PDA

View Full Version : man oh man, this is bad.


miester gandertak
11-02-2005, 09:12:40
(CNN) -- A newborn baby boy who was tossed from a moving vehicle Thursday is in remarkably good shape, authorities say.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/11/newborn.tossed/index.html

zmama
11-02-2005, 12:15:25
:(

Big fella, though

protein
11-02-2005, 12:20:41
In other news, a Florida based scientist has conclusively proved that babies bounce.

Funkodrom
11-02-2005, 12:23:23
"The good news is that we have a human being ... someone in this community who has the heart and soul to pick up a baby and save it."

Just one? And that's good?

MDA
11-02-2005, 12:23:39
Shoot the parents. The bag over the head really did it for me. They could walk up and hand the baby to a cop and walk away anonymously with no consequences to themselves, but they had to try and kill him.

Provost Harrison
11-02-2005, 12:34:32
Originally posted by zmama
:(

Big fella, though

I was over 9lb as a baby. Shows it means nothing because as an adult I am pretty short.

Provost Harrison
11-02-2005, 12:35:41
There was absolutely no compassion about the situation whatsoever...I mean leave the baby with no trace for goodness sake but the sadism of this move really warrants some seriously large book being thrown at them...

Rodgers
11-02-2005, 12:58:30
Originally posted by MDA
Shoot the parents. The bag over the head really did it for me. They could walk up and hand the baby to a cop and walk away anonymously with no consequences to themselves, but they had to try and kill him.


You think the policeman would just stand still and let them walk off? Like a sort of baby disposal unit?

protein
11-02-2005, 13:03:50
I thought you were supposed to leave the baby in a basket with a note on someone's doorstep. At least that's what cartoons taught me.

Rodgers
11-02-2005, 13:04:51
Only if the person's house is John Candy's. And he were still alive.

Oerdin
11-02-2005, 13:06:42
In the US anyone who wishes to abandon their new born can take it to a hospital with no questions asked. This was done after several cases of mothers dumping new borns into trash bins. I know PPD is supposed to be bad, but, anyone attempting to kill their own child should be placed in a dark dungeon where they are sodomized every day for the rest of their lives.

Rodgers
11-02-2005, 13:14:02
Originally posted by Oerdin
I know PPD is supposed to be bad, but, anyone attempting to kill their own child should be placed in a dark dungeon where they are sodomized every day for the rest of their lives.


What if he's called Damien?

Oerdin
11-02-2005, 13:15:41
Then the parents must be sodomized twice a day for giving him a crap name.

Rodgers
11-02-2005, 13:17:44
...and if they are gay male adopting parents?

MDA
11-02-2005, 13:43:35
Originally posted by Rodgers
You think the policeman would just stand still and let them walk off? Like a sort of baby disposal unit?

Odd, isn't it? We have "Safe Haven" laws that allow them to do just that. Oerdin's explained why.

Funkodrom
11-02-2005, 13:44:20
It is really odd. We don't have anything like that I don't think.

Rodgers
11-02-2005, 13:51:05
There's probably a secret policemans baby sodomising ring over here that is due to be revealed any time. They found one in Belgium anyway.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
11-02-2005, 13:51:35
Originally posted by Oerdin
In the US anyone who wishes to abandon their new born can take it to a hospital with no questions asked.

We have essentially the same rule, but no one would try that with a police officer. And the legal situation for the officer would be problematic, to put it nicely.

zmama
11-02-2005, 13:55:22
Um the laws on that vary from state to state. Not all states have that

Funkodrom
11-02-2005, 14:08:39
In WV you have to wait 'till they are old enough to ship to New Zealand?

zmama
11-02-2005, 14:12:11
yup

Funkodrom
11-02-2005, 14:12:49
:(

zmama
11-02-2005, 14:14:06
Actually I don't know. There was talk of passing that sort of law last year, but i don't know if it passed or not

MoSe
11-02-2005, 14:14:26
Originally posted by MDA
Shoot the parents.
No.
Giv'em a chance.
Throw them from a running car!

MDA
11-02-2005, 14:15:22
The laws apparently aren't working very well, either.

Rodgers
11-02-2005, 14:42:02
Originally posted by MDA
The laws apparently aren't working very well, either.


I'm just fine - FACT!

MDA
11-02-2005, 14:45:13
Today is X-fear :shoot: day.

protein
11-02-2005, 14:53:22
Originally posted by Oerdin
In the US anyone who wishes to abandon their new born can take it to a hospital with no questions asked. This was done after several cases of mothers dumping new borns into trash bins. I know PPD is supposed to be bad, but, anyone attempting to kill their own child should be placed in a dark dungeon where they are sodomized every day for the rest of their lives.
Or perhaps they could get some help.

MDA
11-02-2005, 15:18:30
:lol: Mrs. Smith, we need to talk about how killing people is wrong. You don't seem to understand.

BigGameHunter
11-02-2005, 15:47:34
10 bucks says they're drug addicts and they find it in the kid's blood.

MDA
11-02-2005, 17:48:40
In his diaper or colon, too.

BigGameHunter
11-02-2005, 17:54:41
You're a bit darker than usual, MDA...you didn't get bitten by a radioactive spider at work or anything, did you?

MDA
11-02-2005, 18:27:42
Children are kind of helpless, so I get a little homicidal when I find people doing bad things to them. Like hunting them for sport.

I'm having a John Walsh moment.

BigGameHunter
11-02-2005, 18:31:02
That guy has all the reason in the world to be pissed, that's for sure.

Yeah...sigh...kids...Montel just had a show about a kid getting strangled by a mini blind cord and I almost lost it.

MDA
11-02-2005, 18:38:41
He's a fantastic example of taking pain and anger and turning it into something positive. I really like him.

KrazyHorse@home
11-02-2005, 20:19:39
The baby was not actually thrown out of a car. The woman who found it was actually the mother and made the whole story up to conceal the fact that she'd given birth.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/11/baby-thrown-car050211.html

Lurker
11-02-2005, 20:24:45
Krazyhorse you bastard, after I went through the trouble of cutting and pasting. :bash:

Damn links!

Woman Makes Up Story About Tossed Baby
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 11, 2005


Filed at 2:53 p.m. ET

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- The woman who claimed to have seen a baby being tossed from a moving car fabricated the story to cover up a pregnancy and birth she had been trying to conceal, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne said Friday. The baby was never thrown.

``It's not as horrible as we first thought,'' Jenne said. ``The baby was never thrown out of a moving car. This is the case of a disturbed woman who gave birth and did not want to keep her child.''

Jenne said the woman, who kept her pregnancy a secret from her family and others, had planned to take the baby to authorities. She then built her story around seeing two people in a large white sedan arguing. ``One story built upon the other,'' Jenne said.

The child was born Thursday afternoon, about an hour before being dropped off by the woman at a Broward sheriff's substation, Jenne said.

``She has indicated that she does not want the child,'' Jenne said.

The woman, Patricia Pokriots, 38, has not been charged.

MDA
11-02-2005, 20:27:46
I guess we're back to zero, then. :bash:

The good news is that we have a human being ... someone in this community who has the heart and soul to pick up a baby and save it.

Japher
11-02-2005, 20:27:59
she filled a false report

arrest the fukin betch

KrazyHorse@home
11-02-2005, 20:30:12
She's pretty fucked up in the head, man.

Charge her and get her senteced to counselling or something. Also, take her kid and don't let her near it ever again.

Immortal Wombat
11-02-2005, 20:38:15
No, thats what she wants to happen. We cannot give in to baby terrorisers. Force her to raise the child as a good mother, and enforce it with random electrical pulses.

Venom
11-02-2005, 21:29:31
Hey, at least no one threw the kid from a moving vehicle.

The Mad Monk
11-02-2005, 21:42:41
Yeah, it's sad, not an atrocity. :(

You to wonder what would make her desperate enough to concoct such a tale.

Japher
11-02-2005, 21:44:04
Her man probably beats her...

That, or the baby is of the wrong race

Darkstar
11-02-2005, 22:48:36
She might just not want to be a parent. Plenty of moms kill their kids or abandon them because they don't want to have kids. Or are tired of looking after them.

Be happy you had a nice mommy that looked after you and didn't decide to cut your throat, chop you into little bits, and feed you to the stray dogs of the neighborhood, for all those times you were a little shit to her or stopped her from getting some good luvin or got in the way of her partying. Give your mum a call and tell her you love her. Or send her a Valentine day card, and let her know she's still your first Valentine. :D

BigGameHunter
12-02-2005, 17:55:58
*inches toward awful thoughts of state sponsored sterility clinics*

MDA
12-02-2005, 21:09:11
Florida does have Safe Haven - she was apparently on her way to the fire station when she came up with this grand alternative.

Stupid.

While looking at houses today we saw a baby doll with a clear plastic bag over its head. Probably protective, since this was an elderly couple's home and the doll looked like a collectible type, but very disturbing. :)

BigGameHunter
14-02-2005, 16:45:51
Are you sure it was a doll?

You should have asked to "see the REAL dolls" in the basement.

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 18:27:32
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
*inches toward awful thoughts of state sponsored sterility clinics*

Already happened. The US courts have been ordering vasectomies and tubes tied for naughty parents.

MDA
16-02-2005, 18:39:46
I think the US gave that up in the 1920's.

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 18:49:14
You are wrong. A Feddie court just recently ordered a mother of five that did horrible, terrible things to her children to the sentence of "having her tubes tied" and 5 years probation; he then sent her back to look after her children, rather then give her the 140 years in jail as required by Fed sentencing guidelines. The judge thinks that a mother that likes to occasionally punish her children with a good soaking in gasoline and then a final lighting up will take better care of them then the state. That by itself is rather... incredible. But precedent is to send moms, however mean or evil or mentally messed up, back to look after the same children they were convicted of abusing. You'd think we'd rethink that, but it is a mother's right to beat and torture her children however she decides since the 60s... go figure.

The US never gives up anything. We just rebrand it and try it again.

BigGameHunter
16-02-2005, 18:53:53
That's because we are marketing geniuses!

MDA
16-02-2005, 19:01:34
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/10860151.htm

OK, here's one. "Extreme", but apparently not uncommon? I haven't seen this before.

I remember reading about the mental institution stuff in the early 20th Century.

Really, they're giving this woman a choice. Plead guilty to a lesser (edit: charge, not child) and get sterilized, or be tried for murder and maybe go to prison.

To me, her problem with having too many children is entirely separate from her problem killing one. That's strange.

BigGameHunter
16-02-2005, 19:06:25
Anyone who has spent time with more than one child knows that in a group, the odds of one getting killed grow in direct proportion to time spent with the group.

Lurker
16-02-2005, 19:07:09
I think those things are always the result of agreement. I do not believe a sentence requiring sterilization would be sustained on appeal in the absence of agreement.

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 19:11:23
If the public doesn't scream for her blood immediately, then mom's with surviving children can usually plead to a sterilization and some probation, regardless of what was actually done to the children or for how long. Trying to starve them all to death (and only managing to kill 2 before relatives catch on and turn her in, etc) but fail? Then get your tubes tied, check in with a parole officer once every three months, and try not to do it again...

It's very sad and things like that tend to really drive me nuts. Its got to be better for the children to under the care of the state then perienal abusers. I can understand where the mom had a really bad problem like medication interaction caused her to go over the edge, but perienal abusers? The courts usually refuse to let the father or the father's family take over custody in such cases! It's just nuts.

The US has gone to the thought that its better to keep the children with the mother regardless of everything else for quite some time. When its the dad or step-father that is the chronic abuser or complete whacko, and mom won't leave him, the children are returned to HER even though the court knows she is still with HIM. It's more important to put the kids with mom regardless of the hazards of the situation. Go figure.

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 19:14:43
Lurker, you'd be wrong. Mandatory sterilization has been specified, and upheld on appeal, repeatily. The US Supreme Court has ruled that you do not have the Constitutional right to reproduce, but rather, that reproduction is a privelage that the government, in any of its forms, can deny to you, permitly and at its whim, for whatever reason it desires.

