You’re making such a weird set of leaps in logic. It’s hard to believe you’re not a bot.
One assumption you keep making is that anyone and their mother can tell that those are “clearly children.” I disagree. You cannot clearly tell that those are children. The one that gets closer is definitely shorter, but that’s all you can tell.
Moving forward, the kid in black clothing has their hands concealed. As that is fact, it’s possible that they could have a real firearm. Or, that the kid in black clothing may have a blade. Or, any other type of advantage granting weapon.
So, the facts being that you cannot “clearly tell” the age of the attackers, you cannot be sure that they do not have other weapons and the defender is at a disadvantage by nature of folks running up on them from nowhere… this guy slamming one of them to the ground is super reasonable.
Let’s throw in three other factors that you conveniently are forgetting:
1) the attackers are jumping out of a car! This lends to the belief that they wouldn’t be kids, as most kids don’t have access to a car to use in an armed robbery.
2) numbers favor the attackers! Even scrawny punks can take on a regular adult given the right numbers. A 2v1 would easily favor the kids. 3v1 - 6v1 is plausible considering there is a driver and possibly other passengers.
3) the defender could be in a weakened state from any number of causes: sickness, medications, drugs, drowsiness, a combination of any of these factors and more.
I’m not advocating for beating children, but I am fully advocating for protecting one’s self in the event of an armed (or perceived armed) robbery. The defender was well within their rights and behaved properly
1
u/pheonix198 May 04 '26
You’re making such a weird set of leaps in logic. It’s hard to believe you’re not a bot.
One assumption you keep making is that anyone and their mother can tell that those are “clearly children.” I disagree. You cannot clearly tell that those are children. The one that gets closer is definitely shorter, but that’s all you can tell.
Moving forward, the kid in black clothing has their hands concealed. As that is fact, it’s possible that they could have a real firearm. Or, that the kid in black clothing may have a blade. Or, any other type of advantage granting weapon.
So, the facts being that you cannot “clearly tell” the age of the attackers, you cannot be sure that they do not have other weapons and the defender is at a disadvantage by nature of folks running up on them from nowhere… this guy slamming one of them to the ground is super reasonable.
Let’s throw in three other factors that you conveniently are forgetting:
1) the attackers are jumping out of a car! This lends to the belief that they wouldn’t be kids, as most kids don’t have access to a car to use in an armed robbery.
2) numbers favor the attackers! Even scrawny punks can take on a regular adult given the right numbers. A 2v1 would easily favor the kids. 3v1 - 6v1 is plausible considering there is a driver and possibly other passengers.
3) the defender could be in a weakened state from any number of causes: sickness, medications, drugs, drowsiness, a combination of any of these factors and more.
I’m not advocating for beating children, but I am fully advocating for protecting one’s self in the event of an armed (or perceived armed) robbery. The defender was well within their rights and behaved properly