French bus driver slaps teenager for disrespect

Dakota Dan

per aspera ad astra wrote: »

Round and round the argument goes –
Perspective is needed, for this slap on the nose.

Not from cruelty or from hate – doth this slap it cometh –
But concern for a child – whose body could have been destroyed by a multi-tonne moving lump of steel.

The bus driver is not a bad man.

Perspective is needed.

True it was less dangerous to get a slap from the driver than a slap of a bus.

begbysback

Dakota Dan wrote: »

You wouldn’t want to have been around in the 70’s as teachers were dishing more than a slap across the face.

Aye, never done me any harm






Sent from my iPhone
Cell 4
D Wing
Mountjoy

Vinnie222

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Oh ffs.

The feral little t**t got a mere part of what he deserved.

And now the bus driver is going to lose his job and will struggle to find another 1 . I bet he regrets his actions now

The Rape of Lucretia

begbysback wrote: »

Dakota Dan wrote: »

You wouldn’t want to have been around in the 70’s as teachers were dishing more than a slap across the face.

Aye, never done me any harm






Sent from my iPhone
Cell 4
D Wing
Mountjoy

Indeed.

From the ": I was at school with his brother Bufty. Tremendous bloke. He was head of my house. Buggered me senseless. Still, it taught me a thing or two about life" school of thought.

Dakota Dan

Vinnie222 wrote: »

And now the bus driver is going to lose his job and will struggle to find another 1 . I bet he regrets his actions now

Case closed, thanks judge.

Dakota Dan

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Indeed.

From the ": I was at school with his brother Bufty. Tremendous bloke. He was head of my house. Buggered me senseless. Still, it taught me a thing or two about life" school of thought.

So you are going from violent assault to being buggered, there’s no end to your drama.

Hitman3000

Dakota Dan wrote:

You wouldn’t want to have been around in the 70’s as teachers were dishing more than a slap across the face.

How is that relevant to what happened two days ago in France?

Shanotheslayer

Hitman3000 wrote: »

How is that relevant to what happened two days ago in France?

Perspective.

Hitman3000

Shanotheslayer wrote:

Perspective.

Nothing to do with perspective what was acceptable nearly 50 years ago has not been acceptable for over 30 years. You need to up your perspective game.

BeerWolf

Now had he had ran over the kid, at no fault of his own, it would've saved him all this grief.

Such is life... :rolleyes:

ForestFire

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Nothing to do with perspective what was acceptable nearly 50 years ago has not been acceptable for over 30 years. You need to up your perspective game.

Seriously where are you getting 30 years from.

Irish ban came into effect in 2015, all of 3 years ago??
And relative to this case it was only last year, 2017 in France it was banned.
85% of parents prior to this used it as a form of correction last year in France?.

As a general/frequent form of discipline it is correct that it is banned, but there are always certain situations that it may still be required.

this may be as a child is about to put themselves in danger and there is no time for wishy washy explanations, and time for a sit down is not going to do it. Sometime a real shock is needed(Not pain, just a shock to the system)

Hitman3000

ForestFire wrote:

Irish ban came into effect in 2015, all of 3 years ago?? And relative to this case it was only last year, 2017 in France it was banned. 85% of parents prior to this used it as a form of correction last year in France?.

The classroom ban came in the 80's the post I referred to was about what happened in the 70's here.

ForestFire

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The classroom ban came in the 80's the post I referred to was about what happened in the 70's here.

It was still widely used in schools when I was there, and this was well after the 80's. It only became a criminal offence in 1996.

But the point being made was about perspective and not every situation is the same....

Again last year 85% of French parents surveyed said they slapped their children.

It this case, after a life threatening situation, and further provocation from the 12 year old, the bus driver, still possible in a bit of shock, over stepped the mark and gave a "slap", and people a baying for blood.

Discipline the man, send to for re education and let him get on with his life...

MadDog76

BeerWolf wrote: »

Now had he had ran over the kid, at no fault of his own, it would've saved him all this grief.

Such is life... :rolleyes:

If he'd stayed behind the wheel instead of getting out of the bus to assault a child it would've saved him all this grief......

Hitman3000

ForestFire wrote:

Again last year 85% of French parents surveyed said they slapped their children.

Parents, not randomers slapping someone else's kid.

Hitman3000

ForestFire wrote:

It this case, after a life threatening situation, and further provocation from the 12 year old, the bus driver, still possible in a bit of shock, over stepped the mark and gave a "slap", and people a baying for blood.

