yeah skate *comedy skits FTW!

This could become an olympic gymnastic competition one day... similarly to how people watch figure skating, secretly hoping to see them fail.

also, this might be the first 'vertical video' that was actually appropriate.

Yes, Hertl did well, but holy crap, there were THREE Rangers within reach and not one of them bothered to skate hard and get there. One gives a half-assed slap of the stick before letting Hertl skate away from him.

And don't tell me they were tired. Puck started at the other end, the whole Rangers crew should have changed if they were that tired.

Jesus Christ. I wish I knew why I cared about this so much but it's late and I'm tired so, fuck it:

The fucking kid's head is laying on the ground for three fucking seconds after he falls. You're fucking delusional.

There is no HD res for this video. Are you trolling or are you an idiot?

The concrete is pretty standard throughout the park with a few exceptions. That's your argument? This whole thing is a skate park from the parking lot at the south to the street at the north? Seriously?

Obstacles (in this case concrete benches throughout the entire park) that have marks on them do not qualify as a skate park. There are marks from skating on every bench, rail and staircase in my entire city. I assure you, the whole city is not a skate park because there are marks.

There are no ramps out of the skate area. If you can't see it on the overhead, look at the pic I posted. Seems like a small distinction? Nope. Stairs, not ramps. In fact, I can't see one ramp the entire place.

The "clear separation" comes from the stairs, wall, trees and fucking garbage cans surrounding the entire skating area which, by the way, has been sunk below the grade of the whole rest of the park! I mean, I guess they could've built a fence too but how clear does it have to be?

The kid was heading in the direction of the street, yes. But whose to say he wasn't going toward the fucking swings or anything else? Are you really now trying to imply that the mom was letting her kid run through the fucking street? Also, you don't have to start referring to him as "the child" now.

Nice way of avoiding the "barrels" question. I was expecting you to say he came out from behind that Greyhound bus that's so clearly present.

And enough with the fucking proximity of the fucking mom already. Kids are allowed to run through parks. And the guy who hits a kid with a fucking skateboard is the one who bears responsibility for hitting a kid with a fucking skateboard. Ahhh!! Seriously, what fucking world do you live in?

Alright, sorry. I'm cooked. Later.

My theory is that this clip was created to generate hype for a video that is being sold for profit. Can you think of a better way to boost video sales for an otherwise ordinary skate video? To avoid legal action, a video release form would have to be signed by this angry woman with the powerful right hook. Would she give permission to use footage of both herself and her son if this were a genuine incident? I suspect a clever scam, but I've always been the distrustful sort.

I'll start by apologizing for the long reply...
I looked as closely as possible in HD fullscreen and on my computer the head never touched ground. More to the point, the child never reached for his head. Either way the point is moot, the mother never once even glances at the child to determine injury.
I did look closely, down to street view, at the whole park, and what I saw was it seems that in the non-skate areas there is a different texture to the ground (around the pool, playground area, etc.)
From my viewpoint (and I admit I could not read the park rules, I tried from every angle) the rest of the park is built specifically for skating, and has obstacles designed to skate on that have clear marks on them that that's what they are used for. The area you think is the only skate area has ramps in and out to skate on, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the implication of that design is you can skate everywhere. If I'm wrong in that guess, I'm wrong. There's no way to tell for certain from what I can see. That said, I draw the line at the areas designated for skating, and not in the areas designated for other things. As I've repeatedly stated, the skater bears some responsibility for not looking in a public place, but mom bears far more for allowing child to run free in a public skate park, especially when he was headed straight towards the street with no one watching until he screams.
I do admit from what I see this park is not well designed, as there is not a clear separation of the skate area and non-skate area, or a path from one non-skate area to another. If all the areas besides the small rail/bowl area are not for skating, they certainly should not have built it filled with skating obstacles and ramps, knowing that skaters will skate them.
I guess I misunderstood, yes, he was skating towards the picnic tables, but was no where near them at the end of his run, so who's to say he didn't plan on turning left into the rail area or stopping after the kick flip? The child was headed for the street, agreed?
Barrels out from behind an object is what children often do, and why they get hit, they don't know to look first.
Kid's mom is not seen until after the incident, then walking from the pavilion, she was not with or watching her child from every thing I see.
My reaction to blame the mom is because she was not watching her child and went off because that inattentiveness led to an accident, and she was the one responsible for her child's safety, no one else.

second post reply starts here:
OK, that's clearer that you don't excuse her actions. I accept and agree with that.
Expect the parent to be upset, absolutely. Expect them to be aggressive, not really but many people go that way. Expect them to be violent to address their own parental failings, not at all. Expect them to understand they (not the skater) is 70%+ at fault for not supervising a toddler? Never, parents rarely accept their failings and almost always deflect responsibility.
I feel you miss-state the situation. I say he should have hit her to stop her advance, not if she stopped, at the end of the video, she's still attacking. That's self defense, and using the skateboard in that capacity seems fine to me. We may disagree, people are different.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph...we just don't see it the same way. I feel like many parents have a natural defense mechanism of responsibility deflection, and I don't accept any responsibility for other's children, and would never expect them to take it for mine. I understand the mindset of parents that believe we all have a responsibility to take care of their children, I just disagree with it.
I also disagree that age is an excuse, if the child is too young to watch out for itself, it's 100% the parent's responsibility in my eyes, not mine.

