Man accused of slapping baby, calling him a "n*****" on plane loses job

[OBLAMA2009]

im guessing this situation was exaggerated. if an adult really did smack a baby, there would be documented physical injury.

 

[Mixolydian]

im guessing this situation was exaggerated. if an adult really did smack a baby, there would be documented physical injury.

Define "smack". I mean, even if the guy "lightly tapped" the child, some might consider that "smack".

 

[waggy]

im guessing this situation was exaggerated. if an adult really did smack a baby, there would be documented physical injury.

you mean like a scratch?

he boy's mother, 33-year-old Jessica Bennett, said Hundley smelled of alcohol and "told her to shut that (N-word) baby up," court records showed. She told KARE Hundley said another racial slur and slapped Jonah, scratching him below his right eye.


lol

 

[BladeVenom]

In the good old days, you could have just put a little liquor in the babies bottle and everyone would have been happy.

 

[waggy]

Define "smack". I mean, even if the guy "lightly tapped" the child, some might consider that "smack".

even though i posted giving him shit. the odds of anything is low. its not like he balled up a fist and hit the child. he used a open hand and hit.

im surpised he even had the scratch. at most you would think a red mark or such

 

[zinfamous]

The guy's pic is hilarious, he's a POS, sure, and were I that kid's father I'd punch him in the neck, crush his balls, and choke him until someone pulled me off, but I have to admit....looking at this squirrely redneck, I read this comment in redneck voice, and lol'd at the scene:

"Shut that N***** baby up!"

 

[mugs]

im guessing this situation was exaggerated. if an adult really did smack a baby, there would be documented physical injury.

You can smack someone without causing an injury. But according to the mother he scratched the kid's face. So there's that.

 

[NFS4]

N/M

 

[Brigandier]

While it is certainly vile he used a racial slur, I highly doubt the baby gave two shits about being called a name.

 

[waggy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-baby-slapping-20130218,0,1104732.story

After saying publicly that Hundley intended to enter a plea of not guilty, his attorney said: ”I'm getting hate mail.“

The not-guilty plea is part of the initial legal process, and there is much more to the story that will be revealed later, Shein said.

yeah i heard the baby was wearing a hoodie and acting shaddy.

 

[NFS4]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-baby-slapping-20130218,0,1104732.story

After saying publicly that Hundley intended to enter a plea of not guilty, his attorney said: ”I'm getting hate mail.“

The not-guilty plea is part of the initial legal process, and there is much more to the story that will be revealed later, Shein said.

yeah i heard the baby was wearing a hoodie and acting shaddy.

The baby was also carrying a bottle of sweet tea and a bag of Skittles.

 

[MagickMan]

Sorry, are we talking about the man or the kid?

Seriously? The old alcoholic douchebag, of course.

 

[Capt Caveman]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-baby-slapping-20130218,0,1104732.story

After saying publicly that Hundley intended to enter a plea of not guilty, his attorney said: ”I'm getting hate mail.“

The not-guilty plea is part of the initial legal process, and there is much more to the story that will be revealed later, Shein said.

yeah i heard the baby was wearing a hoodie and acting shaddy.

Thugs start young. Just ask SA or Spidey.

 

[MagickMan]

Maybe it would be helpful if there was a less loaded term than "hate crime" (which implies that crimes are somehow worse when committed against members of a different race).

Individually, no, but on a societal scale, they are.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Yep.

I wasn't the one who brought up 'hate crime.' I just...called it stupid. In the context of the story in the original post, there are, according to some, two different crimes that the man could be charged with.

He assaulted a fucking baby.

He called the baby a name.

Do we really need to add the second one? Or up the severity of punishment for the first because of it? I would think 'got drunk and smacked an infant around' really doesn't need any further substantiation via verbal comments.

Since you asked, yes. I have no problem with charging him with a hate crime and increasing the penalties. I'm also glad the fucker lost his job.

 

[phucheneh]

Then you're thin-skinned as shit and should just go ahead and never leave your house (and stop using the internet) so as to not allow anyone to offend your delicate sensibilities.

So by the standards of all of you in favor of separate charges for crimes involving racism: Are you saying 'I killed him because I don't like his kind' should carry a harsher penalty than 'I killed him because I enjoy killing people'?

If so, you should just hide in your house like Jules and not be allowed to influence society with your reverse-racism. As in, treating people differently because of the color of their skin because you don't want people to be treated differently because of the color of their skin. Congrats, you're paradoxically stupid.

How about this one: What if he called a white baby a n*gger?

What if he called it a porchmonkey?

What if it was Asian and he called it 'Charlie'?

edit: Ooh, here's a good one, what if the guy on the plane was Clayton Bigsby?

 

[phucheneh]

Actually, forget all that, here's the better way to boil it down.

If:

murdering someone = bad

and

murdering someone because they're black = worse

Why isn't it illegal to not like black people? :hmm: This is where the 'thought crime' bit comes in. You're allowing your emotions to overpower logic and making your own perverse system of 'justice' that treats actions differently based on what someone thinks.

Beyond that, you're going on what they SAY they think. 'Cause obviously you can't read their mind. If two murders are committed as 'hate crimes,' with one person openly admitting race played a part, and the other lying and claiming other motives (such as, I dunno, 'I didn't like the color of his shoes'), they should be prosecuted differently?

 

[SheHateMe]

Phucheneh, Jonah, is a 19 month old toddler. Why are you talking so much smack?

And why do you think someone is "thin skinned" for being upset if this happened to their child?

 

[phucheneh]

Phucheneh, Jonah, is a 19 month old toddler. Why are you talking so much smack?

And why do you think someone is "thin skinned" for being upset if this happened to their child?

Uh, did you read the thread?

There are people here that think saying the 'N-word' or having offensive opinions should be a crime.

You're exactly right if you think that this has nothing to do with a man smacking a stranger's baby on a plane. Good job. Now go tell the people who brought it up under the absurd guise of correcting racial injustice.

 

[sourn]

You said:



That is what I replied to.

Obviously you meant:



But I don't see the relevance of that to the conversation.


You were obviously trying to attack hate crime laws with the tired and fallacious argument that all crimes are hate crimes. Just accept that you put no thought into that argument and it made you look stupid (you may actually be stupid, I've only noticed a few of your posts here and didn't think highly of any of them).

If I beat the crap out of a white guy because I simply don't like him.

Then I beat the crap out of a black guy because he's black.

WHY THE FUCK does that matter. What matters is I beat the crap out of somebody for no good reason.

As far as the op like I said, I'm surprised this guy was able to walk out of the plane.

 

[Lifted]

Why isn't it illegal to not like black people? :hmm: This is where the 'thought crime' bit comes in. You're allowing your emotions to overpower logic and making your own perverse system of 'justice' that treats actions differently based on what someone thinks.

Beyond that, you're going on what they SAY they think. 'Cause obviously you can't read their mind. If two murders are committed as 'hate crimes,' with one person openly admitting race played a part, and the other lying and claiming other motives (such as, I dunno, 'I didn't like the color of his shoes'), they should be prosecuted differently?

You don't seem to understand why laws against hate crimes exist. It's not about thought police, it's about preventing people from being harassed and/or hurt.

Spray painting "go home <insert derogatory comment against religious/ethnic/sexual orientation here >" on a house is a hate crime. Do you think that society shouldn't work harder to prevent this crime more so than some kids harmlessly painting their tag (destruction of property)?

Laws don't appear out of thin air, and when laws against hate crimes were brought about, there was a need. Still is in many parts of this country.

Do you think the man would have slapped the child if it was white? If not, then that is the reason this law exists, to prevent idiots from harassing or harming members of a group, especially when that group has no control over the thing people hate about them.

 

[zinfamous]

Thugs start young. Just ask SA or Spidey.

good slap.

 

[zinfamous]

Then you're thin-skinned as shit and should just go ahead and never leave your house (and stop using the internet) so as to not allow anyone to offend your delicate sensibilities.

So by the standards of all of you in favor of separate charges for crimes involving racism: Are you saying 'I killed him because I don't like his kind' should carry a harsher penalty than 'I killed him because I enjoy killing people'?

If so, you should just hide in your house like Jules and not be allowed to influence society with your reverse-racism. As in, treating people differently because of the color of their skin because you don't want people to be treated differently because of the color of their skin. Congrats, you're paradoxically stupid.

How about this one: What if he called a white baby a n*gger?

What if he called it a porchmonkey?

What if it was Asian and he called it 'Charlie'?

edit: Ooh, here's a good one, what if the guy on the plane was Clayton Bigsby?

the only thing paradoxically stupid in this thread is the use of the term "reverse racism," whatever the eff that is supposed to mean.

guess what--you're the one that used it.

congratulations.

 

[phucheneh]

the only thing paradoxically stupid in this thread is the use of the term "reverse racism," whatever the eff that is supposed to mean.

guess what--you're the one that used it.

congratulations.

Says the person who apparently doesn't know what 'paradoxically' means. :hmm:

I'm not going to bother helping you with that one, but I'll try and subvert your inability to google things regarding that other bit.

No, I'm not playing the 'poor oppressed white man.' I'll leave that to the Fox News watchers in P&N. I'm just pointing out how silly screaming 'hate crime!' in response to the use of a word is, and how ridiculous it is to expect the legal system to treat someone differently because they used it.

You can argue with the use of the term 'reverse racism' in this context. But that's not what you posted...you essentially claimed to not know what the term implied...and then called me stupid (or really smart? Again, you may want to look up that 'paradox' thing) for using said term that you do not understand. Brilliant.

I'll again spell things out; though I have a strong suspicion that it will not matter, as anyone who has your level of willful ignorance is unlikely to read and/or digest anything written in the hopes of helping you grasp a concept.

Reverse racism (or discrimination; but here, we're talking about race): Redressing an inequality by simply encouraging inequality in the other direction.

Do you think anyone would give two shits about someone calling a child a honkey? Would that make headlines? Moreover, would someone cite that as the predominant complaint against someone who struck a child after said utterance? For some reason, I'm thinking 'no.'

The 'hate crime' crowd is so deeply offended by this dude's use of a dumb two-syllable word that they think someone's punishment for assault or other violent crimes should take it into account. They are, I'm going to venture to guess, predominantly white, and are so wrapped up in their puritanical 'values' that they cannot take a step back and see the silliness of 'their' viewpoint (rather, it's the view they've been taught to have by an oversensitive society).

That man said a bad word. You're not supposed to use that word. Calling that baby that word is just hateful. Punish him for his vile desecration of our morals.

Here's an idea: If you want to stop racism, quit bringing race into everything, rather than holding your perceived hateful words (and probably perceptions of yourself) in such high regard. You know what would make racist words less offensive? Quit being so god damned offended by them. Fuck, did you miss the 'actions speak louder than words' part of kindergarten?

Someone needs to give some of you crackers a good smack.

(oh noes, the board doesn't censor 'honkey' or 'cracker.' It only protects black people from being offended! HATE CRIME!)

 

[LumbergTech]

Says the person who apparently doesn't know what 'paradoxically' means. :hmm:

I'm not going to bother helping you with that one, but I'll try and subvert your inability to google things regarding that other bit.

No, I'm not playing the 'poor oppressed white man.' I'll leave that to the Fox News watchers in P&N. I'm just pointing out how silly screaming 'hate crime!' in response to the use of a word is, and how ridiculous it is to expect the legal system to treat someone differently because they used it.

You can argue with the use of the term 'reverse racism' in this context. But that's not what you posted...you essentially claimed to not know what the term implied...and then called me stupid (or really smart? Again, you may want to look up that 'paradox' thing) for using said term that you do not understand. Brilliant.

I'll again spell things out; though I have a strong suspicion that it will not matter, as anyone who has your level of willful ignorance is unlikely to read and/or digest anything written in the hopes of helping you grasp a concept.

Reverse racism (or discrimination; but here, we're talking about race): Redressing an inequality by simply encouraging inequality in the other direction.

Do you think anyone would give two shits about someone calling a child a honkey? Would that make headlines? Moreover, would someone cite that as the predominant complaint against someone who struck a child after said utterance? For some reason, I'm thinking 'no.'

The 'hate crime' crowd is so deeply offended by this dude's use of a dumb two-syllable word that they think someone's punishment for assault or other violent crimes should take it into account. They are, I'm going to venture to guess, predominantly white, and are so wrapped up in their puritanical 'values' that they cannot take a step back and see the silliness of 'their' viewpoint (rather, it's the view they've been taught to have by an oversensitive society).

That man said a bad word. You're not supposed to use that word. Calling that baby that word is just hateful. Punish him for his vile desecration of our morals.

Here's an idea: If you want to stop racism, quit bringing race into everything, rather than holding your perceived hateful words (and probably perceptions of yourself) in such high regard. You know what would make racist words less offensive? Quit being so god damned offended by them. Fuck, did you miss the 'actions speak louder than words' part of kindergarten?

Someone needs to give some of you crackers a good smack.

(oh noes, the board doesn't censor 'honkey' or 'cracker.' It only protects black people from being offended! HATE CRIME!)

We're in a thread about someone calling a baby a ****** and slapping it and you are saying people shouldn't get so offended