Baying for blood?hyperbole much?

ForestFire

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Parents, not randomers slapping someone else's kid.

So your okay with children getting hit, as long as its their parents?

ForestFire

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Baying for blood?hyperbole much?

You know its a saying right, not to be taken literally...but

One person said they would beat him to death and a lot more looking for him to lose his job and be prosecuted.

What would you call that??

Renegade Mechanic

BeerWolf wrote: »

Now had he had ran over the kid, at no fault of his own, it would've saved him all this grief.

Such is life... :rolleyes:

It's actually hilarious when you think about it. Little Johnny could have left it too close and been promptly smeared down the road and it'd be 'eurgh, what a tragedyyyyyyyyyyyy, that poor kid, that poor kid's family, that poor driver, his life is ruined forever too, hell be up all night every night!!'

Feck sake. Many was the slap I received as a wee chap when absolutely necessary. I'd definitely have wound up in jail instead of contributing to society without them.
Good enough for the little fecker.

Hitman3000

ForestFire wrote:

So your okay with children getting hit, as long as its their parents?

No , but your 85 per cent of parents slapping their kids not 85per cent of randomers slapping someone else's kid.

Hitman3000

ForestFire wrote:

One person said they would beat him to death and a lot more looking for him to lose his job and be prosecuted.

One person siad this in the context it this were his kid who was assualted.

ForestFire wrote:

What would you call that??

The ( hypothetical) reaction of a parent after someone assualted their child prehaps?
Why shouldn't he loose his job if he cannot be trusted to control his temper it calls into question his ability to control a large heavy vehicle in moments of tension, personally if you assualt a child in my opinion you should be prosecuted.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

muckwarrior wrote: »

He should get a bloody medal. Too many little shits being let run riot with no fear of consequences.

269 keyboard warriors thanked this.

The kid won’t learn anything, he’ll just feel aggrieved. And it’s doubtful the driver would have done it to an adult (and I’ve witnessed a fair scatter of such disputes involving adults where the pedestrian reacts to the driver who beeps).

SCOOP 64

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

269 keyboard warriors thanked this.

What does this tell you.

Vinnie222

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Case closed, thanks judge.

Common sense You dont need to be a judge to realise his in serious trouble .

Hitman3000

SCOOP 64 wrote:

What does this tell you.

269 people think it's ok to assualt a child, but wouldn't be stupid enough themselves to do it?

cantdecide

I would never advocate violence and I don't think the kid deserved the slap but if I were his dad, I wouldn't feel it necessary to commend or condemn the driver. I think the kid has to eat the slap and if the driver gets fired, he'll have to eat that. They both did the wrong thing and they both have to take what they get. I apportion the blame as 75/75!!

Manic Moran

CountingR wrote: »

Just wondering - you say that you ‘reserve the right’ to slap your child if you deem it necessary. I have a few questions/issues on that:

Firstly does your right to hit your child supercede your child’s right not to be hit?

Yes. I have an obligation and responsibility for the safety and discipline of my child. My child has no obligation or responsibility to not be kept safe or disciplined.

As an adult, we have a right not to be hit/assaulted and there is a system there for us to make a complaint and seek action if that does happen...

Operative term: "As an adult". There are some inherent assumptions in this, such as that "adults are supposed to act like adults". Further, the redress options are much wider, varying from civil suit to imprisonment and fining. You can't really sue a 16-year-old. And I'm not talking about 'adult' as in '18th birthday, you magically become mature', I'm talking 'old enough to be responsible'.

There is another assumption in there that you make: That violence against adults is always prohibited or inappropriate. Try to cross a Garda line and see how far you get before hands are laid upon you. Gardai can do it because they are the authority of the state. In my house, I am the authority of my children, along with my wife (Being latina, she doesn't use her hand. She has the "chancla", a parenting assistance tool of known fear and respect throughout the Hispanic-American world. She has never as yet had to resort to it, mind. Indeed, even in her family, the mere sight of mama reaching for la chancla was normally sufficient to correct errant behaviour).

Secondly, do you believe all parents have a right to exercise their own judgement in when hitting a child is justified. Maybe you do it, when there is a physical danger to the child. Maybe that’s justified, maybe not. However maybe someone else deems cheekiness enough to warrant a smack. Is that right? And if so, where does society draw the line? If you can hit your child for what you deem a justified reason, and you can make that decision, then can I do the same? You see the problem here. This has to be black and white. Otherwise, children will end up as the losers in the whole thing (even if your approach to slapping or hitting is measured and reasonable in your own mind).

