http://www.ksdk.com/...y-on-school-bus/19196573/


He went on a school bus and threaten to spank a bully with a belt if the kid didn't leave his daughter alone...was he right to do so?

Way over the top response.

I don't think he should threaten another kid. Confront the bus driver. Confront the principal. Confront that child's parents. But there's really zero reason why someone should frighten a child into submission. It can be traumatic and these are just kids.

judging by the fact he was charged with aggravated assault and battery, i'm going to venture a wild guess and say that there was probably a better way to handle this

are you really asking if this:

'Witnesses reported the man, identified as Malvin Craine (33 years of age), walked onto the bus and confronted a six-year-old boy. Craine allegedly grabbed the boy by the jacket, took off his own belt and threatened to strike the boy if the child didn't leave his daughter alone.'

was the correct response? how fluffing retarded are you? what color is the sky in your world? jesus christ...

lol, so the charges are your vindication that his actions were not optimal?

he shouldn't of gone directly to the 6 year old, but that logic is just as stupid as what you are accusing those of agreeing with the actions of being. no one in the history of mankind has ever been unfairly or hastily charged!

doing the right thing in this situation (talking to the school, principal, parents) doesn't result in assault and battery charges

what if this were one of your kids? you'd be okay with some random parent grabbing him or her by the jacket and threatening them? what color is the sky in your world? smdh.

lol i dont think you can function without sensationalism.

you know exactly what i meant. if you dont then you are blinded by your "i need to tell everyone else how to live their life by my standards" mentality.

Yes it was over the top. He should have went to the school to talk to the principle and then speak to the parents of the kid.

I don't think a grown man should be marching onto a bus with a belt in his and threatening a kid. That's, in my opinion, a grown man acting like a child himself.

The guy should go to state prison in general population for a few years. A/b on a 6 yo child with news coverage gets all kinds on love from inmates. Unfortunately he will be in protective custody cause it made the news. 😞 There is allways hope though. Maybe a good citizen/inmatewill go correct him with some time in the hospital to think about how he went wrong as a man. He understands that method.

well said.

ok suppose your child is the one being constantly bullied and the "proper channels" such as parents teachers principal etc doesn't stop it? wouldn't you take matters into your own hands to scare the fluff outta the punk so he wouldn't bully your child anymore? I think he accomplished his mission, but I am with the rest of you on the fact there were probably better ways to handle it.

tell your kid to solve it themselves. Give them some tips on how to solve it if necessary.

That is how my parents handled it, seemed to work out ok in the end. (One time I got into a fight just outside my house, my parents came home mid fight and sat in the truck in the laneway and watched - didn't intervene).

My daughter carries a tazer for just these types of occasions.

Lol. Bullfluff. You arm your schoolbus riding daughter with a tazer to defend herself against 6 year old boys? Where the fluff do you live?

this situation (bullying on the bus) is a good reason why our children need to be armed. they should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights and defend themselves should the situation call for it.

ARM OUR CHILDREN!

A schoolbus full of firearms is a polite schoolbus!

what do you have against people exercising their 2nd amendment rights you fluffing libtard? go back to communist russia

My little libby is grounded for not tazing little billy after he pulled her hair at recess. Now i have to go kick billys ass.

Kids have to follow escalation of force like any othe child. A firearm or deadly force wasnt warranted in this instance. the man over powered the kid and took off his belt and was threatening to whip the boy with it. The kid was well with in his right to taze the guy, oc, or even a baton if you really want to compare apples to apples. A firearm into the situation would have landed the kid in prison. You fluffing conservative bush lover.

I had a dad approach me alone on the play ground one day and pick me up by the throat...because I had done that to his son....I did not bully the kid anymore and in fact was not much of a bully at all after that. Did not scar me for life... helped shape me into a decent human

well he didn't physically assault the kid, he merely scared the fluff out of him, I can see if he was punching the kid or smacking him, he just wanted to scare the boy, and you guys who are obviously trolling are idiots...kids who get bullied are more likely to either
a) commit suicide
b) carry a gun and start shooting up schools

I think we can all agree bullying has got to stop but how is it done properly?

he was wrong. wait until the child is an adult before you threaten them. it's the parent's or guardian's responsibility to punish the kiddies. unless they can be tried as an adult.

we could adopt the rules of Ancient Sparta. that should get rid of all the weak people who seem to get targeted by bullies.

I will admit that once, when my daughter was about 4 and in pre-kindergaarten, she came home with a story about a kid who was bullying her. I went with her to the playground and she pointed out the fat little kid, twice her size, who had been pushing her around, and I said, I am (my daughter's) Dad. You'd better leave her alone or you'll have to deal with me."

Then we left, and my daughter knew she could trust me to back her up. Later she learned karate and fended off bullies herself. And that bully didn't bother her again. However, I was called into the principle's office and ordered in no uncertain terms not to deal directly with children and threaten them in any way in matters like that.

Cool story about threatening a 4yo fatboy in preschool prick! Roflmao.

Editing purposes

I'll bet it was you Heston, you little wanker

Anyway, I didn't make any overt threats, though I am personally quite intimidating. I expected a warning, but it was worth it to demonstrate the fact that I would protect my daughter, and the school would have to do a better job of protecting her or I would take action (of some unspecified type). And I did think about the lesson, and never threatened anyone again like that, or had to.

how fluffing stupid are you? jesus christ

--------------------------
from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted [[wex:battery]]. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.

3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a [[wex:battery]]. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.
---------------------------------

from http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/...rimes/assault_battery.htm

In some jurisdictions assault is defined as the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim while battery is the actual physical impact on another person. If the victim has not actually been touched, but only threatened (or someone attempted to touch them), then the crime is assault. If the victim has been touched in a painful, harmful, violent, or offensive way by the person committing the crime, this might be battery. Even a minor touching can qualify as batter providing it is painful, harmful, or offensive to the victim.

---------------------------

or from wikipedia:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.[1]

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law. There is, however, an additional criminal law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful battery. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.

----------------------------------

now, smartypants... assuming that the witness' account of the events:

'Witnesses reported the man, identified as Malvin Craine (33 years of age), walked onto the bus and confronted a six-year-old boy. Craine allegedly grabbed the boy by the jacket, took off his own belt and threatened to strike the boy if the child didn't leave his daughter alone.'

is correct, pleaseeeeeee explain to me how what this guy did was not assault?

battery = grabbing boy by the jacket

assault = taking his belt off and threatening to strike the boy

i dunno why, but i'm just now realizing how fluffing dumb some of you AT posters are :O how do you guys function? please tell me you dont drive a vehicle!

it's really shocking to see how many of you dumbasses on AT feel it's okay to assault/batter/abuse children in the name of discipline as shown in this thread or the AP thread

y'all motherfu<kers need jesus

It's funny because they have the attitude that "oh well it happened to me and I turned out okay!" or "kids nowadays are too soft"...etc...blah blah.

Yeah...some kids have been raped before and turned out okay too. That doesn't make it okay.

Pussification at its best in this thread..

I guess it 'okay' to be the victim, huh? No ill harm comes from pulling that card all the time..

Either protect your family at all costs or gtfo

not battering/assaulting/abusing children = pussification

got it!

Yeah, some kids need a swift kick in the ass. They do what they want whenbthey want because parents are no longer allowed to discipline a child.

The teachers are no longer allowed to spank a child.

America has become home of the victim.. not the brave anymore.

Taking this to the principle/teacher would have done what? Became a he said she said battle? Very little would have been about it.. the kid would have cobtinued to bully..

If you don't like it, gtfo. America will continue to march forward and you can find somewhere else to weep over the past.

George Washington owned slaves. I guess we're all pussies now for not owning them anymore since our forefathers did.

I like how bravery and honor or duty is being tied into assaulting fluffing children. Jesus fluffing christ, i am agreeing with trife. Is this thread a set up?

People need to be held accountable for actions, this is what you people are missing. The dad held him(the kid) accountable. Now he is being held accountable for what he did.

No qhere did i say, beat a child. But you either protect your family or you dont and hope for the best. Hoping for the best, isnt the right scenario either.

My son was bullied once, i told him if he evrr does it again you knock him the fluff out. Well, about 2 days later he got sent home. Punched the kid in the mouth. Thats taking of business. Plain and simple. He hasnt had a problem since. Never will he nor i regret that.

That kid was held accoubtable with a punch to the lips and my boy gpt detention. And i have the assurance that my boy wont take it.

So you none child have people can spew whatever you want, but until you have families, you dont knowwhat it means to protect at all costs.. assuming u have no kods

What?

Were you raised by a single mother?

That's fine. I totally support teaching your kids to take zero fluff from people. But a father bursting onto a bus scaring the fluff out of a kid to the point where assault charges are laid is NOT okay. It shows that the "adult" is in fact less mature than the kid. Go talk to the kid's parents. Go talk to the principal. But jesus how much of a fluff do you have to be to yell at a six year old?

Even Heston fluffing agrees.

HESTON. AGREES.

re:bstrong's story.... kids holding kids accountable != adults holding kids accountable

kids do not have the authority to hold anybody accountable. they have the right to learn the rules of society before they can be held accountable for thier dumbass stupid knowitall actions. until then the parents/guardian is accountable and responsible for their children's actions.

I teach my kids to never allow someone to bully them and I also, most importantly, teach my kids to stick up for others if they see someone else getting bullied.

To a certain extent kids can solve some of their own problems, sometimes.

Listen if talking the the school/the parents of the kid doesn't work I'm sure there are legal avenues to handle it (if it went that far).

I think it's a cool thing to do.

You're entitled to your opinion blid, you're also entitled to be wrong!

p.s. I know you're just being a smart ass so I won't judge you... this time

Don't tell a bully kid to knock it off, go crawl into a principal's office and ask them to do it for you, is what I'm seeing from this thread. Threatening with a belt is going too far, sure, but I don't get why it's some inviolable law that you can't scold a fluffbag kid. We live in communities, and if a kid in the community is a fluffbag, why not let him know it? What Getafix did is cool. The way every so-called "nuclear family" is treated as some sort of isolated island that the rest of society shall not set foot upon, instead of part of a community, is hogwash. It leads to competition between families instead of a united people.

http://archive.csustan.edu/...olition-of-the-Family.pdf

I don't think anyone said you can't discipline a kid that isn't yours if you see them doing something wrong in public... They are saying that you cant threaten them with violence which is what happened.

The point I was making, TAN, is that you aren't doing your child any favours by dealing with their problems for them all the time. They need to learn to take care of themselves, otherwise we are just raising a generation of invalids.

We already screwed up by raising an entitlement generation (with the "everyone is a winner!" mantra along with aggressive spoiling etc.), we want the next generation to be entitled and invalid? We are already getting there with the helicopter parenting; Parents wanting to partake in their adult children's job interviews etc. It is sickening.

Sure there is a certain point at which parental intervention is required in situations, but it certainly should not be the initial response. You should at least TRY to get them to solve it on their own first, and help them figure out how to do so if needs be etc. However, if that proves unsuccessful and the issue is growing to the point where it is becoming quite serious for the child' etc. then yes there will be a time and a place to intervene.

I highly doubt that intervention should ever include assaulting or threatening to assault a young child though.

this whole thread is hilarious. especially trife. wow trife just wow.

i'm sorry i'm right and you're not only wrong, but flucked in the head. :-) now blueee, go assault a child~

only if its yours. :-P

sorry, i totes wrap up my donger when plowing your wife/gf..

That's an interesting article blid, thanks. It talks of the socialists, such as Engels, who would completely abandon family in favour of the State, and of the anarchist Proudhon, who nonetheless reveres family.

Currently, I think, the State wants to be seen as a higher authority than a parent. It enacts laws to protect woman and children from abuse, which is good, but it simultaneously limits the actions of a parent to support/ protect/ manage their family under the threat of punishment. Sometimes the law goes too far and needs to be pushed back.

Its a difficult decision in the midst of something like that. I don't regret my decision, but I know that if I repeated my actions or talked to that kid ever again after receiving a warning I would be in serious and deserved trouble.