Friday, July 17, 2020

Chareidie Father in Beit Shemesh Arrested After Choking His Son To Unconsciousness On Shabbas

A 38 year-old Chareidie from Beit Shemesh is still in custody after choking his son last shabbos over a dispute about which yeshivah he would attend next zman.

The boy was still unconscious when Magan David Adom arrived. After examining the child they determined that he was choked after noticing rope marks on the child's neck.
Police were called and after searching the apartment and finding the rope, they arrested the father.

The father refused to be taken by police car to the station house because as he explained "it would be chillul shabbas."
The Zionist police ignored him and forcibly carried him to the police car. 

The father who was worried about violating shabbas, stopped talking to police under the advice of his lawyer Leah Zemel, but not before he told them that the child went berserk after their "yeshiva" discussion and to calm him down, he choked him..
I don't think that the father will be giving "parenting classes" anytime soon.

The Judge Oran Silberman, extended the "the tzaddik's" custody in jail, stating "we have a very dangerous situation here, where a father went searching for rope to choke his child and choked him until he became unconscious."

After further inquiry, DIN found out that the child is in fair condition.

No word on which Yeshiva the child will ultimately attend...


KINDLY SUPPORT OUR BLOG BY BROWSING THE ADS
THANKS SO MUCH, IT MEANS A LOT ESPECIALLY IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES! 



2 comments:

  1. Let this remind us all to control our anger; so many normal people have committed heinous things in a moment of rage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anger is the preferred weapon of the uneducated masses.
    It is supposed to instill fear where the person runs out of common sense arguments.
    Our sages are very clear about the negative aspect of anger: "Kol Ha'Koess ke'ilu Oved Avodah Zara".
    Interesting that they put it into the same category as haughtiness ("Gaavah").
    The reason for equating them, is that both have the same root, namely the miscconception of being entitled to something.

    ReplyDelete