Rutgers Head Coach (Page 4)

HA!!!

Oh, sorry, he should have just walked away, maybe took another punch to the back of the head when he turned around to leave.

Good for that young man......I bet the bullying ends. 

ChineseD - I have now spent the majority of my life dealing with crimes and the courts.  If someone throws a basketball at me in anger, and then charges toward me in an attack mode, and I punch him in the face.......I'm not going in front of any judge.....in fact, I'm not even going to be arested.....he is.

As for the comments about these kids in the Rutgers incident losing their scholarships if they would have defended themselves......that's absolutely laughable.  The University will be 100% liable for Rice's actions......the reactions to being abused are not a concern.  They never will be.  In fact, the check that the college would have to wrote in this case would probably dwarf the worth of a scholarship.

To be clear, I've never, EVER, put my hand on any human being in an abusive way.....and I never will.  But, I don't have a problem with meeting violence with violence.  

You can turn that into anything you like, I don't care, I find it all comical. 

I remain amazed at how words can be taken.  I was in no way refering to the Rutgers situation as comical......my guess is that you probably know that.

If I go back over this thread I can see where my words were construed to mean I advocate fighting teachers, police, fighting over words, that I'm an internet tough guy (though I threatened no one), and on and on.  Comical doesn't begin to describe it. Without a doubt a good sense of humor is needed here.....another good Irish trait there Kido.  

There is nothing funny about the Rutgers deal except, for me, some of the responses on this board.  THAT has been a source of two days worth of entertainment.

I didn't read any of the responses other than your's to mine but anyway..  I'm not sure what you are getting at with that response. In thinking of my own son, he is taught in martial arts that it's not worth the effort to get in a pointless fight just to "teach someone a lesson" in a physical way. Choosing to walk away from a fight that could escalate into something ugly is not "tolerating" anything. It's making a choice and acting. Fight escalations is what puts people in the hospital. Nothing is worth that. 

Again, I'm talking in general. My son's been taught not to be a hothead. 

I kind of jumped on the condo. cause LB didn't so much say how "HE" would handle it, he said how he's taught his kids to FIGHT back.

And I just kind of added my own take.. Lot's of parents teach their kids not to "take it" and guess what? Their kids end up in just as much trouble as the instigator... 

My 10 year old spars 3 times a month with sparing gear, and could put up as good a fight as anyone. I am sure he could "deck" most kids.. and maybe a few adults. He's just taught.. not to. And again, that doesn't mean "take" anything. It just means that most physical altercations aren't worth it. And in regards to an adult.. respond.. and report his @zz... 

anyway Powerman,, You shouldn't be defending LB, you should let him fight for himself.. 

No Pitt, MLK getting shot won NOTHING, but him becoming dead. He chose to seek political reform through non-violent protest. He was very effective. But the ENTIRE civil rights movement involved a lot of violence and non-violence. And it involved a HUGE number of people working to change civil rights, not just MLK. His assasination was not the turning point, and all it did was result in the loss of a great man.

And he chose political reform through non-violence, but a guy with a gun is not a passifist. He exercised his 2A rights because he OBVIOUSLY believed there are some times where violence is justified, even to the point of taking their life. It's pretty simple really.

He is Irish, I'm sure he is used to it.

And as far as "random" violence... sure we can talk all day about the best way to go home safe is to walk away. A very effective and reasonable choice... but this is not a case of random violence walking down the street is it? And "walking away" from the coach is no more a choice for some than punching him in the face is. Both have cosequences.

I can accept that. I'm certainly not trying to take away his role and place in history. At the very least you could call it the "straw that broke the camels back". But his calculated decision to use non-violent protest as a means to gain political reform does not always make him the ultimate pacifist many like to hold him up as. It was a political tactic. There was already many using the other one. He used it to gain credibility in the situation he found himself in.

Just to be clear, Kate, because I realize youmay not be talking directly to me, but to the collective parents out there.....I don't teach my kids not to "take it".  In fact, I teach my kids that life is full of things that you have to "take"....and it's rarely fair.  I also teach them that nothing someone says is worth fighting over....walk away, or have a sense of humor.

