When Is It Proper to Physically Stirke Another?

[SctDad 10]

well since we are talking about all the different situations, how about this. I know that I am probably off base, but here it goes.

 

You are on the Shot Gun range. All safety issues have been discussed. There is one boy who has not been paying attention and before you know it, the shot gun is spun around and now pointing directly at you. Would it be appropriate to strike the shooter if it was required to gain safe control of the Fire Arm. Yes, I have seen this situation, and the striking person only used enough force to gain control of the weapon. No this was not at scouts, but I can see it happening there.

 

I am not saying that hitting is appropriate in all situations, but there are times.

[Liz 101]

I also go with a qualified "never." In addition to self-defense, sometimes there are safety considerations, and reasonable force to prevent people from getting injured may be necessary.

 

In the other thread, I mentioned my son striking another boy who was deliberately agitating him through repeated use of a racial slur. I did not consider hitting to be an appropriate response to the situation, and my son was reprimanded for it. On the other hand, it was an *understandable* response, and I did not respond as drastically as I would have if he'd hit him after only a single comment.

 

While I don't particularly like the way the problem got solved, it DID get solved. I don't think that young man will ever use a racial slur to agitate someone else again (I don't think he really understood exactly how deeply hurtful it was -- getting punched once in the gut by someone he considered a close friend was probably the most decisive way for him to learn). And, for what it's worth, it gave me an opportunity to talk to my son about constructive ways to resolve conflict without resorting to hitting. As far as I know, he hasn't struck anybody else since then (not counting his brother maybe).

 

Proper? No. But a teaching moment? Absolutely. No point in getting any more bent out of shape than necessary.

 

-Liz

[evmori 11]

You touch my steak & I'm gonna drop ya!

[Eamonn 61]

"When Is It Proper to Physically Strike Another?"

I'm sure if each of us were to spend some time thinking about this, we could all come up with a list of times when striking someone would be the right thing to do.

If we were to return to the list time and time again the list would get longer and longer.

When I first joined the Department of Corrections a lot of time was spent training me when force was justifiable including the use of deadly force.

I don't have any sort of a macho image! To be very honest I have spent a very long time ensuring that I never get in the situation of having to resort to any kind of physical confrontation because I really don't like the idea of someone hitting me back or causing me any harm.

For the most part I'm happy with the idea that I live in a civilized world and can rely on people to do the right thing and law enforcement to do their job, when people don't.

I really don't see games or even horseplay as really falling under how I'm understanding this thread. But I do know that at times horseplay can get out of hand and lead to something more.

Back when I was at school corporal punishments were the norm.

I really don't know how much real pain was involved? Or if the "Shame" of being whacked was the bigger deterrent? A lot had to do with who was doing the whacking. Games Masters routinely slippered (whacked students with a gym shoe) for forgetting to bring gym clothes to the gym. This became so expected that there was no real shame involved. After that depending on how grievous the wrongdoing was, there was a pecking order of who did the whacking. A small wrong doing was left to a tutor, next in line was a House-Master, then a Senior Master and if it was really bad the Headmaster. I only remember two boys ever being caned by the Headmaster. (One, my best friend for trying to catch a humming bird at London Zoo.)

Spanking children seems now to not be acceptable. I never really felt the need to spank or hit my son. But then again a lot of the punishments that were once popular don't seem to be in style any more! I don't hear of children having to wash their mouth out with soap for using bad language or being sent to bed with no supper. I don't hear of kids having to wait till Dad gets home to find out what fate has in store for them.

Very often young boys do feel the need to sort out their differences by fighting, but even this doesn't seem to be as prevalent as it once was. But then again this just might be because I'm no longer a young Lad?

I have in the past had PL's who seemed to lead their Patrols by using threats and sad to say have been known to rule by terror. Of course this was never acceptable, but I do have to admit that at times in order to ensure that what needed to get done was done I was willing to turn a blind eye to the threat, but never the use of physical violence. I'm now willing to admit that this was wrong on my part.

I do think that many of us given the right provocation, might respond with some kind of violent response. Different things will provoke each of us.

In the local news recently there was a case where someone had shot someones dog. Killing the dog. The dog owner responded by shooting the guy in the leg. Wrong as it might be? I couldn't help but feel the guy who got shot in the leg, got what he deserved.

Each of us can be pushed or provoked into doing something that we know is not right. Maybe as we grow older we just aren't as fast to respond and this gives us a little more time to think about what our response will be?

Eamonn.

 

[vol_scouter 365]

My state law recognizes "fighting words" that can incite the use of force toward someone else. I see the youth with whom we work and adults as different issues. As adults, we should have more understanding and restraint. We should realize when it is appropriate to curb our comments because of the level of agitation that someone else is displaying. We also should be better able to read someone's body language to sense when an attack is perhaps imminent and decrease or halt the rhetoric.

 

Our youth are learning these skills. So if they misjudge or over react, we should devise an appropriate response so that they will learn from their mistakes.

 

A final thought, I believe that most of us (males more so than females) can be be provoked to fisticuffs through verbal attacks. I believe that the possibility decreases as we get older. That might be because we have gotten wiser but it could be due to our realization that as we get older we are less likely to prevail!

[Bob White 20]

ANY person in or out of Scouting schould be allowed to protect the safety and the sanctity of his or her own body.

 

In Scouting we teach and support the three r's of youth protection. The second R is for "resist" if a person has to strike another in order to protect their body I see nothing that is in conflict with the rules of the BSA.

[raisinemright 13]

I've taught my scouts and my kids that if someone ever tries any bad stuff with them like abuse or abduction, everything we ever taught them about fighting fair goes right out the window. Even if they just suspect a problem, their job is to punch, kick, scream, pull hair, gouge eyeballs, poke with a stick, bite(hard) and anything else they can do to get safe. If it was a mistake, the perpetrator of the mistake will learn the right way to get a kids attention and I'll take care of the repercussions later.

 

I knew a guy once who was intervening when his kid was getting beat up by the local bully. Apparently someone called the cops cause a female officer came up behind my friend and grabbed him from behind. In no time, she was on her back with his foot on her neck. Not long after that, he was enjoying the feel of handcuffs, till they got it straightened out.

[packsaddle 753]

Unless in response to a physical assault that has not ended, 'Never' is my answer. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." OGE, I think you were the only one to get the source of that last time I wrote it.

 

I confess that I have broken this rule countless times back when I was young and stupid. (Vicki, are you out there somewhere?)

The 'martial arts' instructor, if they're any good, will instruct their students that responses always are meant to defend or deflect, not to be the aggressor. A physical response to words is an escalation of the interaction.

Back when I was young and stupid, the response could have involved a knife. In today's society the next response may well involve a gunshot.

Here the words of the 'Car Talk' guys come to my mind, "Unencumbered by the thought process." Heh, heh, my wife shrugs and applies that to males in general.

 

Way back when I did martial arts I really enjoyed the sparring. It was full-contact but not full force. Black eyes and bloody noses but not dislocations or broken bones (OK maybe some bruised ribs). To me it was a really fun game of tag. But even with the instructor's careful intervention there were hotheads who would lose it from time to time. It was a very risky source of 'fun'.

None of that has a place in scouting, IMHO.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Per the norm, I didnt take time to phrase this the way I should have. I will be very specific this time.

 

I started this thread because Kudu made refrence in the parent thread that a mentally challenged ASM called the SPL (who is black) the N word. The SPL reacted by punching the ASM square in the nose. Then, after a variety of posts Kudu posted his was glad his SPL's actions saved the Troop from having to deal with racial sensitivity. Upon investigatin Kudu found no one in the troop had an issue with the SPL's actions. I think that is a fair review, I may have left a few details out, none germane, but I could be wrong. No one commented on Kudu's posts, I started this thread because I think the SPL was wrong but in my haste I realize I didnt give a enough background.

 

Way back in my youth, my grandmother was a wizard with Kielbasa and Czernina, yes she was Polish and I am half Polish. It being the 60's and all, the neighborhood kids loved to tell me the latest dumb polock joke. At first it drove me crazy and was involved in several fights, with me usually the worst of it. My mother would want to know why I was in a fight. I I would say Bob called me a polock, or you a polock or told a dumb polock joke and she would laugh and say well, they are just jealous and you are a bigger person than they are and dont sink to their level. Those all may not have been at one time, rather over the course of time.

 

The issue is, it got to the point if I was in a dumb polock induced fight, I didnt want to go home because I knew I would have one more smack comming because I got in the fight in the first place. My mother and father said, words are not worth fighting over. So, if some one calls you a dumb wop, dago, mic, spic, kike, kraut or DP, do you get to punch them ? Once? More?

 

The reason I bring this up is because I know youth read these forums. I want them to know that the reponse to being called a name, although hurtful, does not justify a physical response. Now, since I fought over the exact same thing, I could look a little silly saying don't do as I do, do as I say. But I do want to emphasize that fighting, except to protect one self or another from immediate harm is not proper.

[packsaddle 753]

OGE, I understood your original post correctly. The SPL was wrong to hit the guy. And your mom was right. Words are insufficient reason to resort to violence. As I know from personal experience, those who DO respond that way to words are often just using them as a rationalization for violence to which they are already predisposed.

[Beavah 205]

But I do want to emphasize that fighting, except to protect one self or another from immediate harm is not proper.

 

So da war in Iraq was a mistake, and yeh didn't support it at the time?

 

I reckon it's a good thing that we tell kids it's wrong to fight. That's our proper role as adults. I reckon most boys anyway recognize that isn't always true, and go through the experience of learnin' through a tussle or two.

 

I think it's wrong for an ASM to use a racial epithet myself. Now, if I really care about that ASM and his learning and growth, I have to ask whether gettin' socked in the jaw might just not have been the best sort of lesson for him. No meetin' with the committee, no long drawn out process, no permanent damage. Just a lesson in the boy's act and especially in everyone else's quiet approval.

 

There's a time for every purpose under heaven, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle 753]

Oooooo, naughty Beavah! Trying to hijack the thread. Remember, we were all being lied to at the time. We were told the threat was immediate. Back to topic I hope.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So then, next time I get lost going to a meeting and I come in and explain I got lost and somebody says, "What are you some kind of dumb polock", I get to drop him with a right hook?

[packsaddle 753]

Or...you can make friends, invite him for spaghetti some evening (or in your case peirogies or something). Then sprinkle Ascaris eggs on his dish before he's served, or mix in some Cortinarius orellanus. And then wait a week or two to watch him writhing in untreatable and inevitable agonizing death. Muhahahahahahaha!

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Perhaps it would be better to put them to the pain, let me explain, To the pain. The first thing they will lose will be their feet below the ankles. Then their hands at the wrists. Next their nose. And then the tongue. The next thing they will lose will be their left eye followed by their right. Their ears they keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing their hideousness will be theirs to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in their perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave them in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

 

And let that be a lesson to them