Woman Says She Didn't Mean to Hurl Baby

[Lisa Simpson]

A northwestern Pennsylvania woman accused of using her baby to batter her child's father said she didn't realize what she was doing until it was too late.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000286.html

How drunk to you have to be to use your 4-month old baby as a weapon?

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000286.html

How drunk to you have to be to use your 4-moth old baby as a weapon?
Put that woman in a wood chipper, and select puree. Sometimes, the gene pool needs a bit of chlorine.

Four month old baby used as a blunt trauma weapon. Sorry, no excuse.

DR

[Marquis de Carabas]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000286.html

How drunk to you have to be to use your 4-month old baby as a weapon?
It usually takes me a fifth and a half to even use one as a shield.

[Lisa Simpson]

Oh, sorry. I misread the story. It was a 4 week old baby.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

The woman is probably best off opting for a bench trial if she doesn't plead out. I can't see this playing well with a jury.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, sorry. I misread the story. It was a 4 week old baby.
Oh, does that then make the charge misdemeanor assault, versus felonious assault? The baby's head tends to be softer at 4 weeks than at 4 months. :mad:

DR

[Dancing David]

Sounds like she failed to meet the standard of care in her use of alcohol.

[Mephisto]

Maybe this will prove to Claus that guns aren't always to blame. Sometimes people are just stupid, mean and nasty.

When babies are outlawed, only outlaws will have babies. ;)

[This Guy]

Personally, I prefer to swing teenagers as weapons.

They are typically not as cute as for week olds, and have much harder heads.







;)

ETA: I'll give up my baby when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!

[bob_kark]

Deangelo, who had also fathered one of Graham's other four children.

Well there's your problem. You get that drunk and look to start throwing things, odds are, you're gonna pick up a kid. This family needs to consider sewing up their privates.

[Mycroft]

"People are trying to make a big deal about it, but she did not do it on purpose. ... It was just a mistake," he said.

Oh, well, if she didn't mean any harm...

[Darat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000286.html

How drunk to you have to be to use your 4-month old baby as a weapon?


But not too drunk to be able to accurately "aim" the baby and use him as a weapon. I suspect the drink has very little to do with her attitude toward her own child.

[Darth Rotor]

But not too drunk to be able to accurately "aim" the baby and use him as a weapon. I suspect the drink has very little to do with her attitude toward her own child.
Cannon fodder, or a cannon ball to be propelled at the "fodder." :p

DR

[shemp]

There's nothing funny to say about this. That kid (if he survives) is wrecked for life. This is a perfect example of why some people should not be allowed to breed.

[crackers]

There's nothing funny to say about this. That kid (if he survives) is wrecked for life. This is a perfect example of why some people should not be allowed to breed.


No kidding. People have to pass a test to get a driver's license; they should have to pass a test to get a breeder's license.

[Oroborus]

Ohh she didn't mean to do it okay. So how about we just happen to accidentally stab her 321 times?

[bluess]

I feel like throwing up.

There is no way that you can grab a baby and not know you grabbed a living thing.

I agree with Oroborus.

[Oroborus]

Even if some how she's stupid enough to have done it on accident. It is still done and she should still be killed.

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm opposed to the death penalty. However, someone this stupid should never be allowed to breed again. Lock her up forever. I doubt that will happen unless the baby dies.

[Skeptic]

Just how drunk do you have to be to confuse your own baby with a weapon? I'd say anybody that drunk would have long ago passed out, and certainly would not have had enough coordination to hold anything.

[Skeptic]

I'm opposed to the death penalty.

Should she get the death penalty? Possibly not, but let's just say that if someone, in a drunken stupor, mistakenly thinks the sniper rifle he aimed at her head is really a nerf gun, I won't shed any tears.

[Oroborus]

Life in prision? you'd rather pay with your tax dollars for her to eat the next 90 years? No thanks, she gets the chair.

[bob_kark]

I say the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore I propose that we:

Rip her arms off
Tie them together with her intestines
Beat her to within an inch of her life with her armchucks

[Polaris]

Well there's your problem. You get that drunk and look to start throwing things, odds are, you're gonna pick up a kid. This family needs to consider sewing up their privates.

After reading the quote you posted, I got dizzy.

That means that the BIQ (***** In Question) had at least two fathers for her human litter. My guess is that is a conservative estimate.

And population control/permission for parenthood would be bad...why? Would the cons outweigh the pros here?

[Polaris]

Just how drunk do you have to be to confuse your own baby with a weapon? I'd say anybody that drunk would have long ago passed out, and certainly would not have had enough coordination to hold anything.

Being drunk has about as much to do with this as being drunk had to do with Mel Gibson screaming about the Jews starting all the wars to a cop or Foley arranging meetings to diddle minors. It's an excuse, and one that's as week as wet toilet paper.

[Lisa Simpson]

Life in prision? you'd rather pay with your tax dollars for her to eat the next 90 years? No thanks, she gets the chair.

It's my understanding that life in prison is cheaper for the tax payers than the death penalty.

[Amapola]

It's my understanding that life in prison is cheaper for the tax payers than the death penalty.

You are probably right.

However I wonder why it is that way. I know how much a box of .22 shells cost. (Yes, I realize this was a tasteless remark. Sometimes you are so overwhelmed by someone else's actions, that's all you can really come up with. I don't even know what to say about this woman.)

[Dark Jaguar]

After reading the quote you posted, I got dizzy.

That means that the BIQ (***** In Question) had at least two fathers for her human litter. My guess is that is a conservative estimate.

And population control/permission for parenthood would be bad...why? Would the cons outweigh the pros here?


I happen to have a few half siblings so personally I don't think that, in and of itself, is a bad thing.

It's that combined with the rest of the info that makes it horrid.

And yes, I myself agree that population controls would be a great idea. However, human rights being what they are I've been forced to consider other ideas that won't enrage the populace. Plus, facts being what they are, a lot of these things start way before a law against reproducing actually matters. I doubt any law is going to force people having kids without a liscense to destroy them. Rather, I submit a medical solution. Looking around me seeing so many people getting out of high school and directly into unplanned parenthood (the default parenthood type, in spite of what you may see on a sitcom with two parents carefully discussing if they should have kids yet or not), I think the better solution is reversable sterelization at birth. If there are two surgeries (one for each gender) that can later be reversed (BIG if), with an extremely high success rate, then the thing to do is basically give that as an "opt in" option and really SELL that to the public. Essentially, kids running around being wreckless will only endanger their health, and not any new beings they accidently create. The only way they will produce a child is if they willingly decide to reverse the surgery. If it's at all possible to employ a spot of social engineering to the country, that should put a huge dent in the problem. This stems from the premise that it's the unplanned parenthood that is most likely to result in an abused child and a completely wrecked future for everyone involved. If that's a false premise then just ignore my idea.

(That said, I was "unplanned" but my mother happens to be frickin' great as a human being and as a parent, which I bring up to further villify this horrible mother.)

[Amapola]

Dark Jaguar, I think that is a terrific idea. I doubt it would ever go into effect though. People won't even neuter their dogs; I don't think they would do this for their children even though the kids could potentially benefit from it.

[Darat]

I think she (and depending on the circumstances her husband/partner if he was part of the abuse) should be sterilised as part of her sentence and any children she currently has be taken from her (them) and adopted. She would be prevented from ever having anything to do with children again.

But then I have some quite radical opinions about these types of issues. For instance any one becoming pregnant under the age of consent should be given two options - the child will be adopted or an abortion and compulsory sex education.

If society considers it OK to have a "sex offenders" register then it should also have a "child abuse" register - anyone convicted of child abuse should appear on that register.

Parents that have abused their children should face sterilisation as part of their sentencing and any children they have removed.

[Polaris]

I think she (and depending on the circumstances her husband/partner if he was part of the abuse) should be sterilised as part of her sentence and any children she currently has be taken from her (them) and adopted. She would be prevented from ever having anything to do with children again.

But then I have some quite radical opinions about these types of issues. For instance any one becoming pregnant under the age of consent should be given two options - the child will be adopted or an abortion and compulsory sex education.

If society considers it OK to have a "sex offenders" register then it should also have a "child abuse" register - anyone convicted of child abuse should appear on that register.

Parents that have abused their children should face sterilisation as part of their sentencing and any children they have removed.

I think any violent criminal should be sterilized, personally.

If you do that just with child abusers you can expect some flak from women's groups, since they commit more child abuse than men (they're around kids more, it stands to reason) and they'd probably be more likely to be sentenced to sterilization.

I think with everybody always whining about doing things for the sake of kids, what could be better than preventing them from being born by scum like these vermin? I think that far outweighs the rights of individuals to crank out 8 Xerox copies of themselves with 8 different fathers - whether the reasons are religion, carelessness, or welfare.