One year anniversary of Thomas James Ball's sacrifice

[95 Vol Alum]

You hit a 4-year old in the face once, I have no problem with the state stepping in to keep it from happening a second time.

They did not keep the father from seeing his children; they just made sure that his time spent with them was supervised.

Is this a location specific sentiment or are you in favor of the state stepping in on any form of striking a child?

For the record, the state has struck me as a child as many times as my parents. One each.

 

[therealUT]

Is this a location specific sentiment or are you in favor of the state stepping in on any form of striking a child?

Location specific. Spanking a child's ass: okay. Slapping a child across the face: not okay. The butt is just one big mound of muscle and fat; one is not going to do serious damage to the child by spanking their butt. The face is not very padded and actual and permanent damage is a much greater possibility; moreover, a jarring blow to the head can easily cause a concussion.

I also think that when one spanks a child on the ass, there is (often) an implicit amount of self-control and self-restraint being applied by the parent; when one slaps their child in the face, they have, at least for a split second, flown off the handle and taken out their frustration on their child. Spanking seems to be "for the sake of the child"; hitting a kid in the face seems to be "out of the frustration of the parent".

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Location specific. Spanking a child's ass: okay. Slapping a child across the face: not okay. The butt is just one big mound of muscle and fat; one is not going to do serious damage to the child by spanking their butt. The face is not very padded and actual and permanent damage is a much greater possibility; moreover, a jarring blow to the head can easily cause a concussion.

I also think that when one spanks a child on the ass, there is (often) an implicit amount of self-control and self-restraint being applied by the parent; when one slaps their child in the face, they have, at least for a split second, flown off the handle and taken out their frustration on their child. Spanking seems to be "for the sake of the child"; hitting a kid in the face seems to be "out of the frustration of the parent".

The action/behavior is the same. The only alleged differentiation is intent. Welcome to the slippery slope of state interference in parenting.....never mind they practice the same behavior.

 

[therealUT]

The action/behavior is the same. The only alleged differentiation is intent. Welcome to the slippery slope of state interference in parenting.....never mind they practice the same behavior.

The action is not the same: one act is hitting a kid in the face; the other act is hitting a kid in the butt. Those are different acts (in the same exact way that hitting an adult is a different act from hitting a child; both acts are hitting a human, but that is simply over-generalizing).

I think the location belies the psychological state of the parent; however, that is not a necessary condition for me to have the state step in and remove the parent. The necessary condition is: the parent slapped the kid in the face.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

The action is not the same: one act is hitting a kid in the face; the other act is hitting a kid in the butt. Those are different acts (in the same exact way that hitting an adult is a different act from hitting a child; both acts are hitting a human, but that is simply over-generalizing).

I think the location belies the psychological state of the parent; however, that is not a necessary condition for me to have the state step in and remove the parent. The necessary condition is: the parent slapped the kid in the face.

So what other body parts are acceptable? Hand? Foot? I've seen parents smack both. Back of the head? Back? Seen that too.

There are some who will be glad to not make any distinction as you have made (I agree with your distinction) to serve their agenda with the state.

 

[therealUT]

So what other body parts are acceptable? Hand? Foot? I've seen parents smack both. Back of the head? Back? Seen that too.

I think it would be easy to at least state that the vital organs need to be protected. If that is the minimum that gets a one-and-done treatment by the state, I would be fine with that. That does not make it open season on the rest of the body, it just means that for the rest I think it could be reasonable to demonstrate both severity and/or frequency.

 

[GAVol]

So what other body parts are acceptable? Hand? Foot? I've seen parents smack both. Back of the head? Back? Seen that too.

the slope isn't all that slippery in this case. Anybody with half a brain knows the answer to all of those questions is NOT a) the face and B) not hard enough to draw blood.

The fact that he then cowardly committed suicide and was nuts enough to do it by setting himself on fire is pretty solid evidence that there was a lot more to this story and offers some possible insight into why he ended up divorced in the first place.

 

[Weezer]

the slope isn't all that slippery in this case. Anybody with half a brain knows the answer to all of those questions is NOT a) the face and B) not hard enough to draw blood.

The fact that he then cowardly committed suicide and was nuts enough to do it by setting himself on fire is pretty solid evidence that there was a lot more to this story and offers some possible insight into why he ended up divorced in the first place.

I agree that there has to be more to the story than revealed. His military service(don't remember it stating what he did in the military) could lead one to speculate on what he may have seen or done and what effect it had on his psyche. Honestly, I feel the system may have failed him if they didn't order a mental evaluation to seek understanding of his actions. This was apparently his first time snapping(per his ex and kids) so it would seem the court should try to seek the cause. Simply saying you can't see your kids anymore without a third party present steps over a boundary to me. Thinking in terms of the best interest of the child, you have essentially robbed the child of her father/daughter bond. If a mental eval had been done and suggested this as the best course of action, it would be easier to swallow, but without seeking understanding a misjustice has been done.

There is no arguing the father stepped over a line and went too far, but can any of us claim we have never lost our temper. I've yelled at people before who didn't deserve it and had to go back and apologize when I cooled down. Mind you, there is a world of difference between the verbal and the physical, but I think a better solution for both father and child could have been found.

All that aside, setting himself on fire is beyond stupid. It just reenforces my opinion he should have had a mental eval. His elevator wasn't making it to the penthouse.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

the slope isn't all that slippery in this case. Anybody with half a brain knows the answer to all of those questions is NOT a) the face and B) not hard enough to draw blood.

The fact that he then cowardly committed suicide and was nuts enough to do it by setting himself on fire is pretty solid evidence that there was a lot more to this story and offers some possible insight into why he ended up divorced in the first place.

You are relying on lawmakers and judges having half of a brain in regards to legislating parenting actions. Something that concerns me. There is a reason for the saying...give an inch, take a mile. This is what I was exploring with trut's comments and not so much the specific case presented here.

To me, a significant differentiating factor in this case is the drawing of blood as you pointed out. Not sure that warranted indefinite parental supervision if the facts are fully stated in the article. As many have wondered, I'm not sure the whole story was presented in the article. In the end, a tragic series of events for all involved.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Two thoughts on the subject.

1) Wow, what a way to show your kids you love them. Look at me, I set myself on fire for you. Screw the fact that I just scarred you for life by doing so.

2) The punishment was excessive based on the facts presented in the article. It seems there is probably more to the story than told, but if not, the legal system was out of bounds IMO. I don't condone smacking your child, but certainly parents have done far worse to their children and retained custodial rights. IF the story is true as presented, then it does serve as an example of how the govt is slowly taking away parental rights. I believe a parent has the right to spank their child(though I'm sure some will disagree) as long as it is not excessive. My father tanned my hide when I did wrong and I learned my lessons. In today's world, that runs the risk of being called a child abuser. I never thought of it as child abuse. I knew my dad loved me and I knew he did what he felt he had to do to teach me a lesson. And I learned my lesson 95% of the time.

When you take away a parent's right to discipline his/her child, you remove their authority. Any child not happy with a parent's decision can willfully ignore it and know that their parents have no recourse and that should a parent take action they can call and report abuse. I'm not advocating child abuse, but I am advocating parental authority. People can argue using time-outs or grounding your child, but what do you do if the child refuses to obey? Children need to respect their parents, but quite honestly, they need to have a little fear of their parents as well. Not a terror, just a fear of being punished.

The children of today are far more pampered than the children of the past. Gone are the days where children had to help in the fields. Instead they play video games and go to the mall. I see kids disrespect their parents in public all the time now with no consequence. You can tell the parents are afraid to take action. The one time I disrespected my dad in public, he whooped me on the spot and I never did it again. While I believe in protecting our children, I think we as a society have stepped over boundaries we should not have stepped over. I think we have thrown out reason in our efforts to appear "civilized".

Wow about this POS that starved her daughter and only got probabtion and parenting classes?

The point is clear. The margin of error is a whole lot more narrow for men.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNJXMG3r4yI[/youtube]

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

He should not have slapped his child in the face, but does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. What evidence was there to suggest he was a continuing threat to his child. By all accounts(reported), this was a one time thing. If there had been a pattern of abuse, I could understand, but no evidence seems to support that.

Let's not forget the verdict of the case in question (not guilty).

 

[GAVol]

Ras, what in God's name have you experienced that has sent you on this crusade?

 

[utvolpj]

Let's not forget the verdict of the case in question (not guilty).

well OJ was found not guilty too but I'm not going to date any of his ex's

 

[Scotty's Flat Top]

Sleep now in the fire.

 

[therealUT]

Thought of this thread while I was reading the following:

Did you beat me when I was a boy? Then tell me, if administering beatings is an expression of good will, isn't it right that I show you good will in the same way, with a beating? How is it fair that your body should be immune from blows, but not mine? "The children wail; you think the father shouldn't?" You'll reply that this treatment of children is customary; but I'd counter that old men have become children again. And it makes better sense for old men to wail than young ones, in that their misbehavior is less appropriate...Am I any less free to establish in my turn a new law for the sons of tomorrow, that they should beat their fathers back? We award amnesty to fathers for all the blows we got before the law took effect, and we waive compensation for our beatings.

Society is going to hell.