- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Poster boy for ‘smacking’


Dad jailed for 'old fashioned discipline' on child
A Timaru man who used "old-fashioned discipline" on his children has been sent to prison for nine months for his fourth assault on them.
John Harry Lagataua, 45, received a second cumulative sentence of five months for assaulting his former partner in a separate incident. Timaru District Court heard that the storeman had assaulted one child three times, and been convicted of assault on another sibling. In the latest incident, the child was having a tantrum so Lagataua put him into "time out". When the child failed to calm down, Lagataua leant over and pinched the child around the neck, lifting him off the floor slightly, the court heard. The child screamed and was left with a small abrasion and minor bruising to his neck, according to evidence presented.

Where my pro smacking knuckle draggers at? They in the house? Can I get a scream about the politically correct stormtroopers of Nanny State attacking family values? Where is the foamy braying from them that a good old fashioned Dad is being jailed for ‘disciplining’ his child, because that’s what these fucking morons were screaming over the repeal of section 59 wasn’t it folks? Because once upon a time this old fashioned Dad would’ve been let off because under section 59 adults could defend themselves from a charge of assault if they claimed it was for discipline purposes, that in itself is a legal anomaly, how can the Court protect someone who assaults a child? Well here is your poster boy conservative NZ, where is the howling for his freedom? He only picked his child up by the neck and bashed mum, come on, where are the pro-abuse lobby to tell us how the law should be reversed so this guy can abuse his kids legally?

Time to admit maybe NZ that the Nanny State thing is a bullshit myth and that perhaps a lot of NZers jumped to a conclusion over the repeal of section 59, or do you wanna let this guy walk free?

23 Comments:

At 3/2/09 8:39 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This man assaulted his wife and children, he didn't discipline them.
He would have been found guilty of assault under the old laws.

In your foam speckled hysteria to Make A Point you used a really dumb example.

Now why don't you wipe your spittle from your keyboard and try again.

 
At 3/2/09 8:47 am, Blogger Bomber said...

This man assaulted his wife and children, he didn't discipline them.
He would have been found guilty of assault under the old laws.

In your foam speckled hysteria to Make A Point you used a really dumb example.

Now why don't you wipe your spittle from your keyboard and try again.


Oh no you don't 'anon' - you take this one on the chin there buddy boy, he tried to use the defence that all he was doing was good ole fashioned discipline, and under the old loophole in the legislation he could've ducked the assault charge on the kid, which Sue Bradford closed. Going backwards on this legislation is exactly that, going backwards.

 
At 3/2/09 9:33 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

he tried to use the defence that all he was doing was good ole fashioned discipline, and under the old loophole in the legislation he could've ducked the assault charge...

So what if he used the ole fashioned defence, he could have said the devil made him do it.
He assaulted his wife and children, not disciplined them (not that you could discipline your wife under the old law either), and would have been found guilty under the old law.

Surely you have better examples, like the man who was convicted for smacking his child on the hand when he/she played on the road.

Oh, thats right, you wont, because that man wont be convicted, under the old law or this one.

 
At 3/2/09 9:39 am, Blogger Bomber said...

He assaulted his wife and children, not disciplined them (not that you could discipline your wife under the old law either), and would have been found guilty under the old law.

Nooooooo, read what I wrote he tried to use the defence that all he was doing was good ole fashioned discipline, and under the old loophole in the legislation he could've ducked the assault charge on the kid, He could use the loophole if it still existed to duck the charges on the kid, I haven't mentioned the mother, obviously section 59 only mentions discipline towards children, not the wife. If Sue's law hadn't passed this guy could escape the assault charge just like the father who took a horse whip to his teenage daughter did.

 
At 3/2/09 10:44 am, Blogger Dave said...

If Sue's law hadn't passed this guy could escape the assault charge just like the father who took a horse whip to his teenage daughter did
That's rubbish Bomber. And do you mean the riding crop case? From media reports of this latest case I would think that pinching a kids neck and lifting him off the ground in the process is not reasonable in the circumnstances and is a lot worse than a hit on the bum with, say, a riding crop. The defence would have failed under the old law.

 
At 3/2/09 10:55 am, Blogger Bomber said...

That's rubbish Bomber.
No it's not

And do you mean the riding crop case?
Yes the horse whip case.

From media reports of this latest case I would think that pinching a kids neck and lifting him off the ground in the process is not reasonable in the circumnstances and is a lot worse than a hit on the bum with, say, a riding crop. The defence would have failed under the old law.
If a court was willing to let the horse whip guy off then hanging your child by the neck would've been a walk as well.

 
At 3/2/09 1:56 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He is right here. This case is a perfect example of the whole reason for the law change.

