We've Hit A New Low In The 'Angry Gaming Parent Kills Baby' Story

Looking through our lamentable catalogue of stories in which a baby is killed when a parent or other caregiver has flown into a game-induced rage, most of them involve shaking. Two involved a strike to the body. In one, an infant was dropped on her head.

Well, we have a new low in the realm of horrible things done to a newborn by an adult who can't control his temper. In High Point, N.C. last week, authorities say Brian Jack Frazier, 20, hit his two-week-old son in the face when his crying interrupted his video game session.

Frazier then went back to sleep, said investigators and evidently didn't check on the child for another nine hours, as he discovered the baby was unresponsive. Medical staff pronounced the child (pictured above) dead an hour later.

Frazier is in gaol, and so is the baby's mother, charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder. Frazier is charged with first degree murder and prosecutors in Guilford County have not yet ruled out seeking the death penalty. The home apparently was squalid enough that family members are wondering why the children were not placed into protective custody after a social worker's visit earlier.

I can fly off the handle about a lot of things, but I am terrified of holding babies, frankly, because I know it takes very little to cause serious, permanent injury to their heads. The idea of someone punching a two-week-old in the face is something that takes physical effort to put out of my mind. This trend is by now so long tenured and ugly that I'm wondering when a public service campaign about baby shaking and video gaming begins.

It's incredibly sad and mortifying to the gaming community that some people have to be told to calm it the hell down if they're new parents, but I don't see any other proactive way to address this. People who shouldn't be parents will always have kids.

High Point baby killed by father's face punch was living in squalor, relatives say [The Winston-Salem Journal. Image via WTVR-TV]


Comments

    He is 20 years old. Go figure. I don't know many 20 year olds that have much life experience in such areas.

      The area of 'not-punching-things-in-the-face'? He's effing 20, not 5.

      Im 18 year old Man-Child who has never even had a girlfriend, let alone had a kid, and even i know that "Punching a TWO WEEK old child in the face = Big Fuckin No-No."
      Hell, i could bet that a three year old would know that.
      By the age of 20 he should at least be able to control his RAGE let alone know not to punch a BABY in the FACE.

        Yeah. If you've ever been to a hospital to visit a newborn while three/four year olds around even they know 'you have to be gentle with the baby'. You don't even have to tell them.

      Excuse you, my mother had both my brother and I when she was 20. And we were raised just fine, I don't think it depends on the age. It's common sense this man clearly was just not fit to have kids because he is obviously still too intent in his games.

    A good case for the death penalty.

      There is no "good case" for a death penalty.
      They should live to suffer from their actions.

        I suppose someone in prison punching him in the face till he dies would do.

          1) I Lol'd
          2) I think that Death Peanilty is quite a gray area. I mean, is it even a punishment? IF those religious people are wrong, then its simply a... "Stop". Dosent seem like much of a punishment to me.
          But locking someone in a small room for the rest of their lives seems to be a good punishment.

            But generally it's not for the rest of their lives. :(

            I believe if someone chooses to rape, brutally attack or kill someone, then they forfeit all their rights to live their life and be put to death; It's a different matter if it's an accident or the person was provoked\defending them self.

            No. Using them as a source of cheap/free labour, that's punishment.

              I could possibly support the free labour option. That or the use of a prison like the one from "The Dark knight Rises". As for rehabilitation into society, I'd say only at a much later date and on a case-by-case decision. This guy might eventualy be worthy of it but I can't help but hope that when he gets out everybody in his neibourhood knows what he looks like and what he did.

        Bull, destroy them and rid the world of the problem. In cases such as this, rape, child molestation etc... one bullet to the head, quell the world of their existence and rest assured in the fact there's one less dysfunctional psychopath in the world.

          Nice knee jerk.
          You obviously put a lot of though into that.

            No I've subscribed to this opinion for the good part of a decade. Nice knee jerk. You obviously put a lot of thought into your comment.

              Subscribing to blind retaliation as a justice system is a knee jerk reaction.
              The legal system gets things wrong, if they kill an innocent person by mistake does that just become the price of doing business?
              Is that worth the risk?

                I never said anything about killing an innocent person, there are finer details, but do you really want to get into it now? Here?

      He's 20. What he did was inexcusable but it was one fucked up stupid mistake. He should get a serious amount of time in prison but this is someone who could be rehabilitated back into society.

      Clearly you've never known someone in the prison system. It's fucked up and accomplishes nothing. Very flawed system.

        Yep an eye for eye! I think it is only fair.

          That phrase does not work. The baby is not alive, so he doesn't get any sense of revenge from his father being killed.

          An eye for an eye should have died out in medieval times. What a flawed and stupid argument to use.

          In addition this man should be left alive. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't eventually hate themself for killing their own infant child.

            In addition this man should be left alive. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't eventually hate themself for killing their own infant child.

            someone who punches a 2 week old child... and then goes back to sleep

              A new low indeed. If I punched someone, I wouldn't even be able to sleep thinking on what I'd done. He shouldn't die, that just lowers our level as a society, but he should have a looooooong time to think about what he'd done just because of a video game. And that at 20 he probably shouldn't even have a baby to begin with.

            An eye for an eye doesn't have to be revenge for the victim, but can be considered punishment too.

            He might start to regret it because he killed a child...
            He might start to regret it because he ended up in jail...
            Or he might not care in the end...

            There are many types of people, some amazingly kind and lovely, some amazingly cold and gruel.
            Unfortunately being kind or punishing a scum sucker doesn't turn them in to a kind person; That doesn't mean someone can't change... but if you choose to rape, attack or kill someone then I think you have crossed the line and forfeit your life! Why put someone back on the street if they have destroyed other peoples lives?

              By killing the thing we hate, we become the thing we despise.
              Killing a murder creates another murderer.

              It makes someone else bear the burden of taking a life.

                I'm not sure if you're aware, but a life carries a dynamic value.

                The life of a good person vs the life of a murderer / rapist.

                  how do you determine what a good person is though

            I am sorry for using that terminology, quote or whatever it is. I couldn't think of anything better at the time. :-)

            I just think that a low life that can kill punch a child full stop, a low life that thinks a freaking video game is more important than his own kid, a low life that didn't think about checking his child to see if it was alright after it "stopped" crying because he punched it, but instead go to sleep, a low life who openly admitted to killing his kid should not have a benefit of the doubt and be dealt with accordingly. Be it the death penalty if allow in the country where this happened.

            I really don't see the point on wasting tax payers money keeping scum alive for 20-30 or whatever years, when they admitted to the crime. I think once a kid puncher always a kid puncher, any normal person wouldn't ever think of punching a child in the face let alone a baby. If he does get the " Politcally Correct" punishment and he does go to gaol/jail, I hope he gets F'd in the A everyday with a hand full of sand for lube, to remind him of what he did.

            Sorry for my rant, I just get worked up when losers can breed easily and not care for their children, where as I know good people who would make good parents can't have children.

            Last edited 10/12/12 11:21 pm

            In addition this man should be left alive. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't eventually hate themself for killing their own infant child.

            I just don't get how people can be against the death penalty but still feel satisfaction from a statement like that. You're essentially saying 'don't kill the guy, torture him instead'. As though dragging his death out over 50 years of torture isn't just petty revenge.

        Rehabilitation doesn't cure stupidity, he's a liability to the human race and doesn't deserve to be a part of it.

          You have no right to judge him.

            Bullshit, he killed a baby, I'll judge the hell out of him and back again.

    Damn poor child. RIP game related or not it's a tragedy.
    Only question is that article says child victim is above, and the incident happened last week. Date watermark is dated at 2010 on said pic.
    Also please no jokes on kids name

    Last edited 09/12/12 7:34 pm

    Thank you for spelling 'gaol' correctly. The little things help

    There are articles like this once a month in the Japanese news. Games aren't really an issue, underage parents are.

      Age is not the issue here - an individual who has mental and/or emotional issues is. Age should not be the subject of blame as its inherent to most humans to protect children, not hurt them. I'm sure there are fifteen year old parents out there that care for there children and would never hurt them.

      Poor little baby...

    So was he interuppted gaming or sleeping. You wrote he went back to sleep implying he was already sleeping and not gaming at all?

    I think everyone here likes Video Games, but most of us know we have to pause the game or quit when real life decides we no longer have time for entertainment.

    As for a punishment, I get why some people are screaming for the death penalty, but what good does is do at this point? I think the justice system needs an overhaul to make penalties fit the crime. Than again I'm the type of person who thinks Speeding fines should not cost money, just 50hrs of Community Service.

      "but what good does is do at this point?"

      It won't bring the baby back of course, but it'll stop there from ever being a victim 2.
      I mean it's a little more complicated than that, as I'm guessing it wasn't his intent to kill the child... Kids can be extremely hard work and very draining, but he's obviously not a stable cookie and sounds like he's probably violent.

    Kill the fucker. That sort of pathetic negligence has no place in this world.
    1) You don't 'punch' your children no matter what age. Especially not a fucking new born.
    2) Playing a video game is no fucking excuse. A baby crying means turn it the fuck off and attend your duties as a parent. If you can't do that, then don't be a fucking parent.
    3) While abortions may be legal, killing a new born is probably the worst thing you can do aside from raping one. The fact it was him neglecting his children because he wants to play video games that 'made him do it' is the worst. That's one hell of a temper. What's next? He dies in Black Ops 2 and rapes his neighbors daughter? At least she'd get to live..
    My point being that a temper tantrum is no excuse for one of the worst crimes imaginable.
    Especially for a 20 year old. He's a grown fucking man.

      He dies in Black Ops 2 and rapes his neighbours daughter? At least she'd get to live..
      This is the sort of statement that chills me.
      It's one thing to be upset and outraged but to demand that someone else kill that person lowers us all to their level.
      And saying that, at least a rape victim gets to live, is at best disingenuous and at worst, dangerously naive.
      The truth is that the effects of rape on the victim are more devestating, profound and long lasting than your simplistic expression and those effects ripple on to everyone they are close to.

      When someone is killed, there is closure. They feel no more pain.
      When some one is raped, the violation remains and takes a lifetime to heal.
      A significant part of that healing process is the opportunity to confront their attacker if they wish and that is not something they can do if the attacker is dead.
      What right do you or anyone else have to decide to remove that opportunity?

      Revenge is not justice.

        Revenge, justice and rehabilitation. They're not as important as "Cleansing".

        When you have a stain on your shirt, you don't try to rehabilitate it, you wash it off. When you have a rapist, you don't try to rehabilitate him, you remove the problem.

        Attempts at rehabilitating criminals, for the most part, results in one thing, re offending. Therefore the justice system is indirectly responsible for the secondary offense by not dealing with the problem appropriately the first time.

          At what point have I mentioned the perpetrators rehabilitation in anything I have written?

            Nowhere, my comment isn't only in reply to you. I've taken advantage of adding more detail to my comment, which would appear obvious to any reasonable person.

            You're trying to justify allowing a rapist to live, purely so the victim can have closure and also so he suffers some consequence to his crimes. And the price to pay for all this? Another victim.

              So your are replying to my comment to address other people's issues?
              I question that and I'm unreasonable?
              Seems legit.......

              Also, as someone who lives with the consequences of a rapist every day, I'm pretty comfortable with the actual victims needs being the most important issue, not the hypothetical victims you are constructing but the people who are here now and living through the hell it is.
              And trying to paint me as a rape apologist by proxy because I refuse to accept that killing someone is the answer is to crime is ridiculous.

              Here is something for you to think about, one in three women in Australia will be the victim of sexual assault.
              One in five men in Australia will be the victim of a sexual assault.
              If we are killing off all the people who perpetrate the assaults only against women that is still something like 7,333,333 people that need "cleansing".

                Everyone has an opinion on this subject (punishment) and in most cases a very strong opinion as it is a very divisive subject. The fact of the matter is that neither of you will solve the issue here in this forum, as he will be sentenced to whatever punishment the judicial system in his home state sees fit to apply. Just give up trying to preach to each other and get the fuck on with your day.

                7,333,333 less scum on this Earth. Now you're getting the picture, you've come such a long way.

                  Have fun with the trolling, I'm sure you'll be very happy.

                Point made, but rapists don't always rape one person. Some in double digits, so the numbers wouldn't be that high.

                I believe people who use sex as a form of violence are the worst in the world, but temporary incarceration doesn't seem to be just. This is because of the issue with rapists often finding other sex offenders and befriending them, which has often led to more sexual assaults to others inmates in prison. As a result they are only likely to re offend once released. In regards to the man who killed his own child; he shouldn't be ever released - there's no undoing what he did.

                As for an alternative ... I'm not sure - I suppose this is why humans discuss ethics and philosophy to find solutions to dilemmas such as these.

          Back in 1930s Germany there was a political group who were very fond of "Cleansing", if only I could remember their name...

            Yes, lets compare rapists to jews NinjaCat..
            Seems legit. -_-

            Last edited 19/12/12 9:19 pm

        Don't put words in my mouth or misunderstand.
        I am certainly aware of how terrible rape is. That is not the issue.
        The issue is that this douchebag killed a baby because he is a little bitch throwing a tantrum.
        While the quote "at least she would get to live.." may have been cold (as all fuck) but the point I was making is that playing a video game is not and never will be a legitimate excuse for a heinous crime.

        And yeah, maybe there is closure in the mind of that baby murder victim but for those that love him/her there never will be. And how is capitol punishment for an unforgivable crime revenge?
        There is no rehabilitating pedos and child killers. Their victims (if they survive) have their whole life ruined and the shit has got to stop.

        And it starts with setting a standard on how far you can go before the state executes you.
        Pedos and baby killers cross that line and it's totally fair enough if they take a dirt nap over it.
        Or would you rather be understanding and hear their side of the story >_>

    This man will not last long in prison, as soon as what he has done gets around, there will be many people ready to do horrible things to him, getting killed should be the least of his worries.

    I'm all for putting him down like the animal he is.

    This is horrible.

