Man arrested after baby girl is punched in a supermarket.

[Gareth79]

Sylvaforever said:

Gareth79 said:

£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.

Uhuh.

The starting point for the lowest level of offence is 150% of the 'relevant weekly income', the highest is 175%, so at least ~£2,228/month. edit: One article mentions he's a "cash manager" at a timber merchants and the address is a council-type estate.

Edited by Gareth79 on Monday 28th November 15:55

[Digby]

Skyrat said:

Alpinestars said:

Out of character, not premeditated, impossible to explain, exceptional, spontaneous. Doesn't make the act any better. As I asked earlier, and you avoided, if I murder someone, and all the above applied, would that make it less off an offence?

Yes, it's called manslaughter, and you just gave almost a textbook definition of such.

Quite. I didn't avoid answering because It depends on the circumstances. I would have thought that was completely obvious and is why sentences will vary even though the 'act' was the same.

Pretty basic stuff to be honest.

Anyway, as mentioned, this has gone on a bit, so I shall leave it at that.

[Alpinestars]

Digby said:

Quite. I didn't avoid answering because It depends on the circumstances. I would have thought that was completely obvious and is why sentences will vary even though the 'act' was the same.

Pretty basic stuff to be honest.

Anyway, as mentioned, this has gone on a bit, so I shall leave it at that.

I deliberately used the word murder. But put that aside. The sentence is not what I'm questioning. You seem to be questioning whether the guy thought it was a baby or not. The judge said it was implausible for him to think it was. You then go into mitigating his actions by pointing to the sentence. That's irrelevant when the original question I asked you was whether you believed the guy thought it was a doll or not. And if you do, what evidence do you have that the judge didn't have?

The sentence reflects the mitigating points. None of which are that the judge believed Mr Boxer thought it was a doll. Hope that's clear.

[anonymous-user]

jakesmith said:

Zod said:

I cannot believe this is continuing.

Fully agree with you Zod, some people just come on to a thread and drag it out, adding little of value, perhaps pointing out something obvious etc. Waste of time! Wonder if it will end soon.

You've described your own post to a tee (and this one!).

[jakesmith]

La Liga said:

ou've described your own post to a tee (and this one!).

Never!

[julian64]

Why do people come on the internet and declare a thread finished. Its a bizarre idea to think you have control over who posts.

The thread finishes when the last person posts. It doesn't require someone to declare it. This is a conversational site.

The thread started with a daily wail headline designed to cause frothing. It then had all the usual suspects creating fiery internet indignation in the mob and then it all died a death when the obvious happened and the chap got a slap on the wrist rather than being slapped in irons.

If anything a few people here should re-read this and a number of their other threads to actually learn from the cycle they repeat time and time again on here. We wouldn't have comics like the daily wail if people weren't so quick to take the bait. Its almost as if people enjoy being outraged.

[tommunster10]

OK so the excuse is this old man thought it was a doll so punched it........ so an innocent mistake then?

Hmmm nope, still a bit mental...

For example if you walked in on an old man rubbing a childs doll agaisnt himself and pleasuring himself would you scratch it down to being OK because its just a doll?

Or would you think maybe this guy has some deep routed issues he needs professional help with (or just kick the living crap out of him)?

Its not normal to punch dolls when your an old man, same as its not normal to fondle dolls either.... both cases point to possible issues that aren't yet being born out with the real thing.....

[jakesmith]

tommunster10 said:

if you walked in on an old man rubbing a childs doll agaisnt himself and pleasuring himself would you scratch it down to being OK because its just a doll?

Well it's not a very good analogy I'm afraid to say. Pleasuring yourself can be acceptable if done in private for starters, where as punching a baby is not, you see. In your example, the doll is actually an aggravating factor to the old man's pleasure, as it makes it a lot more strange. Where as in the supermarket, punching a doll is not an offence and in fact the belief that the baby was a doll was potentially a mitigating factor (although in this case it failed.)

Finally a few questions for you. Is an old man pleasuring himself more offensive than a younger chap? Also, what are the circumstances of you 'walking in' on the aforementioned old man, was he in his sheltered accommodation with a reasonable expectation of privacy, or perhaps in a stall in a public latrine in a park etc? Please clarify.

[tommunster10]

jakesmith said:

tommunster10 said:

if you walked in on an old man rubbing a childs doll agaisnt himself and pleasuring himself would you scratch it down to being OK because its just a doll?

Well it's not a very good analogy I'm afraid to say. Pleasuring yourself can be acceptable if done in private for starters, where as punching a baby is not, you see. In your example, the doll is actually an aggravating factor to the old man's pleasure, as it makes it a lot more strange. Where as in the supermarket, punching a doll is not an offence and in fact the belief that the baby was a doll was potentially a mitigating factor (although in this case it failed.)

Finally a few questions for you. Is an old man pleasuring himself more offensive than a younger chap? Also, what are the circumstances of you 'walking in' on the aforementioned old man, was he in his sheltered accommodation with a reasonable expectation of privacy, or perhaps in a stall in a public latrine in a park etc? Please clarify.

Well the man in question is old is he not? I'd say its a fair analogy. I don't see how "i thought it was a doll" is an acceptable defense as punching a doll is still very very odd behavior.
Didn't the Bulger boys IIRC say they never fully accepted James wasn't just a doll?

If a man came up to you in a supermarket and took your daughters (if you had one that is) doll and started to pretend to molest it "for a laugh", would you laugh with him? Or punch him?

[jakesmith]

tommunster10 said:

Well the man in question is old is he not? I'd say its a fair analogy. I don't see how "i thought it was a doll" is an acceptable defense as punching a doll is still very very odd behavior.
Didn't the Bulger boys IIRC say they never fully accepted James wasn't just a doll?

If a man came up to you in a supermarket and took your daughters (if you had one that is) doll and started to pretend to molest it "for a laugh", would you laugh with him? Or punch him?

I would laugh at that for sure! Before politely asking for the doll back.
I am a civilised person and don't believe in meting out extra-judicial violence on the spot, to people who molest dolls.
What would you do to protect your family from the macabre spectacle of witnessing a doll being molested?

[tommunster10]

jakesmith said:

tommunster10 said:

Well the man in question is old is he not? I'd say its a fair analogy. I don't see how "i thought it was a doll" is an acceptable defense as punching a doll is still very very odd behavior.
Didn't the Bulger boys IIRC say they never fully accepted James wasn't just a doll?

If a man came up to you in a supermarket and took your daughters (if you had one that is) doll and started to pretend to molest it "for a laugh", would you laugh with him? Or punch him?

I would laugh at that for sure! Before politely asking for the doll back.
I am a civilised person and don't believe in meting out extra-judicial violence on the spot, to people who molest dolls.
What would you do to protect your family from the macabre spectacle of witnessing a doll being molested?

If a person i vaguely knew came up to my daughter of 2 and took her doll and molested it i'd certainly not laugh and i'd tell him what i thought of that and most likely tell people down the pub and on the school run and get him run out of dodge in a facebook hate campaign.....bloody peado.

My point is actually if he picked up my daughter 'thinking' it was a doll..... in that case i'd call the police and get him on the register.

[julian64]

tommunster10 said:

Well the man in question is old is he not? I'd say its a fair analogy. I don't see how "i thought it was a doll" is an acceptable defense as punching a doll is still very very odd behavior.
Didn't the Bulger boys IIRC say they never fully accepted James wasn't just a doll?

If a man came up to you in a supermarket and took your daughters (if you had one that is) doll and started to pretend to molest it "for a laugh", would you laugh with him? Or punch him?

You are very quick to decide you know someone's motives. Thinking it was a doll and punching it may be inconceivable as entertainment to you because you are from the eastenders era or worse. The idea of molesting is peculiarly yours.

Imagine an eighty years olds idea of entertaining children might be Punch and Judy, where baby punching caused audiences to roar with laughter. I have no idea of this chaps motives, but its at least as conceivable as suggesting at the age of eighty he suddenly finds gratification in punching babies.

I don't even know why I'm starting to use the Daily wails 'punching' terminology as the baby was obviously not punched to any extend that a punch means anything. The judge has no idea of what happens to a baby when punched. but he won't be the only badly informed judge making a decision this year or next.

[Zod]

julian64 said:

tommunster10 said:

Well the man in question is old is he not? I'd say its a fair analogy. I don't see how "i thought it was a doll" is an acceptable defense as punching a doll is still very very odd behavior.
Didn't the Bulger boys IIRC say they never fully accepted James wasn't just a doll?

If a man came up to you in a supermarket and took your daughters (if you had one that is) doll and started to pretend to molest it "for a laugh", would you laugh with him? Or punch him?

You are very quick to decide you know someone's motives. Thinking it was a doll and punching it may be inconceivable as entertainment to you because you are from the eastenders era or worse. The idea of molesting is peculiarly yours.

Imagine an eighty years olds idea of entertaining children might be Punch and Judy, where baby punching caused audiences to roar with laughter. I have no idea of this chaps motives, but its at least as conceivable as suggesting at the age of eighty he suddenly finds gratification in punching babies.

I don't even know why I'm starting to use the Daily wails 'punching' terminology as the baby was obviously not punched to any extend that a punch means anything. The judge has no idea of what happens to a baby when punched. but he won't be the only badly informed judge making a decision this year or next.

You have managed to turn your extraordinary justification/mitigation of this old weirdo's actions into an attack generally on the judiciary.

[jakesmith]

Zod said:

You have managed to turn your extraordinary justification/mitigation of this old weirdo's actions into an attack generally on the judiciary.

its his right in a democracy, to appeal a judgement

[tommunster10]

It's simply to any rational mind not OK to punch children's dolls anyway in public and certainly not OK if the person in question can't be fully sure if its real or not.
For anyone thinking of punching dolls for a laugh, if it looks real it just might be real.... at least hit something like this..



Your still an odd ball, but at least you have covered the base that its not real....

But yes, if you hit dolls then get help.

If you see this in a pram seriously don't risk it.

[julian64]

jakesmith said:

its his right in a democracy, to appeal a judgement

Zod ridicules the judiciary when it suits his purpose. It just suits his purpose at this particular time not to. Ignore.

[tommunster10]

jakesmith said:

I am a civilised person and don't believe in meting out extra-judicial violence on the spot,

But you believe its OK to punch babies....?

[jakesmith]

tommunster10 said:

But you believe its OK to punch babies....?

No, I believe, and the law is with me, that it is OK to punch dolls.

[Zod]

julian64 said:

jakesmith said:

its his right in a democracy, to appeal a judgement

Zod ridicules the judiciary when it suits his purpose. It just suits his purpose at this particular time not to. Ignore.

Do I? They're just lawyers, but I have respect for most of them. They make mistakes like everyone else.

[tommunster10]

jakesmith said:

tommunster10 said:

But you believe its OK to punch babies....?

No, I believe, and the law is with me, that it is OK to punch dolls.

So your saying then it's fine to go up to girls (or boys) holding their dolls and punch the dolls?
That's in your view a normal way to carry on?

I doubt there is anywhere written in law a line saying "its OK to punch dolls" (happy to be proved wrong).

Considering a guy got put in jail for throwing a custard pie at Rupert Murdoch i'd imagine it wasn't based on a law saying "you must not throw custard pies at old newspaper moguls".

The law could find something like criminal damage if someone punched and broke a doll belonging to someone else for example? Not sure, but you cant go punching dolls in Hamleys then go saying "hey its not agaisnt the LAW!"

I doubt you'll respond now, but yeah...you look stupid...