Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Neighbour slapped my child.

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    Ok, so neighbour denies slapping child and child hasn't said neighbour slapped him. So unless the child accuses the man of hitting him, there isn't any evidence (other than the witness but the neighbour says it "looked like" he hit the child)
    I'd go ape if someone laid a hand on my child, probably to the guards. However, I would want a solid story from my child before I'd consider making such a serious accusation which could ruin a mans life.


  • Options
    #93
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    psychward wrote: »
    And how many times have I spelled it out as being reactive for slow readers :rolleyes:

    That's enough of that. If you can't make your point without being offensive then don't make the point at all.


  • Options
    #94
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Ophiopogon wrote: »
    But we don't know this...we know the OP heard this from someone but we don't know who said it.

    If you heard a man you know in your estate hit a child esp if this was followed up by a garda visit you will always view this man in a negative way even if its later found to be a lie or over reaction.

    The OP tells us the guy hit her child and that she confronted him about it and he was apologetic and says she overreacted.

    If you have a witness saying some guy hit your child, and you have a child who is terrified and wet himself, are you going to take the guys word that he didn't do it? Or will you call the guards and let them sort it out?

    I'm sure as hell not going to take the word of someone who allegedly hits my kid over a neighbour who says otherwise! If the neighbour is lying, then that's up to the guards to figure out.


  • Options
    #95
    Penny Dreadful
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Penny Dreadful


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    What we know is the man got out of his car and slapped a young child that was not his own in the face.

    Assuming these few details are correct and that the OP is not lying, exactly what other details do you need to come to the conclusion that the guy is an absolute scumbag?

    Were the children playing chicken with the cars? If so then they are brats in training. Were the children throwing things at the cars? If so then they are brats in training.
    If if if if if?????????

    It is wrong for anyone to slap the child in the face. I have not disputed that. However, it is wrong to blindly accept the version of events from one witness (adult or child yet to be confirmed), to not get what happened from your child (as maybe things were even more innocent than we have been led to believe and this man is truly bad), to allow your 8 year old child play on the road unsupervised, to allow your 8 year old child play near cars without understanding the danger they represent.
    It is wrong to go to the Gardaí on such flimsy evidence (if you can even call it that, more like here say) and possibly have an innocent person branded a child abuser.


  • Options
    #96
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    The OP tells us the guy hit her child and that she confronted him about it and he was apologetic and says she overreacted.

    If you have a witness saying some guy hit your child, and you have a child who is terrified and wet himself, are you going to take the guys word that he didn't do it? Or will you call the guards and let them sort it out?

    I'm sure as hell not going to take the word of someone who allegedly hits my kid over a neighbour who says otherwise! If the neighbour is lying, then that's up to the guards to figure out.

    Exactly, plus, mothers know their children and whatever happened caused the child to wet himself and not want to go to school. The lesson that the child has learnt from this is to be absolutely terrified and possibly scarred for life. It's dreadful really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    The OP tells us the guy hit her child and that she confronted him about it and he was apologetic and says she overreacted.

    If you have a witness saying some guy hit your child, and you have a child who is terrified and wet himself, are you going to take the guys word that he didn't do it? Or will you call the guards and let them sort it out?

    I'm sure as hell not going to take the word of someone who allegedly hits my kid over a neighbour who says otherwise! If the neighbour is lying, then that's up to the guards to figure out.

    My daughter told me her uncle makes her take off his trousers. I was aghast. Upon furthur probing, it transpired what actually happens is he gets her to pull off his overalls over his boots.
    "He said, she said" is not good enough to go and throw accusations around. OP hasn't clairfied if this "witness" is a good source of information or another small child.

    The child is 8. My daughter is also 8 and is well able to explain things. If the child refuses to say what happened the guards will do nothing and the mother can not be sure about what actually happened.


  • Options
    #98
    Penny Dreadful
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Penny Dreadful


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    The OP tells us the guy hit her child and that she confronted him about it and he was apologetic and says she overreacted.

    If you have a witness saying some guy hit your child, and you have a child who is terrified and wet himself, are you going to take the guys word that he didn't do it? Or will you call the guards and let them sort it out?

    I'm sure as hell not going to take the word of someone who allegedly hits my kid over a neighbour who says otherwise! If the neighbour is lying, then that's up to the guards to figure out.

    Maybe the child wet himself because he knew he had done something wrong? Maybe he was doing more than he has let on? I think the parents should have the child tell them what happened. Their silence is compounding the assumptions that are taking place left and right.


  • Options
    #99
    Penny Dreadful
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Penny Dreadful


    daltonmd wrote: »
    Exactly, plus, mothers know their children and whatever happened caused the child to wet himself and not want to go to school. The lesson that the child has learnt from this is to be absolutely terrified and possibly scarred for life. It's dreadful really.

    :eek: Seriously? Maybe the child has learned not to touch, pat, slap,(whatever he was doing) cars as they drive past on the road? Maybe they'll just learn that lesson and not (oh so dramatically) be terrified and scarred for life.


  • Options
    #100
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Penny Dreadful wrote: »
    Were the children playing chicken with the cars? If so then they are brats in training. Were the children throwing things at the cars? If so then they are brats in training.
    If if if if if?????????

    It is wrong for anyone to slap the child in the face. I have not disputed that. However, it is wrong to blindly accept the version of events from one witness (adult or child yet to be confirmed), to not get what happened from your child (as maybe things were even more innocent than we have been led to believe and this man is truly bad), to allow your 8 year old child play on the road unsupervised, to allow your 8 year old child play near cars without understanding the danger they represent.
    It is wrong to go to the Gardaí on such flimsy evidence (if you can even call it that, more like here say) and possibly have an innocent person branded a child abuser.


    It doesn't matter what the child was doing, it doesn't matter where the child was. The man had no right to put his hands on the child.

    Examining the actions of an 8 year old to make allowances for a grown man to strike a child is wrong.

    The man apologised and admitted overreacting.

    If there is any question that a grown man assaulted a child then it is up the Gardai to investigate. That's what they are there for. It is not up to others to decide what flimsy evidence is. That's what we have the DPP for.

    Edit to add. And let me tell you this. That is the reason why the man was contrite and apologised, because he knew what he did was wrong and could have been rightfully reported to the Gardai.


  • Options
    #101
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    You are all making the assumption that the man actually hit the child.

    This is not clear.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Howjoe1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,666 ✭✭✭Howjoe1


    meitina wrote: »
    There is not more to read in to.the boy was standing on the green ,it is an estate not road.He stands on the green ,the car very slowly goes around a corner .the boy slaps the car with is palm on the back of the car.


    Has your son got very long arms?


  • Options
    #103
    staker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,677 ✭✭✭staker


    I could see something like this happening in my estate too.This kid,while in no circumstances should be slapped by anyone but his parents, will learn nothing if not reprimanded too.
    The neighbour has apologised,I'd let it go and hope both parties will walk away more experienced.
    Calling the Garda will serve no purpose unless someone is after money,that's the only end I can see to that option.


  • Options
    #104
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Penny Dreadful wrote: »
    [/B]
    :eek: Seriously? Maybe the child has learned not to touch, pat, slap,(whatever he was doing) cars as they drive past on the road? Maybe they'll just learn that lesson and not (oh so dramatically) be terrified and scarred for life.

    No, the child has learned to be terrified of this man. He did a silly childish thing, because he's a child.
    The man attacked him, causing so much fear to him that he wet himself.

    Let me ask you this. If the child touched a passing dog and it attacked him what would be the consequences? Now, firstly children should never approach stray dogs, but they do.

    Let's say the dog bit him causing such a scare that the child wet himself? What lesson was learned? Oh yeah, don't touch a stray dog, but also the child is now terrified of dogs.

    Oh yeah, and what would happen to the dog?

    But I guess 8 year old kids and dogs should have more sense than grown men??


  • Options
    #105
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Zulu wrote: »
    You are all making the assumption that the man actually hit the child.

    This is not clear.
    What is clear, as well as disturbing, is that there are people actually defending him on the assumption that he did.


  • Options
    #106
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    daltonmd wrote: »
    No, the child has learned to be terrified of this man. He did a silly childish thing, because he's a child.
    The man attacked him, causing so much fear to him that he wet himself.

    Let me ask you this. If the child touched a passing dog and it attacked him what would be the consequences? Now, firstly children should never approach stray dogs, but they do.

    Let's say the dog bit him causing such a scare that the child wet himself? What lesson was learned? Oh yeah, don't touch a stray dog, but also the child is now terrified of dogs.

    Oh yeah, and what would happen to the dog?

    But I guess 8 year old kids and dogs should have more sense than grown men??
    Are you comparing a dog to a grown man who should be able to control himself?


  • Options
    #107
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    daltonmd wrote: »
    If you were walking down the street and there was another man walking towards you and you tugged at their shopping bag for a laugh and he struck you, then he would be done for assault. Why? Because you did not touch him but he touched you. That you hit, tugged, kicked his "property" does NOT give him the right to put his hands on your person.

    This child did not throw stones, nor did this child cause physical injury to anyone. You cannot punish someone, anyone for what they "might" have done. If you caught a burglar in your house standing at the end of your wife's bed then he can not be charged with rape, even though that may have been his intention, that is the law.

    Adults SHOULD have more sense. And leaping from a child touching a passing car to "his parents don't give a ****" is plain wrong.

    Let me ask you this. If the man was driving by a group of teenagers do you think he would have jumped out and struck one of them across the face? Do you think if it was a grown man who touched his car that he would have been so quick to do what he did? Maybe he would have, but what do you think would have happened?


    Btw, I would love to see what willful damage the child did to the car? And if he did then the absolutely right thing for the man to do was report it to the gardai.

    And of course adults wouldn't hit a passing car, but not because the driver might have a knife, because they are adults, not children.

    It is absolutely black and white. There is no valid reason, ever, for a grown man to assault a child.

    1. tugged, pulled property ie shopping bags = attempted robery = self defence.....

    2. pants down = attempted rape + trespassing + attempted burglary = self defence


    3. The man in question in not on here and we can only here one side of a story that is only half told. So no its not black and white.... no evidence of any facial injury.

    4. The mans car could easily have a dent on it or a scratch but because he is not on here we will never know. (slapping the car is questioned it could have been hit or hit with a implement, doubt we will ever know the full story, the driver doesnt have eyes in the back of his head)

    I doubt very much mommy will say her son damaged the car as she wants to paint him in a bad picture to make her son look like the victim. There is NO solid evidence the man struck the child. a bruise or red mark would have confirmed that but she never mentioned anything about any marks or bruises. A lawyer could easily swing it as the child was the villain and is a liar.

    The child need to learn to respect others and other peoples property otherwise he will get much more than a slap further down the line. The child can be reported to the guards for his behavior its dangerous to motorist and can cause damage and possible car accident resulting in death or injury.


    I also know that witnesses can be bought, pay someone a bit of cash and they say they were looking out the window at the time and saw this happen______________......


  • Options
    #108
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    Howjoe1 wrote: »
    meitina wrote: »
    There is not more to read in to.the boy was standing on the green ,it is an estate not road.He stands on the green ,the car very slowly goes around a corner .the boy slaps the car with is palm on the back of the car.


    Has your son got very long arms?

    Seems like he was either on the curb or had an implement.


  • Options
    #109
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    daltonmd wrote: »
    No, the child has learned to be terrified of this man. He did a silly childish thing, because he's a child.
    The man attacked him, causing so much fear to him that he wet himself.

    Let me ask you this. If the child touched a passing dog and it attacked him what would be the consequences? Now, firstly children should never approach stray dogs, but they do.

    Let's say the dog bit him causing such a scare that the child wet himself? What lesson was learned? Oh yeah, don't touch a stray dog, but also the child is now terrified of dogs.

    Oh yeah, and what would happen to the dog?

    But I guess 8 year old kids and dogs should have more sense than grown men??

    Ive been bitten by 2 dogs as a kid, i love dogs..... neither dog was put down... I still have the scar from one bite on my leg, im not terrified of dogs. I was 9 when i got my last bite.


  • Options
    #110
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    Temperatures will run high on this because parents are protective of their children, naturally. The problem lies with the parents that don't believe their child has naughty moments, and would have someones guts for garters if anyone said a bad word against them.

    I really doubt this man makes a habit of hitting children, as I said previously I believe it shock. Right? no. Understandable? I'm getting it.

    Both sides have to be examined before any rash decisions are made. If it were a ball being kicked into his garden or some other minor issue, there's no way he would have dealt with him in this way. It seems to me the child's actions made the man believe he hit him with his car. You can imagine the wave of emotions the guy must have felt; shock, relief, anger, then afraid because he slapped the child. All of this because of a child that was misbehaving. This can't be side-lined as 'one of those things kids get up to'.

    Let's call a spade a spade here, the child was being naughty. It would never have happened if he was playing football on the green or something, but he wasn't - he was being mischievous.

    I think if it were me, I'd thank God it wasn't more serious than this. I'd talk him through what happened and how dangerous cars are, and ground him.

    As for letting him off school? It's a no-no. I know he wet himself with the fright, but keeping him off translates to him that bad behaviour buys me time off school.


  • Options
    #111
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    grindelwald wrote: »
    1. tugged, pulled property ie shopping bags = attempted robery = self defence.....

    2. pants down = attempted rape + trespassing + attempted burglary = self defence


    3. The man in question in not on here and we can only here one side of a story that is only half told. So no its not black and white.... no evidence of any facial injury.

    4. The mans car could easily have a dent on it or a scratch but because he is not on here we will never know. (slapping the car is questioned it could have been hit or hit with a implement, doubt we will ever know the full story, the driver doesnt have eyes in the back of his head)

    I doubt very much mommy will say her son damaged the car as she wants to paint him in a bad picture to make her son look like the victim. There is NO solid evidence the man struck the child. a bruise or red mark would have confirmed that but she never mentioned anything about any marks or bruises. A lawyer could easily swing it as the child was the villain and is a liar.

    The child need to learn to respect others and other peoples property otherwise he will get much more than a slap further down the line. The child can be reported to the guards for his behavior its dangerous to motorist and can cause damage.


    I also know that witnesses can be bought, pay someone a bit of cash and they say they were looking out the window at the time and saw this happen______________......

    Wow. All I can say is.. wow.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    grindelwald wrote: »
    1. tugged, pulled property ie shopping bags = attempted robery = self defence.....

    2. pants down = attempted rape + trespassing + attempted burglary = self defence

    Good to know, next time I'm in Tesco and a toddler pulls on my trouser leg or basket, I'm well within my rights to give that kid a smack.

    Well done you.


  • Options
    #113
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    grindelwald wrote: »
    Ive been bitten by 2 dogs as a kid, i love dogs..... neither dog was put down...


    So you didn't wet yourself or not want to go to school? Which is great for you. If the dogs weren't put down then maybe that's because you or your parents didn't report it. What is good for you is not good for everyone else and the law says that it is illegal for another human being to put their hands on another human being... ever.

    This wasn't self defense.


  • Options
    #114
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Are you comparing a dog to a grown man who should be able to control himself?

    Absolutely not. I am merely drawing a comparison. We do not accept that a dog doesn't have the sense to know better as a defense for a dog that bites a child for touching it. So we should not accept it from a grown man.


  • Options
    #115
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    daltonmd wrote: »
    Absolutely not. I am merely drawing a comparison. We do not accept that a dog doesn't have the sense to know better as a defense for a dog that bites a child for touching it. So we should not accept it from a grown man.
    Apologies, I misinterpreted your post.


  • Options
    #116
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Abi wrote: »
    Temperatures will run high on this because parents are protective of their children, naturally. The problem lies with the parents that don't believe their child has naughty moments, and would have someones guts for garters if anyone said a bad word against them.

    I really doubt this man makes a habit of hitting children, as I said previously I believe it shock. Right? no. Understandable? I'm getting it.

    Both sides have to be examined before any rash decisions are made. If it were a ball being kicked into his garden or some other minor issue, there's no way he would have dealt with him in this way. It seems to me the child's actions made the man believe he hit him with his car. You can imagine the wave of emotions the guy must have felt; shock, relief, anger, then afraid because he slapped the child. All of this because of a child that was misbehaving. This can't be side-lined as 'one of those things kids get up to'.

    Let's call a spade a spade here, the child was being naughty. It would never have happened if he was playing football on the green or something, but he wasn't - he was being mischievous.

    I think if it were me, I'd thank God it wasn't more serious than this. I'd talk him through what happened and how dangerous cars are, and ground him.

    As for letting him off school? It's a no-no. I know he wet himself with the fright, but keeping him off translates to him that bad behaviour buys me time off school.

    No, the problem is that it appears to be accepted that a grown man can jump from his car and assault a child.

    It doesn't matter if this is the mans habit or not. He behaved badly, he overreacted and struck a child. That is against the law.

    You cannot go around striking people for no reason. A child touching a passing car is no reason.


  • Options
    #117
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    daltonmd wrote: »
    So you didn't wet yourself or not want to go to school? Which is great for you. If the dogs weren't put down then maybe that's because you or your parents didn't report it. What is good for you is not good for everyone else and the law says that it is illegal for another human being to put their hands on another human being... ever.

    This wasn't self defense.

    Parents did report it i was taken to the gps, given injctions and had photos taken, the collie dog was kept in during the start of school and the end of school.

    Bull, i ve put my hands on lots of people for one reason or another.... you really need to get into the nitty gritty of putting your hand on someone.


  • Options
    #118
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Apologies, I misinterpreted your post.

    No probs. I am shocked that there are people here who do not see the problem...


  • Options
    #119
    cynder
    Registered Users Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    daltonmd wrote: »
    No, the problem is that it appears to be accepted that a grown man can jump from his car and assault a child.

    It doesn't matter if this is the mans habit or not. He behaved badly, he overreacted and struck a child. That is against the law.

    You cannot go around striking people for no reason. A child touching a passing car is no reason.

    DID he or did he not strike the child that is the question? No evidence says he did.

    From the child own admission he did have contact with the car.


  • Options
    #120
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    grindelwald wrote: »
    DID he or did he not strike the child that is the question? No evidence says he did.

    From the child own admission he did have contact with the car.

    But if he did strike the child then is that right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    daltonmd wrote: »
    Absolutely not. I am merely drawing a comparison. We do not accept that a dog doesn't have the sense to know better as a defense for a dog that bites a child for touching it. So we should not accept it from a grown man.

    So we don't accept that a dog doesn't have the sense to know better and we should not accept it from a grown man - but children are just children and they don't know any better? If a child is just a child, surely a dog is just a dog?

    Don't think your analogy makes any sense. :confused:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement