The day has finally arrived when a man can't spank a kid for teaching parrot to cuss - Page 2

panerd · 07-10-2003, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sabotai

If it had been an adult, and the guy whacked them in the head with a bat to protect his property, not many would have a problem with it.

For talking to his bird. Yeah, I think most normal people would have a problem with that.

clintl · 07-10-2003, 12:43 PM

I don't think the guy should be prosecuted unless he does it again. But I don't he did the right thing, either, and needs to get the message that what he did is not appropriate. Let him off with a warning.

sabotai · 07-10-2003, 12:43 PM

panerd, ok, it's obvious you did not read the story. The kids were not talking to the bird, they spitting on it and teaching it curse words. Before responding to a story, it'd be good if you actually READ the story.

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 12:47 PM

Sabotai,

He'd be booked for assault with a deadly weapon at the very least if he beaned somebody with a baseball bat for spitting at his bird. I can't believe you'd think that was fine.

panerd · 07-10-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sabotai
panerd, ok, it's obvious you did not read the story. The kids were not talking to the bird, they spitting on it and teaching it curse words. Before responding to a story, it'd be good if you actually READ the story.

Yeah I read the story and I don't think hitting anyone with a baseball bat would be considered a proper punishment for what the kids did.

However, I am glad that you used your psycic abilities to know that I hadn't read the story and to scold me for it.

KWhit · 07-10-2003, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Easy Mac
This is the kind of logic I don't understand.

First, people say there are too many frivilous lawsuits in America, but when something like this happens, they say "don't spank the kid, sue." Yeah, b/c sueing a kid for teaching my parrot to cuss is a worthy lawsuit.

Secondly, using your logic, there should be no jury trials. there is no reason to try someone for murder in a court of law using their peers, b/c it is up to the parents to punish their children. If this happened, no one would be in jail.

You're the one whose logic is mixed up.

Using your logic, anytime anyone did anything wrong it would be up to the person wronged to get physically violent with them to teach them a lesson.

If someone cuts you off on the highway, ram them with your car - lesson learned. No need to get the police involved. Everyone's happy.

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by panerd
Yeah I read the story and I don't think hitting anyone with a baseball bat would be considered a proper punishment for what the kids did.

However, I am glad that you used your psycic abilities to know that I hadn't read the story and to scold me for it.

Actually he psychicly hit you in the head with a baseball bat. Didn't you feel it??

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 12:55 PM

I know I've been awake too long when I read the subject, which I've read many times before as "The day has finally arrived when a man can't spank his parrot..."

Damn, I need sleep but the repair shop guy said there was a slight chance it would be ready today, I need to get to work tonight and it's raining. If I go to sleep I can forget about hearing the phone if it rings.

This sucks.

sabotai · 07-10-2003, 12:57 PM

"He'd be booked for assault with a deadly weapon at the very least if he beaned somebody with a baseball bat for spitting at his bird. I can't believe you'd think that was fine."

I don't think he would if he was doing it to protect his property. It's ok to shot someone breaking into your house to steal your property. Why isn't it ok for a store owner to protect his property from damage by giving a kid a little spank on the rear? Compared to what people are allowed to do in the protection of their home property, this looks liek the kid got off light.

"Yeah I read the story and I don't think hitting anyone with a baseball bat would be considered a proper punishment for what the kids did.

However, I am glad that you used your psycic abilities to know that I hadn't read the story and to scold me for it."

The article clearly states that the kids were claimed to have been spitting on the bird and teaching it cuss words. You claimed they were only talking to the bird. Since your claim was entirely different than the one found in the article, there's only two conclusions. Either you are an idiot or did not read the article. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for letting me know my initial choice on the conclusions was wrong.

EDIT: To clarify something I said.

sabotai · 07-10-2003, 12:58 PM

dola,

"I know I've been awake too long when I read the subject, which I've read many times before as "The day has finally arrived when a man can't spank his parrot..." "

LOL....and another FOFC classic is born.

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 01:04 PM

I'm pretty sure you can't just shoot someone for breaking into your home. They must be armed and you must be able to reasonably prove your life was in danger before you can pull the trigger. I know some states are more lax on this but still, it's not open season on unarmed burglers.

sabotai · 07-10-2003, 01:08 PM

Ok Axxon, I guess we'll just agree to disgree. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go spank my parrot.

Bee · 07-10-2003, 01:10 PM

The world has become a violent place...no child, parrot or sausage is safe anymore.

Easy Mac · 07-10-2003, 01:12 PM

Spanking is now physically violent? No where did it say he reared back, took off his belt, got some switches and a hot iron, and laid into the kid. I know thats what I read

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Spanking is now physically violent? No where did it say he reared back, took off his belt, got some switches and a hot iron, and laid into the kid. I know thats what I read

Dude, who are you responding to???

GrantDawg · 07-10-2003, 02:32 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with a family friend that is keeping my daughter had to spank her because of something she did (unless it entered the level of abuse). BUT, if some stranger even tried to spank her, no matter what she did, I wouldn't have to press charges. They most likely would be pressing charges on me.

clintl · 07-10-2003, 02:38 PM

Fritz, I asked a couple of co-workers (one of them with very different political views than mine) who have kids (now grown, so that they have some historical perspective as well about what was once acceptable) about how they would react in this situation if it were their kid. And they both had big problems with what the shopkeeper did. So I'm sticking with my guess that regional cultural differences may have quite a bit to do with the different reactions here.

Fritz · 07-10-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by clintl
Fritz, I asked a couple of co-workers (one of them with very different political views than mine) who have kids (now grown, so that they have some historical perspective as well about what was once acceptable) about how they would react in this situation if it were their kid. And they both had big problems with what the shopkeeper did. So I'm sticking with my guess that regional cultural differences may have quite a bit to do with the different reactions here.

well, there goes my vacation plans for august. I guess I will have to go with my backup and spend a week in the west bank bulldozing houses.

ISiddiqui · 07-10-2003, 02:52 PM

Quote:

So spanking is now synonymous with hitting and assault?

Well yes... more so for battery, which is any unwanted touching. There is an exception for parents hitting the child, because parents have a liberty interest in raising their children.

The storekeeper was out of line.

Ksyrup · 07-10-2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Well yes... more so for battery, which is any unwanted touching.

If kissing can be found to be an "unwanted touching" for which prosecution may occur, then so can physically striking a child.

Ksyrup · 07-10-2003, 02:57 PM

You tell me that you've heard every sound there is
And your bird can swear
But you can't spank me
You can't spank... MEEEEEEEE

ColtCrazy · 07-10-2003, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
I was Matthew's age 25 years ago. If I had been screwing with some neighborhood store owner's parrot, the store-owner would have spanked me immediately, and then told my mother, who would have thanked him, then spanked me again when I got home.

...and I would have learned my lesson.

Times have changed for the worse.

Amen to that. Society is getting way out of line. Sure, he should have thought first...but this is stupid.

Ben E Lou · 07-10-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Axxon
I'm pretty sure you can't just shoot someone for breaking into your home. They must be armed and you must be able to reasonably prove your life was in danger before you can pull the trigger. I know some states are more lax on this but still, it's not open season on unarmed burglers.

Heh. That reminds me of the 2nd verse of Charlie Daniels' Simple Man

Now, I'm the kind of man that wouldn't harm a mouse
But if I catch somebody breakin' in my house
I've got a twelve gauge shotgun waitin' on the other side
So don't go pushin' me against my will
I don't want to have to fight you but I durn sure will
So if you don't want trouble that you'd better just pass me on by
As far as I'm concerned there ain't no excuse
For the raping and the killing and the child abuse
And I've got a way to put and end to all that mess
You just take those rascals out in the swamp
Put them on their knees and tie 'em to a stump
And let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest

Blackadar · 07-10-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Axxon
I'm pretty sure you can't just shoot someone for breaking into your home. They must be armed and you must be able to reasonably prove your life was in danger before you can pull the trigger. I know some states are more lax on this but still, it's not open season on unarmed burglers.

Actually, quite often, you only have to show that they were in the process of breaking and entering the home. Being armed or proving your life was in danger is not often a prerequisite.

However, shooting someone outside the house or fleeing the house is another story. If they're coming forward, you can usually open fire. If they're not, you can't.

rexallllsc · 07-10-2003, 08:25 PM

Let's say you own a car lot...and a kid walks by and starts spitting on your top-of-the-line model...and then kicks the fender...what do you do? Scold him? Sorry, if a kid doesn't have respect for others people and their property, something is wrong.

Nice to see the mother is teaching him a valuable lesson...when you disagree with someone...sue them!

ISiddiqui · 07-10-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Let's say you own a car lot...and a kid walks by and starts spitting on your top-of-the-line model...and then kicks the fender...what do you do? Scold him? Sorry, if a kid doesn't have respect for others people and their property, something is wrong.

You don't FREAKING HIT HIM! You call security or the cops if he doesn't listen.

Quote:

Nice to see the mother is teaching him a valuable lesson...when you disagree with someone...sue them!

Yeah, when someone batters you, you should fight for your rights.

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rexallllsc
Let's say you own a car lot...and a kid walks by and starts spitting on your top-of-the-line model...and then kicks the fender...what do you do? Scold him? Sorry, if a kid doesn't have respect for others people and their property, something is wrong.

