Montana Man Slams 13-Year-Old to Ground, Fracturing His Skull, for Not Removing Hat During Anthem

[soundforbjt]

Why? That alleged bullshit doesn't change what happened.

It provides the motive for the crime.

 

[BoomerD]

I am not saying this excuses it. I just thought it was interesting in that it is a direct link to Trump through this...

I get that...but it sounds like his lawyer is trying to use that to excuse his actions.

 

[Paladin3]

Unhinged Trumptard. "I had every right to do that" Fucking moron should be executed.

As extreme as executing him sounds, I'm *almost* in agreement with you. He served 10 years for a previous assault with a weapons charge and that wasn't enough to teach him not to assault children. Society has no further use for Mr. Curt Brockway and will be better off without him, as he has proven by his actions.

 

[Paladin3]

So white god fearing patriotic conservative gun toting republican Christians on this board, a question. Could the kids father legally have shot and killed him while he was assaulting his son?

I'm neither god-fearing, very patriotic, conservative, Republican nor a Christian, but the answer to your question is YES. Wouldn't you shoot a grown man to stop them from assaulting your son? Or was this some kind of trick question?

 

[soundforbjt]

As extreme as executing him sounds, I'm *almost* in agreement with you. He served 10 years for a previous assault with a weapons charge and that wasn't enough to teach him not to assault children. Society has no further use for Mr. Curt Brockway and will be better off without him, as he has proven by his actions.

His was on probation, he hasn't served shit.
Edit; correction

 

[Paladin3]

Wanna know how to prevent gun violence. Keep people like this child abusing monster away from guns permanently. If you don't have the temperament to be around people in public you don't get no pew pews.

As a former felon, he was already stripped of his 2A rights. He can't be in possession of a gun, be around someone who is or even live in the same house where guns are kept.

 

[Paladin3]

His was on probation, he hasn't served shit.
Edit; correction

That sucks. Either way, you technically serve out a probation, but let's not bandy about words. I just hope it was felony probation and he doesn't have 2A rights. I'm pretty sure a violent misdemeanor loses you your 2A rights, anyway.

But this is exactly the problem we seem to have with law enforcement and the courts. Violent criminals so often get released simply to repeat their crimes. I hope the judge in this case doesn't allow him out to try for a threepeat. The man is obviously mentally insane if he thinks what he did was justified.

 

[Paladin3]

So you're still saying it's about the sensationalism. That is pure emotion behind your statement. Be honest with yourself. You aren't even trying to look for another answer even when faced with incidents like this where no gun is involved (and there are others daily). I'm not saying you are okay with this, but how is this any less tragic? Because numbers? You're trying to lean on numbers now, but I guess I'd ask back, what number is acceptable to you? What number makes you feel okay with the world? Then ask yourself are guns the real issue or is it just really shitty humans looking for excuses and ways to hurt others. Then maybe you'll understand why I think the gun angle is a bunch of bs.

In the time it will take to 'remove guns' from the equation, there are other things that also will take time that need to be addressed, and frankly, no one is even talking about those. It's just guns guns guns.

The world would absolutely be better off without guns, because there are those among us who will willingly do violence or otherwise victimize via force their fellow human being. Some goes for bombs and all other weapons. We'd also be a better species if we could find a way to exorcise this violent nature we have. Or a better way to control those who can't/won't control themselves.

The problem is we have no realistic way of getting guns out of the hands of those who consider them tools of the violent criminal trade. If we enact any kind of ban it would fail, as all current and previous gun weapons bans have.

I'm hoping this idiot in Montana didn't have a gun because of his prior criminal assault with a weapon. And maybe that's why he only assaulted the one poor boy rather than shoot everyone at the rodeo who kept their hat on.

 

[soundforbjt]

That sucks. Either way, you technically serve out a probation, but let's not bandy about words. I just hope it was felony probation and he doesn't have 2A rights. I'm pretty sure a violent misdemeanor loses you your 2A rights, anyway.

