The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - Why Satisfying Is Not Often Smart
Why Satisfying Is Not Often Smart|
There's also the fact that using a gun on a possession is a pretty heavy implicit threat against the girl, in a "you're lucky I didn't do this to YOU" sort of way.
That too. (I hadn't considered, but yeah, holy fuck.)
Which may explain why the girl didn't press charges against her dad (which she certainly could have.)
oh gods i hadn't thought of any of this. but yes.
Yeah. In general if someone puts a bullet through your private property you have some serious charges you could file even if it's your dad.
In some states, his rants accompanied by the gun would count as assault with a deadly weapon. (Legally assault means "a threat either direct or implied") and I'd say the threat is both direct and implied here.
He's certainly guilty of destruction of private property, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief and unlawful discharge of a firearm which put together would be jail time at minimum and a light prison sentence if he has any priors (and certainly the loss of his gun permit.)
I find it amusing that he considers selling the laptop on eBay to be theft, but doesn't consider his wanton destruction of it to be a problem.
I've been making the argument that the use of the firearm was irresponsible at best, and an implicit threat at worst, and having a hard time getting people to believe me.
I've had people telling me that using the gun on her property is the same as using it on a paper target. It's not a threat, he was just breaking the thing that he bought.
Yeah, nothing scary about him putting several rounds into the laptop with his super exploding +2 rounds of doom.
But apparently, it wasn't something he bought, according to bart_calendar
The father's actual implementation of the firearm was done well. He fired at the ground to reduce the chance of the bullet hitting someone else, and kept control of the gun as he was shooting. But his actual use of it, using it to fire on something of his daughter's, was not a responsible use of a weapon. In doing so, he equated a punishment to the destruction of property with a lethal weapon.
To say nothing of the comments on the damn video. I've seen enough disgusting comments about using the gun on her next - if nothing else, even if the family is okay with what happened, that video normalizes the use of a weapon in family disputes, and the comments can give an abuser the assurance that, if they chooses to use force on his or her family, there are people out there who support that decision.
|Date:||February 13th, 2012 04:36 pm (UTC)|| |
If the laptop was 'owned' by the parents though, could charges be levied? Since he'd made a comment about getting her own laptop if she wanted to say that stuff, then it implies he maintains financial control over the laptop she use(s/d).
Heck there is even violation of privacy in a way since he had to go to look for her stuff on the computer he was updating, it isn't like facebook autoloads upon boot of windows...hrm though these days I suppose it isn't far off.
She paid for the laptop with her own money. Her parents didn't own it in any way, shape or form.
|Date:||February 13th, 2012 06:18 pm (UTC)|| |
Ahhh I missed that little gem of a tidbit, thanks!
|Date:||February 14th, 2012 04:19 pm (UTC)|| |
And even if the parents bought it for her he kept referring to it as "hers" which to me implies that it would have been a gift, making it her property.
But knowing she bought it just makes it that much worse.
this whole thing is just awful. :(
It might be really interesting if she did. That would be an amusing case of her working the system against her dad, bringing in larger powers to show that he can't get away with it.
The problem is that it's not a really safe idea to file charges against someone you know owns a handgun and who you also live with. How does she know that if/when he makes bail he doesn't shoot her - and more likely than not she doesn't want to get stuck into the Child Protective Services system which would be the result.
Actually i take it back-it depends on where she is.
You really think so? Youve been living in France too long. The cops wouldve been like "get the fuck out of here."
|Date:||February 13th, 2012 10:39 pm (UTC)|| |
Yeah, dude posted on facebook that the cops came by and congratulated him for his actions.
Given my background, that's immediately how I read it. It's scary.
if you put stock in the theory that we seek out "our parents" as mates/romantic partners I am not looking forward to peeking at this girls life in 5 years..
I had given up on the video before that final dramatic moment, but reading Ferrett's post, I realized what he did and yeah, yowza.
Crikey, as my husband would say.
|Date:||February 13th, 2012 04:42 pm (UTC)|| |
This is what freaks me out the MOST about this video. He's basically saying that if he gets pissed off enough, he will bring out his gun.
It's very much an implied threat, whether or not he meant it to be. It scares the living shit out of me.
|Date:||February 13th, 2012 05:35 pm (UTC)|| |
Temper tantrum with weapons = this man shouldn't be allowed near weapons. I agree on the implied threat.
Indeed. The choice of destructive implement is what concerns me far more than anything else.
Blowing it up with a firecracker? Good clean fun. Shooting it? Implied threat. And implied threats aren't good anything.