Acting violent to those you find mildly annoying is an actual disorder (intermittent anger disorder), I'd get it checked out before you end up doing time my brother
I don't know, mate. I think shoving children out of the way as a fully grown adult is a little bit more than "mildly annoying." One of the standards I have for someone to be 'mature' is being able to control themselves when appropriate. Your glee to see a mickey is not an appropriate time to physically assault children.
That person has (at max) assaulted the child, not the observer
The person is a bully and the only thing that stops bullies is immediate consequences of their actions
'Consequences of their actions' would be removal from the park and subsequent ban, not having to go to court to sue the person who assaulted them for injuries and damages
I'll settle for them getting dinged for violent threats before they are allowed around children.
It would honestly affect them more if they were banned from the park, that is the scariest thing in the world to them
I would bet that charges for terroristic threats or threats to minors would have more long reaching effects.
I'll take the hate on what I said. People saying they are going to push kids are in my experience more likely to cause harm then me wanting them to face consequences
And unless you have a degree realted to mental health, I don't need your armchair diagnosis of misreading of my comment.
I'm pretty sure the caption is a joke.
Either way, wishing consequences isn't "acting violent".
Responding to simple assault that doesn't involve you with assault and battery IS acting violent
Except in the defence of others.
99% sure that 'others' would prefer it be done by somebody that is trained, officiated, and legally responsible for their actions rather than watch some self-proclaimed vigilante justice dealer attack someone else
I see you decrying all I've said, but you've yet to address the fact that she said she was gonna push kids. So, give me a reason why I shouldn't want her to face consequences? And calling the cops is inviting lethal force into the mix.
Disney has security guards. Disney has security cameras. Disney has jurisdiction to have people removed from the park. Disney has the right to have people charged with crimes they committed (with evidence from previously mentioned guards and cameras). Disney does not need people to do their job for them, they can literally handle it themselves.
It's not about Disney, it's about improving society. Disney's jurisdiction ends at the gate, people like this need to know a lesson can be taught anywhere by anyone.
easy there Frank Castle
Yeah, at this point I'd feel more comfortable sitting next Cpt. Castle than you.
I mean, fully rejecting empathetic governance in favor of pseudodictitorial violent threat by violence doers is one way to look at things. It even lead to the fastest growing (and shortest lived) empires of the 20th century!
Acting violent to those you find mildly annoying is an actual disorder (intermittent anger disorder), I'd get it checked out before you end up doing time my brother
I don't know, mate. I think shoving children out of the way as a fully grown adult is a little bit more than "mildly annoying." One of the standards I have for someone to be 'mature' is being able to control themselves when appropriate. Your glee to see a mickey is not an appropriate time to physically assault children.
That person has (at max) assaulted the child, not the observer
The person is a bully and the only thing that stops bullies is immediate consequences of their actions
'Consequences of their actions' would be removal from the park and subsequent ban, not having to go to court to sue the person who assaulted them for injuries and damages
I'll settle for them getting dinged for violent threats before they are allowed around children.
It would honestly affect them more if they were banned from the park, that is the scariest thing in the world to them
I would bet that charges for terroristic threats or threats to minors would have more long reaching effects.
I'll take the hate on what I said. People saying they are going to push kids are in my experience more likely to cause harm then me wanting them to face consequences
And unless you have a degree realted to mental health, I don't need your armchair diagnosis of misreading of my comment.
I'm pretty sure the caption is a joke.
Either way, wishing consequences isn't "acting violent".
Responding to simple assault that doesn't involve you with assault and battery IS acting violent
Except in the defence of others.
99% sure that 'others' would prefer it be done by somebody that is trained, officiated, and legally responsible for their actions rather than watch some self-proclaimed vigilante justice dealer attack someone else
I see you decrying all I've said, but you've yet to address the fact that she said she was gonna push kids. So, give me a reason why I shouldn't want her to face consequences? And calling the cops is inviting lethal force into the mix.
Disney has security guards. Disney has security cameras. Disney has jurisdiction to have people removed from the park. Disney has the right to have people charged with crimes they committed (with evidence from previously mentioned guards and cameras). Disney does not need people to do their job for them, they can literally handle it themselves.
It's not about Disney, it's about improving society. Disney's jurisdiction ends at the gate, people like this need to know a lesson can be taught anywhere by anyone.
easy there Frank Castle
Yeah, at this point I'd feel more comfortable sitting next Cpt. Castle than you.
I mean, fully rejecting empathetic governance in favor of pseudodictitorial violent threat by violence doers is one way to look at things. It even lead to the fastest growing (and shortest lived) empires of the 20th century!