You may want to reread your post. The way it is worded you are without doubt putting blame on Barker for the bottle. There is no evidence Barker was involved. Yes, he was with the people that were involved but does that alone mean Barker deserved what he got?

 

I said Barker who ALONG with another wildcat beat Scurry. I know exactly how I worded it. If Barker was with the people involved, yes that means he was involved. No one besides the people present knows the full extent of each parties involvement. I simply said it wasn't completely undeserved. Not like he was just randomly struck on the side of the street for absolutely no reason.

I said Barker who ALONG with another wildcat beat Scurry. I know exactly how I worded it. If Barker was with the people involved, yes that means he was involved. No one besides the people present knows the full extent of each parties involvement. I simply said it wasn't completely undeserved. Not like he was just randomly struck on the side of the street for absolutely no reason.

 

That's like saying Barker and the rest of the bar beat Scurry. Didn't the whole barn beat Scurry with a beer bottle. Because Barker was in the bar doesn't mean he beat anyone. The way you worded it sounds like Barker beat him with a beer bottle and it wasn't him.

I said Barker who ALONG with another wildcat beat Scurry. I know exactly how I worded it. If Barker was with the people involved, yes that means he was involved. No one besides the people present knows the full extent of each parties involvement. I simply said it wasn't completely undeserved. Not like he was just randomly struck on the side of the street for absolutely no reason.

So if your with a buddy in a bar and he rapes a girl in the bathroom, that means your involved? Seems like fine logic.

That's like saying Barker and the rest of the bar beat Scurry. Didn't the whole barn beat Scurry with a beer bottle. Because Barker was in the bar doesn't mean he beat anyone. The way you worded it sounds like Barker beat him with a beer bottle and it wasn't him.

 

Again I worded it correctly, people just don't understand what the word along means, so here is this (in the company with). Which Barker was with the guilty party.

Again I worded it correctly, people just don't understand what the word along means, so here is this (in the company with). Which Barker was with the guilty party.

 

So was everyone else in the bar. The next time AJ Green catches a touchdown pass I doubt I hear the announcer say AJ Green ALONG with Andrew Whitworth caught a the touchdown pass. Since Andrew Whitworth was on the field the same time as AJ Green.

 

You implied Barker was in on the fight "BUT let's not feel sorry for Barker who along with another Wildcat beat EKU's Scurry with a beer bottle so bad he was hospitalized and needed surgery". Your adverb ALONG goes with the verb BEAT which implies Barker and another wildcat beat Scurry.

So if your with a buddy in a bar and he rapes a girl in the bathroom, that means your involved? Seems like fine logic.

 

In this scenario, at the very least you will be questioned by police and most likely have to testify in court. If you have knowledge of the incident like your scenario and or where present for your buddies unlawful actions, then yes you are involved. It's not just logic, it's the law. Ever heard of negligence?

 

Now to relate this to the bar fight/ sucker punch. I'm going to drop even more logic on ya. If a friend or family member of the offended party hears what has happened and knows where someone who was there and friends with the guilty party. Could you see why they would come in a knock that person out? Not saying it was right or not but can you atleast see why they would do it?

 

P.S. I know what you where trying to do and where kind of on the right track, but a terrible example ruined your argument.

In this scenario, at the very least you will be questioned by police and most likely have to testify in court. If you have knowledge of the incident like your scenario and or where present for your buddies unlawful actions, then yes you are involved. It's not just logic, it's the law. Ever heard of negligence?

 

Now to relate this to the bar fight/ sucker punch. I'm going to drop even more logic on ya. If a friend or family member of the offended party hears what has happened and knows where someone who was there and friends with the guilty party. Could you see why they would come in a knock that person out? Not saying it was right or not but can you atleast see why they would do it?

 

P.S. I know what you where trying to do and where kind of on the right track, but a terrible example ruined your argument.

 

Only if they were a scumbag with no sense or morals.

So was everyone else in the bar. The next time AJ Green catches a touchdown pass I doubt I hear the announcer say AJ Green ALONG with Andrew Whitworth caught a the touchdown pass. Since Andrew Whitworth was on the field the same time as AJ Green.

 

You implied Barker was in on the fight "BUT let's not feel sorry for Barker who along with another Wildcat beat EKU's Scurry with a beer bottle so bad he was hospitalized and needed surgery". Your adverb ALONG goes with the verb BEAT which implies Barker and another wildcat beat Scurry.

 

Ok so now we are just going to argue over grammar? Really? And are you implying that Barker is completely innocent and in no way shape or form was involved in any of this other than being punched in dorm for absolutely no reason what so ever?

In this scenario, at the very least you will be questioned by police and most likely have to testify in court. If you have knowledge of the incident like your scenario and or where present for your buddies unlawful actions, then yes you are involved. It's not just logic, it's the law. Ever heard of negligence?

 

Now to relate this to the bar fight/ sucker punch. I'm going to drop even more logic on ya. If a friend or family member of the offended party hears what has happened and knows where someone who was there and friends with the guilty party. Could you see why they would come in a knock that person out? Not saying it was right or not but can you atleast see why they would do it?

 

P.S. I know what you where trying to do and where kind of on the right track, but a terrible example ruined your argument.

How is it a terrible example? Because it showed how flawed your logic is? The bar was full of people that saw and knew what happened. Does that suddenly mean everyone there had some responsibility in it? Let be clear, just because you go somewhere with someone, doesn't mean you are reaponsible for their actions. If barker did not actively take part in the fight, he isn't responsible.

 

The sucker punch was nothing more than a worthless coward taking advantage of a situation.

Only if they were a scumbag with no sense or morals.

 

Sir, I apologize then. Obviously you are a Saint amongst flawed men. You clearly are the most rational and level headed person I have ever met. You have never let your temper flare or lose your cool. I yield to your sound decision making. Also I hope you are picking up on my sarcasm, cause I'm laying it on pretty thick.

How is it a terrible example? Because it showed how flawed your logic is? The bar was full of people that saw and knew what happened. Does that suddenly mean everyone there had some responsibility in it? Let be clear, just because you go somewhere with someone, doesn't mean you are reaponsible for their actions. If barker did not actively take part in the fight, he isn't responsible.

 

The sucker punch was nothing more than a worthless coward taking advantage of a situation.

 

So everything I said went over your head? I figured as much.

Sir, I apologize then. Obviously you are a Saint amongst flawed men. You clearly are the most rational and level headed person I have ever met. You have never let your temper flare or lose your cool. I yield to your sound decision making. Also I hope you are picking up on my sarcasm, cause I'm laying it on pretty thick.

 

Not a saint, just not a scumbag who would sucker punch a guy later just for being with someone else who had been in a fight. I think most normal people would be able to restrain themselves under those conditions. Normal being the key word.

So everything I said went over your head? I figured as much.

Insult time, gotcha. I'm out

There is video of the bar fight out there somewhere I think?

Not a saint, just not a scumbag who would sucker punch a guy later just for being with someone else who had been in a fight. I think most normal people would be able to restrain themselves under those conditions. Normal being the key word.

 

This maybe a red herring argument but since you are bringing up judgment and restraint. You would think that a "normal" person who had their University put on lock down for playing with pellet guns on campus would toe the line and keep away from bringing anymore negative attention the themselves.