What I DO teach them is never to allow anyone to physically attack them or abuse them....ever.  And, as I said, it's wrong to let anyone do that to you.  Argue with me, call me stupid, make fun of my wife and kids.....honestly, I've been insulted so many times on my job that I'm always up for something origional if you got it.....I don't care, it absolutely rolls off me with a laugh.  But put your hands on me in anger and watch what happens.  Again, at no time did I say I would kick anyone's arse, or that I'm a tough guy, or any of the other stupid crap that got posted.....what I said is that I will fight you.....and I will.

ok tough guy. I hear you loud and clear.  

I'm sorry if I made you feel like I was making fun of your wife and kids though

You've never seen them.....it's not hard to make fun of them.

Listen, if that's what you meant, then I agree 100%.  Of course I would teach my kids to NEVER let someone abuse them or injure them.

Maybe the problem of internet forums (like I said earlier) is the words you chose.  I guess I'm speaking for myself, but when you write stuff like if you "lay hands on me, look out..."  When there could be all kinds of reason someone my angrily grab you (and I gave examples) where fighting is not the solution.  I even get grabbed in a bar and I'm NOT going to be the guy that instantly punches someone.  They have to do something first and so I'm clearly defending myself.  Or I try to talk my way out of it.  So far, never had to strike anyone, so something must be working.  But never skulked away either.

Then provide examples of getting hit with a ball and throwing ball/bats back at the coach.  That's different than what you later wrote "if someone throws a ball at me THEN comes after me to hurt me"...

Again, I would never disagree that you shouldn't teach our kids to not let people abuse/hurt them.  I would hope most reasonable people would think the same.  But I'm just saying, the posts and examples you provide sound TO ME like you promote violence as the first recourse if anyone is angry at you and touches you.  Maybe that's wrong, but that's how it sounds and could be the reason for the "tough guy" and anti violence posts that followed.

Like I said in a previous post.  I will assume/hope that you are raising intelligent and respectful children and teach that violence is the last resort unless you are truly defending yourself and have the ability to discern that in a situation.  I would assume you teach by example as well.  But the gist of the message I was receiving (not speaking for anyone else) is fight fight fight and meet violence with violence.

Sometimes I argue about what people write, instead of what I assume the mean.  What they write is what they write.  What I assume is slanted with my own perceptions.

And with that, I'm most likely done.  (but I do get sucked back into these things on occasion).  I finally hit the wall when I felt like I needed to defend MLK and Gandhi and their message about non-violent resistance.  We have strayed too far from the Rutgers path to warrant continuation, IMO.

When you turn around and you look like either one of two of your avatars, then I would slink away, too.

I tell you what.  You can teach your kid to respond to violence with more violence.  I'll teach my kid to report the transgression and have the offender punished and expelled.  We'll both teach our kids to defend themselves in a wise manner, so at least we'll have something in common.

...and to Left Brain, I never said you shouldn't respond in violence when it is in self-defense.   Your reply earlier made it sound like I didn't agree with you.  Yes, someone throws a ball at me.  Fine.  I can't charge him and pop him in the face.  I think we agree.  If he's coming at me and I believe he's going to assault me, yes, I can pop him in self-defense.  I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing...but where's the fun in that?  

I disagree!  Back to the fun.

You're doing it wrong.

I'm not a parent... I just play one on the internet. Otherwise, nobody would listen to me when joined in to tell everyone else how to raise their kids.

And again... violence has rarely been my solution. At my age, I still do not need to take my shoes off to count how many times it has been. But I do understand other's MMV.  I also understand if you live by it, don't be surprised if you die by it.

Any parent who tells you your opinion on child-rearing is less valuable if you're not a parent is full of you know what.  There is a ton of information out there.    

btw, I'm not a tech person...no idea what MMV is.

Trust me, I'm not a pacifist.  I would destroy someone who had intent to harm me or my family, as would you.  I think the thread got a bit away from the Mike Rice scenario though.  An even more effective strategy than self-defense, attack, or pacifism, would be teaching kids the skill of conflict avoidance.  Your odds of staying safe increase exponentially when you can identify people with unstable behaviors, and you avoid them.  The players in this case were screwed because they couldn't just choose to avoid the coach.  Their scholarships were tied to him unfortunately.

I can't remember it either, but I know it involved alcohol.

... and that was a very long time ago.

You cannot throw a comment out like that w/o details!!!!