I was watching Judge Judy and the case involved this girl who (apparently) antagonized this chick to the point that she flipped out and broke a bunch of her own stuff.

The girl who broke her stuff wanted the antagonizer to pay the damages for all the stuff she broke. Her reasoning was that the antagonizer knew the "victim" had anger management or something and should have known better than to argue with her.

Do you think the antagonizer should pay for the stuff the girl broke?

:waiting

Yes, if the aggressor went into the situation knowing that the other person had anger management issues then he or she should be responsible for at least part of the damages

My answer would depend on what, exactly, the antagonizer was doing.......but, for the most part, my answer is, "No".

My answer would depend on what, exactly, the antagonizer was doing.......but, for the most part, my answer is, "No".

I guess I should have included that :rofl She was trying to give her advice I think. It was pretty confusing what exactly happened.

What was the ruling?

I voted no. How can you prove that her anger was solely and directly resultant from the provocation? There will always be confrontations in life, it's up to her to be able to manage her anger effectively.

What was the ruling?


Judy pretty much laughed at her. You know how Judge Judy is. She told her to suck it up and not have nice things.

What was the ruling?

I voted no. How can you prove that her anger was solely and directly resultant from the provocation? There will always be confrontations in life, it's up to her to be able to manage her anger effectively.

:agree

I would say no. One shouldn't have to walk on eggshells because someone else can't control their anger. :dunno

Judy pretty much laughed at her. You know how Judge Judy is. She told her to suck it up and not have nice things.

:lol That doesn't surprise me at all! She cracks me up.

Judy pretty much laughed at her. You know how Judge Judy is. She told her to suck it up and not have nice things.

:lol I figured as much. I love Judge Judy!

I guess I should have included that :rofl She was trying to give her advice I think. It was pretty confusing what exactly happened.

LOL - 99.9% of the "cases" played out on Judge Judy are pretty damn confusing, lol.

No, the antagonizer shouldn't have to pay. The antagonizee should grow up and stop throwing temper tantrums. Instead of letting things get to the point where she feels the need to break things, she should have removed herself from the situation in the very beginning. If you have issues like that, and you KNOW you have issues like that, you've got to be able to anticipate a situation like that as it unfolds - and remove yourself from it.

LOL - 99.9% of the "cases" played out on Judge Judy are pretty damn confusing, lol.

Yeah, plus they edit the cases for TV purposes, so the viewer only gets the tiniest bit of the story.

I said no. Why the hell should the person be responsible for the other to freak out and break their own stuff. We are all responsible for our OWN actions, no one else.

Whoa.. Just because someone has mental issues and a diagnosis doesn't give them the right to act like an asshole..... :no

No. Someone needs anger management or something lol. No one has ever drove me to the point of breaking my own shit :lol

My answer would depend on what, exactly, the antagonizer was doing.......but, for the most part, my answer is, "No".

agree, i voted unsure though.

i think if the antagonizer went in and was demanding x, y or z to get her stuff back (think a former roomie) then no the antagonizer shouldn't pay but if she went in and was deliberately trying her to get all riled up for no reason then yes

Um, personal responsibility!!!! Sheesh, no one wants to own their actions anymore. It always has to be blamed on other people or situations. So annoying.

No because the antagonizer isn't the one that broke it. If the person being antagonized knows they have anger issues then they also need to learn to control it by getting help for it or learning to walk away from a situation that would potentially lead to damages.

Definitely NOT!!!!! I've learned my lesson, therefore I NO longer throw things...

If one is easily provoked, then the person needs to be on medication...if the meds don't work then try counseling...if the counseling doesn't work, try hypnotherapy...if the hypnotherapy doesn't work, well then I guess you're just out of gas....

I know I am rather sensitive to this issue after Friday night but I am shocked at some of the comments in this thread

agree, i voted unsure though.

i think if the antagonizer went in and was demanding x, y or z to get her stuff back (think a former roomie) then no the antagonizer shouldn't pay but if she went in and was deliberately trying her to get all riled up for no reason then yes

:agree

People should be able to control their actions, no matter what others do.
If you grew up with a brother or a sister, you should know how to control your actions no matter how much they egg you on.

I know I am rather sensitive to this issue after Friday night but I am shocked at some of the comments in this thread

I must have missed something :puzz

I don't think so. It sounds like the antagonizer was a BITCH, but if being a bitch were against the law, a bunch of us would be in trouble:lol

People are responsible for their own actions, and that includes REactions to other's words or deeds. That's just life. :shrug

No, the antagonizer shouldn't have to pay. The antagonizee should grow up and stop throwing temper tantrums. Instead of letting things get to the point where she feels the need to break things, she should have removed herself from the situation in the very beginning. If you have issues like that, and you KNOW you have issues like that, you've got to be able to anticipate a situation like that as it unfolds - and remove yourself from it.

Hmm... well maybe she didn't know how upset she would get in the beginning, or the other girl followed her arount taunting. Of course if she had no idea how upset she'd get that makes it even LESS likely the antagonizer should have 'known better' since who know you better than yourself. :dunno

I definitely don't think the other party is liable for something SHE did in a fit of rage though.

Hmm... well maybe she didn't know how upset she would get in the beginning, or the other girl followed her arount taunting. Of course if she had no idea how upset she'd get that makes it even LESS likely the antagonizer should have 'known better' since who know you better than yourself. :dunno

I definitely don't think the other party is liable for something SHE did in a fit of rage though.

Hmmm...but if she knows she flies off the handle easily and this antagonizer was pissing her off - don't you think she probably should have had the presence of mind to walk away from the antagonizer...or drive away...or hang up the phone...or whatever?

:dunno

Hmmm...but if she knows she flies off the handle easily and this antagonizer was pissing her off - don't you think she probably should have had the presence of mind to walk away from the antagonizer...or drive away...or hang up the phone...or whatever?

:dunno

I totally agree here.

I don't think the antagonizer should have to pay the damages. But if the antagonizer repeatedly invades the other girls' space (keeps calling or showing up after being asked not to,) then the other girl should file harrassment charges or somehing if it makes her that upset.

:shhh I blame my sister for things I do when I'm mad. It's convenient. :teehee

I don't think the antagonizer should have to pay the damages. But if the antagonizer repeatedly invades the other girls' space (keeps calling or showing up after being asked not to,) then the other girl should file harrassment charges or somehing if it makes her that upset.

Apparently it was a one time occurrence. The "antagonizer" looked a little flabergasted at all the things the raging angry girl was saying. Angry girl was being ridiculous too. It was kind of amusing to watch.

:shhh I blame my sister for things I do when I'm mad. It's convenient. :teehee

Well...but...I thought that was what siblings were for? :giggle

I wouldn't know - I was a lonely child...I mean, ONLY :giggle

:shhh I blame my sister for things I do when I'm mad. It's convenient. :teehee

I used to blame my sister when I was a kid. Never worked though :rofl

Heck no, a person is responsible for their own actions/choices.

If you cant controll yourself to take care of your own things, that is your fault.

I used to blame my sister when I was a kid. Never worked though :rofl

I was the one getting blamed :mumble

Hey I think we should have a celebration. No one has voted for 'Other' yet! :woohoo

Hey I think we should have a celebration. No one has voted for 'Other' yet! :woohoo

That IS cause for celebration!!! :woot

I was watching Judge Judy and the case involved this girl who (apparently) antagonized this chick to the point that she flipped out and broke a bunch of her own stuff.

The girl who broke her stuff wanted the antagonizer to pay the damages for all the stuff she broke. Her reasoning was that the antagonizer knew the "victim" had anger management or something and should have known better than to argue with her.

Do you think the antagonizer should pay for the stuff the girl broke?
No, the person that broke the stuff should be responsible.

No, the antagonizer shouldn't have to pay. The antagonizee should grow up and stop throwing temper tantrums. Instead of letting things get to the point where she feels the need to break things, she should have removed herself from the situation in the very beginning. If you have issues like that, and you KNOW you have issues like that, you've got to be able to anticipate a situation like that as it unfolds - and remove yourself from it.

for real....stop being a baby about stuff and learn to control yourself like, oh i don't know, AN ADULT!!??

I agree with Becca on this one. Stand up for yourself!

Gee, someone else in America suing because they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions? Shocker.
Hell no, why break your own stuff, break the other person, then at least the punishment will be worth ir

It's sad the one picking on the girl w/ the anger problem went got her to the point where she snapped...But I don't think she should have to pay. If so, whenever anger problem girl wants new things, whats going to stop her from breaking them and then blaming it on someone else?? BOTH parties were in the wrong, but one shouldn't get rewarded while the other gets punished....IMO

Those court tv shows are funny. I like Maria chick. What is her line? "I wouldn't believe you if you came notarized" or something? :lol

When I was in training to get my home daycare license, one of the people in the class was on one of those shows. She had previously had a home daycare and one of the Mom's was suing her because her child got sick. Funny right? She actually brought the tape into the class and we all watched it and watched as the judge basically told the plaintiff that she was an idiot. :lmao

although i'm sure the antagonizer was a bitch, the "victim" should have enough self-control to not go AWOL. kwim?

No they should not.

The beauty of the human spirit is FREEDOM OF CHOICE. No matter what the situation every single person has the freedom to make a choice. Just because they choose to make the wrong choice does not excuse them for their behavior. Stop being a baby/coward and own up to your actions.

No, the antagonizer shouldn't have to pay. The antagonizee should grow up and stop throwing temper tantrums. Instead of letting things get to the point where she feels the need to break things, she should have removed herself from the situation in the very beginning. If you have issues like that, and you KNOW you have issues like that, you've got to be able to anticipate a situation like that as it unfolds - and remove yourself from it.

Yes, exactly. You worded that better than I could.

I put yes. I think people think that they can say or do whatever the hell they want to and just push and push and push people to get their way. I don't think the antagonist should pay for all b/c ultimetly it was up to the other person to control themselves. But I do think the antagonist should pay for a portion. And she should feel lucky the other girl didn't break her face. People IMO need to learn how to shut the hell up sometimes.

I say no. Personal responsibility people!