[The Poet]

I looked again at the clip . . . twice . . . and saw no children in that area (at least, none chronologically childlike). This does not mean there were none, of course. Still, it begs the question if her response was true, or instead her first step in a defense against assault charges. Furthermore, anyone who has attended any sort of public event such as this one in the past generation or two knows the likelihood of an encounter with behavior unsuitable for youngsters. It is a shame that games, concerts, movies, whatever have become "PG-13", yet it is also prudent for those who do not wish their kids to risk exposure to such to either leave the young at home, or stay at home altogether. Sad, certainly, but a fact of modern "classless" society.

Also, I'd like to know the tone of her statement. As I see it, there are three distinct ways such a statement can be made. One is as a reason, where she expresses contrition at her actions but gives the taunting as her motivation for said actions. The second is as an excuse, where she passes no judgement upon herself, and merely says she did it due to a provocation. The last defensive position is one of justification, where she affirms her right to violence by declaring "Damn right I did it, and I'd damn well do it again!".

Maybe I'm full of it . . . it wouldn't be the first time, after all . . . but I can't give her a pass on kicking some stranger in the head, whatever the core cause.