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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.