Remember, the government has long meddled in the "who can breed, and who can raise children". So it has a long, established legal tradition to base all rulings favorable to the state in the matters involving reproduction.

Immortal Wombat
16-02-2005, 19:25:44
For a country that has the concept of inalienable rights built into its legislation, that's pretty fucked up.

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 19:38:34
But it's legally correct. The US Government has been in the business of regulating who can reproduce and who gets to raise children since the first colonies.

And these days, even when something is literally in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court really doesn't care. The constitution hasn't ever mattered at the top court, merely what they desire. No surprise there, that's how things work.

Such rulings work out at other times. Various prison facilities and their state or federal government have been sued by prisoners to allow them to make sperm donations... and been over turned. Or sued to have their sperm stored at state costs, and that has been turned down. Reproduction is not a right, it's a privalege. If you don't look after your children, the state has the right to take them away. If you are a dead beat and irresponsible sexual partner, the state can mandate your sterilization. Ultimately, people are viewed as the live stock of the State, and treated as such, regardless of what their founding principles were.

By the way, there's been state ordered abortions as well. Those tend to get carried out, because you cannot wait for a ruling to go through the appeals processes and go all the way up to the Supremes. And the state ordered abortions of female prisoners are not subject to legal review in certain states.

Welcome to the land of the free (sterilizations and abortions).

MDA
16-02-2005, 19:58:17
Its not as sinister as he makes it sound. At its whim/ for whatever reason isn't entirely true, that's just a doom and gloom interpretation.

What we definitely do not have is a constitutional right to reproduce regardless of any and all circumstances.

The government must have a carefully thought out and argued reason for preventing someone from having children, otherwise it would get tossed out of court.

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 20:16:19
No, MDA. It does not. Which you'd know, if you payed more attention to the odd story that gets published about this. Some people have been denied the right to reproduce because the judge didn't like their religion. You are free to practice a federally recognized religion, but not to have kids. Go figure. Some have been sent to forced sterilization because the judge didn't like how they DRESSED (stated by the judge, and upheld on appeal). Talk about uber-fashion police!

The US daily does mandatory sterilizations. It also daily does "plead down to this and get sterilized". But it isn't doing it on the scale of millions of poor or mentally ill people every year. It is on the scale of hundreds to thousands.

Many forms of sterilization (chemical or surgical) is mandatory for certain sex crime offences. Is that sinister? Only if you are innocent.

The government is always sinister. Especially when it tries to project that it isn't. ;)

No case of mandatory sterilization has ever been overturned in the US court system. None. If a court rules you are to have your balls cut off, you are about to be ballless unless you can cut a deal that doesn't include such. And that is a sentence that has been mandated and carried out (turned down on all appeals).

America is totally screwed up on matters of sex and reproduction. Don't expect logic or rights or even common sense to apply in such rulings, because you will not find them.

MDA
16-02-2005, 20:33:09
Originally posted by Darkstar

Many forms of sterilization (chemical or surgical) is mandatory for certain sex crime offences. Is that sinister? Only if you are innocent.


In what state and for what crime? I can't find it anywhere.

Lurker
16-02-2005, 21:20:11
Sorting through the BS, let's start with Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that that forced surgical sterilization of habitual criminals violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Court in Skinner recognized that procreation is fundamental to the existence of the race, and thus the state's "power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects." The notion that a judge could constituionally order someone sterilized b/c he doesn't like their religion or the way they are dressed is ludicrous.

I am aware of no federal case that upholds a sentence requiring, in whole or in part, involuntary sterilization. To be sure, people agree to such things and they make news, but consent is critical. Equally true is that trial judges do things they're not supposed to, but that doesn't make what they do constitutional.

This country does, however, have a sordid history when it comes to involuntary sterilization. There were, and maybe still are, a number of states with statutes authorizing involuntary sterilization of institutionalized or otherwise mentally handicapped people. I don't know whether the practice ever takes place any more, but it used to and presumably still could occur. I think that's a different discussion, though.

zmama
16-02-2005, 21:52:52
Lurker, sane reasoning is wasted on the darkstarian ;)

Japher
16-02-2005, 21:55:45
I thought sterilization meant free of bacteria?

