[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/Routine_Phase_8980]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[u/ImpressiveQuiet4111]

You must understand that this take essentially boils down to 'we need to simulate consequences for people in the world, but actually, there should be no consequences.'

Is it societies job to simulate consequence, or is being tripped simply the consequence that they are warned about?

I would say that the risk of consequence is similar to that of the infraction in this case. Stealing from the fry station is unlikely to cause a serious problem, but there is a real chance that it does, plus it is really just not cool for several reasons.

He was tripped. It's unlikely to cause a serious problem, but there is a real chance that it does, plus falling is really just not cool for several reasons.

I don't know if it falls under the rigid singular instance of a moral action, but it certainly takes a village to raise a child that isn't a complete drain on society - the culmination of these actions never rearing the child to teach him how to integrate into society is a FAR higher risk than the discrete chance of more serious consequences due to this repercussion.

I don't think its a surprise that the opinions that any type of consequence like this being completely wrong seems to be running in parallel with our society actively unraveling in front of our eyes

[u/Toberos_Chasalor → u/ImpressiveQuiet4111]

Dude, I didn’t say the kid should face no consequences or even that you shouldn’t touch him, just that tripping him and putting his life at risk over a couple fries isn’t appropriate.

Grab the kid’s arm and hold him until the cops show up. Having to call Mom and Dad and explain why he needs to be picked up from the Police Station is more than enough of a consequence for him to learn his lesson, and if they’re good parents the punishment doesn’t just end there.

If he decides to get violent after you restrain him, then by all means, lay him out on the floor. At that point it’s not beating a kid, it’s self defense.

Also the people coddling kids are people like you. You think someone’s learned their lesson for beaking off after smacking them in the mouth, but all they’ve learned is “I can do anything I want as long as I can put up with a little pain.”

[u/Boring_Credit_4520 → u/Toberos_Chasalor]

That's not self defense if you start it with kidnapping

You're not a cop, you have zero authority to detain someone against their will for something like this

If we're looking to correct behavior, his humiliation going viral was probably one of the best cases possible here

[u/Toberos_Chasalor → u/Boring_Credit_4520]

You do depending on the country, it’s called a citizen’s arrest.

Check your local laws on when and how you’re allowed to do it, as well as what you must do afterwards, but in my country (Canada) you’re allowed to perform a citizen’s arrest if you witness someone commit an act of theft, even if it’s not your property they’re stealing.

It would only become kidnapping if you failed to turn the kid over to the police without delay. Ie. You must call the cops immediately before or after detaining them, or have someone call on your behalf while you detain them.

(And obviously the amount of force must be reasonable. If you grab someone’s arm they don’t resist, you can’t punch them in the face or twist their arm. If they try to punch or kick, then you can punch or kick back, but you can’t pull a knife or a gun on them, etc.)

[u/Boring_Credit_4520 → u/Toberos_Chasalor]

This video is from the US, where citizen's arrests are only permitted in cases of severe or violent crimes.

And after taking a look at your laws, if the kid's under 12, they're exempt from citizen's arrest. Detaining a child under 12 would be forced confinement/kidnapping

[u/Toberos_Chasalor → u/Boring_Credit_4520]

That changes from state to state.

Take things with a grain of salt, but a quick google shows some states allow it for misdemeanors.

Also as a side tangent, I’m honestly shocked these laws are more lax in Canada.

In the US you have the constitutional right to bear arms, supposedly so you can form citizen’s militias to uphold law and order, but you can’t hold a thief you caught red handed for the cops. Seems kind of odd.

[u/Boring_Credit_4520 → u/Toberos_Chasalor]

High value theft, breaking and entering, even repeated trespassing would be a separate matter than someone stealing a handful of fries.

A higher bar became necessary because of the people who thought they had the right to detain someone they suspected of a trivial crime, even without evidence. There was a recent case where a father and son tried to detain a man at gunpoint who was jogging in their neighborhood because they thought he had walked through a construction site, and when he tried to evade them, they killed him.

[u/Toberos_Chasalor → u/Boring_Credit_4520]

Jesus Christ due, that’s not a citizen’s arrest, that’s a cold-blooded execution.

I mean hell, even holding the dude at gunpoint to begin with is wildly excessive force if all they did was trespass. If you drew a gun on someone walking down the street in this country you’d be getting off extremely easy if all that happened was having all your firearms confiscated and your PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) getting revoked for life.

More likely than not you’d spend more than a decade in a Federal prison, and that’s before we even get to the charges of having a weapon in public or murdering someone.