Poll: was i out of line?

GrandmaFunk

New member
Oct 19, 2009
729
0
0
property damage & trespassing < assault


you're lucky she didn't have you charged. next time, take pictures and/or video and either confront the parents or lodge a complaint with the cops.
 

frizzlebyte

New member
Oct 20, 2008
641
0
0
Out of line twisting their ears? I'd say so. I'd probably yell at you too, if that were my kids. You don't touch my kids (if I had any), I'll dole out the whacks, if any are needed, thanks.

Now, being pissed at them for messing up your garden, absolutely not over the line. In that case, I'd understand the yelling.

And yes, they should compensate you for doing the damage.
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
I put no because you had every right to be angry. The ear pulling was a tad bit much but at least the father was understanding and you didn't have two parents blowing up in your face. You pulled their ears not held their arms till they bruised or beat the shit out of them, so no, you're fine man.
 

deserteagleeye

New member
Sep 8, 2010
1,678
0
0
Hell no. My babysitter used to do worse to me when I misbehaved. It kept me from being less of a shithead than I could have been. Yeah it was someone else's children but they were on your property breaking stuff.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
If it happened at night and the kid looked like an adult, I would go further than a twisted ear. It was during the day, but the crime is still the same. Calling "twisting ears" corporeal punishment makes it seem like you put the kid trough some kind of torture device.

I congratulate you because it shows that at least someone is interested in giving something that remotely resembles education to the kid.


Bhaalspawn said:
I have to ask...

What was the point of twisting their ears? Really.

What does that achieve?
The pain makes it harder to escape and draw a knife or something. Better safe than getting stabbed, and I didn't enjoy the last time I got.

I used to grab my brother by the back of his neck, he used to use his knee on my calf. It was our ways of partially incapacitating each other to stop a fight.

FamoFunk said:
I'd be mad if you did it to my kid.
I'd be mad at you, for not educating your kid to not trespass and destroy property while at it.

If I had the means I would make children trespass your property everyday and vandalize your stuff until you cracked down. Since I can't fulfill with my decadent wish, you'll have to just read me verbally disagreeing with you.

GrandmaFunk said:
you're lucky she didn't have you charged.
Wait, what? Protecting the criminal and criminalizing the victim? Might work in your country. We have our share of retardedness but we don't go that far.

Signa said:
Voted Yes because touching the kids in any manner is a no-no.
Tell that to a bouncer or a mall cop. You have a certain degree of physical contact when you're trying to kick out a trespasser.

Isn't light physical contact better than bullets or pepper spray?

Because if that's what parents demand I'll spray the face of an asthmatic kid and still sleep well at night.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,749
6
43
Country
USA
Voted Yes because touching the kids in any manner is a no-no. Everything else is perfectly reasonable, and being mad enough to touch the kids is forgivable since you didn't do any lasting harm. So my moral support puts me in the "no" column, but the question is asked in a way that I can't answer that way.
 

Luap26

New member
Jun 8, 2010
61
0
0
Frankly, I most likely would have yelled at them. Loudly... Extremely Loudly. Then dragged them home by there shirts. If they didnt have shirts(Its hot out?) make sure they walk infront of me. And have a pissed off look on my face.

Frankly I dont think you over reacted but I think tacticaly the ear is a bad place to grab a kid. They have two ears they can sacrifice one. Thats why you grab their shirt. harder for them to slip out of.

Of corse, you know these kids, they throw that ball in your yard twice a week. Take the Ball. Walk over to their house and say "Look what just broke through my window" and show the parents them the ball. They most likely are going to believe you. And pay for the damages.

But frankly when I broke something when I was a kid I told my neighbor. He was my neighbor, he wwas much more understanding if we waited and told him when he got hom that are baseball went through his downstairs window. One, he was glad we fessed up and Two know he knows who did and who to tlak to(aka my parents) and Third he now KNOWS his windows broken and that it needs to be fixed

So frankly, I dont tihnk you over reacted. But you could have done it in an easier manner.
 

Laser Priest

A Magpie Among Crows
Mar 24, 2011
2,013
0
0
Dragging them out, apparently by their ears - That may have been a bit excessive.

Otherwise, I see no problem in forcing them off of your property. I don't think the mother was doing much in the sense of proper parenting, but that doesn't give you the right to do the parenting for her.

But you were compensated by the more reasonable fellow, so I suppose all is well. Just in the future, the more calm route may be the better one.
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
I think she reacted like any parent in this day and age would react:
"My kid can do no wrong, how dare you punish them! It is my job to pretend to punish my kids, something that I never do because my kids are just little angels!"

Good thing the husband was able to react reasonably.

Maybe next time, just haul them out of your yard? Yanking on their ears might be seen as a little excessive no matter how hard you are yanking.
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
Phasmal said:
Usually my policy is `If you have to ask- probably`.
You should have taken the kids out of your garden, but you should not have twisted their ears.
Very true in almost all cases.
 

RatRace123

Elite Member
Dec 1, 2009
6,651
0
41
For the most part, I'd say you were perfectly in the right. Twisting ears might be a bit much, but from the sounds of it, it was deserved. The mother needs to do a better job keeping an eye on her kids.
 

karcentric

New member
Dec 28, 2011
1,384
0
0
More and more parents are unwilling to admit their child is ever wrong, my neighbor is the same they have a go at anyone who drives past their children at anything above 10kph.

People a too soft on discipline these days anyway, if someone trespasses on my property I'd chuck them off too.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
I don't think you were, not even for the ear twisting (which frankly sounds totally situationally appropriate, and is exactly how it would have happened if it had been a movie). Kids should have known better than to trespass, assuming they knew it was someone's property. Lady shouldn't have yelled at you for it, but her reaction is quite understandable. She was angry, and probably a bit scared about what you were doing; odds are nobody has ever actually laid hands on her kids before (and I'd say that after trespassing and vandalizing your private property, somebody probably ought to).

Could you have handled it better? Yeah, you could have just tracked down their parents and courteously requested compensation. But at the same time, your actions will have a rather more lasting impact on all of them. And you didn't try to kill anyone, or cause permanent harm. Nobody was threatened. And everything was paid for. As long as there's no legal problems, I'd say you did fine.
Legally, it was child abuse.

There's a very big legal problem here.

Again, I sense hypocrisy for everyone forgetting what happened when they were young kid...
Depends on the region.
And by legal problems, I mean depending on whether anyone wanted to press charges. Generally, the police don't fuss with things unless people take issue with them.

And what exactly is it that we're all forgetting here?
You guys all broke things when you were really young, or your parents did, and you didn't want to take responsibility and you fled... and now look at you all taking issue with it and acting as if it's the worst thing ever and punishment ever made you stop.. bahaha such hypocrisy.
Right, but we got caught, we got punished, and we were forced to take responsibility for ourselves. What they did is not the worst thing ever, its not good, but nobody's dead or psychologically scarred. But I'm glad to hear that they got caught, they got punished, and someone took responsibility for it. Maybe one of these days they'll shape up to be decent, responsible adults like many of the other kids who did stupid things and got punished. But one thing's for sure, if they don't get punished then they probably won't learn to behave themselves.

And Punishment did, usually, make me stop.
Punishment doesn't stop things, it makes you get better at hiding it. Your "usually" indicates this. It's not punishment that gives you self-introspection, it's maturity and development of self through experiences based on your own capacity and capabilities and drives. Not the forced drives of others.
sure it does, if some one murders some one else, and you kill them for there crime. they wont be doing any more murdering. for major crimes make examples out of people, for minor crimes focus on teaching them a better way. rapist, murders, people with multiple assaults and so on deserve the harsh punishments as a warning to others, more petty crimes focus on the rehabilitation to make them a functioning member of society.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
for some people, if you don't take there eye out, they will keep ripping other peoples eyes out. more importantly your showing every one else what happens when you do some thing that stupid. for people who do horrible deeds against there fellow human, horrible deads befall them as a reminder. lesser evils should be treated as mental illness and focus on healing instead of crucifying.

an eye for an eye doesn't apply to every thing. when Gandhi said it, he new he couldn't beet the English with force, and new with mass media could win the war with the hearts and minds of the English populace. but a guy who murdered his wife for insurance pay out cant be compared to what gandhi faced. a person who casually took some one else life for personal gain is some thing society needs to remove. you cant fix every one, when some one is at the point of making money with murder, or murdering for fun. you remove them and let every one else who might take that path know what happens when you do.

now a 19 year old kid who is poor and steels a car for personal gain can be saved, with some therapy and skill training, you can send that kid back into the world able to support him self and be a functioning member of society. Leniency on those who can be saved. make an example of those who cant.
The eye for an eye statement is actually an interpretation of something in the bible said by Jesus.
eye for an eye makes the world blind was said by gandhi in the movie, but no evidence that he actually came up with it.

eye for a an eye, tooth for a tooth was in the bible, and that was telling you to literally take a tooth if they take one from you.
Except then Jesus countered it, because it was the time of forgiveness.
what i remember was turn the other cheek, if i remember correctly never said eye for an eye makes the hole world blind. plus gandhi was a real person. i don't care what your story book has to say about a fictional character. don't get me wrong emulating jesus is a noble feet, but impractical for society as a hole.
Actually Jesus was proven to exist historically, by both the king, the governor, numerous tax representatives and many things, he was also confirmed to die the way it was said. It was the mystical things never proven, but of course, that's hard to prove.
you gave me a good giggle, one there is no secular evidence of him being real, the few pieces they have 'found' was proven to be fake. 2 only paul was able to be alive during the time of jesus, and never said he was a living being on earth, every one else in the new testament for the most part happen 100 years + after his death. so no real evidence is there. pluss if you have a guy walking around one of the most wealthy provinces in rome. curing the sick and blind, raising the dead, walking on water and so on, you think there be some secular evidence. this was the height of the roman empire. had a functioning news system, and apparently important enough to the roman army to be killed by them, but yet not one piece of secular evidence.

or are you on of those its my faith god told them to write it goof balls. if so have fun in your make belief world, where magic people live in the sky.
You can believe that if you will, but in historical documents there is no doubt a man named jesus lived and that man died in the indicated way as well. The governor, pilate, and numerous other roman officials as well as other officials have confirmed him, though if they allowed any official information of his miracles to get out it could cause chaos. Kind of like propaganda control, you know like China and North Korea do every day. You can deny it if you like, but this is a case of historical evidence, which you can't argue against.

You can argue against his powers though.

Don't really care.

It's not really the sky so much as another realm.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
I don't think you were, not even for the ear twisting (which frankly sounds totally situationally appropriate, and is exactly how it would have happened if it had been a movie). Kids should have known better than to trespass, assuming they knew it was someone's property. Lady shouldn't have yelled at you for it, but her reaction is quite understandable. She was angry, and probably a bit scared about what you were doing; odds are nobody has ever actually laid hands on her kids before (and I'd say that after trespassing and vandalizing your private property, somebody probably ought to).

Could you have handled it better? Yeah, you could have just tracked down their parents and courteously requested compensation. But at the same time, your actions will have a rather more lasting impact on all of them. And you didn't try to kill anyone, or cause permanent harm. Nobody was threatened. And everything was paid for. As long as there's no legal problems, I'd say you did fine.
Legally, it was child abuse.

There's a very big legal problem here.

Again, I sense hypocrisy for everyone forgetting what happened when they were young kid...
Depends on the region.
And by legal problems, I mean depending on whether anyone wanted to press charges. Generally, the police don't fuss with things unless people take issue with them.

And what exactly is it that we're all forgetting here?
You guys all broke things when you were really young, or your parents did, and you didn't want to take responsibility and you fled... and now look at you all taking issue with it and acting as if it's the worst thing ever and punishment ever made you stop.. bahaha such hypocrisy.
Right, but we got caught, we got punished, and we were forced to take responsibility for ourselves. What they did is not the worst thing ever, its not good, but nobody's dead or psychologically scarred. But I'm glad to hear that they got caught, they got punished, and someone took responsibility for it. Maybe one of these days they'll shape up to be decent, responsible adults like many of the other kids who did stupid things and got punished. But one thing's for sure, if they don't get punished then they probably won't learn to behave themselves.

And Punishment did, usually, make me stop.
Punishment doesn't stop things, it makes you get better at hiding it. Your "usually" indicates this. It's not punishment that gives you self-introspection, it's maturity and development of self through experiences based on your own capacity and capabilities and drives. Not the forced drives of others.
sure it does, if some one murders some one else, and you kill them for there crime. they wont be doing any more murdering. for major crimes make examples out of people, for minor crimes focus on teaching them a better way. rapist, murders, people with multiple assaults and so on deserve the harsh punishments as a warning to others, more petty crimes focus on the rehabilitation to make them a functioning member of society.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
for some people, if you don't take there eye out, they will keep ripping other peoples eyes out. more importantly your showing every one else what happens when you do some thing that stupid. for people who do horrible deeds against there fellow human, horrible deads befall them as a reminder. lesser evils should be treated as mental illness and focus on healing instead of crucifying.

an eye for an eye doesn't apply to every thing. when Gandhi said it, he new he couldn't beet the English with force, and new with mass media could win the war with the hearts and minds of the English populace. but a guy who murdered his wife for insurance pay out cant be compared to what gandhi faced. a person who casually took some one else life for personal gain is some thing society needs to remove. you cant fix every one, when some one is at the point of making money with murder, or murdering for fun. you remove them and let every one else who might take that path know what happens when you do.

now a 19 year old kid who is poor and steels a car for personal gain can be saved, with some therapy and skill training, you can send that kid back into the world able to support him self and be a functioning member of society. Leniency on those who can be saved. make an example of those who cant.
The eye for an eye statement is actually an interpretation of something in the bible said by Jesus.
eye for an eye makes the world blind was said by gandhi in the movie, but no evidence that he actually came up with it.

eye for a an eye, tooth for a tooth was in the bible, and that was telling you to literally take a tooth if they take one from you.
Except then Jesus countered it, because it was the time of forgiveness.
what i remember was turn the other cheek, if i remember correctly never said eye for an eye makes the hole world blind. plus gandhi was a real person. i don't care what your story book has to say about a fictional character. don't get me wrong emulating jesus is a noble feet, but impractical for society as a hole.
Actually Jesus was proven to exist historically, by both the king, the governor, numerous tax representatives and many things, he was also confirmed to die the way it was said. It was the mystical things never proven, but of course, that's hard to prove.
you gave me a good giggle, one there is no secular evidence of him being real, the few pieces they have 'found' was proven to be fake. 2 only paul was able to be alive during the time of jesus, and never said he was a living being on earth, every one else in the new testament for the most part happen 100 years + after his death. so no real evidence is there. pluss if you have a guy walking around one of the most wealthy provinces in rome. curing the sick and blind, raising the dead, walking on water and so on, you think there be some secular evidence. this was the height of the roman empire. had a functioning news system, and apparently important enough to the roman army to be killed by them, but yet not one piece of secular evidence.

or are you on of those its my faith god told them to write it goof balls. if so have fun in your make belief world, where magic people live in the sky.
You can believe that if you will, but in historical documents there is no doubt a man named jesus lived and that man died in the indicated way as well. The governor, pilate, and numerous other roman officials as well as other officials have confirmed him, though if they allowed any official information of his miracles to get out it could cause chaos. Kind of like propaganda control, you know like China and North Korea do every day. You can deny it if you like, but this is a case of historical evidence, which you can't argue against.

You can argue against his powers though.

Don't really care.

It's not really the sky so much as another realm.
SaneAmongInsane said:
tofulove said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
tofulove said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
Delsana said:
stonethered said:
I don't think you were, not even for the ear twisting (which frankly sounds totally situationally appropriate, and is exactly how it would have happened if it had been a movie). Kids should have known better than to trespass, assuming they knew it was someone's property. Lady shouldn't have yelled at you for it, but her reaction is quite understandable. She was angry, and probably a bit scared about what you were doing; odds are nobody has ever actually laid hands on her kids before (and I'd say that after trespassing and vandalizing your private property, somebody probably ought to).

Could you have handled it better? Yeah, you could have just tracked down their parents and courteously requested compensation. But at the same time, your actions will have a rather more lasting impact on all of them. And you didn't try to kill anyone, or cause permanent harm. Nobody was threatened. And everything was paid for. As long as there's no legal problems, I'd say you did fine.
Legally, it was child abuse.

There's a very big legal problem here.

Again, I sense hypocrisy for everyone forgetting what happened when they were young kid...
Depends on the region.
And by legal problems, I mean depending on whether anyone wanted to press charges. Generally, the police don't fuss with things unless people take issue with them.

And what exactly is it that we're all forgetting here?
You guys all broke things when you were really young, or your parents did, and you didn't want to take responsibility and you fled... and now look at you all taking issue with it and acting as if it's the worst thing ever and punishment ever made you stop.. bahaha such hypocrisy.
Right, but we got caught, we got punished, and we were forced to take responsibility for ourselves. What they did is not the worst thing ever, its not good, but nobody's dead or psychologically scarred. But I'm glad to hear that they got caught, they got punished, and someone took responsibility for it. Maybe one of these days they'll shape up to be decent, responsible adults like many of the other kids who did stupid things and got punished. But one thing's for sure, if they don't get punished then they probably won't learn to behave themselves.