Nice to see the mother is teaching him a valuable lesson...when you disagree with someone...sue them!

For the second time no one sued anybody. Read the article. It is a criminal charge. Those are filed by the police not the mother. He stands accused of breaking a criminal law.

sterlingice · 07-10-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Axxon
I'm pretty sure you can't just shoot someone for breaking into your home. They must be armed and you must be able to reasonably prove your life was in danger before you can pull the trigger. I know some states are more lax on this but still, it's not open season on unarmed burglers.

I don't know about any other state, but in gun-happy Texas, this was perfectly legal. If someone is breaking into your home, it is interpreted as threatining yourself and your family and thus you could kill them.

SI

sterlingice · 07-10-2003, 09:19 PM

For once in your godforsaken lives try putting yourself in someone else's shoes instead of taking the obvious side that the media wants you to sit in to support their sensationalized story (although this story seemed to at least stay somewhat neutral straying from one side to another throughout the story).

If you think the kid shouldn't be spanked, go answer sabotai's post that was at the bottom of the last page. Not in some flowery, retarded "sit with your thumb up your ass trying to mystically figure out where the parent is". None of this theological "but I think that only parents should discipline their kids". Use cold, hard logic: if you're the shopkeeper, what do you do?

And to those in the SkyDog, et al camp: you get the exact opposite task. You have to talk to the theological: what right do you have to spank the kid. Then again, I think they've argued this point more than the other side has argued the other points which is why I side with this side. Actually, it's more a matter of this being the "perfectly logical yet can still be explained somewhat idealogically" side versus the other one which is "mostly idealogical and has no basis in reality" side.

As for me, I've tried seeing it from both sides and I've gotta say it- you all are a bunch of fucking pussies (or at least half of you). The man didn't pull out a piece of lumber and start hitting the kid on the head or start molesting him: he spanked the kid.

I'm sorry for the profanity in the previous post there just seems to be a definate lack of logic as well as narrowmindedness about this and other stuff and it's really starting to get under my skin.

SI

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sterlingice
For once in your godforsaken lives try putting yourself in someone else's shoes instead of taking the obvious side that the media wants you to sit in to support their sensationalized story (although this story seemed to at least stay somewhat neutral straying from one side to another throughout the story).

If you think the kid shouldn't be spanked, go answer sabotai's post that was at the bottom of the last page. Not in some flowery, retarded "sit with your thumb up your ass trying to mystically figure out where the parent is". None of this theological "but I think that only parents should discipline their kids". Use cold, hard logic: if you're the shopkeeper, what do you do?

And to those in the SkyDog, et al camp: you get the exact opposite task. You have to talk to the theological: what right do you have to spank the kid. Then again, I think they've argued this point more than the other side has argued the other points which is why I side with this side. Actually, it's more a matter of this being the "perfectly logical yet can still be explained somewhat idealogically" side versus the other one which is "mostly idealogical and has no basis in reality" side.

As for me, I've tried seeing it from both sides and I've gotta say it- you all are a bunch of fucking pussies (or at least half of you). The man didn't pull out a piece of lumber and start hitting the kid on the head or start molesting him: he spanked the kid.

I'm sorry for the profanity in the previous post there just seems to be a definate lack of logic as well as narrowmindedness about this and other stuff and it's really starting to get under my skin.

SI

So...you're right, everybody else is wrong and if we disagree with you're we're pussies and we're the narrow minded ones.

Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer.

sterlingice · 07-10-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Axxon
So...you're right, everybody else is wrong and if we disagree with you're we're pussies and we're the narrow minded ones.

Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer.

Actually, you're just helping my point along. Yet again, another post with no rebuttal either idealogical or logical: just an attack on an individual.

SI

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sterlingice
Actually, you're just helping my point along. Yet again, another post with no rebuttal either idealogical or logical: just an attack on an individual.

SI

Well, I didn't really attack anybody I responded to an attack with a question.

Your ideological and logical point was:

Quote:

As for me, I've tried seeing it from both sides and I've gotta say it- you all are a bunch of fucking pussies (or at least half of you). The man didn't pull out a piece of lumber and start hitting the kid on the head or start molesting him: he spanked the kid.

That of course isn't an attack at all and is a fully thought out and logical argument on the merits of corporal punishment. Please excuse me for not seeing it before.

JPhillips · 07-10-2003, 09:55 PM

sterling: All right, I'll grab the idiot stick. First the owner throws the kid out of the store. Ifhe needs to gently prod him, so be it. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the kid comes back he calls the mother and if that doesn't work or he can't get her number he calls the cops. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the cops can't or won't handle it he sues the mother. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM.

