14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[Checkmite]

The article is clear that the alleged hat was worn previously, not at the time of the beat down, and that the mother alleges that her son was bullied in an ongoing way since then. Why note that you don't see a hat that is not claimed to be there?

I'm seeking something to establish a causative link.

If the claim is that a man harassing a black person is doing it because he's racist, a police officer seeing that man repeatedly shouting "[f-word] that [n-word]!" on a street corner immediately afterwards is a strong indication that the man is racist, for instance. A restaurant cashier telling people of one race they must buy something first before they're allowed to use the restroom and then telling other people of a different race that they can go ahead and use the restroom before buying anything, is strongly suggestive of the cashier making an exception for racial reasons, so that allegation has merit.

Saying that a fight on a bus happened because the victim wore a Trump hat a few days earlier, when the hat is not present and none of the assailants seems to be shouting anything about a hat, or Trump, is not as well-supported.

 

[Darat]

Kid wears something offensive that makes him an ongoing target for harassment. Not really a stretch.

The two things have not been linked by anyone but the mother, and a link between the two has been denied by the school.

So we have one claim from a public body with legal obligations, code of conduct and so on and another from a parent apparently wanting to sue to get a financial settlement.

We do know that the mother's reasoning capability and ability to distinguish between fact and fiction is lacking and she is an adernt Trump supporter. (Her belief in fictional conspiracy theories tells us that.)

To me with the information available to date I would say the "not because he wore a Trump hat weeks ago" claim is more likely to be true.

At the moment I believe he was the victim of a typical "school playground" fight.

My view is if course subject to revision if further information comes to light.

 

[Giordano]

The title of thread is "14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump".

Declaring an unsubstantiated claim as fact is the antithesis of skepticism, even if you pay lip service to doubting that claim later on in a notably less declarative way.

But of course, this thread isn't about skeptically investigating the veracity of a claim.

It's about pushing right wing propaganda.

My posts here are primarily questioning why the conservative posters who so intensely try to counter the "while Black" and police brutality threads by pages worth of (what they proudly call "skepticism") about... everything involved in those incidents have failed to swam the current thread with the same intense level of questioning and doubt.

By my count I think that the 'left" (with whom I identify) have expressed skepticism in this thread but in a more reasonable and much less frantic and desperate fashion. Of course I may be prejudiced.

 

[Darat]

I'm seeking something to establish a causative link.



If the claim is that a man harassing a black person is doing it because he's racist, a police officer seeing that man repeatedly shouting "[f-word] that [n-word]!" on a street corner immediately afterwards is a strong indication that the man is racist, for instance. A restaurant cashier telling people of one race they must buy something first before they're allowed to use the restroom and then telling other people of a different race that they can go ahead and use the restroom before buying anything, is strongly suggestive of the cashier making an exception for racial reasons, so that allegation has merit.



Saying that a fight on a bus happened because the victim wore a Trump hat a few days earlier, when the hat is not present and none of the assailants seems to be shouting anything about a hat, or Trump, is not as well-supported.

The mother's claim is the hat wearing was a few weeks ago in the article I read.

 

[Thermal]

I'm seeking something to establish a causative link.

If the claim is that a man harassing a black person is doing it because he's racist, a police officer seeing that man repeatedly shouting "[f-word] that [n-word]!" on a street corner immediately afterwards is a strong indication that the man is racist, for instance. A restaurant cashier telling people of one race they must buy something first before they're allowed to use the restroom and then telling other people of a different race that they can go ahead and use the restroom before buying anything, is strongly suggestive of the cashier making an exception for racial reasons, so that allegation has merit.

Saying that a fight on a bus happened because the victim wore a Trump hat a few days earlier, when the hat is not present and none of the assailants seems to be shouting anything about a hat, or Trump, is not as well-supported.

The question was 'Why are you looking for something that was specifically claimed not to be there?' The question was not 'How far can we move the goalposts in responding?'

The mother's claim is highly questionable, and very open to being a self serving opportunistic cop out. It could also be plus or minus true. But saying you have analyzed the evidence and claim to not see what was claimed to not be there seems a little pointless

 

[Thermal]

The two things have not been linked by anyone but the mother, and a link between the two has been denied by the school.

So we have one claim from a public body with legal obligations, code of conduct and so on and another from a parent apparently wanting to sue to get a financial settlement.

We do know that the mother's reasoning capability and ability to distinguish between fact and fiction is lacking and she is an adernt Trump supporter. (Her belief in fictional conspiracy theories tells us that.)

To me with the information available to date I would say the "not because he wore a Trump hat weeks ago" claim is more likely to be true.

At the moment I believe he was the victim of a typical "school playground" fight.

My view is if course subject to revision if further information comes to light.

Agreed. Just not what I was responding to. Checkmite asked why kids would be angry about a hat but not pick a fight till days later. Do you share said incredulity?

Eta: can't figure out how to make that stupid face up top go away

 

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by New York Post
...In a statement, school officials said the student’s Trump hat had nothing to do with the assault.

“The incident began with a verbal altercation between two students that escalated when additional students became involved,” the statement said.

The fight was an isolated matter totally unrelated to political statements or agendas, superintendent Rex Mitchell said.

“We absolutely do not condone the use of physical force between students,” Mitchell said. “This was an unfortunate incident that we take very seriously as the safety and welfare of the students is always our top priority.”

Five juveniles have been charged with first-degree misdemeanor battery in the incident, the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office announced Friday, while citing “some misinformation” that was shared along with the video.

The attack also did not meet criteria for a hate crime, sheriff’s officials said...

From WP's fantastically cogent post #33.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/flori...led-on-school-bus-for-wearing-trump-2020-hat/

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Agreed. Just not what I was responding to. Checkmite asked why kids would be angry about a hat but not pick a fight till days later. Do you share said incredulity?

There could be good reason to question the claim but that wouldn't be one of them because the claim is that this isn't the first instance of bullying.

 

[Thermal]

From WP's fantastically cogent post #33.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/flori...led-on-school-bus-for-wearing-trump-2020-hat/

Right. Now, does that mean the beating students did not have any feelings for about this kid based on whether or not he wore the hat, or expressed expressedother pro Trump sentiments?

Say the students claimed they got into the fight based on some other pretense. Who is the best football team or whatever. The school would be reporting that the hat had nothing to do with the instant matter. Does this mean that hostilities didn't start earlier, with the wearing of the hat? The school's opinion doesn't actually negate the mother's; they can jibe together.

And no, I don't believe her at face value. But I am not swallowing the counter narrative whole, either. Nor should anyone yet.

 

[johnny karate]

My posts here are primarily questioning why the conservative posters who so intensely try to counter the "while Black" and police brutality threads by pages worth of (what they proudly call "skepticism") about... everything involved in those incidents have failed to swam the current thread with the same intense level of questioning and doubt.

It's a good question, but ultimately a futile one. Such honest discussion has no role in the agenda-driven narrative they're pushing.

By my count I think that the 'left" (with whom I identify) have expressed skepticism in this thread but in a more reasonable and much less frantic and desperate fashion. Of course I may be prejudiced.

When you generally have facts and reality on your side, it grants you the luxury of being reasonable.

 

[Checkmite]

The question was 'Why are you looking for something that was specifically claimed not to be there?' The question was not 'How far can we move the goalposts in responding?'

The answer is "to highlight the lack of evidence supporting a link".

I have heard of people being attacked for wearing a Trump hat, at the time they were wearing it. I have not yet heard of a case of someone being attacked because they wore a Trump hat a few weeks ago but don't anymore.

 

[Thermal]

The answer is "to highlight the lack of evidence supporting a link".

Thanks for putting that in quotes. Makes it easier to remind you of it later.

So you now endorse the view that if you cannot show a direct link between motivation and action, then it should be assumed that no such motivation exists? Fascinating, and I agree.

I have heard of people being attacked for wearing a Trump hat, at the time they were wearing it. I have not yet heard of a case of someone being attacked because they wore a Trump hat a few weeks ago but don't anymore.

Not to dispute your new hilited epiphany, but have you ever heard of someone who develops a negative opinion of someone for one reason, then retains that negative view to influence much later interactions? I bet you have. I really think you have.

eta: forgot: your hilited (though it will come back to haunt you) still does not answer the question. You are responding to a different question. The question is, for the third time: Since the article says there was no hat, what do you hope to prove by repeatedly watching the video looking for a hat? Are you establishing credibility for the mom? She said there was no hat, and since you watched repeatedly to confirm, you find that her word should be taken as credible in other matters?

It's ok to say you misread the OP, you know.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

I don't see how anything the kid's mother or the school had to say enters into this - the video simply shows a chubby white kid being battered mercilessly by a group of blacks who look older and bigger than he is, the girl who starts on him in particular - and what an animal she is. There's nothing remotely unusual about this tableau, everyone here knows it, whether they admit it or not.

 

[Checkmite]

Not to dispute your new hilited epiphany, but have you ever heard of someone who develops a negative opinion of someone for one reason, then retains that negative view to influence much later interactions? I bet you have. I really think you have.

I have; but we're talking about something a little more than a negative opinion being expressed here. What is depicted in the video is a particularly brutal assault; not taunting or bullying, or a natural escalation of either. I can see someone having and retaining a negative opinion of a person for wearing a Trump hat. I can say that it's plausible that negative opinion could lead to protracted bullying. The kid's mother described him being smacked on the top of the head, tripped, etc - typical bullying behavior. But the beating on the video is a whole other level, and I don't that negative opinion just spontaneously escalating to that kind of assault several weeks later when it wasn't enough to provoke that level of violence at the time of the inciting incident.

For what it's worth, I can see a negative opinion having been formed at the time of the Trumphat-wearing making it easier for a later, more immediate inciting incident to lead to that beating.

I can also see a kid being bullied long before choosing to wear a Trump hat, and the bullies calling attention to the hat at the time he wore it because bullies will call attention to anything that gives them an easy vector for verbally attacking someone, not because it genuinely upsets them.

eta: forgot: your hilited (though it will come back to haunt you) still does not answer the question. You are responding to a different question. The question is, for the third time: Since the article says there was no hat, what do you hope to prove by repeatedly watching the video looking for a hat?

I'm confident I answered the question adequately. I understand you're not satisfied with the answer, but that's not my problem. You've already expended immeasurably more mental energy on analyzing the wording of the post than I dedicated to composing it.

 

[Thermal]

I have; but we're talking about something a little more than a negative opinion being expressed here. What is depicted in the video is a particularly brutal assault; not taunting or bullying, or a natural escalation of either. I can see someone having and retaining a negative opinion of a person for wearing a Trump hat. I can say that it's plausible that negative opinion could lead to protracted bullying. The kid's mother described him being smacked on the top of the head, tripped, etc - typical bullying behavior. But the beating on the video is a whole other level, and I don't that negative opinion just spontaneously escalating to that kind of assault several weeks later when it wasn't enough to provoke that level of violence at the time of the inciting incident.

For what it's worth, I can see a negative opinion having been formed at the time of the Trumphat-wearing making it easier for a later, more immediate inciting incident to lead to that beating.

I can also see a kid being bullied long before choosing to wear a Trump hat, and the bullies calling attention to the hat at the time he wore it because bullies will call attention to anything that gives them an easy vector for verbally attacking someone, not because it genuinely upsets them.

Largely agreed, except for the brutality of the assault, and it being implausible as an escalation. The boy walked away with *checks notes* boo-boos and ouchies, it seems. That level of fight seems pretty common. It was mean, but it was by no means out of the realm of schoolyard fighting that escalated from bullying.

I'm confident I answered the question adequately. I understand you're not satisfied with the answer, but that's not my problem. You've already expended immeasurably more mental energy on analyzing the wording of the post than I dedicated to composing it.

Oh, I'm sure you're satisfied. But bobbing and weaving is not an answer. The truth would have been:
1) Misread Op
2)Wanted to plant the suggestion that she was lying about a hat being there

What interests me, as I've said on different threads, is this subtle changing of facts to support a narrative. In the OP, the mom says he wore the hat a few weeks ago, and you change it to several weeks ago. 'Several' makes it sound farther away and less plausible, doesn't it?

 

[cullennz]

Largely agreed, except for the brutality of the assault, and it being implausible as an escalation. The boy walked away with *checks notes* boo-boos and ouchies, it seems. That level of fight seems pretty common. It was mean, but it was by no means out of the realm of schoolyard fighting that escalated from bullying.

Oh, I'm sure you're satisfied. But bobbing and weaving is not an answer. The truth would have been:
1) Misread Op
2)Wanted to plant the suggestion that she was lying about a hat being there

What interests me, as I've said on different threads, is this subtle changing of facts to support a narrative. In the OP, the mom says he wore the hat a few weeks ago, and you change it to several weeks ago. 'Several' makes it sound farther away and less plausible, doesn't it?

Putting aside the pointless Trump stuff as it is frankly irrelevant

Have to disagree here.

The young chick in the vid is frankly a nutter who needs some child psychology/help.

That is beyond normal school kid bullying. It was pretty sadistic violence for the sake of it.

No matter what the motive

 

[Thermal]

Putting aside the pointless Trump stuff as it is frankly irrelevant

Have to disagree here.

The young chick in the vid is frankly a nutter who needs some child psychology/help.

That is beyond normal school kid bullying. It was pretty sadistic violence for the sake of it.

No matter what the motive

Yeah, it was sadistic. But I think that is plus or minus the norm anymore. Kids don't 'fight fair' anymore. They go MMA, not M of Q.

 

[cullennz]

Yeah, it was sadistic. But I think that is plus or minus the norm anymore. Kids don't 'fight fair' anymore. They go MMA, not M of Q.

Fair point.

Glad I am not a kid growing up in that stuff

 

[Checkmite]

Largely agreed, except for the brutality of the assault, and it being implausible as an escalation. The boy walked away with *checks notes* boo-boos and ouchies, it seems. That level of fight seems pretty common. It was mean, but it was by no means out of the realm of schoolyard fighting that escalated from bullying.

Disagree; it was unusually vicious and violent for a simple instance of bullying.

What interests me, as I've said on different threads, is this subtle changing of facts to support a narrative. In the OP, the mom says he wore the hat a few weeks ago, and you change it to several weeks ago. 'Several' makes it sound farther away and less plausible, doesn't it?

That's an amusingly pathetic reach, even for you. Several "sounds further away" than a few?

Okay, I'll humor you. Quantify these two, as they sound in your own head. What number of weeks is "a few" an acceptable adjective for, and what number would it have to be to qualify for "several"? And are these numbers based on an objective standard, or just your own feeling?

 

[cullennz]

Yeah, it was sadistic. But I think that is plus or minus the norm anymore. Kids don't 'fight fair' anymore. They go MMA, not M of Q.

Maybe where you live this is true

I have seen no mention of trying to help the sadistic chick from being a sadistic chick