That is why national is not repealing it and only added an ammendment that did effectively nothing to the implementation of this law. (as stated by the police and judges themselves)

The whole thing was a political football and it disgusted me from start to finish.

I know it will be hard for you guys to swallow after being led by the nose in the massive PR campaign that was suppose to invoke this outrage, but the reality was that the law was always sensible, fair and only covered cases of abuse of children.
It would not even have provoked comment had it not been for the media blitz.

Just face it. You were duped. The election is over, you got your tax cuts and a male prime minister. There is no shame in it, you were up against the millions in PR support from big business and really like money.
The country is going to shit anyway and it did not matter what bunch of pricks were voted in. But hey, at least you are getting that massive tax cut...lol.

PS: I hope all you greedy pricks still have your jobs? Wouldn't want to lose one and become poor with this government in charge, eh?

 
At 3/2/09 4:45 pm, Anonymous Aj said...

I can't wait for the Pro smackers to hound National to electoral oblivion like they did Labour and the Greens. Oh, wait

 
At 3/2/09 5:02 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a sad sack attempted media beat-up Bomber!

The article doesn't even mention smacking, yet you make it the post title. It makes no difference what a defendant claims unless they say something relevant to the charge in law.

Old S59 required the use of force to discipline a child to be 'reasonable', as determined by the court. It is highly unlikely lifting a kid off the ground by their neck would be considered reasonable by any judge or jury anytime after the reign of Queen Victoria...

And the riding crop case is quite different - that involved a teenager attacking parents, who responded with the crop. Whether found guilty or not, it is nothing like the case you posted about.

Why don't you talk about some good child discipline alternatives, since the quoted 'time out' session for the kid failed?

What's your solution to misbehaving kids?

 
At 3/2/09 5:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

cough, cough

http://publicaddress.net/default,4094.sm#post4094

 
At 3/2/09 6:29 pm, Anonymous bring back buck said...

well i can hardly wait for the nats to rescind all this ' nanny state ' stuff ... they WILL repeal it all won't they ?
And tell me, why have the religious right suddenly shut up about their 'right to smack'? ...come on guys ! This was the BIG issue that had you marching on the streets, the right to whack your kids , get nanny state out of your lives !! Well you still can't whack your kids but you've gone AWFULLY quiet about it - wassup ? doesn't matter any more ??

 
At 3/2/09 9:46 pm, Blogger Dave said...

That's rubbish Bomber.
No it's not

Great explanation, Bomber. So can I take it that you can't back up your assertions because you're either blinded to reasoned debate or just pig ignorant, then.

 
At 4/2/09 6:30 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Actual case studies that used section 59 as a defense against assault, just in case you still think that he wouldn't have gotten off.

Case 1
R v T
The accused was charged after he struck his stepdaughter with a length of hose pipe
after she interrupted him while he was talking to his other stepdaughter. The force
used was sufficient to leave a raised lump approximately 15 cm long.
The accused was acquitted by a jury.

Case 2
In relation to the use of the bamboo cane, the evidence was that the child had
kicked a hole in a door at school. He had refused to do the punishment that the
school had set for him, as a result of which he was kept behind after school. When
informed that he would be kept behind, the accused picked him up from school, took
him home and hit him somewhere between 2 and 6 times across the backside with a
thin piece of bamboo cane. Estimates of the cane’s size varied from 40-100 cm long
and 0.5-1 cm thick. It was similar to what would be used to tie up a plant. One of
the strikes left a red mark on the child’s leg. The accused then returned her son to
school, where he did the assigned punishment.
In relation to the use of the riding crop, the evidence was that the child threatened the
accused’s husband with a baseball bat, swinging it “full force” at him. The husband
disarmed the child, and the accused struck him 3-4 times across the buttocks with
a riding crop. The riding crop was about 40 cm long with a small double piece of
leather at the end about 0.5 cm in width.
There was evidence that the child was somewhat difficult to handle, and had been
tested for ADHD and referred to a specialist. The school had drawn up a plan for
managing the child, in conjunction with the accused. There was also evidence that
the accused had tried various other methods of correction, such as withdrawing
privileges, and that she only used physical discipline for ‘extreme behaviours’, such
as when property was damaged or her son was infringing on other people’s rights.
The accused was acquitted by a jury.

