Posted on 09/21/2002 2:46:55 PM PDT by GnuHere
Showed up in an SUV in Indiana.
So what you're saying is we should wait until a child is permanently injured or dead to do something about an abusive parent? What logic.
This woman was NOT from the Northwest Indiana area. She sounded Canadian or something. I only saw a small snippet of the video, it looked kind of far away to me so I'm not sure how some of you people saw all the detail you claimed to see - exact number of blows and what parts of the body they were delivered to, etc. I did see her turn and check to see if anyone was looking - that was pretty shady. I thought it looked like she turned the little girl around and was whooping her behind, but perhaps those who saw the whole video know more.
Maybe the little girl made an inopportune comment at the return desk that foiled her attempt get a cash refund?
And unfortunately, it's the prevailing logic, despite what some would have you believe. When my oldest stepdaughter was being abused by her father's live-in girlfriend, we took her to the base hospital. They in turn called Las Vegas Metro Police who came out, saw the adult sized hand shaped bruise from where she was grabbed on the upper arm, and the bruise on her back and buttocks from where she'd been thrown into a wall, listened to her story, and then asked us "Well, what do you want us to do?"
They explained that they could take no action unless there were broken bones or "something more serious."
Interesting. While you're still defending the mother's "right" to slap and beat the daylights out of an innocent little girl, the mother is admitting that she did wrong. What I saw on the tape I would intervene and stop in a second. I would call the police in a half second. So if you propose to punish your own child in my presence in this manner, you had better be prepared for the conseqeunces.
You Neanderthals can drag your knuckles back to your caves now.
You "guessed" wrong, Carbine. The true FReepers are those who are concerned about the little girl, about her welfare. The three you mentioned (four including you) are worried that somebody, somewhere, may stop you neanderthals from beating your children beyond recognition because they don't live up to your expectations.
I hope, for the sake of children everywhere, that you're childless.
Authorities said the mother had left the store angry because she was refused a cash refund for goods. The woman is then seen putting her daughter in the back seat of a sport utility vehicle, then pummeling, slapping and shaking her for nearly a half-minute.Toogood's attorney, Houston lawyer Steven Rosen, said Friday that his client regrets the incident.
``It was a bad choice, and it was captured on Candid Camera,'' Rosen said Friday. ``She's very remorseful. She regrets it.''
No bruises, so therefore nothing happened and nothing to be remorseful about, eh? No one was seriously alleging that vigilante justice should be meted out, only that the rule of law should be adhered to and applied. On the other hand, we saw a few ideologues alleging that intervention is called for only after death results, which is ludicrous. Ms. Toogood will get her day in court if charges are filed, which it looks like will happen.
Yeah, I know what you mean, especially after the woman's attorney explained why she hid out for several days and changed her hair color before turning herself in.
Oh - wait...he didn't explain that. Never mind.
Did I say that, or are you just implying that?
Who than, is responsible for the rights of the child???
You don't support liberal democrat candidates, but you ensure in your votes that they get elected. You don't approve of drug addiction and nanny governent coddling of drug abusers, but you support polices that bring about that result. You don't defend mothers who physically abuse their children, but you denounce anyone who seeks intervention or speaks out against abuse of children as being none of their business.
I've learned to ignore libertarian pious and self-righteous platitiudes and concentrate on what results their actions tend to being about.
You know what happens when you assume things, don't you, Kevin Curry?
...actually it [a child] is a whole unique individual endowed with inalienable rights. We as a society have an obligation to secure the rights of all its members regardless of age.
That's the only thing I've ever seen you say that is wholly consistent with libertarian principles, and the inspired idea which formed this country.
Please point out to me where in my post I "defend her." I can't find it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.