Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/1107508/

Topic: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: 9VSPO
Posted 2006-02-08 18:32:31 and read 2109 times.

This is the photograph of singer Britney Spears driving a car with her baby son sat on her lap.



Several pictures of the incident had circulated unofficially on the internet prompting a defence from the pop star.

What do you think? Is it a lot of fuss over nothing? Was she justified?

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Cosec59
Posted 2006-02-08 18:34:14 and read 2108 times.

She's NOT in the driving seat.That's the passenger side

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posted 2006-02-08 18:40:56 and read 2098 times.

Unless she drives a RHD she is in the driving seat ...

Very clever using the kid as an airbag  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Aerobalance
Posted 2006-02-08 18:46:23 and read 2089 times.

Why prevent Darwinism from occurring?

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: TheSorcerer
Posted 2006-02-08 18:52:30 and read 2084 times.

I think the fact that she's britney spears (and the fact that she's a retard) encourages people to complain about her and whatever she does. The baby should have been in a childseat in the back. But hey we always see it on planes, mums holding their children on their laps on take-off and landing when they should be seated.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Tom in NO
Posted 2006-02-08 18:54:09 and read 2079 times.

Quoting BHXFAOTIPYYC (Reply 2):
Very clever using the kid as an airbag

Except she really didn't need the kid there playing that part.....she's pretty much an airbag herself  wink .

Tom at MSY

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Jamie757
Posted 2006-02-08 19:04:55 and read 2065 times.

Quoting 9VSPO (Thread starter):

What do you think? Is it a lot of fuss over nothing? Was she justified?

I thought that not securing your child in a suitable harness/seat was an offence. And the excuse that she gives about being chased by the paparazzi, well, she doesn't look particularly worried in the photos.








 Yeah sure


Rgds.

[Edited 2006-02-08 19:12:35]

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Luv2fly
Posted 2006-02-08 19:10:13 and read 2052 times.

Is that not her hubby sitting in the passenger seat, could he not have held the child, it looks like he is just talking on his cell phone? Though no one should have a young child in the front seat.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: CPH-R
Posted 2006-02-08 19:11:35 and read 2052 times.

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 4):
The baby should have been in a childseat in the back

There was a childseat in the back, which makes it so much more irresponsible. And if she was in such a hurry to get away from some papparazzi's, why not hand the child to the person in the passenger seat?

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Jap
Posted 2006-02-08 19:12:56 and read 2046 times.

No, she wasn't justified...

But I think people should focus more on the perfectly normal (and not celeb...) people who do this EVERY DAY... Britney Spears isn't the only one... yet, it only comes up when she does it.

Hmm...

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: SAIL52115
Posted 2006-02-08 19:39:29 and read 2020 times.

Quoting Aerobalance (Reply 3):
Why prevent Darwinism from occurring?

 checkmark 

Where is Darwinism when you need it (or a taxicab for that matter)?

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Erikwilliam
Posted 2006-02-08 19:47:37 and read 2011 times.

Quoting 9VSPO (Thread starter):
What do you think? Is it a lot of fuss over nothing? Was she justified?

fuss over nothing, if she could at least be breastfeeding the baby and we could see some titie action, but no she´s just driving. Next celebs case please.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2006-02-08 19:51:28 and read 2000 times.

MSNBC is reporting that Child Services will investigate if Britney Spears is risking endangerment of her child, and some have compared the drive to Michael Jackson dangling his son over the hotel balcony in Berlin.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: YOWza
Posted 2006-02-08 20:04:48 and read 1986 times.

Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 1):
She's NOT in the driving seat.That's the passenger side

US cars = Left hand drive.

Quoting Aerobalance (Reply 3):
Why prevent Darwinism from occurring?

I thought it was one's own weaknesses causing extinction that constituted Darwinism not stupidity on the part of one's parents.

To me this is stupid and borders on child abuse. At the very least this displays unfit parenting. I don't care who you are, some punishment should be in order for this type of nonsense.

YOWza

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Cosec59
Posted 2006-02-08 20:05:55 and read 1986 times.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 13):
Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 1):
She's NOT in the driving seat.That's the passenger side

US cars = Left hand drive.

 stirthepot 

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posted 2006-02-08 20:54:04 and read 1964 times.

Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 14):

 rotfl  It's OK to admit you were wrong !!

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Aerobalance
Posted 2006-02-08 21:04:00 and read 1947 times.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 13):
I thought it was one's own weaknesses causing extinction that constituted Darwinism not stupidity on the part of one's parents.

Having a weak mind counts.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: LTBEWR
Posted 2006-02-08 21:31:12 and read 1919 times.

It also appears that Ms. Spears wasn't wearing here seat/lap belt either. That should get her a ticket too. While Spears was wrong by law and common sense in her actions here, I can understand her paranoia that caused here to take those actions. Perhaps what she should do is have a separate driver rather than drive herself and so she can give full attention to her new child.
Despite a new law in California that limits photographers/papparizzi in there actions (mainly as to use of long distance lenses to tresspass), they are still very threatening. We have seen a number of actions by clebs react and do dumb things to evade these sucm.
I do fear that someone whom is a major celeberty will be killed someday - much like Princess Diana was killed - by the attempts to evade the papparazzi. Worse, is the fear that there could be among a group of papparazzi who is a kidnapper or nutcase looking for their target.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Euclid
Posted 2006-02-08 21:31:38 and read 1919 times.

I think this ranks as high in the stupidity stakes as the idiot I once saw on one of the busiest freeways in this country. I was driving at the legal speed limit of 120 km/h when a guy in a BMW drove past me going quite a bit faster than myself, and there was a little girl of roundabout 3 or 4 years of age STANDING on the front passenger seat, not strapped in in any way, shape or form.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Andz
Posted 2006-02-08 21:58:05 and read 1895 times.

Quoting Euclid (Reply 18):
the idiot I once saw

I see it a dozen times a day, they should make it a manslaughter offence if a child is killed from this situation.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Diamond
Posted 2006-02-08 22:07:22 and read 1888 times.

One minor fender-bender, and an airbag deployment ... and that kid is history.

But what do we expect from Santa Monica's newest Ellie Mae Clampett?

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Ibhayi
Posted 2006-02-08 22:38:06 and read 1867 times.

This is the same family, where her husband wanted to get the kids ear pierced and she was shouting at him in public to stop him.

I mean jeez make the kid a chav before he is even 6 months old.

Yes it is darwanism in her case, it is her mental weakness that doesnt allow her to put the kid in the right place, hinders the train of thought.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Luv2fly
Posted 2006-02-08 22:44:39 and read 1864 times.

White trash and money, not a good combination! Mom has a good expression that I believe covers this, "You can take the girl out of the trailer, you can not take the trailer out of the girl!"

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: AAFLT1871
Posted 2006-02-08 23:08:37 and read 1848 times.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 7):
Is that not her hubby sitting in the passenger seat,

Nope, that is one of her bodyguards.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Aa757first
Posted 2006-02-09 01:02:15 and read 1809 times.

Quoting TheSorcerer (Reply 4):
But hey we always see it on planes, mums holding their children on their laps on take-off and landing when they should be seated.

Cars and aircraft are different. An infant does not have to be seated in their own seat, even if the Fasten Seatbelt sign is on.

AAndrew

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Jetstar
Posted 2006-02-09 01:30:59 and read 1796 times.

I guess this is what you can expect from Britney Spears, who only has a 9th grade education.

I hope the police use these pictures and prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law for endangering her child’s life. Make a public example of her on how not to drive with your child. I also think the police should even contact the child welfare people and have them conduct an investigation.

As said before, one fender bender and her child’s neck would be broken like a twig.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-02-09 01:50:05 and read 1788 times.

Quoting Jamie757 (Reply 6):
I thought that not securing your child in a suitable harness/seat was an offence.

It is.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 7):
Is that not her hubby sitting in the passenger seat, could he not have held the child, it looks like he is just talking on his cell phone?

Actually, that is her bodyguard

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: IceTitan447
Posted 2006-02-09 02:06:10 and read 1779 times.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 7):
Is that not her hubby sitting in the passenger seat, could he not have held the child

Then the folks on this great forum would complain that the child is in the front seat with an airbag, it should be in the back seat, soooooo your damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: CaptainGomes
Posted 2006-02-09 02:35:17 and read 1773 times.

Quoting IceTitan447 (Reply 27):
Then the folks on this great forum would complain that the child is in the front seat with an airbag, it should be in the back seat, soooooo your damned if you do, damned if you don't

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? Obviously you missed the point. The proper thing to do with an infant is to strap them in a child seat in the back of the vehicle, or then in a proper child seat on the front passenger seat. Holding a child on your lap is plain stupid, whether in the front or the back.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: MiCorazonAzul
Posted 2006-02-09 06:30:13 and read 1685 times.

Well from what I read earlier today, she isn't going to be charged for anything as a result of this. So she didn't have her seat belt on AND had her child in her lap while driving and gets nothing......A-M-A-Z-I-N-G.......  sarcastic 

My view on this whole issue is that I understand her for wanting to get away from the photographers....but my question is: why not just hand the baby over to the bodyguard who was just sitting there talking on his cell?  Confused

Oh and is Britney going broke or something? A lincoln navigator? Whatever happened to the ultra fancy cars she was driving?

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Itsjustme
Posted 2006-02-09 06:39:56 and read 1683 times.

Quoting Jetstar (Reply 25):

I hope the police use these pictures and prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law for endangering her child’s life

LA County Sheriff's Office has said they cannot charge Ms. Spears as, not only were her actions not witnessed by a deputy, but it's unclear as to whose jurisdiction she was in at the time.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: TWAMD-80
Posted 2006-02-09 07:13:52 and read 1667 times.


Yikes, she's looked better in her days. I wonder if she still claims to be a virgin.  Wink

TW

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2006-02-09 14:05:44 and read 1633 times.

I am at a loss for words. Un-freakin' believable.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: N229NW
Posted 2006-02-09 14:22:50 and read 1623 times.

She probably thinks that she is indestructible because she drives that piece of S*** status-symbol bulldozer around, and her sub-shoe-size IQ does not allow her to realize that she is endangering the child. It's good she is not wearing her own seatbelt either since this will allow her to crush the little one to death against the steering wheel on the offchance that the baby is not ejected through the window.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Itsjustme
Posted 2006-02-09 14:31:55 and read 1622 times.

Quoting Jap (Reply 9):
But I think people should focus more on the perfectly normal (and not celeb...) people who do this EVERY DAY... Britney Spears isn't the only one... yet, it only comes up when she does it.

I can only speak from personal experience but in all my years in law enforcement (not to mention when just out during every day driving when off duty), I have never seen someone driving with an infant on their lap as these pictures depict. I have never been sent to handle a complaint of someone driving with an infant on their lap either. I have, however, handled countless complaints of children (and even pets for that matter) being left unattended in parked vehicles which tells me that if someone were to witness what Ms. Spears did, they would not hesitate to call the police. So, for you to say "people do this EVERY DAY" might be a bit of a stretch. I think it's a safe bet that it's not being done "EVERY DAY", at least not from where I'm from. Again, I am speaking from personal experience only.
It would have been nice if the asshole who was busy snapping the photos had taken a minute to give the cops a call so she could have been stopped and cited.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Jetflyer
Posted 2006-02-09 14:57:52 and read 1616 times.

At least it's her baby, for goodness sake. If she crashes, then the stupidity won't have a chance to continue into the next generation. Look at it optimistically!

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Slider
Posted 2006-02-09 17:09:37 and read 1591 times.

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 29):
Well from what I read earlier today, she isn't going to be charged for anything as a result of this. So she didn't have her seat belt on AND had her child in her lap while driving and gets nothing......

Incredible!

I'd charge her. No question. She broke the law and there is evidence. Freaking California and more damn celebrity favoritism. It's bullshit.

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Boeing Nut
Posted 2006-02-10 20:29:08 and read 1534 times.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 34):
It would have been nice if the asshole who was busy snapping the photos had taken a minute to give the cops a call so she could have been stopped and cited.

Yea, but then the poor cockroach, otherwise known as paparazzi, would have lost a paycheck.  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Britney Spears Defends Baby Car Photos
Username: Boeing Nut
Posted 2006-02-10 20:44:07 and read 1524 times.

Quoting Jetflyer (Reply 35):
At least it's her baby, for goodness sake. If she crashes, then the stupidity won't have a chance to continue into the next generation. Look at it optimistically!

And that's the baby's fault?!?!?!?!? That's a Darwin award winning response if I've ever seen one! My God man!!  gnasher 


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/