He used a child as leverage, that is some pretty black water you are trying to tread in...
The CHILD had nothing to do with it, this was two "adults" doing stupid adult shit. He got a trip to the cooler.
He used a child as leverage, that is some pretty black water you are trying to tread in...
The CHILD had nothing to do with it, this was two "adults" doing stupid adult shit. He got a trip to the cooler.
But you see, this is where i have a problem with your stance.
On one hand you agree that the kid was never in danger, but then in the other you are eluding that he is going to harm the child. So either you feel like the kid was in danger or you dont.
Furthermore, if all of this boils down to doing the "right thing" and getting the formula back so the baby can eat the situation could have been fixed simply by having the woman give the phone back. You admitted that it wasnt her property which is classified as theft and a crime. But if the formula was really that important a responsible parent would simply do what is necessary to get it back.
No, this doesnt make what Jeudy did ok but it does show the mother is just as guilty as Jeudy is because she clearly cared more about the phone than the food for her kid. Why it is you guys cant see or understand that is baffling to me.
It's not an either or situation. Legally they charge you based on intent. Not whether more formula is available or anything else. Legally Jerry is the one that hit the formula again I'm not negating what the mother did. His intent was to use his child as leverage. He withheld food from an infant.
and what did jeudy do that prompted her to take his phone in the first place? did he cheat on her? was he fighting with her? whatever it was, could he have resolved the situation by not being a dick? we don't know, we weren't there, but i'd say probably. . . either way, what he did was worse, so i'm fine with him being the one who was arrested. . . she used an easily-replaceable piece of technology as a pawn in the game-- he used their one-month old child as a pawn in the game. . . also, for those who don't know, this country is in the midst of a forumla shortage-- a lot of stores actually don't have it on the shelves right now, so it may not have been as easy as just stopping by the nearest 7-11 and getting some more. . . he also withheld medical records-- he made it much more difficult for her to walk away than it was for him. . . if you don't see a difference in those actions, there's no point discussing it any further. . . i ain't wastin' any more time talking about a bum who can't catch. . .
- John Elway“When we do find that guy, we’ve got to have the continuity on the offensive side to where we can train him and develop him and get him there. This is our fourth offense in probably three or four years. Quarterbacks need to be developed. You don’t find one ready-made. We got to have a solid system in place for when we do go after whatever guy it may be, a young guy or a trade or whatnot.”
Sure, all im saying is she was using the kid as leverage as well because apparently her having his phone was more important than getting all the other shit back was. Instead, she doubled down and called the cops instead which brings us back full circle. Her simply giving the phone back solves all the problems right then and there even if Jeudy cant catch a pass.
Locking up a child's food, taking someone's wallet with medical information of the child, etc. as to stop someone from leaving is not negotiating. It is a far worse action than taking someone's phone. The second you use your child for leverage to manipulate someone you lose whatever moral highground you had.
I didn't deflect anything. If the argument for Jeudy is essentially: well, I'll use the kid as leverage against you to stop you from leaving, and if you don't do what I want immediately then you're using the kid for leverage...I guess you can make that argument. But when someone goes to that length--witholding the car seat, the food, information/the wallet--to stop you from leaving, they're doing something worse than taking someone's third phone. That's obvious. If you want to assume that he would have given her that stuff back, go ahead. I'm not presuming someone who would go to that level to simply return that stuff, because normal and 'negotiating' people, to borrow a term from Hoof, don't act like that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)