I agree that the article was lacking in detail. However, you seem to want to charge the grandfather with fault in the matter. You state that it would not have happened if the grandfather would have ignored a possible problem and took his child away, ignoring the fact that there were at least two other little children in the pool too. Don't get me wrong, he may have been culpable, but there is no indication that he was. There was charges against the other subject though. We can't rewrite the incident to suit our liberal feelings, against the written claims. We also can't take liberties with the information to form another totally unfounded scenario. But, conversation is interesting if not imaginative on here.

Wow, now it's grandpa fault. Did grandpa walk up to children and try to start conversation, especially saying he likes to talk to young girls? NO. Would that not be red flag To any of use with children? I sure we don't know nothing what when on, except grandpa got attacked and his property stolen for the accused to escape. Those are the facts we know we can assume what we think when on, but it don't look good for the younger villager does it!

Wouldn't it be viewed different being strange man ( young or old) talking to very young girls alone away from guardians? Just saying you being lady would not be scrutinized like men are?

I think I would vote for keeping the dogs at the family pool and inviting the Victoria's Secret models to the adult pool:icon_wink:

I do not think I am taking liberty with the information just making the assumption that the Sumter County Sheriff's Office knows what it is doing. It did not charge the man with anything like making sexual advances on a minor. The grandfather charged into accusing the man without real evidence that he did anything wrong and the man got justifiably upset. Striking the grandfather is a criminal charge as is stealing the grandfather's cell phone. There probably would be other charges tacking on like evading arrest if this were not a situation where one hothead seems to have taken on another hothead. This is from the information Redwitch provided about the arguments at the pool heard by a TOTVer. I am a victim advocate as I have repeatedly said here since 2007 taking great risks with my career to improve victims' access to practical information accessible through or in libraries since January 1991 in my 224 613 Proejct. But, there is also common sense and accepting that most of the time the people involved in law enforcement investigations like this one, know exactly what they are doing. Try to empathize with each of the people in this real life drama. It sounds like the grandfather went way overboard protecting his grandchild. I do not have all the facts but assume that the Sumter County Sheriff's Office did a thorough investigation of this.

I will watch and see how this case is resolved. I do think that a good defense lawyer has a lot to work with in this one.

I joined the priority pools. They are also family pools. Kids pretty much every day in the summer and holiday season.

I partially agree with you. But I think TV has designated too many pools for children. All the family pools and all the priority (country club) pools allow kids. North of 466, there are not that many adult only pools. And the sport pools are not designed for relaxing. In fact, one cannot go there and just lay out in a chair in the sun; there are only benches.

I was taught by a very wise professor years ago that I have the right to swing my fist all I want. However, my right to swing my fist, ended where his nose begins. The same is true for inappropriate behaviour, speech and actions in the presence of others. Something some seem to have forgotten. It's called civility.

Don't bother us with your sensible, well-written posts. :icon_wink:

Sorry, bad habit:bigbow:

I was taught the same thing.


And others who loved me chimed in. People who swagger and brag they are strong and have all kinds of degrees in martial arts makes everyone wonder why they are saying that. Most smart people don't EVER have to use force in their lives. EVER. They work hard to live where it is safe-er. They don't do unnecessary confrontations. They sense trouble and avoid it, are diplomatic in their speech and gently back away from folks who look dangerous.


Howsomever, I would and could rip apart anyone who tried to harm my children....but...if their teacher or a neighbor said they had eaten the strawberries or were late for class I would believe the teacher or neighbor and my kids would hear an earful.


As I said before, I would have gotten those kids OUT of the pool. NOW.
But I am NOT a grandfather, I am a grandmother, and men's instincts are different.

I'm sorry, but I read the story and didn't see anything in there that seemed to indicate that it was the grandfather's fault. Either I missed it, you have information that I didn't know about, or you are seeing it different than what's stated. Even if what you indicate is true, that the grandfather was the hothead and shouted at the poor gent that was just having a conversation with three children, I don't see anywhere in the statutes where that is cause for an assault. If anything, I would say that it is the suspect that should have walked away, even if unjustly accused by the grandfather. But, maybe you have information that the rest of us don't have. Personally, I still figure the grandfather as a hero for protecting his grandchild, whether warranted or not. I would rather err on the side of protection than to ignore possible dangerous situations. If what you say is true and that same grandfather jumped in my face, I would attempt to reason with him in a low voice, assuring him that there was nothing untoward happening, and then if that didn't calm him, I would take my leave. I would not punch him and steal his cell phone. With a background conviction of assault, I think we know who was at fault and since the police didn't arrest the granddad, then it should be obvious it wasn't granddad that was wrong, but indeed wronged.
"Granddads lives matter too." :thumbup:

Just an observation, but I have noticed that those without children seem to take a much different view of how children should go about their daily lives. Children should feel secure and unafraid when they play. Too bad if some folks feel that all the pools should be there to cater to them only. Perhaps they should find an assisted living residence that has a private pool where they won't have to worry about hearing children laugh and play. Just my opinion.

My opinion may be wrong. I read two articles regarding the incident. Neither one of them provided much detail. I allow that my view of the incident is based only on the information I have available and it could be flawed. If this suspect is innocent then the court should reveal that. But, to immediately jump to the conclusion that he did this because the grandfather accosted him, and then blame the grandfather for causing the situation, just seems a bit skewed to me. I don't buy it.

The second part of my diatribe was addressing the family pool discussion and not your conversation regarding the cause of the assault. It probably could have been separate.

I do not see any heroes in the situation. Also, no reason to charge the grandfather with anything as he is the "victim" in the battery. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The grandfather contributed to the confrontation though unless the cops did not have enough evidence to charge this man for trying to pick up the girls in the pool. There should have been evidence though if the police interviewed people at the pool like these three kids. I am assuming that the girls were asked about what the man was talking with them about before the grandfather got so livid.

I do not see someone who gets into a rage without getting the facts as a hero.

Where are you getting this information? You must have a source of information that I didn't see.

"The grandfather contributed to the confrontation" ????
"before the grandfather got so livid" ????

Is this something that was quoted from a witness, or are you embellishing what you believe happened in your mind? Just asking because maybe I am wrong, if what you say is true.

"I do not see someone that gets into a RAGE without getting the facts as a hero." ???? What facts do you have that the grandfather did not have?

I thought you were a lawyer, but after reading your interpretation, it sounds like you have written a totally different incident. Maybe you have more details of the incident that you could share? Because I totally don't see it the way you are seeing it, just based on that article. No offense meant. I mean this as a question, not as an insult or trying to be derisive. I am really curious. If you are embellishing the story, then you are tainting this as would a defense lawyer would in court.

Based on what information I have right now, I applaud the grandfather for attempting to protect those children from what he conceived to be a possible threat, real or implied. I certainly would hope that someone such as that gentleman would be around if my grandchildren were possibly/possibly accosted at the pool. Yep, until I get more facts, he is a hero and the other guy is a suspected criminal.

I don't look for trouble. I would rather walk away from a confrontation. But, when it comes to protection of others, I will stand my ground, whether I know the victim or not. We need more folks that will stand up for those less able to defend themselves. If that is old fashioned, I don't apologize. If my wife ever needs assistance and I find out that someone didn't want to get involved, shame on them.

It is not the grandfather that should have walked away, but the suspect. If the grandfather was wrong, the suspect should have been the one to walk away, not the grandfather. If the suspect would have walked away then there would probably not have been a fight and he wouldn't have found it necessary to steal the cell phone. Sorry, but regardless of whether or not the grandfather was wrong, the other guy could have avoided the confrontation and the criminal charges. If the grandfather would have pursued the guy, then it would have been the grandfather being charged. I was not there and I have not seen any details that suggested that the grandfather did anything wrong. I am not saying that this information does not exist. I just haven't seen anything to suggest the embellishments of facts in your comment.

Just one more point I would like to share. When I was in Turkey, a friend of mine parked his car legally on the side of the street. During the day, another car ran into his car, damaging it. Who's fault was it? The police found both cars to be at fault because one ran into the other and the other was at fault because it was parked (legally) in that spot. If the car was not there, then it would not have been damaged. That is how they see vehicle accidents. I understand how you might feel that the incident would not have occurred if the grandfather was not there, so therefore the fault should be shared.

I think Tal got some of his ideas from one of my posts. If you read all of the posts, someone said that they had heard a lot of shouting and cursing as they drove by in their golf cart. From what I could gather, it was at least two parties yelling at each other.

Personally, if someone were to accuse me of something nefarious because I was talking to some kids, I would try to explain my innocence and assure whomever no harm was meant. If I was the grandparent feeling my grandson was in danger, I'm not sure I would really hear what was being said. I can easily see this turning into a serious confrontation. i don't know the facts, but I sincerely doubt the grandfather was entirely innocent in this whole mess. I think it probably could have been handled better by both of these men. And why should someone have to leave a pool if doing nothing wrong just because someone else perceives wrongdoing?

I totally agree ! There's a lot to this we don't know and we probably will never know the whole story. Everything here is pretty much speculation

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.

Somebody's slacking. We are 137 posts into this thread and no one has thrown out the ubiquitous "Granddad might be in the early stages of dementia" theory.

Maybe the young guy asked the kids to quiet down and quit screaming, or go down to the other end of the pool and leave him alone. This probably woke grandpa up from his nap, and upset him that anyone would think his grandchildren were anything but perfect little angels. The young guy may have told grandpa that the kids were making too much noise, which sent grandpa into a hissy fit. The young guy, seeing that grandpa was angrily moving toward him, decided in a split second to defend himself by throwing a punch just as grandpa was bringing his arm up to throw his own hay maker. It may have been a case of a younger quicker man beating an older slower man to the punch. In all the excitement, the traumatized young man grabbed what he thought was his phone (they all pretty much look alike), and decided to get out of there before grandpa got up and fetched a firearm that was in a bag over by the chair where he was sleeping. At any rate, it looks like it could have just been a misunderstanding that grandpa escalated because he's p!ssed off that the MMPs are going to be striped and the tree killers are not going to have to serve any prison time.

:coolsmiley:

Contact the people with a lot of posts on the tree cutting thread.......they will get you the whole story.

Thanks. My assumptions about the grandfather are from the information that no sexual advances on a minor charges are anywhere suggested as having been placed against the man who hit the grandfather. The articles I have read suggest that the grandfather was protecting the kids from unwanted attentions of the 41 year old.

And I do not see challenging a younger man as something heroic unless a physical confrontation is in your mindset to begin with.

The heroic thing have been to get the kids out of the pool as soon as possible, find out what the man had actually said to the kids, and then call 9/11 if there was anything criminal in a man getting too close to young children in a pool. Talk to witnesses too in order to see if they heard anything criminal in comments made to the kids. Again, I am also assuming that the Sumter County Sheriff's Office did their professional duty and actually investigated what happened and when at that pool.

:clap2:

:icon_wink:

Yes, we all know that old folks are always cranky and get angry at the least provoking. That's why they hang out at the pool, to soak their aching bones and bunions. We can all sympathize with a younger guy that is probably detoxing from his drug habit and trying to ease his lonely, misunderstood feelings by chatting with three young people. People that are young enough not to misinterpret his scrungy appearance and blood shot eyes. Too bad that old hard case had to interrupt him while he was in his peaceful zone. He hardly even hit the old guy, and only took his cell phone because his own had a dead battery. He was just going to call the police for protection against the demented old guy that was shouting and screaming at him about.. what??? What's this about his pants hanging too low? What??? What children? Were there children in the pool? Put your teeth in when you are hollering at me, you old fool! I don't understand anything you are shouting about. This guy is going to have a coronary if I don't leave real fast. Yep, I am saving his life by running away. I'll call for a medic with his phone. There's the police now. I'll just wave them over and give them directions to where the old fool is located. They'll know how to help him until the medics get there. What?? Why are you handcuffing me? You don't understand, I was just minding my own business. I wasn't bothering anyone. I just want to help the old guy. I am a good Samaritan.

MDL, not going to copy your response (too long and too much of a pain to edit it on iPad) but do want to respond to a couple of points. I don't see anyone saying the younger guy is innocent. In fact, I think most of us firmly believe arresting him for striking the grandfather and for the theft of the phone was the right course of action. I think we're saying the grandfather may well have escalated the whole thing. I don't see his actions as heroic nor do I see them as villainous. I see them as perfectly human. Humans have a tendency to overreact. We say and do many wrong things when our adrenaline is flowing. I do believe both men probably overreacted. Our justice system will have to sort this out.

:agree:

you're a master of your words..until you speak them

Uh, MDL was kidding.....

:agree:

Just words. Words to make one think, but not very good at expressing them.

Have a great day, all. It was an interesting conversation, and I value all of you and your opinions. I am out numbered so I will take a gentle retreat....and get a haircut..:icon_wink:

Parting shot:

He is my HERO... until I get to know him. :spoken:

Sad to think this is happening in our community

There are not that many hotheads in the Villages fortunately. Two seemed to have crossed paths in this instance. And, sexual advances on minors is quite rare in the Villages as far as I know. Of course, relative to other communities of our size we have very few kids around.

Today on the other site: :ohdear: He has been granted “indigent status” and will be represented by the public defender.

My question - Tal, why don't you jump in and defend him and save us tax payers a few bucks? :coolsmiley:

:thumbup::agree:

I will have to watch this as it develops. https://www2.myfloridacounty.com/ccm/?county=60

https://www2.myfloridacounty.com/ccm...d75b03b4229532

Yes, perhaps they will release this guy out to the community again, because he is such a shining example of civility. :icon_wink:

Woman allegedly stalked in Villages and in Lady Lake.
 

There was an underage Villager reported to have been allegedly stalking a woman around Lady Lake and the Villages according to the site with no name. I was a victim/survivor of a female stalker along with my then live-in girlfriend Jennifer V., back when I was doing some reference work, cataloging foreign language books and finishing up the WESTLAW cataloging project at the University of Minnesota Law Library. This was for most of the 1989-1990 academic year. And I remember that Jennifer complained bitterly to the then Law Librarian, M. Kathleen Price about the stalker Gail P. Gail P., had targeted a Math Professor at the University of Minnesota and had chained herself to his desk. She was at the reference desk while I was working and at other times too because she was working on her defense against charges brought by him.

The University of Minnesota at that time could not do much about Gail P., until she followed me home and I confronted her about it.

Looking back I do think she was slightly mentally ill or just terribly lonely.

Jennifer V., was a student of mine at Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners who asked me to move in with her after I graduated from Law School in 1989. A Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners legal secretary played match-maker and persuaded her to just ask me to move in with her as a way of really getting to know me. Jennifer V., went on to be a Prosecutor in a small town in Iowa before moving on to something else.

Jennifer V., did try to talk me out of fighting for law libraries getting more practical materials in their collections for survivors/victims of crimes ( what would become my 224 613 Project) as did many of my friends from the University of Minnesota Law School but I can be incredibly stubborn when I get my teeth into something that I know has to be done.

Anyway, I just wanted to relate my experiences with stalking and mention the survivor/victim of an alleged stalking here recently in the Villages and Lady Lake. It seems to be with domestic violence a rather common crime. I did try to help Gail P., with her legal research defending herself from the U of MN Math Professor but that was just doing my job as a reference librarian. What resulted was almost a full academic year of stalking of me and Jennifer V., and what seemed to be an impotent U of MN police Dep't in taking actions to stop this stalking.

M. Kathleen Price would become the Law Librarian of Congress around 1991 through 1995. Then go onto to be Law Librarian at NYU and finally to the University of Florida.

What does this have to do with the incident?

I am talking about ANOTHER matter brought up by the site that must not be named. That's the alleged stalking of a woman by a Villages under 55 man. I was just informing people about my own experiences with a stalker but this was for a much longer period and during a period where the law did not give victims/survivors that many rights and/or options. This was primarily at an extremely liberal law school library in 1989-1990.

I did not want to start another thread for yet another "underage and causing a problem" person who was arrested here in the Villages for allegedly doing something criminal.

Empathy is extremely important for understanding the needs of victims/survivors of crimes. Especially when this relates to informational needs in libraries or accessible through libraries. https://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-p...esource-center