And then there's the new idea that this discussion is all about a faked video. If true, the parent is still irresponsible for letting their child be run into on concrete where he may well have broken his skull, but maybe not completely out of control crazy violent.
Again, apologies for the long post.

Now, I don't know why I have so much trouble explaining this but I still really want you to understand that I'm not excusing this mom's actions.

The only thing I'm saying by suggesting her reaction is normal is this:

If I was skating through a public park, not watching where I was going, and I ran directly into someone's kid with a fucking weapon made of wood and steel, knocking them to the ground (except of course for their gravity-defying head), the first thing I would expect is for that parent to come at me.

I would be apologetic, just like the guy in the video because I would know it was ENTIRELY my fault. What I wouldn't do is try to explain to them that I actually bear only seventy-percent of the responsibility and that they shouldn't let their kid stray out of arm's reach in a park.

Sure, I would defend myself because I wouldn't expect that they were just going to immediately forgive me and think only about their shortcomings as a parent. I would defend myself because I still have the right to be safe in a public place, regardless of my actions.

What would I not do though? I wouldn't hit them with a fucking skateboard. Especially not the one I just hurt their child with. I wouldn't do that because I would know the only excuse I had was the petulant, middle-school refrain of "she hit me first!" I wouldn't do that because it would escalate the situation even more and I don't like to use violence to solve my problems. I'm perfectly capable of defending myself without hitting someone's irrational mother.

And then there's the question of pressing charges. Which for some reason to me is just laughable.

Was the lady wrong? Yeah, absolutely. Was she crazy? Maybe temporarily, it might have had something to do with someone running into her kid. I know a lot of people might not have acted the way she did (I would certainly have been more concerned about my own kid than the skater) but I know a lot of people might have FELT the way she did.

I just still don't think her actions were so far from what a person could expect after being a dumbass and skating directly into a little kid.

Maybe I don't get it because I'm an overprotective, irrational parent. Judging by how many times you referred to the child in the video as "it" however, maybe I just shouldn't expect you to understand my side either.

OK, OK... I know I'm talking to a person who can't see a kid's head hit the ground in a video where a kid's head clearly hits the ground but please do me one favor:

Look at the park layout from google maps that Eric posted above. Really zoom in and get a good look. What I see is a skate park on the left with some soccer fields further on and a parking lot on the right. In between, there's a narrow pathway leading from one part of the park to the other. That's why we see all those people walking through there in the video. They're not walking through the skate park, they're walking along a path.

Now, by your rational, this guy is allowed to skate wherever he wants in this park with no responsibility for running into anyone who happens to be walking through(since a toddler runs at about a normal person's walking speed, maybe a little faster). So I'm curious, where do you draw the line? Is this guy literally allowed to rail slide up the play equipment? Slalom between the swings? I really want to know where you think the line is. Are you really saying that the only path from one end of this overall park to the other runs right through the skate park portion of it? And everybody that walks through is supposed to expect skaters that aren't watching where they're going?

I only get so specific because a skateboard is a vehicle. You can ride one in many public places and I'm all for that but you bear a responsibility for hitting someone just like you would on a bike or in a car.

And I wasn't saying that the kid was running towards the picnic tables. I was saying that the skater was heading toward them, which it seems you agree with since you said the kid was running away from them. (BTW: Where do you get the idea that this kid "barrels out from behind an object?" What object?)

What it looks like to me is that this kid and his mom were coming from the north end, maybe the kid gets excited running to the play equipment on the south end when a guy, skating down the middle of the only path through the park, runs right fucking into him with a skateboard.

And the first reaction everyone has is to blame the kid and his mom? For running down a path through a park?

A note to all the silly commenters whose panties are in a twist:

Has anyone other than myself even bothered to read the youtube description and come to the conclusion that this video is fake?

this clip is from Leland Goldberg's part in "Warm Gravy"
a skateboarding video by Daniel Miranda
http://warmgravy.bigcartel.com/product/warm-gravy-skate-video

skater gets punched for accidentally running into little boy. (on his birthday)

