Why was Charlie ...


arrested? The principal assaulted him first and Charlie defended himself. If anything it should have been the principal going to jail for assault.

And while we're at it, why didn't the cops show up after shots were fired? And how did the principal sober up immediately by jumping in the pool? Most people who jump in the pool when they are that drunk will die.

I liked the movie until the producers started to try to wrap everything up. Then it felt like a rushed mess.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

He didn't assault Charlie, he grabbed his daughter and Charlie defended her. Totally within the rights of a parent, no? And maybe he wasn't as drunk as he appeared to be. I don't think so at least and it's been proven that even a slap across the face can help someone "wake up" as it were (Thank you Mythbusters).

"Idiots are fun! No wonder villages want them so much..." -Dr. House

reply

> He didn't assault Charlie, he grabbed his daughter and Charlie defended her. Totally within the rights of a parent, no?

Assault? No. I don't think parents should be allowed to assault their children simply for dating guys they don't like.

What part of the world do you live in where that's okay?

> And maybe he wasn't as drunk as he appeared to be.

Well, I saw him staggering around in his robe, pointing a loaded gun at children, and firing into the the air. My guess is that he was pretty drunk.

What is your estimate?

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

Grabbing somebody is assault now? Huh... Never occured to me.

Also, he was obviously completely ruled by his emotions. His actions were not purely motivated by alcohol.

"Idiots are fun! No wonder villages want them so much..." -Dr. House

reply

"Grabbing somebody is assault now? Huh... Never occured to me. "

YES, according to the law ANY unwarranted contact is assault. So even spitting on someone is "assault", it's the law foo!

reply

Foo? Ha, I feel much better now knowing who exactly I'm up against.

"Idiots are fun! No wonder villages want them so much..." -Dr. House

reply

Who cares about the foo, my point was that it is the law. You say up against like it's some debate, I just told you the law thats all.

reply

According to definitions.uslegal.com:
Assault:
Degrees of assault are defined according to state laws. Laws vary by state, but generally, assault in the first degree is defined as when a person:

With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes serious physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of his body, he causes such an injury to any person; or
Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to any person; or
In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life, or of immediate flight therefrom, he causes a serious physical injury to another person; or
While driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance he causes serious bodily injury to the person of another with a motor vehicle.
Second degree assault may involve intentional or reckless serious physical injury to another person, or physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. It may involve interfering with a police officer, emergency responder, or teacher, while performing their duties. When the injury suffered is less serious, it may be classified as assault of a lesser degree, such as "simple asault".

The following is an example of a state statute governing simple assault:
" Simple assault. A person is guilty of assault if he:

Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or
Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
Simple assault is a disorderly persons offense unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a petty disorderly persons offense."


"Idiots are fun! No wonder villages want them so much..." -Dr. House

reply

Kjlightning: Thank you for the information, I guess I was wrong about that. Sorry man but hey I got my information from Judge Judy! She said any unwarranted contact counts as an assault.

reply

You take your legal definitions from sound bites from a television judge?

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

judge judy is an actual judge or atleast she use to be

reply

Yeah, and Nancy Grace used to be a prosecutor. What is your point?

Besides, she was a family court judge, not a criminal law judge.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

it isn't the law you idiot
if i had a daughter and me and her got in an argument and she was trying to walk off and i grabbed her on the hand and stopped her that would not be considered assault

reply

It actually is. Any unwanted or forceful contact, by the letter of the law, can be prosecuted as battery. While DAs are able to exercise their discretion in the matter, that doesn't change the legal foundations. Grabbing someone forcefully, daughter or not, without a compelling reason -- and keeping her close to him isn't going to be considered a compelling reason when she's not in danger -- can be prosecuted. Usually it won't be, but she's perfectly able and completely within her rights to file a complaint against her father for doing so. This isn't Judge Judy. This is an actual explication of the laws involved. Earlier, someone defined first degree assault. But there are several levels of assault (again, technically battery) below first degree and using force in any manner technically qualifies if the person committing said battery can't offer a compelling rationale for doing so. And, once again, pulling your 17 year old daughter closer wouldn't be considered such a compelling rationale, especially since she was simply standing there arguing with him.

