quote:A Pinson man was charged with attempted murder for holding a gun to his son's head and pulling the trigger in the midst of a tantrum after Alabama's double overtime loss to Arkansas Saturday.
quote:"I know we take football serious in the South," Christian told The Birmingham News for a Tuesday story, "but that's crossing the line."
quote:"He claimed he was just trying to scare his son," Christian said.
According to the police report, Joseph Logan had been drinking alcohol and began slamming doors, tossing boxes and throwing dishes in the sink after the Crimson Tide lost its football game to Arkansas 34-31 in double overtime Saturday.
While Joseph Logan was throwing the tantrum, Seth Logan asked for a new car.
Joseph Logan then retrieved a 9 mm pistol from his car, grabbed his son by the collar and pressed the gun to his son's forehead, the report said.
Logan threatened to shoot his son in the head, then pulled the trigger.
Seth Logan moved his head just as his father fired and the bullet whizzed past him, the report said.
The new sequel to Dumb and Dumber: Dumb and Pathetic.
I know I really get upset when the Hurricanes or Dolphins lose. Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
As dumb as the father is, the son seems to be a nut fallen not far from the tree.
Let's see, assuming that the son knows that Dad gets very into the games and had probably gotten upset over losses before. What do you do when the team your father loves more than the whole world losses in double overtime? You ask him for a new car?
I think the son could have picked a better time.
msquared
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't believe you look at this situation and decide to blame the son.
----
I know you are not letting the father off, but I hate that assumption - that it is the son's responsibility to judge his father's moves and to not set him off. The "Why Do You Make Me Hurt You?" phenomon, where the father is allowed to be a grade-A moron, but the son is supposed to judge moods and never call him on it.
In other words, the son is not allowed to be a smart alec because he should have known it would set his father off. Baloney - I'm sure it was the kindest of the many possibly provoking comments available. And that's assuming he said it to be a smart alec, instead of an honest question, which it may have been.
I can't imagine the betrayal - you call you father on his irascible mood, and he tries to shoot you. Oh my stars.
[ October 01, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Imagine if he said something insane like: Dad, I've decided not to believe in football anymore.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I was afraid it would come off like I was defending the dad. I am not, but the son has to use some common sense. He had to have know how his dad got when his team lost the game. If I see someone out in public who is going bonkers, I don't go up and tell the guy off. What the father did was bad, what the son did was stupid.
msquared
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
Kat, I don't think he is defending the dad. At least, I'm not, and I agree with msquared. That's why I made the Dumb and Pathetic crack. This is kind of like that rape thread where we talked about putting oneself in positions of risk. Nobody deserves to be raped, or shot at, and one shouldn't have to live in fear that somebody will rape you or that a loved one will shoot at you.
But that doesn't make it any less dumb.
[ October 01, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Unless this was the first time his father had lost it.
He's a kid - I don't interupt insane people now, but that's because I've done it and figured out that the limits I assume will stop them do not always.
If this was the first time the father has gone bezerk, the son may not have known to anticipate what the reaction might be. We can't know for sure, but I doubt he did, because why would someone invite a shooting? In that case, he isn't dumb; he's inexperienced.
Not anymore. I'm sure this experience will follow him for a very, very long time. Last time the son ever does anything stupid like thinking his father would never hurt him.
[ October 01, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Kat,
Even if this was not the first time the fathers behavior after the loss should give the kid all the info he needs to keep clear of dad.
"According to the police report, Joseph Logan had been drinking alcohol and began slamming doors, tossing boxes and throwing dishes in the sink after the Crimson Tide lost its football game to Arkansas 34-31 in double overtime Saturday."
The kid's probably a teen ager. I would be very surprised if this was the first time his dad has been upset about a loss by his favorite football team.
Is there ever a time where the victim did ask for it? You know pushed the buttons of the person that hurt them, egged them on, antagonized them? Is it your thought that the person who gets hurt has no responsibilty for what happens to them?
msquared
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He's twenty.
(Which raises other questions in my mind, but that's a whole other direction.)
Of course he could not have expected his father to whip out a gun and shoot him. That's why msquared and I aren't defending the father.
Let's just put aside the whole shooting thing . . .
If you want someone to buy you a car, do you ask when they are in a good mood or when they are "drinking alcohol . . . slamming doors, tossing boxes and throwing dishes in the sink"?
That's my point. If your father was not berzerk, and you went up to him at a time like that and asked him to buy you a car, and he told you to go get a job and get your own dang car, I think most people would tell you that you were foolish to approach him at all at a time like that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
OK, slow typing.
I'm not saying he bears responsibility for the father's actions. Just that he showed an uncommon lack of wisdom.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
msquared,
I get what you are saying.
No, there is never a time when the victim asks for it. It doesn't matter what someone says to you, you are still responsible for what you do to them.
He was a kid. That does change things - they are less experienced, and if they have any kind of protected childhood at all, they don't expect people to beat on them for words. You can say he should have known there would be bad consequences, but why should he have known? Hopefully he didn't have any idea that words can lead to a murderous rage. Hopefully he didn't have any idea that you can't trust people to not pull a gun on you because they are upset that a group of well-paid athletes didn't score as many arbitrary points.
It's like the story of a babysitter declaring the kids are dumb because they didn't react when threatened with a beating. If they had never been beaten, why would they fear it? Why would they even know the word?
Ic:
quote: lack of wisdom.
That happens when you're inexperienced. Having been nearly shot and killed by his father, I'll bet he has more now.
I know he was twenty, but age does not automatically incur wisdom. Was it really outrageous? Depends - did the father buy one for other kids? He's 20, but still a dependent. Some kids stay a dependent for many years. Was it a possibility that his dad would buy him one? Were there words before?
I'd like the know the whole situation of what happened, and what the relationship with the son was before. It's a joke to blame this on football, but there must be other things wrong.
[ October 01, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I am sorry but 20 is not a kid. 14 is a kid. How much wisdom does it take to know that you should not ask you obviously upset and a bit out of control dad for a new car, especially when you have wrecked several others already?
I don't know about the victim always not asking for it? I truly think that sometimes, SOMETIMES, the victim is asking for it, but it is just not what they expected. Or maybe it is.
If I go up to a bunch of fans of the loosing team after the game and rub the fact that their team just lost to my team, does that make me innocent of what they do to me?
msquared
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You seem to be missing my point. Do you think when your father is obviously in a rage is a good time to ask for a car? Forget the consequence. Let's assume the father had responded completely appropriately to the request instead.
Would you odds of getting what you want be best when he is swearing, slamming doors, and throwing dishes in the sink?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If I go up to a bunch of fans of the loosing team after the game and rub the fact that their team just lost to my team, does that make me innocent of what they do to me?
Yes.
Not innocent of being tacky and malicious, but innocent ANYTHING they then do to you. The other team has a choice. They can choose to ignore you, or they can beat you into the ground and drag you behind the team bus.
It doesn't mean you are innocent, but you are indeed innocent of THEIR sins.
If you are guilty for some of their sins, that means they are less. They are not fully responsible for their choice to beat you up. I don't believe that. I don't believe that even if a victim walks up and BEGS for it, it takes the slightest bit of guilt for the subsequent beating away from the abuser.
The son is guitly of maybe being slightly spoiled, but that isn't a capital crime.
I see msquare and Icarus as saying different things. Icarus is saying the kid had bad judgement of people, and msquared as saying he was asking for what he got, and therefor shares some of the responsibility.
Bad judgement: fair enough Partly (even if infentesimally) responsible for what happened next: not at all
[ October 01, 2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I can see that, but I don't know if I agree with it.
The son is also guilty of being stupid.
msquared
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
bad judgement of people vs. attempted murder of son
If the first is a capital crime, we'd all be toast.
quote:guilty of being stupid
msquared, I swear I'm not picking on you. I just noticed this.
I don't believe this. I don't believe anyone is guilty and condemnable for what they are, but only for what they do. Calling him stupid is taking an act and labeling him for it. There's no way to redeem yourself from a label, because from then on, you're a stupid person who did a less stupid thing. That's horrible. Don't condemn the person, condemn the act. In this case, the act was awful judgement on the part of the son.
And on the part of the father? What do you think?
[ October 01, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ok I will amend the statement.
The father acted criminally, the son acted stupidly.
The father should go to jail for a while and the son should get dope-slapped by the judge or the foreman of the jury.
msquared
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I think he's been punished enough. Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Yeah, I'm gonna say having your own father try to murder you is a pretty solid punishment.
Now, question: If the guy had succeeded (as an aside, more proof for the idea that the gun is a *ranged* weapon) in bustin' a cap in his son, he would no doubt be facing much more stringent punishment. Why do we let the guy off easier for being an incompetent murderer?
Question 2: I think we could all agree that the father is, clinically speaking, insane. Rational people do not murder their children for wiseass comments after their favorite football team lost a game. We aren't going to let the guy off with therapy, are we?
[ October 01, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You guys are missing the important part of the story.
The HAWGS beat Bama!!
Woo! Go Hawgs!
Pix
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My thoughts:
1) The kid is not a kid. He is 20 and has a history of repeatedly wrecking cars. The story seems to suggest the son is either very unlucky, very self centered, and/or very stupid. (In military terms, once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is an enemy action.)
2) It does not state that the son was home when the father was storming around the place. Perhaps he came home as his father was in the calm between outbursts, and the son didn't notice the father's growing anger.
3) That does not even come close to pardoning the father for his own stupidity/violent reaction. Its rages like his that make so many people favor gun control.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
While the father is completely at fault...the son should've known better than to ask for a freaking new car while dad is drunk and pitching a fit.
I mean, duh.
I suppose I feel I can say this because I grew up with the same type of father. You, mostly, know what actions will get you hurt physically. You know what will piss Dad off (mostly). Some things are unpredictable, but dang. If I were Seth, I'd have been hiding myself under my bed or in my closet or would've left the house.
Not asked for a new car.
Yes, it's sad that Dad did that. Despicable. Horrible. Yes, he should be tried and convicted of attempted murder.
But you can still tell the kid that it wasn't exactly the brightest move.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whether or not it was simply a bad lapse of judgement or the dumbest move this side of Gigli depends on whether or not the father was abusive before. If he's never snapped like that, it's possible the son didn't have any idea what would happen next.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
That's crazy. Here in Wisconsin, we're too drunk by the time we lose a game to even begin to remember where we put the gun, let alone point it straight at someone's head Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
See, this is why it's ok to make fun of people from the south.
1) Reaction to team losing football game: breaks HIS OWN STUFF, including his doors and dishes. "Take that, stupid dishes!"
2) When son asks for new car, gets gun and puts it up against sons head: "I'll learn ya ta ask fer stuff!"
3) Actually pulls the trigger, and fires the gun at his sons head at point blank range. Misses. "Stop moving around varmint!"
4) When police arrive, tells police that "he was just trying to scare" the kid. No crap. Having your father try to blow your brains out is indeed scary. Mission accomplished.
5) The police officer who was interviewed said that they take their football seriously in the south, but this was 'crossing the line'. Ummmm... if the line is attempted murder, maybe we should move that line back a bit.
Gotta love those southerners.
[ October 01, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I have to say I like #5 the best.
Slash
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
quote:"He claimed he was just trying to scare his son," Christian said.
According to the police report, Joseph Logan had been drinking alcohol and began slamming doors, tossing boxes and throwing dishes in the sink after the Crimson Tide lost its football game to Arkansas 34-31 in double overtime Saturday.
While Joseph Logan was throwing the tantrum, Seth Logan asked for a new car.
Joseph Logan then retrieved a 9 mm pistol from his car, grabbed his son by the collar and pressed the gun to his son's forehead, the report said.
Logan threatened to shoot his son in the head, then pulled the trigger.
Seth Logan moved his head just as his father fired and the bullet whizzed past him, the report said.
Anyone else remember the 5-6 page thread I spent arguing against carry laws in the US? Things like this are why—for every one responsible owner and carry permit holder, there are three of these jack-offs.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
But they were at home. I mean, yeah, the gun was in the car, but if they could only keep the gun at home, he still would have had it. I'm not sure carry laws (if I am correctly interpreting you) are a factor here at all.
-o-
quote:It does not state that the son was home when the father was storming around the place. Perhaps he came home as his father was in the calm between outbursts, and the son didn't notice the father's growing anger.
A southern male who was not watching the game? Puh-leaze.
-o-
@ Slash. That was one of your funniest posts ever! Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Why the heck didn't he bolt when Dad went for the gun?!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Alabama is down by two touchdowns with three and a half minutes to go, and they just failed a fourth down conversion.
Lock your doors.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
This story makes me think of all the consequences of actions that maybe we don't know about.
I mean, if the kid actually got killed, how would the opposing team feel about that? If someone had gone back in time and told them that if they won a kid would die, would they still have played?
Makes me think of anything I might have done, as innocent as it may have been, which maybe led to some bad stuff happening to someone.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
This reminds me of Boon Hoggenbeck at the beginning of The Reivers. He was such a bad shot that everyone in town knew the only person who was safe was the guy he was shooting at.
[ October 05, 2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
After the Georgia game, I'll bet the son probably said, "Dad, can I have a new car? And don't miss this time."
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Slash
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
A southern male who was not watching the game? Puh-leaze. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)