Case 3
R v Newell
A father was charged with assault with a weapon. The father’s evidence (which
appears to have been accepted by the jury) was that he had taken hold of the
complainant’s arm while she was lying on the floor and turned her over so that he
could hit her across the backside with the hose. He said he had struck 2-3 blows,
and that he was not angry at the time.
The complainant’s evidence (which does not appear to have been accepted by the
jury) was that her father had dragged her along the floor by her arm and her ankle,
tearing her t-shirt, and had held her upside down while hitting her 7-8 times with a
length of hose pipe. Medical evidence established bruising to the complainant’s arm
and across her buttocks, which the father accepted he caused.
The father gave evidence that he had severely injured his back in a workplace
accident and could not have picked the complainant up and dragged her in the way
she described. He also said that the complainant’s behaviour had been steadily
becoming worse over a period of months, and was particularly unacceptable in the
few days leading up to the incident. He had tried a range of disciplinary measures,
including grounding and withdrawal of privileges, none of which had worked. He
said that he struck the complainant with the hose because he felt he had run out of
disciplinary options and that nothing else he had tried was working.
A defence under section 59 was raised, and a jury acquitted the accused.


Dave what is your point? You put nothing up to debate other that 'that's rubbish bomber, so why do I need to write your arguement as well as the defense?

 
At 4/2/09 8:05 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again seeing as bomber, bring back buck and friends missed it: The article doesn't even mention smacking


The accused was charged after he struck his stepdaughter with a length of hose pipe

In relation to the use of the bamboo cane

A father was charged with assault with a weapon.

Anyone seeing a pattern here? ALL of these cases involved the use of a weapon on a child.

WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY JUST MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO HIT A CHILD WITH A WEAPON?!?!?

Seriously, how fucking stupid are the greens and anti smackers?
They lost the election because they were so blinded by their own ideology that they tried to ban smacking when all they had to do was ban hitting children with a weapon, shit even I would have supported that.

Well done, chumps.

 
At 4/2/09 8:50 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously, how fucking stupid are the greens and anti smackers?

Apparently not as stupid as you, with the apparent intellegence of a sheep or other docile herd animal.

The cases just listed showed people getting off using weapons against children.

The law in question allowed a blanket defence against any punishment.

You can easily do more damage with your fist or hand than the cases described above.

You can also carry out your "reasonable" punishment several times a day for weeks if you choose and do more emotional damage than the physical damage described above.

You think this is an easy topic? You think that beating kids (because that is what this law is about...beating) is the best way to parent?

You are the stupid one. You are the one who has been duped by the PR campaign.
You are the one who is such a fucking moron, you have been fooled into arguing to change the law to protect people punching and slapping the shit out of their kids.

And, after all this, you are the one who has be utterly convinced that somehow you have the moral high ground in this?

I pity how stupid you are.

 
At 4/2/09 11:39 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently not as stupid as you, with the apparent intellegence of a sheep or other docile herd animal.

If you are going to question my intelligence you might want to spell the word right.


The cases just listed showed people getting off using weapons against children.

So ban the use of weapons on children. It is pretty simple, they would no longer be able to use this as the 'reasonable force argument' - everyone would have been happy with that.


The law in question allowed a blanket defence against any punishment.

And if they had changed the law to exclude the use of weapons, then their wouldn't have been an out cry.


You can easily do more damage with your fist or hand than the cases described above.

Then perhaps you can show us a few cases where some one punched a child and got off by claiming it was 'reasonable force'. No? Thought not. I never heard ANYONE try and claim that parents should be able to punch their kids.

You can also carry out your "reasonable" punishment several times a day for weeks if you choose and do more emotional damage than the physical damage described above.

"your "reasonable" punishment"? Piss off.

You could call a child a fucking looser who will never amount to anything, several times a day for weeks on end and it would do more emotional damage than the physical damaged described above. It wouldn't be illegal either, therefore you must agree with it right? That seems to be the extent of you simian argument.


You think this is an easy topic?

Um no, but idiots like to seem to think that by introducing S59 the problem is now solved and no more children will ever be abused again - it's you who seems to thin this is an easy topic.

You think that beating kids (because that is what this law is about...beating) is the best way to parent?

Ahhhh, now we get down to it and you show your true colours: I don't support the smacking ban therefore I must be a child beater! That's what you are saying: Anyone who is against the smacking ban (all 85% of us) MUST be a supporter of beating children.

Danyl Mclauchlan had an excellent post on this, read the comments too: http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/what-happened/

This is EXACTLY why 85% were against the anti smacking bill. Because Sue Bradford and people like you insisted on demonising anybody who dared to disagree with them.


You are the stupid one. You are the one who has been duped by the PR campaign.

zzzzzzzzzz

You are the one who is such a fucking moron, you have been fooled into arguing to change the law to protect people punching and slapping the shit out of their kids.

Bzzzzzt – wrong. I never supported your pointless law change. I would have supported a law change that banned the use of weapons on children.

And, after all this, you are the one who has be utterly convinced that somehow you have the moral high ground in this?

Er, that would be you. And not only have you allowed yourself to be fooled into believing you have the moral high ground –you have also been brainwashed into believing that anybody who disagrees with you is an evil child abuser.


I pity how stupid you are.

Save your sanctimonious pity for yourself you vapid flake.

 
At 4/2/09 1:19 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not going to bother. There is no point to this as you obviously have your head firmly up your arse.

You estimations of what I think and where I am coming from are completely wrong. You dicussion of what this bill was and will do is likewise delusional.
You are arguing with someone else who you have invented in your mind to converse with.
Feel free to continue in that manner. I really don't see the point.


PS: BAAAAAAAA

 
At 4/2/09 1:24 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PSS:

The fact that you completely missed my pointed use of "beating", and how its difference from "smacking" speaks volumes about you also.

 
At 4/2/09 1:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not going to bother.

Oh boo hoo, take your ball and go home then child.

Then you follow it up with a "PSS" - whatever the hell that might be - I thought you weren't going to bother? Make up your mind.

 
At 4/2/09 6:52 pm, Anonymous bring back buck said...

So ban weapons against children ?
Jeeez, animals would have better protection in NZ if you ran the show.
y'know, i watched a few of those "supernanny" progs last year on TV, and not ONCE , not ONCE did they have to resort to "hitting " .. "smacking" or beating a child.
They turned around the behaviour of some totally obnoxious and out of control kids by using intelligent parenting skills.

Ban weapons on kids ? right ..and so fists, feet, slaps on the head, punches ...all OK ?

Kiwis , ya gotta love 'em, they'll defend to the end their right to whack their kids. sigh.

 
At 5/2/09 9:01 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

y'know, i watched a few of those "supernanny" progs last year on TV, and not ONCE , not ONCE did they have to resort to "hitting " .. "smacking" or beating a child.
They turned around the behaviour of some totally obnoxious and out of control kids by using intelligent parenting skills.


WOW buck! You saw it on TV so it must be true right? Maybe our government should hire the super nanny to come to NZ to teach us all how to raise our kids....


Ban weapons on kids ? right ..and so fists, feet, slaps on the head, punches ...all OK ?

You really are an idiot, go back and read what I have written.

Bomber gave three examples, ALL of which involved using weapons on kids. If have NEVER seen one example - not from Bomber, not from Sue Bradford, not from anyone one - where someone punched their child and used "reasonible force" as a defence to get off charges.

Not one.

It is sad that you resort to the tired, cowardly and intellectually dishonest position - like bradford, like Bomber, like our anonymous friend - of accusing me of excusing the punching, kicking, beating of children just because I am not anti-smacking.

Again - this is why there was sooooo much opposition to section 59: The Likes of you, Bomber and Bradford ALL accused people who smack their kids occasinally as being either in support of child abuse or and being actual child abusers.

It cost the Greens and Labour a lot at the election - The Called 85% of NZers child abusers, just like you are trying to do.

 
At 5/2/09 9:33 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because the examples above did not involve anything but weapons does not mean it does not happen and does not mean your short sighted suggestion would work.

You obviously have no grasp of the reality of this issue and are arguing on rhetoric alone. Your arguments are not only full of incorrect information, but are full of vitriol and anger and one can only wonder at the source of that!

Beating is the use of weapons or excessive force on a child. (or anyone) This includes, but is not limited to, closed fists, kicking or slapping around the head or other vunerable areas like the spine.

When I was 4 years old I hit my father while he was sleeping with the jug cord. He woke up and went to slap me but I was jumping off the couch. He hit me square in the spine and I could not walk for over an hour. Scared him shitless.

Obviously this was an accident and not child abuse, but I wanted to give this real life example for two reasons:
a) You CAN do very serious harm to a child, even with an open palm. Your arguments around this are total shit.
b) Physical discipline in the heat of an angry moment can accidentally lead to more severe consequences.
I have also seen people slapping their kids around the head with an "open palm" and this WILL do damage to their brain/ears etc. Most likely the naive parent had was unaware of this, if they had they deserve jail time.

The issue of what is excessive force or not is a VERY grey area and it would be best for the country if we just avoided it altogether and used other methods that are proven to work. (and you can take your empty rhetoric on this and shove it up your arse because none of the studies support you)

Yes they take more time, no they are not less effective.

Since that has already happened and the law appears to now be doing its job, I guess you will just have to keep seething in impotent rage as your mates in the Nactional government fail to allow you to kick the shit out of your kids and feel good about it.

I really can't get upset about this today. It is waitangi day tomorrow and I have a long weekend to spend with my daughter and wife. (not kicking the shit out of them)

Kia Kaha.

 
At 15/4/09 12:50 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hi as the mother the child who was hit not once but 4 times by this man he got every thing he deserved my son was already in time and was complying with what was asked when he was lifted of the ground by the skin of his throat and squessed this had the potential to kill him.This mans way of raising his children was to abuse them physicaly,mentally,and emontional the only reason domestic violence continues to happen is because people like you down play it and blame it on the goverment.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home