I can't see what you claim at all...in most 'skate parks' you are allowed to skate anywhere in the park...and it certainly looks to me like they have the entire area set up for skating. He was NOT headed towards picnic tables, those are blocks set up for skating. He is running AWAY from the table area straight towards the street (on the map/link eric3579 found, thank you). You can see the tables clearly, they have benches attached. From the pavilion Mom comes from (and we all assume the child too), the child is over 1/2 way to the street, where he may have ended up if the skater didn't stop him. That skater just saved that kids life, and got sucker punched for it!! ;-}
I also completely disagree that under all circumstances it's the older person's responsibility to avoid the free running toddler bolting out from behind an object directly into your path. I don't understand why you give the toddler a free pass just because he's young...that's why he needed supervision. That's why I say it was nearly entirely the MOTHER'S fault, for not watching her child in a dangerous area, then blaming others when something expected happens.
When you say things like 'her reaction was pretty normal' it implies clearly that it's acceptable. It was not acceptable in any way.
edit: A better way to say it might be 'her reaction was unacceptable, but understandable from someone with no self control'.
After the first punch/shove, he should have raised the board as a shield, then swung it like a club when she kept coming. There's no excuse for her behavior.
I am often surprised at the lack of self control many have, and the excuses others want to make for their inexcusable behavior.
If you're the type of irresponsible parent that lets their child run free unattended and unwatched in dangerous public areas where others are doing dangerous things in a manner and place prescribed by law and you get violently angry at others when the predictable happens, I think you're an idiot and should have your child taken from you. That's a typical problem with most parents, reason and responsibility goes out the window when it comes to their child.

Well, the only thing that makes me think the mother was a douchebag is that she walked up slowly, yelling at the dude.

The other lady acted much more like a caring, attentive parent. She ran up, checked on the kid, made sure he was ok, then started talking to the dude.

The mother walked up slowly, yelling at the dude...

If that was my kid, I'd be running over. I'd make sure he was ok. Then maybe yell at the guy.

And, fwiw, being that I saw rails in the background where that kid was knocked over, it does seem like the dude was in the skating area...

If I were taking my little kid to the park, I wouldn't let him wander near the skate park unless I was paying close attention to him. He was all by himself out there - accident waiting to happen.

It's shitty when accidents happen. But clearly that mom is just an angry, shitty person.

It's the skate area of Cannery Park in Hayward, CA.

http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/N/NZ/fark_NZEIY70jIKl1CZ-TDDRkBtXR-yw.jpg?t=WzrbMzHluSyM5Tl3PxheSA&f=1377489600

You can see in the pic that the kid wasn't running in the area where you are supposed to skate. You can see that he was going right toward a set of picnic tables. You can even see the rails (coping) attached to the concrete in one area that aren't there in the area where the kid was running. I'll give you that he's pretty close but it's still entirely on the skater.

I just gonna say one last time that I'm not trying to justify the actions of this kid's mother. I'm just saying that, bottom line, hitting the kid was absolutely the skater's fault.

He was a nice guy and apologized, he didn't deserve to be hit. That said, I think her reaction was pretty normal. Most people wouldn't have acted on it but I'm really amazed at how surprised so many people are.

Is the kid alright? Probably. But I see that guy barrel into him and just can't imagine how fucking worried and angry I would be if it were my own son.

After close viewing of the video, I can now see it IS a skate park...look at :29, and you can see in the background 2 skate rails set up in the open area...so now I put the fault at 70/30 with the child/parent 70% at fault...so perhaps the skater should have sucker punched the mother/child for causing the accident?!?

To me it's one or the other...either it's justifiable violence or it's crazy to think it's justifiable violence. To me, using violence to answer an obvious accident is just plain crazy.
I watched in full screen and could not see the head touch ground, and never once noticed the child putting it's hands up to it's head, which would be the normal reaction if it's head were hurt. I mentioned it was not bleeding to indicate there didn't seem to be even a superficial skin wound, not to indicate that no blood means no injury.
Well, I indicated race because they were of different races, and sex because they were different sexes, and age because they were different ages, and for some reason it seems you expected different levels of responsibility from them. Perhaps it was not for any of these reasons, but I think they all come into play in your apparent theory that have differing levels of responsibility for their own actions, certainly sex seems to for most people.
Somehow my first post in this thread disappeared, I explained there that I thought they had about a 60/40 split with the larger responsibility going to the adult skater because NEITHER was looking where they were going, perhaps even 70/30. My point is that the child was not looking where it was running either, and was not being supervised by anyone that was watching out either, and it bears SOME responsibility. It could just as easily been hit by a bicycle that likely would have had every right to be there the way it ran diagonally across the open area, and I feel the reaction would have been identical.
I am not surprised that the law is different in many places. In many states, if someone assaults you and you have something in your hands, you may use it to defend yourself. It wouldn't be 'bringing in a weapon' because you had it in hand when attacked. If you pick something up, it would likely be different. In almost every state, if the attacker is still moving towards you (as she was at the end) you may use whatever force needed to stop the attack. In some states, it seems you may arm yourself before being touched and use deadly force to stop the advance if you fear attack. Once the attack/advance is halted, I think that all changes almost everywhere.
On a moral basis, my feeling is if they sucker punch you in the face, you should get one free shot back at them, even if they turn and run. I'm not sexist or ageist and try to not be racist, so none of those things should enter into who hit who.
edit: and you are correct, I just guessed the skater was white based on his appearance, accent, and the fact that he's skating. I may well be wrong about that (and many other things).

This bitch needs to be dealt with. It was an accident and she assaulted the guy. Plain and simple. Her kid is running in a skate park, and the skater is riding, neither see each other, and accidents happen. But her reaction is independent from anything else, and she needs to be charged with assault.