Another kid broke my son's jaw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I submit a health insurance claim the form asks me if it was a result of an accident or other injury. Isn’t this why?

If it's an accident, my insurance covers the first visit 100 percent.

The insurance company wants to know whom to sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t your son the instigator?

Suppose so. Seems like a broken jaw may be taking it a bit far. Anger management issues perhaps?

Maybe but what are you looking for?

Not sure, that's obviously why I posted here. I'm upset some kid broke my son's jaw as I'm sure any parent would be. There were 5 other kids there so I'm sure I will be getting all sides of the story. I'm not looking for retribution or revenge. But I do think the kid should be held responsible for inflicting a serious injury. Apparently most of you would just let it go and that's fine. I'm just not sure what to do.

You have no business investigating this on your own. This is a police matter. Call them immediately.

If it were me I’d be embarrassed that I raised a son who can’t keep his hands to himself. I would think that I failed as a parent because my son went off to college but couldn’t manage a basic skill like not assaulting someone else, even when they give him a warning. I’d let him work this out himself so that he could LEARN some essential adult skills.

It’s alsk interesting that you posted this in ‘Tweens & Teens’ - even if he’s 18 or 19 he’s an adult. You’ve clearly been excusing his behavior for a long time and sweeping things under the rug otherwise he wouldn’t be acting like this. You’re not doing him any favors by coddling him.

DP. I think many people would post here because that's where they have been posting for years. OP, son has only been away at college for less than a year, it's not egregious posting her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You are obviously not a lawyer and don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Sorry, I didn't see the sign where it said lawyers only on DCUM.

GTFOH.

You can't opine on legal questions, get it wrong, then complain that the lawyers call you out for being dead wrong. The issue of intent is almost always related to "foreseeable consequences of your actions." There are varying levels of criminal "intent" and proportional response that could come into play if self-defense is asserted. But, at the most basic level, our legal system tends to holds people responsible for the natural, foreseeable consequences of their intentional actions. Hard to say that a broken jaw was not such a consequence of a punch.

The questions is not did the puncher intend to break the jaw, but did the puncher intend to punch someone in the face + is it foreseeable (by a reasonable person) that someone's jaw might break if you punch them in the face.

+1 There's some weird posts on this threat attacking the OP's kid for a whole lot of things OP never said he did.

And right here is the difference between lawyers and other people. I am a petite woman who doesn’t like violence and generally doesn’t think punching people is a good idea. That being said, if the events are as the OP claimed, I certainly wouldn’t find fault with the boy who punched OP’s son. I mean, you know not to put your hands on someone else, especially after they tell you to knock it off. Talk about natural consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You are obviously not a lawyer and don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Sorry, I didn't see the sign where it said lawyers only on DCUM.

GTFOH.

You can't opine on legal questions, get it wrong, then complain that the lawyers call you out for being dead wrong. The issue of intent is almost always related to "foreseeable consequences of your actions." There are varying levels of criminal "intent" and proportional response that could come into play if self-defense is asserted. But, at the most basic level, our legal system tends to holds people responsible for the natural, foreseeable consequences of their intentional actions. Hard to say that a broken jaw was not such a consequence of a punch.

The questions is not did the puncher intend to break the jaw, but did the puncher intend to punch someone in the face + is it foreseeable (by a reasonable person) that someone's jaw might break if you punch them in the face.

+1 There's some weird posts on this threat attacking the OP's kid for a whole lot of things OP never said he did.

And right here is the difference between lawyers and other people. I am a petite woman who doesn’t like violence and generally doesn’t think punching people is a good idea. That being said, if the events are as the OP claimed, I certainly wouldn’t find fault with the boy who punched OP’s son. I mean, you know not to put your hands on someone else, especially after they tell you to knock it off. Talk about natural consequences.

It sounds like a classic case of failure to control ones temper, making it unsafe for the punching kid to be left on a campus. You know, with other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You are obviously not a lawyer and don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Sorry, I didn't see the sign where it said lawyers only on DCUM.

GTFOH.

You can't opine on legal questions, get it wrong, then complain that the lawyers call you out for being dead wrong. The issue of intent is almost always related to "foreseeable consequences of your actions." There are varying levels of criminal "intent" and proportional response that could come into play if self-defense is asserted. But, at the most basic level, our legal system tends to holds people responsible for the natural, foreseeable consequences of their intentional actions. Hard to say that a broken jaw was not such a consequence of a punch.

The questions is not did the puncher intend to break the jaw, but did the puncher intend to punch someone in the face + is it foreseeable (by a reasonable person) that someone's jaw might break if you punch them in the face.

+1 There's some weird posts on this threat attacking the OP's kid for a whole lot of things OP never said he did.

And right here is the difference between lawyers and other people. I am a petite woman who doesn’t like violence and generally doesn’t think punching people is a good idea. That being said, if the events are as the OP claimed, I certainly wouldn’t find fault with the boy who punched OP’s son. I mean, you know not to put your hands on someone else, especially after they tell you to knock it off. Talk about natural consequences.

It sounds like a classic case of failure to control ones temper, making it unsafe for the punching kid to be left on a campus. You know, with other people.

You are safe around him unless you keep repeatedly touching him. In which case, you don't deserve to be safe, you deserve a face-punch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You are obviously not a lawyer and don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Sorry, I didn't see the sign where it said lawyers only on DCUM.

GTFOH.

