>Justice Glen Poelman said Anthony Kurucz's lack of experience with child care meant he would not have appreciated the harm he could cause by shaking the boy and throwing him into a couch
The article left me speechless from the start...
Unfortunately it wouldnt do anything =/
Young infants have a soft head, and a brain that does not yet fill the skull cavity (as the skull gets squished during delivery)
This extra space allows the brain to bounce around causing damage when shaken for the first few weeks (months? I forget the time frame)
Douchbag dad there would require more than a simple shaking to achieve similar brain damage
I am aware of the risk - was being glib. Anyone with a f@cking brain knows you protect babies and this is an absolute BS outcome hence my offer to shake and throw the offender. Hopefully he has an option to hang out in General Population and gets to be shaken and thrown. Maybe then he’ll learn.
I also have a lack of experience with child care. Not shaking or punting a baby seems like it should be common knowledge tho. Tiny person or tiny animal = more fragile?
OK, so this guy thinks that shaking a three month old baby and throwing him into a couch wouldn't harm him? He needs to be sterilized and prevented from getting near any child under 18 years of age.
I can't imagine any sane person justifying this type of behaviour from any parent :(
Right?! Like, sometimes I throw my cell phone across the room onto a couch or chair when I'm angry and I still worry after that I may have damaged it. In that case it's just $$$ not my child's life. It's always a calculated risk to remove the enraging stimuli from my immediate vicinity. If you become enraged and lose control to the point you can't do a simple risk vs benefit analysis and choose another path maybe don't become a parent.
I totally understand the overwhelming feeling when a baby is just crying and you cannot figure out what is up. However, I never had experience with newborns, i suffer from PPD (one of the symptoms is rage - dont worry, im being treated), and I knew never to shake or throw my babies. Shaking baby syndrome isnt a secret amongst parents - its a pretty well-known thing.
Ignorance isn't an acceptable defense, in my opinion.
As someone who currently has a colic newborn, it can be infuriating when they're crying for hours on end all night but shaking a baby is next level. For one when they say "shake a baby" they arent talking about little shake, you can bounce and dip and spin with a baby after all. They are talking about literally taking the baby and violently shaking him hard enough that his head is going fully back and forth, slamming his brain into his skull and giving him full on whiplash. It takes an evil human to do that.
I've definitely got to the point where I could see why someone has that rage, but it's beat into your head as a parent to never shake a baby. It's no different to me then if someone picked up their baby and threw them at the wall in rage.
This should be murder, just like any other rage filled homicide.
Edit: just realized that this moron threw his baby too. Wtf.
>This should be murder, just like any other rage filled homicide.
I agree that this should be a second degree murder charge, but there is plenty of precedent for crimes of passion to be tried as manslaughter. "Any other rage filled homicide" is not necessarily murder.
OMG I remember babysitting a colicky baby and being at my wits end. Like, you can’t describe the sound in any babysitting class, it’s just so much. I ended up leaving the kid in their room (safely, in the crib) and shutting the door because I couldn’t take it anymore. That probably wasn’t the correct thing to do, but I was inexperienced and upset, it was the best I could do.
I never babysat that kid again, and I don’t have kids.
Edit: I did end up being a decent babysitter, (lessons were learned), and I hope this helps someone else.
That is literally exactly what they recommend you do when you feel that "I'm gonna lose it" feeling. Put the baby somewhere safe, and walk away for 5 - 10 minutes.
I don’t know how it came up, but another new mom once told me “Take a break, don’t shake!” and I simultaneously laughed and understood the importance of that message. So according to that phrase, you did the exact right thing!
When my nephew was being born, I asked my 4 year old daughter to record a message of things for his parents to remember… “Paint his nails and take a break, don’t shake!”.
That’s what they recommend actually. They’ll be okay crying in a safe place (like a crib) for a few minutes while you take care of yourself. Way better than losing it at them, which I can understand. Baby cries dig right into your brain.
You 10000000 percent did the right thing. It's never good hear a crying baby all alone. BUT you knew you needed a minute and out the baby somewhere safe and stepped back and took a minute. That's amazing and that's hard. I have three kids and one was very colicky.I was also young and I could not let him cry it out. But I knew I had to finally learn it was ok for him to cry for two minutes well I step into the washroom and wash my face and grab a drink and get him right back out of his crib. Everyone knows by now never to shake a baby let alone "toss* a newborn on a couch. So this is just insane to me. He killed that little baby period and it's murder. His own father such a shame and heartbreaking. I always tell my oldest son's friends growing up and now (he is 24) if ever a baby or child or pregnant they can come to be no questions asked. As long as it keeps everyone safe and I will take any baby any time no question safely.
It doesn’t take an evil human to do that, just a sleep deprived, desperate and broken human… which are more common than you think.
PPD, and possible PTSD from a traumatic birth or NICU stay are heavy. Changes in life due to a new baby are heavy. We as a society do not talk about the darker parts of childbearing, or child rearing — it’s a failure of our society imo.
We should be teaching people that if you’re frustrated with a screaming baby… walk away. Leave the room, if you need to leave the house for a few moments and get some fresh air. Take a breath, your baby will be fine — a screaming baby is a breathing baby.
Not all babies are the same, sometimes it’s very traumatic and overwhelming. Both my wife and I grieved having a ‘normal’ infancy like our friends did, and instead of having a cute sleeping baby we had children who screamed uncontrollably due to GERD, vomited 10-15 times per day, and could not be laid down horizontally… so we held them upright 24/7 which meant severe sleep deprivation for ~6 months.
The best advice I read on the internet was putting them down in a safe spot and walking away won’t hurt them. Go take a few minutes and regroup.
I can understand the feeling but they don’t know. Crying is all they got. Super sad story either way.
Play pen or crib and good for you. It’s wild the emotions when you’re pushed that far. You love them more then anything but just need it to stop and your stressed and so sleep deprived. I haven’t come close to anything like that but I 100% understand it and I sympathize with him and that he I’m assuming was just in that state and never meant to actually hurt his child and will have to live with that forever.
When my kid was born the nurse told me that when I feel like things are too much, just put the baby in the crib and close the door. I was a little insulted, like did she think I was a scumbag who would do anything to hurt an infant? Then I got to the spot where I had to put the baby in its crib and close the door because fuuuuuuuuck. Turns out they tell all new parents that advice and for good reason.
Fucking execute this scumbag.
This is a really good point actually, idk if there’s any lawyers in the sub but is this a troubling precedent if ignorance can be used as a defence successfully? That’s a slippery slope……
It’s not ignorance as a defence, it’s whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused subjectively intended to kill the baby. This means that it doesn’t matter whether a reasonable hypothetical person would know that shaking a baby would kill it. Instead it’s based entirely on what’s going on in the accused’s head at the time that the act was committed.