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 22:01:42
Ludicrous does not mean it hasn't happened, ZMama. And sane reasoning does not apply to the legal system. Might be why I often was counselled to be a lawyer, while in school. ;)

Lurker
16-02-2005, 22:10:04
Originally posted by Darkstar


No case of mandatory sterilization has ever been overturned in the US court system. None.

Perhaps the US Supreme Court isn't part of the US court system. Or maybe I made that Skinner case up.

Darkstar
16-02-2005, 22:19:22
I think you made it up. :)

I remember hearing about Skinner appealing and being *turned down*, not ruled in his favor. I did know about some vague statements about grave repercussions, but that's pretty standard in the fare. ;)

I suppose I'll need to go digging, if I ever give a damn and want to learn more. Which I won't, unless someone I know gets ordered to undergo some unwelcome procedure.

Oh, FYI: Congress and the White House have both ruled that the US Supreme Court isn't a legal part of the US courts. But that was just them being bitches at the time. ;) Of course, Congress gets the actual say on the matter of what form the US Courts take, and I don't recall if they ever changed that little ruling. But I presume they did.

Lurker
16-02-2005, 22:34:41
Your memory can be forgiven if you don't remember the details perfectly. Skinner was decided in 1942.

zmama
16-02-2005, 22:38:29
You read too many tabloids DS, but I like having you around anyway. Fun times :beer:

Darkstar
17-02-2005, 02:44:30
Are you sure you want to say that? It might come back to haunt you. ;)

I don't read tabloids. Strange as that may seem. ;) Well, not unless someone links to them here. :D

zmama
17-02-2005, 02:57:29
Ok then you watch and listen to too many ;)

You may be nuts but at least you know it and have a laugh. *applause*

:beer:

Darkstar
17-02-2005, 03:30:25
ROTFLMAO! Now, that is undoubtably true! :D

I've always known I was crazy. No reason to let that spoil life. Heck, it makes it more fun, from time to time. ;)

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-02-2005, 08:35:17
Well, it's pointless to argue with darkstar beyond shits and giggles.

But wtf happened to Lurker? Will he get a "Lawyer will work for food" sign on his crate?

sleeping_satsuma
17-02-2005, 11:33:25
thats borderline Hitler

zmama
17-02-2005, 11:54:40
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Well, it's pointless to argue with darkstar beyond shits and giggles.

But wtf happened to Lurker? Will he get a "Lawyer will work for food" sign on his crate?

Can't hide the stink of lawyer...it always wins :gasmaske:

Funkodrom
17-02-2005, 12:04:59
To be fair, if you were a lawyer you probably wouldn't want people to know and would lie and say you were something more respectable like a panhandler.

miester gandertak
17-02-2005, 12:10:01
or profesional Bum

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-02-2005, 12:25:52
I am beyond denial.

Funkodrom
17-02-2005, 12:36:42
Maybe you're really a politician, that's why you lie and say you're a lawyer.

God knows what *EiF* does that's so bad he pretends to be a Tory councillor...

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-02-2005, 12:39:58
Well it has to be worse than murdering small children and abusing and eating their corpses....

Funkodrom
17-02-2005, 12:42:38
Kidnapping entire families. Abusing and murdering small children whilst their parents are made to watch then abusing and eating their corpses then shitting them out into a jar, injecting it with huge does of LSD and labeling it as special vitamin supplements for the elderly then delivering it to all the old peoples homes in the area.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-02-2005, 12:54:21
Sounds like the average TV plot.

Funkodrom
17-02-2005, 12:54:52
Oh shit... maybe he works in advertising?!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-02-2005, 12:56:10
GOT HIM!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-02-2005, 12:56:32
I'm sure he makes washing powder ads.

Funkodrom
17-02-2005, 13:21:24
It's a dirty job.

Lurker
17-02-2005, 15:33:30
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Maybe you're really a politician, that's why you lie and say you're a lawyer.

God knows what *EiF* does that's so bad he pretends to be a Tory councillor...

:lol: