Newly popular game: Knockout

• like_that

  

  SportsAndLady;1540556 wrote:This question is always hilarious to me. Because you're clearly insinuating that we are racist because we see a group of black thugs and walk the other way.
  
  Yes otrap, if it were white thugs, we'd walk right through their group with bills hanging out of our pockets and not a concern in the world.

  This brought the lulz, and I take the same precautionary actions as sleeper does in DC.
• sleeper

  

  SportsAndLady;1540566 wrote:I don't think sleeper goes through the streets avoiding black people. So why ask him if that question? Thugs are thugs. Skin color doesn't matter (although there are more black thugs than any other skin color) and whether or not you'd avoid thugs doesn't depend on their skin color.

  Black people? No. Black teens? Yes.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Wish that kid was shot in the face.
  
  "61 year old man attacked by 9 kids" Lets be honest, they weren't kids, they were 9 savage gorillas.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1540569 wrote:Isn't the entire basis of perceived threat speculation? Laws vary by state, but the intent to "knock out" someone could be considered an intent to cause serious bodily harm, and that would qualify as felony assault even without a weapon.
  
  A group of thugs is every bit as dangerous as single thug with a gun. Doesn't matter if only one of them is an aggressor. The basis of assault with a deadly weapon is not only about the potential for serious harm, but the inability of someone to properly defend themselves.
  
  I think people who commit violence/assault as part of a group should be charged with a felony. I'm not saying charge the whole group, but I think it's pretty obvious that flash mobs/groups embolden criminals just as much as a weapon does.
  
  It doesn't matter if his buddies would or wouldn't come to his aid (they likely would). They might as well be holding a gun, because it's pretty much the same implication for you defending yourself or another coming to your aid

  "I don't know why he did it. We were just walking to _______, and he just went crazy on the man/woman. We were all kind of in shock. I didn't hear anything about a game, but if that was what it was, nobody said anything to me about it."
  
  Seems pretty hard to rebut, regardless of whether or not it's true.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1540702 wrote:"I don't know why he did it. We were just walking to _______, and he just went crazy on the man/woman. We were all kind of in shock. I didn't hear anything about a game, but if that was what it was, nobody said anything to me about it."
  
  Seems pretty hard to rebut, regardless of whether or not it's true.

  A good lawyer could rope them all in.
• O-Trap

  

  vball10set;1540568 wrote:I'd venture to say that a lot of black people would be less apprehensive to walk past a group of white youth versus a group of black youth as well. The reputation is there, and it's a natural reaction to profile, whether consciously or subconsciously. JMO.

  All other things being equal (clothing, physical behavior, etc.), I'd contest that venture. You think the average black person trusts the average white person more than they trust the average black person?
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1540707 wrote:All other things being equal (clothing, physical behavior, etc.), I'd contest that venture. You think the average black person trusts the average white person more than they trust the average black person?

  No they don't. People trust in other's correlates well with how much similar they are in appearance. Both blacks and whites are this way and there's nothing wrong with either, but if you are white and think this way then you are a racist. If you are black, its black pride or w/e.
• gut

  O-Trap;1540702 wrote: Seems pretty hard to rebut, regardless of whether or not it's true.

  They aren't on trial. Whether they would or wouldn't intervene is irrelevant to the perception of the victim and people who might potentially aid the victim. A group presents a similar escalation of force to a weapon. It doesn't matter whether or not the perp intended to or could use the weapon, it's the threat and potential escalation of harm that raises it to a felony. Not dissimilar to being faced with 3 or 4 guys who may or may not gang-up or join in to pound you.
  
  In most states, I think, trying to knock out an unsuspecting victim could easily be considered intent to do serious harm, and SHOULD elevate this to a felony charge.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1540713 wrote:No they don't. People trust in other's correlates well with how much similar they are in appearance. Both blacks and whites are this way and there's nothing wrong with either, but if you are white and think this way then you are a racist. If you are black, its black pride or w/e.

  Don't get me wrong. I think the double standard is bullshit. It lacks in even basic logical justification.
  
  Moreover, it actually justifies racial inequality. If one person can do something that is socially accepted, but another person does it and it is socially rejected, and the distinction is entirely based on skin color, that is pretty textbook as an example of racial inequality.
  
  However, I do think that there is something wrong with either camp doing it, because it demonstrates that we still treat an entire portion of our own population based on our perception (which may or may not even be accurate) of a group of individuals within that portion.
  
  Really, it's no different than someone looking at you or me, seeing that we're white skinned with liberty-leaning beliefs, and treating us as more likely domestic terrorist candidates.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1540714 wrote:They aren't on trial. Whether they would or wouldn't intervene is irrelevant to the perception of the victim and people who might potentially aid the victim. A group presents a similar escalation of force to a weapon. It doesn't matter whether or not the perp intended to or could use the weapon, it's the threat and potential escalation of harm that raises it to a felony. Not dissimilar to being faced with 3 or 4 guys who may or may not gang-up or join in to pound you.

  Difference is, these "weapons" have wills. If you're talking about charging the actual assailant with such a charge, I might agree.
  
  I still can't justify charging those with him, though, as you would have no grounds to establish either criminal intent or activity.
  

  gut;1540714 wrote:In most states, I think, trying to knock out an unsuspecting victim could easily be considered intent to do serious harm, and SHOULD elevate this to a felony charge.

