Post what you are thinking right now, part two

[MissKitty]

I need a new bathingsuit. The top is too big and if I'm not careful, autism swim nights are going to become unintentionally topless, much to DS' mortification 

[Peter]

Really Sweden?  Really?  http://www.thelocal.se/41100/20120529/

Boy convicted for hitting his little sister

A spat between two siblings in southern Sweden has resulted in an assault conviction for a 15-year-old boy who was duly reported to police by his younger sister after he hit her in the face.

Back in January, the two became entangled in a heated argument while in the home of their parents in Lund in southern Sweden.

In court, the girl admitted that she had hurled a number of verbal insults at her older brother before unleashing a flurry of kicks and shoves, the local Skånska Dagbladet newspaper reported.

According to the boy, his little sister started the fight by making fun of his girlfriend.

Having sustained a number of kicks from the little girl, the boy responded by punching his sister twice in the face before their mother intervened to put a stop to the altercation.

In court, the boy defended his violent response, claiming he was acting in self-defence.

But the district court rejected the 15-year-old's self-defence claims, citing the boy's own admission that the kicks from his little sister didn't hurt that much.

While an assault conviction normally carries a prison sentence, on account of the boy's age and the fact that he hadn't had any previous run-ins with the law, the court opted for a more lenient sentence of a fine.

According to the paper, the siblings explained to the court that they hadn't spoken to one another for a week following the fight.

However, time had since mended the rift and they had once again become friends, they told the court.

[Pyraxis]

Oh for fuck's sake.

[odeon]

Just to take an opposing view: what if the spat had resulted in a more serious injury? How hard would a brother have to hit his sister or vice versa for a court to be justified in taking on the case as presented to them by the police?

I'm not saying that I think the District Court did the right thing by not rejecting the case, but I'd like to know where the limits are.

[midlifeaspie]

Just to take an opposing view: what if the spat had resulted in a more serious injury? How hard would a brother have to hit his sister or vice versa for a court to be justified in taking on the case as presented to them by the police?

I'm not saying that I think the District Court did the right thing by not rejecting the case, but I'd like to know where the limits are.

Sounds like the courts taking over parenting to me.  If someone was killed or maimed then I can see the government getting involved, everything else is internal to the family unless there is a history of abuse taking place where the parents are not interceding.

[odeon]

Just to take an opposing view: what if the spat had resulted in a more serious injury? How hard would a brother have to hit his sister or vice versa for a court to be justified in taking on the case as presented to them by the police?

I'm not saying that I think the District Court did the right thing by not rejecting the case, but I'd like to know where the limits are.

Sounds like the courts taking over parenting to me.  If someone was killed or maimed then I can see the government getting involved, everything else is internal to the family unless there is a history of abuse taking place where the parents are not interceding.

Every history of abuse starts with a first time. Define "maiming". How hard would the brother have to hit?

[midlifeaspie]

Just to take an opposing view: what if the spat had resulted in a more serious injury? How hard would a brother have to hit his sister or vice versa for a court to be justified in taking on the case as presented to them by the police?

I'm not saying that I think the District Court did the right thing by not rejecting the case, but I'd like to know where the limits are.

Sounds like the courts taking over parenting to me.  If someone was killed or maimed then I can see the government getting involved, everything else is internal to the family unless there is a history of abuse taking place where the parents are not interceding.

Every history of abuse starts with a first time. Define "maiming". How hard would the brother have to hit?

Maim:  to deprive of the use of some part of the body by wounding or the like; cripple.

Every history of everything starts with a first something.  Every drug addict first drank milk, let's ban milk 

Seriously, do you want the courts deciding appropriate punishments for your kids?  Where does it end?  What if one calls the other a mean name?

[Callaway]

Just to take an opposing view: what if the spat had resulted in a more serious injury? How hard would a brother have to hit his sister or vice versa for a court to be justified in taking on the case as presented to them by the police?

I'm not saying that I think the District Court did the right thing by not rejecting the case, but I'd like to know where the limits are.

Sounds like the courts taking over parenting to me.  If someone was killed or maimed then I can see the government getting involved, everything else is internal to the family unless there is a history of abuse taking place where the parents are not interceding.

Every history of abuse starts with a first time. Define "maiming". How hard would the brother have to hit?

I would say if the brother hit his sister hard enough that she was actually injured, so if the sister got a black eye or her nose was broken or something like that.  Besides, she's the one who got physical with him first. 

If for example, two kids or two adults got into a fight here, the one who hit first would be considered as having started the physical altercation and any injuries they sustained because of mutual combat that they started would be their own responsibility under ordinary circumstances.

[Pyraxis]

I think it's disturbing when kids learn to manipulate the system young. Like discovering how many adults jump into a frenzy if you claim abuse. It doesn't mention how old the younger sister was. She could have been eight or fourteen. It also doesn't mention whether their mother encouraged her to call the police. If the police thought it was a case of domestic violence, wouldn't the courts have done more than slap the boy with a fine?

[Peter]

I think it's disturbing when kids learn to manipulate the system young. Like discovering how many adults jump into a frenzy if you claim abuse. It doesn't mention how old the younger sister was. She could have been eight or fourteen. It also doesn't mention whether their mother encouraged her to call the police. If the police thought it was a case of domestic violence, wouldn't the courts have done more than slap the boy with a fine?

