Man arrested for nipple attack

[Praxius]

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?

Fair enough about the locational details.

About myself commenting on the mother possibly buying alcohol with her infant at late night (You might have had children stay up as late as they wanted, I was given a time pattern and was in bed at an early hour for as long as I could remember) My parents didn't take us to the liqour store, and if they did, we were left in the car, not allowed to go into the store "As it was for adults" when I was growing up.

My issue isn't with the mother buying alcohol and possibly drinking it, I have a minor flag raised when the information leans towards her not having someone around available to watch her child while she went to the store to get alcohol (That is, if she was there to get some in the first place) ~ Now where I am leading with that is that if she doesn't have someone to watch the child while she is doing this, does she have someone to watch the child while she gets her drink on later that night or will she be watching over her child intoxicated?

I ask that because my parents never drank unless they were away from us and we had a baby sitter or family member watching over us. Even my friends with children won't smoke or drink in front of their kids... let alone take them to the liqour store to get the stuff.

To me personally, dragging your kids into the liqour store is not much different then dragging them to the porn store..... it's adult stuff that they probably shouldn't be surrounded by and given the impression that those things are acceptible at their age or else why were they let in. Sure those things are acceptible for adults and we abuse the hell out of them plenty when we can.... but they don't need to know that right away

To sum up, the reason why I made that comment was because I was curious as to how many mothers actually do that with their children, because my parents never did, nor did most parents or friends I known.

Then it got twisted into thinking I was blaming her like some rape victim, and then all this went down this path.

 

[Praxius]

Man, you really hate it when folks won't see things your way, eh? :lol:

Woof!

No, just when they waste my damn time and don't read. I couldn't care less if you agree or disagree with me on a point of view.... just have your details straight as to why, even if I still disagree.

 

[lone wolf]

No, just when they waste my damn time and don't read.

THEY waste your time? :roll:

Who but you has more posts defending the undefendable with the utterly rediculous? The only one here wasting your time is you. If I want to read mindless nonsense, I'll read government documentation. You're pretty free with the accusations, then cry the blues when you're called up on them. THAT, my friend, paints you as TROLL.

 

[karrie]

To sum up, the reason why I made that comment was because I was curious as to how many mothers actually do that with their children, because my parents never did, nor did most parents or friends I known.

I see it a lot Prax. It's a store. You're not allowed to consume the stuff there. There's no age restriction on who walks in the door. If I walk down for our dental appointments, haircuts, movies, we'll stop in and grab whatever might be missing from around the house for alcohol. Leaving them outside is highly risky, even if they're in a vehicle. It's about the biggest no-no of parenting. Anyway, why shouldn't I buy a bottle of wine for Friday night's supper if I'm walking past with my kids on Thursday? And if I want to have a glass of wine, there's nothing wrong with that. Not to sound too judgemental, but, the only reason to not drink with your kids in the house, or treat it as if it's something akin to porn, is if you can't have a drink without getting snockered drunk.

 

[Praxius]

THEY waste your time? :roll:

Who but you has more posts defending the undefendable with the utterly rediculous?

Not my fault you can't keep up and understand at my level. And if you take everything I post seriously, then that's just silly.

The only one here wasting your time is you.

Correction... partially. It takes two to tango, and while I accept the consequences of my own actions, I can't accept you not being able to follow along with what's being debated.... you've just wasted two pages of a debate trying to argue about how one debates, rather then actually debating.

I did as well, however my time wasted was an attempt to guide the debate back on track, unlike yourself which has been nothing but bickering and complaining about facts that didn't exist in the first place and then attempting to call me a troll due to your own actions..... which is more sad?

If I want to read mindless nonsense, I'll read government documentation.

Here, let me help you with that:

Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada
http://www.fin.gc.ca/purl/afr-e.html

I found 2003-2004 very interesting and provocative.

You're pretty free with the accusations, then cry the blues when you're called up on them. THAT, my friend, paints you as TROLL.

I don't have a problem being called on them.... so long as they're right. However you were wrong, you bitched and complained when I said you were wrong, you bitched and moaned and then asked me for evidence to what I was calling you out for, I listed it all very clearly, and yet, rather then actually acknowleging where you screwed up, you're going on with more of this banter and moaning towards me for your own faults and calling me the troll.

Get over yourself, you're still wrong and unless you can provide a better argument for the guy attacking an infant with a rubber nipple..... you're still wrong.

What's the matter? Does the phrase "YOU'RE WRONG" pinch into your nerves a little?

Get a grip and move on.

Don't like what I have to say? Am I wasting your time too? Then why are you reading it?

See, this is of course a complete waste of time for me, which I commented about previously.... however I have different levels of "waste of time." You're wasting more of my time then I am wasting your time because you're not telling me anything new, while you might actually learn something from me

Lighten up.... geez.

By the way, you still didn't acknowlege where you screwed up after you requested to be shown.... care to piss off a little with your trolling comments? Skunks always smell their own farts as they say.

 

[EagleSmack]

My parents didn't take us to the liqour store, and if they did, we were left in the car, not allowed to go into the store "As it was for adults" when I was growing up.

Yikes. I'd take my chances with my kid(s) getting hit with a rubber nipple in a liquor store before leaving him/them in the car.

 

[lone wolf]

Not my fault you can't keep up and understand at my level. And if you take everything I post seriously, then that's just silly.



Correction... partially. It takes two to tango, and while I accept the consequences of my own actions, I can't accept you not being able to follow along with what's being debated.... you've just wasted two pages of a debate trying to argue about how one debates, rather then actually debating.

I did as well, however my time wasted was an attempt to guide the debate back on track, unlike yourself which has been nothing but bickering and complaining about facts that didn't exist in the first place and then attempting to call me a troll due to your own actions..... which is more sad?



Here, let me help you with that:

Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada
http://www.fin.gc.ca/purl/afr-e.html

I found 2003-2004 very interesting and provocative.



I don't have a problem being called on them.... so long as they're right. However you were wrong, you bitched and complained when I said you were wrong, you bitched and moaned and then asked me for evidence to what I was calling you out for, I listed it all very clearly, and yet, rather then actually acknowleging where you screwed up, you're going on with more of this banter and moaning towards me for your own faults and calling me the troll.

Get over yourself, you're still wrong and unless you can provide a better argument for the guy attacking an infant with a rubber nipple..... you're still wrong.

What's the matter? Does the phrase "YOU'RE WRONG" pinch into your nerves a little?

Get a grip and move on.

Don't like what I have to say? Am I wasting your time too? Then why are you reading it?

See, this is of course a complete waste of time for me, which I commented about previously.... however I have different levels of "waste of time." You're wasting more of my time then I am wasting your time because you're not telling me anything new, while you might actually learn something from me

Lighten up.... geez.

By the way, you still didn't acknowlege where you screwed up after you requested to be shown.... care to piss off a little with your trolling comments? Skunks always smell their own farts as they say.

I'm guessing you got beat up a lot

 

[Praxius]

I see it a lot Prax. It's a store. You're not allowed to consume the stuff there.

Yes you are.... free samples and all. (I'm nit picking here )

There's no age restriction on who walks in the door.

There are in bars and restaurants after a certain hour (Usually by 9pm) that minors are no longer allowed in, but I don't know if that's just where I live.

If I walk down for our dental appointments, haircuts, movies, we'll stop in and grab whatever might be missing from around the house for alcohol. Leaving them outside is highly risky, even if they're in a vehicle. It's about the biggest no-no of parenting.

Yeah, well I'm also talking about my 1980's childhood where The Goonies was a model of how kids should be and seatbelts were still an option, but for recent times, my friends who do drink don't head off to get their recreational substances unless they have someone to watch the kids, even if it's only for 5-10 mins.... all I'm saying is that I have never been brought into the liqour store with my parents as a child, my friends haven't done this with their own kids in my pressence, and to this day, I have never seen someone with their kids inside the liqour store... ever... (Then again, it might also just be a thing around here where I live)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it officially (Although personally I don't see bringing children in with you to get your controlled drugs as any better then leaving them out of the place all together for a few minutes with a friend or husband/wife, be that in the car or at home.) I am only attempting to state an observation I have noticed over time.

Anyway, why shouldn't I buy a bottle of wine for Friday night's supper if I'm walking past with my kids on Thursday?

We are about to get into a conflict of parenting opinions here which isn't going to go very well.... as I have apparently been brought up differently then you have been. Technically there isn't anything wrong with doing the above.... I never said there was. I just wouldn't do it myself, because it is something I was raised in not doing. Even when I asked my parents if I could come in, they yelled no at me, so I accepted that I wasn't allowed in.

I never started to drink until the age of 17 (which was quite a lot older then the rest of my friends when they started) and I honestly don't care too much for alcohol and hate the feeling of being drunk, let along being sick and hung over.... Perhaps this might have something to do with my restricted access to an alcoholic environment (Unknown) but one concern I might think of is the level of exposure at a younger age towards drugs and how they will view it when they are older.

And we already have all kinds of parents/people freaking about smoking around your kids and exposing them to that kind of environment, well what kind of message are you sending your kids when you drink around them?

I'm not about to answer that in any fashion because that's up to the parents imo.

