am fuming, sorry its a rant

princeofpounds

the police have been very encouraging for my son to report this. it will be reported but have been told not to rush in to do so as it wont be dealt with until monday anyway.

im hoping it was just the man thinking he was doing good and stopping something going on but on the other hand if it wasnt and he went on to to do something else to other children or my child again then i would never forgive myself. im sure the police will do thier job and act accordingly ,

remember this is a 50/60 yr old man pushing a child at the end of the day, with threatening behaviour.


how is the story riddled with holes?

the boys were at the bus stop hitting each other on the arms, man in van stops, shouts a few things at them and pushes my son up at the bus stop.

I don't have a problem with you or with speaking to the police about it. As you say, sometimes these things need checking out.

But I'm kind of staggered personally that you don't see the holes. The great big gaping hole is WHY? 50 year old men don't get angry with kids for no reason. So the story has a massive plot hole in that there appears to be no cause and effect between part one (kids fighting) and part two (angry man).

I'm not saying your child is lying - the hole in the plot might be something we don't know about the man, not your child. Maybe he thought your child was someone else, or was doing something else. But we are lacking any kind of plausible explanation.

balletshoes

aliasojo wrote: »

I don't think that is the case ONW.

I don't think the man's intervention is the issue per se, I think it's the way in which he intervened that has raised concern. His reaction showed the same kind of behaviour as the lads imo.

I've just asked OH what he would do and he said (going on what was written here about the lads' behaviour) if he thought they were fighting properly, he would go over and ask them what was going on and if they didn't stop then he'd physically separate them.
I'm honestly not sure many people would simply run up and their first reaction would be to get one of the lads and push up against the wall/shelter (can't remember which it was now) whilst telling him he was going to 'get' him.

I agree - but we don't know if that was his first reaction yet.

mirrorimage0

princeofpounds wrote: »

I don't have a problem with you or with speaking to the police about it. As you say, sometimes these things need checking out.

But I'm kind of staggered personally that you don't see the holes. The great big gaping hole is WHY? 50 year old men don't get angry with kids for no reason. So the story has a massive plot hole in that there appears to be no cause and effect between part one (kids fighting) and part two (angry man).

I'm not saying your child is lying - the hole in the plot might be something we don't know about the man, not your child. Maybe he thought your child was someone else, or was doing something else. But we are lacking any kind of plausible explanation.

yes i understand about the why but i would never get to know this if the police do not talk to him, i dont know who it is so cant ask myself. im sure there is an explanation and i would like to find it out. the boys feel they was doing nothing wrong but hopefully the man can explain what he thought was wrong so all involved will understand and prevent it from happening again

Tropez

princeofpounds wrote: »

But I'm kind of staggered personally that you don't see the holes. The great big gaping hole is WHY? 50 year old men don't get angry with kids for no reason. So the story has a massive plot hole in that there appears to be no cause and effect between part one (kids fighting) and part two (angry man).

I'm not saying your child is lying - the hole in the plot might be something we don't know about the man, not your child. Maybe he thought your child was someone else, or was doing something else. But we are lacking any kind of plausible explanation.

They can do if they are psychologically disturbed.

I said earlier in this thread, some guy randomly attacked me once in the middle of a town centre. I had done nothing to him. I had never even seen him before. He grabbed me by the collar, yanked me towards him and threatened me with a couple of phrases that I cannot repeat here. He was maybe late 40s/early 50s. I had done nothing whatsoever to provoke him and I wasn't even larking about, I was just standing and talking to a friend.

Personally, I think the man who did that to me was (and I don't care if this isn't PC) a nutjob based on his actions and the fact he had poor personal hygiene and wasn't very well dressed. He didn't smell of alcohol so I don't think he was drunk but he could have been some sort of junkie. The fact I thought he was unhinged is the reason I didn't retaliate and simply walked round to the police station after he let me go to let them know what happened.

But whatever we would like to think there are some cranks out there who will attack and threaten both adults and children for no apparent reason except for whatever is going on in their own heads. I've seen quite a few people who should be in some form of care - a woman having a huge row with someone who wasn't even there, and another woman who was walking down the street punching herself in the face.

Maybe the guy in this story wasn't a nut and maybe he thought he was breaking up a fight, or maybe he did mistake the child for someone else or maybe... well there's a lot of maybes, but we shouldn't automatically assume that someone would not threaten or assault a child for no reason because there are people who do just that.

aliasojo

Tropez wrote: »

Maybe the guy in this story wasn't a nut and maybe he thought he was breaking up a fight, or maybe he did mistake the child for someone else or maybe... well there's a lot of maybes, but we shouldn't automatically assume that someone would not threaten or assault a child for no reason because there are people who do just that.

Completely agree. :T

pollypenny

As one who was criticised for offerring a 'scenario', I like to give some examples of playfights going wrong:

A) J gets F in head-lock, F goes down, head hits a kerb = fractured skull
R perches on waist-high window sill. W gives him a friendly shove = head goes through window = huge gash, just missing jugular vein.
C) S & G playfighting outside classroom. G pushes S = arm through window.
Cut, not badly.


These were things going on in school, where there were adults within reach.

Kids mess about - it's part of being a kid. Presumably there was glass in the bus-stop. The guy was probably well-intentioned.

mumps

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I agree that the man may have overreacted a bit but suggesting that he assaulted the child is just ridiculous.

Section 39 of the CJA states "An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. (Archbold 19-166 and 19-172"

From what the OP describes I think the boy did apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. Why is that ridiculous. The law isn't about what teacher thinks is fair in the playground.

If he stopped thinking he was intervening in a fight/bullying and lost it when he realised the boys were playing about then his best bet is to explain that to the police and apologise, they will likely let it go, might ask him to write to the boys explaining his mistake as restorative justice. If he gets stroppy about it then police officers may take it further.

mumps

Purbeck wrote: »

What would you say if the child had fallen while being punched by his friend and fractured his skull? Would that be ok...of course not but that would not have been intentional, the man probably didn't 'intend' to hurt either.

Is it more likely that a man pushing the boy would cause this or another child? The point he should consider is how would he explain why he caused the injury, it would look very different in court if the man caused a serious injury. It just wasn't necessary in my experience, shouting at the boys to stop would almost certainly have stopped kids of this age.