  Regarding the actual assailant, I agree.
• gut

  O-Trap;1540738 wrote: I still can't justify charging those with him, though, as you would have no grounds to establish either criminal intent or activity.
  
  Regarding the actual assailant, I agree.

  I have never said to charge the group and don't think it's been unclear (how is "they aren't on trial" unclear?) I think I've said specifically at least once I am only talking about the perpetrator. The presence of a group should elevate HIS assault to felony assault.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1540771 wrote:I have never said to charge the group and don't think it's been unclear (how is "they aren't on trial" unclear?) I think I've said specifically at least once I am only talking about the perpetrator. The presence of a group should elevate HIS assault to felony assault.

  You're right. I completely misread that. My apologies.
• robj55

  

  Bitch ass kids, what comes around goes around.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  O-Trap;1540733 wrote:Don't get me wrong. I think the double standard is bullshit. It lacks in even basic logical justification.
  
  Moreover, it actually justifies racial inequality. If one person can do something that is socially accepted, but another person does it and it is socially rejected, and the distinction is entirely based on skin color, that is pretty textbook as an example of racial inequality.
  
  However, I do think that there is something wrong with either camp doing it, because it demonstrates that we still treat an entire portion of our own population based on our perception (which may or may not even be accurate) of a group of individuals within that portion.
  
  Really, it's no different than someone looking at you or me, seeing that we're white skinned with liberty-leaning beliefs, and treating us as more likely domestic terrorist candidates.

  Are you for hitting women? Double standards are the norm so lets just delete your first sentence.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  O-Trap;1540738 wrote:Difference is, these "weapons" have wills. If you're talking about charging the actual assailant with such a charge, I might agree.
  
  I still can't justify charging those with him, though, as you would have no grounds to establish either criminal intent or activity..

  If i know someone murdered another person and I don't report it, you can't justify why I wouldn't be charged? Ok.
• O-Trap

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1540913 wrote:Are you for hitting women? Double standards are the norm so lets just delete your first sentence.

  I'm for hitting nobody, man or woman.
  
  However, if a woman poses a threat or inflicts injury equal to that for which I would hit a man, yes, I would be for hitting that woman.
  
  Equal treatment is equal treatment.
  
  I don't give a shit if they're the norm. They're illogical, so they shouldn't be.
  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1540914 wrote:If i know someone murdered another person and I don't report it, you can't justify why I wouldn't be charged? Ok.

  With murder? No. With something smaller (aiding, abetting, obstruction) ... eh, maybe.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  O-Trap;1541113 wrote:I'm for hitting nobody, man or woman.
  
  However, if a woman poses a threat or inflicts injury equal to that for which I would hit a man, yes, I would be for hitting that woman.
  
  Equal treatment is equal treatment.
  
  I don't give a shit if they're the norm. They're illogical, so they shouldn't be.
  
  
  
  With murder? No. With something smaller (aiding, abetting, obstruction) ... eh, maybe.

  these two things are contradicting...you can't pick a choose. What i described was aiding and abetting.
• O-Trap

  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1541142 wrote:these two things are contradicting...you can't pick a choose. What i described was aiding and abetting.

  In what way was any of that contradicting?
• Fly4Fun

  

  Just to add a little actual information to help this discussion:
  
  Felony reporting statute in the ORC:
  
  http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.22
• O-Trap

  

  Fly4Fun;1541153 wrote:Just to add a little actual information to help this discussion:
  
  Felony reporting statute in the ORC:
  
  http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.22

  Nice.
  
  Question is, is this standard across state lines?
• BR1986FB

  Donald J. Trump
  If you are lucky enough to catch a knockout assaulter before getting slugged, and you carry a gun, shoot the bastard (teach them a lesson)!
• O-Trap

  

  BR1986FB;1541221 wrote:Donald J. Trump
  If you are lucky enough to catch a knockout assaulter before getting slugged, and you carry a gun, shoot the bastard (teach them a lesson)!

  Not really teaching anyone a lesson, as they're dead, and thus, cannot learn a lesson.
  
  I would hope that lethal force would be a last-resort in such a circumstance (if some 160-pound kid comes up to knock me out, and I see him coming, I won't need a gun), but I have no problem with it being available in such circumstances.
• BR1986FB

  O-Trap;1541287 wrote:Not really teaching anyone a lesson, as they're dead, and thus, cannot learn a lesson.
  
  I would hope that lethal force would be a last-resort in such a circumstance (if some 160-pound kid comes up to knock me out, and I see him coming, I won't need a gun), but I have no problem with it being available in such circumstances.

  Their group might think twice about sucker punching someone if they saw one of their "besties" lying in a pool of his own blood.
• O-Trap

  

  BR1986FB;1541304 wrote:Their group might think twice about sucker punching someone if they saw one of their "besties" lying in a pool of his own blood.

  I'm betting they'd think twice if you so much as brandished a gun or pointed it at them. Nobody dies, and the kids stop playing this stupid game. Everyone wins.
• SportsAndLady

  

  O-Trap;1541333 wrote:I'm betting they'd think twice if you so much as brandished a gun or pointed it at them. Nobody dies, and the kids stop playing this stupid game. Everyone wins.

  Why do you care so much if a teenage scumbag with intent to seriously injure innocent people is gone from this earth?
  
  Let me guess, you believe he can be rehabilitated don't you?