事件發生在11月21日的河南南陽鎮平縣，一名7歲男童不幸從小區高層平台墜樓身亡。事發前，孩子在小區附近的一家文具店中拿一個價值幾元的奧特曼玩具，試圖藏在衣服裡帶走，被店主發現後進行斥責，並表示會報警處理。

根據監控顯示，事發當天傍晚6點24分，孩子離開家後先在小區的兒童樂園玩耍，隨後進入文具店停留約9分鐘。當他準備離開時，店主拉住孩子，打開其衣服拉鍊，發現奧特曼玩具，隨即責備孩子，說要報警抓他。孩子將玩具放下後離開文具店，然後直奔小區一棟單元樓的樓頂，並於6點47分從樓頂墜落，當場身亡。警方調查後排除他殺可能性。

男童的父親孫先生向媒體透露，孩子性格活潑開朗，平時會逗爺爺開心，十分貼心。此前孩子去店裡購物，也都是由爺爺幫忙付款。孫先生認為，玩具的金額微不足道，店主完全可以向孩子的爺爺索要，不應對孩子說出那麼嚴厲的話。當時店主正在店外吃飯，發現孩子拿了玩具後責備幾句：“等一下叫警察叔叔過來問你。”孩子當時離開店鋪時並未哭鬧，因此店主並未注意到孩子後續的行動。

此事件後續引發行政調查。鎮平縣公安局於11月29日對男孩家長報案稱文具店老板“威脅人身安全”進行立案調查，但在12月1日，警方認為事件中並無違法事實，決定終止調查。被害方對此結果表示異議，拒絕在《終止案件調查決定書》上簽字。孫先生表示，已計畫採取法律途徑進行訴訟。

這起事件在社會上引發廣泛討論，焦點集中在未成年人犯罪行為的處理方式上。部分人認為，即便是偷拿價值不高的物品，對於年幼的孩子，應更多採取教育和引導，而非嚴厲斥責或直接報警；也有人強調法律規範的重要性，認為即便是小孩的行為也應讓其明白法律後果。事件折射出家庭教育、商家處理方式以及社會法律規範之間的複雜關係，也引發對如何平衡兒童心理健康保護與社會法律規範執行的深入思考。

This article reports a tragic incident in Zhenping County, Nanyang, Henan Province, which has sparked public discussion about how to handle criminal behavior in minors. On November 21, a 7-year-old boy tragically fell to his death from a high-level platform in a residential complex. Prior to the incident, the child had taken an Ultraman toy, worth only a few yuan, from a stationery store near the complex and tried to conceal it in his clothes. The store owner discovered this and scolded the child, saying he would report him to the police.

Surveillance footage shows that at 6:24 PM on the day of the incident, the boy left home and played briefly in the children’s playground within the complex before entering the stationery store for about nine minutes. As he was about to leave, the store owner stopped him, opened his jacket, found the Ultraman toy, and scolded him, saying he would call the police. After placing the toy down, the boy left the store and walked straight to the rooftop of a building in the complex, where he fell at 6:47 PM and died at the scene. Police investigations ruled out the possibility of homicide.

The boy’s father, Mr. Sun, told reporters that his son was cheerful and considerate, often making his grandfather happy. When the child went shopping previously, his grandfather usually paid for him. Mr. Sun believes that the cost of the toy was trivial and that the store owner could have asked the grandfather to pay instead of scolding the child so harshly. The store owner was eating outside at the time and, upon discovering the toy, only scolded the boy briefly, saying, “The police will come to question you soon.” Since the boy left the store without crying or causing a scene, the owner did not pay attention to what he did afterward.

Following the incident, administrative investigations were initiated. On November 29, the Zhenping County Public Security Bureau filed an administrative case to investigate the store owner for “threatening personal safety,” based on a complaint from the boy’s parents. However, on December 1, the police determined that there was no illegal behavior involved and decided to terminate the investigation. The family of the deceased boy disagreed with this conclusion and refused to sign the “Decision to Terminate Investigation.” Mr. Sun has indicated that he plans to pursue legal action.

The incident has sparked broad public discussion, particularly about how criminal behavior in minors should be handled. Some argue that, even if a child takes an inexpensive item, education and guidance should be prioritized over harsh scolding or reporting to the authorities. Others emphasize the importance of legal norms, maintaining that even children should understand the consequences of their actions under the law. This case highlights the complex relationship between family education, the handling of incidents by business owners, and social legal standards, prompting deeper reflection on how to balance the protection of children’s psychological well-being with the enforcement of legal regulations.