Sorry, that's not what I meant- What I mean is a little old lady squeezing a baby's cheek and a drunk bopping your kid on the nose- old ladies have been squeezing cheeks forever, it's acceptable for them to do so. everyone knows they mean no harm.
Man arrested for nipple attack
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
Er... the mother could have talked to the drunk guy at the liqour store at 10pm, not the baby itself.... sheish.
And where the hell did copping a feel come from? Did this assault with a rubber nipple suddenly change to sexual assault?
The drunk should have known better, but then perhaps he wasn't intoxicated at all and had a mental issue. Either way, no harm was done, no harm was intended by the actions (Obviously) and no threats were made.
And if the mother has a problem with drunk people pawing her kids, then why did she bring the kid to the liqour store at 10pm at night when the store would be filled with the most amount of customers in the dar prior to closing? Why wasn't the child in bed, or with the father, or a baby sitter while she went to go get her drunk on?
I'm not putting the entire blame on the mother in this situation, but she isn't completely innocent in this situation all things considdered. I'm not even saying she had no right to be at the liqour store at 10pm with her infant.... but given the factors in this situation, the chances of someone possibly interacting with her or her child are kinda great and apparently reached 100% in this case. The only problem is the guy did something trivial that the mother blew out of perspective and now he's public enemy #1 for some stupid reason.
Was it a mistake? Sure.... should be be charged the way he was? Hell no.... This is an over reaction in a time where everybody's paranoid of everyone.
I'm suprised the poor guy didn't get tasered too.
Last edited:
I take my kids to the liquor store all the time. It's a public establishment, you are not supposed to be intoxicated or drinking while there. I'm not about to hire a sitter to run and grab wine for the weekend, and if the kids and I are out getting movies, we walk right past the liquor store. I'm certainly not going to leave them standing on the curb. Nor will I leave them sitting in a vehicle. It's a public establishment, where children are allowed, and as such it is NOT an area where harassment or assault should be expected or excused in any way shape or form.
True... but I have even heard plenty of mothers get all pissed about some old stranger commenting on their kids or touching their cheeks and afraid that they have some sort of sickness or got poop on their fingers or something. It's a great way to introduce your children into human socialization.... don't trust anybody other then mommy because everybody else it out to get your goodies or to sell you off on the black market in Asia.
Now where I'm going with this is where do you draw the line between inappropreate and what should be considdered a crime? What the guy did was inappropreate, but I can't understand why he was charged based on the supplied information, except "Oh he assaulted that poor helpless baby with a rubber nipple, the poor thing could have died.... and could you image the mental turama given to the poor mother.... Oh how terrible!"
People need to get a grip, cuz this doesn't come close to anything I would call assault... even spitting on an officer is more assault then this.... hell spitting on the infant is assault compared to being smucked by a rubber nipple (Spit being a forign object expelled from an individual which could carry bacteria, std's etc.... while the rubber nipple has been in the infant's mouth, which it just below the nose which made contact with it, for much longer)
And this doesn't even remotely come close to rape as some attempted to throw into the conversation above.
You weren't there anymore than we were Prax. You have no idea HOW he struck the baby exactly. So you can't assume that it wasn't assault anymore than you claim we should assume it wasn't.
And I didn't compare it to rape, I compared your laying blame (and you are when you say 'she shouldn't have been there), with other instances of people blaming the victims.
I've explained this countless times in the past as well, that I will re-read what I type after I've posted and make changes if I typed something wrong or I feel I did not explain myself properly.
Oh I'm sorry, I figured that was the popular thing to do in this thread.... As I have pointed this out countless times before from other members in here, yet it seemed to go on just fine before.... OH BUT LOOK OUT IF PRAXIUS ACTUALLY DOES THE SAME THING..... heaven forbid.
I know enough of what I need to know in any given situation, does that answer your question? The drunk guy in question could have also intended to blow himself up with his bomb vest but forgot to bring it with him.... shall we charge him for terrorism as well while we're at it?
You want to tell me about changing the facts? How about you open the original article again and learning how to fk'n read and stop wasting my damn time:
"Cops said they believe alcohol was a factor."
^ Where does "Smell Booze" come into play in this? Do tell, for my ever-lover mind is ever-so damn egar to figure out how you came up with this one.
If he was actually intoxicated, then one would think an additional charge of public intoxication would have been laid... it wasn't, therefore I'm right and you're wrong.
And alcohol was a factor.... was that a factor in the man or the mother?
Thanks for playing.
Because as you said... leaving a child unattended is illegal. I would think this woman might have one or two friends who could watch her kid for a few minutes while she went and got her controlled substance to drink all weekend..... then again with over reactions such as what she already has expressed, it wouldn't suprise me if she didn't have any friends to help her, since she'd probably get them arrested too for something equally stupid.
I know it is a public establishment, but then again even in bars and restaurants, after a certain hour of the day minors are not supposed to be in the establishment due to the increased sales of alcohol.... within a liqour store, they are giving out samples of free alcohol.... does the same set of laws for bars and restaurants apply for a liqour store?
But regardless of the above, it is a public establishment and I don't remember disputing anybody's rights of being there or not.... the point I was making is that a liqour store isn't a daycare, and thus the enviroment surrounding the liqour store needs to be taken into considderation when you head out or take your kids with you.
And at the same time, a rubber nipple isn't remotely the same as a gun or a bat and that also needs to be taken into considderation in this situation.
To me, this just sounds like a mother got into a harmless situation which made her feel uncomfortible and she's attempting to seek some form of satisfaction or revenge for crossing her path and the path of her child.
We're all talking about speculations in this thread, well when you balance it all against each other, the evidence is leaning more towards the guy wanting to play with the kid more then he actually wanted to harm the child, and if people can't see that as clear as day.... then maybe it is because you have kids afterall.
Yes I can since they claimed the infant was struck with the rubber nipple, NOT THE BOTTLE. this was already talked about. As I know first hand, if the police don't get the information down right then the case is dropped pretty fast. If the kid was hit with the bottle and the nipple, then it would be assault with a baby bottle..... instead they are saying the contact was made with the rubber nipple.
You talk to me about assumption, and I am telling you how it is based on the information provided. It doesn't matter exactly how he was "Struck" with the rubber nipple, they explained that the child was unharmed.... which would mean there were no bruises, no scratches, no cuts, no broken bones, and probably no long term mental turama either.
He could have come at him with a WWE double-axe handle swing with the bottle, but if he stopped at the last second and tapped the kid in the nose with the rubber nipple, then there was still no intent for assult or bodily injury, and the child was still unharmed.
If the child actually was injured during this whole thing, then yeah I might be on your guy's side of this debate.... but the child wasn't, in the end, nothing happened, nobody was hurt, the baby will still grow up, the mother will still be a bi*ch, and this guy will probably still be drunk.
Excuse the hell out of me? I said she shouldn't have been there?
".... 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?"
^ How the hell does this put blame on her by me? I asked a question, I didn't issue a statement placing blame on her for the other guy's actions. What I stated here is no different then what I stated in post @ 12:44pm on this page in reference to what Lone Wolf stated.
Foot in mouth Prax? That's a pretty clear implication that she should have expected trouble, thus, bears blame in being there.
It was a general question that popped into my head at the time, as I don't know of too many parents who still have kids up at that time of night, let alone taking them out places.... the liqour store at that.... if I was going to say it was her fault and she had it coming, you guys should be aware by now that I would have said that in the first place, as I'm not that caring of offending people.
Don't stick words in my mouth that I didn't say. It's not appreciated.
Last edited:
You're telling me?
Oh so someone points out that you royally fokked up and you mis-quoted them and/or you worded an original article wrong.... you're called out on it, and somehow they're the troll?
It can be one of many reasons why police may think alcohol was a factor..... but nobody said they smelled booze as you put it, therefore you're wrong in your assumption that the man smelled of alcohol. It could have been something similar to slurred speech, bad co-ordination in walking or hand/eye.... and once again, they didn't identify to whom that comment was issued about.... the mother or the man..... we only assume the man because of skewed crap like what you just tried to slip by, that you called me a troll for, as though that makes perfect sense :roll:
Self absorbed?
Hardly.... I'm right, you're wrong... it's called reality. Eventually I'll be wrong someday, but not today and about you screwing your own posts and the information provided up. Get over yourself.... speaking of self absorbed.
And if I'm a Troll, then you must be a Tool..... Phillips perhaps?
The Phillips screwdriver is an effective tool - one in which my daughters have been instructed lethal use - if necessary. In this day and age and all, is it paranoia to exercise caution and teach kids self defense?
I don't need to get a 'f clue', and I don't need someone else deciding how I should feel.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to drinking the kool-aid.:roll:
When my kids were that age they slept when they felt like, and would often need walks in the evening, especially if teething fussiness hit. Note, if you reread the article, that it doesn't even say the attack was IN a liquor store.... it was out front. It was a 'liquor depot' liquor store, and not one of them in my neighborhood is a stand alone store. All are next to drug stores, video stores, pizza joints, etc.
Regardless, even if she was in the liquor store, you seem awfully hung up on making a value judgement about her shopping for alcohol... why is that? Is there something wrong with taking a child into a liquor store? or is it the drinking if you're a parent you find offensive?
Are you fk'n serious? Point it out? We've been arguing about the whole damn thing through this entire page!
FFS people:
I SAID:
"The drunk should have known better, but then perhaps he wasn't intoxicated at all and had a mental issue. Either way, no harm was done, no harm was intended by the actions (Obviously) and no threats were made."
YOU SAID:
"Again, you're changing the facts. The smell of booze is a pretty good clue."
I SAID:
"You want to tell me about changing the facts? How about you open the original article again and learning how to fk'n read and stop wasting my damn time:
"Cops said they believe alcohol was a factor."
^ Where does "Smell Booze" come into play in this? Do tell, for my ever-lover mind is ever-so damn egar to figure out how you came up with this one."
YOU SAID:
"Smell Booze" is reasonable cause for cops to believe alcohol was a factor."
I SAID:
"It can be one of many reasons why police may think alcohol was a factor..... but nobody said they smelled booze as you put it, therefore you're wrong in your assumption that the man smelled of alcohol. It could have been something similar to slurred speech, bad co-ordination in walking or hand/eye.... and once again, they didn't identify to whom that comment was issued about.... the mother or the man..... we only assume the man because of skewed crap like what you just tried to slip by, that you called me a troll for, as though that makes perfect sense"
Try and keep up next time.... you attempted to point out a fact.... a fact which does not exist, I pointed it out, you were wrong, you bitched that you wern't wrong, and through this entire spew of text and bounce backs, you seemed to have lost track and now asked me to "Point it Out"
^ It doesn't get much more pointed out then that. While you're at it, please look up what Logic actually means, because I sure's hell know what it means.
Oh and by the way... even if the police said "they believe alcohol was a factor" Doesn't mean that there actually was alcohol involved.... there might be a chance of it being a factor, but "Believe" is not "Fact"
Your long straw can only go so far... clue one of smell is irrelevent as nobody said anything about smell... the guy could have had a beer bottle in his coat, there are all kinds of various factors in this universe that can make them come to that conclusion.... but pulling "Smell" out of your ass is no different them me pulling "beer can in his hand" out of my ass..... it wasn't mentioned... IT'S NOT A FACT! You're still wrong!
How does "You're Wrong" ~ The You being yourself, and the Wrong being what you did was incorrect, somehow get twisted into my own concern of my righteousness? You're just plain wrong, I explained how you are wrong... I even just repeated why you are wrong in this post yet again.... and yet, it's all about me and I'm in the wrong? And that I'm sort of troll for pointing out your mistakes? Gee... sorry, next time I'll just let you continue to spew your crap all over the place.