Well, to be fair, we don't know how many punches missed. The article points out that the kids were able to identify the adult without problem.
What I love is that the lawyer argues that the "belligerent" kids could only be handled with a beating. Good teaching coach!
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
The quote also doesn't say that he couldn't tell their age, only that he could not "identify them." Based upon what has come out so far I do not have much sympathy for either side, they both were in the wrong for different reasons.
Take it to the Florida St. QB punches girl in bar thread.Originally Posted by sharpe1027
OK. But one side was, to give the anonymous source its full reading, "belligerent".
The other side committed battery. These are not equal acts.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Saying one is more wrong than the other begins to sound like an excuse for one side. I make no judgment on who is "more" wrong. Neither seems justified, so they are both wrong.
Also, one side was (arguably) stealing/misusing someone else's property. If they were "belligerent" it does not help their case, but they still seem to have been in the wrong either way. If they were antagonizing, one could foresee (but not excuse) escalation of the situation. Poor judgment all around if that is the case.
I assume you don't think that every crime should carry the same punishment. So in a simplified sense of error, they are both equally wrong. However, the consequences of their actions were asymmetrical. We don't even know if the property suffered any harm before, during or after the scuffle.
One side being more wrong doesn't make an excuse for either side. There isn't a finite amount of punishment that has to be apportioned according to blame. Each side, if a crime was judged to have been committed, would face a separate process with a separate jeopardy.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
No, I did not say anything about punishment, and I also did not say they were both equally wrong. I was mainly trying to express my opinion that there is no need to attempt to argue one side versus the other. It is not a competition, nor is there a limited amount of blame that has to be split fairly.
Assuming the reports are correct:
The kids were using someone else's property and were antagonistic when confronted about it. That's wrong.
Kromer and son confronted kids using their property (fine). But then they took the kid's property and threw it into the ocean. They also physically injured at least one kid. That's wrong.
Neither justifies the other.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote