On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:19:53 +1200, "E. Scrooge" <escrooge@no-spam (remove
eye)> wrote:
>
>"Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:beglnu$4rq0h$1@no-spam
>> I should never have read it.
>> It sickens me to the pit of my very stomach.
>> Stick a fork into his genitals and give it a good twist.
>>
>> I have a almost 4 yr old and to look at him and imagine someone doing that
>> to a child his age and size is just ........................ (can not
>think
>> of a word)
>>
>> Shalom,
>>
>> Nikki
>
>It's shocking to think that an adult could do such a thing to a 3 year old.
>The first punch would've been bad enough. It just seems unbelievable that
>such a thing could even happen to such a young child.
>
Hardly the first time it has ever happened .
>
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
"Col^" <Im@no-spam> wrote in message
news:R=ULPzKsTpz711bQnjCO5KOI2bvt@no-spam
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:19:53 +1200, "E. Scrooge" <escrooge@no-spam
(remove
> eye)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:beglnu$4rq0h$1@no-spam
> >> I should never have read it.
> >> It sickens me to the pit of my very stomach.
> >> Stick a fork into his genitals and give it a good twist.
> >>
> >> I have a almost 4 yr old and to look at him and imagine someone doing
that
> >> to a child his age and size is just ........................ (can not
> >think
> >> of a word)
> >>
> >> Shalom,
> >>
> >> Nikki
> >
> >It's shocking to think that an adult could do such a thing to a 3 year
old.
> >The first punch would've been bad enough. It just seems unbelievable
that
> >such a thing could even happen to such a young child.
> >
>
> Hardly the first time it has ever happened .
>
> --
> Col
No, but while they're different cases, they're all just as vicious. Each
time it happens it's still hard to imagine some thug choosing to attack a
small child like that. They deserve the worse penalty that the courts can
give them.
E. Scrooge
Col^ <Im@no-spam> wrote in message
news:R=ULPzKsTpz711bQnjCO5KOI2bvt@no-spam
>
> Hardly the first time it has ever happened .
>
>
> Col
>
> Col's law.
> Thinly sliced cabbage..
And sadly, it will not be the last :-(
Shalom,
Nikki
Kerry wrote :
He won't get done for murder because it wasn't premeditated. It
probably was, but just for that split second before he laid into him
with his fists. No doubt that was a method he frequently used.
I hope they throw the book at him, I fear the book will be more of a comic.
Dave Joll wrote :
High time the country got rid of that section of the crimes act
which legitimises this sort of evil.
Nikki replied :
With all due repsect, whilst I do not have a solution, a law change is not
going to do anything.
The speed limit is 50 Km/hr, people still speed.
Maybe, have life skills including parenting being taught in school ???
Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
I don't know - this kinda stuff is all a bit much for me.
Shalom,
Nikki
"Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote in message
news:behs61$4ssp7$1@no-spam
>
> Col^ <Im@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:R=ULPzKsTpz711bQnjCO5KOI2bvt@no-spam
> >
> > Hardly the first time it has ever happened .
> >
> >
> > Col
> >
> > Col's law.
> > Thinly sliced cabbage..
>
> And sadly, it will not be the last :-(
>
> Shalom,
>
> Nikki
The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other option but
life in prison.
A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
E. Scrooge
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:11:40 -0600
Me Here wrote:
> Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
>
Ageism!
People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
>
> The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other option
but
> life in prison.
> A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
>
> E. Scrooge
>
Gotta agree here. However the guy may well get off with a much lesser
sentence. Why? Because his lawyer claims he should not have been charged
with murder, because he (supposedly) did not intend to kill the kid when he
started laying into the wee tot with his fists.
The guy was apparently prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter.
Surely it is time that prior intent clause in the murder definition was
reviewed.
That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did this
guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
/\(**)/\
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:40:40 +1200, "Spidah" <nospam@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>>
>> The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other option
>but
>> life in prison.
>> A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
>>
>> E. Scrooge
>>
>
>Gotta agree here. However the guy may well get off with a much lesser
>sentence. Why? Because his lawyer claims he should not have been charged
>with murder, because he (supposedly) did not intend to kill the kid when he
>started laying into the wee tot with his fists.
>
>The guy was apparently prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter.
>
>Surely it is time that prior intent clause in the murder definition was
>reviewed.
>
>That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did this
>guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
I note the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. He remains in custody
pending a new trial.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3511891&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
--
Brian M. Harmer
"Spidah" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:iu3Pa.75082$JA5.1397060@no-spam
>
> >
> > The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other option
> but
> > life in prison.
> > A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
> >
> > E. Scrooge
> >
>
> Gotta agree here. However the guy may well get off with a much lesser
> sentence. Why? Because his lawyer claims he should not have been charged
> with murder, because he (supposedly) did not intend to kill the kid when
he
> started laying into the wee tot with his fists.
>
> The guy was apparently prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter.
>
> Surely it is time that prior intent clause in the murder definition was
> reviewed.
>
> That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did this
> guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
>
> /\(**)/\
After the first punch he must've realised that he had badly injured the boy.
To carry on after that punching a 3 year old could only be murder.
Of course to drive the murder charge home, the bastard admitted that he
kneed the boy in the stomach was the boy was on the floor. Just that alone
could've been more than enough to kill the boy.
Be good to know if the foster mother tried to stop him, though she would've
probably got a punch in the face at least from the gutless tough guy as
well.
He wasn't teaching the boy anything, the tough guy just wanted to hurt the
boy as much as he could. It's still murder. No different if someone shoots
and kills someone else, later claiming that they didn't intend to kill them.
My bet is that the bastard will get less than the 11 years that the
kidnapper of baby Kahu got.
There should be a street appeal with the blood money from it to buy off a
Judge to give the bastard the life prison sentence that the bastard
deserves.
E. Scrooge
Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
> Me Here wrote:
>
>
> > Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
> >
>
> Ageism!
> People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
>
lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to perhaps
train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
I don't know.
Meanwhile, children are being abused and some dying as a result :-(
Shalom,
Nikki
"Brian Harmer" <brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:eripgv0nk40pql9m6loe2d14rcv712g3df@no-spam
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:40:40 +1200, "Spidah" <nospam@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other
option
> >but
> >> life in prison.
> >> A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
> >>
> >> E. Scrooge
> >>
> >
> >Gotta agree here. However the guy may well get off with a much lesser
> >sentence. Why? Because his lawyer claims he should not have been charged
> >with murder, because he (supposedly) did not intend to kill the kid when
he
> >started laying into the wee tot with his fists.
> >
> >The guy was apparently prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter.
> >
> >Surely it is time that prior intent clause in the murder definition was
> >reviewed.
> >
> >That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did
this
> >guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
>
> I note the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. He remains in custody
> pending a new trial.
>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3511891&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=general
> --
> Brian M. Harmer
I bet if given the chance that a doctor could've said that the first few
punches would've been more than enough to kill the boy. Then for an adult
to knee the 3 year old in the stomach, the boy might not even have survived
from that alone.
It shouldn't have taken more than 2 seconds to find the bastard guilty of
murder. He showed no mercy to the 3 year old boy while he was punching away
at his limp little body. Either the prosecution case for murder was a piss
poor one, or half of the Jury was made up of gutless thugs that support the
guy.
E. Scrooge
> I note the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. He remains in custody
> pending a new trial.
>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3511891&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=general
> --
> Brian M. Harmer
Hadn't seen this article. Admittedly the the lack of guts on the part of the
jurors is hardly surprising...
For the information of anyone interested here is the definition of murder
from the Crimes Act:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
167.Murder defined-
Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:
(a)If the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:
(b)If the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury
that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless
whether death ensues or not:
(c)If the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as
aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and
by accident or mistake kills another person, though he does not mean to hurt
the person killed:
(d)If the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he knows to be
likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have
desired that his object should be effected without hurting any one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
I would have thought clause (c) would be enough in this case
/\(**)/\
In article <jk4Pa.75126$JA5.1398191@no-spam>, nospam@no-spam
says...
>
> > I note the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. He remains in custody
> > pending a new trial.
> >
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3511891&thesection=news&t
> hesubsection=general
> > --
> > Brian M. Harmer
>
> Hadn't seen this article. Admittedly the the lack of guts on the part of the
> jurors is hardly surprising...
No it means they were unable to reach a unanimous outcome, meaning some
agreed and some disagreed with the prosecution case.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:04:26 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
<escrooge@no-spam (remove eye)> wrote:
[msge snipped]
>The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other option but
>life in prison.
>A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
>
>E. Scrooge
>
I couldn't agree more!
It shocks me time after time to see how little value is placed on the
lives of children and infants in NZ.
The man or woman living next door to you, or next to a school, could
well be a convicted sex offender; convicted of child abuse et al and
few would know.
Here in TX as in many States, the moment a child is endangered, the
child is removed from the family home immediately [or care-giver].
Yes, we have a children's home situated not far from where we live.
In this day and age, I am still a believer that such children's homes
should exist.
Publication of a convicted sex offender's photo, and brief details
should be mandatory in every NZ paper where the offender resides.
Notification of any moves to the Police along with restrictions about
how close they may live to a school or any facility where children
congregate [park, YM etc.].
A list available online [many Counties in the US now offer this] of
where convicted sex offenders live should be made available.
Cath
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:26:33 +1200, "Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
>> Me Here wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
>> >
>>
>> Ageism!
>> People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
>>
>
>lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
>
>As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to perhaps
>train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
>
I had 2 children by the time I was 25, and certainly there was no
coporal punishment in our home. Age isn;t the solution
Neither is locking them up for a long time a good prevention, people
don't tend to think of consequences when they use hitting small
children as a valid method of 'discipline'. I think people who abuse
children should be locked up for a long time to reflect societal
abhorrence of beating children. But society doesn't abhor it enough
yet...
Prevention, there's the tricky one. I suspect stating and reiterating
that abusing children is wrong is a good start, cycles need to be
broken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:40:40 +1200, "Spidah" <nospam@no-spam>
wrote:
>That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did this
>guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
Because anyone without a criminal record can get to foster, and foster
agencies are desperate for carers and take what they can get
If foster parents were paid a decent wage then more decent people
could afford it as an occupation, and WINZ could say no to a few
people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:13:31 +1200, Brian Harmer
<brian.harmer@no-spam> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:40:40 +1200, "Spidah" <nospam@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other option
>>but
>>> life in prison.
>>> A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
>>>
>>> E. Scrooge
>>>
>>
>>Gotta agree here. However the guy may well get off with a much lesser
>>sentence. Why? Because his lawyer claims he should not have been charged
>>with murder, because he (supposedly) did not intend to kill the kid when he
>>started laying into the wee tot with his fists.
>>
>>The guy was apparently prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter.
>>
>>Surely it is time that prior intent clause in the murder definition was
>>reviewed.
>>
>>That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did this
>>guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
>
>I note the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. He remains in custody
>pending a new trial.
Hard to believe.
I wonder how much the fact that using 'reasonable force' is
permissable by law confuses jurors about what is and isn' reasonable
chastisement of children? It's been used to get very brutal people
off of child abuse charges before
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:02:42 +1200, Mainlander <*@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <jk4Pa.75126$JA5.1398191@no-spam>, nospam@no-spam
>says...
>>
>> > I note the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. He remains in custody
>> > pending a new trial.
>> >
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3511891&thesection=news&t
>> hesubsection=general
>> > --
>> > Brian M. Harmer
>>
>> Hadn't seen this article. Admittedly the the lack of guts on the part of the
>> jurors is hardly surprising...
>
>
>No it means they were unable to reach a unanimous outcome, meaning some
>agreed and some disagreed with the prosecution case.
>
Because society gives such mixed messages about when it is and isn't
ok to hit kids? Or because of the burden of proof of a murder charge?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Kerry" <kerryd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0d1764.116514749@no-spam
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:26:33 +1200, "Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
> >> Me Here wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ageism!
> >> People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
> >>
> >
> >lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
> >
> >As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to
perhaps
> >train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
> >
>
> I had 2 children by the time I was 25, and certainly there was no
> coporal punishment in our home. Age isn;t the solution
>
> Neither is locking them up for a long time a good prevention, people
> don't tend to think of consequences when they use hitting small
> children as a valid method of 'discipline'. I think people who abuse
> children should be locked up for a long time to reflect societal
> abhorrence of beating children. But society doesn't abhor it enough
> yet...
>
>
> Prevention, there's the tricky one. I suspect stating and reiterating
> that abusing children is wrong is a good start, cycles need to be
> broken.
What cycle?
While some abused kids could later end up abusing their kids, that doesn't
mean that every kid that's been abused is going to do the same to their own
kids.
It's fact that some people will treat a bastard differently if that bastard
very conveniently chooses to have been abused over 30 years ago when he was
a kid.
Out of those that have conveniently spoken up about being abused themselves,
how many would be truly genuine cases?
Even some bastard recently was caught out claiming to have been abused by
someone within the church, with the church paying up thousands of dollars to
the bastard for something that never even happened to him. Once he saw what
some genuine victims were getting paid out, that bastard decided to cash in
on it.
Same could be said once scum end up in court for abusing their kids, they
play the old sympathy card that the courts should feel just as sorry for
them as the kids that they abused. By conveniently (and for the very first
time most likely in such cases) choosing to speak up about what rotten lives
they had, which is then meant to be a fair enough reason why they made their
own kids have lives of Hell.
There may well be a genuine cycle for the violence in a few cases, but that
doesn't mean that's the main problem for every such case.
It's much the same as when an adult kills another adult, or a child for that
matter. They then claim that it's okay as it wasn't really murder because
they were conveniently loopy at the time they did it. Once again some
people could well have been genuinely insane at the time, while others not
being the fools that they want people to think, play the old insanity at the
time sympathy card knowing full well that the courts will go easier on them.
Trying to simply blame it all on cycles is the easy way out. If the
bastards got the same sentence whether they were abused or not, the ones
making the false claims about it wouldn't bother making them in the first
place if they knew that they no longer had anything to gain from making
them.
