Man punches 5 day old baby in face o_0

mrk said:
I4vDvUd.jpg
Click to expand...

haha i lold and the mrs isnt impressed.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
To appease the mother. His intent and severity dont eclipse that he made un-welcomed physical contact. Not that i agree with £900 fine, i don't think punishing him in any way accomplishes anything positive.
Click to expand...

£900 seems pretty light to me but I guess he has no previous convictions.
 
Mr Jack said:
£900 seems pretty light to me but I guess he has no previous convictions.
Click to expand...

Well, punishment should be about what you achieve with it. If no harm was done, there was no intent to cause harm and his reputation has been ruined as well as his record as a result anyway, its hard to see what a fine or a sentence can achieve.
 
So the only person saying it was a tap was the man but the family say it was a punch which left marks and the baby spent the night in hospital under observation.
It is strange he only got a £900 fine.
 
robfosters said:
I don't know how the babies father didn't introduce the blokes head to a jar of pickled onions or something.
Click to expand...

this, his baby's life was in danger - being attacked by an adult male... how that 63 yr old wasn't getting his skull bounced off the supermarket tiles repeatedly by the father is beyond me...
 
What marks did it leave?

As for going to hospital for observation, i dont think that says anything about the severity if nothing was observed. I cant imagine any hospital saying 'go home' to a mother on her first day taking a baby out.

What fine or sentence do you think he should get and what would it achieve?

We cant make a financial judgement without knowing what state finances he is in. Prison wont achieve anything, is costly and puts him under serious risk for what was a gross misjudgement with no ill intent at worst. I cant imagine other inmates treating him nicely considering.

dowie said:
this, his baby's life was in danger - being attacked by an adult male... how that 63 yr old wasn't getting his skull bounced off the supermarket tiles repeatedly by the father is beyond me...
Click to expand...

While i agree from the viewpoint of the father, since that is what it would seem like, in hindsight given you know the story has been blown out of proportion, do you still think he deserves his brains scattered on the floor of aisle 7?
 
Wiping away tears in court, and screened from Hardy, Ms Duckers said she confronted Hardy who denied he had struck the baby.

Ms Duckers said: "It was only when he saw he had marked her that he admitted he had done it but then he said he though it was a doll."
Click to expand...

only £100 going to the mother... after the incident in the store and the sleepless night in a hospital while they observed her 5 day old baby, presumably missing a day off work and undergoing a lot of emotional turmoil

the 'thought it was a doll' story was assumed to be implausible by the magistrate yet he only gave him a fine? I mean if he believed the guy intended to hit a baby randomly why is he not locking him up? Prison will achieve something - it will achieve one of its main aims - that is keeping dangerous scum locked away from the rest of society.
 
Last edited:
indeed thus the comment that it is less bizarre...


however the magistrate didn't believe him so, on that basis, the fine is also rather odd - someone who will attack a baby unprovoked ought to be locked away from society
 
maybe a hard judgement to make but we weren't in court and are basing this on a couple of news articles

though that is all besides the point - the point is that the magistrate didn't believe the doll excuse so given that this magistrate believes this man deliberately punched a baby in the face in a spur of the moment attack why on earth does he feel a fine is appropriate.

Though ref your comment - what law do you think he broke if you believed him re: punching a doll?
 
I didn't think you needed intent to harm to find him guilty of punching a baby. It may not be the same law as if he did mean harm the baby but surely doing so because it was thought to be a doll is still not a legal act.

What was the guy found guilty of in the end?

Maybe the judges comment about it being random out of character thing explains somewhat why he got a lenient result, though if that was the case, you would think a mandatory evaluation away from the public would be an appropriate response.
 
Last edited:
Avenged7Fold said:
Well, punishment should be about what you achieve with it. If no harm was done, there was no intent to cause harm and his reputation has been ruined as well as his record as a result anyway, its hard to see what a fine or a sentence can achieve.
Click to expand...

The child was taken to hospital for overnight observation; regardless of the lack of any lasting physical damage done to the child, that's a pretty harrowing experience for the family to go through and I think counts as harm.

Most of the cost was the court costs anyway, which it is reasonable that Punchy McPunchFace pays regardless.
 
Like i said, im not opposed to the fine, i just dont see what fining him more would achieve. The observation would be a standard thing and yes it is harrowing for the family but punishment isnt there for victims to get revenge but rather to make society safer. A hard judgement to make.

Are you suggesting he should have been fined more or that he receive a different punishment?
 
I suspect what probably happened was the guy was just joking around pretending to punch it, misjudged the distance between his hand and the babies face and made a mark, parents have overreacted and got the police involved so he's panicked and come up with his doll story.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
I didn't think you needed intent to harm to find him guilty of punching a baby. It may not be the same law as if he did mean harm the baby but surely doing so because it was thought to be a doll is still not a legal act.

What was the guy found guilty of in the end?
Click to expand...

assault, I'm pretty sure intent is rather important there - thus asking you what law you think was broken if someone meant to assault a doll, I don't think assault would count thus his not guilty plea despite not disputing hitting the baby and the magistrate/district judge not believing his excuse that he thought it was a doll resulting in his guilty verdict.

Avenged7Fold said:
The observation would be a standard thing and yes it is harrowing for the family but punishment isnt there for victims to get revenge but rather to make society safer.
Click to expand...

It partly is in a way, it can serve both purposes. It is completely bonkers that this guy didn't get more than a fine and that the family only get £100. Hopefully they can sue him in a civil case.
 
Last edited:
I dont know what specific law but I would have thought that though intent is needed for assault, surely it would still break a law if he had harmed the baby because he thought it was a doll. I have no qualifications in law but the way i see it, even if he did think it was a doll, he intentionally attacked something that he perceived as someone else property but in reality was a child not in his care. Whether it was soft or not, i dont understand how this is a legal white area.

so if the judge believed that he did think it was a doll, he would have not been held liable?
 
I believe so yes... if you stick your arm out to wave to a friend on a busy high street and end up accidentally hitting some random person, baby, policeman etc.. I don't believe you're guilty of assault - you didn't intend to hit someone. If you accidentally run someone over and kill them in your car you're not a murderer - if you deliberately run someone over and kill them you can be. The intent is important and hitting a doll isn't legal thus why I'd be pretty sure that it doesn't break the law if believed... after all this guy, under legal guidance, was pleading not guilty while admitting hitting the baby and giving that excuse. His solicitor wouldn't be telling him he can plead not guilty while also essentially admitting he was guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom