Businessman Who Slapped Crying Toddler On Delta Flight Sentenced To Federal Prison

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Captain Fantastic**

You gotta hit children for no reason, or they'll grow up thinking that they're special and live a vicious life of entitlement and greed.

What an donkey-cave. It's certainly not right, but the way the mother is embellishing it just makes me gag.

**d-usa**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
But why should everyone have to deal with one person(Or maybe 2-3).
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Why should everyone here have to deal with your inability to follow Rule #1 and spell correctly and use proper grammar?

The needs of the many who can spell outweigh the needs of the few who can't?

**Medium of Death**

Screaming kids can be annoying, but you know what's worse? Self entitled ass bags that think that the world should stop spinning and focus on them.

I hope this guy gets a midnight rendezvous with his cellmates.

**Frazzled**

purplefood wrote:
curran12 wrote:
purplefood wrote:
It does kind count as mitigating circumstances given his actions. He should probably have a lighter sentence given that...

Bull.

Sorry, but losing a family member is tragic, but how in the name of all that is holy does that mitigate slapping an infant?

Because anyone who has experienced the loss of a family member will know that grief is a weird thing that can take time both to pass and to have an effect on your life. I greatly pity anyone who has to give the order/allow their child to be taken off of life support. A parent should not have to do that however, that is somewhat of a mitigating circumstance. The man essentially gave the order for his child to die. How heartless are you?

I'm pretty heartless but lets restate:
He said "shut your nigg__ baby up" and then battered a child.

No mercy. Put him in with Spike "You sure got a purty mouth" Jones in the jail.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have ran into more screaming babies in the middle of my dinner then I have naked ladies.
Kids are the devil I tell you, Seen, but not heard.

If you'd like, I can point you to some places that could rectify that situation.

**d-usa**

I'm with Team Dachshund on this one. The death of his son would have been a mitigating circumstance if this was simply an outburst. But if I tally it up and grand him this excuse my total would look like this:

Traumatic experience of loosing a son: -1
Angry outburst on plane: +1
Hitting a child: +1
Preexisting issue with rage (prior assault conviction): +1
Preexisting issue if being a racist (I don't believe that he suddenly woke up and decided to call babies ni****): +1

So even with the loss of his son he still ends up +3 on the "go to jail" scale.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you are still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

**SagesStone**

Sums up the argument there.

**kronk**

Kronk's time to weigh in on people with crying babies.

1. Allowed on planes. People have to fething travel. Get over yourself. People have to travel because their job required a move, a parent died, or the family gets to see junior for the first time. You do NOT have the right to fly on a quiet plane. You do have the right to go feth yourself, then the privilege of driving a car on one of our many scenic highways and interstates next time, listening to Zamfir: Master of the Pan Flute in your Yaris.

2. NOT allowed at MOST movies*. This is an entertainment venue. People paid money to watch a movie, not listen to your kid. If your kid is crying, take him outside.
* Unless it's a kids move. If it's rated G, the crying kid can stay and anyone that complained should have known better. Netflix next time. STFU and GTFO.

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

4. DMV. Sure. Why not. The place sucks anyway. The kid needs to know that life sucks sometimes.

There. The above is the answer to everything this thread needs to know. You are welcome!

**djones520**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you a still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

What this guy says, for the most part.

Hotsauce, as a parent of 3, ages ranging from 1 to 5, let me clue you in on something.

You have no clue what you are talking about, so shut the feth up.

**Allod**

d-usa wrote:
I'm with Team Dachshund on this one. The death of his son would have been a mitigating circumstance if this was simply an outburst. But if I tally it up and grand him this excuse my total would look like this:

Traumatic experience of loosing a son: -1
Angry outburst on plane: +1
Hitting a child: +1
Preexisting issue with rage (prior assault conviction): +1
Preexisting issue if being a racist (I don't believe that he suddenly woke up and decided to call babies ni****): +1

So even with the loss of his son he still ends up +3 on the "go to jail" scale.

Which, BTW, is more or less how a judge would handle this at a continental European court. 8 months seems entirely reasonable, all things considered.

**the shrouded lord**

kronk wrote:
Kronk's time to weigh in on people with crying babies.

1. Allowed on planes. People have to fething travel. Get over yourself. People have to travel because their job required a move, a parent died, or the family gets to see junior for the first time. You do NOT have the right to fly on a quiet plane. You do have the right to go feth yourself, then the privilege of driving a car on one of our many scenic highways and interstates next time, listening to Zamfir: Master of the Pan Flute in your Yaris.

2. NOT allowed at MOST movies*. This is an entertainment venue. People paid money to watch a movie, not listen to your kid. If your kid is crying, take him outside.
* Unless it's a kids move. If it's rated G, the crying kid can stay and anyone that complained should have known better. Netflix next time. STFU and GTFO.

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

4. DMV. Sure. Why not. The place sucks anyway. The kid needs to know that life sucks sometimes.

There. The above is the answer to everything this thread needs to know. You are welcome!

wow. it took five pages for us/ you people to come up with that. kronk wins.

[/thread]

**Ouze**

Captain Fantastic wrote:
You gotta hit children for no reason, or they'll grow up thinking that they're special and live a vicious life of entitlement and greed.

On the other hand, this man makes a good point.

**Gitkikka**

sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

Probably for the best - quite a few Special Snowflakes here demanding that society be tailored for their own personal comfort. Don't really want to spread that to further generations.

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
Kronk's time to weigh in on people with crying babies.

1. Allowed on planes. People have to fething travel. Get over yourself. People have to travel because their job required a move, a parent died, or the family gets to see junior for the first time. You do NOT have the right to fly on a quiet plane. You do have the right to go feth yourself, then the privilege of driving a car on one of our many scenic highways and interstates next time, listening to Zamfir: Master of the Pan Flute in your Yaris.

2. NOT allowed at MOST movies*. This is an entertainment venue. People paid money to watch a movie, not listen to your kid. If your kid is crying, take him outside.
* Unless it's a kids move. If it's rated G, the crying kid can stay and anyone that complained should have known better. Netflix next time. STFU and GTFO.

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

4. DMV. Sure. Why not. The place sucks anyway. The kid needs to know that life sucks sometimes.

There. The above is the answer to everything this thread needs to know. You are welcome!

You sir, have just posted the best post of 2014 to date. Like a rich ripe onion, you peel one layer of goodness away and are surprised to find another underneath.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you a still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

What this guy says, for the most part.

Hotsauce, as a parent of 3, ages ranging from 1 to 5, let me clue you in on something.

You have no clue what you are talking about, so shut the feth up.

Just wait until they are teenagers...

**Dreadclaw69**

Kronk wins, again

**Alfndrate**

sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that them not having kids is a conscious choice they're making...

**chromedog**

@Sebster: We've also been informed that we are "too old" to do it.

They don't like couples over 30 to adopt for some reason. Maybe they just don't think we could transfer the discipline we have developed over time to the adoptee?

**daedalus**

the shrouded lord wrote:

You can't read your book, I'm sorry, I'm trying to raise a Child that will one day contribute to society just as much as you do.

Questionable, really.

**MrDwhitey**

Yes, it'll probably contribute more in all honesty.

**daedalus**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Yes, it'll probably contribute more in all honesty.

Maybe. It's difficult to tell. I'm just caught up in what a strange argument it is to make, as it's without evidence and not necessarily relevant.

Not to mention that the relativity of what "contribute to society" even means.

**the shrouded lord**

daedalus wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Yes, it'll probably contribute more in all honesty.

Maybe. It's difficult to tell. I'm just caught up in what a strange argument it is to make, as it's without evidence and not necessarily relevant.

Not to mention that the relativity of what "contribute to society" even means.

Fr my studies it means to have some form of impact in the local community e.g: earning money to circulate back into the system.

**Ensis Ferrae**

kronk wrote:

3. Restaurants. Fast food? No problem. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

This rule is completely negated when that "nice" steak house, italian restaurant, etc. that SHOULD have a dress code of some loose variety allows people in there and stay to eat wearing their PJs, gym clothes or other wholly inappropriate clothing... Yep, welcome to a military town

**reds8n**

kronk wrote:
. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

Would you want to eat at a restaurant that would let you in ?

**Frazzled**

You should be required to wear authentic 1870s western duds to wear steak at a Texas steakhouse. Or alternatively a Mexican cavalry officer's uniform.

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
You should be required to wear authentic 1870s western duds to wear steak at a Texas steakhouse. Or alternatively a Mexican cavalry officer's uniform.

I'd say you first... but you are already probably dressed as a Mexican Calvary Officer right now...

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You should be required to wear authentic 1870s western duds to wear steak at a Texas steakhouse. Or alternatively a Mexican cavalry officer's uniform.

I'd say you first... but you are already probably dressed as a Mexican Calvary Officer right now...

Or a pink fluffy bunny smoking a fine Cuban...

**hotsauceman1**

djones520 wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

That is a strawman argument if I ever saw one. Im saying take care of your kid in public places, dont just leave them in a place, crying, running, causing a ruckus and disturbing others. I dont have kids because i dont want to have kids screaming at me.

You don't have kids because you a still a kid.

Every argument you have tried to make also highlights your lack of understanding the difference between a misbehaved kindergartener, an upset toddler, and a crying infant, all while not understanding what parenthood actually is. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

What this guy says, for the most part.

Hotsauce, as a parent of 3, ages ranging from 1 to 5, let me clue you in on something.

You have no clue what you are talking about, so shut the feth up.

Yes I have NO IDEA what im talking about when I have nieces and nephews that I see everyweek, babysit for and watch and helped raise when their baby daddy left.
Of when I saw my cousins refuse to feed their infant daughters(They didnt want them getting fat) eaving the whole thanks giving miserable for everyone.
Your hand waving saying I cant possibly unnderstand is also a very big circumstantial personal attack fallacy. Saying because of my circumstances In life I cant possibly understand
I have watched crying kids before, I know there are times they just cry.

**d-usa**

Use proper spelling and punctuation, I can't hear myself think while reading your posts. Follow Rule #1 and quit inconveniencing me and ruining my internet time.

**kronk**

reds8n wrote:
kronk wrote:
. Expensive Steak House, get a fething baby sitter donkey-cave. I'm not dropping 2 bills for the privilege of sitting next to your damn crying kid. I'm dropping 2 bills so that later I can show my ____ to my date later...

Would you want to eat at a restaurant that would let you in ?

"I would never join a club that would have me as a member!" Groucho Marx

**notprop**

Alfndrate wrote:
sebster wrote:
Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that they've decided to never have kids.

Dakka seems to have a rather large number of people declaring that them not having kids is a conscious choice they're making...

And I for one would like to thank all those ladies that made that decision by refusing to have sex with them.

chromedog wrote:@Sebster: We've also been informed that we are "too old" to do it.

They don't like couples over 30 to adopt for some reason. Maybe they just don't think we could transfer the discipline we have developed over time to the adoptee?

You mentioned the wood chipper when you called to make an appointment didn't you?

Like the youngling posters who have "chosen" to not make babies; over before it started really.