A 12 YO was hit by a car and killed. His 10 YO brother asked Mom if he could get a tattoo with his brother's name and jersey number. Mother consented, and got one in honor of her 12 YO as well.
Do you think she should be charged with a crime?When someone at his school noticed the tattoo and contacted authorities, Napier was arrested on Tuesday and charged with misdemeanor cruelty and being a party to a crime, according to WSBTV. Napier bonded out of jail on Wednesday but is shocked that her consent was not enough for her son to get a tattoo.
A Georgia law from 2010 states, ?It shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo the body of any person under the age of 18, except a physician or osteopath.?
Do you think it was appropriate for her to allow her son to get a tattoo in light of their loss?
I don't think she should be charged with a crime... Although, I suppose whether the tattoo was his or her idea is hearsay.
I don't think she should have allowed her son to get the tattoo and I don't think the tattoo shop should have done it. There are plenty of other things she could have done to remember her deceased son.
I'm not in favor of doing life-altering or body-altering things when one is an emotional wreck, such as after the death of a son or brother. There's no reason why that kid couldn't wait until he was 18 and do it legally. I hope they're also charging the person/shop that did the tattoo, in addition to the mother.
It takes 12 pounds of grain and 2500 gallons of water to produce ONE POUND of beef.
Livestock generates 65% of all human-related nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more warming to the environment than carbon dioxide; 37% of all human-related methane, which 23 times as warming as CO2; and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
"If you care about the planet, it's actually better to eat a salad in a Hummer than a cheeseburger in a Prius."
-- Bill Maher
While I am not personally in favor of tattoos in general, I can't see punishing someone who has already been through so much if she really did not know it was against the law. The tatto place should be the ones who would be responsible for doing it to a minor and not clearly posting the law.
I don't think think she should be charged.
As far as how i feel about her allowing her son to do it? I don't know. I have mixed feelings. Part of me thinks its too permanent to allow at that age.
But then the other side of me says if there is ever a tattoo that one would not regret, something like that would probably be it so....i don't know.
Cecilia Marie 1/10/10
Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography
It isn't my braniest night, but I'm confused why the mother got arrested if the law stated
unless the Mother herself put the tattoo on the child?t shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo the body of any person under the age of 18, except a physician or osteopath.?
Yeah, I don't get why she is being charged just because she consented. The artist should've known the law and be the sole person responsible.
That said, my dd has been asking since my sister passed to have a tattoo in honor of her. I think it's very tasteful and I absolutely understand her reasoning behind it, but I've always told her I, as her parent, don't want to be the one responsible for altering her body on something so permanent. I told her she could think about it and do it when she turns 18. So far, she (now 17) still plans on it. I can empathize where this mother is coming from in consenting, but I think the age of 10 is too young for me to be comfortable to consent to put something so permanent on a child.
DD Twins: 8/4/09 @ 35 Wks - No NICU, woot!
I agree the tattoo shop should be getting in trouble, not the mother- although she was charged with being party to a crime (not actually committing the crime), which makes more sense as far as the law goes.
I can't imagine letting my 10 year old get a tattoo- I'm not even sure if I would let my 10 year old get her ears pierced! But she was also obviously probably not in a clear state of mind. I would definitely go the, "that's a lovely thought, you can do it when you're 18" route.
Mara & Joel, 2009
I think the artist should have said no even if the mom consented. They are the one who should have known the law and thus should be liable. I don't think the mom should be charged.
I don't think the 10 year old should have gotten the tattoo. Not because of permanence necessarily as this would be a tattoo that wouldn't be regrettable. But because 10 year old skin is still growing and not suitable for tattooing. As the skin grows it will alter the tattoo and it may not end up looking so good as an adult.
I don't think she should be charged; but I also think as the parent she should have made a better choice and had the boy wait. I understand why they would both want the tattoo, 10 is just TOO young. Further, the tattoo shop should have known the law...and if anything, should get a fine. I still don't think it should be illegal as long as it is consented.