I would likely choose this response. I have no kids and I’m a short woman, so beating the person would not be my first choice
I don’t have kids, but I have told children to stop doing something that was putting themselves or others in danger, or destroying property or having the potential to do so. Yeah, I’ve been snapped at a few times; so what.
Otherwise, I’ll keep my opinions about how a child is acting to myself.
I have heard that not so many years ago, in some places it was acceptable for people to “discipline” (i.e. spank) other people’s kids in public, even if they were strangers, because after all, if a child gets hit, they probably deserved it. :dubious:
I would comfort the child first, then find out what on earth was going on.
But I have written on here before that the only time I ever thought I could kill someone was when the man who abused two of my kids (kids I was working with in a children’s home) rocked up at the gates. They were hiding under the bed and wet themselves at the sound of his voice. I went to the gate and told him to run. I could’ve reached right into his chest and ripped out his beating heart, the way I felt. Thinking about it even now, many years later, still brings on an indescribable surge of adrenaline-fuelled, hate-filled super strength. I don’t believe in using violence, I’ve never been in a real fight, I don’t believe in the death penalty, but that man had better not come near me unless he wants to see his own insides.
I’m a large human male and am no stranger to violence, but violence isn’t high on my list.
My first instinct is to protect and comfort my child and find out what the hell just happened.
Now, if I see the slapper’s hand go back up while I’m running over there, that person is about to be very uncomfortable.
Age four is kind of an edge case. Under that and my first thought is to go punch the person. Over that, and my first thought is to wonder what my kid did to piss them off.
When I read the thread title, my response was “need more information”. An “assault” can mean a lot of things, and there are situations where it is appropriate for an adult to grab a strange child (mostly, stopping the child from doing something dangerous).
A slap, though? That’s different. There’s never any good reason for an adult to slap a child, and not even a bad reason for a stranger to do so.
Now, understand here: I am not a violent person. Even if I were inclined to violence, I’m physically weak, and have no reason to believe that I would be particularly effective at it. But in the situation as described, my first priority is to render the assailant incapable of further attack on my child, in whatever way will do so as quickly as possible.
I wonder if I should have asked whether people thought they’d be capable of thinking things through in the situation as well as whether they had children. I tend to *think *jayrey and Scumpup’s reaction of “Strange dude hit my kid. Gonna kill that fucker. Chance of victory irrelevant” – in other words, the non-rational one – is more typical of parents, but I’ve been wrong many times.
I think if it were true, we’d be knee deep in news reports of parents being arrested for assaulting strangers in the park. The hypothetical is not that far fetched. It happens, that people discipline strange kids in front of their parents, even going so far as to grab or strike them, and I see no evidence that parents are actually choosing violence in response. The internet is full of warrior wannabes.
I think people’s instinctive reactions are actually pre-thought-through. They’re the accumulation of many other reactions to similar situations throughout your lifetime.
People aren’t necessarily rationally calculating “yes, I can totally take that mofo” or “no, if I whack them in the face they’ll flatten me and THEN who’ll protect my child?” at the time. But if you analyse the situation at one remove (like in this thread) then you can pick out the factors that probably influence your totally non-thought-through and instinctive reaction.
One interesting thing coming out of this thread is that there seems to be a clear distinction between what you might call defenders (concentrate on the threat - confront it, neutralise it, make the space safe for my child) and protectors (concentrate on my child - comfort them, nurture them, get between them and the threat). And not necessarily along gender lines either - plenty of the women in this thread seem to be natural defenders, whether they’d go for words or blows to achieve that, and I have seen a couple of natural protectors among the guys.
Why would you beat your wife mercilessly?:eek:
Honestly, I start getting agitated if someone I know approaches my child just to say hi.
But, I’m a reasonable man and would likely give them the opportunity to explain themselves. Which, admittedly, might be difficult while I’m curb stomping them Ed Norton style.
I don’t know how I’d react if the situation actually went down, but my response above is the thought-out one. I’d also want to comfort the kid, of course, but that has to come after making sure the kid won’t come under further attack. And I believe that use of violence against the attacker is the correct response even though I know that my chances of winning are not great. My alternative is to grab the kid and leave the vicinity, but I’m no better at running than I am at fighting, especially not when burdened down by carrying a child.
You know, someone could punch me right square in the nose and the only thing I would do in retaliation is call the cops. Hurt my child though…
I’d just go across, feeling really angry, and pull my kid into me and away from the mad person, note all I could, then leave.
Any attempt to hit the mad person would just leave my kid more open to assault because I wasn’t protecting them.
That would be my genuine instinctive response. I think you’re trying to wheedle out people who would just fight and assuming that’s the natural response, the one you do without thinking, but it’s not. Mama foxes, for example, usher their cubs into safety if they can, before standing and fighting if they still need to.
I am not trying to wheedle out any particular response. I just want to hear what people say.
I know that this is about first reactions so there is no wrong answer but I don’t get the responses that said they would comfort the child first. Your child has just been assaulted by a stranger. That violent stranger is still standing right there next to you and your child. And someone’s first reaction is to give the kid a hug? Either neutralize the threat to the best of your ability or remove the 4 year old and yourself away from the threat. Comforting can happen after.
If you assault my kid, you’re going to need a closed-shoebox funeral.
Not to be all “internet tough guy” but I’m 6’4" and 240 pounds. I play rugby and run half-marathons through the woods. Trust me, as soon as I’m standing next to my kid, the threat is neutralized.
I said my instinct was to protect and comfort, and I stand by it. My oldest boy just turned 5 so I’m not speaking hypothetically. I would grab him, comfort him, and then once he was safe I would confront his attacker, and I don’t mean physically unless I’m forced into it by further actions by them.
I’ve spent 5 years teaching my kid that violence is not the way to solve problems, so hitting the stranger once my child is safe seems kind of stupid.
In the OP, I have no idea what happened before the slap. Maybe my son was doing something incredibly dangerous and this person stepped in and (over) reacted (badly). That’s why I added the caveat about seeing the hand go up a second time, if that happens my reaction is completely different.
Let’s stop here for a second.
A 4 year old?
Public place & you believe you can tell which strangers are danger?
You do not face your child while chatting, you face the person who is in an opposite direction?
I was in no way a great parent but with strange kids I did not know, in a public place & I am looking the other way for enough time that a stranger can get that close to my child ( of 4 years ) that this hypothetical can even happen? No way…
Major FAIL on my part. IMO The other parent is a major FAIL also.
I hate helicopter parents but that is different from this particular set up.
Thinking back over 40 years when this could have been me, even with the less ‘stranger danger’ of those times that I can not remember when I would have been so distracted by anything that a period of time was ever so long that a stranger could get that close to my child.
I can remember a lot of times myself and another parent would be standing side by side and ‘chatting’ while we both were watching or respective kids and not once glancing at each other.
I did have a few times when I needed to intercept a person who was moving towards one of my kids but most time I was moving before they had taken their first 3 steps. I would know before the other interloper that my kid was doing something that would cause this reaction but even if it was totally from so far out in left field as to be a real nut case … I can not wrap my head around this.
I have never been in a place where I thought it was that safe to not watch a 4 year old, even mine who I thought I had trained already to become somewhat aware of the real world around them.
I am sure I did many stupid things concerning my kids but this inattention in this kind of situation was never one of them. :smack:
YMMV
:dubious: I take my son who just turned five to a large fenced in playground all the time, he runs all around the equipment and there are usually dozens of other kids running around with parents milling around. It is impossible to have visual 100% of the time.