Take away all the simple expected sympathy cards from the buggers that only
conveniently come out at the very same time that they just happen to be in
deep shit up to their necks.
For some adults that were genuinely abused in their childhoods, but would
never treat their kids like they once were. Seeing these cases must be hard
for some of them with the memories they have from their childhood. Then
they have to put with listening to a 20 stone thug claim to the courts that
he only tortured his child to death because he was abused himself. To bad
there's no way to look back in time to check a lot of these claims out.
E. Scrooge
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:22:17 +1200, "E. Scrooge" <escrooge@no-spam (remove
eye)> wrote:
>
>"Spidah" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:iu3Pa.75082$JA5.1397060@no-spam
>>
>> >
>> > The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other option
>> but
>> > life in prison.
>> > A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
>> >
>> > E. Scrooge
>> >
>>
>> Gotta agree here. However the guy may well get off with a much lesser
>> sentence. Why? Because his lawyer claims he should not have been charged
>> with murder, because he (supposedly) did not intend to kill the kid when
>he
>> started laying into the wee tot with his fists.
>>
>> The guy was apparently prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter.
>>
>> Surely it is time that prior intent clause in the murder definition was
>> reviewed.
>>
>> That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did this
>> guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
>>
>> /\(**)/\
>
>After the first punch he must've realised that he had badly injured the boy.
>To carry on after that punching a 3 year old could only be murder.
>Of course to drive the murder charge home, the bastard admitted that he
>kneed the boy in the stomach was the boy was on the floor. Just that alone
>could've been more than enough to kill the boy.
>Be good to know if the foster mother tried to stop him, though she would've
>probably got a punch in the face at least from the gutless tough guy as
>well.
>
>He wasn't teaching the boy anything, the tough guy just wanted to hurt the
>boy as much as he could. It's still murder. No different if someone shoots
>and kills someone else, later claiming that they didn't intend to kill them.
>
>My bet is that the bastard will get less than the 11 years that the
>kidnapper of baby Kahu got.
>
>There should be a street appeal with the blood money from it to buy off a
>Judge to give the bastard the life prison sentence that the bastard
>deserves.
>
>E. Scrooge
>
*Yawn *
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:27:10 +1200, "E. Scrooge" <e.scrooge@no-spam
(remove eye)> wrote:
>
>"Kerry" <kerryd@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f0d1764.116514749@no-spam
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:26:33 +1200, "Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
>> >> Me Here wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Ageism!
>> >> People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
>> >>
>> >
>> >lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
>> >
>> >As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to
>perhaps
>> >train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
>> >
>>
>> I had 2 children by the time I was 25, and certainly there was no
>> coporal punishment in our home. Age isn;t the solution
>>
>> Neither is locking them up for a long time a good prevention, people
>> don't tend to think of consequences when they use hitting small
>> children as a valid method of 'discipline'. I think people who abuse
>> children should be locked up for a long time to reflect societal
>> abhorrence of beating children. But society doesn't abhor it enough
>> yet...
>>
>>
>> Prevention, there's the tricky one. I suspect stating and reiterating
>> that abusing children is wrong is a good start, cycles need to be
>> broken.
>
>What cycle?
>While some abused kids could later end up abusing their kids, that doesn't
>mean that every kid that's been abused is going to do the same to their own
>kids.
>
>It's fact that some people will treat a bastard differently if that bastard
>very conveniently chooses to have been abused over 30 years ago when he was
>a kid.
>Out of those that have conveniently spoken up about being abused themselves,
>how many would be truly genuine cases?
>Even some bastard recently was caught out claiming to have been abused by
>someone within the church, with the church paying up thousands of dollars to
>the bastard for something that never even happened to him. Once he saw what
>some genuine victims were getting paid out, that bastard decided to cash in
>on it.
>Same could be said once scum end up in court for abusing their kids, they
>play the old sympathy card that the courts should feel just as sorry for
>them as the kids that they abused. By conveniently (and for the very first
>time most likely in such cases) choosing to speak up about what rotten lives
>they had, which is then meant to be a fair enough reason why they made their
>own kids have lives of Hell.
>
>There may well be a genuine cycle for the violence in a few cases, but that
>doesn't mean that's the main problem for every such case.
>It's much the same as when an adult kills another adult, or a child for that
>matter. They then claim that it's okay as it wasn't really murder because
>they were conveniently loopy at the time they did it. Once again some
>people could well have been genuinely insane at the time, while others not
>being the fools that they want people to think, play the old insanity at the
>time sympathy card knowing full well that the courts will go easier on them.
>
>Trying to simply blame it all on cycles is the easy way out. If the
>bastards got the same sentence whether they were abused or not, the ones
>making the false claims about it wouldn't bother making them in the first
>place if they knew that they no longer had anything to gain from making
>them.
