Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Esmonde: Schmidlís role of avenger is justifiable (man protects 5-yr-old son, law comes down hard)
Buffalo News ^ | 6/6/07 | Donn Esmonde

Posted on 06/07/2007 3:21:34 PM PDT by LibWhacker

He has gone from accused minor criminal to community symbol. Let there be no mistake. As was confirmed after Tuesday’s court hearing, this is not just another harassment case. Charles Schmidl stands as a crusader for a cause.

The cause is the right of an adult to defend himself — and his 5-year-old son — against the alleged abuse of an out-ofcontrol 10-year-old. It is a line in the sand against lax parenting and the obnoxious offspring that it produces. It is a voice for the rights of those wronged by every spoiled brat spawned by absent or permissive parents.

In an era when discipline seems to have gone out of style and responsibility hides under a rock, this thing is bigger than Charles Schmidl. Or any one of us.

Schmidl is 38, trim and tanned, with an athlete’s stride. He did not imagine becoming the face of Enraged Adults Everywhere when he took his son for a mid-April skate at the Amherst Pepsi Center. A 10-year-old with a hockey stick, according to Schmidl, taunted him, shot pucks at him and his boy and dared him to do something about it.

Schmidl said he searched for 40 minutes in vain for security or staff at the center, then took matters into his own hands. He grabbed the kid and dragged him off the ice. The boy’s mother appeared and had Schmidl arrested.

Amherst cops say witness accounts largely confirm Schmidl’s story. The boy has had previous trouble at the rink, and his family is “familiar” to Amherst police.

In the court of law, Schmidl faces charges of harassment and endangering the welfare of a child. In the court of public opinion, Schmidl is a hero. I got dozens of e-mails after previously writing about the case, mostly defending his actions.

Schmidl emerged unrepentant from Tuesday’s court hearing.

“The [court] will hopefully provide the [justification] for what I believe,” Schmidl said. “[Protecting] my son is the most important thing for me.”

Schmidl’s attorney did most of the talking, but the message was clear: The case is less about the law than it is about principles.

I do not condone putting hands on somebody else’s kid. As a matter of law, I think Schmidl loses. As a matter of common sense, he’s an action hero: Justifiable Avenger of the League of Authority.

Schmidl merely did what the boys’ parents ought to have done long ago: ladle out a generous helping of discipline.

No kid is perfect. No adult is perfect. But when a 10-year-old uses an adult for target practice, it says to me that the parents have not been minding the store. It takes a lot of parental coddling, excusemaking and myopia to produce a minimonster of this magnitude.

Instead of turning the other cheek, Schmidl stood his ground. Instead of meekly walking away, Schmidl refused to be abused. I am not saying that it was the smart thing to do. But given the situation, I can understand and even sympathize with it.

Maybe the full story will be told only in court. But if what we heard reflects what happened, Schmidl stands for the parent of every kid who has been victimized. He is the symbol of every adult who puts up with somebody else’s parenting mistake.

“My client intervened because he had to,” said attorney James Hartt. “I believe the people of Buffalo understand what [Schmidl] did. . . . He did what he had to do to have the kid held accountable.”

Odds are that it will not play in court. But in the court of public opinion, Schmidl is a crusader for a cause.

If bad parenting were a crime, Schmidl stands as society’s superhero. The court may punish him. The rest of us want to pat him on the back.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: New York
KEYWORDS: bully; punkkids; punkparents; removes; rink; schmidl

1 posted on 06/07/2007 3:21:38 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Why in the world would the man lose on the law. The “self defense” defense is valid not just for oneself but for other too. The man stepped up and defended his child.

I can not believe and idiot cop arrested him. The man should press charges against the cop. The cop did not witness anything. For a cop to arrest you without a warrant requires the cop to witness you committing what the cop believes is a crime.


2 posted on 06/07/2007 3:25:44 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS

I guess the law expects a dad to act as a perpetual goalie, nothing more.


3 posted on 06/07/2007 3:28:37 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Aiming slapshots at someone would be assault with a deadly weapon (the puck). If any of those shots connected, however slightly, it becomes battery too. Simple self defense would require that the target act to stop the assault.


4 posted on 06/07/2007 3:28:43 PM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS
"...The boy’s mother appeared and had Schmidl arrested."

The bully's Mom complained.

5 posted on 06/07/2007 3:28:44 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I wonder if he spent just as much time looking for the kid’s parents. Funny how they come out of the woodwork when they think there’s money to be made.

It’s an ice skating rink. People hit each other at high speed all the time in ... uhh... accidents... yeah, that’s the ticket.


6 posted on 06/07/2007 3:30:12 PM PDT by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I wonder if he spent just as much time looking for the kid’s parents.

The apple does not fall far from the tree. I guess your one of those "time out parents".

7 posted on 06/07/2007 3:34:27 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

She saw him get hauled off. Did she just show up or did she witness her kids behavior?


8 posted on 06/07/2007 3:48:19 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

What was he supposed to do? Stand there and let a puck hit his little 5 year old? The 10 year old was a little smart you know what and since the parents can’t and won’t discipline their child then another parent has to if it comes down to no one else taking charge. Yes, the man had a right to protect his son. Instead of being so upset his family ought to be glad someone cared enough to even keep the 10 year old out of more trouble since he already had previous issues. When will parents learn they are parents and not FRIENDS of their kids? A kid has to respect himself and his parents before he can respect anything or anybody else. Good for Dad. He’s a good dad and a loving dad.


9 posted on 06/07/2007 3:51:17 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

What was he supposed to do? Stand there and let a puck hit his little 5 year old? The 10 year old was a little smart you know what and since the parents can’t and won’t discipline their child then another parent has to if it comes down to no one else taking charge. Yes, the man had a right to protect his son. Instead of being so upset his family ought to be glad someone cared enough to even keep the 10 year old out of more trouble since he already had previous issues. When will parents learn they are parents and not FRIENDS of their kids? A kid has to respect himself and his parents before he can respect anything or anybody else. Good for Dad. He’s a good dad and a loving dad.


10 posted on 06/07/2007 3:51:54 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Ooops. Sorry for three posts. I had a little trouble. :)


11 posted on 06/07/2007 3:52:30 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS

“. For a cop to arrest you without a warrant requires the cop to witness you committing what the cop believes is a crime.”

Not true.


12 posted on 06/07/2007 3:53:52 PM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Yes, if it’s warranted.

I’m also a Proverbs 13:24 parent, and a hockey stick might prove suitable for that purpose.


13 posted on 06/07/2007 3:56:03 PM PDT by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
Did she just show up or did she witness her kids behavior?

She probably witnessed it and most likely thought it "amusing"....until the guy grabbed her little darling to haul him away. I've worked with kids and their parents for many years (no easy chore)....and some parents should be locked down or locked up for what they permit to grow into members of our society.

14 posted on 06/07/2007 3:57:16 PM PDT by LaineyDee (Don't mess with Texas wimmen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I opt for the toilet plunger option.


15 posted on 06/07/2007 3:59:18 PM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

See my post 6 for another option. “Accidents” will happen.


16 posted on 06/07/2007 4:01:16 PM PDT by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
Aiming slapshots at someone would be assault with a deadly weapon (the puck). If any of those shots connected, however slightly, it becomes battery too. Simple self defense would require that the target act to stop the assault.

In many states, you can't claim self-defense if you could have protected yourself by leaving the area.

17 posted on 06/07/2007 4:04:50 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Yea, one little whoopsie, it’ll work.
18 posted on 06/07/2007 4:14:25 PM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I do not condone putting hands on somebody else’s kid.

Which is why the brat felt sure he could get away with murder. (And before his "youth" ticket has expired, he very likely WILL get away with murder.)

19 posted on 06/07/2007 4:17:25 PM PDT by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

No respect for the COP that arrested him and no respect for the court that convicts him of any wrong doing. Even the reporter that wrote the story thinks the guy did the right thing but will lose in court. He should be writing another story about that.


20 posted on 06/07/2007 4:18:00 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Good for you. The other day I was at Lowes and this 8-10 year old was running from his Mom in the parking lot. I proceed to enter the store. As I was returning to my car the Mom was still chasing her kid. She decided to get in her car and “make believe” driving off. The kid just snickered. I was parked next to him and when the mother drove up I told her “he needs a belt”. She looked at me as if I just ran over he dog. I just shook my head.
21 posted on 06/07/2007 4:21:16 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter

It’s cool, that needs to be said more than once.


22 posted on 06/07/2007 4:21:31 PM PDT by loungitude (The truth hurts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

He loses in a court of law? Not with me on the jury. I got two words for ya: “JURY NULLIFICATION”

I would be on that jury and vote “not guilty” all day long.

A judge CAN overturn it, but it’s rare.

A cop CAN arrest you without seeing what you are alleged with having done. Besides this guy probably ADMITTED what he did, he was righteously pissed off.


23 posted on 06/07/2007 4:28:01 PM PDT by LSBeene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I have to disagree, not with what he did, but how he did it.

Any menace by the 10 year old is based on three things: his hockey stick and pucks, his fists, or his skates. By this account, he was using his hockey stick and pucks only.

This means if the man had taken away his hockey stick, either it would have ended the situation, or the boy would have used other weapons.

However, the man grabbed the boy, not his stick, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Though it might be emotionally gratifying, you don’t want adults going around, grabbing or disciplining other people’s children. That can very rapidly turn into adult on adult aggravated assault or even homicide. A lot of people would go into a blind rage if a stranger grabbed their child. It is almost an instinctual reaction.

There are times when it is generally okay, such as breaking up a fight, or if the child is attempting to do something that could cause imminent harm. But again, the adult should be trying to stop what they are doing, not the child itself.


24 posted on 06/07/2007 4:30:40 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Well maybe he’ll be able to get the same sheriff parole as Paris “stupid spoiled whore” Hilton


25 posted on 06/07/2007 4:38:10 PM PDT by Leofl (I'm from Texas, we don't dial 9-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loungitude

Thank you.


