” I think the case was a case was about punishing a child. It was about stopping a teenage male him from attacking a young women”

I realize upon rereading my rhetoric… um argument.. that you may have interpreted statements like : “makes you a pervert or child abuser not some sort of neighborhood hero.” as referring to you: Matthew. If so I can see why you would see me as insulting you. Please see the “you” as “one” or “a person”… not you or anyone else in particular and hopefully you will not feel slighted in future.

Which, is inconsistent with your rationale for supporting the actions in this case.”

… No. it isn’t. What? I assure someone I am not a school bully and therefore I have no rationale for supporting the police arresting a man who assaults a child? Are you serious? I Not relevant at all.

” I am pretty sure being locked in a cell, required to find bail, having your future threatened and your name publically defamed in the media when you are innocent is a lot different to police simply asking you questions.”

…it was a thought experiment. To make a point that sometimes freedom and justice conflict with each other. No need to take everything so literally. (see your silly comparison below for an example of this)

“Nice insult, but unfortunately its not an argument,”

…not an insult at all. I was pointing out that reality is often different from intellectual arguments and you have to think about the actual real world consequences rather than just some abstract concept you wish to defend.

I note that you pointed out that insults were not substitutes for arguments previously. Let me know when you can actually address what I have said instead of attacking what I haven’t and using pejorative rhetoric.

… Ok – just letting you know….. by the way do you have some kind of anti-rhetoric bias?

” I think the case was a case was about punishing a child. It was about stopping a teenage male him from attacking a young women”

… come on! it was two kids having a bit of a scuffle on a school bus. The same thing that has happened for as long as anyone cares to remember. Don’t be so PC!

“This is why we do not prosecute a husband who shoots a man who has broken into his house and is trying to murder his wife or daughter.”

… now who is using crazy rhetoric! We were talking about a little boy pulling a girls hair.. and suddenly you are off on a tangent about wife murderers! That is as ridiculous as my vigilante comment you hypocrite!… or gee… maybe it was just an extreme example to make a point. Well well well. You do get that concept after rall! (when you do it)

“Another caricature, I was not saying we should use battons on kids,”

… never said you were. see extreme example above.

“Whats odd is that the police apparently think that attacking a girl is not an assault worthy of prosecution but using even less force to stop such an assault is.”

.. its because the first situation was two children having a school yard tussle… the second situation was an ADULT attacking a CHILD. Is this concept difficult to grasp?

“This is ridiculous. Which is why people have to resort to caricatures and name calling to defend it.”

… I assume that last point refers to yourself given your above comments and extreme statements (ie. a little boy pulling a girls hair is in some way comparable to someone murdering my wife and daughter)

Sorry, you were accused of being a school bully, which is essentially an accusation that you used to engage in assault against other children. And you objected to this.

Which, is inconsistent with your rationale for supporting the actions in this case.

But if I *was* accused of child abuse, even if I knew I was innocent, I would consider it an injustice if the police did *not* investigate the allegations. Why? Because this would mean that in cases where real abuse *was* happening the police were probably not investigating that either. Ask yourself this: lets say you could stop several child abusers in your neighbourhood, but the payoff was that there was asmall chance you might be taken in for questioning every now and then. Which will you choose? To help the children or your precious “freedom”.

This argument might be relevant if people had said the police should never investigate or ask questions about a complaint. But that’s not what was being said . No one has talked about we there the police should investigate a complaint or ask questions. What was talked about was whether they should arrest, charge, refuse diversion, and attempt to prosecute. That’s not the same thing. I am pretty sure being locked in a cell, required to find bail, having your future threatened and your name publically defamed in the media when you are innocent is a lot different to police simply asking you questions.

That is what it comes down to in reality when you step outside your intellectual bubble.

Nice insult, but unfortunately its not an argument, I note that you pointed out that insults were not substitutes for arguments previously. Let me know when you can actually address what I have said instead of attacking what I haven’t and using pejorative rhetoric.

I disagree… but even if I did agree going around hitting kids as a vigilante in order to bring about “justice” makes you a pervert or child abuser not some sort of neighborhood hero.

Another nice caricature on your part, I never mentioned vigilante justice nor do I think the case was a case was about punishing a child. It was about stopping a teenage male him from attacking a young women. The notion that you can use proportionate force against someone if they are attacking another and it’s necessary to stop them is not terribly controversial. This is why we do not prosecute a husband who shoots a man who has broken into his house and is trying to murder his wife or daughter. Its also why there is a legal defense to assault if I physically intervened to stop a man violently attacking a women. I would say the same thing about grabbing a boys hand to stop him hitting a young girl. Its called defence of another.

The distinction between defensive force used against aggressors and offensive force used against the innocent is quite elementary

Yes… but we tend to treat children a little differently and at least in my family we didn’t tend to use battons on the kids.

Another caricature, I was not saying we should use battons on kids, though I am not surprised you try and defend your position with silly caricatures like this. I was simply illustrating the principle that it’s not always immoral to respond to force or violence or criminal conduct with force, and in fact in all other spheres of life we do not actually think it is.

Like I said above, there is a moral principle that any person is justified in using force or even violence against an aggressor, if its necessary to stop the aggression and the force used is proportionate. When the threat is serious we might use battons or tasers when its minimal we use less force. In this case the force he was being prosecuted for (grabbing an arm) was minimal and necessary to stop an assault on a adolescent girl. There is hardly anything controversial here.

Whats odd is that the police apparently think that attacking a girl is not an assault worthy of prosecution but using even less force to stop such an assault is. This is ridiculous. Which is why people have to resort to caricatures and name calling to defend it.
My last blog-post ..Has Science Disproved God? Thursday Night

Although remember that evolutionists would claim that populations evolve over millions of years, not individuals.

Matt: Joke. Hence the smiley face.

“But I note you missed my point, which was that you complained legitimately about the injustice of being accused of child abuse when you were innocent of this crime.”

Huh? when was I accused of child abuse? But if I *was* accused of child abuse, even if I knew I was innocent, I would consider it an injustice if the police did *not* investigate the allegations. Why? Because this would mean that in cases where real abuse *was* happening the police were probably not investigating that either. Ask yourself this: lets say you could stop several child abusers in your neighbourhood, but the payoff was that there was asmall chance you might be taken in for questioning every now and then. Which will you choose? To help the children or your precious “freedom”. That is what it comes down to in reality when you step outside your intellectual bubble.

“As to your other comments, while I don’t think punching a kid in the ribs is acceptable, I suggest that retributive punishment is an important part of just punishment of children or adults.”

I disagree… but even if I did agree going around hitting kids as a vigilante in order to bring about “justice” makes you a pervert or child abuser not some sort of neighborhood hero.

” In the real world when people attack others the police will restrain them with battons and tasers if necessary and people will be forcibly taken to court and put in jail without their consent.”

Yes… but we tend to treat children a little differently and at least in my family we didn’t tend to use battons on the kids. I am not sure what you are implying because you have not spelled it out – so I will assume you *don’t* mean that we should beat kids now and then to teach them what the “real world” is like – which is what it sounds like you are saying. A classic line of a child-abuser is “i was teaching them life lessons” or something similar.

Actually I don’t think anyone is entitled to throw around random insults, just as I don’t think people should not be subject to arrest unless there is a good reason for it. But I note you missed my point, which was that you complained legitimately about the injustice of being accused of child abuse when you were innocent of this crime.

As to your other comments, while I don’t think punching a kid in the ribs is acceptable, I suggest that retributive punishment is an important part of just punishment of children or adults. In the real world when people attack others the police will restrain them with battons and tasers if necessary and people will be forcibly taken to court and put in jail without their consent.

Don’t you think we should rather correct the bully’s behavior? To prevent them to continue bullying and hurting other people throughout their life?

I’d say the kid need to experience how it feels to be the receiving end! No body’s kid deserve to be bullied.

Anon: You are an idiot (note to Matt… I am allowed by my belief system to throw around random insults right ;) ) Your suggestion is basically that adults should go around attacking children to teach them what it is like to be bullied. Do you not know that kids who are abused by adults (which is what you propose as a “solution”) are more likely to be violent themselves?

You say that “No body’s kid deserve to be bullied” right after you suggest that “the kid need to experience how it feels to be the receiving end!” So you believe both that we should bully kids and that no kid should be bullied. Fool!