Man walks free after punching 5 day old baby in the face.

Whoever said the law is an ass was spot on.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tesco-shopper-who-punched-five-9317702


"A Tesco shopper has been found guilty of punching a five-day-old baby in the face as she slept in her mum's trolley - but the sentence has left the girl's family outraged.
Security had to be called in to put a stop to angry exchanges between the families of David Hardy and the baby, Elsie Temple, outside court.
Hardy denied common assault and told his trial he was "messing about" and "trying to lighten the mood" when he touched the infant with "a loose fist".
The 63-year-old claimed he was pretending to wake up what he thought was a doll by "flicking her face" in an attempt at humour which backfired."

I don't know why anyone would punch a baby in the face? It beggars belief. He said he thought it was a doll, yeah right, and even if he did think that, why punch it?

He should've got prison for that, it was assault on a 5 day old baby, the bastard.

Can you imagine what damage he could have done ...a big fat bastard punching a 5 DAY old baby in the face. He should have got bleeding life imo.

It wasn't a full-blown punch like the OP headline suggests though!
But yeah, he had no business putting his hands on a baby at all.

eddie wrote:It wasn't a full-blown punch like the OP headline suggests though!
But yeah, he had no business putting his hands on a baby at all.

It was a punch never the less Eddie...that's what he has been found guilty of.
A full blown punch in the face would have likely killed a 5 day old baby outright.

He says he thought the baby was a doll...liar.

He wouldn't be walking anywhere if it was my kid

Me too Foul, what a nasty man he is.

A 63 year-old really should have transcended their ego by that age and be able to conduct themselves accordingly. How cheap do you have to be to strike a baby - even in in so called "humour"?

Ziz wrote:A 63 year-old really should have transcended their ego by that age and be able to conduct themselves accordingly. How cheap do you have to be to strike a baby - even in in so called "humour"?

What humour would this be Ziz, the man is dangerous and a nasty old man.

magica wrote:

Ziz wrote:A 63 year-old really should have transcended their ego by that age and be able to conduct themselves accordingly. How cheap do you have to be to strike a baby - even in in so called "humour"?

What humour would this be Ziz, the man is dangerous and a nasty old man.

Quite - but to answer your question; the humour he, himself, cited.

"The 63-year-old claimed he was pretending to wake up what he thought was a doll by "flicking her face" in an attempt at humour which backfired."

What a weird thing to do. If that had been my child I would have ripped his face off

Followed closely by his balls methinks

Well he got off. That's justice for you.

eddie wrote:Well he got off. That's justice for you.

The worst of it? He would have been penalised more if he stole something

eddie wrote:It wasn't a full-blown punch like the OP headline suggests though!

I think you're right.  It was more of what we call, a chuck under the chin.



OR

whatever quill....

i'd have (as nems says) ripped his face off


he has no right even to approach within touching distance, with intent to touch, of a child without the parents consent.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:It wasn't a full-blown punch like the OP headline suggests though!

I think you're right.  It was more of what we call, a chuck under the chin.



OR

Baby had a fist mark on her forehead, the mum said.  So must have been more than a chuck under the chin. Also why would you go up and touch a baby, without asking permission. No one does that, they say ahhh etc, but don't touch.

magica wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you're right.  It was more of what we call, a chuck under the chin.



OR

Baby had a fist mark on her forehead, the mum said.  So must have been more than a chuck under the chin.

That wouldn't be the same mum that's angling for a cash settlement, would it?

magica wrote:Also why would you go up and touch a baby, without asking permission.  No one does that, they say ahhh etc, but don't touch.

True, I wouldn't.  But a lot of people from former generations take liberties that are serious no-no's today.  Used to be you could pat a pregnant mum's belly, but today it's considered sexual assault.  Today, if you try to help a lady on the bus with her packages, she'll accuse you of ripping her off.  I'm not complaining--the times call for it.  But, I can see an older gent doing this, and someone seeing a windfall profit.