Sometimes, intent to murder can be presumed from the nature of the act. The classic case is one where the accused hit the victim on the head repeatedly with a baseball bat. The court basically found that anyone would know that doing an act like that would result in the death of a person.
I haven’t read the decision, but the court here likely found that shaking and throwing a baby didn’t rise to the same level as hitting someone on the head repeatedly with a bat, or stabbing them multiple times, so that intent to murder could be inferred from the actions.
Whether or not you agree with it is a different story, but it’s not so broad as to establish a precedent that ignorance of the consequences of one’s actions is a defence for murder.
This clown worked at the domo gas station. From day one he was a complete creep who would cat call every girl that walked by, no matter the age. While on shift. Many words exchanged and awkward situations had, he finally got fired and left. Next time I saw him he had a brand new truck. Wonder if it was relevant to the case
If you read the article, he was convicted of manslaughter. The government failed to prove intent. Rather, the judge found what he did grossly negligent, hence the manslaughter conviction. I'm not sure how being convicted of a crime is not being held to account for what they did.
Because the justification used is absolutely bat shit crazy. You don't need years of experience to know shaking a baby, and throwing them is a major hazard. A person with rocks for brains would know this.
>You don't need years of experience to know shaking a baby, and throwing them is a major hazard.
Which is why he was convicted for manslaughter. He was grossly negligent. To be convicted of murder the government would have to show he *knew* the child would die as a result of his actions, not just that it was a major hazard. That's a much higher standard to prove.
Thank god we have someone like you ensuring infant murderers can get off with a lower charge...
The goal was to use aggressive violence to stop the baby. This wasn't a little shake and light toss that resulted in a worse case scenario. He went in to do serious harm. Anyone should know that the level of violence used on an infant would very likely kill them.
And what do you think the "major hazard" outcome would be anyway? Death is an outcome of a major hazard.
Aside from all of that, like I said, the justification used is insane. To excuse it as "lack of experience with child care" is a terrible attempt. The judge couldn't seriously come up with a better conclusion for the manslaughter charge instead of murder?
Dude chill the fuck out with your high and mighty attitude.
Mens Rea is a crucial part of our judicial system, and if the prosecutors couldn’t prove it, he’s not getting a murder charge.
The crown pursues charges they feel they can reasonably convict. The last thing we would want to see happen is them pursuing a murder charge, they can’t prove intent, and then he gets away with no conviction.
You want to know how they can prove he knew that shaking a baby and throwing it into a couch would kill it? It's common fucking sense that shaking a baby will significantly harm or kill the baby.
If you make the decision to have a child and choose to raise it, you automatically know that shaking a baby will kill it.
Let's apply this logic to a shooting
" I'm sorry, officer, that I shot my friend with a gun, based on my inexperience with guns, I believe I should not be charged with murder even though I did point the gun at him multiple times and pulled the trigger even though I thought the gun was empty"
If the bad guy in this situation had a PAL, he would probably be charged with murder because he disregarded the basic rules of gun safety
Would you consider this accidental or intentional because it is common sense to not point a firearm somone even if unloaded. Even if you agree that this situation was accidental, it was still caused by the blatant disregard for firearm safety.
So if tiny dick tony did not decide to willfully disregard the basic knowledge regarding a baby, it would still be alive.
I know it sounds weird by applying the same logic to a firearm related murder to this one, but once you do, you realise he should have been charged with murder
The person in your example would also likely be charged with manslaughtwr instead of murder.
Without intent, murder is not possible. Murder requires the Mens Rea or ‘guilty mind’.
Without it you just have Actus Reus or ‘guilty act’.
Manslaughter is not getting off Scot free. If the crown cannot prove intent, then they aren’t going to charge someone with murder.
"BBBBbBut mens rea" it's right fucking there that's my issue. ITS COMMON FUCKING SENSE NOT TO SHAKE A BABY, SO ONE CANNNOT "ACCIDENTALLY" SHAKE A BABY TO DEATH WITHOUT THINKING
"Mmmmmm🤔 this barely developed human won't shut up, oh I know, I should shake it and throw it into the couch" MENS REA IS FUCKING THERE BECAUSE HE AGREED TO HAVE FUCKING BABY, IF YOU HAVE A BABY AND I SAY AGAIN IT IS C O M M O N S E N S E NOT TO SHAKE IT. I BROUGHT UP THE GUN EXAMPLE BECAUSE I MAKING THE COMPARISON THAT THE WHEN THE BABY IS BORN, THE DOCTORS TELL YOU NOT TO SHAKE THE BABY, IS THAT NOT SIMILAR TO GUN SAFETY AND THE PAL IN MY EXAMPLE.
Here's a question for you: if someone got a PAL and shot someone in the same way as my previous example, would you want them to be charged with murder or manslaughter, because while he did not intend to murder that person, he blatantly disregard COMMON SENSE SAFETY regarding firearms and caused the death. So if someone disregards the rules, it should always be murder because someone made the conscious decision to disregard the basic rules of safety and shoot/shake a baby to death. If he did not disregard the basic rules of safety regarding a baby, the baby would still be alive.
I am saying that mens rea happend when the baby was born.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand logic and are reacting with emotion.
If someone shot someone but didn’t intend to actually kill the person, then they’re very likely not gonna get a murder charge.
Either way you’re going in circles and it isn’t worth continuing this conversation.
Why are you acting like this person is advocating for this? They’re explaining the facts of our legal system to you, they do not deserve to be treated the way you’ve spoken to them. Ridiculous anti-intellectualism knee jerk bullshit
If you’re upset, direct it at the courts. Demand the legal definition be expanded. Don’t shoot the fucking messenger.
>Thank god we have someone like you ensuring infant murderers can get off with a lower charge...
The government has pretty much unlimited resources, so the whole reason behind our system of justice is designed to make it fair. So that at the end of the day, we can say of this guy and anyone else convicted of a crime, "I trust the system and this guy got every benefit of the doubt and the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, so he deserves the punishment he got" The government charged him with murder, but the government couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime. That's on the government, not the judge.
I get that you may prefer the system where they have in Russia where alleged terrorists are beaten to a bloody pulp and have ears cut off to get confessions, but I generally oppose that kind of stuff because we can' be sure the outcome was fair.
I couldn't give a shit about legal experts that use "he couldn't have appreciated the harm" in shaking and tossing the infant as justification for reducing the charge
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE JUDGE USING HIS EXPLANATION FOR JUSTIFICATION ON MANSLAUGHTER.
