Texas Man Arrested After 1 Year Old Found With Blood Alcohol Level of .2

TYLER (KYTX) - On Saturday March 17, 2012, Tyler Police responded to East Texas Medical Center in reference to a one-year-old child with a blood alcohol of over .2.

Man arrested after giving alcohol to one-year-old child

How could anyone possibly think this was going to be a good thing? Or funny? Or whatever the hell he was thinking when he did this? I hope he spends the rest of his life rotting in prison. This "man" should have his manhood sawed off with a butter knife.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


I understand the emotional response, but how about we wait until more facts surface?

The story was nothing more than a couple of sentences jumbled together and nothing hinted that he "gave" the child alcohol besides the title.

Originally posted by de Thor
reply to post by The Old American

 

I understand the emotional response, but how about we wait until more facts surface?

The story was nothing more than a couple of sentences jumbled together and nothing hinted that he "gave" the child alcohol besides the title.

Agreed. Jumping to conclusions with little or no fact flies in the face of denying ignorance.

Keep in mind that over the counter cough and cold medicines have different forms of alcohol. It could be something as simple as his child having a bad cold and him over-treating them with cough medicine in a short period of time.

I'm not defending this, because if in fact the child was given a drink of alcohol, then he should burn... but that might not be the case. However, as much as I'd like to not judge a book by its cover, his mugshot isn't too convincing of his innocence.

~Namaste

reply to post by The Old American

 

I understand the emotional response, but how about we wait until more facts surface?

The story was nothing more than a couple of sentences jumbled together and nothing hinted that he "gave" the child alcohol besides the title.

A very poorly written report. They could have at least explained the how the child was discovered to have such a blood alcohol level so high.

I'll keep my mind open on this. However, this is my home town. Moore St., where this fine, upstanding citizen was found, is chock full of other wonderful paragons of humanity. Two streets to the east, on Confederate, are a couple of lovely houses where many transactions are made for the entertainment of aforementioned fine, upstanding citizens. And there's always a party somewhere on Border Avenue!

Why, it's only 3/4 of a mile, as the crow flies, to the neighborhood I grew up in. It's where I first heard of pot, coke, and alcohol, as I was offered them many times growing up. And that was 40 years ago. That area has not improved any, nor has its residents.

A preponderance of the evidence says he's guilty. But anything can happen, I guess.

/TOA

Originally posted by Starrunner

reply to post by The Old American

 

I understand the emotional response, but how about we wait until more facts surface?

The story was nothing more than a couple of sentences jumbled together and nothing hinted that he "gave" the child alcohol besides the title.

A very poorly written report. They could have at least explained the how the child was discovered to have such a blood alcohol level.

edit on 17-3-2012 by Starrunner because: (no reason given)

The child was at the hospital. I believe when it was discovered by emergency staff that the child had such a high alcohol content, they called the police.

The local news has a LOT to be desired. The report was quite well written compared to most of their tripe.

/TOA

For this particular case, I would want to know the facts of it. Alcohol can be used both for pain relief and sedation; it's entirely possible that the child's father used such as a treatment for colic, or some other infantile ailment.

If you consider yourself a Libertarian, TOA, as your avatar and signature suggest, then I would strongly hope that you consider yourself bound by the Sixth Amendment, and a willingness to ensure that this man is guaranteed his rights according to it.

If this individual is guilty of a crime, then let him be dealt with accordingly; but let him first have a trial in which he has all necessary opportunity to assert either his innocence, or whatever other mitigating circumstances as may be found by the Court. I subscribe to Common Law before lynch mobs.

reply to post by The Old American


You can't judge people as guilty until you have ALL of the facts.

Someone else said it right. You are relying on an irrational emotional response instead of cold, hard logic.