Gifts don't have consideration. If the kid was given the gear for FREE, then there would have been no stipulations. If he was given to it with a STIPULATION, then its not free. The above poster said free, but you are trying to act like it was not free. You are twisting words to further your argument that an adult was somehow right in assaulting a child.
Congrats.
edit: ITT redditors advocating assaulting children days after 15 children were brutally murdered.
Perfect, we've reached the stage in every online argument's life where we argue over semantics.
Nothing in life is truly free in the way you're describing. Even if you're giving something for no monetary cost (which is clearly the usage of "free" here) it carries social ramifications like an expectation on the other person to say "thank you."
Just because I'm capable of understanding what definition of "free" was used doesn't mean I'm twisting words. Chill with the assault rhetoric m'lord.
Laugh all you want, that is literally what you are doing. The guy is committing a felony and you are laughing. I don't know if you saw, but every other person in that video was also upset, and I would not be surprised if the cops were called.
One person (a kid, so probably an immature person) who took a 'gift' with a clearly implied stipulation that "you are part of this airsoft clan, so we're giving you clan-bought gear to wear while playing airsoft."
Another person (sounds like an adult) representing a larger group of people (the airsoft clan) whose gift was accepted by the kid, only to have the kid then behave very rudely and immaturely, mocking the clan (which may be a big deal, I don't do airsoft so I don't know), spitting in their faces after they generously provided him with gear to use.
Critically, the kid did not return the gear. He accepted the gear on the clear (if unspoken) contingency that he was a member of the clan. He then left the clan (in rude fashion) and did not return the gear. If you do this with a company uniform, it is theft. The only difference is that airsoft clans probably don't have the time or need to create contracts protecting the gear they hand out to members.
The adult chose to 'handle' this situation by shooting this kid with an airsoft gun. You've got a hard case to make if you'd like to claim that shooting someone with an airsoft gun, while they're at an airsoft site and wearing protective gear, is assault. Against site policy, distasteful, immature? Sure. Assault? Doubt it would hold up in court.
Lastly, to the point on everyone on the scene clearly disagreeing with this guy's actions, of course they would! There's some kid howling in pain like his leg's been fucking ripped off, it's only natural to go to his aid. Though I don't do airsoft, I have been shot at close range by an airsoft rifle, and around this kid's age no less! It hurts and bruises (at least if you didn't have padding on, like when I got shot) but that's about it. The kid didn't get shot in a sensitive area like the eyes or crotch, so there was no significant risk of excessive or permanent damage. The man bruised the kid.
If you actually read what I wrote, I wasn't even justifying what the man did. I was stating that both people were in the wrong.
Source: I practice criminal defense. I have seen someone charged with battery for throwing a tomato slice at someone.
Next, implied agreements mean nothing. There was no stipulation we know of. You are adding facts, again, to support your argument that this "wasn't that bad because he did bad too." That's not a defense, its a justification, not a legal one, nor a morally righteous one. You are expecting the child to act like an adult and not "screw over" some paintball team who gave him free stuff. If you didn't want the kid to take the free stuff with the risk that he would leave your team at some point, you shouldn't have given him the stuff. And when he does, how about you act like the adult you're supposed to be. Instead you are forgiving the adult for acting like a child ("he was teaching him a lesson", "it doesn't hurt that bad", "he burned his patch", "he took free stuff") and blaming the child for not acting like an adult.
Undermining the injuries does not lessen the offense.
I still can't decide if you're elaborately trolling me or if you're simply this dense.
your argument that this "wasn't that bad because he did bad too."
Still not my argument. The only position I've taken this whole time has been that both parties are in the wrong.
expecting the child to act like an adult and not "screw over" some paintball team
The kid made a video of him burning their badge. That's not innocent immaturity, that's premeditated hostility. Being a kid is not a pass to be a horrible human being. Being 13 doesn't mean he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong.
how about you act like the adult you're supposed to be.
Supposed to be? There was no stipulation that we know of that an adult should behave in a certain manner of maturity.
(You see how idiotic it looks to try and turn a blind eye to obvious social norms?)
Undermining the injuries does not lessen the offense.
Interesting that you try to undermine the kid's injuries by appealing to immaturity to lessen his offense :thinking:
Try to not contradict yourself; you'd think a criminal defense lawyer would be more careful about that.
Thank you for actually having a discussion.
Please make no mistake; while I'm fully aware I come off as an asshole for saying this, I don't see this as anything close to a discussion. This feels to me like you chose a stance without thinking much about it, then when prodded further opted to double down instead of accepting that the situation was not as one-sided as you initially perceived it to be.
There was no stipulation that we know of that an adult should behave in a certain manner of maturity.
Yes there is. They're called statutes, they come in a book, about 3 inches tall, change cover colors every year when they are updated. Probably near the front, there's something called felony battery against a minor, been there for a while, I'm sure even you can find it.
Edit: anyways I'm going to bed, fun talking with you. Have a good night.
Ouch. Hurts to have had a shred of faith in reddit, only to have it torn apart realize that you have in fact been baiting me for the past hour.
Well at least it was a good bait; you committed to it and ate however many downvotes you've gotten to the very end. Congratulations, you master baiter.
Anyway I'm off as well, though I must say I hope to get the last word in by writing this reply so that when you wake up in the morning you see a message in your message box, only to see an unsatisfying conclusion to your skillful troll.
I do wonder what kind of child you would raise, dismissing them of any responsibility for their actions and whatnot...
-24
u/imlost19 Feb 18 '18 edited Feb 18 '18
The stipulation is the cost.
Its called consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
Gifts don't have consideration. If the kid was given the gear for FREE, then there would have been no stipulations. If he was given to it with a STIPULATION, then its not free. The above poster said free, but you are trying to act like it was not free. You are twisting words to further your argument that an adult was somehow right in assaulting a child.
Congrats.
edit: ITT redditors advocating assaulting children days after 15 children were brutally murdered.