Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Agreed, and as I said, I should have been more accurate in that statement. I was wrong to put it like that. Simple as that.

Jon Garrett wrote:Agreed, and as I said, I should have been more accurate in that statement. I was wrong to put it like that. Simple as that.

And agreed that breaking bones over a model, even valued over $100 is over the top and silly.

...is this an almost adult conversation, with people admitting there wrong and agreeing on things? On the internet? I feel somehow dirty and wrong.

I think that as with most things, the situation should determine your response. For example.

I'm playing a sixteen year old. The sixteen year old grabs and destroys my brand new Ravager which just shot his Predator by throwing it against the wall. Now straight away, this is a sixteen year old. As a fully grown man, I could never justify to the law or myself, marching over there, and breaking every bone in his body. I'm a physically strong man, and I have learnt to control my temper in most situations. Me beating a teenager half to death is not an appropriate response.
Now if this teenager throws the one model and runs away/stops there I won't touch him. However, should he attempt to destroy more of my property, I would instinctively try and physically restrain him. Grappling, headlocking, etc. I wouldn't be attempting to hurt him , but if he's destroying my things, I won't just try and 'shield it', I will take the initiative of making it so he cannot destroy my things.

Adjust the scenario slightly. I'm standing there playing with a fully grown man. He demonstrates throughout the game he is clearly mentally/emotionally unstable/immature. He, like the aforementioned teenager, tries to break my stuff. Again, like before, I will do nothing if he stops at one model/outburst, but will physically intervene past that. Now as he is a fully grown man, I run a much greater risk in this. If I can subdue him easily, or he comes to his senses, no harm will be inflicted. But if I'm attempting to stop him from breaking my things by intervening, from thrusting myself between my stuff and him, or grabbing his arm, and he attempts to go for me, I won't pull my punches so to speak. Two grown men are far too capable of hurting each other, and at the end of the day, I would rather it was him on the floor than me. I wouldn't escalate it by attempting to punch him in the face straight off the bat, as some have said, but if I'm grabbing his arm, and he turns and tries to swing for me, the gloves are off as far as I'm concerned. He would have made the transition from damaging my property to actually assaulting me. And at the end of the day, when you are in a physical situation like that, which has become a general melee, you put the other guy out hard and fast. Property is irrelevant by that stage of the game, its more about ensuing that YOU are not the one with the broken collarbone.

Change the scenario again( this one actually happened to a friend of mine). A couple of chavs wander in off the street, mock everyone, and are openly aggressive and provocative. One of them breaks a model of mine on the table. I will then tell them to get the hell out before I break them, in no uncertain terms. If they carry on, and reach for another model, I will follow through on my words. Restraining at first of course, like before, but I'll have far less patience with regards to that, and how much effort I put into doing so before just treating it as an general brawl. As there are two, I will not risk me restraining one of the floor and getting kicked in the head by his friend, I'd rather put one of them down and out nice and quickly, and then restrain his friend.

Context is everything.

mrsmith wrote:

dont worry. i wouldn't know how to break a bone if i wanted to. a punch in the nose and a demand to replace the broken stuff should suffice. works against most wannabe bullies anyway.

Someone declaring that they'd punch the other fellow in the nose is clearly lacking in fighting experience. Punching someone in the face is a good way to bruise your knuckles, and rarely takes them out in one go (barring mitigating circumstances). A sock to the gut to wind them, a well placed knee to the balls, or an elbow to the jaw are the most efficient ways of incapacitating someone quickly at minimal risk to yourself. Just punching them in the face means you're lashing out with no real idea of how to brawl.

Jon Garrett wrote:...is this an almost adult conversation, with people admitting there wrong and agreeing on things? On the internet? I feel somehow dirty and wrong.

Fine fine, your a butthead. Happy now?

There is one story I would like to bring to the attention of those entertaining the idea that a punch to the face is the best option to this hypothetical situation.

About 3 or 4 years ago in Vancouver there was 2 gay men in a bar, minding there own business doing what they do. Another man at the bar noticed that they were gay and whatever insecurities he had made him think that going over and punching one of these gay men was a good idea. As the 2 men got up to leave, this other guy walks up to them, allegedly called them gay or what ever slur he used and took a shot at one of the men leaving the bar. The man, punched in the head fell and hit his head on the tiled floor which killed him, the man who hit him has been charged with murder.

Now I am all for protection of your property but one must understand the risks involved with particular avenues of action, rarely is a punch to the face the right way to deal with anything unless there is actual risk to your life. There are many other actions one can take, both physical and not to diffuse a situation, and the mod's request to not advocate such a risky action should be adhered to.

Thats not to say you shouldn't have the right to physically stop a person from destroying your property (and those old enough to understand the risks involved are free to act how they want) but giving others, especially the impressionable the idea that that responding to a level 5 situation with a level 9 answer is well, its wrong.

carmachu wrote:

Jon Garrett wrote:...is this an almost adult conversation, with people admitting there wrong and agreeing on things? On the internet? I feel somehow dirty and wrong.

