Dumbass mom III: Convicted, but not of everything - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Friday, 8 August 2003


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
1533 - Dumbass mom III: Convicted, but not of everything

From today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Breast-feeding driver acquitted on 1 charge, convicted on 3

RAVENNA, Ohio (AP) - A woman who belonged to an obscure religious sect was found innocent Friday of child endangerment for breast-feeding her baby while driving, but was convicted of three lesser charges.

Catherine Nicole Donkers, 29, was found guilty of violating child-restraint laws, driving without a valid driver's license and fleeing police while on the Ohio Turnpike in May.

Prosecutors recommended Donkers be sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine instead of the maximum one year in jail and $2,000.

The actual sentencing will be delayed while the judge seeks to understand the woman and her husband. Personally, although the judge said he acquitted her on the child endangerment charge because the troopers only saw the mom holding the baby, not feeding her, I disagree: just holding her in front of the steering wheel counts as endangerment to me.

The recommended sentence seems too lenient, as well. Some forms of idiocy should be stamped out wherever they're found.

current mood: [mood icon] cranky

(5 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:okkaywarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
"...A woman who belonged to an obscure religious sect was found innocent Friday of child endangerment..."

I don't understand what the thing about her belonging to an obscure religious sect has to do with this? Is there something she's using in her defense that has to do with her religion or is this just something that has nothing to do with this at all? I don't get it. >=o/ (I know you didn't write it, I just am curious if you have any info about the significance of that?)
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
As a matter of fact, her religion has been raised as a defense. Click through to the Star-Trib article for the whole story, but the short form is that 1) their church has a history of trouble with the government (recognizing authority, that kind of thing); 2) they claim that their religion mandates that her husband, alone, is responsible for punishing her; and 3) the fact that she drove on for several miles before stopping for the cops was, supposedly, because she, again adhering ot the tenets of her religion, followed her husband's explicit instructions to do so.
[User Picture]
From:okkaywarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
awww, thank you! I must have missed the link somehow or I would have looked at it and found that out on my own. oopsie. Thank you, though!
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
They should've played along. By that, I mean that they should have recognized her religious defense if her husband agreed to it... and then pressed all the charges against the husband and put him away. That would've solved the problem real quick.
[User Picture]
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000

Ding!

(Link)
I'll agree with this. If someone is going to throw religion out as a defense for anything this stupid, I say we take it to its' logical conclusion. To further the theme, once the husband is in jail, then the child must, by rights be taken from the woman and placed with other people, as clearly, by that point, she is not capable of surviving with a child without her husband's guidance.

Nail. Hit. Head.


> go to top
LiveJournal.com