Chris_Sleeps Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 And they were obviously intimidated by that threat and stopped, end of. ... because someone stepped in and stopped it turning into a brawl. This is a "reason over violence" question. At what point do you stop trying to reason with someone and use your fists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Still, the threat of violence should be a final resort. IMO I personally would not have opened with a threat, I would have asked them politely first off, but then again I wasnt there so who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 With AJ I get the feeling that point is "pre-emptive, just in case". I live on a rough estate auto98uk, I have seen some terrible situations arise out of a polite request to stop doing something, seen some extremely bad behaviour from young uns, I guess there is a time and place for a firm hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mynameisdan Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 I personally would not have opened with a threat, I would have asked them politely first off, but then again I wasnt there so who knows. I share the same view. I would have first asked them to stop and secondly notified the tram condutor (if I had known what was going on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I would have showered the entire carriage with machine gun fire. Only way to stop em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mynameisdan Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 When you have three cocky kids who regardless of how many bystanders there are start to throw at an elderly couple you can hazard a guess at how they would have responded to a polite request to stop. I agree. Some passengers who were witness to the boy flicking paper obviously didn't act either out of fear or apathy. We think the worst of the youths, my question is: Is that wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Well ok, but isn't violence first what makes it rough? By behaving like the ruffians you are surely propagating the system? One of the roads I lived on was run by a gang of kids about 15 strong and none of them were above the age of 16, most of these kids were from known families. The were literally running amok on the street, smashing up property, dealing drugs, threatening with violence and when they realised nobody was stopping them they were physically attacking anyone who confronted them about their behaviour. To be fair it was the local shop selling them alcohol that fuelled this and once the shop was closed down things went quiet. I dont live on that road any more but drive through from time to time and even though half the houses are empty and are being modernised I have noticed a new gang taking the old gangs place, no doubt the younger brothers of the first lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Violence is the first resort of the incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 It does prove that no good deed goes unpunished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mynameisdan Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 It does prove that no good deed goes unpunished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.