Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
When I was a kid, that kind of stuff was

considered a prank, along the same lines as

tossing someone into the "bradley" wash

basin, or stuffing someone in a locker.



Times change and you are no longer a kid. Laws change. Living in the
past and longing for the way it "was" is nice, but not realistic. Twas a
time many never had to lock their doors.....and so it goes.




I was shocked when I saw the headline,

thinking initially that the kid was "crucified".

But after I found out that the nails only went

through his clothes, I filed it under the "no big

deal" category.




It was against the law. For many obvious reasons.



This sort of stuff is what builds character



Disagree. There is nothing "character-builiding" concerning a forced
physical act against one's will. Forcibly placing your hands upon an
unwilling participant teaches character alright,,,,,of the criminal
element.
Such acts of physical aggression are against the law and for good
reason.




(boys will be boys).



And some will be criminals. This is what I mean,,this is the mindest of
Philthydelphia,,,,this kind of stuff is not only taught but avidly
defended. Children do not take to violence as a natural act. They are a
product of their environment.
The act was against the law.





As long as it doesn't get taken to the extreme

level




The courts determined long ago this "level" you speak of, and they have
distinguished such behavior as illegal and in violation of the law for
good reason. Forcibly intruding and imposing your will against an
unconsenting individual IS taking it to the "extreme level."
Try that on an educated adult and see where it lands you,,,,,,in the
most fortunate scenario, one may need a physician. In an unfortunate
scenario, one may require an undertaker.
Then again, most educated adults know better than to forcibly place
their unwanted hands on another's person.




such as what happened at Columbine or





No comparison when a death is involved.




what happened at the football camp sodomy

hazing case.



No comparison to rape, either. The court recognizes such, which is why
the laws and sentencing guidelines differ between the examples you
offer. The acts can not be compared.
They broke the law with their acts, despite you disagreeing with the
law. Many times in the past, condoning the breaking of selective laws
has been vehemently attacked by yourself.




Dave

"Sandbagger"