But this is exactly the problem we seem to have with law enforcement and the courts. Violent criminals so often get released simply to repeat their crimes. I hope the judge in this case doesn't allow him out to try for a threepeat. The man is obviously mentally insane if he thinks what he did was justified.

The judge released him on his own recognizance. Hard to believe since he was on probation.

 

[BoomerD]

As a former felon, he was already stripped of his 2A rights. He can't be in possession of a gun, be around someone who is or even live in the same house where guns are kept.

Actually...that depends on the state law.

I'm a former felon who had his right to own firearms restored by the state...of course, the feds don't recognize that...but here, I'm golden.

 

[Paladin3]

Maybe. Montana DOES have a "Stand your ground" law...

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0030/part_0010/section_0020/0450-0030-0010-0020.html

But, people have been convicted for abusing the statute.

This has nothing to do with stand your ground laws. It has everything to do with shooting someone to stop an attack on your child. Considering the situation, shooting the attacker to stop him from hurting the boy would have been perfectly justified.

 

[BoomerD]

This has nothing to do with stand your ground laws. It has everything to do with shooting someone to stop an attack on your child. Considering the situation, shooting the attacker to stop him from hurting the boy would have been perfectly justified.

That was my point...most likely, had the parents shot the guy, they would PROBABLY not have been charged.

 

[zinfamous]

According to his lawyer he has mental issues from a head injury while in the military and thought he was following orders from Trump:

https://missoulian.com/news/local/s...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

So here we have his lawyers officially entering a plea of "Trumpism is a mental disorder."

Good times.

 

[Paladin3]

My point was calm down. Let people talk about what they want, thread policeman, but thanks for suggesting suicide over another consideration of the wording of 2A. Brave of you.



Not talking about gun culture. I'm talking about the culture of misogyny, violence, and entitlement that leads to both localized domestic violence, and nearly every mass shooter. It's a subset of men and what are men doing to respond to it? Or do you simply just accept it as a reality that people are going to get mass murdered from time to time and no one should bother trying to stop it? You see it as a quixotic pursuit?

Since we can't police thoughts, we need to wait until there are some signs or illegal behavior before we can "stop" these types of individuals. We absolutely could do a better job of identifying those who show warning signs and getting them the mental health help they need.

But, if someone walks around talking about how pissed off they are at XXX and loudly expressing their ignorance, which hundreds of thousands do on a daily basis, how do we look into the future and "stop" the small percentage of those folks who will take their hate to the next level and actually assault someone?

Do we toss everyone with a "You better stand for my flag!!" bumper sticker on their F-150 in jail? How much due process and "innocent until proven guilty" do we want to sacrifice for the illusion of safety?

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's a continuum though, isn't it? That's the really difficult thing. Politics/mental illness - there's no clear dividing line. And someone can be both mentally-ill and a nasty piece-of-work, independently of each other.

Yes, my point is really that mental illness is an excuse we use to feel that the people that do such things are other. That they are not like us in a tangible way.

We want to believe that people that do terrible things are mentally ill, but that is actually a part of the problem. Yes, mental illness can be a major contributing factor to violence, but it is still only a contributing factor, and there is plenty of violence committed by people that are not mentally ill. That is part of what I was trying to point out here. That this crime did not trigger us to immediately claim the person must be mentally ill. Unfortunately it appears I picked a poor example since this person might actually be mentally ill.

The conversation I was wanting to have is that by literally blaming the violence on the mental illness we harm all those with mental illness by putting that stigma on them, and ironically make the problem worse.

 

[JSt0rm]

According to his lawyer he has mental issues from a head injury while in the military and thought he was following orders from Trump:

https://missoulian.com/news/local/s...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

And they released him? lmao.

 

[Paladin3]

Why is this thread being hijacked by an irrelevant gun debate to distract from the fascist nationalism that is the subject of this thread?

Imagine thinking that a piece of fabric was more important than a child's right to have a fully intact skull.