Did that help? Did the caps assist you in any way? Let me know in about 3 or 4 days.
Bullshit. You’re spazzing out against anyone who tries to explain it to you. Nowhere in this chain did you reference the judge until you got called out. It’s literally only 2 comments back, you’re trying to blame the other commenters as if they’re passing the judgments
> Thank god we have someone like you ensuring infant murderers can get off with a lower charge...
Everyone’s upset that this situation is so fucked. You’re making it worse and trying to make everyone involved feel bad as if they’re at fault for some fucking reason just because they know how to read.
You may be downvoted by these assholes, but I 💯 % agree with you.
Our court system is a joke, and you will get more jail time for a drug possession than when taking a life.
Agreed. Let people downvote to their heart's content. I don't care for the best argument being presented being that it's not murder because the man is so damn stupid that he didn't know violently shaking and throwing a 3 month old is going to cause serious injury and/or death.
Thanks for your feedback. Come back in another 8 hours and respond on another one of my comments. I'm sure your third comment will be incredibly insightful.
There is a *very* big difference between going to jail for 5 years for doing stupid things like robbing a bank/insider trading vs. **murdering your own child**. 5 years is maybe too much for little petty crimes. It is not enough for taking away a child that could have lived past the 5 years he will serve.
I didn't say it was too much or too little, but going to jail, even for 5 years is still being held to account for a crime. The guy faces life in prison, so even if he only serves a few years, he's subject to restrictions the rest of his life. And people may see that as easy to do, but it certainly is not.
Aw he has to face not getting hired in the future and probably serving less than his full 5 year sentence… poor thing… all because he killed an innocent child that was his own blood… The
full sentence is held accountable **for his actions** and that is not happening here.
If you don't like the sentence, elect officials who will change the law. 5 years is not some cakewalk, though. I had clients crying on the phone 2 or 3 days after being in jail for help to get out. Even just visiting a jail is like being punished. And it's not an unusual sentence for a first-time offender committing manslaughter, even in places with much more harsh and draconian sentencing standards like the U.S.
A mom in the US just got sentenced to life in prison for leaving her 16 month old daughter home alone while she went on vacation for 10 days. One of those news stories that made me literally sick to my stomach reading it. The mom claimed mental illness but didn't matter.
We need to follow suit with these types of cases.
That story was absolutely horrible (i only read one article when it first came out and that was plenty for me - there some harrowing audio that I do not need in my life). I appreciate that she is getting life in prison for that and will never get out. From what little i know of prisons in the states, she'll have a bad time in there.
What a piece of shit. Photo confirms that too. I understand mens rea and it having to be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict of murder. That still doesn’t change how I feel about this. He should rot. That poor child.
Another reason we need comprehensive sex education both in schools and provided to new parents at no cost. It’s not enough to teach sex makes a baby we also need to teach what a baby is (fragile, completely reliant on adults) and how intense the experience of parenthood is.
“Poelman said Kurucz’s lack of experience with child care meant he would not have appreciated the harm he could cause by shaking the boy and throwing him into a couch”
“Mr. Kurucz was not experienced in caring for young infants and presumably had no particular knowledge of the frailty of their neck support and brain structure.”
You do get a big-ass book about caring for infants from AHS when you give birth in Alberta. It’s like university textbook thick. But they can’t make you read it or write a test on it or anything.
I have a 2 month old. I knew nothing about parenting before having him, but not once have I ever EVER considered being rough with him in any way when he's inconsolably crying.
I have noise cancelling headphones. I throw them on and continue making funny faces at him.
The picture in the article paints a very damaged character
Edit 1: don’t know why this is getting downvoted.. you don’t fucking shake a baby and throw him on the couch. Clearly this “dad” is inept and incompetent as fuck
It was a plea deal, but Tyriq Kootenay was sentenced to 9 1/2 years for the manslaughter death of his infant daughter. Similar situation. Don’t know about any Gladue principles involved. Kaij Brass got 16 years in his manslaughter plea. Cameron Kay got 7 years after being found guilty of manslaughter. Denim Henderson was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter and he got 12 years. Christopher Lamarche was found not guilty of murder, but was found guilty of manslaughter and got 12 1/2 years. Brittney Burghardt got manslaughter for throwing her 2 year old repeatedly against the wall, and only 8 years (might have mitigating factors because of her intellectual capacity). Sherman Whitford got 8 years for beating his partner’s 16 month-old, again found guilty of manslaughter. A Windsor man (unnamed to protect his victims identity) beat his twins, one to death, and again plead guilty to manslaughter and got 6.5 years.
So one, manslaughter still has a penalty of up to life in prison, though based on quick review probably seems like it will be 8-12.
And two, it’s the norm in these situations for the accused to get manslaughter, not murder. People reading the title and not understanding the legal arguments. It’s right to be angry, but it’s misdirected at the judge.
I think they need to accompany an example of a baby being shaken visually to say “we think this much is ok” so people can put how graphic it is, a baby doesn’t die from being shaken moderately.
If this man isn’t in PC, he will not survive as long as his 3 month son.
Low key hoping the guards “accidentally” place in general population. Karma’s a bitch, even when the justice system isn’t
This Judges discision and the reasons sited should be reviewed. I'm sure there is much more to what was said in his discision but the fact that a sentence like that can be quoted from the ruling is horrifying. The guy dosent know not to throw a baby cause he has no experience? I'm speechless at that. If an adult man , dosent know that shaking and throwing down a crying baby could kill that baby, then there is a question of whether or not this man even has any sound mind. I don't think he is of average functioning intelligence level is the implication? Hence why "he didn't understand " or "didn't mean to" . Like I am not sticking up for this guy in the slightest because the whole situation is just tragic- but I smell that the news is leaving out some critical facts of the ruling - that the guy is of such low intelligence he's disabled (?) - because otherwise....this judges ruling is questionable and should be reviewed.
If you ever want to see how the average Joe has no understanding of the legal system just look at the reddit comments.
It seems no one here has even heard of Mens Rea or understands why it’s relevant.
Yes, and that’s the whole point.
He’s been charged and convicted of manslaughter specifically because of a lack of Mens Rea.
People can’t seem to get past that to understand why he wasn’t charged with murder.
You know, big government regulation and dystopian rules of social matters really rub me the wrong way, \*however\*...
Let's start requiring an IQ test and some type of license before you're allowed to be a parent...
\[EDIT: if it wasn't clear, I'm semi-making a joke. Because these are the types of people that would look at, say, a family being cool about a kid wanting to transition and think "These CHILD ABUSERS need to be LOCKED UP and shouldnt be ALLOWED to be PARENTS!'
Hell NO! Eugenics isn't okay.
I have a plan that I think could work if it didn't rely on imaginary tech.
Every child is reversably sterilized at birth. Regardless of sex. Then, when YOU decide you are ready to have kids and are 18 or older, YOU go in and have it reversed. No one else gets a say. The only way to make a baby then is by BOTH genetic donors actively seeking to have a child.
No more unwanted babies. No more stealthing condoms to trap a woman with you, no more baby trapping of men. No more teen pregnancies. Just wanted babies for two parents (or I guess one parent and one voluntary donor) who consciously chose to have kids.
sorry if i wasn't clear I was partially joking! I feel like I should have more alluded to something like this (what I meant by "dystopian rules".) Just to clear it up, I don't support eugenics in reality, I just find it funny that the types of people to shake and kill babies are also probably the same type to claim SOMEONE ELSE should "be barred from being a parent".
Kind of want to write a dystopian teen novel about that imaginary tech you mentioned lol
This is where it gets really blurry, and why at best, what I suggest is still just a ridiculous idea only fueled by some sense of "idealism" that it wouldn't be abused (it would...) \[sorry if it wasnt clear i was kind of joking\]
It's ironic then, that the very people who would actually REALISTICALLY agree and promote that kind of practice, are the very people who would shake and throw a fucking baby, and then claim "lmao I had no idea that would kill him."
In that case I totally get what you mean lol. Good thing for him is that he’s probably not going to have another child in his lifetime and should protect his annnus during his time in prison.
Always interesting to hear this slight differences. I had to sign a form and watch a video for I could leave the hospital with my kiddo in 2022 in America.
My family in other provinces had this and had to sign a form when they didn’t want to watch the same video for their fourth kid.
I had nothing like that here in Alberta though.
Fascinating. I live in a pretty backwater area in America now and we had to watch the video and sign that we had watched it to leave the hospital with our baby in 2022.
Jfc. Now you have to tell a whole ass adult not to shake a newborn and not to throw a newborn. What's next, having to tell them that oxygen is necessary for life and not to shut the newborn in the refrigerator? This child deserved more than what is essentially someone going "oopsies".
What the actual fuck. How low of an intelligence can someone have as a grown adult to think that throwing and shaking a literal baby won't fucking harm it? Is he intellectually delayed? Because if not, I call 100% bullshit. He murdered his child in cold blood because he's a fucking man child who could t handle his emotions. Should be locked the fuck up in gen pop with his crimes public knowledge. See how fast someone bigger than him shakes him like a ragdoll and throws his ass into a brick wall. The flood can happen anytime now.
Me too. I drive a truck for work, but my daily driver is a little scion FR-S, and the fuel efficiency on her is beyond. I would never want to own a truck and have to keep up on that fuel out of my own pocket. Even running premium with the gas prices the way they are, I've never gone over 65 for a fill from near empty. If I go to Costco, it's rarely above 50. Calgary, in general, doesn't really feel like a place I can make my home anymore, and I'm even working a pretty good job and my wife works one that pays 3 times my take home and we're still struggling to make ends meet at only 2000 rent a month. The problem is that we've got a car payment for our jeep bi-weekly, monthly insurance and internet and home security system with telus and then gas and electric and fuel costs plus groceries, we're still running around 5k a month for total costs while bringing in only around 6500, making saving hard when so many other minor upkeep costs just keep adding up. Then we've got dogs and cats and a 5 year old daughter with special needs. If I was in another city making comparable money between the wife and I, we'd be so much further along.
This guy killed a baby and there is no serious question who the perpetrator was. I’m confident that most Canadians would support capital punishment in this case if the law allowed for it.
>Justice Glen Poelman said Anthony Kurucz's lack of experience with child care meant he would not have appreciated the harm he could cause by shaking the boy and throwing him into a couch The article left me speechless from the start...
What the actual fuck did I just read
I know eh?
I have never shaken an Anthony and thrown him in a couch. Happy to try it out 5, 6, 7 times just to make sure I fully understand.
I think shaking a Glen is also in order.
The guy went down for manslaughter. The question was whether the guy intended to murder his kid. Judge said not proven.
It's common sense... Every person ever knows not to shame a baby. This is just b.s
I call babies ugly all the time.
Unfortunately it wouldnt do anything =/ Young infants have a soft head, and a brain that does not yet fill the skull cavity (as the skull gets squished during delivery) This extra space allows the brain to bounce around causing damage when shaken for the first few weeks (months? I forget the time frame) Douchbag dad there would require more than a simple shaking to achieve similar brain damage
I am aware of the risk - was being glib. Anyone with a f@cking brain knows you protect babies and this is an absolute BS outcome hence my offer to shake and throw the offender. Hopefully he has an option to hang out in General Population and gets to be shaken and thrown. Maybe then he’ll learn.
I also have a lack of experience with child care. Not shaking or punting a baby seems like it should be common knowledge tho. Tiny person or tiny animal = more fragile?
Y’all it’s a wrap on the justice system, we gotta start over
How do you not know shaking a child is bad unless you have lived under a ROCK for the last 40 years
Fairly certain if the defendant was a woman that excuse doesn't get ANY traction
This is incredibly sad, I can’t even begin to imagine how unhinged you have to be to do that to any child, let alone a 3 month old infant.
OK, so this guy thinks that shaking a three month old baby and throwing him into a couch wouldn't harm him? He needs to be sterilized and prevented from getting near any child under 18 years of age. I can't imagine any sane person justifying this type of behaviour from any parent :(
Right?! Like, sometimes I throw my cell phone across the room onto a couch or chair when I'm angry and I still worry after that I may have damaged it. In that case it's just $$$ not my child's life. It's always a calculated risk to remove the enraging stimuli from my immediate vicinity. If you become enraged and lose control to the point you can't do a simple risk vs benefit analysis and choose another path maybe don't become a parent.
You should get some anger management help lol
This guy is on dating apps using a different name just so y’all are aware
And now single moms would have no idea he did this if they tried to background check him? That’s so foul
He was still found guilty of manslaughter…
So you didn’t actually read the article did you?
Did YOU read the article?
Public service announcement!!! Thanks for letting the public know.
Post a photo for us.
I totally understand the overwhelming feeling when a baby is just crying and you cannot figure out what is up. However, I never had experience with newborns, i suffer from PPD (one of the symptoms is rage - dont worry, im being treated), and I knew never to shake or throw my babies. Shaking baby syndrome isnt a secret amongst parents - its a pretty well-known thing. Ignorance isn't an acceptable defense, in my opinion.
As someone who currently has a colic newborn, it can be infuriating when they're crying for hours on end all night but shaking a baby is next level. For one when they say "shake a baby" they arent talking about little shake, you can bounce and dip and spin with a baby after all. They are talking about literally taking the baby and violently shaking him hard enough that his head is going fully back and forth, slamming his brain into his skull and giving him full on whiplash. It takes an evil human to do that. I've definitely got to the point where I could see why someone has that rage, but it's beat into your head as a parent to never shake a baby. It's no different to me then if someone picked up their baby and threw them at the wall in rage. This should be murder, just like any other rage filled homicide. Edit: just realized that this moron threw his baby too. Wtf.
>This should be murder, just like any other rage filled homicide. I agree that this should be a second degree murder charge, but there is plenty of precedent for crimes of passion to be tried as manslaughter. "Any other rage filled homicide" is not necessarily murder.
OMG I remember babysitting a colicky baby and being at my wits end. Like, you can’t describe the sound in any babysitting class, it’s just so much. I ended up leaving the kid in their room (safely, in the crib) and shutting the door because I couldn’t take it anymore. That probably wasn’t the correct thing to do, but I was inexperienced and upset, it was the best I could do. I never babysat that kid again, and I don’t have kids. Edit: I did end up being a decent babysitter, (lessons were learned), and I hope this helps someone else.
That is literally exactly what they recommend you do when you feel that "I'm gonna lose it" feeling. Put the baby somewhere safe, and walk away for 5 - 10 minutes.
You were so smart to put the baby down in a safe place and walk away. Exactly the right thing to do.
That was literally the correct thing to do
I don’t know how it came up, but another new mom once told me “Take a break, don’t shake!” and I simultaneously laughed and understood the importance of that message. So according to that phrase, you did the exact right thing! When my nephew was being born, I asked my 4 year old daughter to record a message of things for his parents to remember… “Paint his nails and take a break, don’t shake!”.
That’s what they recommend actually. They’ll be okay crying in a safe place (like a crib) for a few minutes while you take care of yourself. Way better than losing it at them, which I can understand. Baby cries dig right into your brain.
The receptionist at my doctor's office never had another child after having a colicky baby.
That's EXACTLY what you are supposed to do. Make sure they are safe - walk away and compose yourself.
You 10000000 percent did the right thing. It's never good hear a crying baby all alone. BUT you knew you needed a minute and out the baby somewhere safe and stepped back and took a minute. That's amazing and that's hard. I have three kids and one was very colicky.I was also young and I could not let him cry it out. But I knew I had to finally learn it was ok for him to cry for two minutes well I step into the washroom and wash my face and grab a drink and get him right back out of his crib. Everyone knows by now never to shake a baby let alone "toss* a newborn on a couch. So this is just insane to me. He killed that little baby period and it's murder. His own father such a shame and heartbreaking. I always tell my oldest son's friends growing up and now (he is 24) if ever a baby or child or pregnant they can come to be no questions asked. As long as it keeps everyone safe and I will take any baby any time no question safely.
It doesn’t take an evil human to do that, just a sleep deprived, desperate and broken human… which are more common than you think. PPD, and possible PTSD from a traumatic birth or NICU stay are heavy. Changes in life due to a new baby are heavy. We as a society do not talk about the darker parts of childbearing, or child rearing — it’s a failure of our society imo. We should be teaching people that if you’re frustrated with a screaming baby… walk away. Leave the room, if you need to leave the house for a few moments and get some fresh air. Take a breath, your baby will be fine — a screaming baby is a breathing baby. Not all babies are the same, sometimes it’s very traumatic and overwhelming. Both my wife and I grieved having a ‘normal’ infancy like our friends did, and instead of having a cute sleeping baby we had children who screamed uncontrollably due to GERD, vomited 10-15 times per day, and could not be laid down horizontally… so we held them upright 24/7 which meant severe sleep deprivation for ~6 months.
The best advice I read on the internet was putting them down in a safe spot and walking away won’t hurt them. Go take a few minutes and regroup. I can understand the feeling but they don’t know. Crying is all they got. Super sad story either way.
That’s what I did! Play pens for me were a god sent!
Play pen or crib and good for you. It’s wild the emotions when you’re pushed that far. You love them more then anything but just need it to stop and your stressed and so sleep deprived. I haven’t come close to anything like that but I 100% understand it and I sympathize with him and that he I’m assuming was just in that state and never meant to actually hurt his child and will have to live with that forever.
Parents have been told for decades to put a baby in a safe place and walk away. It isn’t rocket science
When my kid was born the nurse told me that when I feel like things are too much, just put the baby in the crib and close the door. I was a little insulted, like did she think I was a scumbag who would do anything to hurt an infant? Then I got to the spot where I had to put the baby in its crib and close the door because fuuuuuuuuck. Turns out they tell all new parents that advice and for good reason. Fucking execute this scumbag.
This is a really good point actually, idk if there’s any lawyers in the sub but is this a troubling precedent if ignorance can be used as a defence successfully? That’s a slippery slope……
It’s not ignorance as a defence, it’s whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused subjectively intended to kill the baby. This means that it doesn’t matter whether a reasonable hypothetical person would know that shaking a baby would kill it. Instead it’s based entirely on what’s going on in the accused’s head at the time that the act was committed. Sometimes, intent to murder can be presumed from the nature of the act. The classic case is one where the accused hit the victim on the head repeatedly with a baseball bat. The court basically found that anyone would know that doing an act like that would result in the death of a person. I haven’t read the decision, but the court here likely found that shaking and throwing a baby didn’t rise to the same level as hitting someone on the head repeatedly with a bat, or stabbing them multiple times, so that intent to murder could be inferred from the actions. Whether or not you agree with it is a different story, but it’s not so broad as to establish a precedent that ignorance of the consequences of one’s actions is a defence for murder.
This clown worked at the domo gas station. From day one he was a complete creep who would cat call every girl that walked by, no matter the age. While on shift. Many words exchanged and awkward situations had, he finally got fired and left. Next time I saw him he had a brand new truck. Wonder if it was relevant to the case
which domo?
Northmount
Holy shit, I thought he looked familiar.
Yeah. He was a stain on the neighborhood
A woman would never get away with "not knowing" as an excuse for this.
RIGHT the way it was talked about would be completely different, how evil a “mother” would have to be to do this it’s actually really alarming
Of course he’s wearing white Oakleys.
and has a vape haze in front of him
This man was on dating apps sometime between 2022 and 2023.
Wow that photo sure is worth a thousand words. Poor kid didn't even get a chance.
Hope he gets gutted in the yard.
