If someone really hurts your child, is overreaction acceptable? (children, permanent, safety)

[cleasach]

I think people (not just parents) should be cut slack if someone in their family is a victim of a serious crime and they are so distraught that they rage about the perpetrator. There is no way that one is thinking straight when in that sort of pain. People who act out on that pain though and beat/threaten the perpetrator are going way too far.

An interesting other side to this question is one that asks if your child/family member is the perpetrator of a violent crime against someone else, is overprotection acceptable? Would the same people that think physically attacking the perpetrator is okay when a family member is a victim think it's okay for others to overreact and do the same if it was their family member that committed the crime?

[markg91359]

An interesting topic because its a basically a question of what values in our life do we allow to prevail?

On the one hand you have:

1. Love for a child.
2. Family loyalty.
3. Very human desires for revenge and "getting even".

On the other hand you have a second set of values:

1. Respect for the law.
2. Upholding the justice system.
3. Allowing rationality to prevail over emotions.

Most of us I think would like to believe we would follow the second set of values. However, when the chips were down it might be very difficult to predict what we would actually do.

I submit that we have a system of laws precisely because we cannot maintain a civilized society if people are repeatedly taking the law into their own hands. Too many people would overdo it and do it incorrectly. It would result in a situation of family feuds and private grudges. Sooner or later, you'd see major social upheaval as a result. I would suggest that anyone who questions this ought to obtain and view a copy of the program that recently appeared on the History Channel called "The Hatfields and the McCoys". It shows what happens when families take matters like this into their own hands. The end result was horrifying for both the families and surrounding communities. This is the reason that society cannot condone even people who are legitimately wronged from taking the law into their own hands. Its why I would support criminal charges of at least manslaughter for a parent who killed the man who raped their daughter or who robbed and beat their son. Its tough, but there are larger issues than simply seeing that one criminal is punished. Its about all of our rights.

[dragonsong]

When my dd was 12 years old, her then male friend and her were sitting out side talking, when I went out to have a smoke ( I don't smoke now ) I seen that she was punching him in the face and arms and yelling for him to stop, I seen he had his hand in her shirt, I didn't think, I reacted, I grabbed his arm, then his hand and squeezed until every bone in his hand was broke, or so they tell me, later when his father came around he was angry but listened to what my dd had to say, he then said he was very sorry for what his son did and I did the same and he said that under the circumstances he would have done the same thing and asked if I would be willing to pay half of the emergency room bill, I did, so yes I will hurt some one if they hurt my kids but kill, I don't think so, at least I would hope not.

[goodmanm]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Its tough, but there are larger issues than simply seeing that one criminal is punished. Its about all of our rights.

That little 4 year old also had the 'right' to not be raped by that pervert. The rights of the perpetrator should never take precendence or prevail over the rights of the victim.

Thankfully, in Texas, one also has the right, providing it is legal for you to be where you are at, to protect yourself and your family from harm through any means necessary up to and including the use of deadly force.

Although it did surprise me that the man died (with his pants around his ankles so I've read) only those that were there, the police, the DA, and the grand jury know the exact circumstances and all declined to prosecute.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by goodmanm

That little 4 year old also had the 'right' to not be raped by that pervert. The rights of the perpetrator should never take precendence or prevail over the rights of the victim.

Thankfully, in Texas, one also has the right, providing it is legal for you to be where you are at, to protect yourself and your family from harm through any means necessary up to and including the use of deadly force.

Although it did surprise me that the man died (with his pants around his ankles so I've read) only those that were there, the police, the DA, and the grand jury know the exact circumstances and all declined to prosecute.

Hooray for Texas.

I feel sorr for that guy. He did not intend to kill the pervert and had to live with the fact that he killed someone. Realistically, I am surprised he punched him only a couple of times. I would probably be still kicking him after breaking both hands on him when the police arrived. I cannot even imagine how explosively angry I would become if I found some perv sexually molesting my 4 y.o. daughter. And yes, if I found my son molesting a 4 year old I woudl probably beat him to a pulp as well. Anyone who wants to hurt a child - the world is a better place if they are dead.

[Oleg Bach]

The real job of a father is to protect the child till the child is old enough to protect themselves and survive in the world- real basic natural stuff...When my kids were young..I may not have been the best provider but I was the best protector..no harm of any kind came to my children..and now they are healthy strong well adjusted adults...I have seen single mothers who will take on a boy friend who molest their children...not once did this woman pair up with such a man but twice- her first husband and the second one were deviates. This idiot of a mother was a facilitator to the crime- what a creep...I blame her for letting the wolf in the door- she must have known.....................We all assume that males are a danger to kids- sometimes mothers eat their own young.

[DewDropInn]

OP:

Whatever a parent may do in the heat of the moment is because someone else made the decision to hurt that child. Once someone makes the decision to hurt a child he/she better accept that a parent may just do worse to him.

The action of the parent is the consequence of someone making the choice to hurt a child.

(Note I'm not talking about vigilante justice. That's something entirely different.)

[markg91359]

That little 4 year old also had the 'right' to not be raped by that pervert. The rights of the perpetrator should never take precendence or prevail over the rights of the victim.

Thankfully, in Texas, one also has the right, providing it is legal for you to be where you are at, to protect yourself and your family from harm through any means necessary up to and including the use of deadly force.

Although it did surprise me that the man died (with his pants around his ankles so I've read) only those that were there, the police, the DA, and the grand jury know the exact circumstances and all declined to prosecute.

You are confusing two things. Under the legal system, there is a right to defend one's self and to defen others. The Grand Jury in Texas was right in this case because I would have construed the father's actions as acting in defense of his daughter. Catching the perpetrator in the act, certainly gave him a right to use physical force against the man. I note also that despite what this molester had done that after the father beat him, he tried to summon emergency help to keep the man from dying and the ambulance didn't arrive on time.

The kind of situation I would be concerned about is not this sort of incident. It would be a situation where after the crime had taken place and some interval of time had passed, the father or other relative tracked someone down to another place where they clearly were not threatening anyone and than killed or badly wounded them.

That's the situation where I would say, as sympathetically as I might view a father's actions, I would still have to conclude that it was not in self-defense and the law was violated.

[eastwesteastagain]

I think there are some interesting and reflective responses to the OP. I'd like to add that there is a big difference between experiencing a rage after one's child is hurt and acting on it. I cannot imagine a parent who would not experience an intense form of anger if their child was hurt in a situation like you describe in the OP.

Anger (in all of its forms/intensities) is one of the "universal" emotions present across all cultures, and it is hard-wired into humans as a response to a threat or attack on ourselves or those we hold dear. It is associated with an action urge to attack the person who hurt us or our loved ones. This is all a physiologically valid reaction. Whether the urge to act becomes an action or not is a different story, and the consequences of that action are governed by our societal laws (which do take into account emotional duress and the circumstances of attacking the attacker). Any way you slice it, overreaction doesn't really enter the equation. Would I understand a parent who wanted to harm an attacker after the fact? Absolutely. It doesn't mean I think they necessarily should (not a fan of vigilante justice) and there will likely be serious consequences for doing so, but I would understand on a basic gut level.

[anadyr21]

To play devil's advocate, if (general) you killed someone for harming your child, and just to make it interesting, the perpetrator is another kid, AND you happen to be present at that moment, is it then ok for the parent of the perpetrator to kill YOU, and be found "not guilty?" After all, the perpetrator's parent is protecting his/her child at a moment when he/she is in danger. Would it be ok if instead, the perpetrator was an adult?

Don't get me wrong. In the moment, I'd physically attack, and if he dies, he dies (said with "Ivan Drago's" accent). If the justice system let him off....