A gun or a body slam, they are both just tools to do violence upon your fellow human being. Controlling dangerous weapons is necessary, but it's the individual and collective sick minds behind the acts that worries me. Whether fascist nationalism, racism or any other -ism, when sick folks adopt a particular set of morals that they think justifies them harming the innocent we must stand up as a human race against it.

We need both laws to identify and stop those who would commit these violent acts, as well as to be ready to defend ourselves and others when the ones we can't stop do attack.

 

[Paladin3]

Yes, my point is really that mental illness is an excuse we use to feel that the people that do such things are other. That they are not like us in a tangible way.

We want to believe that people that do terrible things are mentally ill, but that is actually a part of the problem. Yes, mental illness can be a major contributing factor to violence, but it is still only a contributing factor, and there is plenty of violence committed by people that are not mentally ill. That is part of what I was trying to point out here. That this crime did not trigger us to immediately claim the person must be mentally ill. Unfortunately it appears I picked a poor example since this person might actually be mentally ill.

The conversation I was wanting to have is that by literally blaming the violence on the mental illness we harm all those with mental illness by putting that stigma on them, and ironically make the problem worse.

Are you saying that evil exists? If so, I agree with you. I don't concern myself much with quibbling over mentally ill vs evil. Some folks bent on harming others are sick and some are evil. Try to help the mentally ill and exterminate the other.

But this idea that evil lurks in the heart of all men and the weapon brings it out (because that's where I feel you are going with this) is utter BS. Just like I don't believe violent video games turns normal folks into killers, but that a lot of killers enjoy violent video games. Same goes for music with a violent, or these day patriotic, theme.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yes, my point is really that mental illness is an excuse we use to feel that the people that do such things are other. That they are not like us in a tangible way.

We want to believe that people that do terrible things are mentally ill, but that is actually a part of the problem. Yes, mental illness can be a major contributing factor to violence, but it is still only a contributing factor, and there is plenty of violence committed by people that are not mentally ill. That is part of what I was trying to point out here. That this crime did not trigger us to immediately claim the person must be mentally ill. Unfortunately it appears I picked a poor example since this person might actually be mentally ill.

The conversation I was wanting to have is that by literally blaming the violence on the mental illness we harm all those with mental illness by putting that stigma on them, and ironically make the problem worse.

It's a definition issue. Traditional mental illness, I agree with you. However, someone who plans out violence you wouldn't say is 'normal' would you? They may be focused, even determined, and go about their normal life, but they are not mentally fit. This is probably why the term 'postal' fit so well back in the day. It was a new category that didn't offend anyone else (other than postal employees).

This guy on the other hand, this was 'temporary insanity' if such a thing really exists. Or, more realistically crime of passion, road rage...however you want to identify it when you get pissed and in the heat of the moment do something you shouldn't have.

 

[Paladin3]

fuck Montana.

Because assaults, rapes, shootings and murders don't happen in other states every single day?

 

[pmv]

Yes, my point is really that mental illness is an excuse we use to feel that the people that do such things are other. That they are not like us in a tangible way.

We want to believe that people that do terrible things are mentally ill, but that is actually a part of the problem. Yes, mental illness can be a major contributing factor to violence, but it is still only a contributing factor, and there is plenty of violence committed by people that are not mentally ill. That is part of what I was trying to point out here. That this crime did not trigger us to immediately claim the person must be mentally ill. Unfortunately it appears I picked a poor example since this person might actually be mentally ill.

The conversation I was wanting to have is that by literally blaming the violence on the mental illness we harm all those with mental illness by putting that stigma on them, and ironically make the problem worse.

My position is I'm horribly confused by what mental-illness actually _is_. Occasionally cases are so extreme or weird that everyone agrees the person is just not in touch with reality, or a behavior change can be definitively traced to a distinct physical brain-injury where we have good reason to believe that can cause it.

But an awful lot of the time I find it very hard to tell the difference between someone whose difficult experiences have left them 'mentally ill' and those whose difficult experiences have just caused them to become a morally-flawed person. And I wonder if there even _is_ such a difference, and what we are actually doing when we ascribe moral agency at all to anyone, when we are all a product of our experiences, especially early ones. Some monsterous scumbags seem to have had such messed-up childhoods and circumstances that you wonder whether there was any way they could have turned out any differently than they did.

And, furthermore, there are cases where one has a strong suspicion that there's some unknown biological factor involved in making someone what they are (especially when the malevolent behaviour starts very young) but we don't know enough about the relation between mind and body to be sure.

Having known people both with-and-without psychiatric diagnosis who did very bad things, I'm just not sure I can tell the difference between them.

 

[Paladin3]

Indeed, but given that a gun can turn a tragedy into a massacre, isn't there a place to address the value of guns in society? I certainly find that value wanting, but that's besides the point of addressing toxic masculinity.

Also, who imagines stopping all violence as the goal? My goals are to reduce that violence as greatly as possible in both occurrences and severity.

Your weird aside about people being punched for views means nothing to me, except that I'd hardly be surprised if the people doing such things were also not well within the label of toxic masculinity.

Then can we ban all forms of smoking? I'm particularly sensitive to the smell and it makes me ill. The day after I will vote for a complete gun ban.

Toxic masculinity? So is being masculine now bad? Or is being just being unnecessarily violent bad and any way of justifying it pure evil?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Honestly, I'm wondering what the context was for this guy not to get beat to a pulp by bystanders/people around him. I mean, how do you watch a guy slam a kid into the ground and just stand there like a dumbass, then look at yourself in the mirror the next morning?

My guess is just like someone pulling a gun on you, we like to think we would react quickly, but the reality is things happen so fast most people's brains don't even register what is happening and make sense of it until it is over. It probably happened in a matter of seconds and was over. The other (down) side to this is that it surprises me there isn't a video of this happening, because that seems to be the thing to do these days as well...film it and watch it happen rather than help.

 

[ImpulsE69]

My position is I'm horribly confused by what mental-illness actually _is_. Occasionally cases are so extreme or weird that everyone agrees the person is just not in touch with reality, or a behavior change can be definitively traced to a distinct physical brain-injury where we have good reason to believe that can cause it.

But an awful lot of the time I find it very hard to tell the difference between someone whose difficult experiences have left them 'mentally ill' and those whose difficult experiences have just caused them to become a morally-flawed person. And I wonder if there even _is_ such a difference, and what we are actually doing when we ascribe moral agency at all to anyone, when we are all a product of our experiences, especially early ones. Some monsterous scumbags seem to have had such messed-up childhoods and circumstances that you wonder whether there was any way they could have turned out any differently than they did.

And, furthermore, there are cases where one has a strong suspicion that there's some unknown biological factor involved in making someone what they are (especially when the malevolent behaviour starts very young) but we don't know enough about the relation between mind and body to be sure.

Having known people both with-and-without psychiatric diagnosis who did very bad things, I'm just not sure I can tell the difference between them.

We only really identify the extreme cases. That is why it is confusing. When most people think mental illness, they think what they've seen in the movies or maybe a relative who had dimensia or alzhiemers. (probably misspelled both of those). Depression is a huge thing that doesn't really get enough attention and can be way more difficult to see.

 

[jackstar7]

Since we can't police thoughts, we need to wait until there are some signs or illegal behavior before we can "stop" these types of individuals. We absolutely could do a better job of identifying those who show warning signs and getting them the mental health help they need.

But, if someone walks around talking about how pissed off they are at XXX and loudly expressing their ignorance, which hundreds of thousands do on a daily basis, how do we look into the future and "stop" the small percentage of those folks who will take their hate to the next level and actually assault someone?

Do we toss everyone with a "You better stand for my flag!!" bumper sticker on their F-150 in jail? How much due process and "innocent until proven guilty" do we want to sacrifice for the illusion of safety?

Can we take away guns from anyone who commits assault? (As opposed to the mental illness nonsense.)