Setting aside the moral arguments of hitting someone else's child, remember the business owner's goal is to protect his business. He isn't in the business of punishing children. By hitting this child he has put his business at great risk. Not only does he have a lot of bad publicit to deal with, I wouldn't be suprised if he eventually had to deal with a civil law suit. By hitting this child the business owner has achieved the exact opposite of what he wanted.

For me, I wouldn't ever let someone who I don't know/trust spank my child. How do I know that what the business owner is saying is correct? As I recall, some people have occasionally been known to change the story if it will protect them. Discipline is important, and I don't always object to a spank, but discipline from a stranger won't really accomplish anything. Discipline is effective in part because it comes from recognized authority figures. I don't believe that this kid wil be any better behaved now than before. Do you?

sterlingice · 07-10-2003, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Axxon
Well, I didn't really attack anybody I responded to an attack with a question.

Your ideological and logical point was:

That of course isn't an attack at all and is a fully thought out and logical argument on the merits of corporal punishment. Please excuse me for not seeing it before.

No, the first part was hyperbole typed from an increasingly furstrated person. Not very productive.

The second part, however, was to point out that the arguments used by one side completely fail to recognize the scope of what we are talking about. Again, it's not as if the man shot the kid, he spanked him.

And, yet again, you have yet to attack an argument- you're still going after a poster.

SI

Axxon · 07-10-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sterlingice
No, the first part was hyperbole typed from an increasingly furstrated person. Not very productive.

The second part, however, was to point out that the arguments used by one side completely fail to recognize the scope of what we are talking about. Again, it's not as if the man shot the kid, he spanked him.

And, yet again, you have yet to attack an argument- you're still going after a poster.

SI

How am I going against a poster? I'm going against an idea that isn't there and an ad hominem that isn't deserved.

I've got to stay away from this man. My reason to oppose corporal punishment is because I was fucking put into the hospital because of it. I guess because I couldn't fight a guy who was five times my size I'm a pussy.

I'm outta this conversation. Nothing personal honest but this is a difficult issue for me and I can't deal with your flippant namecalling. I'm not taking offense; I knew I should have avoided the thread but so far there was discussion not slamming other posters.

sterlingice · 07-10-2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JPhillips
sterling: All right, I'll grab the idiot stick. First the owner throws the kid out of the store. Ifhe needs to gently prod him, so be it. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the kid comes back he calls the mother and if that doesn't work or he can't get her number he calls the cops. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the cops can't or won't handle it he sues the mother. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM.

Setting aside the moral arguments of hitting someone else's child, remember the business owner's goal is to protect his business. He isn't in the business of punishing children. By hitting this child he has put his business at great risk. Not only does he have a lot of bad publicit to deal with, I wouldn't be suprised if he eventually had to deal with a civil law suit. By hitting this child the business owner has achieved the exact opposite of what he wanted.

For me, I wouldn't ever let someone who I don't know/trust spank my child. How do I know that what the business owner is saying is correct? As I recall, some people have occasionally been known to change the story if it will protect them. Discipline is important, and I don't always object to a spank, but discipline from a stranger won't really accomplish anything. Discipline is effective in part because it comes from recognized authority figures. I don't believe that this kid wil be any better behaved now than before. Do you?

Finally. something. Tho, the "sues the mother part"... well, again, like previous arguments... it just seems trivial. Don't we have courts to determine much more important stuff? However, again, what is he going to do in the meantime when the kid comes back in because the shopkeeper has no authority? What's to keep the kid from screwing around with the parrot for another ten minutes until the police arrive?

As for the argument from the second paragraph, it wasn't a matter of the two being mutually exclusive: by discipling the child it's not as if he is not protecting his business.

Also, I disagree with the third paragraph. The shop owner has no reason to lie. I think the portion of people in this world who go around spanking kids unprovoked because they have a spaking fetish or something is pretty low. Where is his motive to lie about the kid teaching the bird to swear?

There are also no claims of abuse. Even the kid admitted he wasn't hurt. So it's not as if the debate is whether the kid was abused or not.

SI

rexallllsc · 07-10-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
You don't FREAKING HIT HIM! You call security or the cops if he doesn't listen.

Sorry, but if I own something worth $13,000, and some little dickhead is destroying it, he's going to find out the consequence of his actions pretty darn quick.

rexallllsc · 07-10-2003, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JPhillips
sterling: All right, I'll grab the idiot stick. First the owner throws the kid out of the store. Ifhe needs to gently prod him, so be it. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the kid comes back he calls the mother and if that doesn't work or he can't get her number he calls the cops. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the cops can't or won't handle it he sues the mother. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM.

So the shopowner should waste his whole day on some little bastard? No way.

mckerney · 07-10-2003, 10:19 PM

Same goes for shop keepers.

The kids parents should have called to thank him instead of filing charges.