Isn't that the difficult part of things? And does it have to be black and white?

The relevant law on the matter around here in California seems to be a reasonable compromise.
"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a child any cruel or inhuman corporal punishment or an injury resulting in a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony" (California Penal Code Title 9, Chapter 2, 273d)

The definition of what counts as "cruel or inhuman" is, of course, going to be left to the jury, but it is not a total prohibition on corporal punishment. Quoting one legal website "Spanking is usually not considered child abuse because parents have a right to discipline their children “reasonably” in a manner they see fit. Spanking, when used to discipline, is not considered child abuse under California law unless it becomes unreasonable, excessive, or causes bodily injury." Like any adult (there's that word again), we are expected to be judicious and sensible in our decisions. Such subjectivity is not unusual in law, for example, in Ireland you may use 'reasonable force' to repel an intruder in your home. What you think is reasonable may not match with what the jury thinks is reasonable, but the chances are you're going to be at least an outlier before you even get to that point.

Finally, if laws around slapping a child are further tightened, would you forfeit your right? If you slapped your child in public now, you could be in some legal trouble - does your right outweigh the law?

Fortunately, where I live, it is not a question. Given my reluctance thus far to use corporal punishment (two slaps in 9 years), for things to get to that point in public, I strongly doubt witnesses in the trial would advocate against the 'disciplining' defense.

Where things really get difficult are cases like this bus driver here, where one is attempting to discipline someone else's child.

For example, in a number of States, corporal punishment in schools is still permitted, but only under full accounting for oversight, and with the specific opt-in of the parents who authorise the school to be a disciplinary agent for them. But even there, there are some specific controls beyond the legal ones, such as "the school knows the kid, where they live, and where they'll be".

For random, one-off encounters, those controls don't exist. It's well saying "The kid should be reported to the school or his parents", but the practical realities of it are that it doesn't happen. Kids around here don't wear identification tags. Even if the random adult calls the police, what power does he have to keep the child there to be called to account over the next ten minutes whilst the police decide they have nothing more pressing to deal with and show up? May he physically restrain the child as a citizen's arrest? If we are to assume that actions must have consequences, the logical conclusion is that there must be a mechanism to make consequences actually happen.

The next question, doubtless asked, is "If it were my kid, would I want the driver giving her a slap?" My immediate response is, no, of course not, but then, I simply cannot imagine my daughter ever acting like a little ****e to begin with so I can't think of any situation which would warrant it. The reality is, though, that she might, despite what I think of her.

I would propose a default of unlawfulness. Anyone who disciplines someone else's child gets brought up on charges and put in front of a jury, on the base presumption that there was no need for it, especially absent parental authority. However, if he/she can convince the jury that the action was not excessive and not unwarranted, that would be sufficient defense. This default presumption of 'you will be convicted, unless you can prove you were not unreasonable' should attain much of the same legal deterrent effect, whilst not leaving children to totally act as they will free in the knowledge that really, no consequences will result.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Noveight wrote: »

No, because I never created a situation where that was necessary.

Probably because my parents had taught me, through disciplining which was on the rare occasion physical, not to act the little bollox in public.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CountingR wrote: »

There’s a lot of people on here taking the line that ‘I was hit as a child and it never did me any harm.’

However the majority of these people are currently on an internet discussion forum, arguing that a 12 child deserved to be hit, that he should have been hit harder to make it ‘worth it’, that he was a little prick etc. etc.

Hate to say it, but I think those couple of slaps may have done you more harm than you think! You do have a normalized view of something that would be unquestionably abhorrent to a lot of people. Publicly supporting an adult hitting a child (without even knowing the facts) seems like misplaced aggression more than anything else.

Anyway, he will probably lose his job, and probably should be prosecuted. Yes there are some shades of grey in this, but if you accept it in this instance then where do you draw them line? If the boy hadn’t given lip would he ‘deserve’ to be hit? If he had given cheek then what amount of cheekiness would mean the driver was in the wrong. Sorry, but you can’t go shades of grey in this one - adults can’t hit children. That’s one of the good rules!

Excellent post. Could not agree more with the bolded. They are actually betraying that they were in fact damaged by receiving smackings.

iamwhoiam

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Excellent post. Could not agree more with the bolded. They are actually betraying that they were in fact damaged by receiving smackings.

Damaged ! Hardly up to you to judge others .people have different opinions and you come along and call them damaged !