"I'm not a monster."
September 22, 2002 7:13 PM   Subscribe

"I'm not a monster." Remember the woman caught on film hitting her daughter? She's now in custody. "It's clear here the young lady lost her temper.." Well, yeah.
posted by Yelling At Nothing (17 comments total)

 
To think this is just one of the many, many times that this kind of thing happens... and cameras cannot be everywhere, but perhaps after a few terms of George Bush....that will be the case?
posted by RubberHen at 7:20 PM on September 22, 2002


The line of women who want to kick this so called "mother's" butt would probably be several miles right about now. Do not even get my sister started about this woman.
posted by jasonbondshow at 7:32 PM on September 22, 2002


Remember the woman caught on film hitting her daughter?

How can I forget? Its still on the front page. The initial story was a pretty big non-issue if you ask me, and a follow-up so soon doesn't seem worth the effort.
posted by skallas at 7:34 PM on September 22, 2002


I wasn't really that interested the first two times this was posted, to be honest. Carry on, of course, if you're so inclined, and no offense Yelling At Nothing : but I think this sort of 'followup-itis' is a bit pointless, and clutters the front page.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:34 PM on September 22, 2002


it IS more fun watching a pummeling that is deserved.
posted by quonsar at 7:47 PM on September 22, 2002


...but perhaps after a few terms of George Bush....that will be the case?

1) People like you amaze me. I suppose George Bush is also responsible for your kid's A.D.D. too.

2) You really think he'll be re-elected? It is possible for him to be president for a COUPle terms I suppose. But a FEW?
posted by Witty at 10:10 PM on September 22, 2002


I think RubberHen's comment was in regard to the proliferation of public cameras, not to any increase in violence against children.
posted by toddshot at 10:23 PM on September 22, 2002


What amazes me is when she states that "nothing like this has ever happened before". I'm sorry but people just don't go from never touching their kids to violently bashing them over a completely unrelated incident.

I'd suggest that they ask the little girl but I could pretty much guarantee you that she's scared silent and wouldn't speak out against her mum anyway.
posted by Jubey at 11:31 PM on September 22, 2002


Witty, methinks thou doth protest too much...verily.
posted by BruceLee_Archdiocese at 11:47 PM on September 22, 2002


Stepping aside for a moment, do you think it is possible that this woman could get a fair trial now? This case has been splashed across the news media worldwide. It has carried very damning straplines in the tabloid press where it has been reported? Should the news media be a little less graphic with sensitive cases, or should they be allowed to influence their readerships opinion on the members of a current and on-going police investigation?

When does reporting step over the threshold, and become prejudicial?
posted by DrDoberman at 4:18 AM on September 23, 2002


...perhaps after a few terms of George Bush...

It is true that it will be far easier to keep an eye on people across a barren nuclear wasteland that's for sure. Once all those pesky buildings that spoil the line of sight are flattened ;)
posted by DrDoberman at 4:22 AM on September 23, 2002


This case has been splashed across the news media worldwide. It has carried very damning straplines in the tabloid press where it has been reported?

I think that piece of videotape would provide both Ms. Toogood's the ultimate level of fairness that could be possible be provided at trial - the ability of the jury to witness the actual crime itself. How could that be prejudicial? The elder Toogood's own actions would then damn or exonerate her, not the recording thereof.

I think you might be overestimating the power of the press, especially the modern press, which is increasingly fragmented and lacks the sort of monolithic regional integrity it once enjoyed. Surely there are those that haven't seen the tape. In fact, I haven't.

I'm absolutely for privacy - in areas that should be private. As for the the public domain? Fill it with cameras, I say, for precisely the reasons we see exemplified in this incident.
posted by UncleFes at 7:34 AM on September 23, 2002


Stepping aside for a moment, do you think it is possible that this woman could get a fair trial now?

Prolly depends on your interpretation of fair, really.

I think her chances of acquittal are slim to none, no matter how you loaded the jury. But, I don't think that's unfair...the video tape doesn't lie. Strapping a child down, pulling her head back by her hair and punching her in the face...not really likely to engender much good feelings with the jury. As it should be.

These were horrible, terrible, unforgivable things to do to a child...and she got caught on tape...which again, is a totally impartial recorder. She got caught, the jury will see that...and I for one, hope they give her the strongest penalty available by law.
posted by dejah420 at 11:29 AM on September 23, 2002


I was appalled at the violence and the rage in that beating, and surprised that the child wasn't hurt badly -- I mean, I thought she tore her poor daughter's head off, for Chrissakes.
I was also appalled, and saddened, and sickened, when I read that the mother had gotten so angry because she was refused a cash refund for goods at the store
I mean, such horrible rage especially toward a child is unexcusable, always, even if the doctor had just told the mother that she had incurable cancer, but, you know, going homicidal for a cash refund?
The woman badly needs professional rage management therapy. In prison, of course. I also would not concentrate over the maximum penalty (3 years) -- therapy is essential. Otherwise she'll get out and massacre a kid 3 years from now.
She says missing her daughter is the worst punishment. I don't know. Jail sounds good too
posted by matteo at 12:32 PM on September 23, 2002


BruceLee_Archdiocese and toddshot: I just don't like bold faceless comments like that... as if George Bush could possibly be blamed for everything people accuse him of in this forum. It's ridiculous. It's old and easy.

Do you really think the proliferation of public cameras is due to George Bush? It's not like this is new. C'mon.
posted by Witty at 6:03 PM on September 23, 2002


I think that piece of videotape would provide both Ms. Toogood's the ultimate level of fairness that could be possible be provided at trial - the ability of the jury to witness the actual crime itself. How could that be prejudicial?

I was appalled at the violence and the rage in that beating, and surprised that the child wasn't hurt badly -- I mean, I thought she tore her poor daughter's head off

And, in fact, there was no serious damage...cameras do lie, ask any cinematographer. I understand that the defendant has plead guilty, so there won't be a jury trial. If there had been, I'm sure her defense attorney would have had experts on the stand showing how videotapes can be misleading.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:08 PM on September 23, 2002


And, in fact, there was no serious damage...cameras do lie, ask any cinematographer.

Except that no one was directing.

Cameras do not lie; they are simple, mindless machines.

People lie.
posted by UncleFes at 8:47 PM on September 23, 2002


« Older Sure you've been to The Met...  |  Jeb Bush's daughter found with... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments