Flicking an unknown child for throwing rocks at terrapins

[Rafterplease]

I'm sitting in a pub and we are discussing an AIBU of one of the group.

Here's the scenario:

L is in Greece. There's a park with a pool and terrapins in it. A kid - roughly seven - is throwing rocks at the terrapins. The kid is blond but probably Greek. L is standing next to the kid and, fairly gently, instinctively flicks the kid with the back of her hand and says (in English) 'don't do that'. There was no parent in sight. The kid ran away.

L just didnt think, acted totally on instinct. She feels very guilty about doing this. Should she be beating herself up over it?

I think reasonable to intervene and say something but not reasonable to flick. I wonder if she's have flicked if it was a seventeen year old or whether she'd have been worried about a flick back.

I read the thread title and assumed we were talking about ear flicking. Which is NOTORIOUSLY painful - at least, DH doesn't seem to like it.

I'm with the drunken asbo delinquent terrorist child abuser btw. And the cuntish terrapins.

I think an adult, or seventeen-year-old, being deliberately cruel to animals would be liable to more than a "flick" as a sanction if reported to the RSPCA or police. Cruelty animals is a criminal offence. This incident did not concern an adult but a child who was misbehaving. The OP's friend's reaction was appropriate and proportional in the circumstances.

BOF

"....one woman's, 'flick' is another woman's beating."

Who's the other woman- Mrs Godzilla?

I agree - this place is batshit nearly all the time these days sometimes.

I'm with pud bet she wouldn't have flicked an older child or adult because she'd rightly have been afraid of receiving a bigger flick in return.

Totally support her in saying something to the child - a good starter would have been a firm "stop throwing rocks" which is what I'd consider proportional in the first instance, especially in the context of teaching a child not to be abusive to smaller more helpless creatures.

Still love to know exactly what a flick is? Does it involve ear lobes or the back of a hand or just a forearm touch to get attention?

Gosh, people are so precious here. Sorry, I would have done the same and even worse if it had been an adult.

But, IMHO, a child behaving cruelly has to be stopped and I presume the language barrier was the reason she didn't just talk to him

It's not appropriate for an adult to 'flick' a seven year old, the friend is not the police and it's not for her to go around arbitrarily meting out punishment.

Heavens! She gave him 'the back of her hand'. A flick has no clear definition: some think it is a light, fleeting touch but others may think it is harder or sharper than that. She is hardly going to say she 'thumped' or 'slapped' him.

Nonetheless, she had no business laying hands on him in anger or annoyance. As I said earlier, I would have been amazed if she had responded in the same manner to a large adult.

In what universe is it ok to 'flick' children just because they are smaller and younger? It really does not matter if, as a pp pointed out, they may hit children in Greece unless we are now seeing some suggest that this is a good thing and we should all do the same.

Violence is never the answer and I doubt very much if the little boy will stop to think about how he treats animals, as he now sees this is how some foolish adults behave. Yes, I do feel that children should only be remonstrated with gently and encouraged to verbalise why they may have behaved badly.

Thank goodness it is now illegal to lay hands on a child in the UK.

What is a "flick" when it's at home?

Shoulda pushed him in

But the fact that she wouldn't have "flicked" an older person does not make it wrong to stop a younger person this way. You do what is possible in each situation. It's analogous to saying that if you saw a burly, six-foot guy beating up a woman in the street, you'd be too scared for your own safety to intervene (and it wouldn't be successful anyway) but if you saw a young teenager hurting a younger child, you might physically try to stop him/her because you weren't so afraid of retaliation there was a good chance that you could actually stop the violence. In both situations, you have the same correct instinct - it's just that in one it is possible for you to intervene and in the other, it isn't.

Just because you can't stop all incidents of violence doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to stop the ones you can.

She could have said sternly something to the kid, like, stop that, held her hand up in front of the kid. Even if there was a language barrier, it is pretty easy to show stop that! Touching the child was unacceptable, there is no excuse, and shows no impulse control. Your "friend" was out of line.

Sorry, missed out the and.

Sorry but you do not put a hand or finger on any child end of!! She could have said something yes, but how dare she flick a child I don't care how feeble it was, that's absolutely not on and really annoying that people think it's not a big deal, would you allow someone to flick you're child? I would have flicked her face with my fist had this been my child and I've never raised my hand's to anyone ever but you don't touch another child.

Oh yes heaven forbid we stop anyone's little pwecious from tormenting sentient beings!

As other posters have said though you don't teach a child that it's wrong to hurt another sentient being by hurting them. That just reinforces that it's ok to enforce your will on smaller and more vulnerable beings through aggression. The child was clearly doing a horrible thing but that wasn't the right way to deal with it.

I'm guessing saying don't do that firmly would have sufficed without physical contact!

I can honestly say, doingitlikeaboss, that if either of my children had been throwing rocks at defenceless animals, when I wasn't present to stop them, then I would not have objected in the slightest to a well-meaning stranger "flicking" them on the hand that they were using to throw the rocks to stop them doing it. I would have been appalled at my children's cruelty and total lack of empathy and I would have been grateful to the responsible individual who was there at the time and let them know that this was completely unacceptable. (Luckily, this scenario would not have occurred with my children who would have been very upset to have seen defenceless animals being treated this way.)

If a child of 7 is doing that he certainly has issues!. Poor terrapins. Must have been terrified. What did he get out of frightening them. However I don't think it's up to some random women to flick the boy.

Am I the only one who had to google to find out what terrapins are?

(Misses point)

Fwiw I agree that a verbal reprimand would be good, but not a flick or other physical intervention. You just don't go around flicking people IMO, and it almost certainly wasn't necessary to flick him to get him to stop.n

If it was a flick with back of fingers on arm or shoulder (please elaborate on the fucking flick op!) Then no,I wouldn't mind a stranger doing that to my child in those circumstances.

So would my dds thankfully I would never be in this situation with them, doesn't take away from the fact she struck a child in the form of flicking them, the terrapins wellbeing is not more important than a childs, the adult's in the wrong no matter what that child was doing

her actions stopped the terrapins being hurt.to protect herself legally better for her to have told him off but I don't think she did anything wrong.

The child's "wellbeing" was not in the slightest bit affected by this "flick". On the contrary, the child learned the valuable lesson that his behaviour was shocking and completely unacceptable.