USA: Being funny could send you to prison now

I understand it was a joke. I get that part. But by saying "this is what happens when my baby hits me back," that's implying he hits her. The picture itself is screwed up and would make the police think that he really was a nut and that calling this "joking" only further made him look like a nut.

He thought he was being funny when, in reality, he was setting himself up for prison and years of therapy for his 2 year old daughter.

It would be funny if it were the other way around, the father getting taped up by the daughter. Having a caption at the bottom saying "PWNED!" But what the father did was stupid, and second of all why put that on Facebook?

There was a incident in my neighborhood, that led to an arrest of an individual that wanted to shoot and kill as many cops as he could. He posted it up on Facebook. Idiot I tell ya

My father put sigarettes in my mouth and a bottle of beer, when I even couldn't walk and I still laugh today when seeing those pictures.

So if the kid had a good time doing this, the father also, and he only thought it was funny, who are we to judge?

The kid most likely, didnt drop 1 tear but laughed, as her father. While it's maybe not smart posting that picture on the internet, again, such sentence and money, is a big joke!

And yes it's no suprise reading this coming from the US. No wonder so many are in prison, or why there are so many lawsuits with crazy amounts of money. But hey, it's good because even that has become a BIG business (prisons, cops, lawers and so on, they make good money!).

reply to post by Plugin


Pulling duct tape off of someones mouth hurts and from looking at the picture, that duct tape is secure. It also completely covers the mouth and comes close to the nose,
which will no doubt give a 22 month old child a feeling of suffocating.

I sometimes read images off of pictures, and this one gave me an instant feeling of suffocation.
It was abuse, even if no one believes me. That little girl felt like she could not breath and did not know what was happening.

"Being funny"? In regards to the title of this thread, I certainly do not see anything "funny" about that photo. The childs hands, ankles, and mouth are all taped up. Thats a lot of effort, tape, and time just to make a "funny" photo.

reply to post by Darkblade71


They blurred the image I see. Yea maybe she didn't like it, could be but I can't tell that. Would suprise me he would hurt her, you see tape and people make fast assumptions, it looks bad but was it?

More likely, the kid is now crying because she is missing her dad!

It's also striking that the US also always post pictures of who commited a crime. even when they didn't even got a trial proving to be guilty or not.

So now the whole world before proven even guilty or not knows him, maybe he lost his job already and who knows what else.. we still in the middle ages??

I even heard that in local papers they post pictures from people commited crimes, even not serious ones.

Holy sh!t my girlfriend has photos of me throwing her daughter in the air and me catching her I shall be requesting the removal of these photos.

reply to post by insaan


Thats what you get when you give all your power and athority over to government.

Trust me, it'll get worse. And yes.. It's damn sickening!

In the absense of the adult using sound thinking, the state will step in for the benefit of a child. It must be, as the child is unable to give legal consent to do anything.
1. The child was restrained with duct tape. Used as a non-legal and non-medical restraint device. This was at the least false imprisonment/false arrest. Restriction of ones ability to move is a means of control.
2. Duct tape was placed over the child's mouth. Purpose is irrelivant. By taping the mouth you restrict the child's ability to breath or communicate. Sudden custady death is a real possibility when you confine someone and restrict breathing. Gagging is a means of control.
3. The photo was placed on a public forum. This child's civil liberites were violated. The child was refused dignity and was displayed to publicly humiliate her. Wheather she was "in" on it or not, that was the end result.
4. This sends a horrific message to other victims of past or present abuse. That the abuser is in control and you are not.

What kind of society do we live in which supports this type of treatment to those of us who are weaker than us, unable to defend themselves, and are terrified to speak up. I say we DO need to be more judgmental as a nation and society. Evil reigns when good men fail to act. There is a right way to treat people and a wrong way to treat people. When a society approves of this tactic to one of our most vulnerable groups, where does it stop!

Thankfully someone did take action. Apparently, the man could not defend his actions in court, as he got his just reward. The judge must have been so appauled they refused to reduce to a lesser charge.
I would never do such an act to someone I love. Pure madness!!!

Very interesting situation, and i must say i agree with the OP. This is fairly ridiculous. Granted, in agreement with some other posters, the dad was pretty stupid to post this stuff on a public board or site such as Facebook, and he might be guilty of being stupid, but being stupid in not a crime in itself (if it were, we'd have to turn have the country into a prison). But, where exactly is the *crime* supposedly committed? If this is meant as a joke, and if the daughter went along with it, i do not see how this can be upheld as a crime.

Anecdote: when my sisters were young (around 1990), they and my father would play. There was one thing that my sisters LOVED: my dad pretending to choke them and *throw them around.* He never really choked them, he just acted like it, and never really threw them, but acted like it, and they LOVED it. They were never hurt. Of course, he didn't film it or post it online, but that's not the point. Would that have been a crime? is that type of play a crime, when there is no harm? Is POSTING that type of PLAY a crime? Is PLAYING this way a crime?

That is the point. I can understand, perhaps, the authorities investigating the matter as a crime, maybe even initially charging a person with a crime, but after the investigation, when it is proved that this was in fact all in jest, and that parties consented (some might argue a minor could not "consent" to such a thing, or could be coerced, but that is not the point either), where is the crime? Now, even if both consented i could see, perhaps, reckless endangerment MAYBE sticking, but NOT aggravated battery.

What exactly IS the crime, here?

One could argue it takes resources away from LE investigating something that turns out to not a crime, and if many people did it would be a further drain on resources. But that actions are still not a crime, of which i am aware.

Just another example of the state getting carried away. They have this compulsion to CHARGE anyone with anything, regardless of circumstances or situation, and it's getting out of hand (except for the REAL criminals, who buy their way out). It doesn't matte if no one gets hurt or is affected, simply because something is deemed a *crime* the authorities go apecrap crazy with charges.

reply to post by Plugin


When I saw it,
it was not blurred like it is now.

Or at least I didn't see it that way.

reply to post by lukeUK


He did not pay a hundred thousand dollars OP...that the bond...a bail bondsman puts up the money....you pay 10% and as long as he does not continue to be stupid...shows up for court when he is suppose too he will get it back that simple.

This man was stupid especially since he did this right after another husband and wife were arrested for another stupid stunt and they too posted it on Facebook, it was all over the news and then the same week this jack wad turns around and does this....this is not a case of a police state gone wild simply a case of a stupid parent who most likely will get a verbal lashing from a Judge and hopefully some parenting classes.

I don't know if anyone posted this already but it was a freaking toddler, she's in diapers for crying out loud. And, no, it is so not funny.

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by Darkblade71

 

They blurred the image I see. Yea maybe she didn't like it, could be but I can't tell that. Would suprise me he would hurt her, you see tape and people make fast assumptions, it looks bad but was it?

More likely, the kid is now crying because she is missing her dad!

It's also striking that the US also always post pictures of who commited a crime. even when they didn't even got a trial proving to be guilty or not.

So now the whole world before proven even guilty or not knows him, maybe he lost his job already and who knows what else.. we still in the middle ages??

I even heard that in local papers they post pictures from people commited crimes, even not serious ones.

edit on 28-1-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

So is this ok to do to a 22 month old? I detect a sense of approve from your post. This is ok to do to a toddler in diapers? Come on!!! Really? At the minimal this is child abuse. If this were done to an animal this would be intolerable, but to a human.."its a joke".

reply to post by Siberbat


Again, you don't know how she felt, you only see tape. It's easy to make judgment, yes a kid must be protected but also from judgment because there is a good change she didn't felt that as something bad. There is a big change she wasn't hurt at all but now there is a big change she will be missing her dad for 7 years and maybe the marriage/relation between him and his girl/wife will be over as well when he must serve time in prison.

So be easy judging, his life is destroyed for a big part already! and her life, growing up without a father for many years as well (if he gets 7 years), when there is good change she didn't suffered in any way! if true, that would be a big crime!!

If she cried and he kept on taping her and so on, yea he deserves punishment but I bet he got his lesson already!

reply to post by Plugin


So a crime is only committed if the child feels scared or upset, and a crime does not exist if she feels good about being taped up. Maybe in the case of an adult, who by the way can give legal consent to the act, not a child. Just because the child is either emotional ok with what the father did, or not, is irrelevant. Bound and gagging a child is child abuse and child endangerment at least. This is not a he said she said case either. The evidence for the crime is documented (i.e. photo and post on Facebook).
The father should have thought about the consequences prior to taking actions. He made his own choices (unless proved otherwise) and is now being held responsible for those choices. He was responsible to the child, the mother, and himself and failed.
As far as judging goes...I have a mind to choose between right and wrong, make discernments, use in a rational and logical manor, and as well as to use empathy and compassion. These are gifts given to us as humans. These attributes are what separates us from feral beasts. Use of such gifts are not mandatory, but a choice.

Originally posted by MichaelYoung
reply to post by Praetorius

 

To a certain extent, a fair point. But have you ever tossed a child in the air? It really, really isn't dangerous. Sure, there is a tiny chance of injury, but I'd be willing to bet it's a lower risk than driving your child in a car, sending your child to school, or feeding your child eggs. A certain amount of physical risk is in every childish activity, from running to playing with lego to playing on a swing or roundabout. Pictures of children tied with tape is not in the same category, really.

To clarify, I'm not saying upsie/toss/whatever you choose to call it should be banned (even though normal old slip-and-fall injuries from just about 30 inches can cause permanent injury, let alone a possible missed catch from 7+ feet), and I agree on the matters of risk - life is full of it.

My point is that absent more information on this case, the response has crossed from fair & necessary to excessive & ridiculous - so many people with no context beyond the picture assuming so much and even calling for her to be taken by the state. To such people, I can only apologize for the tiny desire lurking in the back of my head that one day they do something outside their norm in a moment of failed brilliance that is not taken by others in the same light and puts their own life or family in the same degree of risk.

In short, I really don't care what category it does or doesn't fall in to, unless that category is confirmed to be real and present risk to the child with a history of endangerment well above and beyond this single picture. Some of the responses here have been downright ridiculous.

what about burying your kid in the sand?

and saying that he hits her because of the little line "this is what happens when my baby hits me back"

THATS THE JOKE, WTF. he doesn't hit her, he probably never would, and he taped her and pic'd it for her amusement probably, you people man...

Originally posted by LongbottomLeaf
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Thats different than taping someone up, it's just weird to me. I'm not saying crucify the guy or even charge him. I'm just saying It's not normal activity.

Thanks LBL - and sorry, my responses are pretty much aimed at all here since this has really gotten my goat.

I'll agree it's not a very common activity, as compared to others parents do with their children and kids with each other, but the official course of the matter so far and some responses here are no less than offensive in their overblown zealotry unless we're not getting some additional information on the matter.

Take care.

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by Plugin

 

So a crime is only committed if the child feels scared or upset, and a crime does not exist if she feels good about being taped up. Maybe in the case of an adult, who by the way can give legal consent to the act, not a child. Just because the child is either emotional ok with what the father did, or not, is irrelevant. Bound and gagging a child is child abuse and child endangerment at least. This is not a he said she said case either. The evidence for the crime is documented (i.e. photo and post on Facebook).
The father should have thought about the consequences prior to taking actions. He made his own choices (unless proved otherwise) and is now being held responsible for those choices. He was responsible to the child, the mother, and himself and failed.
As far as judging goes...I have a mind to choose between right and wrong, make discernments, use in a rational and logical manor, and as well as to use empathy and compassion. These are gifts given to us as humans. These attributes are what separates us from feral beasts. Use of such gifts are not mandatory, but a choice.

edit on 28-1-2012 by Siberbat because: (no reason given)

Not only if she feels scared or upset. A kid is upset when it sees their parents getting in a fight, do I think that their parents should be jailed for that? No.

So for example, if he's the most loving dad a kid could wished for (who knows, this is true), and made this 1 mistake, when she didn't got emotional or physicallyl hurt (there is a big change here), he should get in jail for 7 years, the girl must miss her dad for 7 years, loosing his job, maybe his relation/marriage be broken up, and maybe even more...

And if you would look in their eyes, both him + wife and their doughter, seeing the greef when you would be the judge, giving him 7 years.. not knowing for sure, he hurted the girl, could you do it?

'' "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."'', in this case, probaly at the father, the doughter and even the mother.. they together should get the most part in judgment here.

You would dare even holding this stone/judgment in your hand?