Police: Man punched skier on Beaver Creek (41-yr old man punches 14-yr old girl)

I was hoping that there was something more to your comment than just you making an idiotic comment.

Apparently there was not.

I'll also presume now that English is in fact your first language -- a contrary opinion may have explained your confusion, but now again I have to assume you are just making an idiotic comment without understanding.

First, I will note that I did not say "I don't MEAN to be making excuses". I clearly said I wasn't:

I’m not excusing him.

So, rather than assume I meant the OPPOSITE of what I clearly stated, you should have used that brain God gave you and asked the obvious question -- "If he isn't making excuses, what is the point of his next statement?"

If you had asked that obvious question, you may also have used the trivially-accessed button to see what I was replying to. You would have found THIS comment:

to wallop the little girl

There is no picture given in the article, but given the race of the victim, it is likely that at age 14, they are not a "little girl". Since the comment suggested a detail that was likely erroneous, but in any case clearly not indicated by the story, I was CORRECTING that statement.

But obviously, that was too hard for you to figure out, even after I tried politely and humorously to give you that opportunity.

Maybe an analogy would make it more obvious even to you. Suppose a guy shot some poor white 20-year-old girl in cold blood, after raping her. And suppose in a comment about it, someone said that she was a black teen. If another commenter said "I'm not saying this to excuse the killer.", and then noted "it was not a black teenager, it was a white adult female."

Would you still go off half-cocked, and accuse the correcter of "making lame excuses"?

I thought I'd respond to this comment separately, in the vain hopes I could do so without you going further off the deep end:

I really don't see how what size she is for her age would change anything!

I didn't say it changed anything. No adult should punch another person just for running over their child.

But are you suggesting that there is no change in the nature of the victim that would make any difference?

Suppose the person who ran over the kid was a 24-year-old man. Would that change things? What if it was a 24-year-old woman?

Last week there was a video of a group of teens beating up a couple on a bus. One of the teens was a 14-year-old girl.

In that thread, several people said that some adult should have stood up to the girls, beating them up to protect the pregnant teen.

Note: 14 years old, causes physical violence to some stranger on a bus, and people suggested it was OK for an adult to attack her.

SIZE MATTERS. You say "little girl", people picture Cindy Lou Who. They think the guy attacked a 5-year-old. There is an age at which, if you think a person deliberately caused harm to a kid (the man's son WAS a little kid), you might well attack the person.

As I said, this wasn't an argument I was making in my post, I was simply noting that the victim wasn't a "little girl", because it painted the wrong picture of the event.

These conversations and discussions would be a lot easier if people didn't get so emotional about it. I understand when it's someone who was personally involved, but sometimes I think people introduce emotion just to try to win the argument by tears.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.