Man arrested after baby girl is punched in a supermarket.
Discussion
Nanook said:
Zod said:
You are clearly better placed to judge than the jury and the judge.
He's not suggesting that, he's just giving his opinion.Are you suggesting that our justice system is infallible?
Digby said:
it was just a sense of humour fail.
Indeed. Who among us can honesty say we haven't struck a baby with 'a loose fist' in the pursuit of humour?Like all great comics, our man is destined to be misunderstood by his own generation though will doubtless receive the posthumous recognition his art deserves, like a baby-punching, comedy Van Gogh.
Digby said:
blueg33 said:
He got off lightly IMO.
Probably had to be seen to do something, but was sensible enough to know this guy didn't spend his life plotting to punch babies.A 'sensible' result if you ask me, given it was just a sense of humour fail.
Disastrous said:
Digby said:
it was just a sense of humour fail.
Indeed. Who among us can honesty say we haven't struck a baby with 'a loose fist' in the pursuit of humour?Like all great comics, our man is destined to be misunderstood by his own generation though will doubtless receive the posthumous recognition his art deserves, like a baby-punching, comedy Van Gogh.
Audiences laugh a great deal, sadly, his didn't and for very good reason.
Trying to turn him in to a serial baby puncher makes him appear to be the completely rational and mentally stable one.
No jury involved. It's a summary only offence.
What a waste of time, especially passing it to the court. It appears to be a sound application of the sentencing guidelines. If she wants a change in the law / guidelines then she needs go to Parliament along with loads of money to build the new prisons we'll need when we send everyone to prison for low-level assaults...
Gareth79 said:
The mother has launched a petition:
https://www.change.org/p/manchester-courts-justice...
"The trail went ahead"... https://www.change.org/p/manchester-courts-justice...
What a waste of time, especially passing it to the court. It appears to be a sound application of the sentencing guidelines. If she wants a change in the law / guidelines then she needs go to Parliament along with loads of money to build the new prisons we'll need when we send everyone to prison for low-level assaults...
Digby said:
Disastrous said:
Digby said:
it was just a sense of humour fail.
Indeed. Who among us can honesty say we haven't struck a baby with 'a loose fist' in the pursuit of humour?Like all great comics, our man is destined to be misunderstood by his own generation though will doubtless receive the posthumous recognition his art deserves, like a baby-punching, comedy Van Gogh.
Audiences laugh a great deal, sadly, his didn't and for very good reason.
Trying to turn him in to a serial baby puncher makes him appear to be the completely rational and mentally stable one.
Audiences, by their nature, are aware that the events portrayed on the screen in front of them are fictional, thus allowing them to laugh at something that would be horrifying in real life.
Nobody laughs at someone punching a baby in real life. Nobody can think that's ok and trying to shrug it off with 'it was just a loose fist' is absurd.
Disastrous said:
Indeed. Who among us can honesty say we haven't struck a baby with 'a loose fist' in the pursuit of humour?
Like all great comics, our man is destined to be misunderstood by his own generation though will doubtless receive the posthumous recognition his art deserves, like a baby-punching, comedy Van Gogh.
Like all great comics, our man is destined to be misunderstood by his own generation though will doubtless receive the posthumous recognition his art deserves, like a baby-punching, comedy Van Gogh.
I'm sure I recall a UK TV ad where a baby is kicked too.
The guys explanation checks out with me, he was trying to goad a 6yr old into a bit of banter and completely messed up in the worst way possible by mistaking a baby for a doll, bearing in mind dolls are made to look like babies, its not too hard to believe. Since he isn't a serial baby puncher I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Disastrous said:
Digby said:
Disastrous said:
Digby said:
it was just a sense of humour fail.
Indeed. Who among us can honesty say we haven't struck a baby with 'a loose fist' in the pursuit of humour?Like all great comics, our man is destined to be misunderstood by his own generation though will doubtless receive the posthumous recognition his art deserves, like a baby-punching, comedy Van Gogh.
Audiences laugh a great deal, sadly, his didn't and for very good reason.
Trying to turn him in to a serial baby puncher makes him appear to be the completely rational and mentally stable one.
Audiences, by their nature, are aware that the events portrayed on the screen in front of them are fictional, thus allowing them to laugh at something that would be horrifying in real life.
Nobody laughs at someone punching a baby in real life. Nobody can think that's ok and trying to shrug it off with 'it was just a loose fist' is absurd.
