eym_sirius

I say "Let's put it to the test!" It's not too late for the OP to file charges against spankingdad. I'll bet that the simple battery charges stick. Anybody want to take that bet?

She could observe, from the boat, what was going on. Is it reasonable (that would be the standard, you know) for her to think that she could leave the shore in a boat, as long as another adult is there to look after their safety? I say, yes. Is it legal? I say yes. Is it legal for that adult to "wear the butt out" of her five year old for misbehaving? The law says, no. The spanker should have ordered the kids out of the water for a period of time as a punishment for misbehaving and to teach them a lesson on the dangers of pushing around a dock. But cussing at and spanking a five year ol

I think that the lady's comment about "momma bear" refered to her attitude and not actions. In other words, she didn't punch the guy or kick him in his stuff. He, on the other hand, physically assaulted the child. As far as your attitude about how you would have acted? Fine, as long as you think that it's worth going to jail over and having a record of child abuse. Five years old. If you can't assert authority over a five year old with just your voice -- turn in your man card. If you have to hit the backside of somebody else's kid -- you have issues that need addressing.

They were on a weekend outing with friends. Apparently the guy was not HER friend, because she didn't refer to him that way. She didn't want him disciplining her kid and yelled at him for doing so. This indicates that they were not close. Regardless of their association, he had no right to strike the child, just because the mother was in a boat and not on the dock. So, yes, I'd say that they guy was a stranger to her son and more than likely, to her. Since it was a collection of friends (he was "one of the dads") he was likely a friend of a friend - aka, "a stranger".

The "not my kid" thing isn't a rule - It's the law. Do you really want ANY ADULT to be able to put their hands on your five year old's backside? The mom was THERE! The spanker was just mad and took his anger out by "wearing the butt out" of the five year old. Sorry, but that guy would be dealing with some child abuse charges if I were the parent of the five year old. It's simple battery. Whoever you are -- if you spank my child in a situation like this - you're going to jail.

We're talking about corporal punishment by an adult stranger. Because he's a stranger, you have no idea of what would motivate him to spank a five year old boy, repeatedly striking his backside! I offered up the possibility of weirdness because you can't be sure that his motivation had the first thing to do with anyone's well being. Also, it's amazing to me, the number of people who don't know the law, don't know that the spanker could face jail time for this! Look at it this way - If the boy had been eighteen, would this guy have spanked him? Why not? The answer, size. In other words, th

If the guy who "wore the butt out" of the five year old did nothing wrong under the law, then he has nothing to worry about. It's a good thing that we're a nation of laws and that we have legal recourse when someone does us wrong, so we don't have to take punitive measures into our own hands. The problem is that the guy broke the law. Unless you don't believe in our system of government, you want justice to be done - You WANT people to obey the law and if they don't, they're subject to the penalties. That's what's going on here. The guy could be a world class perv or just someone with

Right - and I'm saying "wear his butt out" - a full-fledged spanking - not just a pop on the butt (which wouldn't be right either) is a butt-beating! Beating means striking hard, and I equate "wearing his butt out" with repeated hard strikes against the five year old's bottom (wearing only wet swim trunks). Apparently, the mom didn't know the guy well, so who knows - he could have been getting some homo-erotic thrill from whipping the little boy's backside. He could have been looking for the chance for the boys to misbehave so that he could do this. As long as he is not "in loco parentis",

There's also the possibility that this was a game that the kids were playing. The kids set it up to where one looks like he's not paying attention to the other and gets pushed in -- like you'd see in the movies. Then a male adult's knee-jerk reaction is to "wear out the butt" of the one who did the pushing.

Hence the frustration of the adult. His answer? Beat the child. The proper answer if you're the spanker-dad? Have your kids do something else and let another adult watch the five year old who misbehaves by pushing others off the dock (his mother, perhaps?) But why revert to something illegal as striking a child just because the parent is doing nothing?

Yes, LGM, I got that. But nobody was saying that it was "always" illegal to spank someone else's child. Why bring in out-of-context comments about situations that DON'T apply to the OP? This was a specific action, with specific dynamics and I gave a specific opinion about the specific incident. Quoting a law and saying that it's not meant to be applied, necessarily to this situation -- wth?

You teach a young person (not related to you) to not act impulsively and aggressively by impulsively and aggressively reacting to what he did. Don't get me wrong - if it's the parent doing this -- it's your kid and you have the responsibility for his life-lessons and values. But if you are just the adult who is closest and the mom is nearby, you can't hit the kid unless you're willing to go to jail and have a criminal record for beating a child! You take it up with the parent. That would seem to be the adult thing to do.

There's no need to get the law involved -- if no law was broken. Here, in this case, it clearly was. But -- just to make sure, let an independent party take that action. Healthcare professionals, if they deem it to be abuse, HAVE TO refer it to authorities. It's about anger management and an adult who takes out his frustrations on five year old children. It's this person who should be disciplined! Really, how stupid can a person be, to hit a five year old child that is of no relationship to him? This man has no interest in teaching the child life-lessons! He's cussing at him while "wearing

I'd say that the spanker guy had no right to the "parentis" role since the ACTUAL PARENT was "IN LOCO" and observed the beating! "in loco parentis" presumes the absence of the parent and that status can't be seized by any adult who claims it.

Simple Battery Simple battery encompasses all forms of prohibited contact and is not limited to contact that causes substantial or visible harm. Lloyd v. State, 280 Ga. 187 (2006). “Insulting or provoking nature” contemplates a touching which does not injure but which is insulting. On the other hand, “physical harm” concerns a touching which goes beyond insult to the infliction of pain. Mere pain is sufficient to show physical harm. Lyman v. State, 188 Ga. App. 790 (1988).

Requiring boys to think before they act is not "turning them into sissies". If that were so, then the more reckless a guy was, the more manly. Sure, guys are more physically aggressive than girls. But a person who is able to channel those impulses properly isn't less manly, he's just more evolved! The notion that rowdies are more masculine is just a way to excuse bad behavior. They're not more masculine - They are less disciplined! But proper discipline, as it relates to this topic, does not include an arbitrary male hitting a five year old child in anger. That's child abuse. Cussing at hi

In some locations, it's already started to beer!

I would be guided by the specifics of the situation. If the spanking left marks, I'd take him to the emergency room, tell them what happened and let them report it to authorities, if the strikes were considered abusive. I think that spanking another person's child is illegal and there's no way that I would tolerate it. Don't "claw his eyes out", see if there's bruising and take it to a healthcare professional, who will be required to report it.

Translation: "Either it will rain, or it won't"!

Didn't that child seem really young to be on the slide by herself? She looks younger than 18 months. In any event, slides should not be made of a material that will heat up to 163 degrees!

Y'all just remember that putting food on the ground near your house is an invitation for rats and subsequently, snakes (which feed on the rats). Feeding them means that they are pets, because you wouldn't be doing right by the animals if you don't keep feeding them, once you've started.

People are absurd. When you look back - go back as far as you wish - you'll see that there is absolutely no pattern to when celebrities die. Besides that, a "celebrity" or a "famous" person may have that status to one person and not another. So it's a completely arbitrary, ridiculous comment that people make, upon hearing of the death of someone. Maybe it's a way that they cope with death-news? They don't really want to discuss the death or the life of this individual, so they move on to -- who could possibly be next? Like I said - absurd. http://www.dpsinfo.com/dps/2010.html

I'm pretty sure that it's still chlorinated!

Florida?

You'll want to make a rainy day contingency plan.