Man arrested for nipple attack

[Praxius]

"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.

Agreed. They might have had a case against him if they charged him with just assault, but they only charged assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon.... which is going to fall flat on it's ass in court.

What's next will be airliners banning rubber nipples from flights because terrorists might hold a pilot hostage with a rubber nipple. :roll:

 

[Praxius]

agree completely... but then.... most people "WITH" kids can understand this concept.

What? that you're over protective nut jobs who have lost all sense of reality and reason due to having an over abundant need to be over protective of your children and try and charge anybody who comes near God's gift to you with the most insane crimes you can think of to try and prove some kind of point that nobody else on the world understands you and your child except yourselves and others who have children?

...... or was that some explination for having no control over your own violent behavior against a stranger who crossed you and your child the wrong way and whatever bodily harm you do to them is justified?

Yeah, I guess the rest of us will never understand with our peon level of understanding to your exceptional level of experience that just got thrusted apon you three seconds after your child was born..... like you know everything there is to being a parent instantly..... Can I have a copy of that handbook for parents you seem to have that everybody else in the world keeps claiming doesn't exist?

It doesn't matter what mentality you have as a parent or not as a parent.... there's people getting out of line, and then there's people who over react to the situation and the case above is an over reaction..... some drunk stranger truamatized you as a parent because he nipple slammed your baby?

Get some therapy.

 

[karrie]

Prax, a stranger walked up and struck her baby in the face, then came back to harass them further. How do you not get that that's a HUGE deal, even if it happened in an absurd manner?

 

[Praxius]

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.

The nipple wasn't concealed, there is no report of the "Attacker" threatening anybody and I don't remember him claiming his newly found rubber nipple was a gun he was going to shoot the infant with.

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 ?

Then he would be charged with uttering threats (Perhaps Death theats if that were the case)

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.

Well not all drunk people are violent and dangerous either, and if you're so paranoid of the public and so scared of what drunk people will do to your poor infant..... then why are you haning out with your infant outside of a liqour store at 10pm at night, when the place is just closing down and all the drunks need their drinks?

What the hell did someone expect to happen? You goto the store to get food for the house or the mall and you have your new mothers and old ladies coming up squeezing their cheeks, saying how cute they are, etc..... what makes you think this wouldn't occur at a liqour store too?

 

[gerryh]

The nipple wasn't concealed, there is no report of the "Attacker" threatening anybody and I don't remember him claiming his newly found rubber nipple was a gun he was going to shoot the infant with.



Then he would be charged with uttering threats (Perhaps Death theats if that were the case)



Well not all drunk people are violent and dangerous either, and if you're so paranoid of the public and so scared of what drunk people will do to your poor infant..... then why are you haning out with your infant outside of a liqour store at 10pm at night, when the place is just closing down and all the drunks need their drinks?

What the hell did someone expect to happen? You goto the store to get food for the house or the mall and you have your new mothers and old ladies coming up squeezing their cheeks, saying how cute they are, etc..... what makes you think this wouldn't occur at a liqour store too?

:roll: I was wondering when this would become the mothers fault.

 

[karrie]

:roll: I was wondering when this would become the mothers fault.

That seems right up there with blaming rape victims for the way they dressed or for walking after dark.

A public place at 10PM at night shouldn't be an invitation for assault. Nowhere should.

 

[Praxius]

Prax, a stranger walked up and struck her baby in the face, then came back to harass them further. How do you not get that that's a HUGE deal, even if it happened in an absurd manner?

It's something to deal with, but it is not a HUGE deal. As I mentioned previously, he should have been given a warning or perhaps a fine of some sort..... but not with this foolish charge they gave him. Not just because I think it's an over reaction, but also because it's going to be a waste of court time because they charged him with something that has multiple flaws in it.... if they wanted to actually charge him with something and make it stick, they should have left it with assault towards this finger flick thing.

 

[Praxius]

Prax, a stranger walked up and struck her baby in the face, then came back to harass them further. How do you not get that that's a HUGE deal, even if it happened in an absurd manner?

Oh and I would also like to point out that you are jumping the gun on the provided information. You are claiming that he struck the baby in the face and then came back to harass them further..... which is incorrect.

He apparently hit the child on the nose with a rubber nipple and later he flick the nose. There is no information claiming he rubbered the kid, walked away and then came back to flick the kids nose..... for all we know he could have done one after the other in the matter of seconds or a minute. It all could have occured all in one encounter.

You are attempting to twist this into some emotional appeal and expanding on the provided information into something much more sinister which nobody can prove either way at this time.

 

[Lester]

Usually that's why they (the police ) lay multiple charges- so something will stick. c'mon Prax surely you can see the difference between a little ol' lady and drunk/dope addict who bops your kid on the nose.

 

[lone wolf]

Regardless, the ape had no business touching the kid. Weapons offences just open Court doors wider and will probably be plea-bargained down to an assault. If it had have been my kid, you can bet the drunk would be sending the constable my way to discuss the bodily harm I'd inflicted upon him in defense of my kid.

 

[Praxius]

What constitutes a weapon when you decide to hit a baby in the face BTW?

Once again:

Weapon:
"An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc."

Do you seriously think the drunk guy intended the rubber nipple to be used in destroying the infant?

How about defeating the infant? In what manner of defeat would be brought by this action with the nipple?

Do you think the man planned to cause injury to the infant with a rubber nipple?

Therefore, since we could easily determine the chances of the man causing any form of harm or injury to the infant as none, one would have to then focus on the intent the man may have had in these actions. The only logical (including drunken reasoning) explaination I can think of in this case for the man to do what he did was with the intent to play around with the kid. I imagine he played around with the kid the wrong way and against the mother's wishes, but none of this comes close to assault with a weapon.

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.

If the man actually struck the child with a forceful blow, I don't think people would be focusing on the rubble nipple, but rather the bottle attached to it, as the rubber nipple isn't going to absorb any of the impact from the bottle behind it, and therefore the object causing any damage or injury would have been the bottle.... something even I could relate to being used as a weapon.

But the bottle isn't in question, the rubble nipple is.... so then what is the process of hitting someone with a rubber nipple without making contact with the bottle?

Flicking/Bopping

Now unless you wish to take a full swing at the kid with the bottle to make an impressive Bop on the nose, or a quick flick along the tip of the nose, one has to pull their arms back pretty good and exert a lot of thrust.... when you do this, you then lose your accuracy..... and when drunk, it's even worse. Therefore if the guy took a full swing to make any impact worth injury, I would have to say he would have a greater chance crushing the entire bottle into the baby's face if he did that.

That would also be enough for assault with a weapon.... but this didn't happen.

Now when it comes to flicking the kid in the nose with his finger?

Irrelevent, since he's not being charged with it. If he's not being charged with it, then it must not have been hard or important enough to lay charges against.

All in all the whole situation still reeks of over reaction.

 

[Praxius]

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.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Praxius]

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.

See now you're going outside of the given information again trying to make it sound worse then it really is.

A bottle used against a baby is no less of a weapon, I agree..... but the bottle isn't in question.

A bottle is a blunt object and depending on the material, it can be broken and become a (serrated) edged weapon.... a rubber nipple is softer and safer then a Nerf ball and when broken.... is useless.

 

[Praxius]

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.

If the bottle and the nipple were considdered the same object, then they would be labeling the bottle as the weapon of assault not the nipple, and they wouldn't even be mentioning what part of the bottle hit the infant (The nipple) it would still have been the bottle. They are identifying the rubber nipple as the weapon in the assault because they seem to realize the difference between the two (The bottle and the nipple) Where as a bottle can do much more harm then the rubber nipple (Which the nipple can do none)

Are you going to tell me that if I got smacked on the highway by an 18 wheeler at 160kmh while holding a box of feathers, that the box of feathers was the thing that killed me since it was between myself and the truck which contained the force in which killed me?

Exact same logic if someone hit you with a milk bottle and made you bleed, but identify the rubber nipple as the weapon which did it to you, when if anything the rubber nipple and the box of feathers would have reduced the impact recieved.

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.

One has to prove the intent to attack or do harm in order to considder it a weapon.

Man people are blowing this way out of what has been supplied in information.

 

[Praxius]

:roll: I was wondering when this would become the mothers fault.

*Points finger* No, it's just your fault because I said so.

 

[karrie]

One has to prove the intent to attack or do harm in order to considder it a weapon.

Man people are blowing this way out of what has been supplied in information.

That's kind of the point of a trial no?

 

[Praxius]

That seems right up there with blaming rape victims for the way they dressed or for walking after dark.

A public place at 10PM at night shouldn't be an invitation for assault. Nowhere should.

Get a grip people, I never said it was her fault.... and comparing this situation to a rape? Seriously people get grounded in reality a bit please because there's no comparison whatsoever.

And this isn't an assault.... it is an alleged assault, the guy hasn't been found guilty.... how about holding off hanging the sorry fool for a bit until more information is provided.

 

[Praxius]

Usually that's why they (the police ) lay multiple charges- so something will stick. c'mon Prax surely you can see the difference between a little ol' lady and drunk/dope addict who bops your kid on the nose.

Well if she's got an infant, she's not ol' and they claimed he was intoxicated, not a dope addict. When it comes to laying multiple charges, yes it's a given they'll do as much as they can so something will stick.... so why the hell didn't they charge him with plain assault with the finger flick on top of the assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon?

They screwed it up before they even started.

 

[Praxius]

Regardless, the ape had no business touching the kid. Weapons offences just open Court doors wider and will probably be plea-bargained down to an assault. If it had have been my kid, you can bet the drunk would be sending the constable my way to discuss the bodily harm I'd inflicted upon him in defense of my kid.

I suppose people these days just seemed to have forgotten that old human trade we all were good at..... um.... what was it called again? Oh yeah... TALKING

You would think someone would just say "Get the hell away from my damn kid or I'll kill you" and that would be all that was needed..... but oh no... let's just get rambo on everybody's ass because we think it's justified because the situation involves our kid.

Sheish people just don't seem to know how to difuse situations anymore without resorting to violence or laying ciminal charges on someone..... must be afraid of offending people or something.

 

[lone wolf]

I suppose people these days just seemed to have forgotten that old human trade we all were good at..... um.... what was it called again? Oh yeah... TALKING

You would think someone would just say "Get the hell away from my damn kid or I'll kill you" and that would be all that was needed..... but oh no... let's just get rambo on everybody's ass because we think it's justified because the situation involves our kid.

Sheish people just don't seem to know how to difuse situations anymore without resorting to violence or laying ciminal charges on someone..... must be afraid of offending people or something.

The kid isn't Braille. There's a big difference between TALKING and copping a feel. You would think, especially in this day and age, even a drunk would know enough to get permission first. Hell, politicians don't even kiss babies anymore unless it's been arranged in advance. Ever consider the mother could have an aversion to drunks pawing kids?