You can't opine on legal questions, get it wrong, then complain that the lawyers call you out for being dead wrong. The issue of intent is almost always related to "foreseeable consequences of your actions." There are varying levels of criminal "intent" and proportional response that could come into play if self-defense is asserted. But, at the most basic level, our legal system tends to holds people responsible for the natural, foreseeable consequences of their intentional actions. Hard to say that a broken jaw was not such a consequence of a punch.

The questions is not did the puncher intend to break the jaw, but did the puncher intend to punch someone in the face + is it foreseeable (by a reasonable person) that someone's jaw might break if you punch them in the face.

+1 There's some weird posts on this threat attacking the OP's kid for a whole lot of things OP never said he did.

And right here is the difference between lawyers and other people. I am a petite woman who doesn’t like violence and generally doesn’t think punching people is a good idea. That being said, if the events are as the OP claimed, I certainly wouldn’t find fault with the boy who punched OP’s son. I mean, you know not to put your hands on someone else, especially after they tell you to knock it off. Talk about natural consequences.

Petite woman you are a nutcase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You are obviously not a lawyer and don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Sorry, I didn't see the sign where it said lawyers only on DCUM.

GTFOH.

You can't opine on legal questions, get it wrong, then complain that the lawyers call you out for being dead wrong. The issue of intent is almost always related to "foreseeable consequences of your actions." There are varying levels of criminal "intent" and proportional response that could come into play if self-defense is asserted. But, at the most basic level, our legal system tends to holds people responsible for the natural, foreseeable consequences of their intentional actions. Hard to say that a broken jaw was not such a consequence of a punch.

The questions is not did the puncher intend to break the jaw, but did the puncher intend to punch someone in the face + is it foreseeable (by a reasonable person) that someone's jaw might break if you punch them in the face.

+1 There's some weird posts on this threat attacking the OP's kid for a whole lot of things OP never said he did.

And right here is the difference between lawyers and other people. I am a petite woman who doesn’t like violence and generally doesn’t think punching people is a good idea. That being said, if the events are as the OP claimed, I certainly wouldn’t find fault with the boy who punched OP’s son. I mean, you know not to put your hands on someone else, especially after they tell you to knock it off. Talk about natural consequences.

It sounds like a classic case of failure to control ones temper, making it unsafe for the punching kid to be left on a campus. You know, with other people.

You are safe around him unless you keep repeatedly touching him. In which case, you don't deserve to be safe, you deserve a face-punch.

Tell that to the judge.

[Anonymous]

But isn't there cause and effect too?

If the OP's son had kept his hands to himself & never provoked this kid (twice) this whole scenario wouldn't have even occurred.
Didn't OP's son precipitate the end result?

Does OP's son have ZERO liability in this situation?
It seems to me that he set in motion a series of actions that resulted in him getting punched, had he not been messing around none of it would have happened.

So I ask again to all of the attorneys... does OP's son have any liability?

[Anonymous]

Seems OP's son shares accountability.

[Anonymous]

Seems like OP’s son is the sibling who keeps chanting “I’m not touching you. I’m not touching you.” while jabbing his finger millimeters from your skin. Then, when you finally whack him, he wails bloody murder. Only at that point, does mom turn around. And it’s you that gets grounded.

[Anonymous]

Sorry OP, but this is your son's fault. He shouldn't have touched the other kid and certainly should have stopped when asked. I'm guessing the other kid didn't mean to break his jaw, so in that case I would report it as an accident.

I don't care about legal liability, your son set this all in motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry OP, but this is your son's fault. He shouldn't have touched the other kid and certainly should have stopped when asked. I'm guessing the other kid didn't mean to break his jaw, so in that case I would report it as an accident.

I don't care about legal liability, your son set this all in motion.

op left this thread long ago. It’s just a few trolls who keep bumping it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^You are obviously not a lawyer and don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Sorry, I didn't see the sign where it said lawyers only on DCUM.

GTFOH.

You can't opine on legal questions, get it wrong, then complain that the lawyers call you out for being dead wrong. The issue of intent is almost always related to "foreseeable consequences of your actions." There are varying levels of criminal "intent" and proportional response that could come into play if self-defense is asserted. But, at the most basic level, our legal system tends to holds people responsible for the natural, foreseeable consequences of their intentional actions. Hard to say that a broken jaw was not such a consequence of a punch.

The questions is not did the puncher intend to break the jaw, but did the puncher intend to punch someone in the face + is it foreseeable (by a reasonable person) that someone's jaw might break if you punch them in the face.

+1 There's some weird posts on this threat attacking the OP's kid for a whole lot of things OP never said he did.

And right here is the difference between lawyers and other people. I am a petite woman who doesn’t like violence and generally doesn’t think punching people is a good idea. That being said, if the events are as the OP claimed, I certainly wouldn’t find fault with the boy who punched OP’s son. I mean, you know not to put your hands on someone else, especially after they tell you to knock it off. Talk about natural consequences.

It sounds like a classic case of failure to control ones temper, making it unsafe for the punching kid to be left on a campus. You know, with other people.

You are safe around him unless you keep repeatedly touching him. In which case, you don't deserve to be safe, you deserve a face-punch.

Tell that to the judge.

+1 I’m freajed out by how many people are defending a punch to the face in this situation. I don’t know anyone IRL like this (I hope!!?). Scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time I submit a health insurance claim the form asks me if it was a result of an accident or other injury. Isn’t this why?

If it's an accident, my insurance covers the first visit 100 percent.

The insurance company wants to know whom to sue.

Maybe, but it also distinguishes between illness and accident. They pay for the initial visit including X-rays/tests for an accident 100 percent, even if they don't sue anyone.

[Anonymous]

File charges. It's a no brainer!