Neighbour slapped my child.

Howjoe1

meitina,


What would you have done of your son came home and said,

"The man up the road was slowly driving his car out of the estate because he was being careful with all us kids hanging around the kerb and near the road. I banged on the bonnet and he braked and jumped out with fright. He said that I had scared the life out of him by banging on the bonnet because he thought he might have accidentally struck one of us. We all laughed."

Then you later learn from a neighbour that the man was very traumatised by the incident and took to having sleepless nights and occasional bed wetting.

What would you say to your SON then out of interest:

(a) Nothing.
(b) Don't worry about the old Bollix or
(c) Give your Son a good kick up the hole and tell him to never do that again.

I suspect the answer wouldn't be (c).

Abi

daltonmd wrote: »

A child touching a passing car is no reason.

'Touching' the car?


If he merely 'touched' the car, I'm sure the driver wouldn't have heard it. Now what cause would the child have to touch somebodies property for anyway?

There is no excuse for it. I've said before I don't condone the fact that he slapped the child. But the situation would never have arose if the child had been off playing and minding his own business.

I'm actually shocked that you don't see the root of the problem here.

ash23

daltonmd wrote: »

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

No.
But that's a pretty big thing to not be sure about when making an accusation.
And if he didn't the kid is getting away with a very dangerous activity by saying nothing and letting his mother think he was a victim.

MagicMarker

Abi wrote: »

'Touching' the car?


If he merely 'touched' the car, I'm sure the driver wouldn't have heard it. Now what cause would the child have to touch somebodies property for anyway?

There is no excuse for it. I've said before I don't condone the fact that he slapped the child. But the situation would never have arose if the child had been off playing and minding his own business.

I'm actually shocked that you don't see the root of the problem here.

There's no excuse for it but you make excuses for the man..... ??

Yes, the child shouldn't have done it, I don't know how many times that has to be repeated, but he did and that's that. The child should be disciplined with regards to what he did.

The root of the problem is the man who allegedly slapped a child, no matter what the reason was, he is 100% at fault for what he allegedly did.

cynder

daltonmd wrote: »

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

If the child was struck it mustn't of been very hard, otherwise they would be a red mark or bruise.

I dont think that the man should be reported to the guards IF that was the case, the woman has already approached the man the man has apologised for his behavior and that the child should also apologise to the man. To me then the issue would be settled and no hard feelings should be harboured. Why go to the gaurds? She has already told the man not to lay a finger on her child if the child is bold then he should go to her first.


I already said that if the child had a mark or a bruise on his face then she should report the man. Also child should get a harsh punishment, and be taught to have respect for others and other peoples belongings.

A boy got hit in my estate last week an old mad driving very slowly and a kid runs infront of the car and the car hits him, the kid is around 5 years of age and my friend age 32 saw it happen. the old man stops all shaken and the dad runs out picks up the kid tells him his fine and to go inside the old man appologises and the dad said, no worries, he'll be grand, and thats the end of that.

No gaurds no dramatics........

daltonmd

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

And a grown man is a grown man.
We do accept that a dog doesn't know better, because he is a dog. But the actions of the dog, in attacking a child that caused injury mean that we put that dog down. Not merely because he behaved like a dog, but because he assaulted/attacked a child and caused injury. We cannot trust that dog not to do the same or worse at some point in the future.

This man got out of his car and assaulted a child. Yet people here think that is ok?

MagicMarker

grindelwald wrote: »

If the child was struck it mustn't of been very hard, otherwise they would be a red mark or bruise.

I dont think that the man should be reported to the guards IF that was the case, the woman has already approached the man the man has apologised for his behavior and that the child should also apologise to the man. To me then the issue would be settled and no hard feelings should be harboured.



I already said that if the child had a mark or a bruise on his face then she should report the man. Also child should get a harsh punishment, and be tough to have respect for other peoples belongings.

So it's okay for the guy to hit a child so long as he doesn't leave a mark?

Zamboni

If I was the OP I'd give the guy a hiding for touching my child regardless of the reason.
I'd also give my son a hiding for touching the car.

Ickle Magoo

MagicMarker wrote: »

The root of the problem is the man who allegedly slapped a child, no matter what the reason was, he is 100% at fault for what he allegedly did.

I'd say that's the root of the problem if he just walked up and indiscriminately walloped the child...but they didn't, they'd have had absolutely no reason to interact with the child at all if the child had been behaving themselves, so really THAT is the root of the issue...and that's despite the fact that we don't even know they touched the kid, we don't know where the kid was in relation to the car or even what the kid actually did to the car - we just have the mother of said child giving their version of the half-baked here say that they got.

