Man arrested for nipple attack
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
"Mark Robert Nugent, 45, was charged with assault and, due to the use of the baby bottle nipple, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon."
How can any reasonable thinking person premise that a nipple is a weapon? It's outrageous. Charge the fellow with assault but don't insult us by pumping up the definition of a weapon like this. Obviously we have no real legal system when a "nipple" can be classified as a weapon. It is simply ridiculous.
What's next? A nipple registry?
I hate the government.
How can any reasonable thinking person premise that a nipple is a weapon? It's outrageous. Charge the fellow with assault but don't insult us by pumping up the definition of a weapon like this. Obviously we have no real legal system when a "nipple" can be classified as a weapon. It is simply ridiculous.
What's next? A nipple registry?
I hate the government.
agree completely... but then.... most people "WITH" kids can understand this concept.
You can be charged with armed robbery even if you do not have a weapon. If you tell a bank teller that you have a gun, you will get charged as having one even if you ended up not having one(using your finger under your jacket, for example). This is because of intent. You intended for the teller to believe you had a gun, therefore you had a gun. Just because something does not seem like a weapon to some people, does not mean that it is not considered a weapon to the law.
Without having been there, how can we honestly say that they are "overreacting"? Perhaps he was swearing at the same time, and saying that he was going to do something to the baby ? I think the main thing is that a total stranger, reeking of alcohol, takes a baby bottle without the mother's permission, and taps the baby's nose with it. While the charges may seem a tad harsh, seeing this happen would freak out ANY mother. Perhaps more information will come out at a later date that will shed some more light on this.
I don't think it was just the seeing it happen, it was that he came back to escalate it by flicking the baby. It sounds like that's when she started screaming for help. That he was escalating it says a LOT.
[LEFT said:
I see, the blind "I believe we're good therefore we're good" argument," unfortunately it doesn't hold up except in the imagination. Intent does not make a weapon real it only means the intent to mislead someone was real. The weapon is still a baby nipple or an extended finger which, in reality, isn't a weapon. Using an extended finger or nipple as a weapon demonstrates intent not to do harm; if intent was to do harm the person would have used a weapon.
Now imagine if this were China, Burma or any other place the CBC tells you you shouldn't like? What then?
"A man was charged with assault using a baby nipple in Burma today" imagine the outrage and charges of corruption, the rails against dictatorship, use as an example of a failed state, etc?
The corruption in the system and the failed state are real it's just your brainwashing that is different.
Seriously... get a f clue. Your being railroaded and you do it with a big grin on your face.
Do you seriously mean the courts should be able to redefine our language anytime they want? Is it that you think it won't happen to you? The courts only screw bad people?
You just DON'T touch somebody's kid- I've been in restaurants where I got up and left because of unruly yard apes running around(got most of my breakfast free!),I felt like slapping the parents.
What constitutes a weapon when you decide to hit a baby in the face BTW?
Also I'd challenge people to reread the article and consider how much force one might be able to muster when they decide to drive a bottle nipple into a child's face. Someone's been commenting about 'bopping' or 'flicking' the child with a nipple, but the article states merely that the child was 'hit' with the nipple, and later flicked with a finger. Consider the many ways you could strike with such a thing.
Also I'd challenge people to reread the article and consider how much force one might be able to muster when they decide to drive a bottle nipple into a child's face. Someone's been commenting about 'bopping' or 'flicking' the child with a nipple, but the article states merely that the child was 'hit' with the nipple, and later flicked with a finger. Consider the many ways you could strike with such a thing.
I agree but why is it that justifies the courts violating our civil rights, trumping up and expanding legal definitions and giving themselves expanded violent power?
If this man is seriously convicted of using a nipple as a weapon then it is all of us that lose.
Charge him with assault. Leave the weapon BS out of it. That is a failed state tactic and a grab for power that we shouldn't allow IMO.
A lot less then if you used a weapon (something designed to harm) like a knife. Hitting a baby in the face with a knife is far more serious then hitting them with a nipple. Why is it more serious? Because one is a weapon designed to damage and the other isn't a weapon and isn't meant to cause harm.
So change the story .....
"The (mother/father/sibling) of Scott Free was hit by a plastic nipple and then flicked by a passerby today but Mr SF said that it was ok with him as it didn't count as assault and they weren't physically hurt that much. "
Assault doesn't have to be an actual physical attack, putting another person in fear of assault verbally or by gesture is also considered an assault under the law . Why anyone would seem to think attacking a child under any circumstance with or without an object is acceptable is just ridiculous. So Scott if you were walking your dog and somebody kicked it would that be OK too?
"The (mother/father/sibling) of Scott Free was hit by a plastic nipple and then flicked by a passerby today but Mr SF said that it was ok with him as it didn't count as assault and they weren't physically hurt that much. "
Assault doesn't have to be an actual physical attack, putting another person in fear of assault verbally or by gesture is also considered an assault under the law . Why anyone would seem to think attacking a child under any circumstance with or without an object is acceptable is just ridiculous. So Scott if you were walking your dog and somebody kicked it would that be OK too?
We have a clarification in the law between weapon (defined as an instrument of attack), and 'deadly' or 'controlled' weapon, meaning those we tend to charge over.
A bottle used against a baby is no less of a weapon than a stick used against a child, or a bat against an adult.
Try to keep up. It is assault but it isn't assault with a weapon. A nipple isn't a weapon. A knife, a gun a sword etc, those are weapons. Tampons, nipples and toilet paper are not weapons.
WTF is wrong with people they don't even know what a goddamn weapon is or that courts expanding their powers means we are losing power - seriously - holy f.
I don't know... you'd have to fill us in, since you seem awfully confused about it.
Hey ... we all know the weapons thing won't even make it to the docket. The Courts always start high so the bad guy will cop a plea and pay the price - so a little cash sticks there too....
Sure we do; so what?
If these were Chinese laws we were discussing you'd understand what I was saying.
No. The Chinese have as much right to decide if an item was used as a weapon against someone as we do. Think of the many ways you could beat or violate someone with a bottle, any bottle.
Again, you're confusing an individual charge calling it a weapon, versus a move to register the bottle as a deadly or controlled weapon.
Yeah, your right, I'm not a happy little slave.
I don't like violence being perpetrated against me.
Why are you changing the subject? The item under discussion is a nipple not a bottle.
They're a single item Scott. He may have hit the kid mainly with the nipple, but it still bears the weight of a bottle behind it.
regardless of which you call the actual weapon... they're not classifying it a deadly or controlled weapon, but, using it in an attack grants it the status of weapon for that attack.