Man arrested after baby girl is punched in a supermarket.

Man arrested after baby girl is punched in a supermarket.

Author
Discussion

blueg33

35,578 posts

223 months

Friday 9th September 2016
quotequote all
Vandenberg said:
Camoradi said:
Has anyone considered that the alleged puncher may be mentally ill? I can't think of another credible explanation for this one.

Strange and sad case. Hopefully no long term damage to the little one.
Its the only conclusion I could draw from the sorry tale. I cant see any reason for punching a child or a doll for that matter other than planet loopy.
The problem with excusing for mental illness is that to most normal people any violent crime against the person is abnormal, and could therefore be put down to a "mental condition". Even people with proven mental conditions often know that what they are doing is wrong.

Matt_N

8,900 posts

201 months

Friday 9th September 2016
quotequote all
Some very strange comments here, similar to those who defended the guy who cracked the jokes about the 'save her for me when she's 18' comment someone made about a newborn.

This was all put down to 99% of people who found it highly offensive of not having a sense of humour!

I guess this is the same.

Punch a baby / doll for the bants, get offended? You don't have a sense of humour or are having a logic failure.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 9th September 2016
quotequote all
julian64 said:
I wonder what percentage of arrests don't end in conviction. Shaky ground then for the assumption that a crime was committed because of an arrest.
Most don't.

julian64 said:
I really don't know what the true story is here and I've 'excluded' nothing. People are simply attributing an apologist attitude to me because they themselves are outraged.
You excluded the key part which opened up the potential behaviour.

You wrote:

julian64 previously said:
The logic fail here is that you are assuming the guy grabbed, slapped, punched.
He wrote:

Gecko 1978 previously said:
The reason I ask is if some one grabbed, slapped, punched or made an aggressive gesture.
The part in bold vastly opens up and potentially captures the potential behaviour.

You then omitted it once again:

julian64 previously said:
IF THE GUY GRABBED SLAPPED OR PUNCHED A CHILD I WILL PICK UP MY PITCHFORK AND JOIN THE CURRENT CROWD ON THIS THREAD. NO QUESTION. NEVER SAID ANY DIFFERENT
julian64 said:
Empirically a baby punched In the face by a man should need a lot more than a check over and discharge from the hospital don't you think?

A man who does this intentionally is unlikely to suddenly start apologising for it don't you think?
They sound dangerously close to assumptions masked as questions wink

julian64 said:
There is sufficient doubt in the story as presented for me to take pause.

Hopefully the true story will come out in time, but your willingness to join the mob is a bit disappointing.
Obviously there are unknowns, even post-charge. I've not joined any 'mob', I've simply said it wasn't a 'logic fail' for him to speculate on the information that was available at the time when passing comment, especially when he cast such a wide net with the aspect you omitted.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
He's appeared in court and pleaded 'not guilty' due to some legal wrangling over whether or not he had the intention to hit the baby based on him not believing it was a real baby: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

I'm a little confused as intention isn't needed for the offence to be complete. Looking at the sentencing guidelines it doesn't seem to make any obvious difference and the mitigating factors appear to be quite strong in his case in any event to lower the sentencing.

He'll also lose his full 'early plea' discount if found guilty, too.


dandarez

13,246 posts

282 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
He's appeared in court and pleaded 'not guilty' due to some legal wrangling over whether or not he had the intention to hit the baby based on him not believing it was a real baby: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

I'm a little confused as intention isn't needed for the offence to be complete. Looking at the sentencing guidelines it doesn't seem to make any obvious difference and the mitigating factors appear to be quite strong in his case in any event to lower the sentencing.

He'll also lose his full 'early plea' discount if found guilty, too.
Bizarre case.

I think he is so convinced he had no intention of hitting a baby is why he has pleaded 'not guilty', although he will likely be found guilty of striking the baby (because he did), but was it intentional?

In his interview he says he 'thought it was a doll', and that’s what he also said to a young child nearby.
Once the act had been committed, he realised what he had done and he was described by 2 witnesses as being in shock after the event.

He'll get convicted, but (bizarre) in his mind his conscience will be clear. That's the only way I can look at it from his point.

A moment of madness?

SystemParanoia

14,343 posts

197 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
no. lock him up.
if the courts wont then section him under the mental health act.

he's a menace and a danger to children

[/baying for blood]

R1gtr

3,423 posts

153 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
So punching a baby is looked at more seriously than randomly punching a bloke in the street?
If someone walked up and punched you in the street then they would receive a slap on the wrists, this guy struck what he thought was a doll and he is facing time?
If you punch someone the punishment should be the same whether you punch a 6ft bloke, a little old granny, or a baby.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
R1gtr said:
So punching a baby is looked at more seriously than randomly punching a bloke in the street?
If someone walked up and punched you in the street then they would receive a slap on the wrists, this guy struck what he thought was a doll and he is facing time?
If you punch someone the punishment should be the same whether you punch a 6ft bloke, a little old granny, or a baby.
Should be much more than a slap on the wrists in any case.

blueg33

35,578 posts

223 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
R1gtr said:
So punching a baby is looked at more seriously than randomly punching a bloke in the street?
If someone walked up and punched you in the street then they would receive a slap on the wrists, this guy struck what he thought was a doll and he is facing time?
If you punch someone the punishment should be the same whether you punch a 6ft bloke, a little old granny, or a baby.
That silly IMO

A punch to a baby or a granny is much more likely to cause serious harm than a punch to a prime of life adult male.

Also a baby, a granny or any vulnerable person is much less likely to be able to defend themselves

The law considers children and over 65's to be vulnerable for very good reason


Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 29th September 15:45

R1gtr

3,423 posts

153 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
Should be much more than a slap on the wrists in any case.
I agree but we are so soft on crime these days, this video(below) is almost the norm now, we really need to get tough on scum in this country.
Warning: This video is upsetting and NSFW
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=238413...

Edited by R1gtr on Thursday 29th September 15:52

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
dandarez said:
La Liga said:
He's appeared in court and pleaded 'not guilty' due to some legal wrangling over whether or not he had the intention to hit the baby based on him not believing it was a real baby: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

I'm a little confused as intention isn't needed for the offence to be complete. Looking at the sentencing guidelines it doesn't seem to make any obvious difference and the mitigating factors appear to be quite strong in his case in any event to lower the sentencing.

He'll also lose his full 'early plea' discount if found guilty, too.
Bizarre case.

I think he is so convinced he had no intention of hitting a baby is why he has pleaded 'not guilty', although he will likely be found guilty of striking the baby (because he did), but was it intentional?

In his interview he says he 'thought it was a doll', and that’s what he also said to a young child nearby.
Once the act had been committed, he realised what he had done and he was described by 2 witnesses as being in shock after the event.

He'll get convicted, but (bizarre) in his mind his conscience will be clear. That's the only way I can look at it from his point.

A moment of madness?
Common assault can be committed by being 'reckless'. I believe, and I am happy to be corrected as I've not 'got the books out', that this is the subjective version of reckless (Cunningham?) and consideration must be given to what the accused reasonably foresaw. He may have the view he didn't foresee the assault as he believed it was a doll and had no intention for the same reason and thus isn't guilty of the crime.

I don't have high hopes for him.

R1gtr said:
So punching a baby is looked at more seriously than randomly punching a bloke in the street?
If someone walked up and punched you in the street then they would receive a slap on the wrists, this guy struck what he thought was a doll and he is facing time? If you punch someone the punishment should be the same whether you punch a 6ft bloke, a little old granny, or a baby.
I think most people would agree punching a baby is more serious than punching a fit, healthy adult.

He is very unlikely to go to prison.

R1gtr said:
I agree but we are so soft on crime these days, this video(below) is almost the norm now, we really need to get tough on scum in this country.
Warning: This video is upsetting and NSFW
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=238413...
We imprison more people than we ever have done.

Violence like that is nothing new.




R1gtr

3,423 posts

153 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
I know I am in no way defending him, could have had fatal consequences and was at very least a stupid thing to do. However I do think that much worse goes on with the perpetrators only getting a slap on the wrists.

WestyCarl

3,217 posts

124 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
Have I missed something; WTF would you go up to a stranger in a Supermarket and hit their doll though (if he is to be believed)?

Shakermaker

11,317 posts

99 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
WestyCarl said:
Have I missed something; WTF would you go up to a stranger in a Supermarket and hit their doll though (if he is to be believed)?
This remains the unanswered question

Sheepshanks

32,530 posts

118 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
La Liga said:
He's appeared in court and pleaded 'not guilty' due to some legal wrangling over whether or not he had the intention to hit the baby based on him not believing it was a real baby: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

I'm a little confused as intention isn't needed for the offence to be complete. Looking at the sentencing guidelines it doesn't seem to make any obvious difference and the mitigating factors appear to be quite strong in his case in any event to lower the sentencing.
Isn't this similar to the discussion on SP&L recently where I was given short shrift for not understanding how someone could plead not guilty to breaking the 30MPH speed limit although they admitted going faster than 30? The accused's argument was the signs where obscured.

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
I'm sure he will face some jail time as he could have pretty easily killed the baby due to some deranged desire to punch a doll

The thing is I'm pretty confident the other prisoners will get to hear about what he did and serve out some true justice. I'd imagine that thought might be starting to cross his mind and is rightly stting himself - to which I doubt anyone would give a flying fk.

blueg33

35,578 posts

223 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
La Liga said:
He's appeared in court and pleaded 'not guilty' due to some legal wrangling over whether or not he had the intention to hit the baby based on him not believing it was a real baby: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...

I'm a little confused as intention isn't needed for the offence to be complete. Looking at the sentencing guidelines it doesn't seem to make any obvious difference and the mitigating factors appear to be quite strong in his case in any event to lower the sentencing.
Isn't this similar to the discussion on SP&L recently where I was given short shrift for not understanding how someone could plead not guilty to breaking the 30MPH speed limit although they admitted going faster than 30? The accused's argument was the signs where obscured.
No that's not the same, surely. In places you are allowed to exceed 30mph and the signs indicate that you can do so. I ma yet to see a sign that says "doll punching permitted" or ones that say "end of doll punching zone".

Also technically I believe the RTA requires signs to be visible.

julian64

14,317 posts

253 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
The chaps making a decision to go not guilty rather than suggest he 'didn't realise' as mitigation.

To be honest in the same situation I'd do the same thing. Probably isn't the lawyer thing to do.

A couple of years ago a couple walking were knocked down by a car outside my house. The young chap In the car said he simply couldn't see them due to the sudden sun in his eyes as he came round the corner. Police arrested him as two people were in the hospital and one was a bit touch and go.

He pleaded not guilty and got off. I guess he could have plead guilty and used the sun as mitigation, but it seemed to work for him. There is a very big difference between getting a lenient sentence, or not guilty, especially to an elderly person.

jesusbuiltmycar

4,534 posts

253 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
julian64 said:
The chaps making a decision to go not guilty rather than suggest he 'didn't realise' as mitigation.

To be honest in the same situation I'd do the same thing. Probably isn't the lawyer thing to do.

A couple of years ago a couple walking were knocked down by a car outside my house. The young chap In the car said he simply couldn't see them due to the sudden sun in his eyes as he came round the corner. Police arrested him as two people were in the hospital and one was a bit touch and go.

He pleaded not guilty and got off. I guess he could have plead guilty and used the sun as mitigation, but it seemed to work for him. There is a very big difference between getting a lenient sentence, or not guilty, especially to an elderly person.
OT but the classic "sun was in my eyes" defence is outrageous. I read that in the past a judge stated "Jury will be directed to ignore Highway Code ‘slow down or stop if dazzled’“... rolleyes

I don't see how pleading not guilty will work - had it been a doll what right did he have to punch it?



Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Friday 30th September 10:01

julian64

14,317 posts

253 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
jesusbuiltmycar said:
OT but the classic "sun was in my eyes" defence is outrageous. I read that in the past a judge stated "Jury will be directed to ignore Highway Code ‘slow down or stop if dazzled’“... rolleyes
Not sure it actually is outrageous. You rarely get the phenomena in a city or town but out in the country it can actually be quite startling.
For instance I've had three cars/motorcyclists hit my front fence in the last year. In a least two of those they got out and said exactly that.