Quill makes some valid points to be fair. Not sure I'd have stopped myself from pushing the man over if I thought he'd hurt my baby, but the points are valid, all the same.

The man touched the baby, that is enough - you don't touch babies without permission of the parents.

Ziz wrote:The man touched the baby, that is enough - you don't touch babies without permission of the parents.

Obviously, in the wake of recent political events, we live in a world where there are two (or more) mutually exclusive social and political ideologies. Generally, they turn on generational differences. I think on that we can agree.

The world may well go up in a puff of nuclear smoke over these difference, and we're arguing over a chuck on the baby's chin? I think it's time we recognize the huge divisiveness in our society today, and begin to tolerate some things a bit more. Unless there's a bit more overlap in tolerances, we may well start the next nuclear war over a chuck on a baby's chin,

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:The man touched the baby, that is enough - you don't touch babies without permission of the parents.

Obviously, in the wake of recent political events, we live in a world where there are two (or more) mutually exclusive social and political ideologies.  Generally, they turn on generational differences.   I think on that we can agree.

The world may well go up in a puff of nuclear smoke over these difference, and we're arguing over a chuck on the baby's chin?  I think it's time we recognize the huge divisiveness in our society today, and begin to tolerate some things a bit more.  Unless there's a bit more overlap in tolerances, we may well start the next nuclear war over a chuck on a baby's chin,

I think Quill you will find you have this completely wrong if you read the facts.

A.   The mother is not after any money

B.   The baby had a big red mark on it's forehead and had to be taken into hospital overnight to make sure it had not sustained any brain damange - not something that happens with a 'chuck under the chin'

C.   The older sister sitting next to the baby was totally traumatixed and thought her new baby sister had been killed, and kept screaming that she was going to die.

D.   The man admitted to punching the baby

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:The man touched the baby, that is enough - you don't touch babies without permission of the parents.

Obviously, in the wake of recent political events, we live in a world where there are two (or more) mutually exclusive social and political ideologies.  Generally, they turn on generational differences.   I think on that we can agree.

The world may well go up in a puff of nuclear smoke over these difference, and we're arguing over a chuck on the baby's chin?  I think it's time we recognize the huge divisiveness in our society today, and begin to tolerate some things a bit more.  Unless there's a bit more overlap in tolerances, we may well start the next nuclear war over a chuck on a baby's chin,

Hmmm, from the reporting my impression is that this "chuck on the chin" was not a friendly or affectionate gesture but one borne of hostility - that is a difference too far whatever generation we belong to. But I broadly agree with your desire for greater tolerance.

pffft...tolerance works BOTH ways....

and that includes serving me a bacon sarnie in your cafe for breakfast on the go.....

It ALSO means. no matter how much you and others may rail against it, acceptiing that IF you wish me to accept the presence of your people, your women DONT hide their faces if they wish to engage with me in ANY capacity...

and a whole host of other issues....

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Obviously, in the wake of recent political events, we live in a world where there are two (or more) mutually exclusive social and political ideologies.  Generally, they turn on generational differences.   I think on that we can agree.

The world may well go up in a puff of nuclear smoke over these difference, and we're arguing over a chuck on the baby's chin?  I think it's time we recognize the huge divisiveness in our society today, and begin to tolerate some things a bit more.  Unless there's a bit more overlap in tolerances, we may well start the next nuclear war over a chuck on a baby's chin,

I think Quill you will find you have this completely wrong if you read the facts.

A.   The mother is not after any money

Can you prove that?

sassy wrote:B.   The baby had a big red mark on it's forehead and had to be taken into hospital overnight to make sure it had not sustained any brain damange - not something that happens with a 'chuck under the chin'

In my 40-some years teaching and practicing law, I'm smelling a lawsuit being prepared, replete with medical experts and hospital records. Color me jaundiced, but I know human nature from this side.

sassy wrote:C.   The older sister sitting next to the baby was totally traumatixed and thought her new baby sister had been killed, and kept screaming that she was going to die.

"Traumatized"? Is that the word she used? There's that odor again.

sassy wrote:D.   The man admitted to punching the baby

He said "he was 'messing about' and 'trying to lighten the mood' when he touched the infant with 'a loose fist'." We can agree that the man shouldn't have been touching the baby, and probably would even be rude asking to do so, but everything afterwards sounds a bit too staged.

Lord Foul wrote:pffft...tolerance works BOTH ways....

and that includes serving me a bacon sarnie in your cafe for breakfast on the go.....

It ALSO means. no matter how much you and others may rail against it, acceptiing that IF you wish me to accept the presence of your people, your women DONT hide their faces if they wish to engage with me in ANY capacity...

and a whole host of other issues....

I know.  I could give a shit about tolerance, too.  I just thought it might belong in the conversation, because it seems to go to the core of this matter.

I'm just saying when there are too many adjectives, and not enough genuine facts...it smells of fish.  The sister says she was "traumatized", and that sounds like setting up a claim for ancillary emotional distress.  And here we are arguing over whether it was a 'chuck on the chin' or real 'fisticuffs' on the baby's face.  Adjectives, not facts.  Biggest on the plate...the judge almost laughed it off.  That's evidence, in my experience.

except quill...we dont have the same "payout culture" you do

hell over here a nut job can saw of your leg and all you get is criminal injuries compensation of a few (and VERY few) thousands...IF you are lucky and can wait years to get it....

even i medical litigations the amount oredered is usually derogatory

a kid permanently handicapped by a medical error is due probaly no more than one million or so....

IF this woman claimed damages the amount would be "token"
none of your 25 million dollar suits for sneezing on me suits here ..........

How is the mother trying to make money? This was in court not on Jeremy Kyle.

Lord Foul wrote:except quill...we dont have the same "payout culture" you do

hell over here a nut job can saw of your leg and all you get is criminal injuries compensation of a few (and VERY few) thousands...IF you are lucky and can wait years to get it....

even i medical litigations the amount oredered is usually derogatory

a kid permanently handicapped by a medical error is due probaly no more than one million or so....

IF this woman claimed damages the amount would be "token"
none of your 25 million dollar suits for sneezing on me suits here ..........

Here's what leaped out in this story:

OP wrote:Security had to be called in to put a stop to angry exchanges between the families of David Hardy and the baby, Elsie Temple, outside court.

So the animosity was there from the incident. And don't get all self-righteous about "payout culture" and try to tell me you don't have a civil litigation docket over there. I've sat in The Royal Courts of Justice and watched the cases.

Most civil litigation--especially on this level--is born in animosity. Whether its "criminal injuries compensation" (what do you think the sister was describing her injuries as "traumatized" for?), or gearing up for civil litigation, the English get just as angry as Americans. This is just a pissing match between two families, and they're going to take it as far as their barristers tell them.

true they get as angry...but the motive is hardly likely to be money....
since no permanent damage can be ascribed, the assaulted kid isnt due much at all...a token as i said...

the parents likely nothing and the sibling likewise either very little or nothing....

Lord Foul wrote:true they get as angry...but the motive is hardly likely to be money....
since no permanent damage can be ascribed, the assaulted kid isnt due much at all...a token as i said...

the parents likely nothing and the sibling likewise either very little or nothing....

Absolutely...I've just said, it's anger. Money is just a fungible that allows the litigants to express their anger. I don't know how many times I've had a client say, If they'd just apologize, I wouldn't ask for anything!

Go back and read the story. Pay particular attention to the two families, and how they are frothing at each other. The fuckin' baby doesn't give a shit, I guarantee. But the Hatfields and the McCoys are going at each other in front of the courthouse.

You know human nature as well as I do. What'd you think is going on?