You may disagree with this on a personal level, and think parental prerogatives should trump the issue with minors. That's your right. Nevertheless, you -- and several others here -- are completely mistaken about the reality of the legal situation as it exists in the real world.

reply

Someone with the writing skills of a 3rd grader calling someone an idiot!!! That's irony, right there!! ..... unless you ARE a third grader......

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

a father grabbing his daughter's just in order to stop her from walking away is not assault. He did not grab her with the intent of causing any arm whatsoever..

reply

Agreed

"Idiots are fun! No wonder villages want them so much..." -Dr. House

reply

grabbing your daughter to pull her back to talk to her is not assault it is parenting

reply

Yes, he actually did assault Charlie first. Watch the scene again. I did.


Actors do not have a job...they have a blast!

reply

[deleted]

Grabbing his daughter is not an assault, it's like grabbing your child back from doing something stupid, that is just a normal thing you could see on a public place, I've seen that a few times. Beside, she's under 18, so she needs his permission to go to somewhere he might not know.

--------
"I'm not your friend, buddy!"
Ghibli:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZpXwPdJIOJY

reply

> Grabbing his daughter is not an assault, it's like grabbing your child back from doing something stupid, that is just a normal thing

And, of course, sometimes you need to smack her as well because you are her parent and just trying to help her not do something stupid. And if you have to kill her to keep her from doing something stupid, well, that's just normal too, right?

> Beside, she's under 18, so she needs his permission to go to somewhere he might not know.

It didn't appear that he had ever exercised that option before. If you don't create boundaries and rules early in her life you can't suddenly make them up a few months before she becomes an adult.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

Wow, bing-57, is that the way you treat your children? is that what you call "normal"?
I can't believe you would say those things just to get back at me, are you sick in the head?
Don't tell me you've never seen parents grabbing their kids back from going out of their sights in public places?
Now I feel sorry for your kids man, I really do! My heart goes out for them right now man! I'm serious! The world is a horrible place for some people...

--------
"I'm not your friend, buddy!"
Ghibli:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZpXwPdJIOJY

reply

> Wow, bing-57, is that the way you treat your children? is that what you call "normal"?

Hmm. So, in addition to thinking it is okay to yanking your kids aqround I see you are not able to recognize hyperbole either.

> Don't tell me you've never seen parents grabbing their kids back from going out of their sights in public places?

Of course I have. Those are the parents who don't pay attention to the kids until the point where they have to grab them to pull them out of trouble. They are also going to be the first ones to smack or beat their kids to keep them out of trouble.

> Now I feel sorry for your kids man, I really do!

Thanks, but save it for your own kids, mine haven't been grabbed or smacked.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

You are a kind of person who likes to blow everything out of proportion aren't you? If I slap you, it doesn't mean that I stab you with a knife and try to kill you does it?
You thought of what he would do to his kid, not that he would do it and thought of it himself. The main point was that you assumed all of it yourself, while the only thing he did was grabbing her back.
There is nothing wrong with a parent who wants to hold his child back because he thinks she would do something stupid. You just thought he would harm her because you're so butt-hurt and insecure.

--------
"I'm not your friend, buddy!"
Ghibli:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZpXwPdJIOJY

reply

> You are a kind of person who likes to blow everything out of proportion aren't you?

This is coming from a person that tosses around insults like they were candy. That's rich.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

yeah but not everyone, just you.

--------
"I'm not your friend, buddy!"
Ghibli:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZpXwPdJIOJY

reply

So, bing-57, you've never seen anyone so much as grab their kids to at least get their attention when they're doing something wrong? You call yourself "correcting" everyone about discipline but you really haven't said what you thought was right. Only what you think is wrong. There's a right and wrong way to spank, smack, whip, or beat your kids(whatever you want to call it).

I've heard of plenty of people that THINK they turned out fine and that there's nothing wrong with how their parents treated them because they're not in prison or handicapped. There are far more ways to be damaged than those two circumstances and many times it won't boil to the surface until it's too late.

In spite of how much it may hurt your feelings, you actually can issue corporal punishment with love. There are too many parents that think beating you kids is all you need because the Bible condones it. Incorrect. If they don't know you love them and understand why you're spanking them, you might as well be a prison warden.




I spent my entire childhood growing up. What a waste.

reply

> There's a right and wrong way to spank, smack, whip, or beat your kids.

Hold on here. Tell me a little bit about this "right way" to whip and beat your kids that you speak of.

> In spite of how much it may hurt your feelings, you actually can issue corporal punishment with love.

So, it's the old, "This is going to hurt me more than you" martyrdom, right? "I'm only beating you because I love you and want to make sure you turn out right."

Wow. I didn't think that attitude still existed anymore outside of caves and fanatic religious compounds.

Good luck beating love into your children.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

a good parent spanks there children when they have done wrong

reply

> a good parent spanks there children when they have done wrong

And the Bible says that you should kill your daughter if she disobeys you. Does that make him a good father too?

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

Who are you to define the parameters of being a "good parent?" A lot of people would disagree with you that hitting children is good for them. Spanking IS hitting. Hitting is abuse. Have you seen the welts on a child's back when a parent loses it while "spanking" the child? Again, abuse.

Gardner grabbed his daughter's arm and that's not spanking, anyway.


Actors do not have a job...they have a blast!

reply

No he didn't. The principal grabbed his daughters arm, Charlie grabbed his. When The principal tries to pull away from Charlie, Charlie hits him.

And while we're at it, why didn't the cops show up after shots were fired?


How fast do you think the police are? The entire scene takes place over maybe 10 minutes.

And how did the principal sober up immediately by jumping in the pool? Most people who jump in the pool when they are that drunk will die.


Crazy *beep* sobers people up quick. He thought Charlie was going to drown. And where the hell do you get the idea that drunk people are incapable of swimming? You've never gone drunken skinny dipping have you?

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

> Crazy *beep* sobers people up quick.

You think so? Do you have any science to back up that claim? The science I've studied shows that "time" is the only thing that sobers people up.

> And where the hell do you get the idea that drunk people are incapable of swimming? You've never gone drunken skinny dipping have you?

"Tipsy" and "Stumbling Drunk" are two different things. If you can barely walk, I challenge you to be able to swim.

Drunken skinny dipping usually involves 3-4 beers and rarely includes anyone that is stumbling drunk.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

"You think so? Do you have any science to back up that claim? The science I've studied shows that "time" is the only thing that sobers people up."

Are you stupid? You couldn't possibly test this scientifically. As someone mentioned above, it's called a buzz kill. And I really doubt you've studied anything, because what you said is actually completely false.

""Tipsy" and "Stumbling Drunk" are two different things. If you can barely walk, I challenge you to be able to swim."

He was standing during the entire scene. Where do you get the idea that he could barely walk from the fact that he didn't sit down the entire time?

"Drunken skinny dipping usually involves 3-4 beers and rarely includes anyone that is stumbling drunk. "

No, and once again you're showing yourself to be an idiot. Not only that, but probably socially inept as well.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

> Are you stupid? You couldn't possibly test this scientifically. As someone mentioned above, it's called a buzz kill. And I really doubt you've studied anything, because what you said is actually completely false.

So, what you are really saying is that YOU have nothing to back up your claims except a few movie scenes where people instantly become sober when something scary happens.

> No, and once again you're showing yourself to be an idiot. Not only that, but probably socially inept as well.

Socially inept would be when you try to disagree with someone and all you can think to do is call them an idiot. Think about that.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

"So, what you are really saying is that YOU have nothing to back up your claims except a few movie scenes where people instantly become sober when something scary happens."

No, I and several other poster in this thread have personal experience with buzz kills.

"Socially inept would be when you try to disagree with someone and all you can think to do is call them an idiot. Think about that."

No, socially inept is claiming you know more than everyone else when it's clear to all that you know absolutely nothing.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

> I and several other poster in this thread have personal experience with buzz kills.

A "buzz kill" doesn't make you sober, it just makes you less happy. Your BAC level is exactly the same before and after your buzz is killed. Ask a police officer next time you see one.

In fact, no one would ever be arrested for DUI if your theory was even mildly true. Don't you think that flashing lights behind you is one of the biggest buzz kills possible? Yet, amazingly, when the cop makes you breath into the bag, you are still drunk as a skunk.

> Socially inept is claiming you know more than everyone else when it's clear to all that you know absolutely nothing.

I agree wholeheartedly. Would you care to explain some more how getting your buzz killed will remove alcohol from your blood?

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

You're clearly too stupid to bother with.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

> You're clearly too stupid to bother with.

Since you didn't bother trying to address the questions, I'll take that as submission.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

*beep* you *beep* ruining the boards. There are enough tools here trying to *beep* all over everything that we don't need your help too.

Hows about this: He was more emotional and angry than drunk, so when he thought Char was gonna drown he snapped himself back to reality.

Ta-Da!

Now please shut the *beep* up. You both are coming off as total trolls.

reply

> Hows about this: He was more emotional and angry than drunk, so when he thought Char was gonna drown he snapped himself back to reality.

Excellent! You rewrote the script and added your own behind-the-scenes stories just to make your opinion match what we saw on the screen. Bravo!

I'm going to have to start doing that myself so that more movies make sense.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

Ok... how much did you actually see him drink? How much was in the bottle? Is it possible it wasn't full to begin with? Had he drunk something else before hand? How high is his tolerance?

Once you can answer all these with something on screen (though he probably can drink like a beast, after all he is Tony Stark in disguise:D) then you shouldn't get in a huff that I'm subjecting this film to my interpretation. But given that they don't establish most of these I have to say that to to say that I'm rewriting the script is a bit far fetched

reply

> Once you can answer all these with something on screen

I can answer each of those points with the exact same level of confidence that you can have when you imply that he was NOT drunk.

Basically, all we each have to base our opinions is what we see on the screen. The producers are showing us the stereotypical very drunk man. He looks and acts like thousands of other very drunk men in thousands of other movies. That's what I based my opinion on.

There is nothing to imply that he is secretly not drunk at all. I still wonder what clues you used to arrive at your conclusion.

But the point that is really being address in this part of the thread is whether a very drunk person can be instantly sobered up by being suddenly shocked or scared. Medically or practically speaking, it doesn't work that way.

I suggested asking any cop whether this works, since being pulled over by a cop when you are drunk certainly should be a sobering experience, yet thousands of people every year remain drunk when they should have instantly sobered up.

Or ask a doctor.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

how about this idiot.

i have fallen down a flight of stairs when i was drunk(not the alcohol fault the floor gave out) the moment i hit the bottom of those steps i was in full control over my self and was sober right away,
having a high blood alcohol content does not mean you are drunk.

i know plenty of people who can down a couple dozen beers and some whiskey and still shoot a dear from 200 yards away dead center between the eyes

reply

everyone reacts differently to alcohol


i have downed a bottle of whiskey and an hour later i was completely sober

reply

Wouldn't have been assault, but he could have been arrested for battery.

reply

he did not assault charlie. he went grab his daughters arm to pull her back to him(which is entirely in his right as a father).
and charlie put his hands on him to stop him so he flicked his arm away. then charlie reacted by punching him.
that is considered assault in every state

reply

> he went grab his daughters arm to pull her back to him(which is entirely in his right as a father).

I'm not sure where you live, but in civilized parts of the world, you cannot painfully grab your daughter like that.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

I watched that scene again, and you're right, Bing. Here's how it went down:

--Gardner grabbed his daughter's arm
--Charlie grabbed Gardner's arm
--Gardner then slapped Charlie's arm away
--Charlie responded to the slap by punching Gardner in the face (which I thought was awesome, BTW)

So, yeah, Gardner assaulted Charlie first. I invite those who don't believe me to watch the scene again--slow motion helps.


Actors do not have a job...they have a blast!

reply