Pack of African painted dogs kill 3 year old at Pittsburgh Zoo. - Page 7

truethat · 7th November 2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

But regardless it was stupid. The reason I would not bother charging her is that it really doesn't accomplish anything. She probably wants to kill herself already. The amount of money that is spent on justice is not infinite, I'd rather see it spent on other areas of justice.

Yes it does, it creates a recognition that children are valued as members of society and not just playthings of the mother.

What's really disgusting about this is if a woman picked up someone's Iphone off the ledge and leaned over and dropped it trying to get a picture everyone in this thread would agree she should be sued for liability.

But since it's "her kid" who cares. She's upset so it's solved. It's this kind of attitude that leads to so much child abuse in the world.

If she picked up someone else's kid and did the same thing she's be arrested and prosecuted. But since it's her own, do what ya want.

I Ratant · 7th November 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Slocie's

Agreed ~ Also the moat and deep pit thing don't work with stupid.

Edit : I'll share a quick account of what happen to me as a 4 yr old. Franklin Park zoo around 1965, I was at the mountain goat exhibit, at that time there was a huge metal fence maybe 10' tall in front of me, it had a base made of concert maybe a foot high, I can remember for some reason just jumping onto the fence like i was going to climb it or shake it, the goats ran over to me and started to grab my clothes through the fence so fast, they had my pants and my jacket around my stomach area, I can remember starting to yell and my parents and my grandparents all jumping to get me, i was kinda ripped away and my clothes were just a little torn, i was lucky they didn't get my fingers or foot.

.
Many years back, in Soledad Canyon there was (and still is..Shambala) an animal farm with lions and tigers and elephants Oh my!

There was a chain link fence between the animals and the traffic on the road.
The animals would lie up against the fence. I don't recall exactly if there was another fence there to keep them out of arms reach.
Anyway, rounding the corner where they were on my motorcycle going to work, I was amazed at how fast a resting cat could get going trying to catch me!
One day going around that curve, there was a trainer with a full-grown tiger on a leash, outside the fence next to the road. When I came around the corner, the tiger was up on its hind legs reaching for me, with the trainer holding on very tightly.. thank goodness!
Another time, a trainer and a full-grown beautifully coiffed male lion sat quietly on one side of the road until I passed. Magnificent animal, it was.
Today the animals are kept quite some distance from the road, but are still viewable.

I Ratant · 7th November 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Someone is dead. Do you get that? She didn't drop her iphone into the pen. She killed someone??????

.
She can pop out another one in 9 months.

I Ratant · 7th November 2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

...
Guilty of endangering the welfare of her child leading to his death. Why? Because then other mothers in the future will think twice about doing stupid things like this.

...

.
No they won't.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Gal out here got the wheels on her baby carriage stuck between the rails for a train.
How you do that?
Train sliced and diced her.
All trains all the time toot their horns approaching road crossings. There are gates to stop pedestrian and auto traffic. One has to ignore/bypass all of these to put one's self in jeopardy.

Caper · 7th November 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Yes it does, it creates a recognition that children are valued as members of society and not just playthings of the mother.

I don't think that not charging her says otherwise. I know if I was driving with my mother and she was say.... texting... went off the road and hit a tree, killing me, I would not want her charged for it. I don't feel undervalued thinking of the hypothetical.

The Central Scrutinizer · 7th November 2012, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

And sometimes those mistakes are criminal. Driving drunk with the kid in the car, shaking the baby because it's crying, standing a 2 year old on top of a barrier separating people from vicious animals.

Exactly.

The Central Scrutinizer · 7th November 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I can't believe this woman is being charged with a crime. I'm sure she feels bad, what's the point of charging her?

Do you have kids? Have you ever made a mistake that put them in danger whether the mistake had serious consequences or not?

~~Parents~~ Day care workers are human. Humans make mistakes.

scratchy · 7th November 2012, 09:22 AM

I cant say whether i think the mother should be charged or not, allthough i believe what she did in general should be considered criminal endagerment or something like that. But imagne if it wasnt the mother who put the child up on the railing, but some stranger who then lost grip and dropped the child to its death. Would that make a difference, and if so, why?

MarkCorrigan · 7th November 2012, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by scratchy

I cant say whether i think the mother should be charged or not, allthough i believe what she did in general should be considered criminal endagerment or something like that. But imagne if it wasnt the mother who put the child up on the railing, but some stranger who then lost grip and dropped the child to its death. Would that make a difference, and if so, why?

Nope. It makes a difference only in that I'd be marginally less surprised that an adult would risk someone else's child rather than risking their own.

Otherwise it's still absolutely reckless, gross negligence.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

...
In both cases, a "safety" feature was inadequate , once because it was not designed with kids in mind, once because it was not designed with thoughtless adults in mind.

How safe must we make public places? Totally foolproof? Costly.

Americans are a tad coddled with safety features. I recall being shocked there was no fence on the edge of the grand canyon the first time I saw it.

Backpacking in Glacier Nat'l Park there were bear warnings everywhere, the lodge, the trailhead, the campgrounds. There were books in the lodge bookstore about bears killing people.

Then we crossed over to Waterton, the Canadian side of the park. There was one tiny bear warning on a bulletin board. We were essentially in the same park.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Someone is dead. Do you get that? She didn't drop her iphone into the pen. She killed someone??????

Right, because after years as a nurse I have no concept of death.

Or kids dying.

Like I already posted, I have seen the results of the 'mistakes' and the grieving fallible human parents. I have also seen the results of child abusing parents. Contrary to the assumptions made in this thread, there is a very clear difference.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Wait this is great. You criticize parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids as "putting their life in danger" but make excuses for parents who horribly injure and maim or kill their children by "accident."

Apples and oranges. A mistake is different from an ongoing mistaken belief.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I can't believe this woman is being charged with a crime. I'm sure she feels bad, what's the point of charging her?

You all keep citing these examples as if they are somehow evidence that the OP incident is on the same end of the continuum. But it isn't.

From your link:

Quote:

Shell told them she knew there was a problem with the child but didn't immediately respond.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

And here is another grieving mother charged with her kid's death. Oh, the injustice of it all! Doesn't she feel bad enough?

Quote:

told police she left Ronald Oliver Jr. and his toddler brother unattended in the tub March 7 while she slept.

I'm guessing drugs or alcohol was involved in this. Society does hold people responsible for death and injury due to intoxication.

You are arguing the same straw "never" that truethat added to her version of the argument. No one is saying a parent is never criminally liable. We are saying in our opinion stupid is not always criminal.

Git that, "not always", as in sometimes it is criminal. Some people see this as criminal some see it as stupid. There is no way to resolve arguments that rely strictly on such value judgements. Given what is in the news reports, I doubt society would judge this as criminal in a court of law unless there are additional circumstances we are not yet aware of.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Yes, but hasn't she suffered enough?

The two standards are not compatible. One doesn't add or subtract from the other, does it?

Twisting twisting, you're twisting some straw into the argument to support your case.

'Suffered enough' is separate from stupid vs criminal. It's not suffered 'enough' it's saying you don't need a prosecution in order for the parent to be punished.

Of course one could argue that parents who make a stupid mistake suffer a lot more than a parent who would go to sleep with their toddler child in the tub. The latter is evidence the child doesn't mean much to you.

truethat · 7th November 2012, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm guessing drugs or alcohol was involved in this. Society does hold people responsible for death and injury due to intoxication.

You are arguing the same straw "never" that truethat added to her version of the argument. No one is saying a parent is never criminally liable. We are saying in our opinion stupid is not always criminal.

Git that, "not always", as in sometimes it is criminal. Some people see this as criminal some see it as stupid. There is no way to resolve arguments that rely strictly on such value judgements. Given what is in the news reports, I doubt society would judge this as criminal in a court of law unless there are additional circumstances we are not yet aware of.

Who is WE and why do you always try to use a plural sense of "people who agree with me" to try to bolster your claims.

Some people ARE saying that THIS woman is NOT criminally liable.

The topic is THIS woman not all your patients in the hospital and all the other stories and straw people you are bringing up.

In this case I agree with Mark. Even if nothing had happened to the boy I think she should have been arrested and prosecuted and had CPS involved.

