https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213796285This thread discusses the horrendous, appalling photo of a grown man kneeling on the neck of a toddler, who is obviously terrified. Most of the DUpipo see exactly what us normal people see. Not Laelth. S/he/it keeps digging deeper and deeper and deeper.
Dial H For Hero (196 posts)
Man shown kneeling on 2-year-old's neck jailed
https://dayton247now.com/news/local/man-shown-kneeling-on-2-year-olds-neck-jailed
MOOREFIELD TOWNSHIP, Clark County, Ohio (WKEF/WRGT) -- A man shown on social media kneeling on the neck of a 2-year-old boy is in jail. Photos of a man kneeling on the child with the banner comment "BLM Now" had been circulating on social media before The Clark County Sheriff's Office began investigating. "Two divisions of the Clark County Sheriff's Office immediately began an investigation to determine the location of the incident and the identities of the individuals involved," a sheriff's office statement reads.
Deputies were able to make contact with the mother, the child shown in the photo and the man also in the photo. That man, identified as 20-year-old Isaiah Jackson, was arrested immediately for a Parole Authority holder from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
The child, whose identity is not being released, was taken to a hospital, where he was found to have not been injured because of the incident shown in the photo. The sheriff's office says the child's mother was unaware of the incident or the photo until the sheriff's office began investigating.
Investigators say they have prepared a case against Jackson and is awaiting the Clark County Prosecutor's Office to determine "the scope and breadth of the felony charges that will be supported."
Star Member Laelth (26,034 posts)
5. Kid wasn't hurt?
Sounds like bad judgment and a stupid photo pose to me.
Certainly doesn’t sound worthy of prison.
-Laelth
Kneeling on a two-year old's neck? Simple bad judgment.
S/he/it then goes on to explain:
Laelth (26,034 posts)
17. Interesting question.
The caption “blm now” says, “Hey, whitey? How would you feel if we did this to your children?”
Interesting.
-Laelth
Yeah, child abuse is "interesting."
Laelth (26,034 posts)
26. I saw it, eventually.
This is obviously protected political speech. If that man had really intended to hurt that child, the child would be dead. This was a staged photo, and I think that the mother was probably involved. She certainly hasn’t filed kidnapping charges.
Main thing—the child was not injured. If the people staging this political photo (note the “blm now” caption) had any real intent to hurt that child, the child would be dead.
-Laelth
I don't think this is what the founders had in mind when they conceived the First Amendment.
Laelth, I'd love to see some "protected political speech" performed on you. Idiot.
Yeehah (729 posts)
112. That's the stupidest thing I've read for a long time
Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2020, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)
Congratulations.
Laelth (26,034 posts)
76. Fair enough.
But it is political speech (even if it’s not “protected” because it displays some child abuse). The caption says “blm now.” How can that not be political speech?
My main point was that I don’t think that this particular instance of child abuse warrants imprisonment. I think that this lynch mob mentality makes us look really bad.
-Laelth
Laelth backs off--a little. But still thinks it's merely "political speech."
Laelth (26,034 posts)
95. What I find morally wrong is the prevailing notion that the perps should be imprisoned.
I do not consider this offense imprisonable.
I don’t like seeing DU look like an angry lynch mob just because some ill-advised brown people
staged a piece of political speech that depicts violence against a white child. Yes, it’s provocative. Yes, it’s stupid. Yes, for about 30 seconds that child suffered emotional abuse and panic in order to produce this obvious piece of political speech.
But I wouldn’t send the perps to prison for it. The child wasn’t injured. There was no intent to injure the child. If there had been, the child would be dead, and I can not condone sending people to prison under these circumstances.
DU is doing exactly that, for the most part, and I morally object to that.
-Laelth
Ah, yes, the poor oppressed brown people performed a violent act of political speech on their oppressor, who happens to be a toddler. Yeah, people go to prison for that.
Laelth (26,034 posts)
71. No. Child abuse is not OK.
But what this photograph shows is NOTHING compared to the serious cases of child abuse and, especially, child neglect that our social workers deal with on a daily basis.
I would not be willing, as a Judge, to put these men in prison for subjecting a child to thirty seconds of panic and emotional distress just so that these well-meaning morons could create an evocative political message. Many more children are subjected to far worse abuse and neglect than this for much longer periods of time. These long-term abuse cases deserve more of our Courts’ attention, and their abusers are far more worthy of our prison beds.
-Laelth
Well-meaning? WELL-MEANING????
Laelth (26,034 posts)
104. They are well-meaning.
The caption “blm now” (below the picture) is a well-meaning argument. “Hey, whitey? How would you feel if brown people were doing this to your children?”
That’s a reasonable, well-meaning argument, if you ask me, and, in this case, the white person didn’t even die. In fact, the child was taken to the hospital, and it was determined that the child had suffered no physical injury. It was an ill-advised, staged, event made to convey a First Amendment-protected political argument. Stupid? Yes. Imprisonable? No. Not in my opinion, but I am standing front of the mob, and I only have so much courage. If I keep this up, they may lynch me too.
Peace, my friend.
-Laelth
There is much, much more Laelth goodness in this thread. It has to be seen to be believed.
It is so sad that people like this are allowed to walk among us. And vote.