Stranger allegedly slaps crying child in store

Post Reply New Topic

Stranger allegedly slaps crying child in store

Jail, jail, jail.

Semi-Related experience reminds me of an event or two. My step dad would do something odd to make me start crying while in a public place. Then he got his rocks off by dragging me by one leg out of the store across the parking lot and a ride home in the trunk. Of course since my clothes were dirty, I got a spanking. Things like this were acceptable by the majority of society back then. They only assumed it was a one-time occurrence, even the police who would occasionally show up at the house were convinced it was all my fault, and the mom with the bloody nose had "fell down the stairs" - of a single story home. I am grateful society has acknowledged that this is Not OK. Point being, even though I do not recall a stranger beating me in a public place - I do remember that no stranger ever attempted to stop him.

That's terrible!

This reminds me of the time an autistic man slapped a six month old baby.

The frist thing that came to my mind after I saw this was if this were my kid I'd be the one going to jail for killing the sob.

As an aspies, does it ever happen to you that you do something wrong, and only later you realize you did something wrong, you apologize, and apologize and apologize, and everyone IGNORES that. Do you know how frustrating that would feel?

Now, I don't know that man, so I don't know how much or how sincere he appologised. But what if he was TRULLY, AWFULLY sorry? What if he admitted he just had a bad day, lost control of himself, but now he can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING just to fix it? What if THAT is how much he apologized? And everyone ignoeres his apology except for a little passing comment ...

DaWalker: That's horrible. It's unfortunate people didn't step in, and yes, it's good that that kind of thing is no longer accepted.

I wonder how many people wanted to help and just thought they'd make it worse. I've had that conversation with some friends when in a store and a stranger is mistreating someone (never physically, because, as you said, that's no longer tolerated). In one way, you want to help, but stepping in can make it worse sometimes, and I think that's why some people stay out of it. Still, someone should have done something, especially the police.

CRD - I don't have kids, but if someone did that to anyone I loved, they'd be on the floor with a heck of a lot more damage than reddening of the face.

To be honest, in this case, too bad. He's not a child, he's an adult, and if he couldn't handle the noise, he needed to move away from the kid. He should have been the one ignoring. There is no excuse for his behavior. He obviously needs some sort of anger management class if that's how easily he loses his temper.

He can be sorry all you want, but he crossed the line. If he had just stopped at the initial confrontation, where he told the mother off, then an apology might have been enough, but he went way beyond that.

Example: If I hit your car and damaged it badly, would sorry be enough? It's not going to fix the damage on the car, it's not going to pay the repair bills. I really, really didn't mean to total it, but it happened anyway. I kind of suck at parking, but I didn't mean to hit your car, so it's all fine. I apologized, so I don't need to pay for the damages or take more driving lessons.

I doubt anyone would accept that.

It's disgusting how parents think they've the right to impose their unruly, undisciplined brats on the rest of society. It's hardly surprising that occasionally someone is compelled to act in this way.

If I were shopping with my three year old and she wanted to get a toy and I said no and she started screaming and throwing a tantrum? Should I just leave everything behind and take my child out of the store and I never got what I needed to get? I would have just ignored her screaming because giving in on her by letting her get the toy would just teach her if she wants something, just scream and she will get it. And if anyone stepped in telling me to do something about her screaming I would tell them "What do you want me to do? Get some rope and tape and tie her up and tape her mouth shut and congratulations I'm a child abuser?" Hey I gotta shop for things I need. I can't not get things every time my child is going to throw a fit when I try and buy what I need. And just because a parent is ignoring their screaming child doesn't mean they are okaying it because how do you know they didn't give their child a punishment when they got home?

Heck if I saw a child start screaming just because the mother told her "no" to a candybar and then she lets her have it when she starts to scream, I would just think she is a lazy ass mother who is weak.

FAIL

Let me guess how many children YOU have: none.
1) this was in a freakin' WalMart, not the symphony
2) the kid was two years old. Two year olds have tantrums, and that's life.

I guess we should keep our kids locked up in the basement until they're 18.

