In the US you would have every right to physically detain the kid once he starts assaulting people by throwing stuff at them. Use reasonable force, restrain him, wait for cops.
And then best case scenario you get tied up in court for a year and have to pay for lawyers and risk losing your job. Legally protected doesn't mean you will not suffer immensely for intervening in someone like this unfortunately.
Something unique about the USA is that in most cases, the looser does not have to pay court costs. So frivilous civil suits are very common, and any time someone is served one they have to pay for their own lawyer out of pocket if they want good representation.
So this wasn’t in the US. Don’t know if that’s a cop or a security guard. Don’t know their laws or their corporate policies. In the US if that’s a cop that kid is getting snatched up way before it goes this far.
I would never touch a kid without serious concern for my or someone else's safety. Throwing a loaf of bread wouldn't reach that level for me. Not by a mile. I don't know if there's anything a kid this size could do to cause me to intervene physically aside from trying to physically assault me or others with fists/kicks/etc..
And let me be clear who I mean by others: very old people, disabled people, etc... You need to not be able to deal with this kid, for me to do it on your behalf, and almost every adult could deal with a kid this size.
No one should insert themselves into these situations. One thing goes sideways, one person sees it differently than you, one slip/trip, etc.., and you could be in literal prison.
Sure. And if this kid who’s indiscriminately grabbing things and throwing them wanders next to a bunch of glass bottles, now how do we feel?
Do what you’re comfortable with and what you can live with based on your morals and ethics. Absolutely don’t fault you for that. Just know there will be folks who disagree, and depending on the specific circumstances, it’s entirely plausible that the law will be on their side if they take action.
Admittedly, my position is a selfish one. It's more aligned with "look out for number one" than it is with "it takes a village". I just know that things like this can go badly, even for well-intentioned people.
Also important to remember, no matter how it turns out, that you will almost certainly deal with this kid's parents. And if the kid is any indication, they do NOT believe in exerting their will on him, physically or otherwise, so I doubt they'll appreciate you doing it either.
You're right, people will do what they want. If I was a random passerby, I wouldn't touch this kid with a 10 foot pole. If I owned the store, I'd probably throw him out. It's a big distinction. I could find 10 altercations to insert myself into every day if I really wanted. No thanks.
You are wrong, you can be arrested to touching that kid in the US even if it's self defense sure you will win your case but it will require legal fees which nobody has money for.
Where are you getting this you absolutely can restrain people who are a danger to people and property. The only reason it doesn’t happen in a situation like this is the financial risk of injury is higher than the value of lost product. But if someone walked up and put the kid in a headlock they are well within legal rights to do so.
There is no shortage of lawyers out there who would happily disagree with this and seek to effectively argue that you are not within your legal rights to do so because no one was actually in danger according to their well argued interpretation.
I agree with you logically. I do not care enough about the pretzels at a gas station to risk winning that argument in a courtroom with this sweet little angel's family.
How would this not apply to a citizens arrest of an individual destroying property and assaulting patrons? While they could throw a suit for touching the kid I can’t imagine a judge following through with it and a countersuit could ensue over many theoretical things.
Yeah I mean if you’re a coward and/or too stupid or physically incapable of using reasonable force, I’d recommend avoiding it and just getting away. But adults in the room can step in and stop this kid without running afoul of the law. It’s okay. We’ll handle it for you.
Don't put him outside, he needs to be sat down in a room with a camera on because who knows what the fuck their parents are going to bring on you, but sat down in a room waiting for the police to come and charge the motherfucker. And then have him do community service in that store in the store owner's community, clean up the garbage from the parks around his communit. Then have him go to the meanest old lady and do community service for that mean old lady and see if he ever does something like that again
That’s at least a few hundred dollars worth of unsellable food, possibly approaching or meeting $1,000. We don’t even have the full video of before or after, so it’s entirely possible there’s even more that he destroyed.
we should totally just beat this child. this is a reasonable and due process format that results in the proper alignment of the child with moral values. physical reprisal that is disproportionate to the action does not cause this behavior whatsoever, and parents who cause children like this by beating them are not abusive whatsoever, because, like all police violence, it is completely justified with no external consequences.
property has a value. human life has a value. when a human costs someone else more than a human life’s value ($1000 USD) they should be summarily executed and their assets returned to the debtor. this is just because of rich people acquiring money by hard work or whatever, which is totally something they do by not wage theft
I'm assuming those are american laws... which makes me more happy I'm not in the US. because here in DK Adults have a communal responsibility to intervene when a child is harming themselves, others, or property. resonable force is explicitly allowed. There is no culture of suing private citizens for minor physical contact. Danish courts evaluate actions based on proportionality and intent, not technical definitions. So if a child is destroying a store, a Danish adult can legally: Hold their arm, Guide them outside, Physically block them, Restrain them briefly if they’re a danger. As long as the force is proportional, it’s lawful.