An apology for an over-reaction and a kid that pee'd their pants is the only solid evidence the OP actually has and I think many agree an over-reaction is certainly understandable given mitigating circumstances...I'd absolutely draw the line at physically touching the child but given I don't know that's what happened, my moral outrage would be wasted.

sh1tstirrer

Zamboni wrote: »

If I was the OP I'd give the guy a hiding for touching my child regardless of the reason.
I'd also give my son a hiding for touching the car.

What would you do then? Give yourself a hiding for hiding the both of them.

daltonmd

grindelwald wrote: »

If the child was struck it mustn't of been very hard, otherwise they would be a red mark or bruise.

I dont think that the man should be reported to the guards IF that was the case, the woman has already approached the man the man has apologised for his behavior and that the child should also apologise to the man. To me then the issue would be settled and no hard feelings should be harboured.



I already said that if the child had a mark or a bruise on his face then she should report the man. Also child should get a harsh punishment, and be tough to have respect for other peoples belongings.

It doesn't matter if there was a bruise or not. It doesn't matter if it was a hard slap or a soft slap. That's just a matter of luck. The man struck the child and he had no right to do that.

The man should have respect for OTHER PEOPLE. It is mind boggling that you hold property in a higher estimation than the safety of an 8 year old child....

Penny Dreadful

MagicMarker wrote: »

There's no excuse for it but you make excuses for the man..... ??

Yes, the child shouldn't have done it, I don't know how many times that has to be repeated, but he did and that's that. The child should be disciplined with regards to what he did.

The root of the problem is the man who allegedly slapped a child, no matter what the reason was, he is 100% at fault for what he allegedly did.

No one, as far as I can see, is actually saying that the driver was right to slap the child nor are they saying that slapping children is actually the ok thing to do. They are trying to see both sides of the incident and understand what may have led to the driver slapping the child. This does not mean that they are condoning slapping of children.
I think it very remiss of the mother to not have spoken to her son about what happened. If he is really that traumatised by being given a slap (so light it would appear as not to have marked the boy's face) and is now struck dumb and unable to attend school, then how on earth is he going to deal with the slings and arrows of daily life in the future?
The boy gives his account of the event and the mum knows whether or not this man is so nasty as to be akin to the Child Catcher and the story matches that of the (mystery) witness. Or.........the boy tells what really happened and the reality of the situation is that both parties were wrong in what they did. The adult over reacted, apologised and now it should be over from that point of view. The boy needs to have learned his lesson, i.e. you don't mess with cars that are in motion, you don't mess with things that don't belong to you, you tell you parents the truth and they sort things out and life goes on.

MagicMarker

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd say that's the root of the problem if he just walked up and indiscriminately walloped the child...but they didn't, they'd have had absolutely no reason to interact with the child at all if the child had been behaving themselves, so really THAT is the root of the issue...and that's despite the fact that we don't even know they touched the kid, we don't know where the kid was in relation to the car or even what the kid actually did to the car - we just have the mother of said child giving their version of the half-baked here say that they got.

An apology for an over-reaction and a kid that pee'd their pants is the only solid evidence the OP actually has and I think many agree an over-reaction is certainly understandable given mitigating circumstances...I'd absolutely draw the line at physically touching the child but given I don't know that's what happened, my moral outrage would be wasted.

Assuming what the OP said is true, would you say the same thing if you were in her position? That your kid was the root of the problem and is the reason this man hit him/her? Or would you be of the opinion that the adult is fully at fault for his actions?

cynder

daltonmd wrote: »

And a grown man is a grown man.
We do accept that a dog doesn't know better, because he is a dog. But the actions of the dog, in attacking a child that caused injury mean that we put that dog down. Not merely because he behaved like a dog, but because he assaulted/attacked a child and caused injury. We cannot trust that dog not to do the same or worse at some point in the future.

This man got out of his car and assaulted a child. Yet people here think that is ok?

The dog is not put down in every case, most cases and also depends on the bite, if its just a bite or if it was an attack, these cases are not clear cut either.

Zulu

MagicMarker wrote: »

What is clear, as well as disturbing, is that there are people actually defending him on the assumption that he did.

And what is equally clear is that there are others prepared to call the Guards and accuse him of assaulting a minor on the flimsyist of information.

None of you own the moral high ground.

daltonmd

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd say that's the root of the problem if he just walked up and indiscriminately walloped the child...but they didn't, they'd have had absolutely no reason to interact with the child at all if the child had been behaving themselves, so really THAT is the root of the issue...and that's despite the fact that we don't even know they touched the kid, we don't know where the kid was in relation to the car or even what the kid actually did to the car - we just have the mother of said child giving their version of the half-baked here say that they got.

An apology for an over-reaction and a kid that pee'd their pants is the only solid evidence the OP actually has and I think many agree an over-reaction is certainly understandable given mitigating circumstances...I'd absolutely draw the line at physically touching the child but given I don't know that's what happened, my moral outrage would be wasted.

He did not interact with the child, he walked up and walloped him. It doesn't matter where the car was or where the kid was. None of that matters. A grown man struck a child. You cannot do that.

Zamboni

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd say that's the root of the problem if he just walked up and indiscriminately walloped the child...but they didn't, they'd have had absolutely no reason to interact with the child at all if the child had been behaving themselves, so really THAT is the root of the issue...

That sounds remarkably like, well he wouldn't have raped her if she wasn't dressed like that.
You cannot justify a grown man hitting an unknown 8 year old child no matter what you say.

cynder

daltonmd wrote: »

It doesn't matter if there was a bruise or not. It doesn't matter if it was a hard slap or a soft slap. That's just a matter of luck. The man struck the child and he had no right to do that.

The man should have respect for OTHER PEOPLE. It is mind boggling that you hold property in a higher estimation than the safety of an 8 year old child....

Allegedly!!!!!!! There is no proof or evidence or this. Witness said it looked like it, the boy hasnt said anything....

daltonmd

Zulu wrote: »

And what is equally clear is that there are others prepared to call the Guards and accuse him of assaulting a minor on the flimsyist of information.

None of you own the moral high ground.

if there is a question or an accusation then it is the Gardai who decide whether an assault took place. When a child and a witness make that accusation than that is not flimsy evidence. it is an accusation that has to be investigated.

ash23

If I were in the OPs position and the exact same thing had happened with my 8 year old, I would sit her down and ask her what happened. I would tell her the importance of telling the truth and explain the seriousness of the situation. I would tell her that she needs to explain what happened exactly and that I need to know what she did. I would let her know that she will not be punished if she tells me what she did (I would only do this because I wouldn't want her to be afraid to tell me what she did).

If she said the man had hit my child I would speak to the witness also and I would call the gardai. I would have a serious chat with my child about the dangers of messing in traffic.

If she said the man had not hit my child I would make her apologise to him for hitting his car and have a serious chat with my child about the dangers of messing in traffic.

cynder

daltonmd wrote: »

He did not interact with the child, he walked up and walloped him. t.

You saw that did you?.

Abi

MagicMarker wrote: »

There's no excuse for it but you make excuses for the man..... ??

I don't know how many times I have to say I don't condone the fact that he hit the child. I'm not excusing what happened, so don't put words in my mouth, please.

Yes, the child shouldn't have done it, I don't know how many times that has to be repeated, but he did and that's that.

No, theres no 'thats that' here. You can't just side-line what he did as just one of those things. It was mischievous behaviour.

The child should be disciplined with regards to what he did.

Oh I agree, and a lecture on why he needs to keep his hands off other peoples property to boot.

The root of the problem is the man who allegedly slapped a child, no matter what the reason was, he is 100% at fault for what he allegedly did.

No, that was a knock on effect after the child did. With that said, and I repeat, the mans actions were wrong.


I know if it were me, I wouldn't have seen outside the house for a fortnight after that, and a proper dressing down. I'd also imagine my mother would tell him to keep his hands off her kids. Going to the gardai? well within the OP's rights. Considering both sides of the story, I'd tell him not to touch my child again or I'd have the Gardai involved. I'd follow up with grounding the child, and have a very serious chat with him about 1) how dangerous cars and being near the road is. 2) Respecting other peoples property. The child clearly has no understanding of either of these.

daltonmd

grindelwald wrote: »

Allegedly!!!!!!! There is no proof or evidence or this. Witness said it looked like it, the boy hasnt said anything....

Which is why I asked you if he did hit the child then is that right. You then started to split hairs about how hard the hit was.

If he put his hands on the child then he assaulted the child. And that is illegal.

daltonmd

grindelwald wrote: »

You saw that did you?.

Again, we are working on the assumption that he did. If he did then he had no right.

Zulu

daltonmd wrote: »

He did not interact with the child, he walked up and walloped him.

Hyperbole is great and all, but we're not writing tabloid head lines here. No one "walloped" anyone.

cynder

MagicMarker wrote: »

So it's okay for the guy to hit a child so long as he doesn't leave a mark?

In this one off case as it currently stands I would let it pass it has already been delt with.

Abi

Zamboni wrote: »

If I was the OP I'd give the guy a hiding for touching my child regardless of the reason.
I'd also give my son a hiding for touching the car.

Violence solves violence. I missed the memo on that one.

MagicMarker

grindelwald wrote: »

In this one off case as it currently stands I would let it pass it has already been delt with.

And the answer to my question is....?

daltonmd

Zulu wrote: »

Hyperbole is great and all, but we're not writing tabloid head lines here. No one "walloped" anyone.

"if he just walked up and indiscriminately walloped the child"

It was in response to this statement. And in my opinion, if this man got out of his car and struck the child then he as good as walked up to him and walloped him.

Zamboni

Abi wrote: »

Violence solves violence. I missed the memo on that one.

I missed the memo where a 'serious chat' solves everything.