And Punishment did, usually, make me stop.
Punishment doesn't stop things, it makes you get better at hiding it. Your "usually" indicates this. It's not punishment that gives you self-introspection, it's maturity and development of self through experiences based on your own capacity and capabilities and drives. Not the forced drives of others.
sure it does, if some one murders some one else, and you kill them for there crime. they wont be doing any more murdering. for major crimes make examples out of people, for minor crimes focus on teaching them a better way. rapist, murders, people with multiple assaults and so on deserve the harsh punishments as a warning to others, more petty crimes focus on the rehabilitation to make them a functioning member of society.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
for some people, if you don't take there eye out, they will keep ripping other peoples eyes out. more importantly your showing every one else what happens when you do some thing that stupid. for people who do horrible deeds against there fellow human, horrible deads befall them as a reminder. lesser evils should be treated as mental illness and focus on healing instead of crucifying.

an eye for an eye doesn't apply to every thing. when Gandhi said it, he new he couldn't beet the English with force, and new with mass media could win the war with the hearts and minds of the English populace. but a guy who murdered his wife for insurance pay out cant be compared to what gandhi faced. a person who casually took some one else life for personal gain is some thing society needs to remove. you cant fix every one, when some one is at the point of making money with murder, or murdering for fun. you remove them and let every one else who might take that path know what happens when you do.

now a 19 year old kid who is poor and steels a car for personal gain can be saved, with some therapy and skill training, you can send that kid back into the world able to support him self and be a functioning member of society. Leniency on those who can be saved. make an example of those who cant.
The eye for an eye statement is actually an interpretation of something in the bible said by Jesus.
eye for an eye makes the world blind was said by gandhi in the movie, but no evidence that he actually came up with it.

eye for a an eye, tooth for a tooth was in the bible, and that was telling you to literally take a tooth if they take one from you.
Except then Jesus countered it, because it was the time of forgiveness.
what i remember was turn the other cheek, if i remember correctly never said eye for an eye makes the hole world blind. plus gandhi was a real person. i don't care what your story book has to say about a fictional character. don't get me wrong emulating jesus is a noble feet, but impractical for society as a hole.
Actually Jesus was proven to exist historically, by both the king, the governor, numerous tax representatives and many things, he was also confirmed to die the way it was said. It was the mystical things never proven, but of course, that's hard to prove.
you gave me a good giggle, one there is no secular evidence of him being real, the few pieces they have 'found' was proven to be fake. 2 only paul was able to be alive during the time of jesus, and never said he was a living being on earth, every one else in the new testament for the most part happen 100 years + after his death. so no real evidence is there. pluss if you have a guy walking around one of the most wealthy provinces in rome. curing the sick and blind, raising the dead, walking on water and so on, you think there be some secular evidence. this was the height of the roman empire. had a functioning news system, and apparently important enough to the roman army to be killed by them, but yet not one piece of secular evidence.

or are you on of those its my faith god told them to write it goof balls. if so have fun in your make belief world, where magic people live in the sky.
I'm practically an atheist, your argument loses merit when you hit the part I bolded.

Is it that much of a stretch that a guy named Jesus Christ actually existed and was just a nut job that believed he was the son of God and was killed on a cross?
well if that was the case, why worship him, and still lacking in evidence. its some one saying there a flying teacup in orbit around the sun. sure there could be, but there no evidence of it so why believe it.
I don't know why people believe in it dude, but I do not think it's that much of a stretch that the guy existed and created a bit of noise and was executed and during the years that followed when the story was re-told over and over (before eventually written down) a lot of shit got exaggerated.

Really if you're going to argue religion, just stick to the easy shit to disprove. The coming back alive after 3 days of being dead, the walking on water, the parting of the red sea. The shit that's taken "on faith".
The thing that disputes your whole "he exited but he was a nut job" type thing is that people that didn't really believe in him and weren't really loyal to him.. upon his "revival", suddenly go off praising and preaching him everywhere and then get killed for it. People don't suddenly make a 180 and then go die for it unless they've got some SERIOUS reasons to believe.
 

Sethzard

Megalomaniac
Dec 22, 2007
1,820
0
0
Country
United Kingdom
You shouldn't have twisted their ears. It's their parent's choice what they want to do. Dragging them to see their parents would have been good and on the upside maybe it will teach them not to do it again, but it was probably a bit OTT.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
You caught them trespassing and breaking your shit, so no, I don't think that twisting their ears was unjustified.

If they were just having fun or being loud, then I'd call you an old geasar. From what I see here, though, you were justified. The mom would be right to be *worried* about your twisting, but I think my parents would have understood if the same happened to me as a kid. They'd have agreed with your punishment since you didn't take it any farther.