How far away the mother was and what a terrible mother she is is irrelevant. Even if she was Mother of the Year she still wouldn't have been hovering over her son with a leash she could use to yank him out of the way to safety.

The bottom line is the skater was a douchecock for being so careless as to potentially seriously injure that defenseless, innocent little boy. Yes, smashing someone's head to the concrete can be fatal. It's very common for someone to impact the ground with their head and die from the resulting brain trauma. (It happened to a Marine in the news last week. It happened to a guy I knew in high school. It happened to Natasha Richardson. It almost happened to Larry Miller, but they saved him by removing his skull.)

For his fucking selfishness and ignorance toward people around him he deserves more than a single punch to the face. It should be beaten into him to watch out for bystanders and especially small children when practicing his poser-ass skateboard tricks.

Of course, he, like many people commenting here, surely feels he didn't do anything wrong, so I'm sure he'll take nothing away from the incident except that some little asshole kiddie got in the way, causing himself to get an owie, and his low-life absentee psychopathic mother is just a raving lunatic.

@jonny - I'm pretty much with you. These same "dilemmas" were presented to me in a college class (Psych? Philo?) and I objected to the 2nd one on the basis that I can't imagine a bystander fat enough to reliably stop a train, and if they were I wouldn't be able to push them off a ledge.

The TA that was teaching the class said that the idea is to just treat it like a Newtonian Physics problem (ie., everything is a frictionless sphere or make all assumptions to reduce complexity wherever possible). In the scenario, just accept that you KNOW that you are capable of pushing the dude off, that you KNOW he will stop the train, and that you KNOW that you have insufficient mass/strength to jump off yourself and stop the train.

I get how that limits the variables and therefore draws a more concrete difference between various answers to the situation, but to me it also limits the interest I have in the question. My brain doesn't work that way, my problem solving center engages automatically and tries to find pitfalls and assign success rates rather than just "assume this will work".

I think I'd rather see the situations / dilemmas reworked to have a more realistic expectation of success. Maybe something like a rampaging lion on the loose, and you can swing a door currently blocking a room with 1 person inside to instead block a room with 5 people inside (situation 1); or you are above a hallway with a lion running towards 5 people and have an opportunity to push somebody into the lion's path which would give the 5 people enough time to run out of the hall and lock a door (situation 2). I think my "hungry lion" dilemmas have fewer physics pitfalls than the traditional train dilemmas.

For all the horrible things you can say about drone strikes, there has never before been such an efficient method of specifically killing enemy leaders in a war zone. Look at WW2 and Vietnam, and how many innocent civilians were killed for every high level enemy leader. The drone strikes in tribal Pakistan, even by the measure of Pakistan's own critics of them, manage better than 50% of their victims as bonafide militants. This includes a long list of high level Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. Loss of civilian life is always tragic, but to kill 1 thousand militants and a thousand bystanders each year, while those same militants kill 10s of thousands of civilians on purpose is on the whole a good trade. Truth be told, if the Pak army was at the helm of the drones, the praises of the program would be unending. It's a combined pride and distrust of America thing.

I also think guys over here complaining need to better appreciate the ground situation over in places like tribal Pakistan. Tribal Pakistan is exactly that, a series of tribal communities. Outsiders are either welcomed in as guest and friend, or ushered out as mortal enemy, with a number of social and ethical codes dictating which will apply. If you are living in a community, that whole community has embraced you as one of your own and on a large scale sharing common cause and values. Any tribal community that's accepted high level Taliban militants into their community is guaranteed to share an extreme form of Sharia law. The community will not tolerate the education of their young girls. Blasphemy and apostasy will be immediate death sentences, without trial. Rape victims will be stoned and/or killed for adultery, as is only right. Our high standards of morality over here absolutely demand we still declare those people civilians, and mark their deaths as such, but the notion of them being potential allies turned enemies because of drone strikes is absurd.

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

@blankfist

Right. I try to illuminate the discussion with a detailed understanding and interpretation of what the right to assemble means and you label me a statist?

Bravo.

Except that nothing I have said indicates that I believe the state should have a role in economic or social policy. Your label is completely non sequitur.

Read up on the strict scrutiny test. The state doesn't have the right to stop you from protesting based on the CONTENT of your protest. However, local and state governments may pass ordinances or require permits for certain areas or times of day etc.

This is what allows the Klu Klux Klan to assemble and protest - even though the general public and those in government dislike their message.

Furthermore, the false analogy you maintain between the USA and Soviet Russia is even more of a joke. You know what would happen to all the protesters, you, and any bystander who didn't flee immediately in old Soviet Russia? Siberia.

The gawking and do-nothing actions of bystanders....This shit would never happen here in the states, and especially not here in Texas-And who in the FUCK, besides an out-of-touch voyeur piece of shit, films this cunt after such an episode. Answer: A Programmed Briton

Bet if Pat Condell had been there things may have gone a bit differently....

Personally, I would have procured a piece of pipe and commenced to beating this out-of-touch thug senseless until the "constabulary" arrived. Problem is, the CO19 Force Firearms Unit would probably kill me for having done so, or place me on some undesirables list until I was finally out of the general population. Fuck all, Britains' turned to a complete shit hole and you have the absence of firearms in the hands of her citizenry and the cunts who made it so to blame.

Neighbor (or anonymous bystander/prankster, your chlid's ornery friend) calls 911 and claims to hear from YOUR home, all matter of torment, gunshots, pit bulls, kids, etc. and all these or a combination could be a complete fabrication..... Based on an anon call, can the same cops bust your fucking door down if you don't allow them in warrant-less? If so, fuck you, police state.

seriously? only one hit out of nine?? This is the main reason for gun control right there. a lot of these people can't even aim and are more likely to kill a bystander or a loved one instead of their target.

forget background checks. Want a gun? just hit that target over there. Weed out a ton of people with that alone.

Cite one contemporary example where what I describe (all of it, not just parts) has been attempted.

There are plenty of examples of unjust and tyrannical brutality. I can't think of any where the brutality was fair, consistent and logical. That's what you don't seem to be grasping here. Genocide or religious/political persecution are not comparable to what I propose.

We live in the safest period of history not because of liberalization or decreasing barbarism but because technology has made it much easier to enforce the law and maintain order. If you try to rob a bank, you'll be caught on camera and the cops will have you surrounded in minutes thanks to silent alarms. If you try to rape someone in the street, bystanders can whip out their phones, capture your face on camera and then call the cops. If you steal a car and try to speed off, you'll never get away from the police cars at every corner and helicopter in the air. Never before has it been so easy to defend yourself, get help or capture proof of a crime. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of crime occurs in poor areas with minimal surveillance and police presence. It was thanks to technology that the two Steubenville rapists were caught and successfully persecuted.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I get the emotional response - I have that too. But that's what a government criminal justice system *should* do, is prevent that - and use cool logic for the right rehabilitative outcome. Instead, our courts are the thin wedge of the criminal vengeance system, channelling media churned victim and bystander rage.

I was surprised at the lack of any physical responses by the bystanders.

That's why you need the 2nd Amendment. The cops are way over the line. They may have a badge but they were not acting as cops but as wrong doer thugs.

The bystander need to let off a waring shot to stop the cops, then shot at them if they did not stop..

"Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition,[citation needed] due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

I have always been curious why police would opt for lethal over generally non-lethal plastic bullets in the first place though.

Sadly, far too often, the victims are the innocent bystanders. Like four of the five shot this weekend at gun shows.

I wouldn't worry at all about keeping guns out of the hands of idiots, if only the idiots were at risk.

You do know what an assumption is right?

The CCW person was not lucky - he was unlucky he was near a crazy guy with a firearm intent on killing people. What he was was well prepared, and all the other people were lucky that a CCW person was near them and simultaneously unlucky they were near a bat shit crazy guy.

According to the anecdotal story the CCW person did not fire a shot. If they did fire a shot then it isn't luck if they didn't fuck up it is training. If they accidentally hit a bystander then it would be no different than a police officer accidentally hitting a bystander and it would still be better than a slaughter.

I've done a lot of handgun shooting (including full police officer firearms training) and looking at the hundreds of other regular shooters I've been with, almost all of them are better than a regular police officer at shooting (and some of them are police officers).

What do movies have to do with real life encounters? Unlike the movies, most CCW people realise the cops will not turn up in time like in the movies and they've taken it upon themselves to accept reality and defend themselves.