hook. Background checks wouldn't work in a case like that.) Before beating this drum look for how many bought their weapons from private parties that legally possessed them. Those are the only cases that can possibly be addressed by universal background checks.

2) Red flag laws. I'm very leery here because they tend to be set up assuming a pure heart and that the report is correct. I'd much prefer a system where they can have an immediate hearing on the validity of the evidence against them and there must be a good way to clear one's name.

3) Domestic violence laws. They're off target here--the failure is not the domestic violence laws, the failure is not denying weapons to those with domestic violence convictions. I agree with the basic concept, although I'm leery of divorce-related domestic violence allegations that only involve minor injuries.

4) Magazines. Nope, almost completely off target. Just because they used high capacity magazines doesn't mean things would have played out differently if they didn't have them. Mass shooters tend to have multiple weapons and even without that we don't see many shooters jumped during a magazine change. (On the flip side, bigger magazines mean more malfunctions and that's a better opportunity to jump the guy.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FTFY.

Though in all honesty I believe that HUMANS do all of the above, because humans are really bad at being people. Which is why humans shouldn't generally have guns. Granted some are much better at being proper people than others, as a function of education, self reflection, and emotional mastery.

Bullshit. You have to trip over literally hundreds of violent males to find a woman doing anything similar. No one says "real women" should be aggressive or violent or own guns or dominate or bully. That's an overwhelmingly male thing. What exactly are you defending by using this lazy, cowardly, hand waving bullshit here?

Domestic violence is an equal opportunity crime.

It's just it's much more likely to cause serious harm when the abuser is male and the victim is female.

 

[ruby sparks]

FTFY.

Though in all honesty I believe that HUMANS do all of the above, because humans are really bad at being people. Which is why humans shouldn't generally have guns. Granted some are much better at being proper people than others, as a function of education, self reflection, and emotional mastery.

Bullshit. You have to trip over literally hundreds of violent males to find a woman doing anything similar. No one says "real women" should be aggressive or violent or own guns or dominate or bully. That's an overwhelmingly male thing. What exactly are you defending by using this lazy, cowardly, hand waving bullshit here?

Domestic violence is an equal opportunity crime.

It's just it's much more likely to cause serious harm when the abuser is male and the victim is female.

Yes. Most surveys indicate that for example, women in lesbian relationships experience intimate partner violence as often as women in heterosexual relationships.

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE AMONG LGBT PEOPLE
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla....olence-and-Sexual-Abuse-among-LGBT-People.pdf

But the violence is more physically injurious for the latter.

And wiki says:

"The issue of domestic violence among lesbians has become a serious social concern, but the topic has often been ignored, both in academic analyses and in the establishment of social services for battered women.

The issue of domestic violence among lesbian couples may be underreported due to the social construction of gender roles that women are expected to play in society; violence perpetrated by women may be ignored due to beliefs that the male social construction itself is a primary source of violence. The social construction of women is characterized as passive, dependent, nurturing, and highly emotional, and the social construction of men is characterized as competitive, aggressive, strong, and even prone to violence. Due to forms of discrimination, homophobia, and heterosexism, and the belief that heterosexuality is normative within society, domestic violence has been characterized as being between the male perpetrator and the female victim. This contributes to the invisibility of all domestic violence perpetrated by women. Further, the fear of reinforcing negative stereotypes could lead some community members, activists, and victims to deny the extent of violence among lesbians. Social service agencies are often unwilling to assist victims of domestic violence perpetrated by women."

Domestic violence in lesbian relationships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships

 

[Toni]

Interesting read:

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

They seem to be using a wider definition of mass shootings, getting some private matters in the mix.

As for their suggestions:

1) Background checks. Huh? They said 1/3 of the shooters were ineligible. That implies either that the system messed up (as with example they cited where the offenses weren't put in the system--no background check will work in that case!) or they got their weapons via other means. (Not mentioned, but consider Sandy Hook. Background checks wouldn't work in a case like that.) Before beating this drum look for how many bought their weapons from private parties that legally possessed them. Those are the only cases that can possibly be addressed by universal background checks.

2) Red flag laws. I'm very leery here because they tend to be set up assuming a pure heart and that the report is correct. I'd much prefer a system where they can have an immediate hearing on the validity of the evidence against them and there must be a good way to clear one's name.

3) Domestic violence laws. They're off target here--the failure is not the domestic violence laws, the failure is not denying weapons to those with domestic violence convictions. I agree with the basic concept, although I'm leery of divorce-related domestic violence allegations that only involve minor injuries.

4) Magazines. Nope, almost completely off target. Just because they used high capacity magazines doesn't mean things would have played out differently if they didn't have them. Mass shooters tend to have multiple weapons and even without that we don't see many shooters jumped during a magazine change. (On the flip side, bigger magazines mean more malfunctions and that's a better opportunity to jump the guy.)

They clearly defined mass shooting as one with 4 or more victims (not including the shooter). This obviously includes shootings when one spouse murders the other spouse and any children or other family members or friends who are present. We are not as likely to hear about these on the national news, but they happen much more frequently than someone with an AK-47 or similar. That's one reason that when you look at statistics, most mass murder victims are killed by handguns. It's someone they know in some kind of crisis situation and they kill everyone in the house.

 

[Toni]

Interesting read:

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

My apologies. I was posting from my phone when I made the original post and due to technical difficulties and interruptions and I'm certain, some uncoordination on my part, I kept losing the post with quotes and ended up just posting the link without any quoted text.

This is from the link in my earlier post:

Everytown’s analysis revealed the following:

From 2009 to 2017, there were at least 173 mass shootings in the U.S.
2017 was the deadliest year on record for mass shootings. There were four times as many people shot in mass shootings in 2017 than the average of the eight years prior.
In at least one-third of mass shootings, the shooter was legally prohibited from possessing firearms at the time of the shooting.
In half of mass shootings, the shooter exhibited warning signs indicating that they posed a danger to themselves or others before the shooting.
The majority of mass shootings were related to domestic or family violence. These incidents were responsible for 86 percent of mass shooting child fatalities.
Mass shootings that involved the use of high-capacity magazines resulted in more than twice as many fatalities and 14 times as many injuries on average compared to those that did not.

It's an interesting read.

 

[Toni]

Just saw this--and my apologies if it was posted upthread and missed by me:

https://news.yahoo.com/attorney-cit...209.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) — The attorney for a Montana man accused of throwing a 13-year-old boy to the ground at a rodeo because the teenager didn't remove his hat during the national anthem said Wednesday his client believes he was acting on an order from President Donald Trump.

The president's "rhetoric" contributed to Curt Brockway's disposition when he grabbed the boy by the throat and slammed him to the ground, fracturing his skull, at the Mineral County fairgrounds Saturday, attorney Lance Jasper told The Missoulian .

Jasper said Brockway is a U.S. Army veteran who believes he was acting on an order by the commander in chief. He added that Brockway's decision-making has been affected by a traumatic brain injury he suffered in a vehicle crash in 2000 while he was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington.

"His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished," Jasper said. "He certainly didn't understand it was a crime."

Brockway, 39, told a sheriff's deputy that he asked the boy to remove his hat out of respect for the national anthem before the start of the county rodeo, Mineral County Attorney Ellen Donohue wrote in the document describing the attack. The boy cursed at Brockway in response, and the man grabbed him by the throat, "lifted him into the air and slammed the boy into the ground," Donohue wrote.