Perhaps your circle of friends lack such a sense of humour, so this is all alien to you (see what I did there?)
I'm sorry for you that the chap didn't go to prison over his sense of humour.
You will just have to accept that like myself, there are people who had that been their baby, would have just accepted the sincere and traumatised apology, because they would have realised the mistake.
Even more so when the baby does actually look like a doll. Even the Mother does!
He may well have believed it was a doll.
I don't ever see how that was a defence for him to go to trial. He was clearly reckless which is all the offence requires.
He was probably eligible for a caution had he admitted the matter at the police station, although the matter may have been too serious for one.
I don't ever see how that was a defence for him to go to trial. He was clearly reckless which is all the offence requires.
He was probably eligible for a caution had he admitted the matter at the police station, although the matter may have been too serious for one.
Disastrous said:
Are you able to distinguish between a film (what film anyway? I can't think of any hilarious baby punching/kicking in a Hollywood movie but I'm sure there must be some if you say there are) and reality?
It's like a pre-emptive recreation. Pre-creation. Thants.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFm1DKamuIY
schmunk said:
Disastrous said:
Are you able to distinguish between a film (what film anyway? I can't think of any hilarious baby punching/kicking in a Hollywood movie but I'm sure there must be some if you say there are) and reality?
It's like a pre-emptive recreation. Pre-creation. Thants.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFm1DKamuIY
That's quite funny actually. I'll make sure to recreate it for real tomorrow!
Digby, I'm not sorry he didn't go to prison and suspect the sentance is probably about right but I find your dogged defence of him very strange indeed. Out of all the baby-punching examples posted, would you think any of them would ever be appropriate to carry out for real?
Even with a loose fist?
Disastrous said:
That's quite funny actually. I'll make sure to recreate it for real tomorrow!
Digby, I'm not sorry he didn't go to prison and suspect the sentance is probably about right but I find your dogged defence of him very strange indeed. Out of all the baby-punching examples posted, would you think any of them would ever be appropriate to carry out for real?
Even with a loose fist?
You will just have to accept that like myself, there are people who had that been their baby, would have just accepted the sincere and traumatised apology, because they would have realised the mistake.
No need to overanalyse etc.
Gareth79 said:
Considering 'District Judge Sam Goozee dismissed Hardy's claim that he thought the child was a doll as "implausible"' it seems strange that it was just a fine. Assuming the judge believed it was deliberate and he knew it was a baby I can't see understand how he decided against a short suspended sentence.
£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
Isn't this the key point that the last few posts seem to be overlooking? The 2 things don't add up. Though if the judge really thinks that shouldn't the bloke be getting some sort of psychiatric help? £900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
Edited by Gareth79 on Wednesday 23 November 17:15
Randy Winkman said:
Gareth79 said:
Considering 'District Judge Sam Goozee dismissed Hardy's claim that he thought the child was a doll as "implausible"' it seems strange that it was just a fine. Assuming the judge believed it was deliberate and he knew it was a baby I can't see understand how he decided against a short suspended sentence.
£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
Isn't this the key point that the last few posts seem to be overlooking? The 2 things don't add up. Though if the judge really thinks that shouldn't the bloke be getting some sort of psychiatric help? £900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
Edited by Gareth79 on Wednesday 23 November 17:15
So let me get this right.
The guilty chap stated he went up to the 7 year old girl and said is that your baby doll, waited for a response then "loose dust" punch what he thought was a doll.
He was no friend relative of even knew who the victims family were.
WTF.
I wonder what the parents were thinking a strange man coming up to their young girl talking to her and then going for the baby.
The guilty chap stated he went up to the 7 year old girl and said is that your baby doll, waited for a response then "loose dust" punch what he thought was a doll.
He was no friend relative of even knew who the victims family were.
WTF.
I wonder what the parents were thinking a strange man coming up to their young girl talking to her and then going for the baby.
La Liga said:
He may well have believed it was a doll.
I don't ever see how that was a defence for him to go to trial. He was clearly reckless which is all the offence requires.
He was probably eligible for a caution had he admitted the matter at the police station, although the matter may have been too serious for one.
His basis of plea (that he thought the baby was a doll) was considered not acceptable by the prosecution, so he changed to 'not guilty' instead. That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't ever see how that was a defence for him to go to trial. He was clearly reckless which is all the offence requires.
He was probably eligible for a caution had he admitted the matter at the police station, although the matter may have been too serious for one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff