For some reason, many folks on here believe that the grandfather was wrong for trying to protect the children. I hope those folks aren't at the pool when my wife takes the grandkids. You are assuming that the suspect is innocent. You are saying that the grandfather should have taken his grandkid and left, thereby alleviating any possibility of an altercation. That leaves two ten year olds in the pool if they were not under the supervision of the grandfather. Ok, you established guilt on the grandfather because he didn't avoid confrontation. Let's take that scenario further. Suppose, instead of confronting the suspect, he left with his grandchild, leaving the other two in the pool with the 41 year old suspect. Rather than assuming his innocence and the grandfather's guilt, lets assume the 41 yr old is a pervert. Hey, assumptions go both ways. What happens to those two children? How would that grandfather feel if he left them to their plight and they were molested? How would you feel about the grandfather then? Still guilty, right? So, no matter what he does, or doesn't do, he earned your skeptical conviction of guilt. Now, assume that the grandfather sees this character that appears shady (liberal interpretation since everyone else has been quite liberal with theirs) and tells the girls to get out of the pool. Perhaps the 41 yo is offended and stalks (liberal interpretation) up to the grandfather and accuses him of insinuating that he is a pervert to his children. The grandfather attempts to deny this and the 41yo strikes him and they fight. Is it still the grandfather's fault because he couldn't avoid the altercation? How about if the grandfather told the kids to get out of the pool and away from that pervert (liberal interp) and tried to leave, when the 41 yo stepped in front of him and started shouting. Gramps tries to step around him when he is suddenly punched in the face or shoved. He tries to escape, shouting his protest and attempting to call the police. The guy grabs his phone and runs, leaping over the fence. Gramps, trying to get his phone back, jumps after him but can't catch him. Is it still Gramp's fault? Perhaps if he wouldn't have removed the children from the pool and thereby embarrassing the gentleman, he could have avoided the altercation?
The facts are that John Gagnon had been arrested on at least two previous occasions for assault and drug related charges. I'm sure these were not his fault.
The article that I read, suggested that gramps told his grandkid to leave the pool and asked Gagnon why he was talking to the kids. Gagnon gave him a smart a** response and told gramps to come get a piece of him. Then he struck gramps in the face. Although, I could see how gramps could have gotten "livid" even if the article did not suggest that. I didn't see in the article where gagnon was accused of anything, but just asked why he was talking to the children. Perhaps, he was on drugs or intoxicated and that sent off alarms in gramps. Who knows, but I wouldn't automatically assume that gramps caused the problem. It appears by gagnon's back ground criminal violations, that he is not the paragon of civility.
Hero is loosely defined as one with courage and honor. It takes courage to stand up for what you think is right, and against one much younger than you.
Could this have been avoided. No doubt. Does it take two to dance, yep. I still applaud Grandpa for his courage and honor. Until someone shows me where he was out of line, I'll stick to that.
|