    And what a shame it's directly related to gaming. It's as if the young parent(s) had a perfect life with no tendencies to rage or violence before the evil video machine entered their lives. But based on the whole living in squalor thing there needs to be a clearly identified difference between games causing violent behavior or people with a pre-disposition to rage and violence playing games. Lifestyle is a very good indication of the mental state of these people. Clearly there's more to it than "because he played video games".

    He could have been building a castle out of playing cards (FFFFFUUUUUUUUU!!!!!) and I bet the result would have been the same.

    Even though the jail system is a bit shit (what would I know?), I think the death penalty solves nothing. The child is dead, there is no comfort to be earned from that. The guy should serve time and regret his actions for as long as he can understand what he did was inexcusable and irreversible.

      Why should his penalty be dictated by something as trivial as comfort? It should be dictated by the simple fact he's prone to committing such atrocities and thus deemed unsuitable toward the progress of our species.

        Your own belief in the "Cleansing" of the human race is "unsuitable toward the progress of the species".

          Quite the opposite, it comprises of a system that eradicates hostile elements, not the other way around in regards to your snide comment relating to Nazi occupation.

          +1.
          "Eradicating hostile elements by killing them."
          Can't see the irony for the trees..............

            hos·tile
            [hos-tl or, esp. British, -tahyl] Show IPA
            adjective
            1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an enemy: a hostile nation.
            2. opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostile criticism.
            3. characterized by antagonism.
            4. not friendly, warm, or generous; not hospitable.
            noun
            5. a person or thing that is antagonistic or unfriendly.
            6. Military . an enemy soldier, plane, ship, etc.

            The "hostile element" we're discussing falls under 2, 3, 4, 5.

            The act of relieving the entire human race of their existence falls under the first and last part of 4... it's not particularly friendly, nor hospitable. However necessary.

              necessary [ˈnɛsɪsərɪ]
              adj
              1. needed to achieve a certain desired effect or result; required
              2. resulting from necessity; inevitable the necessary consequences of your action
              3. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic
              a.  (of a statement, formula, etc.) true under all interpretations or in all possible circumstances
              b.  (of a proposition) determined to be true by its meaning, so that its denial would be self-contradictory
              c.  (of a property) essential, so that without it its subject would not be the entity it is
              d.  (of an inference) always yielding a true conclusion when its premises are true; valid
              e.  (of a condition) entailed by the truth of some statement or the obtaining of some state of affairs Compare sufficient [2]
              4. (Philosophy) Philosophy (in a nonlogical sense) expressing a law of nature, so that if it is in this sense necessary that all As are B, even although it is not contradictory to conceive of an A which is not B, we are licensed to infer that if something were an A it would have to be B
              5. Rare compelled, as by necessity or law; not free

              Your premise fails under all of the above but specifically see 3.a-e.
              For further study:
              Genocide.
              Eugenics.
              Natural Justice.
              Human Rights.

                On the contrary it falls under all definitions of the word necessary.

                You obviously have no idea what Genocide is, so here's the definition.

                Genocide - "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group". Are you suggesting rapists are a culture?

                Eugenics concerns reproduction, giving a rapist a vasectomy wont give him erectile dysfunction.

                Natural Justice and Human Rights. When you violently rape a woman / child, then proceed to kill them and in a lot of cases continue to interfere with the corpse, you have resigned all rights. Once you commit that atrocity, you've resigned your every basic right you were previously entitled to.

                You should get a job at the CMC, they're always looking for people who want to make sure criminals, of that nature, are treated with respect and dignity.

                  Your flawed and simplistic understanding and childish attempts to elicit an emotional response via provocation weaken any validity your arguement may have.
                  I was willing to discuss the issue but you are to busy trying to paint the world black and white so it is easier for you to come to grips with and attack or insult anyone who disagrees with your extremist views.
                  It's blatantly obvious that there is no room in your "ideal" world of state sponsored mass murder(sorry "cleansing") for anything resembling logic or common sense and any kind of empathy towards victims(especially of rape which you are so fond of mentioning but obviously know nothing about)is something to be scorned and ridiculed.
                  So what I'm led to conclude is your "perfect" world is a place of casual cruelty, heartless indifference and swift revenge for anyone who is not a "good" person as you so nebulously call them.
                  Now off you trot back to comment on YouTube videos.
                  I'm done with you.

      If the dude punched his 2 week old baby in the face over a game of Black OPs 2 which led to it's death, odds are the selfish and pathetic cunt will only regret it because he is in prison.

    This really sucks. But I don't think it has much to do with gaming. It's the actions of a guy who happened to play games.

    Leaving the kid for 9 hrs wow. You can only imagine the life the kid would've had if he'd lived, with a father like that.

    I hope they really "love" this guy in prison. Frequently.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now