If she's 14, she could be larger than the boy, since girls go through their growth spurt earlier than boys.

[El]

I think it's disturbing when kids learn to manipulate the system young. Like discovering how many adults jump into a frenzy if you claim abuse. It doesn't mention how old the younger sister was. She could have been eight or fourteen. It also doesn't mention whether their mother encouraged her to call the police. If the police thought it was a case of domestic violence, wouldn't the courts have done more than slap the boy with a fine?

Age was my first thought.  If she was eight and her 15yo brother punched her, yeah honestly that would be a pretty big deal.  Could have broken her nose, knocked teeth out, etc.  They refer to her as a "little girl" but don't specify what that means to them.  Then again as Peter said she could be 14 or even 15, bigger than him, and those kicks could have been dangerous (could be "assault with a deadly weapon (shod foot)"). 

Another devil's advocate question- how old would would the boy and his sister have to be before those who take issue with the case would think it was appropriate that charged be brought against him for punching his little sister?

[Callaway]

I think it's disturbing when kids learn to manipulate the system young. Like discovering how many adults jump into a frenzy if you claim abuse. It doesn't mention how old the younger sister was. She could have been eight or fourteen. It also doesn't mention whether their mother encouraged her to call the police. If the police thought it was a case of domestic violence, wouldn't the courts have done more than slap the boy with a fine?

Age was my first thought.  If she was eight and her 15yo brother punched her, yeah honestly that would be a pretty big deal.  Could have broken her nose, knocked teeth out, etc.  They refer to her as a "little girl" but don't specify what that means to them.  Then again as Peter said she could be 14 or even 15, bigger than him, and those kicks could have been dangerous (could be "assault with a deadly weapon (shod foot)"). 

Another devil's advocate question- how old would would the boy and his sister have to be before those who take issue with the case would think it was appropriate that charged be brought against him for punching his little sister?

For me, their relative ages wouldn't be an issue for pressing charges as much as whether the sister was really injured, however if they had been my kids and she had been much younger (say less than ten) and her brother punched her in the face, I would have punished him more severely than her even if she wasn't injured and even though she kicked him first.  I would never have encouraged my daughter to call the police and give her brother a criminal record, however. 

I wonder what would have happened to the sister if the brother had admitted that her kicks really did hurt "that much"?  Would she have a criminal record now as well?

[odeon]

Just to take an opposing view: what if the spat had resulted in a more serious injury? How hard would a brother have to hit his sister or vice versa for a court to be justified in taking on the case as presented to them by the police?

I'm not saying that I think the District Court did the right thing by not rejecting the case, but I'd like to know where the limits are.

Sounds like the courts taking over parenting to me.  If someone was killed or maimed then I can see the government getting involved, everything else is internal to the family unless there is a history of abuse taking place where the parents are not interceding.

Every history of abuse starts with a first time. Define "maiming". How hard would the brother have to hit?

Maim:  to deprive of the use of some part of the body by wounding or the like; cripple.

Are you seriously suggesting that anything less than that is up to the parents to handle?

Every history of everything starts with a first something.  Every drug addict first drank milk, let's ban milk 

Seriously, do you want the courts deciding appropriate punishments for your kids?  Where does it end?  What if one calls the other a mean name?

No, I don't. I think the court should have rejected this one, as soon as the police had made sure that it wasn't child abuse or anything like that. The courts have better things to do than handle parenting.

But I'm nevertheless interested in what can be categorised as parenting and what can't. I do think that there should be safety mechanisms in place beyond the sometimes doubtful justice of parents.

[odeon]

I think it's disturbing when kids learn to manipulate the system young. Like discovering how many adults jump into a frenzy if you claim abuse. It doesn't mention how old the younger sister was. She could have been eight or fourteen. It also doesn't mention whether their mother encouraged her to call the police. If the police thought it was a case of domestic violence, wouldn't the courts have done more than slap the boy with a fine?

The District Courts in Sweden are amateurs and sometimes take on cases that are then ridiculed by news papers all the way to the higher instances that quickly throw them out. It's nowhere near a perfect system and it's made worse by the authorities' tendency to overprotect the citizens.

[midlifeaspie]

Just to take an opposing view: what if the spat had resulted in a more serious injury? How hard would a brother have to hit his sister or vice versa for a court to be justified in taking on the case as presented to them by the police?

I'm not saying that I think the District Court did the right thing by not rejecting the case, but I'd like to know where the limits are.

Sounds like the courts taking over parenting to me.  If someone was killed or maimed then I can see the government getting involved, everything else is internal to the family unless there is a history of abuse taking place where the parents are not interceding.

Every history of abuse starts with a first time. Define "maiming". How hard would the brother have to hit?

Maim:  to deprive of the use of some part of the body by wounding or the like; cripple.

Are you seriously suggesting that anything less than that is up to the parents to handle?

Yes

No, I don't. I think the court should have rejected this one, as soon as the police had made sure that it wasn't child abuse or anything like that. The courts have better things to do than handle parenting.

But I'm nevertheless interested in what can be categorised as parenting and what can't. I do think that there should be safety mechanisms in place beyond the sometimes doubtful justice of parents.

Me too, but I think it is the state's responsibility to first prove that the parents aren't handling the situation themselves.  Innocent until proven guilty.  Responsible until proven otherwise.  The first step shouldn't be the state stepping in unless someone is in immediate danger.