Mr.R has a point. If it was in any other situation, a video of a woman slapping her son around wouldn’t be applauded. She’d be arrested and the DHS would be looking into it. Maybe she wouldn’t be punished, but they would certainly look into it.
I mean yeah, we all get the situation- the little kid was a fucking hoodlum raising hell and the mother was reigning him in. We want to cheer for her. But we arent the courts or the cops or the mother or the son or the DHS. We’re just some assholes watching T.V. and we shouldn’t get to decide anything.
The reason she isn’t being punished is the same reason Baltimore and Ferguson burned- because the justice system is taking a backseat to the media and the shrieking retards that believe what the media feeds them. That I personally don’t think she did anything wrong has fuck all to do with it, in the same way that the opinion of somebody watching T.V. in Toledo has fuck all to do with Ferguson. Jurisprudence is jurisprudence, and this is a society of laws.
If you want to argue that it shouldn't be illegal to slap your kids around like this, then fine, argue it. But no special exceptions because 'the viewers at home' are sufficiently moved by a news story, please.
Ok, So we can’t discuss opinions on a video with audio and knowledge of the whys and whats.
Mr. R’s point would be valid if it met what I pointed out.
I do not see that I have been emotional all.
If audio was not part of the video then the system would have arrested her if the person that took the video had brought it to the cops with her ID rather than post it or sell it to the media. But, since the media got it, got the evidence before the system, the system would be fighting a losing argument and wasting taxpayer money in a prosecution.
It was not a video of a random attack. It was a video of a parent defending and protecting her family.
I’m just saying that what you and I think about the situation doesnt matter. The news showed you some stuff and spun it the way they wanted to spin it. A kid was slapped around by his mother. I think that would usually result in an arrest and a DHS investigation. if I’m right, this should be no exception.
And that kid was bigger than his mother, she might have been arrested but, the age , size of the boy and culture would mean that the boy would not press charges or testify. That video is not enough to convict as I said before, arrest sure , convict, no.
Well, yeah, that’s all I’m saying is that an arrest should be made. If the kid doesn’t press charges or the court doesn’t find a problem, then fine. I’m just tired of people deciding what the legal process should be based on cable news sound bytes.
Kris in domestic violence cases, the victim doesn’t get to decide whether charges are pressed in most jurisdictions. It’s the state pressing charges for an assault in the same way they’d press charges for an attempted murder. I can’t walk into court and be like, “yeah this guy tried to murder me but I don’t want him to be in trouble”. That’s just not how it works.
I’d love to be sitting in court listening to a domestic assault case where the defense that the accused offered was, “he’s my son and a hoodlum and so I had to beat him up”.
I mean, that’s not a justification. It’s an admission of guilt.
Right now read what I said, testify or press charges.
The court cannot use that video alone as sole evidence.
Defense can claim they were playing around or it was staged. Prosecution would have to produce other evidence such as the victim or reliable eyewitnesses.
As I said a half ass lawyer could get her off if that video is the only evidence or witnesses are strangers. Enough doubt and its over especially if the kid testifies for the defense, which he most likely would.
What you are doing is the same thing you claim we are doing but, in the opposite direction. You know that a video is not enough to convict.
Perhaps it is an age difference thing as well. I don’t see that mom being remotely as harsh as the parents of my generation and older were. You see horrible violence and I see him getting off easy with love taps.
MR, this is precise the point that you are unable to get clearly so far.
First of all, there is a difference in beating for right reasons and wrong reasons.
A father may be beat his son for smoking. That is acceptable but if he beats his son for not bringing liquor from the shop, it is not acceptable.
Secondly, and more importantly, beating does not entail violence, as you are taking as a given. On the contrary, parental beating is aimed more at psychological punishment, rather than physical one.
Even In that video, the mother did not cause any real physical harm to her son. It was more an insult or harsh scolding than physical punishment.
Again, you would not able to understand this, unless you become a parent himself and find yourself in the same situation.
Mr. R. I find it interesting that in the immediate aftermath Toya Graham spoke of seeing her son in a hoodie and a mask.
The following day, during a CBS(?) studio interview, she spoke of seeing her son in hoodie, mask, “with a rock in his hand”.
In the US, black men have been known to be shot dead for doing far less. Given the circumstances I should say her actions were most appropriate.
Sanjay, this is America. It is illegal in many states for a parent to strike their child; it is definitely illegal to beat them. In even more civilized countries, like the Scandinavian ones, it is illegal to lay your hands on a child. Considering the low domestic violence, and other violence rates, in those countries, it’s time for the others to follow suit.
“Cultural ways” never trump the law of the land, unless you’ve received an exception for religious ritual. Using that logic, some Mormons would be legally and happily practicing polygamy right now. A parent has no more ethical or legal right to assault his or her child as that woman did than a man or woman has a cultural right to assault his or her partner. It’s a amazing how this country has become so violence-happy.
So as long as he’s not being gunned down or beaten to death by the police, then he should happily submit to being victimized in another way? Cause hey…it could be worse. He should just be happy about it. Is that what you mean?
Violence happy???
Ok since we are going down a path of ridiculous let us go the whole way. A parent should just say no do not touch the fire, if the kid goes and reaches for the fire repeatedly, ignoring mommy’s word , she must sit back and let her child be burned. She can only talk to the child legally, not restrain or smack the kid. The kid gets severely burned and mom gets arrested for neglect and abuse. Oh you don’t think it will go there??? Bullshit.
Parental authority down your path will be removed, state creches will be used. No family only state.
Yes, violence-happy; it perfectly describes your position. And your fire-touching anecdote is an irrelevant straw man…try to do better. We weren’t talking of a pre-cognitive child who cannot understand verbal advice or admonition. We were talking about a grown child who can listen to and understand verbal language. So, the woman had no ethical or legal right to verbally assault him. Only someone violence-happy like you would think so. Using your logic, we should cane drunk drivers; that would certainly keep them from driving drunk again. So, the only “bullshit” was your last post…
