"Get your hands off that child!" when the parent is right there

[Zilla]

Do a search on death/injury by falling rock, and you will say why immediate action was taken. 

"Went off" does not mean cussing.  With the DH as a scout leader, I would doubt really harsh words were used. 

Slightly off topic, but similar- there was an article about a husband and wife's goofing off in a pool and the wife play screamed and the lifeguard came towards them.  Both the wife and husband waved him away, "we are just playing, wife is not really drowning!"  but the lifeguard went a few feet past them to rescue their silently drowning daughter.

How did the parents not notice their own daughter a few feet away, while the lifeguard was 50 feet away?
Because the lifeguard KNEW the dangers and the warning signs. 

The parents of the cliff ignored a warning and waved off a leader. 
What if a rock had hit older brother below?

Where in the world did I post that the activity wasn't dangerous and no I don't need to look it up.  I know why and agreed fully that it should have been stopped.  I simply disagreed with the method.  I think he should have walked/turned to the parents and explain why it was dangerous and for the kid to stop.  Instead he simply addressed the boy and then went off on him.  This is where I think it was wrong.  The mere fact that the parent were aware and did nothing to stop the kid prompting the dh to step in should have been a huge clue that he needed to address the parents to make sure his point came across.

[TootsNYC]

On a scout activity of abseiling down a small cliff front, one family brought along their younger son who thought pushing small stones off the edge was no big deal (the side the scouts and people were working from).  The parents were standing by and also thought this was no big deal, so my DH stepped in as one of the leaders of the day and told him to stop. 

The boy continued knocking the stones off the edge, and my dh went off on him - his parents then chimed in to say he was alright let him be and my dh informed them it was not ok.  Not for the kids going down the cliff and I certainly not for the people who were holding onto the kids guide ropes at the bottom, and if they couldn't understand that they could leave the activity.  The parents were a little shocked to be presented with the option of comply or leave the activity, but they complied and led their youngest away from the cliff face to do something else.

See I think that's completely wrong.  What should have happened was your dh ask the little boy to go to his parents and explain to them why it isn't okay for the boy to do that.  They might have been completely clueless about where the rocks were going.  For your dh to go off on him is not right.

Dangerous activity. Safety is imperative. The scout leader was absolutely correct in his role to make the offending behavior stop right then.

Adding my POD.  That was not the time for a measured and sensitive discussion on the how's and why's of their son's behavior

But there are ways to be immediate without "going off" on a kid.

Of course, we don't know what *actual, real-life actions/words/tone* the OP means when she uses the phrase "going off." To some people, that's extreme (I would never use that for anything but a really, really loud yelling, etc.).

And we don't know the age of the kid, and whether he's old enough to have learned to follow the directions of the leader.

But I would also say that just saying, "stop that" is not effective. Instead say,* "Stop that--those stones are hitting the kids on the ropes and the people down below holding the ropes. It hurts! and they can't concentrate. Someone will get hurt."
   Sure it's longer, but it's also more CREDIBLE, and it doesn't leave the rock-kicker thinking you're just one of those fussy people who thinks children should stand still. (because they're out there--I've seen people tell kids to not kick rocks when they're kicking them further down the dusty country road)

(and again, we don't really know what the DH/scout leader said; we have a sketchy description by the OP)

[gramma dishes]

On a scout activity of abseiling down a small cliff front, one family brought along their younger son who thought pushing small stones off the edge was no big deal (the side the scouts and people were working from).  The parents were standing by and also thought this was no big deal, so my DH stepped in as one of the leaders of the day and told him to stop. 

The boy continued knocking the stones off the edge, and my dh went off on him - his parents then chimed in to say he was alright let him be and my dh informed them it was not ok.  Not for the kids going down the cliff and I certainly not for the people who were holding onto the kids guide ropes at the bottom, and if they couldn't understand that they could leave the activity.  The parents were a little shocked to be presented with the option of comply or leave the activity, but they complied and led their youngest away from the cliff face to do something else.

See I think that's completely wrong.  What should have happened was your dh ask the little boy to go to his parents and explain to them why it isn't okay for the boy to do that.  They might have been completely clueless about where the rocks were going.  For your dh to go off on him is not right.

Dangerous activity. Safety is imperative. The scout leader was absolutely correct in his role to make the offending behavior stop right then.

Adding my POD.  That was not the time for a measured and sensitive discussion on the how's and why's of their son's behavior

But there are ways to be immediate without "going off" on a kid.

Of course, we don't know what *actual, real-life actions/words/tone* the OP means when she uses the phrase "going off." To some people, that's extreme (I would never use that for anything but a really, really loud yelling, etc.).

And we don't know the age of the kid, and whether he's old enough to have learned to follow the directions of the leader.

But I would also say that just saying, "stop that" is not effective. Instead say,* "Stop that--those stones are hitting the kids on the ropes and the people down below holding the ropes. It hurts! and they can't concentrate. Someone will get hurt."
   Sure it's longer, but it's also more CREDIBLE, and it doesn't leave the rock-kicker thinking you're just one of those fussy people who thinks children should stand still. (because they're out there--I've seen people tell kids to not kick rocks when they're kicking them further down the dusty country road)

(and again, we don't really know what the DH/scout leader said; we have a sketchy description by the OP)

 The husband had already told him once.  We don't know how gently he said it or whether or not that was done in an "explanatory" way.  It was only after the child continued to do it and the parents basically okayed what their younger son was doing that the husband yelled at him.

[cwm]

My stance boils down to this. If the immediate health or well-being of someone is at risk or an immediate boundary is being broken, it's okay to step in and physically remove the person (child or adult) from whatever is causing the risk. Tickling, kicking rocks, standing next to a deep pool, whatever. Once the immediate threat has been neutralized THEN you go back and explain why you did what you did.

If there is no immediate danger to anyone and nobody is being harmed at the moment, then go with the verbal approach first.

In the case of the tickling, that's a boundary being overstepped massively. In the case of a child kicking the rocks, I wouldn't have asked nicely first, I would have gently guided the child away from the cliff and then explained why that isn't an appropriate activity. Neutralize the danger before you start explaining things.

That's my personal views on things. I realize there are others who are likely to disagree, but I grew up with a rappel master (girl scouts) who would frequently stop all activity in the area when some younger siblings (or sometimes parents) would start throwing rocks off the cliff or playing in an unsafe manner. The first step was to make sure everyone was safe, then the behavior could be addressed.

[Amanita]

Dangerous activity. Safety is imperative. The scout leader was absolutely correct in his role to make the offending behavior stop right then.

I agree completely! I remember an event I was at where myself and a friend wished that one of the leaders would find an everloving backbone!
We were at our annual Pagan community retreat, getting ready for the bardic circle aka talent show. There was a group of unattended kids playing around the main firepit, and some of them started poking at the fire with sharp sticks. One kid caught his stick on fire and started waving it around everywhere. And every time one of the kids poked it, they would send a shower of sparks up, which the wind caught and blew towards everyone gathering for the Bardic circle. A friend and I were worried- either one of those kids could get hurt (playing around fire, waving sharp burning sticks around), or somebody else could be- if an ember caught somebody's hair or clothing on fire, it would be really bad. So we reported it to one of the people in charge of the event. He just blew us off, saying "There's nothing anyone can do!"
Like poodatties therewasn't! How about asserting some authority as one of the festival coordinators and telling those kids to quit playing with fire before something happens, or insisting that the parents get the situation in hand?

[Redsoil]

Sometimes, kids need to be yelled at.  (I'm sure I'll get disagreement.)  However, in a dangerous situation, it has an impact like nothing else will, and often that lesson STAYS with the child, where lesser words/actions won't.  Not everything needs to be "softly, softly" and in fact, I think that approach actively causes issues at times.

[sammycat]

Sometimes, kids need to be yelled at.  (I'm sure I'll get disagreement.)  However, in a dangerous situation, it has an impact like nothing else will, and often that lesson STAYS with the child, where lesser words/actions won't.  Not everything needs to be "softly, softly" and in fact, I think that approach actively causes issues at times.

No disagreement from me!

[Black Delphinium]

Sometimes, kids need to be yelled at.  (I'm sure I'll get disagreement.)  However, in a dangerous situation, it has an impact like nothing else will, and often that lesson STAYS with the child, where lesser words/actions won't.  Not everything needs to be "softly, softly" and in fact, I think that approach actively causes issues at times.

No disagreement from me!

I'll float my stick along side yours.

[White Lotus]

A few years ago I saw a big billboard in CA that showed a child and said, "Tickle Twice a Day."  This was meant to be NICE, and example of "affection." I just about went ballistic and nobody I was with had any clue why and failed to understand what I was saying as a person who was tortured this way as a child.  I am glad I am not the only member of the Tickling is Torture camp.  Indeed, I would step in, at once, and forcefully.  I have never seen tickling used as anything other than harassment, bullying and torture.  Thanks, everyone, for your strong stance against this form of child abuse.

[Judah]

A few years ago I saw a big billboard in CA that showed a child and said, "Tickle Twice a Day."  This was meant to be NICE, and example of "affection." I just about went ballistic and nobody I was with had any clue why and failed to understand what I was saying as a person who was tortured this way as a child.  I am glad I am not the only member of the Tickling is Torture camp.  Indeed, I would step in, at once, and forcefully.  I have never seen tickling used as anything other than harassment, bullying and torture.  Thanks, everyone, for your strong stance against this form of child abuse.

I understand that many of you were tickled to the point of torture, and that was wrong, but don't assume that everyone shares your point of view that tickling is wrong. I loved being tickled as a kid, my kids loved being tickled. We would tickle the kids until they said "stop", and as soon as they caught their breath, they'd say "do it again".  This would go on until either the tickler or the ticklee got tired of it. So, yes, I absolutely understand why many of you hate tickling, bit it's not torture for everyone.

[Shoo]

A few years ago I saw a big billboard in CA that showed a child and said, "Tickle Twice a Day."  This was meant to be NICE, and example of "affection." I just about went ballistic and nobody I was with had any clue why and failed to understand what I was saying as a person who was tortured this way as a child.  I am glad I am not the only member of the Tickling is Torture camp.  Indeed, I would step in, at once, and forcefully.  I have never seen tickling used as anything other than harassment, bullying and torture.  Thanks, everyone, for your strong stance against this form of child abuse.

I understand that many of you were tickled to the point of torture, and that was wrong, but don't assume that everyone shares your point of view that tickling is wrong. I loved being tickled as a kid, my kids loved being tickled. We would tickle the kids until they said "stop", and as soon as they caught their breath, they'd say "do it again".  This would go on until either the tickler or the ticklee got tired of it. So, yes, I absolutely understand why many of you hate tickling, bit it's not torture for everyone.

Well, no, it's not torture for you and your kids because you stopped when they said stop.  Refusing to stop is what makes it torture.

[Sharnita]

I have a nephew that begs us to tickle him so I agree that characterizing tickling as torture in gneral is OTT.

[Judah]

A few years ago I saw a big billboard in CA that showed a child and said, "Tickle Twice a Day."  This was meant to be NICE, and example of "affection." I just about went ballistic and nobody I was with had any clue why and failed to understand what I was saying as a person who was tortured this way as a child.  I am glad I am not the only member of the Tickling is Torture camp.  Indeed, I would step in, at once, and forcefully.  I have never seen tickling used as anything other than harassment, bullying and torture.  Thanks, everyone, for your strong stance against this form of child abuse.

I understand that many of you were tickled to the point of torture, and that was wrong, but don't assume that everyone shares your point of view that tickling is wrong. I loved being tickled as a kid, my kids loved being tickled. We would tickle the kids until they said "stop", and as soon as they caught their breath, they'd say "do it again".  This would go on until either the tickler or the ticklee got tired of it. So, yes, I absolutely understand why many of you hate tickling, bit it's not torture for everyone.

Well, no, it's not torture for you and your kids because you stopped when they said stop.  Refusing to stop is what makes it torture.

White Lotus's post doesn't make a distinction between fun tickling and torture tickling. She characterizes all tickling as bad. I meant to point out that tickling CAN be " NICE, and example of 'affection.'"

[Sophia]

As a small child, DH's sister (12 years older) LOVED to tickle him until he pee'd in his pants.  In order to get it to stop he had to train himself to "not be ticklish".  It is still with him, and his whole body tenses up like a board if I accidentally do something tickly during frolicking. 

Not that all tickling is bad.  Just all tickling after "Stop" or "No". 

[Morrigan]

A few years ago I saw a big billboard in CA that showed a child and said, "Tickle Twice a Day."  This was meant to be NICE, and example of "affection." I just about went ballistic and nobody I was with had any clue why and failed to understand what I was saying as a person who was tortured this way as a child.  I am glad I am not the only member of the Tickling is Torture camp.  Indeed, I would step in, at once, and forcefully.  I have never seen tickling used as anything other than harassment, bullying and torture.  Thanks, everyone, for your strong stance against this form of child abuse.

I understand that many of you were tickled to the point of torture, and that was wrong, but don't assume that everyone shares your point of view that tickling is wrong. I loved being tickled as a kid, my kids loved being tickled. We would tickle the kids until they said "stop", and as soon as they caught their breath, they'd say "do it again".  This would go on until either the tickler or the ticklee got tired of it. So, yes, I absolutely understand why many of you hate tickling, bit it's not torture for everyone.

I was just going to post this.  My DD loves to be tickled.  Huge, rolling giggles, and if we stop, she puts our hands back on her tickle spots.  We stop when she wants, but theres heck to pay if we stop too early for this 2 year old liking,

Tickle isn'y always torture.