OFGS Quill, I'll tell you what is going on.   The mother was terrified her baby was going to die and is probably still frightened that some brain damage might come up at a later date and is OUTRAGED THAT A MAN CAN ASSAULT HER TINY VUNERABLE 5 DAY OLD BABY AND JUST GET A FINE.   Sheesh!

sassy wrote:OFGS Quill, I'll tell you what is going on.   The mother was terrified her baby was going to die and is probably still frightened that some brain damage might come up at a later date and is OUTRAGED THAT A MAN CAN ASSAULT HER TINY VUNERABLE 5 DAY OLD BABY AND JUST GET A FINE.   Sheesh!

You are buying into the story. You are living the script. Sassy, stand back a second and take a breath. It's just a story in the paper, put there to sell copy. And it's got you in a tizzy...wow!

The most poignant thing in the whole article is the nonchalance with which the judge reacted. The sentence tells you all you need to know: this was a pissing match between two families, and the judge was just saying, get the fook outta my courtroom and let me work on something serious!!! NEXT CASE!

which possibly, from a social pov was the wrong thing to do....

see my "instant reaction"...would as said, to have been extremely violent upon his person, given the "potential present and apparant threat"

what then?

further this very light sentence could be seen as a green light to other idiots to "copyca"t...with potentially tragic results and a greater feeling amongst "ordinary folk 2 that a violent and immediate response is not only reasonable but perfectly valid..

dunno quill....should a judge concern himself with those angles???

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:OFGS Quill, I'll tell you what is going on.   The mother was terrified her baby was going to die and is probably still frightened that some brain damage might come up at a later date and is OUTRAGED THAT A MAN CAN ASSAULT HER TINY VUNERABLE 5 DAY OLD BABY AND JUST GET A FINE.   Sheesh!

You are buying into the story.  You are living the script.  Sassy, stand back a second and take a breath.  It's just a story in the paper, put there to sell copy.  And it's got you in a tizzy...wow!

The most poignant thing in the whole article is the nonchalance with which the judge reacted.  The sentence tells you all you need to know: this was a pissing match between two families, and the judge was just saying, get the fook outta my courtroom and let me work on something serious!!!  NEXT CASE!

Nope, you can dress it up anyway you want.   The man walked up to the baby and punched it.   HE ADMITTED IT, HE SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY HE DID IT.   Personally I think they should test him for the beginnings of dementia.   Do you remember when you had just brought your baby home from the hospital?   Do you remember how fragile they were?  Do you remember being terrified that you would be clumsy and they would be hurt?   The only story is that he punched the baby, end of.   He admits it, all the witnesses saw it.   The judge did not react with nonchalance  =
District Judge Sam Goozee said he found Hardy’s claim he thought the baby was a doll “implausible”. 
“At the point you struck out you did so with the intention and knowing Elsie was a baby, not a doll.”

The families didn't know each other before the man struck the baby..

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are buying into the story.  You are living the script.  Sassy, stand back a second and take a breath.  It's just a story in the paper, put there to sell copy.  And it's got you in a tizzy...wow!

The most poignant thing in the whole article is the nonchalance with which the judge reacted.  The sentence tells you all you need to know: this was a pissing match between two families, and the judge was just saying, get the fook outta my courtroom and let me work on something serious!!!  NEXT CASE!

Nope, you can dress it up anyway you want.   The man walked up to the baby and punched it.   HE ADMITTED IT, HE SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY HE DID IT.   Personally I think they should test him for the beginnings of dementia.   Do you remember when you had just brought your baby home from the hospital?   Do you remember how fragile they were?  Do you remember being terrified that you would be clumsy and they would be hurt?   The only story is that he punched the baby, end of.   He admits it, all the witnesses saw it.   The judge did not react with nonchalance  =
District Judge Sam Goozee said he found Hardy’s claim he thought the baby was a doll “implausible”. 
“At the point you struck out you did so with the intention and knowing Elsie was a baby, not a doll.”

