Replies

Well, I can't see charging the 10 y/o with the most serious crime. It was the 20, 16 and 14y/o, that mounted and ran the attack. They should have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon if at all, especially hte 20 y/o. If the child's foot's a deadly weapon, they used the child and her foot.

Re: the area

I could tell from the story.

Basically what we are discussing here is each individuals personal comfort/safety level. I've presented to several people (who heatedly claim they would jump into this situation) a scenario much more dangerous to their own well being than a couple of teenage chicks having a catfight in a Target store.

Not one has answered. We know why. Most people, particularly those here on FR, would be willing to interject themselves into a situation that appears unfair, as long as they had a pretty good feeling they themselves wouldn't be hurt...at least too badly. But everyone has a line they would think twice at crossing.

This is the point. That line is subjective and personal to each individual. Just because your line is a bit further up or down the danger scale doesn't make you a bigger hero or coward.

Some hear proudly claim their untested heroism by claiming they would jump into a teenage catfight. Wow, I'm impressed.

Bravery and heroism, in day to day life as in battle, is not determined by staying on the safe side of your comfort quotient, wherever you personally place it. It's when you take action believing there is considerable danger to yourself, possibly even death, that is the definition of heroism. And no one knows how they would really react until put into that situation.

So all this talk of what we would or wouldn't do is just a bunch of hot air. Come back when you have something real to talk about. Other than that, have a nice day.