My neighbor and I got into it on sat.

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
While your intentions were good, you overstepped your boundaries. Told the kid what to do once, he obviously relayed the message to his father, his father overrode your instructions and the kid did was his father told him to do. MYOFB.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Citrix has no authority to tell the kid what to do. He's not the kid's parent and the kid is on a public street.

 

[SirStev0]

Hey you damn kids get out or my lawn!

 

[91TTZ]

Let the police enforce the law, and let the steamroller enforce the laws of physics.

 

[isekii]

Kids like that won't learn anything unless he's hit with a car or is seriously hurt in one way or another.

You should've just let the kid be and do his thing.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
While your intentions were good, you overstepped your boundaries. Told the kid what to do once, he obviously relayed the message to his father, his father overrode your instructions and the kid did was his father told him to do. MYOFB.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Citrix has no authority to tell the kid what to do. He's not the kid's parent and the kid is on a public street.

The OPs judgment (re: the danger) was wrong but his intent was right. The reason the world is as screwed up as it is is because too many people remain apathetic and don't give a damn for anyone but themselves.

Many parents are quite inept at their job. Kids shouldn't suffer because of that.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
While your intentions were good, you overstepped your boundaries. Told the kid what to do once, he obviously relayed the message to his father, his father overrode your instructions and the kid did was his father told him to do. MYOFB.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Citrix has no authority to tell the kid what to do. He's not the kid's parent and the kid is on a public street.

The OPs judgment (re: the danger) was wrong but his intent was right. The reason the world is as screwed up as it is is because too many people remain apathetic and don't give a damn for anyone but themselves.

Many parents are quite inept at their job. Kids shouldn't suffer because of that.

I don't blame him for telling the kid the first time. But after the kid talked to his dad and came back Citrix overstepped the line by continuing to tell the kid what to do.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
While your intentions were good, you overstepped your boundaries. Told the kid what to do once, he obviously relayed the message to his father, his father overrode your instructions and the kid did was his father told him to do. MYOFB.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Citrix has no authority to tell the kid what to do. He's not the kid's parent and the kid is on a public street.

The OPs judgment (re: the danger) was wrong but his intent was right. The reason the world is as screwed up as it is is because too many people remain apathetic and don't give a damn for anyone but themselves.

Many parents are quite inept at their job. Kids shouldn't suffer because of that.

I don't blame him for telling the kid the first time. But after the kid talked to his dad and came back Citrix overstepped the line by continuing to tell the kid what to do.

All he says in the OP is that the kid rode off, he went inside, and then came back outside to do more and saw the kid again at which time the kid told him his father said otherwise.

He doesn't know for certain whether the father said that to the kid.

In any event, he didn't restrain the kid. Wouldn't something like this fall under free speech in your country? The OP was saying something from his yard and the kid was free to ignore it. Crossing the bound would be laying a hand on the kid.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: isekii
Kids like that won't learn anything unless he's hit with a car or is seriously hurt in one way or another.

You should've just let the kid be and do his thing.

Oh bullsh!t. I was an arrogant little prick when I was a kid too, it took strong adults to straighten me out. I'm tired of this "lost cause" mentality with you people.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Flyback

In any event, he didn't restrain the kid. Wouldn't something like this fall under free speech in your country? The OP was saying something from his yard and the kid was free to ignore it. Crossing the bound would be laying a hand on the kid.

I'm not saying that he crossed a legal boundary, I'm just saying that he overstepped the line socially speaking.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: joshsquall
That's why we let our kids get in cars and try to drive when they're 9 years old, or run their own bath water when they're 2, or play with knives when they're 3.

Yes, you have to give kids their freedom and let them make their own mistakes, but letting them severely injure/kill themselves just to teach them a lesson is beyond ignorant.

Also, going to blows over some guy telling your kid to stay away from danger shows you have some serious issues.

All I'm trying to say is never try to parent another's child, especially when the child was given a direct order to disregard said asshat. It sparks off protection mechanisms that defy logic.

Don't tell me you didn't use this to your advantage when you were a kid.

Fortunately I wasn't an asshat kid. I respected my parents and other adults.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: joshsquall
That's why we let our kids get in cars and try to drive when they're 9 years old, or run their own bath water when they're 2, or play with knives when they're 3.

Yes, you have to give kids their freedom and let them make their own mistakes, but letting them severely injure/kill themselves just to teach them a lesson is beyond ignorant.

Also, going to blows over some guy telling your kid to stay away from danger shows you have some serious issues.

All I'm trying to say is never try to parent another's child, especially when the child was given a direct order to disregard said asshat. It sparks off protection mechanisms that defy logic.

Don't tell me you didn't use this to your advantage when you were a kid.

Fortunately I wasn't an asshat kid. I respected my parents and other adults.

What if one adult gave you trouble when most other adults said that the action was fine? I remember being a kid and there'd always be some asshat that felt that it was unacceptable for kids to play with toy guns. There was even one person that used to call the police all the time, but since we weren't doing anything wrong, the police would just see us playing and then leave.

 

[bsobel]

Wouldn't something like this fall under free speech in your country?

The right to free speech is the concept that the government can not control what you say within certain legal limits (e.g. treason, yelling fire in a theater to invoke panic, etc).

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Flyback

In any event, he didn't restrain the kid. Wouldn't something like this fall under free speech in your country? The OP was saying something from his yard and the kid was free to ignore it. Crossing the bound would be laying a hand on the kid.

I'm not saying that he crossed a legal boundary, I'm just saying that he overstepped the line socially speaking.

That depends on whose interpretation of the social contract we're talking about. Some people only follow codified law

If he saw the kid talk to his father, then yeah, he should have stopped at that. (Keep in mind he just has to go on what the kid said his father told him. Millions of kids pull that same BS all the time along with "my father is bigger than you".)

I think it is better to err on the side of caution and take some heat from a jerk neighbor rather than see something bad come out of it (again, his perceived danger for the child was faulty, but he believed it to be a legitimate threat). When good men do nothing...

 

[bsobel]

What if one adult gave you trouble when most other adults said that the action was fine?

Bigno! It would seem there would be at least 7 adults involved here. The OP, the neighbor, and the road crew (I presume 5 but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 4-8).

Doesn't anyone think it's strange that out of 7 adults only the OP felt their was a danger to the child?

Does anyone really think those 6 other adults wanted this child to be hurt? Remember, these 6 adults were much more vested in the safety of this child (I like how some of the folks here presume the neighbor WANTED his kid hurt based on a one sided story). And the road crew, do you think they go to work hoping to run a child over?

So who is more likely to be correct given the evidence. The 6 adults who had a higher vested interest in the childs safety, or the OP?

 

[Kelemvor]

Yes you were wrong but the kid and his dad were being dicks too. I would have just minded my own business after telling the kid the first time.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Wouldn't something like this fall under free speech in your country?

The right to free speech is the concept that the government can not control what you say within certain legal limits (e.g. treason, yelling fire in a theater to invoke panic, etc).

So would that fall under it?

Likewise if he told the little turd that Santa Claus wasn't real the next time he strolls around?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Flyback

In any event, he didn't restrain the kid. Wouldn't something like this fall under free speech in your country? The OP was saying something from his yard and the kid was free to ignore it. Crossing the bound would be laying a hand on the kid.

I'm not saying that he crossed a legal boundary, I'm just saying that he overstepped the line socially speaking.

That depends on whose interpretation of the social contract we're talking about. Some people only follow codified law

If he saw the kid talk to his father, then yeah, he should have stopped at that. (Keep in mind he just has to go on what the kid said his father told him. Millions of kids pull that same BS all the time along with "my father is bigger than you".)

I think it is better to err on the side of caution and take some heat from a jerk neighbor rather than see something bad come out of it (again, his perceived danger for the child was faulty, but he believed it to be a legitimate threat). When good men do nothing...

Who are these mental midgets who need a law to tell them how to act?

 

[Darwin333]

Man.... When I was a kid my neighbors parents had full permission to beat my ass if I got out of line or did something dumb or unsafe.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: bsobel

What if one adult gave you trouble when most other adults said that the action was fine?

Bigno! It would seem there would be at least 7 adults involved here. The OP, the neighbor, and the road crew (I presume 5 but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 4-8).

Doesn't anyone think it's strange that out of 7 adults only the OP felt their was a danger to the child?

Does anyone really think those 6 other adults wanted this child to be hurt? Remember, these 6 adults were much more vested in the safety of this child (I like how some of the folks here presume the neighbor WANTED his kid hurt based on a one sided story). And the road crew, do you think they go to work hoping to run a child over?

So who is more likely to be correct given the evidence. The 6 adults who had a higher vested interest in the childs safety, or the OP?

:beer:

 

[theknight571]

Were you wrong... no. Was it necessary... perhaps not.

Was he wrong... yes. He could have been more civil about it.

We have a similar problem here in our neighborhood. Everyone else's kid is guilty but your's.

Last summer I had 4-5 parents over to my house complaining about my kid... and I know for fact (sometimes it pays to have elderly and nosy neighbors... lol) that only once was he the "guilty" one.

(BTW... since when were kids not allowed to be kids. When I got in a fight my parents asked if there was any blood... if not.. so what.. if so.. well I deserved it. Now the cops show up with a warrant...wft?)

Am I the only parent that doesn't believe everything my kid tells me... espically if it's something he thinks he'll get in trouble for... hah.. I ain't no dummy.... been there... done that.

So... since the parents were so sure that my kid was at fault (regardless of what other witnesses said) I started having them file written complaints... and supplying a picture ID for me to keep a copy of.

I had the forms right by the door when a parent would show up, they'd get the jist of the story across and then I'd ask for ID and hand them a form.

ID because I really don't know them from the next person... I'm taking them at their word that they're who they say they are... and a written complaint so I have record of it... and they can't later change their story.

OR

Maybe I'm wrong in not going to their houses every time my kid says so and so hit me, so and so threw rocks at me... waaa waaa waaa... are you hurt... no? keep playing.



Perhaps I veered a little off-topic... but once I got going.... lol

 

[bsobel]

So... since the parents were so sure that my kid was at fault (regardless of what other witnesses said) I started having them file written complaints... and supplying a picture ID for me to keep a copy of.

I tend to think if you have so many complaints about your child you need to print off forms then yea, you got a problem. Where there is smoke their is usually fire. But this is probably for another thread...

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: bsobel

So... since the parents were so sure that my kid was at fault (regardless of what other witnesses said) I started having them file written complaints... and supplying a picture ID for me to keep a copy of.

I tend to think if you have so many complaints about your child you need to print off forms then yea, you got a problem. Where there is smoke their is usually fire. But this is probably for another thread...

heh i was thinking the same thing..

 

[SoulAssassin]

I just wanted to point out how disappointed I am that no one started a 'My neighbor tried to tell my kid what to do and the construction people were a block away' thread.

 

[theknight571]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: bsobel

So... since the parents were so sure that my kid was at fault (regardless of what other witnesses said) I started having them file written complaints... and supplying a picture ID for me to keep a copy of.

I tend to think if you have so many complaints about your child you need to print off forms then yea, you got a problem. Where there is smoke their is usually fire. But this is probably for another thread...

heh i was thinking the same thing..

Never said he was a saint... just that it wasn't only my kid causing trouble.

I don't care if you come and tell me that my kid was throwing snowballs at cars... just don't tell me that your kid would never, ever, do anything like that, when 3 of the neighbors are telling me it was both of them.

I would not have a problem with the OP telling my kid to watch out for the crews/equipment etc. or to stop throwing snowballs at cars etc.

I might, depending on my mood at the time, visit and discuss the whole "Do you understand english" bit though.

 

[Q]

I thought you did the right thing. Ended it without going any further. If he (kid) starts up again, just ignore him and if he gets hurt (hopefully not) the dad will feel like an ass.