What a worthless sack of crap. It's a good thing that the boy's mother over heard what was going on. Here's the sick story.
This story just grates at me. I think it's the part where there is evidence, on the boy, that this isn't the first incident of abuse. A two year old has no voice. It reminds me of my step-brother, who was a senior in high school when I was in 3rd grade. He used to get too rough with me and push me around and I was too young and impressionable to tell. Now, I've grown to be 3-4 inches taller and at least 50 pounds heavier, where is that turd? I'd love for him to put one damn finger on me now. I hope this football player tries this crap once his son has reached his adult height and weight and he might get a life lesson that he never forgets. I doubt that happens. Pieces of crap like this are usually long gone before the people they pick on can respond in kind.
The most likely thing is that the kid was screaming and Scott didn't know how to handle it. The other abuse marks are probably the result of the child not doing what Scott wanted (imagine that, a 2 year old not doing what you want). Some people just are not cut out to be parents.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The most likely thing is that the kid was screaming and Scott didn't know how to handle it. The other abuse marks are probably the result of the child not doing what Scott wanted (imagine that, a 2 year old not doing what you want). Some people just are not cut out to be parents.</div> 1. Didn't know how to handle it? How about taking the bag off his head and letting him up? How about not putting a plastic sack over a child's head to begin with? 2. Did you miss this part? She told police she had evidence of previous injuries while the child was in Scott's care. A doctor who examined the boy said there is a reasonable degree of medical certainty that marks on the boy's arm and ear were intentionally inflicted and were consistent with either burning or being struck. I can imagine a child being difficult because I had a class of about a dozen 3 and 4 year old homeless children at a daycare which was my previous job. (I left to work full-time for the homeless agency where I was volunteering at the time.) I just don't see how anyone can have any understanding for a man intentionally inflicting burn and strike wounds no matter how difficult his child is being. Edit - Nevermind point 2, CP, I missed the sarcasm the first time I read your previous post. I read it with a different inflection and thought you were shifting some of the blame to the child. I'll leave the post just so folks can see how quickly a post can be misunderstood. My fault this time around.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 9 2008, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The most likely thing is that the kid was screaming and Scott didn't know how to handle it. The other abuse marks are probably the result of the child not doing what Scott wanted (imagine that, a 2 year old not doing what you want). Some people just are not cut out to be parents.</div> 1. Didn't know how to handle it? How about taking the bag off his head and letting him up? How about not putting a plastic sack over a child's head to begin with? </div> Obviously it should never have happened and I have zero sympathy for him. My point was that it was more likely that Scott was a horrible parent than some sadistic person that enjoys hurting young children. Some people just don't have the mental makeup necessary to handle a screaming child. Unfortunately, even through the 70's and early 80's, parents were given carte blanche to do what ever they felt necessary with their kids. It seems like every day there is a news story about some parent that hurt their child doing something that their parents did to them. Hardest thing to remember as a parent is that you are the adult and you have to act like it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 9 2008, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The most likely thing is that the kid was screaming and Scott didn't know how to handle it. The other abuse marks are probably the result of the child not doing what Scott wanted (imagine that, a 2 year old not doing what you want). Some people just are not cut out to be parents.</div> 1. Didn't know how to handle it? How about taking the bag off his head and letting him up? How about not putting a plastic sack over a child's head to begin with? </div> Obviously it should never have happened and I have zero sympathy for him. My point was that it was more likely that Scott was a horrible parent than some sadistic person that enjoys hurting young children. Some people just don't have the mental makeup necessary to handle a screaming child. Unfortunately, even through the 70's and early 80's, parents were given carte blanche to do what ever they felt necessary with their kids. It seems like every day there is a news story about some parent that hurt their child doing something that their parents did to them. Hardest thing to remember as a parent is that you are the adult and you have to act like it. </div> I would have to disagree on this point. I think he IS a sadistic bastard. I base that off of there being medical evidence that the boy has suffered wounds consistant with being burned and struck. This doesn't seem like an isolated incident. However, this mother needs to understand that if this guy is injuring her child on a repeated basis and she doesn't get him away from Scott, then she's every bit as guilty as Scott.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 10 2008, 05:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 9 2008, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The most likely thing is that the kid was screaming and Scott didn't know how to handle it. The other abuse marks are probably the result of the child not doing what Scott wanted (imagine that, a 2 year old not doing what you want). Some people just are not cut out to be parents.</div> 1. Didn't know how to handle it? How about taking the bag off his head and letting him up? How about not putting a plastic sack over a child's head to begin with? </div> Obviously it should never have happened and I have zero sympathy for him. My point was that it was more likely that Scott was a horrible parent than some sadistic person that enjoys hurting young children. Some people just don't have the mental makeup necessary to handle a screaming child. Unfortunately, even through the 70's and early 80's, parents were given carte blanche to do what ever they felt necessary with their kids. It seems like every day there is a news story about some parent that hurt their child doing something that their parents did to them. Hardest thing to remember as a parent is that you are the adult and you have to act like it. </div> I would have to disagree on this point. I think he IS a sadistic bastard. I base that off of there being medical evidence that the boy has suffered wounds consistant with being burned and struck. This doesn't seem like an isolated incident. However, this mother needs to understand that if this guy is injuring her child on a repeated basis and she doesn't get him away from Scott, then she's every bit as guilty as Scott. </div> I'm basing my opinion on the same evidence. Scott shows a pattern of using totally inappropriate methods of discipline. The child didn't listen to him, so he struck him or burned him. Unfortunately, there are still people that believe that is the way to parent because that is what was done to them.
I think it's reading a lot into the article to just assume that Scott is "parenting" in the manner that he was parented. We don't know how he was parented. It's also reading a lot into the article to suggest the child wasn't listening when he suffered the burn/strike injuries. Part of the problem in this country is that we make too many excuses for sacks of feces who like to take out their frustrations on children by inflicting pain on them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 10 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it's reading a lot into the article to just assume that Scott is "parenting" in the manner that he was parented. We don't know how he was parented. It's also reading a lot into the article to suggest the child wasn't listening when he suffered the burn/strike injuries. Part of the problem in this country is that we make too many excuses for sacks of feces who like to take out their frustrations on children by inflicting pain on them.</div> But you don't believe it is reading too much into the article to call him a sadistic bastard? You are taking a small set of facts and forming an opinion that Scott injuries this young child for pleasure. I'm looking at the small set of data and offering an opinion on the most likely cause. I see no evidence that society makes too many excuses for people like this anymore. All I see in articles in the newpapers practically every day where these type of people are in court. Again, I'm not offering any sort of excuse for Scott nor saying that he shouldn't be punished. As a parent of a 2 year old, I find what he did completely contemptible.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 11 2008, 10:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 10 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it's reading a lot into the article to just assume that Scott is "parenting" in the manner that he was parented. We don't know how he was parented. It's also reading a lot into the article to suggest the child wasn't listening when he suffered the burn/strike injuries. Part of the problem in this country is that we make too many excuses for sacks of feces who like to take out their frustrations on children by inflicting pain on them.</div> But you don't believe it is reading too much into the article to call him a sadistic bastard? You are taking a small set of facts and forming an opinion that Scott injuries this young child for pleasure. I'm looking at the small set of data and offering an opinion on the most likely cause. I see no evidence that society makes too many excuses for people like this anymore. All I see in articles in the newpapers practically every day where these type of people are in court. Again, I'm not offering any sort of excuse for Scott nor saying that he shouldn't be punished. As a parent of a 2 year old, I find what he did completely contemptible. </div> I think you have this backwards. I was actually looking at the facts, provided by the article, and forming an opinion based off those facts. Fact one - Scott was caught holding a plastic bag over his two year old son's face by his mother. Fact two - The article says that there is medical evidence that the boy has previous burn and strike wounds. The actual article is my support for my conclusions and, YEAH, I think that an adult that inflicts those types of injuries is a sadistic bastard. On the other hand, your making assertions that come are coming out of left field. What set of facts is telling you that (one) Scott was abused by his parents and (two) the child was misbehaving? The article says absolutely NOTHING about Scott being abused, as a child, or the child misbehaving (isn't that a given with 2 year olds?) which is why I said your reading things into this story.
Honestly, I think you guys are both doing the same thing. You're making assumptions, but just about two different things: one about the dude's character and one about possible causes for this. I don't really see how one is any more unjustified than the other.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 9 2008, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The most likely thing is that the kid was screaming and Scott didn't know how to handle it. The other abuse marks are probably the result of the child not doing what Scott wanted (imagine that, a 2 year old not doing what you want). Some people just are not cut out to be parents.</div> ha, that waz my dad, when I was 2.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 12 2008, 01:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 11 2008, 10:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale @ May 10 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it's reading a lot into the article to just assume that Scott is "parenting" in the manner that he was parented. We don't know how he was parented. It's also reading a lot into the article to suggest the child wasn't listening when he suffered the burn/strike injuries. Part of the problem in this country is that we make too many excuses for sacks of feces who like to take out their frustrations on children by inflicting pain on them.</div> But you don't believe it is reading too much into the article to call him a sadistic bastard? You are taking a small set of facts and forming an opinion that Scott injuries this young child for pleasure. I'm looking at the small set of data and offering an opinion on the most likely cause. I see no evidence that society makes too many excuses for people like this anymore. All I see in articles in the newpapers practically every day where these type of people are in court. Again, I'm not offering any sort of excuse for Scott nor saying that he shouldn't be punished. As a parent of a 2 year old, I find what he did completely contemptible. </div> I think you have this backwards. I was actually looking at the facts, provided by the article, and forming an opinion based off those facts. Fact one - Scott was caught holding a plastic bag over his two year old son's face by his mother. Fact two - The article says that there is medical evidence that the boy has previous burn and strike wounds. The actual article is my support for my conclusions and, YEAH, I think that an adult that inflicts those types of injuries is a sadistic bastard. On the other hand, your making assertions that come are coming out of left field. What set of facts is telling you that (one) Scott was abused by his parents and (two) the child was misbehaving? The article says absolutely NOTHING about Scott being abused, as a child, or the child misbehaving (isn't that a given with 2 year olds?) which is why I said your reading things into this story. </div> I never said nor implied that Scott was abused as a child. I did say that some people parent like because that happened to them. Two separate items. You have misrepresented my position by taking the generalities I was discussing and applying them to Scott. All along I've been talking about "most likely" and have talked about things that happen in this day and age. The article didn't say anything about Scott deriving pleasure from doing this to his child, so you claiming he is a sadistic bastard is a huge reach. It is far more likely that Scott is an incredibly bad parent than someone that derives pleasure from doing this to a two year old. I'm saying that the most likely scenario is that Scott was frustrated by his child and he acted in an abhorrent manner.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ May 12 2008, 01:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This idiot shouldn't have kids.</div> A post I can totally agree with.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ May 12 2008, 01:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly, I think you guys are both doing the same thing. You're making assumptions, but just about two different things: one about the dude's character and one about possible causes for this. I don't really see how one is any more unjustified than the other.</div> Absolutely. Both are drawing conclusions from a small amount of evidence. I've only continued because my position has been misrepresented.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 12 2008, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>"Idiot" might be a little kind though.</div> True enough.