26 posted on 06/07/2007 4:45:14 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JLS

“For a cop to arrest you without a warrant requires the cop to witness you committing what the cop believes is a crime.”

Uh, nope.


27 posted on 06/07/2007 4:52:10 PM PDT by Nik Naym (If Republicans are your problem, Democrats aren't the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
You supported the base argument:

or if the child is attempting to do something that could cause imminent harm.

Hockey pucks are potentially lethal, especially against a child. At the very least, they are extremly harmful if aimed directly at an unarmored person. The force generated by the slap of the stick can propel the puck at several hundred feet per second. A 5 year old would not stand a chance against a direct impact.
28 posted on 06/07/2007 4:59:52 PM PDT by rjsimmon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

I agree with the take away the stick approach. When the ignorant mother shows up to scream about it, break it in half and give it to her


29 posted on 06/07/2007 5:01:17 PM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LSBeene

The older I get, the more I beleive in jury nullification


30 posted on 06/07/2007 5:02:04 PM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

No jury composed of sane adults will convict. It’s amazing the DA went forward with this.


31 posted on 06/07/2007 5:23:08 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
However, the man grabbed the boy, not his stick, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

I'm not a lawyer (and I give thanks every day for that fact) but there once was a standard of "reasonable" behavior implicit in the law. What this man did was reasonable. He didn't hurt the child and there's no allegation that he did.

He corralled him and went to look for a supervisor.

"Grabbing" a child does not necessarily equate to violence or sexual behavior as modern laws seem hysterically designed to punish. I hope we've got a reasonable judge up in Amherst who will dismiss this entire thing. And boy do I wish "loser pays" applied in this case.

32 posted on 06/07/2007 6:01:55 PM PDT by BfloGuy (It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter

What happened to “It takes a village”?


33 posted on 06/07/2007 6:16:54 PM PDT by Bob J (nks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I don’t see the problem. The kid committed attempted assault and the father held him until police arrived.


34 posted on 06/07/2007 6:19:31 PM PDT by Bob J (nks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
Right on! I can't believe it took 24 comments before someone came up with the right solution in this situation: disarm the assailant.
35 posted on 06/07/2007 7:30:41 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Charles Schmidl has my support. I work and live in the vicinity where all this happened. The government, its employees and the school system especially are the most PC liberal worthless pieces of human refuse that there are. They push an attitude where parental authority is stifled and children have no authority to answer to. When my oldest daughter was in third grade she was beat up every week or two as she walked home from school by three sixth grade boys. We went to the school and asked for help in the matter. The school refused to get involved. We called the parents of each boy and got nothing but stonewalled since their kids were all angels. Nothing could or would be done, so we enrolled our daughter in a local self-defense school so that she could learn how to protect herself. Two months went by and the three bullies decided that she needed beating up. When they attacked she grabbed the index finger of the first assailant and broke it. She then kicked the second in the face breaking his nose. The third she hit with her lunch box breaking the thermos bottle and knocking out 4 teeth. Now the school decided to get involved. We had to defend our decision to allow her to learn self defense. This community provides facilities for the children through high taxes, but then go on the cheap by not providing supervision for the facilities. The police at least decided that since no adults were involved, that she was merely defending herself. Thank got her mother and I did not try and stop these juvenile delinquents, we’d have been charged with touching or some other such nonsense.


36 posted on 06/07/2007 8:02:49 PM PDT by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
BUMP!

smack to kid again, too.

37 posted on 06/07/2007 9:27:02 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass ( just b/c, you suffer from paranoia, doesn't mean they're not out to get you....Run, Fred, Run :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
No jury composed of sane adults will convict. It’s amazing the DA went forward with this.
....Not really,think , Duke Lacrosse Case.
...it was for the Chil'ren.

38 posted on 06/07/2007 9:35:37 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass ( just b/c, you suffer from paranoia, doesn't mean they're not out to get you....Run, Fred, Run :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
...GOOD FOR HER! :)
...a righteous/measured response.
39 posted on 06/07/2007 9:42:05 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass ( just b/c, you suffer from paranoia, doesn't mean they're not out to get you....Run, Fred, Run :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Authorities are not stepping up to the plate. My son has been attacked at school and outside. Other than suspension for the perp, nothing is done. The police were called as suggested by the school after I took my son home.

When the policeman came to our home, he said if he didn’t see it, it didn’t happen. And further the school should have called them, BUT then he would only mediate between the parties.

After the perp’s suspension was over, the perp sent word to my son that he’ll get him in HS.

Now our next choice is to hire an attorney and threaten to sue the school. BTW, I wrote the principle of the police response to inform him not to send kids home to call the police. That the staff should call the police. His response was to call the district’s lawyer and confirm that he didn’t have to call the police. He assured me he thought bringing the police in was appropriate in this matter.

40 posted on 06/08/2007 5:18:24 AM PDT by AmericaUnite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J

That only applies to the other side I guess.


41 posted on 06/08/2007 4:42:57 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson