FREE TAPATALK APP

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html

So we had a lot of stuff wrong. She did not stand him on a rail and she tried to get in after him. Good call by the DA. Next case please.

DreamingNaiad · 29th November 2012, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

So we had a lot of stuff wrong. She did not stand him on a rail and she tried to get in after him. Good call by the DA. Next case please.

Where does it say she didn't stand him on the rail?

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Where does it say she didn't stand him on the rail?

Where does it say she did? She picked him up and he sort of lunged forward to press his face against the 'glass' that wasn't there and pitched forward.

So, anyhow, are you gonna be second-guessing the DA? If so, I look forward to hearing the grounds. Same question to truethat.

Professor Yaffle · 29th November 2012, 06:51 AM

It says in the text:

Quote:

Investigators said Maddox Derkosh's mother picked him up and put him on top of a railing at the edge of a viewing deck on Nov. 4 when he lost his balance and fell into the African painted dogs exhibit.

http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html

Sounds like as she was putting him up onto the railing, he leaned forward thinking there was glass and she lost her grip on him. A tragic accident which could happen to any parent.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

It says:

http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html

Sounds like as she was putting him up onto the railing, he leaned forward thinking there was glass and she lost her grip on him.

Noted but that is not in the recording of the press conference. It would be good to see the whole thing unedited. The other point is she did not just stand him on the rail or raise him above the rail (whichever it was). She kept hold of him and lost control when he pitched forward. Once more, that is not as egregious as leaving him precariously balanced by himself somehow or other expecting him either to maintain his own balance or fall backwards, which is the picture that has been painted here by the 'how do you know this didn't happen' folk (AKA truethat).

It is not at all unlike the story of the mother whose child got free and ran down the subway stairs, luckily coming to no harm. These things happen.
It is, of course, extremely serious and very sad, but not an occasion for the kind of excoriating criticism on view here.

truethat · 29th November 2012, 07:11 AM

She picked him up and deliberately put him in harms way. Give me a break. It is nothing at all like losing control of your child in a public place because the child runs. If the child had climbed up there himself in a few seconds while her back was turned that would be like the subway incident.

What part of she "put him on the railing" above a 14 drop over a pack of wild dogs don't you understand?

You keep trying to twist it and bend it into something other than it flat out is. Weird.

I mean this is what I mean about reading comprehension.

This is what it says in the article you cited

Quote:

Investigators said Maddox Derkosh's mother picked him up and put him on top of a railing at the edge of a viewing deck on Nov. 4 when he lost his balance and fell into the African painted dogs exhibit.

Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...#ixzz2DcoSbtTb

How do you translate that to "she was holding him and the boy thought there was glass there and leaned toward the glass and fell in"

How do you know the boy thought there was glass there? You are just flat out making things up.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

She picked him up and deliberately put him in harms way. Give me a break. It is nothing at all like losing control of your child in a public place because the child runs. If the child had climbed up there himself in a few seconds while her back was turned that would be the same thing.

What part of she "put him on the railing" above a 14 drop over a pack of wild dogs don't you understand?

You keep trying to twist it and bend it into something other than it flat out is. Weird.

Why not tell the DA? Or are you going to be saying he fell victim to this Mom woo thing of yours?

On the facts as disclosed in the press conference, this is nothing more than a tragic accident, not a crime on the mother's part. So no penalty, no 'debt to society' and no pointless prosecution.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

How do you translate that to "she was holding him and the boy thought there was glass there and leaned toward the glass and fell in"

How do you know the boy thought there was glass there? You are just flat out making things up.

The DA said so - watch the recording.

truethat · 29th November 2012, 07:18 AM

Listen you keep making crap up and that's what I've been saying the entire thread. That based on the woo sentiment of mommy love, the posters in this thread have made excuse after excuse for the mother without knowing any of the details in the story.

Your posts are a classic example of this. You read that she deliberately put him on the railing and then say she was just "holding him and the child lunged forward thinking it was a glass panel"

Where in the heck are you getting that from?

Tragic accidents based on stupidity should be prosecuted in my opinion. Across the board. That's all I have said in this thread and I'm standing by it.

The debt to society is to help teach parents they need to be responsible for their children and to treat the actual victim in this case, the BOY like we respect his life like anyone else's and not treat him like a possession of the mother.

I still feel that way. You haven't made any sort of compelling argument to express otherwise.

Making things up to win a point is ridiculous and you've done it through the entire thread.

Also your constant mantra "Tell it to the DA" is lame. We're having a discussion in this thread. So far I've seen the same excuses made for the mother. That somehow her love of her child outweighs his rights as a victim who was horribly killed.

truethat · 29th November 2012, 07:25 AM

I will say this, if the mother had just walked him into the enclosure and thought there was a glass panel there and picked him up not realizing it, then I'd consider it a total accident.

But explain to me how she would think there was a panel of glass in front of her?

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 07:37 AM

Where to begin with this:

Originally Posted by truethat

Listen you keep making crap up and that's what I've been saying the entire thread. That based on the woo sentiment of mommy love, the posters in this thread have made excuse after excuse for the mother without knowing any of the details in the story.

I have not made anything up at any time. I have discussed hypotheses and so have you. That is not 'making crap up'. If you would like to point to anything I have 'made up' please do so.

Quote:

Your posts are a classic example of this. You read that she deliberately put him on the railing and then say she was just "holding him and the child lunged forward thinking it was a glass panel"

Where in the heck are you getting that from?

The DA in the recording linked to above.

Quote:

Tragic accidents based on stupidity should be prosecuted in my opinion. Across the board. That's all I have said in this thread and I'm standing by it.

So, if the child whose mother had let it go running off into the subway had died than you wold prosecute, right?

Quote:

The debt to society is to help teach parents they need to be responsible for their children and to treat the actual victim in this case, the BOY like we respect his life like anyone else's and not treat him like a possession of the mother.

You are confusing two things again. And also making little sense. The 'debt to society' idea concerns retributive punishment while the 'help teach parents' thing concerns rehabilitative punishment. Not only do you not agree with the existing law of manslaughter, you do not agree either with the purpose of the criminal jurisdiction. You have this idea that prosecution per se is an end in itself. It is not. It is a prelude to conviction and sentence and has no other purpose.

Quote:

I still feel that way. You haven't made any sort of compelling argument to express otherwise.

Noted.

Quote:

Making things up to win a point is ridiculous and you've done it through the entire thread.

Denied. Please point to where I have made anything up.

Quote:

Also your constant mantra "Tell it to the DA" is lame. We're having a discussion in this thread. So far I've seen the same excuses made for the mother. That somehow her love of her child outweighs his rights as a victim who was horribly killed.

Given your view that the law should be changed so that 'any accident based on stupidity' should be prosecuted (i.e. should be a crime) I agree it is lame to point you at the DA. You need to speak to your congressman. Don't be surprised at the reaction, however.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

I will say this, if the mother had just walked him into the enclosure and thought there was a glass panel there and picked him up not realizing it, then I'd consider it a total accident.

But explain to me how she would think there was a panel of glass in front of her?

The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident.

DreamingNaiad · 29th November 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident.

What is so impossible about a baby jerking out of someone's arms?

My brother did it to me at about 4 weeks and if I had been in the process of standing up he would probably have fallen.

And of course a toddler can do it too.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

What is so impossible about a baby jerking out of someone's arms?

My brother did it to me at about 4 weeks and if I had been in the process of standing up he would probably have fallen.

And of course a toddler can do it too.

I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as ~~our~~ the child in the zoo was 2-3years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time.

As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville.

AvalonXQ · 29th November 2012, 08:59 AM

Yeah, a baby less than a month old can hardly lift its own head; much less jerk loose from an adult's arms.

Professor Yaffle · 29th November 2012, 09:01 AM

They are very good at squirming though.

truethat · 29th November 2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident.

I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.

He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous.

truethat · 29th November 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as our child was 2-3 years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time.

As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville.

we're not talking about your freakin' baby. We're talking about the two year old. And two year olds most certainly have the legs to stands and wiggle and whatnot.

This is what I mean about making things up. This baby in this situation was STOOD up on the railing. I would imagine the if he was stood that he had leg strength TO stand.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.

He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous.

So, it was not me who was 'making crap up' but the DA (according to you). I reported what the DA said and you basically accused me of lying. Is that civil and courteous? I think not. I am willing to accept your apology.

The DA would know, to the required degree, what the boy thought by using information about what he did and then interpreting it. That's how all of us work out what each other is thinking.

So, how do you know better than the DA? Please state your sources, if any.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

we're not talking about your freakin' baby. We're talking about the two year old. And two year olds most certainly have the legs to stands and wiggle and whatnot.

This is what I mean about making things up. This baby in this situation was STOOD up on the railing. I would imagine the if he was stood that he had leg strength TO stand.

I was talking about my freaking baby in a way that is relevant to the topic and I continue to not require your permission to do so. Thank you. We are in agreement that a two year old can use his legs to leap. That is my whole point. Once again, I am not making things up.

He was stood upon the railing according to the article, with his mother holding him (new fact) but he managed to get free of her grasp by unexpectedly pitching forward thinking there was a glass barrier. His mother could not foresee that. These are the facts which have emerged from the DA's enquiries.

DreamingNaiad · 29th November 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.

He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous.

Eye witnesses described it as a lunging motion. Of course, we can't know for sure but with a vision problem he might not have realised there was only perspex below the railing.

truethat · 29th November 2012, 09:43 AM

It may be that he saw the net as a sort of playground thing.

DreamingNaiad · 29th November 2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as ~~our~~ the child in the zoo was 2-3years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time.

As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville.

If he had squirmed out of my arms in the living room and broken his neck that would be just an accident. If he did so while I had him on top of a 14ft railing I believe I would be at fault. Perhaps not legally but morally.

And I don't know why your trying to point out to me they are squirmy. I brought up that story pages ago (crivens this thread has gotten long!) to point out that they are squirmy. Which is why they shouldn't be put in this kind of situation.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Eye witnesses described it as a lunging motion. Of course, we can't know for sure but with a vision problem he might not have realised there was only perspex below the railing.

And a vision problem (also a new fact - to me) would make it harder to see the dogs without being lifted up over the barrier, a foreseeable issue which the zoo perhaps ought to have thought about.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

If he had squirmed out of my arms in the living room and broken his neck that would be just an accident. If he did so while I had him on top of a 14ft railing I believe I would be at fault. Perhaps not legally but morally.

And I don't know why your trying to point out to me they are squirmy. I brought up that story pages ago (crivens this thread has gotten long!) to point out that they are squirmy. Which is why they shouldn't be put in this kind of situation.

I am not explaining myself well. Evidently. I am not going to try again though.

I am quite sure the mother will feel the full force of the moral implications of what happened as the years pass, which is why she is deserving of sympathy.

DreamingNaiad · 29th November 2012, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

And a vision problem (also a new fact - to me) would make it harder to see the dogs without being lifted up over the barrier, a foreseeable issue which the zoo perhaps ought to have thought about.

She could have held him in her arms instead of on top of the barrier. Not sure how anyone could consider this the zoos fault.

anglolawyer · 29th November 2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

She could have held him in her arms instead of on top of the barrier. Not sure how anyone could consider this the zoos fault.

Well, the DA is certainly thinking that one over so you may get your answer.

29th November 2012, 06:51 AM	#884
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,450	It says in the text: Quote: Investigators said Maddox Derkosh's mother picked him up and put him on top of a railing at the edge of a viewing deck on Nov. 4 when he lost his balance and fell into the African painted dogs exhibit. http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html Sounds like as she was putting him up onto the railing, he leaned forward thinking there was glass and she lost her grip on him. A tragic accident which could happen to any parent.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 29th November 2012 at 07:03 AM.

29th November 2012, 07:11 AM	#886
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	She picked him up and deliberately put him in harms way. Give me a break. It is nothing at all like losing control of your child in a public place because the child runs. If the child had climbed up there himself in a few seconds while her back was turned that would be like the subway incident. What part of she "put him on the railing" above a 14 drop over a pack of wild dogs don't you understand? You keep trying to twist it and bend it into something other than it flat out is. Weird. I mean this is what I mean about reading comprehension. This is what it says in the article you cited Quote: Investigators said Maddox Derkosh's mother picked him up and put him on top of a railing at the edge of a viewing deck on Nov. 4 when he lost his balance and fell into the African painted dogs exhibit. Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...#ixzz2DcoSbtTb How do you translate that to "she was holding him and the boy thought there was glass there and leaned toward the glass and fell in" How do you know the boy thought there was glass there? You are just flat out making things up.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan Last edited by truethat; 29th November 2012 at 07:15 AM.

29th November 2012, 07:18 AM	#889
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Listen you keep making crap up and that's what I've been saying the entire thread. That based on the woo sentiment of mommy love, the posters in this thread have made excuse after excuse for the mother without knowing any of the details in the story. Your posts are a classic example of this. You read that she deliberately put him on the railing and then say she was just "holding him and the child lunged forward thinking it was a glass panel" Where in the heck are you getting that from? Tragic accidents based on stupidity should be prosecuted in my opinion. Across the board. That's all I have said in this thread and I'm standing by it. The debt to society is to help teach parents they need to be responsible for their children and to treat the actual victim in this case, the BOY like we respect his life like anyone else's and not treat him like a possession of the mother. I still feel that way. You haven't made any sort of compelling argument to express otherwise. Making things up to win a point is ridiculous and you've done it through the entire thread. Also your constant mantra "Tell it to the DA" is lame. We're having a discussion in this thread. So far I've seen the same excuses made for the mother. That somehow her love of her child outweighs his rights as a victim who was horribly killed.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan Last edited by truethat; 29th November 2012 at 07:20 AM.

29th November 2012, 07:25 AM	#890
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	I will say this, if the mother had just walked him into the enclosure and thought there was a glass panel there and picked him up not realizing it, then I'd consider it a total accident. But explain to me how she would think there was a panel of glass in front of her?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

29th November 2012, 08:56 AM	#894
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad What is so impossible about a baby jerking out of someone's arms? My brother did it to me at about 4 weeks and if I had been in the process of standing up he would probably have fallen. And of course a toddler can do it too. I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as ~~our~~ the child in the zoo was 2-3years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time. As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville.
	Last edited by anglolawyer; 29th November 2012 at 09:36 AM. Reason: to clarify

29th November 2012, 05:23 AM	#881
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by bookworm http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html So we had a lot of stuff wrong. She did not stand him on a rail and she tried to get in after him. Good call by the DA. Next case please.

29th November 2012, 06:10 AM	#882
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by anglolawyer So we had a lot of stuff wrong. She did not stand him on a rail and she tried to get in after him. Good call by the DA. Next case please. Where does it say she didn't stand him on the rail?

29th November 2012, 06:45 AM	#883
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad Where does it say she didn't stand him on the rail? Where does it say she did? She picked him up and he sort of lunged forward to press his face against the 'glass' that wasn't there and pitched forward. So, anyhow, are you gonna be second-guessing the DA? If so, I look forward to hearing the grounds. Same question to truethat.

29th November 2012, 07:05 AM	#885
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle It says: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html Sounds like as she was putting him up onto the railing, he leaned forward thinking there was glass and she lost her grip on him. Noted but that is not in the recording of the press conference. It would be good to see the whole thing unedited. The other point is she did not just stand him on the rail or raise him above the rail (whichever it was). She kept hold of him and lost control when he pitched forward. Once more, that is not as egregious as leaving him precariously balanced by himself somehow or other expecting him either to maintain his own balance or fall backwards, which is the picture that has been painted here by the 'how do you know this didn't happen' folk (AKA truethat). It is not at all unlike the story of the mother whose child got free and ran down the subway stairs, luckily coming to no harm. These things happen. It is, of course, extremely serious and very sad, but not an occasion for the kind of excoriating criticism on view here.

29th November 2012, 07:14 AM	#887
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by truethat She picked him up and deliberately put him in harms way. Give me a break. It is nothing at all like losing control of your child in a public place because the child runs. If the child had climbed up there himself in a few seconds while her back was turned that would be the same thing. What part of she "put him on the railing" above a 14 drop over a pack of wild dogs don't you understand? You keep trying to twist it and bend it into something other than it flat out is. Weird. Why not tell the DA? Or are you going to be saying he fell victim to this Mom woo thing of yours? On the facts as disclosed in the press conference, this is nothing more than a tragic accident, not a crime on the mother's part. So no penalty, no 'debt to society' and no pointless prosecution.

29th November 2012, 07:16 AM	#888
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by truethat How do you translate that to "she was holding him and the boy thought there was glass there and leaned toward the glass and fell in" How do you know the boy thought there was glass there? You are just flat out making things up. The DA said so - watch the recording.

29th November 2012, 07:37 AM	#891
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Where to begin with this: Originally Posted by truethat Listen you keep making crap up and that's what I've been saying the entire thread. That based on the woo sentiment of mommy love, the posters in this thread have made excuse after excuse for the mother without knowing any of the details in the story. I have not made anything up at any time. I have discussed hypotheses and so have you. That is not 'making crap up'. If you would like to point to anything I have 'made up' please do so. Quote: Your posts are a classic example of this. You read that she deliberately put him on the railing and then say she was just "holding him and the child lunged forward thinking it was a glass panel" Where in the heck are you getting that from? The DA in the recording linked to above. Quote: Tragic accidents based on stupidity should be prosecuted in my opinion. Across the board. That's all I have said in this thread and I'm standing by it. So, if the child whose mother had let it go running off into the subway had died than you wold prosecute, right? Quote: The debt to society is to help teach parents they need to be responsible for their children and to treat the actual victim in this case, the BOY like we respect his life like anyone else's and not treat him like a possession of the mother. You are confusing two things again. And also making little sense. The 'debt to society' idea concerns retributive punishment while the 'help teach parents' thing concerns rehabilitative punishment. Not only do you not agree with the existing law of manslaughter, you do not agree either with the purpose of the criminal jurisdiction. You have this idea that prosecution per se is an end in itself. It is not. It is a prelude to conviction and sentence and has no other purpose. Quote: I still feel that way. You haven't made any sort of compelling argument to express otherwise. Noted. Quote: Making things up to win a point is ridiculous and you've done it through the entire thread. Denied. Please point to where I have made anything up. Quote: Also your constant mantra "Tell it to the DA" is lame. We're having a discussion in this thread. So far I've seen the same excuses made for the mother. That somehow her love of her child outweighs his rights as a victim who was horribly killed. Given your view that the law should be changed so that 'any accident based on stupidity' should be prosecuted (i.e. should be a crime) I agree it is lame to point you at the DA. You need to speak to your congressman. Don't be surprised at the reaction, however.

29th November 2012, 07:43 AM	#892
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by truethat I will say this, if the mother had just walked him into the enclosure and thought there was a glass panel there and picked him up not realizing it, then I'd consider it a total accident. But explain to me how she would think there was a panel of glass in front of her? The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident.

29th November 2012, 08:49 AM	#893
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by anglolawyer The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident. What is so impossible about a baby jerking out of someone's arms? My brother did it to me at about 4 weeks and if I had been in the process of standing up he would probably have fallen. And of course a toddler can do it too.

29th November 2012, 08:59 AM	#895
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Yeah, a baby less than a month old can hardly lift its own head; much less jerk loose from an adult's arms.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

29th November 2012, 09:01 AM	#896
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,450	They are very good at squirming though.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

29th November 2012, 09:08 AM	#897
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by anglolawyer The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident. I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

29th November 2012, 09:09 AM	#898
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by anglolawyer I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as our child was 2-3 years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time. As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville. we're not talking about your freakin' baby. We're talking about the two year old. And two year olds most certainly have the legs to stands and wiggle and whatnot. This is what I mean about making things up. This baby in this situation was STOOD up on the railing. I would imagine the if he was stood that he had leg strength TO stand.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

29th November 2012, 09:16 AM	#899
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by truethat I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous. So, it was not me who was 'making crap up' but the DA (according to you). I reported what the DA said and you basically accused me of lying. Is that civil and courteous? I think not. I am willing to accept your apology. The DA would know, to the required degree, what the boy thought by using information about what he did and then interpreting it. That's how all of us work out what each other is thinking. So, how do you know better than the DA? Please state your sources, if any.
	Last edited by anglolawyer; 29th November 2012 at 09:31 AM.

29th November 2012, 09:27 AM	#900
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by truethat we're not talking about your freakin' baby. We're talking about the two year old. And two year olds most certainly have the legs to stands and wiggle and whatnot. This is what I mean about making things up. This baby in this situation was STOOD up on the railing. I would imagine the if he was stood that he had leg strength TO stand. I was talking about my freaking baby in a way that is relevant to the topic and I continue to not require your permission to do so. Thank you. We are in agreement that a two year old can use his legs to leap. That is my whole point. Once again, I am not making things up. He was stood upon the railing according to the article, with his mother holding him (new fact) but he managed to get free of her grasp by unexpectedly pitching forward thinking there was a glass barrier. His mother could not foresee that. These are the facts which have emerged from the DA's enquiries.

29th November 2012, 09:42 AM	#901
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by truethat I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous. Eye witnesses described it as a lunging motion. Of course, we can't know for sure but with a vision problem he might not have realised there was only perspex below the railing.

29th November 2012, 09:43 AM	#902
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	It may be that he saw the net as a sort of playground thing.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

29th November 2012, 09:56 AM	#903
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by anglolawyer I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as ~~our~~ the child in the zoo was 2-3years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time. As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville. If he had squirmed out of my arms in the living room and broken his neck that would be just an accident. If he did so while I had him on top of a 14ft railing I believe I would be at fault. Perhaps not legally but morally. And I don't know why your trying to point out to me they are squirmy. I brought up that story pages ago (crivens this thread has gotten long!) to point out that they are squirmy. Which is why they shouldn't be put in this kind of situation.

29th November 2012, 09:57 AM	#904
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad Eye witnesses described it as a lunging motion. Of course, we can't know for sure but with a vision problem he might not have realised there was only perspex below the railing. And a vision problem (also a new fact - to me) would make it harder to see the dogs without being lifted up over the barrier, a foreseeable issue which the zoo perhaps ought to have thought about.

29th November 2012, 09:59 AM	#905
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad If he had squirmed out of my arms in the living room and broken his neck that would be just an accident. If he did so while I had him on top of a 14ft railing I believe I would be at fault. Perhaps not legally but morally. And I don't know why your trying to point out to me they are squirmy. I brought up that story pages ago (crivens this thread has gotten long!) to point out that they are squirmy. Which is why they shouldn't be put in this kind of situation. I am not explaining myself well. Evidently. I am not going to try again though. I am quite sure the mother will feel the full force of the moral implications of what happened as the years pass, which is why she is deserving of sympathy.

29th November 2012, 10:07 AM	#906
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by anglolawyer And a vision problem (also a new fact - to me) would make it harder to see the dogs without being lifted up over the barrier, a foreseeable issue which the zoo perhaps ought to have thought about. She could have held him in her arms instead of on top of the barrier. Not sure how anyone could consider this the zoos fault.

29th November 2012, 10:44 AM	#907
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,613	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad She could have held him in her arms instead of on top of the barrier. Not sure how anyone could consider this the zoos fault. Well, the DA is certainly thinking that one over so you may get your answer.