Woman uses her baby as a weapon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

C Philip

New member
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/14/baby.as.weapon.ap/index.html

This reminded me of the story a while back of a man being accused of assault with a deadly weapon after hitting his girlfriend with a fish, this recent incident however is far more serious. I've always heard that anything can be used as a weapon... but your baby?

She is charged with "aggravated assault, endangering the welfare of children, simple assault and reckless endangerment." I wonder if the aggravated assault charge is against the boyfriend or the baby? I can't imagine a man would be physically injured by a swinging baby.
 
It would seem to me that if you'd be injured by a fish, you'd be more injured by a baby. I could be wrong.

Guess if you are carting a baby around you should keep a fish in your pocket just in case.
 
No I'm not kidding and I hope the mods see this one.

Here, start a poll...Who thinks that on the basis of a mere accusation an alleged criminal should be taken out and shot?:barf:

And the term bitch is offensive too.

WildyoueatwiththatmouthAlaska
 
XD's posts on this subject are an embarrassment to gun owners in general and this board in particular.

I will proffer the observation that a welfare mother pregnant with her FIFTH child ought to be spayed, even only temporarily by chemical injection (Norplant). Those who can't care for children they already have are unfit to spawn more.

I wonder what generation of public assistance she represents in her family.
 
I will proffer the observation that a welfare mother pregnant with her FIFTH child ought to be spayed, even only temporarily by chemical injection (Norplant). Those who can't care for children they already have are unfit to spawn more.
Click to expand...

Who makes that judgement and would it be constitutional, and if so, do we want to be asociety that makes such judgements.

Her today, me tomorrow?

WildLebensunwerteslebenAlaska
 
Who makes that judgement [sic] and would it be constitutional, and if so, do we want to be asociety that makes such judgements[sic] [?].
Click to expand...

As the sterilization would not be permanent, it should not run afoul of Skinner v. Oklahoma. Moreover, it could be a condition of welfare; if you want the public to feed your kids, you cannot whelp additional dependents. When you can care for yourself AND them, you can procreate further.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed in Buck v. Bell, "Three generations of idiots are enough." :eek:
 
Dont you think the word "whelp" is innapropriate when talking about your fellow americans. They arent dogs, they are people:barf:

WildruiningagoodpostwiththatcrapAlaska
 
Speaking of problems......

Dont [sic] you think the word "whelp" is innapropriate [sic] when talking about your fellow americans[sic][?]. They arent [sic]dogs, they are people[.]
Click to expand...

They may or may not be my "fellow Americans," depending upon whether they are, in fact, actually citizens. And no, I do not feel it wholly inappropriate where the subject is irresponsible breeding.

And Clarence Darrow once said:"The trouble with law is lawyers."
Click to expand...

And the problem with reality is some people's inability to face it.....
 
"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love." Wendell Wilkie
 
They may or may not be my "fellow Americans," depending upon whether they are, in fact, actually citizens. And no, I do not feel it wholly inappropriate where the subject is irresponsible breeding.
Click to expand...

O give me a break, they are human beings for gods sake, what is this place turning into, a Board where we separate folks into humans and untermenschen? And what do you mean by irresponsible breeding? Who decides that?
WildwhelpindeedAlaska
 
Maybe I shouldn't comment on this one, but here goes...

Yes, she seriously injured her child. However, they appearantly have several witnesses who:

a) describe her as a good mother, except for this one incident
b) describe her abuse at her boyfriend's hands as a "normal occurance"

It's VERY easy to monday morning quarterback. However, it's a known fact that battered women can snap in unpredictable ways. Grabbing the first thing that comes to hand (even, as appears in this case, the baby) to defend yourself isn't all that odd.

I don't think we're talking post-partum depression here: I think we're talking "cornered rat". She had finally been pushed too far, and wasn't thinking of anything but protecting herself (my uneducated opinion, take it for what it's worth)...
 
Very simple

And what do you mean by irresponsible breeding?
Click to expand...

Having MORE kids when you can't feed those you already have.

Hardly a difficult concept to grasp. Note also the complete absence of any mention of an underclass.
 
Wow...

this thread is going to get shut down soon isn't it? I can see the argument already sliding down hill. Point being this is a REALLY messed up case, and obviously none of us were there to say who's at fault. However I will say though that people who put up with abusive relationships only have themselves to blame for making that choice.


Epyon
 
Having MORE kids when you can't feed those you already have.
Click to expand...

OK so if you lose you job when your wife is pregnant with your 5th child, you want her to abort and get sterilized until you find work again?

Gimme a break, it isnt all so cut and dried

Using your logic, we should sterilize the 3rd world. Learn some neurophysiology.

Note also the complete absence of any mention of an underclass.
Click to expand...

I know what an underclass is. You want to debate the sociological reasons therefore?

WildalliamobjectingtoisthelanguagenotaqmaturedebateontheconceptwhichimayevenagreeinwholeorinpartwithAlaska
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top