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?

Flicking if it is hitting may well be a crime whereas the rock throwing is not. I suspect telling the child not to throw the rocks would have been better conduct by your own child.
Certainly your child needs to learn that we do not get our own way by hitting which is why a parent should never smack or tap a child and most of us don't and thus have children who do not resort to violence.

We went to a farm park once where a little shit of a kid aged about 7 (yes, OK, but he really was a little shit) was kicking at lambs through the chain fence. A couple of adults had told him not to, but he carried on. Right up until another child of about 4 came up behind him and kicked him really hard in the heels. Horrible kid ran off crying and the rest of us couldn't help but laugh. 4 year olds parent was going "Ahh Shane you shouldn't have done that but no really you shouldn't have"

There is no way in hell my DD (7) would throw things at an animal BTW, I don't think most 7yos would

a parent should never smack or tap a child and most of us don't and thus have children who do not resort to violence

Nonsense.

I have never smacked or tapped my dc, yet they have all resorted to violence during fights.

Getting someone's attention by flicking them with the back of your hand is no more violent than getting their attention by prodding them. But maybe the problem - for those posters who believe L was wrong - is the physical contact. That any uninvited physical contact by a non-parent is peeedo-bullying and wrong, wrong, wrong.

Flicking = she hit him.

I would be happy for you to tell my child off, but you don't get to lay your hands on them. Ever. At all.

She should feel guilty.

I think 'flick' is the new 'light tap' for people who smack a child and then regret having done it.

Ah, the OP has returned (156 posts later) to breathe new life into the debate! Good. I was wondering what I was going to do with my Sunday...

Me too! Where did she land the back of her hand on him?

I was at a family wedding once and one of my cousin's young children aged about 6 picked up her dad's lit cigarette (pre smoking ban) from the ashtray and started smoking it while his back was turned. I gave her hand a light slap in order she dropped the fag and said sternly 'No.' It was either that or grab the fag which may have caused a burn. IMHO it wasn't abuse and I admit it was partly shock on my part. I doubt the child was traumatised and the parents were Ok with it- I told them straight away.

'instinctively flicked him with THE BACK OF HER HAND' ( a quote taken from the OP's first post.)

I'm sure he's traumatized. Sobbing away in Greece. "But I only wanted to throw the rocks!" He's wailing.

There are some people in this thread who I hope . to god don't start to breed. These types of are the reasons that kids are monsters.

I never thought especially on here that I would see hurting animals as perfectly fine as long as the little darling doing the hurting wasn't scared in any way.

Touching someone on the arm (adult or child) to get their attention is not violence. All this "you must NEVER touch my child in any circumstances" is utterly ridiculous - what about if they were about to walk into the middle of a road with an oncoming car?

Throwing rocks is an offence if the rocks hit someone or damage something and potentially very harmful, where an arm touch, is not.

If I either of my children did this (unlikely), I would be mortified and grateful that some one had stopped them from doing it, not arguing with the person who had stopped it that she shouldn't have touched my little angel

well gamerchick I'm assuming that as this is mumsnet most of the posters have started to breed. I don't know which post's you've read which have stated that hurting animals is perfectly fine, rather people have argued that physically punishing children is wrong. Hitting children doesn't teach them that violence is wrong, it teaches that this is how you get your way. Violent adults have almost always been exposed to aggression from care givers as children (though I'm not suggesting that smacking, flicking or the level of punishment being discussed by most posters here results in children growing up damaged). Smacking is usually the easy, lazy option as it ensures compliance in the short term and helps that person get their frustration out, it's much harder to remain calm and explain why the behaviour is wrong and then consistently follow up with sanction/reparations.

The kid wasn't hit and actually it teaches them that there will always be somebody bigger than them so keep their hands to themselves.

No wonder kids these days smirk and tell you you can't touch them or they'll get the law onto you when they're terrorising an old couple (as what happened around here recently) or are unmanageable in schools. Some of them could do with a good clip to bring them back into line until the rest of the brain kicks in in their early twentys.

There aren't many animals who don't reprimand their young with a nip when it's needed. A dolphin pins it's offspring to the sea bed until it nearly drowns to bring it back into line.

You don't do gentle and to don't even have to hit them but they have to have a bit of fear of real consequences rather than this pussy footing around bollocks making them think they're untouchable.. ridiculous!

And if somebody clipped one of mine for deliberately hurting an animal I would thank them for it.

Am seeing the flicking a bit like a netball block from what the op describes- so not hitting, just a preventative measure to stop something worse, but could be wrong.

We were at Theme Park this week, waiting for the ride to start. Everyone was repeatedly told to keep their hands inside the cart, to do otherwise was v.dangerous. Kid infront of us (unaccompanied) sticks his hand out near the end to try and touch a rail above !?! I had to literally yank his arm down quite forcefully to stop it being ripped off.

Also, think we've become far too polite and tolerant of awful behavior where children are concerned for fear of upsetting others. How many times have you stood by watching/seething as the same one child terrorizes everyoneelse's whilst parents sit and do nothing - am ashamed to say I have

Funnily enough, having moved to quite a rough area from a fairly affluent one, I have noticed a change - in that the nearest adult tells off a misbehaving child and no-one kicks up a fuss. This would not have happened where I lived before. Not saying it's like that everywhere but am surprised by the difference.

Finally I understand why I got dirty looks for stopping a bolting child. I caught him by the hand, stood still and talked gently to him. But I didn't let go, no matter how hard he tugged, until his mum(?) caught up with us. The child was not distressed, but the adult running after him was.

I see now I was wrong to do this. I touched someone else's child.

I want my kids to do the right thing out of empathy, not just a fear of someone bigger being around to give them a whack. What happens when their isn't someone else there? Morality is what we do when no-one's watching. Thankfully, as a human being, I have more parenting options than pinning my DC to the sea bed! Consequences can be 'real' without being based around fear of physical violence.

I think the laws of this country at this time are that a teacher for example could be charged with assault for touching a child, although obviously not in most cases.

Some adults step in to help, but I've seen instances where the adult is bullying the child, and really who would put up with that? More so if they think the parent isn't around.

I saw someone doing this the other day, he then started shouting at the adult who suggested that shouting at other peoples kids very loudly in public wasn't particularly acceptable.

Anger.management. problems.

I think what it boils down to is this: of course, it is acceptable to touch a child as in the example of a child endangering himself by putting his arm out of a fairground ride or if he were about to run into the road.

What is not acceptable, in my opinion, is laying hands on a child with a sole view to punishing him: whether that be one's own child or another.

That does not mean that a child can harm animals with impunity but rather that a verbal admonishment can be delivered with gentleness and care and preferably with an explanation.

The child in this case could not speak English: then a finger wagging with a sad expression might have worked.

A violent punishment is not the way forward and before anyone comes along to say it was just a 'flick'.......we have no way of knowing how this friend defines 'flick'. One thing is for sure, she was not going to say she thumped or slapped him because that would have placed her in a bad light.

yes it is a balance, I agree with gamerchick. we don't want a next generation of monsters.

'a verbal admonishment can be delivered with gentleness and care'

If you behave like a complete twat, expect unexpected consequences - such as being tapped by random foreigners.

It's a pretty good lesson, Tbh.

Well I think it's quite possible to think the little horror boy should be stopped from hurting animals without resorting to smacking 'flicking' him. They are separate issues!