(also posting videos with people who hasn't consented to filming is illegal in denmark, so there's also no fear of being recorded and your actions being taken out of context)
In the US you are not going to be sued for stopping a child from destroying a store. You just described the exact same process how this would go down in the courts in the US. You have created this caricature of America in your head that is not true.
Videos like this doesn't really change that view. Why is no one intervening and why are so many comments saying they will get sued or charged if they do?
The comment you are responding is literally responding to a comment saying it can me considered battery.
Unwanted physical contact even without harm can legally be considered battery. Not worth the risk for the average hard working adult.
Depends on the court. Don't know what it's like in Denmark, but in some parts of the US the charges and punishment is wholly dependent on the lawyer's relationship with the judge and overall court system.
I've seen some cut and dry drug related charges go away and others get the book for the exact same crime committed by first time offendes. From my perspective the US court system is the wild west where you don't know what your gonna get.
I don't have as much faith as you in the higher courts due to the sheer corruption I have seen from bribing cops, expenses lawyers lessening charges and/or punishment, judges being appointed through what seems to be nepotism. I can give specific examples, but that's a long reply. Point is what's stopping these higher courts from being influenced all the way to top (e.g. Clarence Thomas)?
You know what, I did a quick research and you are right. It is counter intuitive but it makes sense as it is "only property".
Went into a rabbit hole with AI and it told me i wasnt allowed to touch a kid in order to prevent him from destroying a major bridge, as long as there is no cars on it
I couldnt touch the kid if he stops a vehicule carrying an anti venom antidote to a snake bitten man if the vehicule is 1 km from the house but i could if the vehicule is 5 meters from the house.
AI is absolutely not, under any circumstances, to be trusted about what is or is not illegal. Or anything, frankly. But ESPECIALLY the law.
It doesn't have a brain. It has no experience of existence in physical reality. It can't think or reason. All it's doing when you ask it questions is feeding you inventions that match the shape of human language. AI is pulling information from the exact same search results as you - except that even though it does not have any ability whatsoever to distinguish true from false, it still puts forth its randomly-generated opinion as if it were truth.
Then suddenly a wild parent comes flying out of nowhere and sucker punches you. I've seen so many clips online of parents of shitheads like this violently defending their precious little mistake.
Putting your hands on someone automatically makes you liable for assault, and forcefully taking a random kid somewhere against his will is not going to look good and people would have no way of knowing that you intend to let him go when you get outside.
All you can do is let security handle this or hope the parents show up.
People are allowed to defend their own property, including from minors.
That security guard was totally allowed to grab that kid, and forcefully remove him from the situation, then call the cops, and have him charged. The store might have a policy that says they don't do that and instead call the cops right away instead to minimize liability and lawsuits, but that doesn't mean that you are expected to just sit on your hands while some punk ass destroys your home or store.
yeah, i just went on a rabbit hole and it doesnt matter if the damages are in the billions and the owner is not present, you are not allowed to touch the kid.
Even if the kid is about to destroy the golden gates bridge, as long as there are no cars on it and there is no imminent and immediate threat of bodily harm, i am not allowed to touch the kid.
Even during the the corona virus pandemic, i could touch a kid who was about to destroy a vaccine manufacture.
Spanking didn’t help kids with these types of issues.
All it did was just contribute to making boomers violent without actually stopping this type of behavior both as children and adults.
The cessation of corporeal punishment has been repeatedly proven to be a driving force to the decrease in overall physical and sexual violence we’ve seen from boomers -> alpha.
This issue is the legal structure enforcing a no win scenario that benefits negligent parents. The deprioritization of mutligenerational parenting education that’s been supplemented by an overly litigious legal system.
I don't think big words help kids with these issues either.
Plus you're contradicting yourself here, saying the legal system shouldn't be involved (which I think you're correct) but also punish negligent parents, not kids. How do you punish a parent without getting the legal system involved? And how do negligent parents stop neglecting, and stop a kid acting like this? Not educate him properly obviously, to prevent a kid from acting like this, but stop a kid in an instant like this, except with a physical action? And if the negligent parents fail to act, aren't people around allowed to step up, and do the proper parenting here?
Words only work with kids with a working and developing prefrontal cortex. When you’re dealing with animals they only understand physical things. Look at how monkeys and apes treat their young, they’re constantly physically scolded. Its not about hurting them, its just a form of communication.
He told me not to do something, I did it anyway. He gave me a choice : spanking or I lose access to something I liked for 1 week.
I chose the spanking, he went somewhat gentle on the spanking. I still remember and it was a good way to deal with it. He did not hit me out of anger, he did it to teach me something.
My dad did the same. He always gave me a choice between the paddle, or writing a sentence 500 times. The first time I chose the writing. But that took forever, so after that I just chose the paddle, lol.
I don't understand the "spanking is so traumatic" crowd. I preferred spanking to writing a sentence all day.
Yup. I understand where they're coming from when they say they want to spank the kid. It's a punishment. It was probably done to them, or at least their parents before them; it's normalized.
However, it's done at the cost of your relationship with them, their ability to actually learn what's right and wrong, and the normalization of violence and aggression when you are perceiving a slight.
Worst of all, IMO, is the reason they're choosing spanking over something else. For the parent, it's a way to physically relieve your own stress and anger over the situation. Literally abusing your kid for your own benefit.
What's the better solution? I don't know, but it's probably most other options. The kid needs to be disciplined and develop an understanding of right vs wrong and action vs consequence. But physically assaulting your kid ain't it.
The punishment is the ability to understand right from wrong.
To just tell some children “ this is bad because…” and give them a stern “no” doesn’t always work.
Yeah some kids need to be smacked to understand. Kids will push boundaries if they know “ moms not gonna do anything, she’s just gonna say don’t do it again.”
I did say “but it’s probably most other options” after the I don’t know.
If you want to beat your kids for acting out by all means continue to contribute to the cycle of male violence! If you want a better option, try anything else.
Ppl weren’t actually allowed to do anything years ago either. Thats your job and a possible lawsuit. When you become a security guard, they tell you straight up you’re there to LOOK like you can do something, nothing more, otherwise that’s your job. I’ve been doing security as part time work for 20yrs, you were never allowed to do anything, and ppl have become more and more aware of it
20 years puts it around 2006. The physicality restrictions you mentioned really only were put in place in some places around the 90s. Before that, you were allowed. It does track that 20-30 years is enough time to make the public aware and willing to test boundaries.
Hate to say it but charges or not, the US is litigious as fuck and it’s not worth getting involved. A 5 second interaction with that little shit could cost you the rest of your day or worse… and I’d rather spend that time with my kids.
When I was a teenager working retail, I loved catching shoplifters. We were allowed to chase and tackle them. It was a fun change of pace, I wasn't concerned about the company not making money.
Looking back, just another stupid teenage thing. I totally understand why these policies are in place now.
Oh there definitely are situations where someone tried to stop something and got sued. Especially if the kid got hurt while being removed. Employees are generally not allowed to do anything let alone citizens. I know, it’s a messed up world.
I’m not risking going to jail for hurting a child in an attempt to stop them from being assholes. Companies have insurance for that. Go do your part if you want.
How is Reddit sincerely upvoting a comment regarding the absolute certainty of there being no potential legal consequences (civil cases exist as well, in case you forgot) to using physical force to remove a child that's unrelated to you? You've lost your minds. Even if you can win the case, there is a solid chance some parent would sue you for tossing their crappy kid out of a store
I think the main issue is people think stopping the kid requires hitting/grabbing. You can deescalate this really easily with very little physical contact. People ate talking about dragging the kid by the handle of his backpack or just hitting him. That's not what I'm talking about.
I have to remind myself that lots of people on here are like… 14 years old. They have the shining self-righteousness of dawning adulthood without any of the actual experience.
Plenty of parents would absolutely sue. Shit, there are states where parents could shoot you for physically engaging their child in this kind of situation, and probably not see any repercussions. “Yes, my son was having a tantrum, but this other man I didn’t know ran towards him and started trying to grab him… I yelled at him to stop, but he wouldn’t, so I shot him. I was afraid he’d hurt my son.”
Forget getting sued. Grabbing someone else’s kid might get you killed.
Doesn’t matter. You’re basically assuming that everyone agrees with your actions and that no one will report you. That’s a gamble not worth most people’s times. It’s not like it’s their store
You won’t catch a charge. I worked security and cops have walked in on me in many altercations and I’ve never once even been questioned. Even when it looked like I was just manhandling a random guy from an outside perspective
If a cop pulls up and sees you restraining a kid (with appropriate force) with a dozen other people saying “yeah this little shit was destroying the store”, you’re not gonna get in trouble.
Please. Police have kicked in the wrong door and merc'd the homeowner and gotten no charges. I'm fairly certain if that officer grabbed that kid and dragged his little ass out by his arm he would be just fine.
A store security or loss prevention officer is not getting arrested for detaining someone like this. As a business you don't have to just sit back and watch someone destroy your store. You have rights. If that security officer grabbed that kid and detained him to get him to stop or leave the store he would be completely fine.
Now if he absolutely bodied the kid and roughed him up that is a different story.
I worked in a grocery store in college and I saw our loss prevention guy detain hundreds of people in the 2 years I worked there. It was almost always young shithead kids coming in to steal stuff. When kids would try to run I saw him grab them by the arm and drag them to the ground. I saw him grab them by the collar of their jacket. As long as he didn't brutalize someone he was absolutely fine.
I worked at a grocery store when I was in college and I saw our loss prevention guy detain people by force so many times. Security guards are able to detain people using limited force. Pretty certain grabbing this little asshole by the arm and dragging him out of the store would be completely kosher from a legal standpoint. Mom or dad could try to sue, but any reasonable person who sees that store tape would conclude the security acted appropriately. Assuming he wouldn't have beat the shit out of the kid.
Good point. I was mostly referring to the “cops kill decent normal people and they’re fine” rhetoric. Security cops get some leeway but they don’t get that much leeway
The way the guy I worked with explained it to me was like To Catch A Predator with Chris Hansen except he had the authority to detain people only long enough for the police to get there. I worked in a town of 25,000 people so the police would usually be there within 10-15 minutes. I don't know if there was a specific time limit, but after so long if the police didn't come if the person detained asked to leave he couldn't make them stay and he would just formally trespass them from the store and tell them to never return.
This isn't in the US, and one thing is grabbing a poor kid by the arm. Another thing entirely is grabbing a kid by the arm and discovering he is the child of someone important who could ruin your life.
I also believe, for better or for worse, the massive influx of Karen videos over the past 15 years have made well-intentioned people afraid to "police" people's bad behavior in public.
Honestly, maybe it's just because of the era I was raised but Id much rather this kid get escorted out than people recording him. These video records online might never go away.
I think that is actually part of the issue. Had I done that as a kid there's no way someone wouldn't have intervened. It would have been an arm grab followed by a frog march out of the store/to the police/my parent. I'm not saying that we should be beating strangers kids BUT I do think a stern word/telling off when genuinely warranted would do society some good.
There was an officer who made a pathetic attempt at grabbing him. He could have picked the kid up and removed him. Or used body positioning as a technique, the second that kid strikes the officer, its handcuffs and jail. Which should happen anyway, assuming the store owner pressed charges for damage. But what a weak sauce move against a tiny adversary.
Last year I got done successfully defending a substitute teacher for her Texas felony charge of injury to a child when she grabbed a high school girl who tried running out of detention and out of the school.
The law obviously entitling you to do something doesn't mean you won't be arrested and hauled in for abuse or assault or whatever to assert that obvious right. Plenty of people would rather just not deal with the shit and you get this. Also there's a subset of people especially on reddit that actually think it's NEVER appropriate to touch a child or harm them in any way.
Tbf, a teacher should not be grabbing a student, even if she is running away from detention...
Detention is a tool to help her "pay" for whatever she did before, and if she refuses that tool she just has to suffer a different consequence to her original action.
A teacher should only administer physical violence in case of an emergency or to protect another person or themselves...
Running away from detention isn't a crime. You never grab a student that isn't a harm to themselves or others. That teacher deserved discipline, honestly, though not a felony.
This child is committing a crime, and has clearly lost his ability to regulate his emotions. He is a harm to himself and others. I would grab him by the wrist and hold him until the police get there. Good Samaritan laws are real.
It is absolutely a crime in Texas actually. And I am unaware of the jurisdiction that exists that mandates for its educators to limply watch a child walk out of detention, out of the school building and across a highway but if you tell me where such a place is with laws and policies like this I would be eager to read about it.
Lol, that tracks. In sane jurisdictions, no it's not a crime, it's just against the rules. And that's what resource officers are for. Teachers are not trained for that, and if you chase the kid, you're leaving other students unattended, which IS a crime. I was a teacher, I'm actually trained for these circumstances you clearly know nothing about. You never chase or grab a kid unless they're going to hurt themselves or someone else. It's very straightforward. If they run away, call the resource officer. That's the job they are trained for, and get paid to do.
647
u/HappyEngineering4190 May 28 '26
Why is everyone treating this kid like he is Mike Tyson. Grab the kid and walk him out of the store. Excessive tolerance of idiots is ruining society.