skinz Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 So emotianal trauma is somehow less than the physical kind? Just playing Devil's advocate..our kids are grown up now so we're way past the smacking bit It would become emotional trauma if as a parent your only means of communicating is shouting at your child. The likelihood is is you're a constant screamer you're probably a child hitter. Screaming at your child in order to deflect them from grabbing a 2kw bar would probably have the required effect..to stop it from inflicting injury to itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 ...Screaming at your child in order to deflect them from grabbing a 2kw bar would probably have the required effect..to stop it from inflicting injury to itself. If you're sufficiently close to the child when it makes a grab for the hot thing, surely it would be instinctive to try to grab the child's hand and pull it away from the source of danger, probably squealing 'no!' at the same time. (Distinct, of course, from giving the child a smack/yelling at it after the event). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) It would become emotional trauma if as a parent your only means of communicating is shouting at your child. The likelihood is is you're a constant screamer you're probably a child hitter. Screaming at your child in order to deflect them from grabbing a 2kw bar would probably have the required effect..to stop it from inflicting injury to itself. And if it didn't...? What do you propose..? Grabbing the kid's hand (assault) smacking (assault) or an evening in A+E? Or is some physical assault acceptable? Edited March 4, 2015 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 And if it didn't...? What do you propose..? Grabbing the kid's hand (assault) smacking (assault) or an evening in A+E? Or is some physical assault acceptable? Is grabbing a child's hand to prevent it from touching something that might, as you say, result in a trip to A&E classed as assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) If you're sufficiently close to the child when it makes a grab for the hot thing, surely it would be instinctive to try to grab the child's hand and pull it away from the source of danger, probably squealing 'no!' at the same time. (Distinct, of course, from giving the child a smack/yelling at it after the event). Totally agree, verbally is the first and natural course of action, followed through with leaping across the room if you're not sufficiently close. And if it didn't...? What do you propose..? Grabbing the kid's hand (assault) smacking (assault) or an evening in A+E? Or is some physical assault acceptable? If grabbing a child's hand is assault then you're going to have a hell of a time crossing the road or dressing them. Edited March 4, 2015 by skinz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Is grabbing a child's hand to prevent it from touching something that might, as you say, result in a trip to A&E classed as assault? In the general terms of assault I think it could be.. "An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." So even shouting can be classed as assault I suppose.. eg "If you don't stop I'll smack you" sort of thing.. ---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 14:20 ---------- Totally agree, verbally is the first and natural course of action, followed through with leaping across the room. If grabbing a child's hand is assault then you're going to have a hell of a time crossing the road or dressing them. Which is why you have to be careful when bandying words like "assault" around.. you were the one who said.. "There is no ambiguity in a law which states you do not physically assault your child in any way," Edited March 4, 2015 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Which is why you have to be careful when bandying words like "assault" around.. you were the one who said.. "There is no ambiguity in a law which states you do not physically assault your child in any way," What's ambiguous about assaulting (intent to do harm) your child and deterring it from possibly killing itself by grabbing its arm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I think my point was that I'm not going to judge other people on this one. I am against smacking of a child, but that's oh so easy to say when I'm not trying to get a toddler to not put it's fingers in a socket or pull the iron off while it's on etc. In those situations I can empathise with people who do resort to using smacking. But equally the comments about 'escalation'. If you are always shouting at your child then this become the norm so shouting at them when they are doing something dangerous has no effect so you have to escalate. If you've always been calm and gentle with your child then shouting at them would be as big a shock to them as being hit. All I'm saying is it's easy to judge in the cold light of day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 In the general terms of assault I think it could be.. "An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm." So even shouting can be classed as assault I suppose.. eg "If you don't stop I'll smack you" sort of thing.. [notalawyer]Surely the key is threat or intent to harm. If your intent is to prevent harm by grabbing the child and removing it from a potential source of harm, and in doing so unintentionally leave behind a red mark on the child's skin, then that isn't assault; the red mark is an inadvertent consequence of preventing harm. If you slap your child in response to it misbehaving in some way, then there's the intent for your behaviour to cause some degree of physical pain and possibly damage. Now that might reasonably be classed as assault [/notalawyer] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 [notalawyer]Surely the key is threat or intent to harm. If your intent is to prevent harm by grabbing the child and removing it from a potential source of harm, and in doing so unintentionally leave behind a red mark on the child's skin, then that isn't assault; the red mark is an inadvertent consequence of preventing harm. If you slap your child in response to it misbehaving in some way, then there's the intent for your behaviour to cause some degree of physical pain and possibly damage. Now that might reasonably be classed as assault [/notalawyer] AS you say I am not a lawyer either but I don't think assault is as simple as some people reckon.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now