JPhillips · 07-10-2003, 10:19 PM

rex: And I thought we had reached a new level of understanding!

I'm in no way trying to defend the kid. I'm just saying that hitting him will likely cause him more harm than good. As to dealing with the "little bastard" business owners have to deal wit shitty customers all the time. If you can't do that don't be in the service industry. People are evil.

sterling: As tsuing being trivial, this is supposedly a 13,000 dollar bird. I'de sure sue if someone destroyed my car which is about 13,000. No it isn't the ideal solution, but this is a last option.

I'm not saying that the shop keeper definately lied, but we don't know if he is telling the whole story. Evenif he believeshe is telling te whole truth the story may be different to an outsider than what he remembers. However, that isn't really important. My larger point here is that a stranger shouldn't disciplina a child. Not only could it hurt the child, it has very litle chance of doing much beneficial.

Airhog · 07-10-2003, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Axxon
Actually he psychicly hit you in the head with a baseball bat. Didn't you feel it??

Please report to the grammar thread.

sterlingice · 07-10-2003, 10:31 PM

Well, I think the spanking was more of a deterrant than a preventitive measure. It did keep the kid from continuing to mess with his bird which none of the other measure suggested would have done.

As for the $13K bird, yeah, I suppose that would be worth going to claims court over.

Also, I was talking this over with some others. How long do you think it would take the cops to respond to a guy calling in a kid for teaching his bird to swear? I think he'd still be waiting.

SI

rexallllsc · 07-10-2003, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JPhillips
rex: And I thought we had reached a new level of understanding!

I'm in no way trying to defend the kid. I'm just saying that hitting him will likely cause him more harm than good. As to dealing with the "little bastard" business owners have to deal wit shitty customers all the time. If you can't do that don't be in the service industry. People are evil.

Well, I am in the service industry...and I definitely kiss the customers ass. That being said, these kids aren't customers, and didn't have a genuine interest in the bird. Would you kiss a prank callers ass if he were clogging up your phone lines?

SackAttack · 07-11-2003, 12:51 AM

The problem is, guys, that 98% of parents DON'T discipline their kids when they're misbehaving in stores. I've been in customer service for closing in on three years here, and only ONCE have I seen a parent even speak harshly to a misbehaving kid. Usually they pretend to ignore the kid, or they act like they're going to leave without him, and that just makes the problem 100% worse.

Let the parent discipline the child? Won't happen. Peace love and kittens rule the day, even if that means the kid grows up to be a spoiled brat and have spoiled crotch droppings of his or her own.

Inwardly, I'm cheering this guy for teaching the kid a lesson. Did he have the right to do it? No, of course not. But a small part of me hopes that perhaps parents take it to heart and say "Okay, maybe I need to be more actively responsible for my own children's discipline so that this sort of thing CANNOT happen to them."

Josh

WSUCougar · 07-11-2003, 06:38 AM

A little more fuel on the proverbial fire.

(a) The kid is 9 years old, which makes him a 3rd or 4th grader. That's a relatively big kid when it comes to the concept of spanking. My point being that it's not as hideously awful as it might be with a 4 or 5 year old.

(b) "Matthew was not hurt but said he was scared when grabbed by the shirt and spanked." So in other words, it's the concept of spanking she's sueing over. Or what - psychological damages? Pu-lease. I'm no lawyer, but perhaps someone else can explain if you can legitimize something like this when there is no physical harm. In other words, can someone be sued for, say, pushing a 9 year old kid out of the store? Is it simply the fact that he laid a hand on him?

(c) Have you guys visualized this scene? A little brat is standing at a bird cage dropping continual f-bombs and supposedly spitting on the bird. IMO, this deserved a strong response by the shop owner - of course there's the rub of the argument, how you define "strong." But let's say he storms over and yells at the kid, really let's him have it: "GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THE BIRD!!!" I think it's possible the parent would have flipped out over that too.

[Edited for typo]

Honolulu_Blue · 07-11-2003, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WSUCougar

(b) "Matthew was not hurt but said he was scared when grabbed by the shirt and spanked." So in other words, it's the concept of spanking she's sueing over. Or what - psychological damages? Pu-lease. I'm no lawyer, but perhaps someone else can explain if you can legitimize something like this when there is no physical harm. In other words, can someone be sued for, say, pushing a 9 year old kid out of the store? Is it simply the fact that he laid a hand on him?

[Edited for typo]

To be guilty of assault you don't even need "unwanted touching." The fear of the threat itself is enough to charge and convict someone of assault. The fact that he actually laid hands on the kid (even if he pushed him, like in your hypothetical) makes it even easier to prove. I think for a "battery" charge you need physical contact, the threat/fear isn't enough like with an assault charge.

I am pulling all of this from memory and first year of law school was about 6 years ago and the bar about 3, but I pretty much repressed everything ever having to do with the bar exam.

Honolulu_Blue · 07-11-2003, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mckerney

Same goes for shop keepers.

The kids parents should have called to thank him instead of filing charges.

Utterly classless.

Ksyrup · 07-11-2003, 07:24 AM

Assault could be as little as pointing an unloaded gun at someone from 50 feet away. If the person doesn't know it's not loaded, there could be a reasonable fear of the threat to justify an assault charge.

Battery is an unwanted touching. As I mentioned earlier, kissing can be an unwanted touching. So yes, any kind of touching, including pushing, could be battery.

Now, I think you have to weigh that against the harm sought to be protected. For instance, when I worked in a grocery store in college, if someone was trying to shoplift, we had every right to stop them from leaving. If done with "reasonable" force (no extras thrown in for good measure), that is permissible. Here, you have a kid under 10 pestering a bird. I didn't even read anything about him physically harming the bird - I guess it was the emotional stress on the bird from the kid talking to him constantly (gee, I would never have thought that would happen by putting a bird in a public area of a pet store

...

In that scenario, I'm just not sure I see the reason for hitting him, other than "that's just what you do to little kids who misbehave." And I think that's the point here. That's NOT what you do unless you are the parent/guardian. What else could he do - let's see, ask who's kid this was and explain the problem, remove the bird to a place in the store inaccessible to the public until the kid leaves, if the parent becomes hostile/unruly, ask her to leave, and if she doesn't, call the cops if she is creating a scene...

If a group of teenagers is loitering at a 7-11, the store manager asks them to leave if they aren't going to buy anything. If they don't leave, he threatens to call the cops. Sometimes the manager follows through on a threat, sometimes he doesn't. But I can't say it is regular practice for the manager to "shoo" the teens away by striking them anywhere on their bodies. Why is this different, just because it's a kid?

Again, I think it's ridiculous that this lady is pressing charges. But that doesn't excuse what the guy did. he had a number of alternatives, and it doesn't appear he chose any of them before moving straight to the "spanking."

Ben E Lou · 07-11-2003, 07:49 AM

Honolulu--I'm thinking that was tongue-in-cheek. mckerney has posted that pic before.

All---Every time I see this thread title, I'm reminded of the Willie Nelson line: "You can't hang a man for killing a woman who was trying to steal his horse."

Honolulu_Blue · 07-11-2003, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
Honolulu--I'm thinking that was tongue-in-cheek. mckerney has posted that pic before.

Gotcha. But still....

07-10-2003, 12:47 PM	#54
Axxon Pro Starter Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Phoenix, AZ	Sabotai, He'd be booked for assault with a deadly weapon at the very least if he beaned somebody with a baseball bat for spitting at his bird. I can't believe you'd think that was fine. __________________ There are no houris, alas, in our heaven.

07-10-2003, 12:55 PM	#58
Axxon Pro Starter Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Phoenix, AZ	I know I've been awake too long when I read the subject, which I've read many times before as "The day has finally arrived when a man can't spank his parrot..." Damn, I need sleep but the repair shop guy said there was a slight chance it would be ready today, I need to get to work tonight and it's raining. If I go to sleep I can forget about hearing the phone if it rings. This sucks. __________________ There are no houris, alas, in our heaven.

07-10-2003, 12:57 PM	#59
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	"He'd be booked for assault with a deadly weapon at the very least if he beaned somebody with a baseball bat for spitting at his bird. I can't believe you'd think that was fine." I don't think he would if he was doing it to protect his property. It's ok to shot someone breaking into your house to steal your property. Why isn't it ok for a store owner to protect his property from damage by giving a kid a little spank on the rear? Compared to what people are allowed to do in the protection of their home property, this looks liek the kid got off light. "Yeah I read the story and I don't think hitting anyone with a baseball bat would be considered a proper punishment for what the kids did. However, I am glad that you used your psycic abilities to know that I hadn't read the story and to scold me for it." The article clearly states that the kids were claimed to have been spitting on the bird and teaching it cuss words. You claimed they were only talking to the bird. Since your claim was entirely different than the one found in the article, there's only two conclusions. Either you are an idiot or did not read the article. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for letting me know my initial choice on the conclusions was wrong. EDIT: To clarify something I said. Last edited by sabotai : 07-10-2003 at 01:02 PM.

07-10-2003, 01:04 PM	#61
Axxon Pro Starter Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Phoenix, AZ	I'm pretty sure you can't just shoot someone for breaking into your home. They must be armed and you must be able to reasonably prove your life was in danger before you can pull the trigger. I know some states are more lax on this but still, it's not open season on unarmed burglers. __________________ There are no houris, alas, in our heaven.

07-10-2003, 02:57 PM	#71
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	You tell me that you've heard every sound there is And your bird can swear But you can't spank me You can't spank... MEEEEEEEE __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

07-10-2003, 12:43 PM	#52
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	I don't think the guy should be prosecuted unless he does it again. But I don't he did the right thing, either, and needs to get the message that what he did is not appropriate. Let him off with a warning.

07-10-2003, 12:58 PM	#60
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	dola, "I know I've been awake too long when I read the subject, which I've read many times before as "The day has finally arrived when a man can't spank his parrot..." " LOL....and another FOFC classic is born.

07-10-2003, 01:08 PM	#62
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	Ok Axxon, I guess we'll just agree to disgree. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go spank my parrot.

07-10-2003, 01:10 PM	#63
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	The world has become a violent place...no child, parrot or sausage is safe anymore.

07-10-2003, 01:12 PM	#64
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	Spanking is now physically violent? No where did it say he reared back, took off his belt, got some switches and a hot iron, and laid into the kid. I know thats what I read

07-10-2003, 02:32 PM	#66
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	I wouldn't have a problem with a family friend that is keeping my daughter had to spank her because of something she did (unless it entered the level of abuse). BUT, if some stranger even tried to spank her, no matter what she did, I wouldn't have to press charges. They most likely would be pressing charges on me.

07-10-2003, 02:38 PM	#67
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	Fritz, I asked a couple of co-workers (one of them with very different political views than mine) who have kids (now grown, so that they have some historical perspective as well about what was once acceptable) about how they would react in this situation if it were their kid. And they both had big problems with what the shopkeeper did. So I'm sticking with my guess that regional cultural differences may have quite a bit to do with the different reactions here.

07-10-2003, 08:25 PM	#75
rexallllsc Banned Join Date: May 2003	Let's say you own a car lot...and a kid walks by and starts spitting on your top-of-the-line model...and then kicks the fender...what do you do? Scold him? Sorry, if a kid doesn't have respect for others people and their property, something is wrong. Nice to see the mother is teaching him a valuable lesson...when you disagree with someone...sue them!

07-10-2003, 09:19 PM	#79
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	For once in your godforsaken lives try putting yourself in someone else's shoes instead of taking the obvious side that the media wants you to sit in to support their sensationalized story (although this story seemed to at least stay somewhat neutral straying from one side to another throughout the story). If you think the kid shouldn't be spanked, go answer sabotai's post that was at the bottom of the last page. Not in some flowery, retarded "sit with your thumb up your ass trying to mystically figure out where the parent is". None of this theological "but I think that only parents should discipline their kids". Use cold, hard logic: if you're the shopkeeper, what do you do? And to those in the SkyDog, et al camp: you get the exact opposite task. You have to talk to the theological: what right do you have to spank the kid. Then again, I think they've argued this point more than the other side has argued the other points which is why I side with this side. Actually, it's more a matter of this being the "perfectly logical yet can still be explained somewhat idealogically" side versus the other one which is "mostly idealogical and has no basis in reality" side. As for me, I've tried seeing it from both sides and I've gotta say it- you all are a bunch of fucking pussies (or at least half of you). The man didn't pull out a piece of lumber and start hitting the kid on the head or start molesting him: he spanked the kid. I'm sorry for the profanity in the previous post there just seems to be a definate lack of logic as well as narrowmindedness about this and other stuff and it's really starting to get under my skin. SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

07-10-2003, 09:55 PM	#83
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	sterling: All right, I'll grab the idiot stick. First the owner throws the kid out of the store. Ifhe needs to gently prod him, so be it. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the kid comes back he calls the mother and if that doesn't work or he can't get her number he calls the cops. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. If the cops can't or won't handle it he sues the mother. HE DOESN'T SPANK HIM. Setting aside the moral arguments of hitting someone else's child, remember the business owner's goal is to protect his business. He isn't in the business of punishing children. By hitting this child he has put his business at great risk. Not only does he have a lot of bad publicit to deal with, I wouldn't be suprised if he eventually had to deal with a civil law suit. By hitting this child the business owner has achieved the exact opposite of what he wanted. For me, I wouldn't ever let someone who I don't know/trust spank my child. How do I know that what the business owner is saying is correct? As I recall, some people have occasionally been known to change the story if it will protect them. Discipline is important, and I don't always object to a spank, but discipline from a stranger won't really accomplish anything. Discipline is effective in part because it comes from recognized authority figures. I don't believe that this kid wil be any better behaved now than before. Do you? __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

07-10-2003, 10:19 PM	#89
mckerney Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	Same goes for shop keepers. The kids parents should have called to thank him instead of filing charges.

07-10-2003, 10:31 PM	#92
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	Well, I think the spanking was more of a deterrant than a preventitive measure. It did keep the kid from continuing to mess with his bird which none of the other measure suggested would have done. As for the $13K bird, yeah, I suppose that would be worth going to claims court over. Also, I was talking this over with some others. How long do you think it would take the cops to respond to a guy calling in a kid for teaching his bird to swear? I think he'd still be waiting. SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

07-11-2003, 12:51 AM	#94
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	The problem is, guys, that 98% of parents DON'T discipline their kids when they're misbehaving in stores. I've been in customer service for closing in on three years here, and only ONCE have I seen a parent even speak harshly to a misbehaving kid. Usually they pretend to ignore the kid, or they act like they're going to leave without him, and that just makes the problem 100% worse. Let the parent discipline the child? Won't happen. Peace love and kittens rule the day, even if that means the kid grows up to be a spoiled brat and have spoiled crotch droppings of his or her own. Inwardly, I'm cheering this guy for teaching the kid a lesson. Did he have the right to do it? No, of course not. But a small part of me hopes that perhaps parents take it to heart and say "Okay, maybe I need to be more actively responsible for my own children's discipline so that this sort of thing CANNOT happen to them." Josh

07-11-2003, 06:38 AM	#95
WSUCougar Rider Of Rohan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Port Angeles, WA or Helm's Deep	A little more fuel on the proverbial fire. (a) The kid is 9 years old, which makes him a 3rd or 4th grader. That's a relatively big kid when it comes to the concept of spanking. My point being that it's not as hideously awful as it might be with a 4 or 5 year old. (b) "Matthew was not hurt but said he was scared when grabbed by the shirt and spanked." So in other words, it's the concept of spanking she's sueing over. Or what - psychological damages? Pu-lease. I'm no lawyer, but perhaps someone else can explain if you can legitimize something like this when there is no physical harm. In other words, can someone be sued for, say, pushing a 9 year old kid out of the store? Is it simply the fact that he laid a hand on him? (c) Have you guys visualized this scene? A little brat is standing at a bird cage dropping continual f-bombs and supposedly spitting on the bird. IMO, this deserved a strong response by the shop owner - of course there's the rub of the argument, how you define "strong." But let's say he storms over and yells at the kid, really let's him have it: "GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THE BIRD!!!" I think it's possible the parent would have flipped out over that too. [Edited for typo] __________________ It's not the years...it's the mileage. Last edited by WSUCougar : 07-11-2003 at 06:40 AM.

07-11-2003, 07:24 AM	#98
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Assault could be as little as pointing an unloaded gun at someone from 50 feet away. If the person doesn't know it's not loaded, there could be a reasonable fear of the threat to justify an assault charge. Battery is an unwanted touching. As I mentioned earlier, kissing can be an unwanted touching. So yes, any kind of touching, including pushing, could be battery. Now, I think you have to weigh that against the harm sought to be protected. For instance, when I worked in a grocery store in college, if someone was trying to shoplift, we had every right to stop them from leaving. If done with "reasonable" force (no extras thrown in for good measure), that is permissible. Here, you have a kid under 10 pestering a bird. I didn't even read anything about him physically harming the bird - I guess it was the emotional stress on the bird from the kid talking to him constantly (gee, I would never have thought that would happen by putting a bird in a public area of a pet store ... In that scenario, I'm just not sure I see the reason for hitting him, other than "that's just what you do to little kids who misbehave." And I think that's the point here. That's NOT what you do unless you are the parent/guardian. What else could he do - let's see, ask who's kid this was and explain the problem, remove the bird to a place in the store inaccessible to the public until the kid leaves, if the parent becomes hostile/unruly, ask her to leave, and if she doesn't, call the cops if she is creating a scene... If a group of teenagers is loitering at a 7-11, the store manager asks them to leave if they aren't going to buy anything. If they don't leave, he threatens to call the cops. Sometimes the manager follows through on a threat, sometimes he doesn't. But I can't say it is regular practice for the manager to "shoo" the teens away by striking them anywhere on their bodies. Why is this different, just because it's a kid? Again, I think it's ridiculous that this lady is pressing charges. But that doesn't excuse what the guy did. he had a number of alternatives, and it doesn't appear he chose any of them before moving straight to the "spanking." __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." Last edited by Ksyrup : 07-11-2003 at 07:24 AM.

07-11-2003, 07:49 AM	#99
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Honolulu--I'm thinking that was tongue-in-cheek. mckerney has posted that pic before. All---Every time I see this thread title, I'm reminded of the Willie Nelson line: "You can't hang a man for killing a woman who was trying to steal his horse." __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)