Fine fine, your a butthead. Happy now?

The internet is whole again. /B/ rejoices, or at least oozes more merrily.

Fifty wrote:brettz123, there have been plenty of legal cases in which violence has been regarded as an acceptable (thought not necessarily only) response. I very much doubt that any of those situations involved toy soldiers.

Please reread my post and you will see that I wasn''t saying anything about toy soldiers specifically. The question is one of property it doesn't matter if that is toy soldiers or something else.

And if you read my entire post you will notice that I said you have the right to defend your property (within reason) but you have no right to hurt somebody after the fact. But you certainly can stop someone from destroying your property.... now either way I would very much suggest that you not do anything that causes serious harm as you will probably be charged with something. The amount of force you are allowed to use has to be within reason.

yournamehere wrote:There is one story I would like to bring to the attention of those entertaining the idea that a punch to the face is the best option to this hypothetical situation.

About 3 or 4 years ago in Vancouver there was 2 gay men in a bar, minding there own business doing what they do. Another man at the bar noticed that they were gay and whatever insecurities he had made him think that going over and punching one of these gay men was a good idea. As the 2 men got up to leave, this other guy walks up to them, allegedly called them gay or what ever slur he used and took a shot at one of the men leaving the bar. The man, punched in the head fell and hit his head on the tiled floor which killed him, the man who hit him has been charged with murder.

Now I am all for protection of your property but one must understand the risks involved with particular avenues of action, rarely is a punch to the face the right way to deal with anything unless there is actual risk to your life. There are many other actions one can take, both physical and not to diffuse a situation, and the mod's request to not advocate such a risky action should be adhered to.

Thats not to say you shouldn't have the right to physically stop a person from destroying your property (and those old enough to understand the risks involved are free to act how they want) but giving others, especially the impressionable the idea that that responding to a level 5 situation with a level 9 answer is well, its wrong.

Because a death caused by a hateful attack based on pure bigotry and stupidity is the exact same scenario as a death caused by an action that was taken to protect your property......

If you attack property, you should expect that the property owner will take action to protect it. Any attempt to destroy something that is not yours = risk. A homophobic attack has nothing to do with it.

And just to clarify: No, I did not advance my argument to "Murder for the Emparah!". But accidents happen. If we want to move down the avenue of what-if's we could argue that the guy jumping on my model can slip on it and fall and bash his head against the table and die. Now his family will sue you because it was your model he slipped on.

Steelmage99 wrote:By "the law" I, of course, was referring to the justice system as a whole.

In keeping without the spirit of the internet, my mistake. I assumed you meant "cops".

Must not have been long enough since I saw True Grit.

True Grit! Ah, wishing I could go see it... I'm stuck going to see "The King's Speech" tomorrow (Valentine's day, and wife's preference )

d-usa wrote:

yournamehere wrote:There is one story I would like to bring to the attention of those entertaining the idea that a punch to the face is the best option to this hypothetical situation.

About 3 or 4 years ago in Vancouver there was 2 gay men in a bar, minding there own business doing what they do. Another man at the bar noticed that they were gay and whatever insecurities he had made him think that going over and punching one of these gay men was a good idea. As the 2 men got up to leave, this other guy walks up to them, allegedly called them gay or what ever slur he used and took a shot at one of the men leaving the bar. The man, punched in the head fell and hit his head on the tiled floor which killed him, the man who hit him has been charged with murder.

Now I am all for protection of your property but one must understand the risks involved with particular avenues of action, rarely is a punch to the face the right way to deal with anything unless there is actual risk to your life. There are many other actions one can take, both physical and not to diffuse a situation, and the mod's request to not advocate such a risky action should be adhered to.

Thats not to say you shouldn't have the right to physically stop a person from destroying your property (and those old enough to understand the risks involved are free to act how they want) but giving others, especially the impressionable the idea that that responding to a level 5 situation with a level 9 answer is well, its wrong.

Because a death caused by a hateful attack based on pure bigotry and stupidity is the exact same scenario as a death caused by an action that was taken to protect your property......

If you attack property, you should expect that the property owner will take action to protect it. Any attempt to destroy something that is not yours = risk. A homophobic attack has nothing to do with it.

And just to clarify: No, I did not advance my argument to "Murder for the Emparah!". But accidents happen. If we want to move down the avenue of what-if's we could argue that the guy jumping on my model can slip on it and fall and bash his head against the table and die. Now his family will sue you because it was your model he slipped on.

What??? lol, you missed my point... The point doesn't really have to do with how the attack happened, it has to do with the fact that punching someone in the face can have reproductions such as death or serious injury from a single punch so if you choose to do so you must understand what can happen.

Many times younger people dont understand that yet so advocating it on the net is not something you want to be doing, and is something the mods dont want.

If you are an adult and understand the risks involved then you are free to take whatever action you want, like I said, protect yourself and your belongings but use appropriate force.

Pfft, easy. Give them a call and describe their bedroom in detail, down to the last douche-esqeu poster on the wall, and then say quietly; "do you think you're safe here?"

What a tedious thread this has become.