The families didn't know each other before the man struck the baby..

Look sassy, this is far too unimportant an issue for us to go on. You've gotten too caught up in it...maybe you cry at movies. I don't know.

If the judge thought it was frivolous, then that's the best I have to go on. I think the doll thesis is silly too. But, I think the whole thing is a bunch of neighbors in a pissing match. As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on. When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone, and they will have realized what the judge has already realized: it's over.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:


Nope, you can dress it up anyway you want.   The man walked up to the baby and punched it.   HE ADMITTED IT, HE SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY HE DID IT.   Personally I think they should test him for the beginnings of dementia.   Do you remember when you had just brought your baby home from the hospital?   Do you remember how fragile they were?  Do you remember being terrified that you would be clumsy and they would be hurt?   The only story is that he punched the baby, end of.   He admits it, all the witnesses saw it.   The judge did not react with nonchalance  =
District Judge Sam Goozee said he found Hardy’s claim he thought the baby was a doll “implausible”. 
“At the point you struck out you did so with the intention and knowing Elsie was a baby, not a doll.”

The families didn't know each other before the man struck the baby..

Look sassy, this is far too unimportant an issue for us to go on.  You've gotten too caught up in it...maybe you cry at movies.  I don't know.  

If the judge thought it was frivolous, then that's the best I have to go on.  I think the doll thesis is silly too.  But, I think the whole thing is a bunch of neighbors in a pissing match.  As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone, and they will have realized what the judge has already realized: it's over.

What on earth are you talking about?   Why do you think the Judge thought it was frivolous?   The Judge could not give a higher sentence because it was the man's first offence and the child did not sustain permanent injury.   You have decided that the Judge thought it was fivolous with no basis of fact.   They are not neighbours and don't know each other and I'm afraid the rest of it is rubbish as well because ' As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone'  is not and will not happen, this is the UK, not the USA and once a court case is settled that is the end of it unless it is taken to a higher court for a greater sentence to be imposed.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Look sassy, this is far too unimportant an issue for us to go on.  You've gotten too caught up in it...maybe you cry at movies.  I don't know.  

If the judge thought it was frivolous, then that's the best I have to go on.  I think the doll thesis is silly too.  But, I think the whole thing is a bunch of neighbors in a pissing match.  As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone, and they will have realized what the judge has already realized: it's over.

What on earth are you talking about?   Why do you think the Judge thought it was frivolous?   The Judge could not give a higher sentence because it was the man's first offence and the child did not sustain permanent injury.   You have decided that the Judge thought it was fivolous with no basis of fact.   They are not neighbours and don't know each other and I'm afraid the rest of it is rubbish as well because ' As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone'  is not and will not happen, this is the UK, not the USA and once a court case is settled that is the end of it unless it is taken to a higher court for a greater sentence to be imposed.

You know the system better than I do. If it was the system, and not the judge, so be it. The judge obviously figured into it somehow, and the outcome was what it was. I'm saying it was frivolous because the outcome so much as declared it was frivolous.

If your solicitors and barristers don't know their way around, too bad. Cases can go on forever, if the parties want. But I'm not here to argue Anglo vs. American systems of justice. The case is closed and I expect it ended the way it should have. If the Anglo system has a greater finality to it, so much the better.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:OFGS Quill, I'll tell you what is going on.   The mother was terrified her baby was going to die and is probably still frightened that some brain damage might come up at a later date and is OUTRAGED THAT A MAN CAN ASSAULT HER TINY VUNERABLE 5 DAY OLD BABY AND JUST GET A FINE.   Sheesh!

You are buying into the story.  You are living the script.  Sassy, stand back a second and take a breath.  It's just a story in the paper, put there to sell copy.  And it's got you in a tizzy...wow!

The most poignant thing in the whole article is the nonchalance with which the judge reacted.  The sentence tells you all you need to know: this was a pissing match between two families, and the judge was just saying, get the fook outta my courtroom and let me work on something serious!!!  NEXT CASE!

Nope, you can dress it up anyway you want.   The man walked up to the baby and punched it.   HE ADMITTED IT, HE SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY HE DID IT.   Personally I think they should test him for the beginnings of dementia.   Do you remember when you had just brought your baby home from the hospital?   Do you remember how fragile they were?  Do you remember being terrified that you would be clumsy and they would be hurt?   The only story is that he punched the baby, end of.   He admits it, all the witnesses saw it.   The judge did not react with nonchalance  =
District Judge Sam Goozee said he found Hardy’s claim he thought the baby was a doll “implausible”. 
“At the point you struck out you did so with the intention and knowing Elsie was a baby, not a doll.”

The families didn't know each other before the man struck the baby..

Good post sassy, you're right, you do feel that sense of them being so fragile and that poor mother was probably terrified.
You put that well.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:


Nope, you can dress it up anyway you want.   The man walked up to the baby and punched it.   HE ADMITTED IT, HE SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY HE DID IT.   Personally I think they should test him for the beginnings of dementia.   Do you remember when you had just brought your baby home from the hospital?   Do you remember how fragile they were?  Do you remember being terrified that you would be clumsy and they would be hurt?   The only story is that he punched the baby, end of.   He admits it, all the witnesses saw it.   The judge did not react with nonchalance  =
District Judge Sam Goozee said he found Hardy’s claim he thought the baby was a doll “implausible”. 
“At the point you struck out you did so with the intention and knowing Elsie was a baby, not a doll.”

The families didn't know each other before the man struck the baby..

Look sassy, this is far too unimportant an issue for us to go on.  You've gotten too caught up in it...maybe you cry at movies.  I don't know.  

If the judge thought it was frivolous, then that's the best I have to go on.  I think the doll thesis is silly too.  But, I think the whole thing is a bunch of neighbors in a pissing match.  As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone, and they will have realized what the judge has already realized: it's over.

What on earth are you talking about?   Why do you think the Judge thought it was frivolous?   The Judge could not give a higher sentence because it was the man's first offence and the child did not sustain permanent injury.   You have decided that the Judge thought it was fivolous with no basis of fact.   They are not neighbours and don't know each other and I'm afraid the rest of it is rubbish as well because ' As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone'  is not and will not happen, this is the UK, not the USA and once a court case is settled that is the end of it unless it is taken to a higher court for a greater sentence to be imposed.

you are wrong Sassy.....the criminal case having been concluded, and him found guilty, the family are free to start a civil claim against him for damages if they so wish......

Lord Foul wrote:

sassy wrote:


What on earth are you talking about?   Why do you think the Judge thought it was frivolous?   The Judge could not give a higher sentence because it was the man's first offence and the child did not sustain permanent injury.   You have decided that the Judge thought it was fivolous with no basis of fact.   They are not neighbours and don't know each other and I'm afraid the rest of it is rubbish as well because ' As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone'  is not and will not happen, this is the UK, not the USA and once a court case is settled that is the end of it unless it is taken to a higher court for a greater sentence to be imposed.

you  are wrong Sassy.....the criminal case having been concluded, and him found guilty, the family are free to start a civil claim against him for damages if they so wish......

And they can afford to.

Original Quill wrote:

You are buying into the story.  You are living the script.  Sassy, stand back a second and take a breath.  It's just a story in the paper, put there to sell copy.  And it's got you in a tizzy...wow!

The most poignant thing in the whole article is the nonchalance with which the judge reacted.  The sentence tells you all you need to know: this was a pissing match between two families, and the judge was just saying, get the fook outta my courtroom and let me work on something serious!!!  NEXT CASE!

..................................................................................................

Original Quil wrote...

If the judge thought it was frivolous, then that's the best I have to go on.  I think the doll thesis is silly too.  But, I think the whole thing is a bunch of neighbors in a pissing match.  As long as the two families have money, there will be lawyers; as long as there are lawyers, the cases will go on.  When the families run out of money, the lawyers will be gone, and they will have realized what the judge has already realized: it's over.[/quote]


...................................................................................................



You are the only one saying the judge thought the case was frivolous....then you expand on it as if it's a fact.

The judge certainly took the case seriously. The  man in court didn't know the family involved, and every report, the judge, and the man himself, admitted he punched the baby, no where does it imply he merely "chucked the baby under the chin"  like Will Smith playfully does to his son...as in one of the picture examples you provided.
This FIVE DAY OLD baby had a red mark on her head where he punched her and spent the night in hospital because of this idiots actions.

IF I  were a member, or friend, of that baby's family,  that foul minded bullying fool quite likely wouldn't have made it home from his day in court...

One quick clip under the chin, and a hospital would be his next stop..

Have to wonder, too,  about that judge, and any possible connections to the accused  ?    

He got a measly fine, if a adult male avenger goes and gives him a bashing said avenger will get a heftier sentence.

The law is an

Syl wrote:You are the only one saying the judge thought the case was frivolous....then you expand on it as if it's a fact.

No, after sassy noted that the judge was just following the law, I said the "system" took it as frivolous:

Original Quill wrote:You know the system better than I do. If it was the system, and not the judge, so be it. The judge obviously figured into it somehow, and the outcome was what it was. I'm saying it was frivolous because the outcome so much as declared it was frivolous.

Whether the system is the judge, or the judge is the whole system, the article does not say. But the outcome is what it is. I think it's safe to conclude that someone thought the whole thing was frivolous. But that's my opinion...if you disagree, argue away. It's only opinion.

Syl wrote:The judge certainly took the case seriously. The  man in court didn't know the family involved, and every report, the judge, and the man himself, admitted he punched the baby, no where does it imply he merely "chucked the baby under the chin"  like Will Smith playfully does to his son...as in one of the picture examples you provided.

The man said he was "messing about" and "trying to lighten the mood" when he touched the infant with "a loose fist".  I offered the Will Smith picture as an example of how the man might be interpreted, and I described it as a chuck on the chin.  Obviously, Will Smith was not there, nor were any of us.  We'll just have to take the word of dispassionate witnesses.

Syl wrote:This FIVE DAY OLD baby had a red mark on her head where he punched her and spent the night in hospital because of this idiots actions.

The article offers no proof that the "red mark" was from that incident.  At most, that was the claim of the mother.  The child spent the night in the hospital because the mother took her there; the altercation at the courthouse proves that the mother is hysterical, and not a trustworthy witness.  I speculate that there is a civil lawsuit looming in the future, which would explain a lot.  Obviously the hospital is not going to turn the child away, but there is no proof that the hospitalization was necessary.

The man walked away with a fine.  Obviously, people who heard the case determined the outcome.  It is what it is.  To me, the outcome speaks volumes about what the people determining the outcome thought of the evidence.  That's all.

I think that it's an article that was designed to make readers hysterical, and I believe it was a successful piece of journalism in that regard.

The man is a proven liar Quill...at first he said he didn't touch the baby then he claimed he thought it was a doll.

The only opinion now is whether the sentence was a fair one, I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence has to conclude that it is not.

Syl wrote:The man is a proven liar Quill...at first he said he didn't touch the baby then he claimed he thought it was a doll.

I've not seen any evidence of that.  Maybe the lawyers were trying on different theories, as they often do.  But the article says, "Hardy denied common assault and told his trial he was "messing about" and "trying to lighten the mood" when he touched the infant with "a loose fist".  He seems to have been candid about what happened.  

Obviously, anyone who loses in a court of law can be deemed a "liar" simply by virtue of the fact that something was amiss with their case if they lost.  But that's for a Philosophy of Law class to discuss.

Syl wrote:The only opinion now is whether the sentence was a fair one, I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence has to conclude that it is not.

And that's your opinion.  I go with the court, and reading backwards I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing.  I think if we were to follow this case, we would see a civil lawsuit down the way. Hence, all the acrimony and righteous indignation.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The man is a proven liar Quill...at first he said he didn't touch the baby then he claimed he thought it was a doll.

I've not seen any evidence of that.  Maybe the lawyers were trying on different theories, as they often do.  But the article says, "Hardy denied common assault and told his trial he was "messing about" and "trying to lighten the mood" when he touched the infant with "a loose fist".  He seems to have been candid about what happened.  

Obviously, anyone who loses in a court of law can be deemed a "liar" simply by virtue of the fact that something was amiss with their case if they lost.  But that's for a Philosophy of Law class to discuss.

Syl wrote:The only opinion now is whether the sentence was a fair one, I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence has to conclude that it is not.

And that's your opinion.  I go with the court, and reading backwards I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing.  I think if we were to follow this case, we would see a civil lawsuit down the way.  Hence, all the acrimony and righteous indignation.

What do you mean you haven't seen any evidence....the judge said in court that he found Hardys explanation that he thought the baby was a doll  " implausible".
The babies mother said in court that Hardy had denied touching the baby at first...the judge certainly didn't seem to think her testimony was untrue.

You think it's much ado about nothing because your opinion is that money and compensation is at the root of it all.
I agree more with Sassys way of thinking, a new born baby is so delicate, and the parents are so protective knowing how fragile it is, plus this was the first time the baby had actually been out....I believe the distress was very real, I also believe the baby could have been seriously hurt by this mans stupidity, thank God she was not.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I've not seen any evidence of that.  Maybe the lawyers were trying on different theories, as they often do.  But the article says, "Hardy denied common assault and told his trial he was "messing about" and "trying to lighten the mood" when he touched the infant with "a loose fist".  He seems to have been candid about what happened.  

Obviously, anyone who loses in a court of law can be deemed a "liar" simply by virtue of the fact that something was amiss with their case if they lost.  But that's for a Philosophy of Law class to discuss.



And that's your opinion.  I go with the court, and reading backwards I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing.  I think if we were to follow this case, we would see a civil lawsuit down the way.  Hence, all the acrimony and righteous indignation.

What do you mean you haven't seen any evidence....the judge said in court that he found Hardys explanation that he thought the baby was a doll  " implausible".
The babies mother said in court that Hardy had denied touching the baby at first...the judge certainly didn't seem to think her testimony was untrue.

The judge offered no opinion about the hearsay testimony of the mother.  In any event, a judge cannot offer evidence, but renders a decision.  If you want my opinion, I think the judge saw through the charade and wasn't going to do anything that would cause a commotion.  It was a Solomon-like decision, with a little equity for both sides.  Obviously, some of the noise got into the papers, but the judge at least avoided any serous legal gaff.

Syl wrote:You think it's much ado about nothing because  your opinion is that money and compensation is at the root of it all.

I don't think the money even figures into the criminal hearing, except inasmuch as a prospective civil award is a motive for the mother and her surrounding family to put up such a furor and get a little publicity in front of the courthouse.  I think mum is angling for a huge settlement and the theatrics at the criminal courts were for that purpose.

Syl wrote:I agree more with Sassys way of thinking, a new born baby is so delicate, and the parents are so protective knowing how fragile it is, plus this was the first time the baby had actually been out....I believe the distress was very real, I also believe the baby could have been seriously hurt by this mans stupidity, thank God she was not.

We all love babies.  They are so cute.  But no matter how cute this one was, its cuteness says nothing about this man's actions.  They are two separate beings.  Perhaps we'll learn more when depositions in the the civil lawsuit commence.

I doubt there will be anymore said about any civil lawsuits in this case Quill....in fact, so far you are the only one who has mentioned one ....but time will tell.