My opinion is that no child should be allowed to cause a public nuisance. Yes, if the child starts screaming you remove them from the store. Leave them with a neighbor, or go back another day and finish your shopping. By not stopping your child from screaming you are communicating to your child that is is ok to scream in public places. Three year old children do not have a mental capacity to internalize punishment that is not almost immediate - you can't take them home and "punish" them later and have it be effective. And the concept of "punishing" a three year old is pretty counter-productive. They're not getting the message you think they're getting. Positive reinforcement and consistency works much better.

When my daughter was little she was told before we went in the store that if she asked for something I would consider it. If she asked for it again, I would remind her of the "three" rule - if I hear the request a third time she automatically would not get the item even if she would have otherwise. She was also told the reasons why she could not have something if I told her no - it's not good for you, it'll rot your teeth, or I haven't got the money for that. That rule was consistently applied. It worked. She also knew that if she started screaming it was an automatic ticket straight home.

We were often complimented on what a well-behaved child she was. Parenting is hard work, it's not always easy or pleasant, but it has to be done.

Society is made up of human beings. You may not realise this, but two year olds are human.

If a stranger walked up and hit an adult aspie having a meltdown in a public place, would you come here saying, "it's disgusting how aspies think they've the right to act up in society..." Probably not.

The fact is, two year olds have all sorts of reasons why they might be crying. They might be teething, overwhelmed by the noise, lights, and stink of a supermarket. (I know I frequently am.) To suggest that it's ever okay to treat a vulnerable child like that, or that it's the parents fault, is completely disgraceful. You'd get on with DaWalker's step father.

My son never had a tantrum or meltdown in a store, and I'm aware that's because he has a phenomenal ability to go into his own world when under stress. Most people don't react that way. For example, I don't react that way. What would you do if you saw me panicking on the London Underground, or dropping all my shopping and running out of a supermarket? You'd think, "stupid bloody woman, who let her out?" And yet most of the time I'm fine. Should I lock myself up, because sometimes I inconvenience others, despite my best efforts not to?

Unfortunately the article says nothing about what the mother was doing about the crying child... so I'm on the fence about the whole situation.

While I don't think hitting an Aspie who's having a meltdown is all that productive, I don't think AS folks have an automatic right to have every kind of meltdown known to mankind in public. Some meltdowns can be very destructive to other people and property, so in those cases I think it does behoove us as responsible members of society to prevent that kind of extreme.


I wouldn't hit the child, but I would expect the parent to do something about the situation. We don't know why the child was crying, so disciplining the child may not be appropriate as the child may not have done anything wrong. However, a parent completely ignoring the situation, regardless of the cause, and expecting others to do the same is not being considerate of other people in my book. At the very least I would expect the parent to try to get the shopping done faster, or to let anybody who complains to the parent know that the complaints are being addressed to at least some extent. Yes, kids will be kids, but if my kid hasn't mastered potty training and pees on the floor, I'm not going to ignore it and carry on my leisurely way as though nothing happened.


This really depends on just how far you "inconvenience" others. If it's so bad that you are a physical danger to others during those times, well then yes definitely.

That is not cool.
I must admit I have felt the temptation to hit bratty kids but it is a temptation one should not act upon.

That kid is the opposite of a baby seal. The stranger must have knew that.

in australia, 5 minutes before the news comes on we get a 30 second preview of the headlines and it said "man goes to jail for slapping a child".
i thought "here we go again" this world is seized with offense and disgust at the slightest things these days. i thought it will be interesting to see the news.

when i heard the "full" story, i heard it was a strangers child he slapped, and then i heard it was only 2 years old and i thought "oh well then there you go. that was certainly a punishable offense."
then i heard he slapped her face 5 times and i thought he must be mad, and so it is good that he was incarcerated for it. he needs help if he can not restrain his anger at a mere noise.

on the other hand, if he hit a 2 year old on the face 5 times and she had a "slight reddening of the skin", then he must have restrained himself somewhat because he would easily break a bone or cause severe bruising if he hit with any force. that in no way excuses him, but i am sure the actions he performed will be reported in an exaggerated way.

i would never hit anyone (let alone a child) for any reason, so i think he is dangerously out of control. but the actual details of the incident i did not see, so i can make no final judgment about it.

here are 2 very different scenario's:
#1 : the child starts to cry in a normal way. the man loses his temper within seconds and tells the woman to "shut her child up". the woman tries to stop the child crying but after only 15 seconds the guy goes up to her and says "if you don't shut it up then i will", and then after another few seconds he slaps the babies face with the same force that a woman slaps a man's face who has insulted her seriously (with the movie sound effect that sounds like a breaking stick) and he does it 5 times.

if he did that, then he should be off to jail and then after that he should be kept in a mental institution until he is rehabilitated from his anger.


#2 : the child is screaming in an extremely angry and ear splitting way, and the man has a headache. he says to the woman "shut her up will you". she makes no attempt to, and the child continues to scream. she is holding the child in her arms, and she is waiting at the checkout queue next to the man. he says "if you won't shut her up i will", and then taps the babies cheeks like one would tap their grandmothers face to bring her around after she fainted. 5 quick little taps.

either of those scenarios could have occurred or anything in between. the press is very quick to demonize anyone if they can get away with it.

if it was like scenario 2, i would not think jail was appropriate, but i would have him psychiatrically assessed because no one in their right mind touches another persons child.
no one who is of sound control hits any child.

but how did he manage to hit the child 5 times without the mother retreating and swinging the baby out of the way?
how did he manage to hit the child the first time? did he run after the mother and catch her and restrain her.... and then hit the child?
if he did not do that, then why did the mother not run away from this dangerous man?

she must have been standing in very close proximity to him in order for him to approach the baby and make contact with it.
but he did it 5 times for goodness sake.
how fast did he slap the child? a large arc swing could not be performed 5 times in the time it takes a "freaking out" mother to retract her baby from the mans reach.
they must have been rapid hits which would suggest small arc hand swings which may mean the force used was very mild and designed to distract the baby rather than injure it. who knows? none of the actual event details have been reported to my knowledge, although i switched the TV off at 5:20pm.

but even if he did only tap the babies cheeks, he should still be put into immediate observation to see if his personality could lead to other inappropriate events.

my reason to post this is because i am nonplussed at the reporting style of the press. it is very much angled at sensationalism.

about 3 years ago in australia there was a national "manhunt" on for a "monster" who assaulted a 4 year old child by stabbing a cigarette into it's cheek in a shopping mall and then leaving the mall in haste.

they had various cctv footage of this guy and they ran it on prime time news and pleaded with anyone who knows or had seen this man to call police.

he was soon caught, and he had straggly unwashed graying long hair, and he looked like a wino. he looked like a tramp.

there were many stories about the cigarette incident soon after, and they also put stories of other disgraceful child abusers on to get the maximum amount of public sensation as they could.

when the man went to trial, there were angry mobs who rocked the police van and shouted things like "rot in jail ya bastard!!" etc. there were hundreds of people filled with hatred that crowded for his arrival at court. they had all been hyped up by the "news". it was very much the main headline that day.

the next day, there was hardly any news about how the trial went at all, and all the media hype was gone.

i saw a small paragraph in the newspaper on about page 15 that said he was not jailed or fined or even convicted of anything, but he was ordered to join "alcoholics anonymous" for ongoing therapy.

i learned the real story of what happened at that mall in a show called "media watch" (which is critical of the media).

the man was actually an old homeless drunk, and he was staggering through the mall with a lit cigarette in his hand and the child ran into his path, and his cigarette brushed it's the ckeek of the child and left an ash streak.
there was no burn. the man was not aware this happened and left the mall at the same speed he entered it. the media sped up the footage of the man leaving the mall to validate their claim that he hastily left the mall which would indicate he knew what he did.

i was so disgusted at how the rioting lambs were led by the sensationalism of the media to fully believe he psychopathically and intentionally inflicted pain on a toddler.
if he was thrown to them, they would have killed him with pride.

that story is another reason i watch news stories with skepticism.

the man who slapped the child in the US should be punished i agree.