And if I want to have a glass of wine, there's nothing wrong with that.

Nobody said you're not allowed to do any drugs after you have children.

Not to sound too judgemental, but, the only reason to not drink with your kids in the house, or treat it as if it's something akin to porn, is if you can't have a drink without getting snockered drunk.

Nope.. not in my case anyways. I can have a drink or two without getting smashed, but in a monkey see monkey do scenario, do you think a kids' gonna know when to cut themselves off when you're not around? And don't tell me it doesn't happen, because I know it does through people I've known through my childhood. They'd tell me they'd see their mom or dad drinking this stuff and they tried it before and felt all weird.... then they'd start trying to get us to drink the stuff and before we knew it, they failed a year, were no longer going to the same school as us and last I checked they were alcoholics.

I have a cousin who's an admitted alcoholic, he doesn't give a crap, it's more so a badge of honor for him.... but he's been drinking since the age of 12 or 13.... I can't remember. He's the same age as I currently am.

We already have everybody labeling marijuana as the big evil gateway drug, when everybody seems to forget that tobacco and alcohol are the very first gateway drugs, regardless if they're legal/controlled or not.... they are still drugs/narcotics. And how you treat those drugs around your kids will determine how your kids treat them.

At least that's how I see it, you can do whatever you wish with your kids.

 

[Praxius]

Yikes. I'd take my chances with my kid(s) getting hit with a rubber nipple in a liquor store before leaving him/them in the car.

I am telling you how it was... I didn't say it was right. it's pretty funny how people will judge their parenting and how wonderful it is when put up against parenting from the 70's/80's when half the damn laws we have in place now never existed....... :roll:

Not to mention back when I was a kid, society wasn't as screwed up as it is now and you could actually leave your kids unattended for a few seconds without some creep doing something.

Tell me some stories when you were a lad about how protective your parents were when you were a kid, and I'm sure it was even worse then when I was a kid in the 80's.... as you mentioned you're older then I..... you know... the whole Walk 7 miles in the snow to school and back, being thrown in the back of the pickup truck because there wasn't enough seats and barreling down the highway with your heads out the side with the dog's droll slapping you in the face from the passenger side window (That'll make ya think)

My primary point I was making is about getting someone else to watch your kid when you have to do certain things.

 

[tracy]

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.

In all fairness, it isn't always easy to reason with intoxicated people.

Last week I woke up at 1am to find a man I have never seen before in my living room. Me screaming, turning on the lights, grabbing knife and yelling at him to get out before I called the cops didn't get him to budge an inch. He looked me straight in the eye and told me this was his apartment.8O The only thing that got him out was my dog just about attacking him and even then he took his sweet time walking out the door. Then tried to come back in 2 minutes later when I was calling the cops to come get him. As it turns out he used to live there and they didn't change the locks when he moved out so his key still works. Fortunately he was harmless, but I can say without any doubt that I would have stabbed him had he been close enough for me to do so because I didn't know if he was harmless or not at the time. I chose not to press charges, but I told the cop to tell him he narrowly avoided getting stabbed and he should consider AA when he sobers up.

I'd do the same thing with this guy. If he can't control himself enough to know that hitting someone's baby is a bad idea, he's going to wind up getting himself into trouble.

 

[Praxius]

I'm guessing you got beat up a lot

yeah by yo moma.

But thanks for confirming my point about your own trolling ways by not actually responding to the debate presented to you or acknowleging the points you actually asked me to show you with the response as above.

Bravo.... I've entertained myself apon your corpes long enough in this debate and since it's gone beyond rubble nipple assault, there's no point in continuing in this thread..... moving on.

 

[karrie]

yeah by yo moma.

But thanks for confirming my point about your own trolling ways by not actually responding to the debate presented to you or acknowleging the points you actually asked me to show you with the response as above.

Bravo.... I've entertained myself apon your corpes long enough in this debate and since it's gone beyond rubble nipple assault, there's no point in continuing in this thread..... moving on.

With a trigger finger upon the neg rep button, I will instead tell you that you're being exceedingly arrogant to suddenly announce some imagined victory. I concur however that the thread has gone beyond absurd, and will take myself out of it, despite knowing you are dead wrong on all things under the sun today. lol... take that! :lol:

 

[Praxius]

Since the threads today are a bit slow, I'll respond one last time, just to urk.....

I didn't claim any victory on or over anybody... it is what it is. I just claimed that I wasn't going to play the game anymore (Nit picking who trolled what) and moving on to something a little more stimulating.

Although re-reading, I don't understand why I typed Corpes.... I think that was supposed to be Crap.... but either way, both are the same... decomposing waste.

Added:

By the way, feel free to give me all the negative rep you wish today, tomorrow, whenever.... I usually don't even remember that feature exists. And of course I'm dead wrong on everything under the sun today.... everything we've debated thus far has gone against much of your own opinion, so I'm not suprised I appear wrong to you..... even though I know I'm not :king:

 

[karrie]

Although re-reading, I don't understand why I typed Corpes.... :king:

corpes? I read corpses... hmmm... now it looks like a typo for individual. And here you only meant crap? Ow, my head.

Bah... you said corpses, thus implying your victory over the whole thread, and any more arguing about how I interpret your statements will earn you a severe redding. Ha!




*geez I hope he knows I'm pulling his leg*

 

[Praxius]

corpes? I read corpses... hmmm... now it looks like a typo for individual. And here you only meant crap? Ow, my head.

See that's why I was quitting the debate.... cuz even I was begining to mess up my typing and understanding from being skewed all over the place (I'm very fragile and that's why I try and keep close to the original topic )

Bah... you said corpses, thus implying your victory over the whole thread, and any more arguing about how I interpret your statements will earn you a severe redding. Ha!

*geez I hope he knows I'm pulling his leg*

Nah, "corpes" is what I got out of it.... I would assume Corpse too.... but then again, whenever I felt I won something online I've always used Stewie's "Victory is Mine" line and have a picture of him rubbing his crotch.... :lol:

 

[kat_83]

Get It Right

Yeah, you heard me right. An incident in Edmonton has seen a man arrested for 'assault with a weapon'. The weapon? The nipple of a baby bottle. The victim? The baby. He walked up to a woman on the street, grabbed her child's bottle, and hit the kid with it.

I have to say, it's a first as far as I've heard.


http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2008/05/26/5668011-sun.html

YOU PEOPLE IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE RETARDED COMMENTS GET THEM RIGHT THE BOTTLE NIPPLE WAS THE LEAST OF MY CONCERN........HE FLICKED THE BABY IN THE ****ING HEAD SO HARD THE BABY HAD AN INSTANT WELT.......AND THE BABY IS TWO MONTHS OLD DO AL YOU BLOODY PEOPLE GOT THAT 2 MONTHS 2 MONTHS 2MONTHS...DID IT SINK IN YET???? I HOPE SO AND ANYONE WHO FINDS NO REASON FOR SOMEONE TO BE CHARGED FOR ASSULTING A BABY NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET IT GOT IT GOOD

 

[kat_83]

A definate stance? The charges should be dropped, because they won't hold up on the guy. Assault with a weapon? A rubber nipple? Come on people.... unless the baby was alergic to rubber, then it couldn't be considdered assault for what was actually done.... let alone be labeled a weapon.... a weapon is something used to cause harm or death, no harm or death was going to occur to the child (And besides, even if the kid was alergic to rubber, why did the mother have it there in the first place?)

There maybe no excuse for this guy to do something as stupid as he did, but it doesn't even remotely come close to assault, let alone assault with a weapon.... and charging him with something I would considder could have been delt with so little as a warning, I think the mother and the authorities over-reacted to the situation.

the mother never wanted the guy charged with anything but assult for flicking her baby in the head so hard it left a welt and if cops didn`t take for bloody ever maybe they would have seen it instead of the remaining red mark. so i would be bashing the mother to much cause she just wants to see him suffer for flicking her baby in the head.

 

[kat_83]

the baby was 2 months old not 4 people need to get **** right and noone including the mother agrees with Mark Robert Nugent being charged with assult with a wepon or possesion of a wepon she just wants him charged with assult for flicking her 2 month old baby in the head and leaving a welt. Does noone think about the fact that a baby that small has soft spots on their heads and he could`ve cause brain damage. if you would all like to see what was actually said to the police and a copy of the actual police report you just let me know ok. As for the other ridiculous charges that was the doing of the police so quit blaming it on the mom like you know everything. DON`T ALWAYS BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ.:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::angryfire:

 

[karrie]

It's pretty damn clear we're talking about limited media releases. You don't walk in and bitch us out for the flaws of the sun's reporting. 2 months not 4? What SERIOUS difference does that make exactly? Does it change anything?

And how many times exactly through this discussion did people say 'but we weren't there... we can't know for sure'.

Welcome to CC and all, but geez, take it down a notch.

 

[kat_83]

You have a very good point....its not your guys fault you weren't provided with the proper information. There is a very large difference between 2 and 4 months a two month old baby's skull is alot less developed then a 4month old and their at a much higher risk of injury. My apologies i was just very work up from all this crap and all the crap i have people saying about my family when they should just shut up unless they know the truth.