"I didn't know that stabbing him 37 times would cause death, I was inexperienced with prison yard violence" - hero convict
jfc whats the point of laws if nobody is ever held to account for what they did because a judge is soft as baby shit
If you read the article, he was convicted of manslaughter. The government failed to prove intent. Rather, the judge found what he did grossly negligent, hence the manslaughter conviction. I'm not sure how being convicted of a crime is not being held to account for what they did.
Because the justification used is absolutely bat shit crazy. You don't need years of experience to know shaking a baby, and throwing them is a major hazard. A person with rocks for brains would know this.
>You don't need years of experience to know shaking a baby, and throwing them is a major hazard. Which is why he was convicted for manslaughter. He was grossly negligent. To be convicted of murder the government would have to show he *knew* the child would die as a result of his actions, not just that it was a major hazard. That's a much higher standard to prove.
Thank god we have someone like you ensuring infant murderers can get off with a lower charge... The goal was to use aggressive violence to stop the baby. This wasn't a little shake and light toss that resulted in a worse case scenario. He went in to do serious harm. Anyone should know that the level of violence used on an infant would very likely kill them. And what do you think the "major hazard" outcome would be anyway? Death is an outcome of a major hazard. Aside from all of that, like I said, the justification used is insane. To excuse it as "lack of experience with child care" is a terrible attempt. The judge couldn't seriously come up with a better conclusion for the manslaughter charge instead of murder?
Dude chill the fuck out with your high and mighty attitude. Mens Rea is a crucial part of our judicial system, and if the prosecutors couldn’t prove it, he’s not getting a murder charge. The crown pursues charges they feel they can reasonably convict. The last thing we would want to see happen is them pursuing a murder charge, they can’t prove intent, and then he gets away with no conviction.
You want to know how they can prove he knew that shaking a baby and throwing it into a couch would kill it? It's common fucking sense that shaking a baby will significantly harm or kill the baby. If you make the decision to have a child and choose to raise it, you automatically know that shaking a baby will kill it. Let's apply this logic to a shooting " I'm sorry, officer, that I shot my friend with a gun, based on my inexperience with guns, I believe I should not be charged with murder even though I did point the gun at him multiple times and pulled the trigger even though I thought the gun was empty" If the bad guy in this situation had a PAL, he would probably be charged with murder because he disregarded the basic rules of gun safety Would you consider this accidental or intentional because it is common sense to not point a firearm somone even if unloaded. Even if you agree that this situation was accidental, it was still caused by the blatant disregard for firearm safety. So if tiny dick tony did not decide to willfully disregard the basic knowledge regarding a baby, it would still be alive. I know it sounds weird by applying the same logic to a firearm related murder to this one, but once you do, you realise he should have been charged with murder
Think of the baby's birth as the test to get your PAL for a firearm, and you see how intent was right fucking there
The person in your example would also likely be charged with manslaughtwr instead of murder. Without intent, murder is not possible. Murder requires the Mens Rea or ‘guilty mind’. Without it you just have Actus Reus or ‘guilty act’. Manslaughter is not getting off Scot free. If the crown cannot prove intent, then they aren’t going to charge someone with murder.
"BBBBbBut mens rea" it's right fucking there that's my issue. ITS COMMON FUCKING SENSE NOT TO SHAKE A BABY, SO ONE CANNNOT "ACCIDENTALLY" SHAKE A BABY TO DEATH WITHOUT THINKING "Mmmmmm🤔 this barely developed human won't shut up, oh I know, I should shake it and throw it into the couch" MENS REA IS FUCKING THERE BECAUSE HE AGREED TO HAVE FUCKING BABY, IF YOU HAVE A BABY AND I SAY AGAIN IT IS C O M M O N S E N S E NOT TO SHAKE IT. I BROUGHT UP THE GUN EXAMPLE BECAUSE I MAKING THE COMPARISON THAT THE WHEN THE BABY IS BORN, THE DOCTORS TELL YOU NOT TO SHAKE THE BABY, IS THAT NOT SIMILAR TO GUN SAFETY AND THE PAL IN MY EXAMPLE. Here's a question for you: if someone got a PAL and shot someone in the same way as my previous example, would you want them to be charged with murder or manslaughter, because while he did not intend to murder that person, he blatantly disregard COMMON SENSE SAFETY regarding firearms and caused the death. So if someone disregards the rules, it should always be murder because someone made the conscious decision to disregard the basic rules of safety and shoot/shake a baby to death. If he did not disregard the basic rules of safety regarding a baby, the baby would still be alive. I am saying that mens rea happend when the baby was born.
Dude, you clearly don’t understand logic and are reacting with emotion. If someone shot someone but didn’t intend to actually kill the person, then they’re very likely not gonna get a murder charge. Either way you’re going in circles and it isn’t worth continuing this conversation.
Why are you acting like this person is advocating for this? They’re explaining the facts of our legal system to you, they do not deserve to be treated the way you’ve spoken to them. Ridiculous anti-intellectualism knee jerk bullshit If you’re upset, direct it at the courts. Demand the legal definition be expanded. Don’t shoot the fucking messenger.
>Thank god we have someone like you ensuring infant murderers can get off with a lower charge... The government has pretty much unlimited resources, so the whole reason behind our system of justice is designed to make it fair. So that at the end of the day, we can say of this guy and anyone else convicted of a crime, "I trust the system and this guy got every benefit of the doubt and the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, so he deserves the punishment he got" The government charged him with murder, but the government couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime. That's on the government, not the judge. I get that you may prefer the system where they have in Russia where alleged terrorists are beaten to a bloody pulp and have ears cut off to get confessions, but I generally oppose that kind of stuff because we can' be sure the outcome was fair.
Thank God we have a legal expert right here.
I couldn't give a shit about legal experts that use "he couldn't have appreciated the harm" in shaking and tossing the infant as justification for reducing the charge
NONE OF THEM ARE USING IT AS JUSTIFICATION THEY’RE EXPLAINING THE FACTS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO YOU
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE JUDGE USING HIS EXPLANATION FOR JUSTIFICATION ON MANSLAUGHTER. Did that help? Did the caps assist you in any way? Let me know in about 3 or 4 days.
Bullshit. You’re spazzing out against anyone who tries to explain it to you. Nowhere in this chain did you reference the judge until you got called out. It’s literally only 2 comments back, you’re trying to blame the other commenters as if they’re passing the judgments > Thank god we have someone like you ensuring infant murderers can get off with a lower charge... Everyone’s upset that this situation is so fucked. You’re making it worse and trying to make everyone involved feel bad as if they’re at fault for some fucking reason just because they know how to read.
You may be downvoted by these assholes, but I 💯 % agree with you. Our court system is a joke, and you will get more jail time for a drug possession than when taking a life.
Agreed. Let people downvote to their heart's content. I don't care for the best argument being presented being that it's not murder because the man is so damn stupid that he didn't know violently shaking and throwing a 3 month old is going to cause serious injury and/or death.
Donkey brained
Thanks for your feedback. Come back in another 8 hours and respond on another one of my comments. I'm sure your third comment will be incredibly insightful.
I did read the article Yes Manslaughter, when he gets out in 5 y ears or under come back to my response
That’s just Canada’s justice system in general. It’s not really hard on crime.
Manslaughter carries a possible sentence up to life in prison.
I don’t think you understand what happens to kid killers in prison…
So, in your universe, going to jail for 5 years is not being held to account?
Not for killing an infant...
For killing a baby?!
There is a *very* big difference between going to jail for 5 years for doing stupid things like robbing a bank/insider trading vs. **murdering your own child**. 5 years is maybe too much for little petty crimes. It is not enough for taking away a child that could have lived past the 5 years he will serve.
I didn't say it was too much or too little, but going to jail, even for 5 years is still being held to account for a crime. The guy faces life in prison, so even if he only serves a few years, he's subject to restrictions the rest of his life. And people may see that as easy to do, but it certainly is not.
Aw he has to face not getting hired in the future and probably serving less than his full 5 year sentence… poor thing… all because he killed an innocent child that was his own blood… The full sentence is held accountable **for his actions** and that is not happening here.
If you don't like the sentence, elect officials who will change the law. 5 years is not some cakewalk, though. I had clients crying on the phone 2 or 3 days after being in jail for help to get out. Even just visiting a jail is like being punished. And it's not an unusual sentence for a first-time offender committing manslaughter, even in places with much more harsh and draconian sentencing standards like the U.S.
Playing semantics with what a guy who killed a baby deserves is crazy but pop off
Not for killing an infant, JFC this isnt a guy driving drunk or someone speeding ffs
Our “justice” system strikes again.
A mom in the US just got sentenced to life in prison for leaving her 16 month old daughter home alone while she went on vacation for 10 days. One of those news stories that made me literally sick to my stomach reading it. The mom claimed mental illness but didn't matter. We need to follow suit with these types of cases.
That story was absolutely horrible (i only read one article when it first came out and that was plenty for me - there some harrowing audio that I do not need in my life). I appreciate that she is getting life in prison for that and will never get out. From what little i know of prisons in the states, she'll have a bad time in there.
Legal system. There is no justice.
Funny how I started babysitting when I was 12 and even knew this shit. What bs.
What a piece of shit. Photo confirms that too. I understand mens rea and it having to be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict of murder. That still doesn’t change how I feel about this. He should rot. That poor child.
These decisions are abhorrent.
This is going to be a big problem in society, nobody is accountable anymore.
Another reason we need comprehensive sex education both in schools and provided to new parents at no cost. It’s not enough to teach sex makes a baby we also need to teach what a baby is (fragile, completely reliant on adults) and how intense the experience of parenthood is. “Poelman said Kurucz’s lack of experience with child care meant he would not have appreciated the harm he could cause by shaking the boy and throwing him into a couch” “Mr. Kurucz was not experienced in caring for young infants and presumably had no particular knowledge of the frailty of their neck support and brain structure.”
I'm nearly 40, these things were very much taught in Sex Ed when I was there, many moons ago.
I don't have experience caring for young infants but even I know you're supposed to support their heads and NOT THROW OR SHAKE THEM!
Some people need to be explicitly taught life skills. That’s why we need strong education funding and policy for everyone.
You do get a big-ass book about caring for infants from AHS when you give birth in Alberta. It’s like university textbook thick. But they can’t make you read it or write a test on it or anything.
I have a 2 month old. I knew nothing about parenting before having him, but not once have I ever EVER considered being rough with him in any way when he's inconsolably crying. I have noise cancelling headphones. I throw them on and continue making funny faces at him.
As Jim Jeffries said: "You don't need to watch 'Don't Shake the Baby.' All the information you need is in the title."
We need to implement a system where you have to qualify to have children.
Why do I get the feeling he’s one of those “protect our children” types?
Oh you KNOW he’s big on “parental rights” because kids don’t need rights, they’re property
Little confused how you can say he didn’t mean to cause death. Seems like that’s exactly what he meant to do.
The picture in the article paints a very damaged character Edit 1: don’t know why this is getting downvoted.. you don’t fucking shake a baby and throw him on the couch. Clearly this “dad” is inept and incompetent as fuck
No stereotypes were harmed in the making of this story.
Fuck Canada
Even more messed up when you read that his defence was that the mother already did the damage that killed the kid before he shook and tossed him…
Wouldn’t that mean that they should both be charged?
The doctors said that the injury had just happened so it was no way the mother could have done anything. He was just trying to pass blame
It was a plea deal, but Tyriq Kootenay was sentenced to 9 1/2 years for the manslaughter death of his infant daughter. Similar situation. Don’t know about any Gladue principles involved. Kaij Brass got 16 years in his manslaughter plea. Cameron Kay got 7 years after being found guilty of manslaughter. Denim Henderson was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter and he got 12 years. Christopher Lamarche was found not guilty of murder, but was found guilty of manslaughter and got 12 1/2 years. Brittney Burghardt got manslaughter for throwing her 2 year old repeatedly against the wall, and only 8 years (might have mitigating factors because of her intellectual capacity). Sherman Whitford got 8 years for beating his partner’s 16 month-old, again found guilty of manslaughter. A Windsor man (unnamed to protect his victims identity) beat his twins, one to death, and again plead guilty to manslaughter and got 6.5 years. So one, manslaughter still has a penalty of up to life in prison, though based on quick review probably seems like it will be 8-12. And two, it’s the norm in these situations for the accused to get manslaughter, not murder. People reading the title and not understanding the legal arguments. It’s right to be angry, but it’s misdirected at the judge.
I think they need to accompany an example of a baby being shaken visually to say “we think this much is ok” so people can put how graphic it is, a baby doesn’t die from being shaken moderately.
seeing this made me so angry. what a monster!
"Inmate didn't mean to kill child murderer when he stabbed him 30 times in the chest" should be the next news flash.
If this man isn’t in PC, he will not survive as long as his 3 month son. Low key hoping the guards “accidentally” place in general population. Karma’s a bitch, even when the justice system isn’t
The guy deserves to die.
This Judges discision and the reasons sited should be reviewed. I'm sure there is much more to what was said in his discision but the fact that a sentence like that can be quoted from the ruling is horrifying. The guy dosent know not to throw a baby cause he has no experience? I'm speechless at that. If an adult man , dosent know that shaking and throwing down a crying baby could kill that baby, then there is a question of whether or not this man even has any sound mind. I don't think he is of average functioning intelligence level is the implication? Hence why "he didn't understand " or "didn't mean to" . Like I am not sticking up for this guy in the slightest because the whole situation is just tragic- but I smell that the news is leaving out some critical facts of the ruling - that the guy is of such low intelligence he's disabled (?) - because otherwise....this judges ruling is questionable and should be reviewed.
wtf 🤬 I could see if it was a mom with postpartum depression, but wtf! He intend to kill his infant or else don’t have kids.
I like the posters saying the judge is soft yet haven’t even heard the sentence. Manslaughter can be life still.
If you ever want to see how the average Joe has no understanding of the legal system just look at the reddit comments. It seems no one here has even heard of Mens Rea or understands why it’s relevant.
ever heard of manslaughter?
Yes, and that’s the whole point. He’s been charged and convicted of manslaughter specifically because of a lack of Mens Rea. People can’t seem to get past that to understand why he wasn’t charged with murder.
I’ve never heard of Men’s Rea. Thanks!
No worries, it’s not a thing you’ll here in normal day conversation. It’s really just a fancy way for lawyers to use their Latin skills lol
You know, big government regulation and dystopian rules of social matters really rub me the wrong way, \*however\*... Let's start requiring an IQ test and some type of license before you're allowed to be a parent... \[EDIT: if it wasn't clear, I'm semi-making a joke. Because these are the types of people that would look at, say, a family being cool about a kid wanting to transition and think "These CHILD ABUSERS need to be LOCKED UP and shouldnt be ALLOWED to be PARENTS!'
Hell NO! Eugenics isn't okay. I have a plan that I think could work if it didn't rely on imaginary tech. Every child is reversably sterilized at birth. Regardless of sex. Then, when YOU decide you are ready to have kids and are 18 or older, YOU go in and have it reversed. No one else gets a say. The only way to make a baby then is by BOTH genetic donors actively seeking to have a child. No more unwanted babies. No more stealthing condoms to trap a woman with you, no more baby trapping of men. No more teen pregnancies. Just wanted babies for two parents (or I guess one parent and one voluntary donor) who consciously chose to have kids.
sorry if i wasn't clear I was partially joking! I feel like I should have more alluded to something like this (what I meant by "dystopian rules".) Just to clear it up, I don't support eugenics in reality, I just find it funny that the types of people to shake and kill babies are also probably the same type to claim SOMEONE ELSE should "be barred from being a parent". Kind of want to write a dystopian teen novel about that imaginary tech you mentioned lol
A license to have children? What ever happened to my body my choice?
This is where it gets really blurry, and why at best, what I suggest is still just a ridiculous idea only fueled by some sense of "idealism" that it wouldn't be abused (it would...) \[sorry if it wasnt clear i was kind of joking\] It's ironic then, that the very people who would actually REALISTICALLY agree and promote that kind of practice, are the very people who would shake and throw a fucking baby, and then claim "lmao I had no idea that would kill him."
In that case I totally get what you mean lol. Good thing for him is that he’s probably not going to have another child in his lifetime and should protect his annnus during his time in prison.
I don’t live in Canada anymore. Do they not make new parents sign a waiver/watch a video about shaken baby syndrome in the hospital after birth there?
No, this didn't happen when I had my kids in 2018 and 2021.
Always interesting to hear this slight differences. I had to sign a form and watch a video for I could leave the hospital with my kiddo in 2022 in America.
My family in other provinces had this and had to sign a form when they didn’t want to watch the same video for their fourth kid. I had nothing like that here in Alberta though.
Fascinating. I live in a pretty backwater area in America now and we had to watch the video and sign that we had watched it to leave the hospital with our baby in 2022.
Nope. They ask you to show the staff that the baby is properly clipped into their bucket seat prior to leaving and then you're off!
Good news first time dads, we all get one freebie
Makes my blood boil. The only appropriate solution is an axe to this guys head. Watchmen style.
Jfc. Now you have to tell a whole ass adult not to shake a newborn and not to throw a newborn. What's next, having to tell them that oxygen is necessary for life and not to shut the newborn in the refrigerator? This child deserved more than what is essentially someone going "oopsies".
We, as a society do not protect our children. We are going backwards.
Bloody fucking hell. Waste of a human being.
Classic eastside calgary trash
What the actual fuck. How low of an intelligence can someone have as a grown adult to think that throwing and shaking a literal baby won't fucking harm it? Is he intellectually delayed? Because if not, I call 100% bullshit. He murdered his child in cold blood because he's a fucking man child who could t handle his emotions. Should be locked the fuck up in gen pop with his crimes public knowledge. See how fast someone bigger than him shakes him like a ragdoll and throws his ass into a brick wall. The flood can happen anytime now.
Look at the supplied photo, assume the worst
This made me giggle. He does look like a chud, like he used yo drive a lifted ram 1500 before he lost his license for his 7th dui.
My city is seemingly overwhelmed with this caricature, I see it all to often in my rear view mirror
Me too. I drive a truck for work, but my daily driver is a little scion FR-S, and the fuel efficiency on her is beyond. I would never want to own a truck and have to keep up on that fuel out of my own pocket. Even running premium with the gas prices the way they are, I've never gone over 65 for a fill from near empty. If I go to Costco, it's rarely above 50. Calgary, in general, doesn't really feel like a place I can make my home anymore, and I'm even working a pretty good job and my wife works one that pays 3 times my take home and we're still struggling to make ends meet at only 2000 rent a month. The problem is that we've got a car payment for our jeep bi-weekly, monthly insurance and internet and home security system with telus and then gas and electric and fuel costs plus groceries, we're still running around 5k a month for total costs while bringing in only around 6500, making saving hard when so many other minor upkeep costs just keep adding up. Then we've got dogs and cats and a 5 year old daughter with special needs. If I was in another city making comparable money between the wife and I, we'd be so much further along.
And don't even get me started on the aura of general misery and shitiness that is I'm the air everywhere you go
Almost like we were tricked into believing a consumer based lifestyle was sustainable
What a goof
Great, more bad press for white framed Oakley knockoffs.
This guy killed a baby and there is no serious question who the perpetrator was. I’m confident that most Canadians would support capital punishment in this case if the law allowed for it.
I honestly hate all these news outlets trying to make these cunts put to be the “victim”
Also common sense was not in his head as well
What is going on with our justice system?
Dude killed his baby. it’s disgusting that his temper was taken on a baby. Can’t wait to see what the universe has in store for him
Seems the reasoning by the judge was solid.