>Take away all the simple expected sympathy cards from the buggers that only
>conveniently come out at the very same time that they just happen to be in
>deep shit up to their necks.
>
>For some adults that were genuinely abused in their childhoods, but would
>never treat their kids like they once were. Seeing these cases must be hard
>for some of them with the memories they have from their childhood. Then
>they have to put with listening to a 20 stone thug claim to the courts that
>he only tortured his child to death because he was abused himself. To bad
>there's no way to look back in time to check a lot of these claims out.
>
>E. Scrooge
>
3 bastards and only 1 bugger. Slipping aren't you. ?
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
"Col^" <Im@no-spam> wrote in message
news:xTUNP1qjuC3YfmLPNuKnJzxBFw2o@no-spam
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:22:17 +1200, "E. Scrooge" <escrooge@no-spam
(remove
> eye)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Spidah" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:iu3Pa.75082$JA5.1397060@no-spam
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The bastards need to be hit a lot harder by the courts. No other
option
> >> but
> >> > life in prison.
> >> > A far higher value needs to be put on the welfare of young children.
> >> >
> >> > E. Scrooge
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gotta agree here. However the guy may well get off with a much lesser
> >> sentence. Why? Because his lawyer claims he should not have been
charged
> >> with murder, because he (supposedly) did not intend to kill the kid
when
> >he
> >> started laying into the wee tot with his fists.
> >>
> >> The guy was apparently prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter.
> >>
> >> Surely it is time that prior intent clause in the murder definition was
> >> reviewed.
> >>
> >> That aside, another question also rquires an answer. How the fuck did
this
> >> guy get to foster the kid in the first place?
> >>
> >> /\(**)/\
> >
> >After the first punch he must've realised that he had badly injured the
boy.
> >To carry on after that punching a 3 year old could only be murder.
> >Of course to drive the murder charge home, the bastard admitted that he
> >kneed the boy in the stomach was the boy was on the floor. Just that
alone
> >could've been more than enough to kill the boy.
> >Be good to know if the foster mother tried to stop him, though she
would've
> >probably got a punch in the face at least from the gutless tough guy as
> >well.
> >
> >He wasn't teaching the boy anything, the tough guy just wanted to hurt
the
> >boy as much as he could. It's still murder. No different if someone
shoots
> >and kills someone else, later claiming that they didn't intend to kill
them.
> >
> >My bet is that the bastard will get less than the 11 years that the
> >kidnapper of baby Kahu got.
> >
> >There should be a street appeal with the blood money from it to buy off a
> >Judge to give the bastard the life prison sentence that the bastard
> >deserves.
> >
> >E. Scrooge
> >
> *Yawn *
> --
>
> Col
My God! Are you still up?
Damn! I forgot about your school holidays starting.
E. Scrooge
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:27:10 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
<e.scrooge@no-spam (remove eye)> wrote:
>
>"Kerry" <kerryd@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f0d1764.116514749@no-spam
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:26:33 +1200, "Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
>> >> Me Here wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Ageism!
>> >> People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
>> >>
>> >
>> >lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
>> >
>> >As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to
>perhaps
>> >train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
>> >
>>
>> I had 2 children by the time I was 25, and certainly there was no
>> coporal punishment in our home. Age isn;t the solution
>>
>> Neither is locking them up for a long time a good prevention, people
>> don't tend to think of consequences when they use hitting small
>> children as a valid method of 'discipline'. I think people who abuse
>> children should be locked up for a long time to reflect societal
>> abhorrence of beating children. But society doesn't abhor it enough
>> yet...
>>
>>
>> Prevention, there's the tricky one. I suspect stating and reiterating
>> that abusing children is wrong is a good start, cycles need to be
>> broken.
>
>What cycle?
>While some abused kids could later end up abusing their kids, that doesn't
>mean that every kid that's been abused is going to do the same to their own
>kids.
>
>It's fact that some people will treat a bastard differently if that bastard
>very conveniently chooses to have been abused over 30 years ago when he was
>a kid.
But people who abuse have almost universally been abused themselves,
the difference in rates oif abuse between adults who were and were not
abused themselves is significant.
Studies would seem to prove you wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Kerry" <kerryd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0d38e3.125090220@no-spam
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:27:10 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
> <e.scrooge@no-spam (remove eye)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kerry" <kerryd@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:3f0d1764.116514749@no-spam
> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:26:33 +1200, "Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
> >> >> Me Here wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course
???
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Ageism!
> >> >> People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
> >> >
> >> >As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to
> >perhaps
> >> >train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
> >> >
> >>
> >> I had 2 children by the time I was 25, and certainly there was no
> >> coporal punishment in our home. Age isn;t the solution
> >>
> >> Neither is locking them up for a long time a good prevention, people
> >> don't tend to think of consequences when they use hitting small
> >> children as a valid method of 'discipline'. I think people who abuse
> >> children should be locked up for a long time to reflect societal
> >> abhorrence of beating children. But society doesn't abhor it enough
> >> yet...
> >>
> >>
> >> Prevention, there's the tricky one. I suspect stating and reiterating
> >> that abusing children is wrong is a good start, cycles need to be
> >> broken.
> >
> >What cycle?
> >While some abused kids could later end up abusing their kids, that
doesn't
> >mean that every kid that's been abused is going to do the same to their
own
> >kids.
> >
> >It's fact that some people will treat a bastard differently if that
bastard
> >very conveniently chooses to have been abused over 30 years ago when he
was
> >a kid.
>
> But people who abuse have almost universally been abused themselves,
> the difference in rates oif abuse between adults who were and were not
> abused themselves is significant.
>
> Studies would seem to prove you wrong.
That's all fair enough, but are a lot of the studies done from people trying
to get lighter sentences?
I just think that there's nothing to stop some bullshit claims getting
included into the genuine claims. Just like when compensation money is
waved round for anyone abused by church people etc, others start to come out
of the woodwork as well just to join the queue of genuine victims just to
get some easy money.
I think it's unfair to make such claims, when most likely a lot of people
that had a rough childhood never later chose to abuse their own kids as you
would be expecting them to. Since these people never end up in court for
abusing their kids (because they never chose to), how then do such people
get included into the equation of once being abused themselves if they never
bother to actually say so?
Studies can only tell so much and with a few false claims thrown in for good
measure. One has to consider these things are possible when looking at any
such studies - too many unknown factors one way or the other, just can't be
accounted for when it comes to the investigations into such studies.
You're going to hear from a lot more child abusers that are before the
courts about once being abused themselves, than from people that could've
once been abused but have never been before the courts for abusing a child
themselves.
And I could put money on such a bet about that.
I think if the studies didn't include anyone that's gone to court for child
abuse, that those studies would be a lot more realistic, as they most likely
wouldn't include very many false claims at all.
E. Scrooge
"Spidah" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:WAbPa.75470$JA5.1409323@no-spam
>
> "Mainlander" <*@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19779e7a17ca994398995b@no-spam
> > In article <jk4Pa.75126$JA5.1398191@no-spam>, nospam@no-spam
> > says...
> > >
> > > > I note the Jury was unable to reach a verdict. He remains in custody
> > > > pending a new trial.
> > > >
> > >
>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3511891&thesection=news&t
> > > hesubsection=general
> > > > --
> > > > Brian M. Harmer
> > >
> > > Hadn't seen this article. Admittedly the the lack of guts on the part
of
> the
> > > jurors is hardly surprising...
> >
> >
> > No it means they were unable to reach a unanimous outcome, meaning some
> > agreed and some disagreed with the prosecution case.
> >
>
> They disagreed on whether or not the guy intended to kill the kid when he
> started laying into the tyke with his fists!
>
> Like I said before the need to prove prior intent to kill needs a rethink!
It's a pretty bloody strange damn situation really. Some people are giving
the bugger the benefit of the doubt that he didn't want to kill the boy.
And yet the guy never stopped to give the boy the benefit of the doubt that
might've had enough, and at the very least be in a Hell of a lot of pain.
While he was punching the boy, why didn't he stop to give the boy a chance
by checking how badly he was injuring the boy? Even after stopping to at
least check the boy, there was nothing to stop him from still punching the
boy again.
If there's any doubt in verdict let it be on the poor boy's side by agreeing
that the bugger had intended to punch the boy to death which is exactly what
he did anyway. Bugger this "not sure about him" nonsense. He never stopped
after the first punch to see for sure how badly the boy was injured. He
doesn't deserve to have his crime reduced to manslaughter. He never reduced
his attack on the 3 year old boy, to just giving the boy a sore backside for
a couple of minutes.
Fuck all the pussy footing around him, they should give the 40 year adult
exactly the same chance that he gave the boy - NO chance at all. If the guy
had used a knife on the boy, would the jury still have been in disagreement?
The end results of a knife attack wouldn't have been any different as far as
the dead boy is concerned - he'd still be just as dead. Punches, knives or
even bullets would've still got the same result - one dead little 3 year old
boy.
I think most people would have an idea what a knee hard in the guts would
feel like, to do that to a little 3 year old boy is just plain sick and most
likely very deadly.
E. Scrooge
>> But people who abuse have almost universally been abused themselves,
>> the difference in rates oif abuse between adults who were and were not
>> abused themselves is significant.
From my observations:
Children are abused.
Abusers, hardly without exception, claim the reason why they abuse is
because they were abused.
The above is sad and true.
But one point I would like considered is the number of acrimonious
family disputes where the [normally the father] father is accused by
the mother of molesting their children.
The one way to relief themselves of the marriage baggage they don't
want and to ensure the father has no more contact with the child
[other than to see his bank balance go down due to the child
maintenance payments].
There is a very interesting court case at CHCH at the moment re
accusations of sexual abuse. As it is still in progress I can make no
comment.
I am aware of 6 cases at the moment where the accusers are or were in
the age range of 13 - 15 when they made accusations of being sexually
abused.
At this age not only are they 'street wise', too many are 'accuse
wise.'
Just as no one can say for certain that they have or have not been
sexually abused, the evidence that I have seen presented, errs heavily
in my view to show that New Zealand is heading to an epidemic of false
claims of sexual abuse.
One of the major damages such lies cause, is that when a child has
suffered the terrible trauma of sexual abuse, these innocent victims
will not be believed or even supported as they should, because people
hear the cry 'wolf' so often nowadays, and they don't have the
resources or the person power to investigate properly to help them.
The tax payer should breathe a sigh of relief each time a falsely
accused father or date partner, teacher [whoever] has his case signed
with a 'NOT QUILTY' stamp.
To be abused must be a terrible experience.
To be falsely accused can be just as terrible.
Not only emotionally but also financially.
The injustice of being falsely accused and having the added abuse of
being found 'guilty' is to me an experience I cannot even claim to try
to comprehend.
Yes there are some who are guilty who will never allow themselves to
admit they are guilty.
The depths of depravity that they have sunk to, in my opinion should
mean they should not have their freedom.
But their are others who have been found guilty of crimes they did not
forget. They have the stigma attached to them such as Bunyan wrote of
Pilgrim's Progress forever upon their shoulder.
Why? because we seldom hear those who have made false accusations
admit to what they have done.
To me they are just as despicable as those who have abused children
and fail to admit it.
Fathers and mothers do abuse, but when will we hear the false accusing
mothers withdraw the false allegations.
If they are waiting for the right weather conditions, it may be cold,
but hell will never freeze over, therefore the apologies will never
come and families will be stranged and seperated until they are to old
to repair the damage these lies and false accusations have caused.
As a nation we are not very healthy in the way we treat each other.
I believe many native tribes in poverty stricken countries put us to
shame.
To enter into an arguement as to numbers and percentages will not help
these people.
Guilt is guilt.
Abuse is abuse.
but they prefer
W e
A re
R ight
and what some people will do for a pottle of popcorn or the efforts
they will go to to get revenge for someone they now realise they want
nothing to do with.
Cheers and fears *
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:27:56 +1200, Joe <JoeBloggs@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>> But people who abuse have almost universally been abused themselves,
>>> the difference in rates oif abuse between adults who were and were not
>>> abused themselves is significant.
>
>From my observations:
>Children are abused.
>Abusers, hardly without exception, claim the reason why they abuse is
>because they were abused.
>The above is sad and true.
>But one point I would like considered is the number of acrimonious
>family disputes where the [normally the father] father is accused by
>the mother of molesting their children.
>The one way to relief themselves of the marriage baggage they don't
>want and to ensure the father has no more contact with the child
>[other than to see his bank balance go down due to the child
>maintenance payments].
>
>There is a very interesting court case at CHCH at the moment re
>accusations of sexual abuse. As it is still in progress I can make no
>comment.
>
>I am aware of 6 cases at the moment where the accusers are or were in
>the age range of 13 - 15 when they made accusations of being sexually
>abused.
>
>At this age not only are they 'street wise', too many are 'accuse
>wise.'
>
>Just as no one can say for certain that they have or have not been
>sexually abused, the evidence that I have seen presented, errs heavily
>in my view to show that New Zealand is heading to an epidemic of false
>claims of sexual abuse.
>One of the major damages such lies cause, is that when a child has
>suffered the terrible trauma of sexual abuse, these innocent victims
>will not be believed or even supported as they should, because people
>hear the cry 'wolf' so often nowadays, and they don't have the
>resources or the person power to investigate properly to help them.
>The tax payer should breathe a sigh of relief each time a falsely
>accused father or date partner, teacher [whoever] has his case signed
>with a 'NOT QUILTY' stamp.
>
>To be abused must be a terrible experience.
>To be falsely accused can be just as terrible.
>Not only emotionally but also financially.
>The injustice of being falsely accused and having the added abuse of
>being found 'guilty' is to me an experience I cannot even claim to try
>to comprehend.
>Yes there are some who are guilty who will never allow themselves to
>admit they are guilty.
>The depths of depravity that they have sunk to, in my opinion should
>mean they should not have their freedom.
*************
>But there are others who have been found guilty of crimes they did not do, but not only falsely accused they will never be allowed to
>forget. [correction from previous post]
*************
They have the stigma attached to them such as Bunyan wrote of
>Pilgrim's Progress forever upon their shoulder.
>Why? because we seldom hear those who have made false accusations
>admit to what they have done.
>To me they are just as despicable as those who have abused children
>and fail to admit it.
>Fathers and mothers do abuse, but when will we hear the false accusing
>mothers withdraw the false allegations.
>If they are waiting for the right weather conditions, it may be cold,
>but hell will never freeze over, therefore the apologies will never
>come and families will be stranged and seperated until they are to old
>to repair the damage these lies and false accusations have caused.
>
>As a nation we are not very healthy in the way we treat each other.
> I believe many native tribes in poverty stricken countries put us to
>shame.
>
>To enter into an arguement as to numbers and percentages will not help
>these people.
>Guilt is guilt.
>Abuse is abuse.
>but they prefer
>
>W e
>A re
>R ight
>
>and what some people will do for a pottle of popcorn or the efforts
>they will go to to get revenge for someone they now realise they want
>nothing to do with.
>
>Cheers and fears *
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:56 -0600
Kerry wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:27:10 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
> <e.scrooge@no-spam (remove eye)> wrote:
>
>
>>"Kerry" <kerryd@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:3f0d1764.116514749@no-spam
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:26:33 +1200, "Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>>news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
>>>>
>>>>>Me Here wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Ageism!
>>>>>People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
>>>>
>>>>As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to
>>>>
>>perhaps
>>
>>>>train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I had 2 children by the time I was 25, and certainly there was no
>>>coporal punishment in our home. Age isn;t the solution
>>>
>>>Neither is locking them up for a long time a good prevention, people
>>>don't tend to think of consequences when they use hitting small
>>>children as a valid method of 'discipline'. I think people who abuse
>>>children should be locked up for a long time to reflect societal
>>>abhorrence of beating children. But society doesn't abhor it enough
>>>yet...
>>>
>>>
>>>Prevention, there's the tricky one. I suspect stating and reiterating
>>>that abusing children is wrong is a good start, cycles need to be
>>>broken.
>>>
>>What cycle?
>>While some abused kids could later end up abusing their kids, that doesn't
>>mean that every kid that's been abused is going to do the same to their own
>>kids.
>>
>>It's fact that some people will treat a bastard differently if that bastard
>>very conveniently chooses to have been abused over 30 years ago when he was
>>a kid.
>>
>
> But people who abuse have almost universally been abused themselves,
> the difference in rates oif abuse between adults who were and were not
> abused themselves is significant.
>
> Studies would seem to prove you wrong.
Yes and while this is true, it is a REASON for it happening, NOT an excuse.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:12:56 -0600, Luthien <luthien@no-spam>
wrote:
>Kerry wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:27:10 +1200, "E. Scrooge"
>> <e.scrooge@no-spam (remove eye)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Kerry" <kerryd@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>news:3f0d1764.116514749@no-spam
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:26:33 +1200, "Me Here" <Me@no-spam> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Luthien <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3F0CBD4C.1050600@no-spam
>>>>>
>>>>>>Me Here wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyone under 25 having their first child go on a parenting course ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ageism!
>>>>>>People under 25 years old are not necessarily more violent..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>lol, I thought similar things as I was typing.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I said, I don't know what the solution is, but is it possible to
>>>>>
>>>perhaps
>>>
>>>>>train/educate would be parents before it gets to this???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I had 2 children by the time I was 25, and certainly there was no
>>>>coporal punishment in our home. Age isn;t the solution
>>>>
>>>>Neither is locking them up for a long time a good prevention, people
>>>>don't tend to think of consequences when they use hitting small
>>>>children as a valid method of 'discipline'. I think people who abuse
>>>>children should be locked up for a long time to reflect societal
>>>>abhorrence of beating children. But society doesn't abhor it enough
>>>>yet...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prevention, there's the tricky one. I suspect stating and reiterating
>>>>that abusing children is wrong is a good start, cycles need to be
>>>>broken.
>>>>
>>>What cycle?
>>>While some abused kids could later end up abusing their kids, that doesn't
>>>mean that every kid that's been abused is going to do the same to their own
>>>kids.
>>>
>>>It's fact that some people will treat a bastard differently if that bastard
>>>very conveniently chooses to have been abused over 30 years ago when he was
>>>a kid.
>>>
>>
>> But people who abuse have almost universally been abused themselves,
>> the difference in rates oif abuse between adults who were and were not
>> abused themselves is significant.
>>
>> Studies would seem to prove you wrong.
>
>
>Yes and while this is true, it is a REASON for it happening, NOT an excuse.
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~