TexasCHLforum.com

Not sure if noted, but he was charged with a felony.
If this had occurred when the now not wee ones were wee, I’d proffer She Who Must Be Obeyed would have literally eaten him alive, velociraptor style. A firearm would not have been necessary.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If a stranger picks up my granddaughter from a shopping cart, he graduates from stranger to kidnapper.

You're forgetting "with intent to cause bodily injury." Aggravated kidnapper.

The only problem I see here is that his intent was not to kidnap and probably not to cause any actual harm. His was a ridiculous attempt to get the child to stop crying. This is in no way an attempt to defend the man. As I've said, once he uttered the intent to shut my child up for me he was have been put back in his proper place. I'm just thinking of what he might use as a defense to the serious charges.

Upon reflection, he could have meant to harm the child. I mean really, slapping a child won't make them stop crying unless you hit them hard enough to knock them out. Okay, fry him!

OK, now that there are responses, here is what I would have done.

At the onset of his threat, I would have been placing myself between the child and him so he would not have been able to touch her. If he had made any attempt to move toward the child, then he would have met with a form of resistance nessecary to prevent him from reaching her. What form of resistance would have been determined depending on his moves.

While sometimes these can just be idle threats, you never know what looney tune person is out there (remember, this WAS Wal-Mart ), and you need to be prepared for them to potentially attempt to follow through with their threat.

Maybe the old guy was on his Wally-walk...

[I apologize to anyone that is offended by the term "old guy".]

Purplehood wrote:
[I apologize to anyone that is offended by the term "old guy".]

as long as the term comes from a fellow old guy , no offense taken

Time to deploy the OC/kubaton/key flail:

http://www.asp-net.com/oc.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AKA the ASP Street Defender.

Slapping a child the first time is battery and IS intent. However he slapped the child a total of four times.

In one article he was "detained" by a fellow shopper. I bet he was. Detained with interal injuries mayhaps. Good to see there are people around who didn't tolerate this.

These are not the actions of a rational person.

Anyone doing such a thing is disturbed.

However, he should time and during this time be evaluated. If found normal (unlikely) he should continue his time in prison.

If found disturbed (most likely) he should do time in a mental institution.

Perhaps shock treatment or a lobotomy would calm him down.

Or "slap-therapy".

Purplehood wrote:Or "slap-therapy".

How many children are killed each year by adults who claim to simply be disciplining the child?

An adult slapping a little kid appears to me to be deadly force.

I would also add that in at least one story, the assailant followed the mother & child to a different part of the store from where he initially assailed them, because the mother left the immediate area when he threatened the child the first time. I don't think there's any doubt that this fella has some loose screws.

You DO NOT lay hands on other folks' kids, unless they have explicitly given you authority to do so. Taking that authority on yourself without that authorization should result in severe bodily injury.

What would I do in that situation? Whatever was necessary to ensure it would never happen a second time. I'd have been taking much more aggressive steps after the first threat than simply departing the area, and calling 911 would have been at the top of the list.

I'll be honest. 911 would not be on my list.

C-dub wrote:The only problem I see here is that his intent was not to kidnap and probably not to cause any actual harm.

You can't know at the time that his intent doesn't include leaving with the child, nor can you afford to wait and find out. You can, however, easily discern that his actions both indicate an intent to remove the child from the parent's control, (since he removed her from the cart, and presumably did so in such a manner as to prevent the mother from stopping the assault) and meet the requirements for causing bodily harm.

I absolutely agree that in the moment this could not be determined. I was only thinking of what his lawyer might use as a defense. However, if he also followed them to another part of the store couldn't he also be charged with stalking?