It's funny how some of you all seem to think that since the worst possible thing in the world happened she should get away with it because "she feels bad enough"

But the same people would be applauding the woman driving on the sidewalk in the school bus thread getting arrested and charged.

Professor Yaffle · 7th November 2012, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Of course one could argue that parents who make a stupid mistake suffer a lot more than a parent who would go to sleep with their toddler child in the tub.

It was worse than that... she left her 7 month old son in the bath with her toddler. It was the baby who drowned.

Quad4_72 · 7th November 2012, 10:14 AM

Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment?

Soapy Sam · 7th November 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Americans are a tad coddled with safety features. I recall being shocked there was no fence on the edge of the grand canyon the first time I saw it.

Backpacking in Glacier Nat'l Park there were bear warnings everywhere, the lodge, the trailhead, the campgrounds. There were books in the lodge bookstore about bears killing people.

Then we crossed over to Waterton, the Canadian side of the park. There was one tiny bear warning on a bulletin board. We were essentially in the same park.

I suspect insurance and lawyers are the reason.
America needs health warnings about lawyers.

The Central Scrutinizer · 7th November 2012, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment?

As a critical thinker, I'll say yes.

Soapy Sam · 7th November 2012, 10:24 AM

To say nothing of the potential hazard to anyone below.

Caper · 7th November 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment?

Yes. I would fully support charging her if she was caught. If her child died from it... I'm not sure if I would... Damage is already done.

kerikiwi · 7th November 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We were essentially in the same park.

But were the bears? Canadian bears are a lot less aggressive than American bears.

Quad4_72 · 7th November 2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Yes. I would fully support charging her if she was caught. If her child died from it... I'm not sure if I would... Damage is already done.

That is a very interesting take on it. You are suggesting that she should be punished for the act, which the punishment is supposed to discourage/punish (Duh) the individual. But if she were to drop the child, you think no punishment should be in order, because killing her child is punishment enough. I don't think the law works that way, but I am no lawyer. Where is LashL?

kerikiwi · 7th November 2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Apples and oranges. A mistake is different from an ongoing mistaken belief.

Not at all. This woman had a mistaken belief (that it was safe to put the child on the railing), and her child died. Had her child not died, her mistaken belief would have been ongoing.
Other people have other mistaken beliefs, for example about vaccinations. Not all of their children die, or even get sick. Their mistaken beliefs are ongoing.
Definitely apples and apples.

Quad4_72 · 7th November 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

As a critical thinker, I'll say yes.

If she drops the child, should she be charged?

truethat · 7th November 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

As a critical thinker, I'll say yes.

Me too.

And I love the whole "the damage is already done" you could say that about every murder.

It's ridiculous to not charge a family member who kills their kid. Then people wonder why child murderers think they can get away with killing their kid.

Reading through this lunacy I really do understand why Casey Anthony was found not guilty. Ridiculous.

kerikiwi · 7th November 2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment?

Nope. Just a mistake.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Nonsense, of course it's gross negligence.

Would you consider it gross negligence to let your child play in the road?

How about not putting a seatbelt on them in the car?

This woman removed the safety features put in place by the zoo. She didn't lose sight of him in a dangerous place, she put him in danger.

If some of you can see yourself putting your children in danger as a simple mistake then I have no idea what to say to that because it's so ridiculous I don't think there is a rational answer.

In your analogies you leave out the familiar vs the unfamiliar, public campaigns vs assuming people know better.

With seatbelts there are now laws, but parents who lost an unbuckled child in an accident were not prosecuted before mandatory car-seat/seatbelt laws. What's the difference? Shouldn't the parent have known better, law or not?

As for playing in the road, in a small town on a dead end street, kids play in the road. Near a busy boulevard, a parent would be familiar with the risk. What happens is a parent misjudges the speed a child moves when they turn their back. That would be a mistake. Good parents make such mistakes.

Skeptic Ginger · 7th November 2012, 10:40 AM

Obviously this argument is a waste of time. It's a judgement call near the middle of the continuum. People draw the line in different places.

I Ratant · 7th November 2012, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Yes. I would fully support charging her if she was caught. If her child died from it... I'm not sure if I would... Damage is already done.

.
I'd called AAA to come tow the neighbor's broke down van, and the AAA guy told me he'd seen a wayward child, and when calling the mother, said she had little interest, it was only a welfare baby to her.
For many folks, parenthood is a undesired result of fornication.

truethat · 7th November 2012, 10:42 AM

Right and in discussing THIS case, the woman put her son in harms way and it killed him.

bookworm · 7th November 2012, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

So your logic is either we clog our court system with cases or we just let everyone get away with it scot free?

How about this one "If you put your kid in a dangerous situation and he gets hurt, you can be arrested."

How about taking it on a case by case basis and looking at the whole picture?

truethat · 7th November 2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
I'd called AAA to come tow the neighbor's broke down van, and the AAA guy told me he'd seen a wayward child, and when calling the mother, said she had little interest, it was only a welfare baby to her.
For many folks, parenthood is a undesired result of fornication.

And when they go through life having "accidents" all the time you have to wonder. Many parents don't give a crap about their kids but you can bet will use the "poor me" status to try to avoid responsibility or to elicit sympathy.

truethat · 7th November 2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

How about taking it on a case by case basis and looking at the whole picture?

That's what the courts are there to do. Apparently way too many people feel sorry for this woman. There has been no testimony, no evidence from the mother, no witnesses really about her putting him. And yet all of you instantly believe this is a total accident and she's been "hurt enough. How is that taking it case by case?

The Central Scrutinizer · 7th November 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

If she drops the child, should she be charged?

Of course.

bookworm · 7th November 2012, 10:52 AM

Just a thought. What if she picked him up, looked at the railing, looked over the side and saw the net....and thought... "it's safe, in the 1 in a million chance that I would drop him, the net would catch him........"

truethat · 7th November 2012, 10:53 AM

What evidence do you have that this was an accident?

truethat · 7th November 2012, 11:16 AM

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2012...led-at-zoo.cnn

Stop the video at 29 seconds. It's not that high up. If I had dropped my kid I would have been jumping over the side of that thing in seconds. If there was a net I would have tried to throw my son back up onto the net.

I'm wondering if this was a lawsuit ploy that blew up in her face. He apparently "bounced off the saftey net" and then fell into the pit.

Maybe she did it on purpose thinking she'd get a big payday. I'd be nervous about even holding my little one INSIDE up high, in case I got bumped or whatnot.

hmmm.......off to do some research

Quote:

MaiasMommy619 on Nov 5, 2012 at 7:43 AM
They also mentioned that the mother was doing this through our the day with other exhibits and even by waterfalls.. So it wasn't a one time thing.. She did it all day...

MarkCorrigan · 7th November 2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Just a thought. What if she picked him up, looked at the railing, looked over the side and saw the net....and thought... "it's safe, in the 1 in a million chance that I would drop him, the net would catch him........"

She put him over the fence.

Criminally. Negligent.

7th November 2012, 08:36 AM	#241
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	Originally Posted by Caper But regardless it was stupid. The reason I would not bother charging her is that it really doesn't accomplish anything. She probably wants to kill herself already. The amount of money that is spent on justice is not infinite, I'd rather see it spent on other areas of justice. Yes it does, it creates a recognition that children are valued as members of society and not just playthings of the mother. What's really disgusting about this is if a woman picked up someone's Iphone off the ledge and leaned over and dropped it trying to get a picture everyone in this thread would agree she should be sued for liability. But since it's "her kid" who cares. She's upset so it's solved. It's this kind of attitude that leads to so much child abuse in the world. If she picked up someone else's kid and did the same thing she's be arrested and prosecuted. But since it's her own, do what ya want.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 7th November 2012 at 08:46 AM.

7th November 2012, 09:12 AM	#245
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by truethat Yes it does, it creates a recognition that children are valued as members of society and not just playthings of the mother. I don't think that not charging her says otherwise. I know if I was driving with my mother and she was say.... texting... went off the road and hit a tree, killing me, I would not want her charged for it. I don't feel undervalued thinking of the hypothetical.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

7th November 2012, 09:18 AM	#246
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Originally Posted by WildCat And sometimes those mistakes are criminal. Driving drunk with the kid in the car, shaking the baby because it's crying, standing a 2 year old on top of a barrier separating people from vicious animals. Exactly.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

7th November 2012, 09:21 AM	#247
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Originally Posted by WildCat I can't believe this woman is being charged with a crime. I'm sure she feels bad, what's the point of charging her? Do you have kids? Have you ever made a mistake that put them in danger whether the mistake had serious consequences or not? ~~Parents~~ Day care workers are human. Humans make mistakes.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

7th November 2012, 09:24 AM	#249
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	Originally Posted by scratchy I cant say whether i think the mother should be charged or not, allthough i believe what she did in general should be considered criminal endagerment or something like that. But imagne if it wasnt the mother who put the child up on the railing, but some stranger who then lost grip and dropped the child to its death. Would that make a difference, and if so, why? Nope. It makes a difference only in that I'd be marginally less surprised that an adult would risk someone else's child rather than risking their own. Otherwise it's still absolutely reckless, gross negligence.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

7th November 2012, 08:46 AM	#242
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Slocie's Agreed ~ Also the moat and deep pit thing don't work with stupid. Edit : I'll share a quick account of what happen to me as a 4 yr old. Franklin Park zoo around 1965, I was at the mountain goat exhibit, at that time there was a huge metal fence maybe 10' tall in front of me, it had a base made of concert maybe a foot high, I can remember for some reason just jumping onto the fence like i was going to climb it or shake it, the goats ran over to me and started to grab my clothes through the fence so fast, they had my pants and my jacket around my stomach area, I can remember starting to yell and my parents and my grandparents all jumping to get me, i was kinda ripped away and my clothes were just a little torn, i was lucky they didn't get my fingers or foot. . Many years back, in Soledad Canyon there was (and still is..Shambala) an animal farm with lions and tigers and elephants Oh my! There was a chain link fence between the animals and the traffic on the road. The animals would lie up against the fence. I don't recall exactly if there was another fence there to keep them out of arms reach. Anyway, rounding the corner where they were on my motorcycle going to work, I was amazed at how fast a resting cat could get going trying to catch me! One day going around that curve, there was a trainer with a full-grown tiger on a leash, outside the fence next to the road. When I came around the corner, the tiger was up on its hind legs reaching for me, with the trainer holding on very tightly.. thank goodness! Another time, a trainer and a full-grown beautifully coiffed male lion sat quietly on one side of the road until I passed. Magnificent animal, it was. Today the animals are kept quite some distance from the road, but are still viewable.

7th November 2012, 08:49 AM	#243
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by truethat Someone is dead. Do you get that? She didn't drop her iphone into the pen. She killed someone?????? . She can pop out another one in 9 months.

7th November 2012, 08:59 AM	#244
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by truethat ... Guilty of endangering the welfare of her child leading to his death. Why? Because then other mothers in the future will think twice about doing stupid things like this. ... . No they won't. Stupid is as stupid does. Gal out here got the wheels on her baby carriage stuck between the rails for a train. How you do that? Train sliced and diced her. All trains all the time toot their horns approaching road crossings. There are gates to stop pedestrian and auto traffic. One has to ignore/bypass all of these to put one's self in jeopardy.

7th November 2012, 09:22 AM	#248
scratchy Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In the happy state of denial Posts: 607	I cant say whether i think the mother should be charged or not, allthough i believe what she did in general should be considered criminal endagerment or something like that. But imagne if it wasnt the mother who put the child up on the railing, but some stranger who then lost grip and dropped the child to its death. Would that make a difference, and if so, why?

7th November 2012, 09:27 AM	#250
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam ... In both cases, a "safety" feature was inadequate , once because it was not designed with kids in mind, once because it was not designed with thoughtless adults in mind. How safe must we make public places? Totally foolproof? Costly. Americans are a tad coddled with safety features. I recall being shocked there was no fence on the edge of the grand canyon the first time I saw it. Backpacking in Glacier Nat'l Park there were bear warnings everywhere, the lodge, the trailhead, the campgrounds. There were books in the lodge bookstore about bears killing people. Then we crossed over to Waterton, the Canadian side of the park. There was one tiny bear warning on a bulletin board. We were essentially in the same park.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 09:31 AM	#251
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by truethat Someone is dead. Do you get that? She didn't drop her iphone into the pen. She killed someone?????? Right, because after years as a nurse I have no concept of death. Or kids dying. Like I already posted, I have seen the results of the 'mistakes' and the grieving fallible human parents. I have also seen the results of child abusing parents. Contrary to the assumptions made in this thread, there is a very clear difference.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 09:33 AM	#252
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by truethat Wait this is great. You criticize parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids as "putting their life in danger" but make excuses for parents who horribly injure and maim or kill their children by "accident." Apples and oranges. A mistake is different from an ongoing mistaken belief.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 09:37 AM	#253
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by WildCat I can't believe this woman is being charged with a crime. I'm sure she feels bad, what's the point of charging her? You all keep citing these examples as if they are somehow evidence that the OP incident is on the same end of the continuum. But it isn't. From your link: Quote: Shell told them she knew there was a problem with the child but didn't immediately respond.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 09:42 AM	#254
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by WildCat And here is another grieving mother charged with her kid's death. Oh, the injustice of it all! Doesn't she feel bad enough? Quote: told police she left Ronald Oliver Jr. and his toddler brother unattended in the tub March 7 while she slept. I'm guessing drugs or alcohol was involved in this. Society does hold people responsible for death and injury due to intoxication. You are arguing the same straw "never" that truethat added to her version of the argument. No one is saying a parent is never criminally liable. We are saying in our opinion stupid is not always criminal. Git that, "not always", as in sometimes it is criminal. Some people see this as criminal some see it as stupid. There is no way to resolve arguments that rely strictly on such value judgements. Given what is in the news reports, I doubt society would judge this as criminal in a court of law unless there are additional circumstances we are not yet aware of.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 09:49 AM	#255
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by quadraginta Yes, but hasn't she suffered enough? The two standards are not compatible. One doesn't add or subtract from the other, does it? Twisting twisting, you're twisting some straw into the argument to support your case. 'Suffered enough' is separate from stupid vs criminal. It's not suffered 'enough' it's saying you don't need a prosecution in order for the parent to be punished. Of course one could argue that parents who make a stupid mistake suffer a lot more than a parent who would go to sleep with their toddler child in the tub. The latter is evidence the child doesn't mean much to you.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 10:07 AM	#256
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm guessing drugs or alcohol was involved in this. Society does hold people responsible for death and injury due to intoxication. You are arguing the same straw "never" that truethat added to her version of the argument. No one is saying a parent is never criminally liable. We are saying in our opinion stupid is not always criminal. Git that, "not always", as in sometimes it is criminal. Some people see this as criminal some see it as stupid. There is no way to resolve arguments that rely strictly on such value judgements. Given what is in the news reports, I doubt society would judge this as criminal in a court of law unless there are additional circumstances we are not yet aware of. Who is WE and why do you always try to use a plural sense of "people who agree with me" to try to bolster your claims. Some people ARE saying that THIS woman is NOT criminally liable. The topic is THIS woman not all your patients in the hospital and all the other stories and straw people you are bringing up. In this case I agree with Mark. Even if nothing had happened to the boy I think she should have been arrested and prosecuted and had CPS involved. It's funny how some of you all seem to think that since the worst possible thing in the world happened she should get away with it because "she feels bad enough" But the same people would be applauding the woman driving on the sidewalk in the school bus thread getting arrested and charged.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

7th November 2012, 10:10 AM	#257
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,341	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Of course one could argue that parents who make a stupid mistake suffer a lot more than a parent who would go to sleep with their toddler child in the tub. It was worse than that... she left her 7 month old son in the bath with her toddler. It was the baby who drowned.
	__________________ 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

7th November 2012, 10:14 AM	#258
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment?
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

7th November 2012, 10:18 AM	#259
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Americans are a tad coddled with safety features. I recall being shocked there was no fence on the edge of the grand canyon the first time I saw it. Backpacking in Glacier Nat'l Park there were bear warnings everywhere, the lodge, the trailhead, the campgrounds. There were books in the lodge bookstore about bears killing people. Then we crossed over to Waterton, the Canadian side of the park. There was one tiny bear warning on a bulletin board. We were essentially in the same park. I suspect insurance and lawyers are the reason. America needs health warnings about lawyers.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

7th November 2012, 10:20 AM	#260
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,275	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment? As a critical thinker, I'll say yes.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

7th November 2012, 10:24 AM	#261
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	To say nothing of the potential hazard to anyone below.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

7th November 2012, 10:26 AM	#262
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment? Yes. I would fully support charging her if she was caught. If her child died from it... I'm not sure if I would... Damage is already done.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

7th November 2012, 10:29 AM	#263
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger We were essentially in the same park. But were the bears? Canadian bears are a lot less aggressive than American bears.

7th November 2012, 10:32 AM	#264
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by Caper Yes. I would fully support charging her if she was caught. If her child died from it... I'm not sure if I would... Damage is already done. That is a very interesting take on it. You are suggesting that she should be punished for the act, which the punishment is supposed to discourage/punish (Duh) the individual. But if she were to drop the child, you think no punishment should be in order, because killing her child is punishment enough. I don't think the law works that way, but I am no lawyer. Where is LashL?
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

7th November 2012, 10:33 AM	#265
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Apples and oranges. A mistake is different from an ongoing mistaken belief. Not at all. This woman had a mistaken belief (that it was safe to put the child on the railing), and her child died. Had her child not died, her mistaken belief would have been ongoing. Other people have other mistaken beliefs, for example about vaccinations. Not all of their children die, or even get sick. Their mistaken beliefs are ongoing. Definitely apples and apples.

7th November 2012, 10:34 AM	#266
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer As a critical thinker, I'll say yes. If she drops the child, should she be charged?
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

7th November 2012, 10:34 AM	#267
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer As a critical thinker, I'll say yes. Me too. And I love the whole "the damage is already done" you could say that about every murder. It's ridiculous to not charge a family member who kills their kid. Then people wonder why child murderers think they can get away with killing their kid. Reading through this lunacy I really do understand why Casey Anthony was found not guilty. Ridiculous.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

7th November 2012, 10:35 AM	#268
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Let's suppose a mother has a two year old on a high bridge, and she puts him up on top of the railing to look over the side. Child endangerment? Nope. Just a mistake.

7th November 2012, 10:38 AM	#269
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan Nonsense, of course it's gross negligence. Would you consider it gross negligence to let your child play in the road? How about not putting a seatbelt on them in the car? This woman removed the safety features put in place by the zoo. She didn't lose sight of him in a dangerous place, she put him in danger. If some of you can see yourself putting your children in danger as a simple mistake then I have no idea what to say to that because it's so ridiculous I don't think there is a rational answer. In your analogies you leave out the familiar vs the unfamiliar, public campaigns vs assuming people know better. With seatbelts there are now laws, but parents who lost an unbuckled child in an accident were not prosecuted before mandatory car-seat/seatbelt laws. What's the difference? Shouldn't the parent have known better, law or not? As for playing in the road, in a small town on a dead end street, kids play in the road. Near a busy boulevard, a parent would be familiar with the risk. What happens is a parent misjudges the speed a child moves when they turn their back. That would be a mistake. Good parents make such mistakes.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 10:40 AM	#270
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Obviously this argument is a waste of time. It's a judgement call near the middle of the continuum. People draw the line in different places.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

7th November 2012, 10:42 AM	#271
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Caper Yes. I would fully support charging her if she was caught. If her child died from it... I'm not sure if I would... Damage is already done. . I'd called AAA to come tow the neighbor's broke down van, and the AAA guy told me he'd seen a wayward child, and when calling the mother, said she had little interest, it was only a welfare baby to her. For many folks, parenthood is a undesired result of fornication.

7th November 2012, 10:42 AM	#272
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	Right and in discussing THIS case, the woman put her son in harms way and it killed him.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

7th November 2012, 10:43 AM	#273
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Originally Posted by truethat So your logic is either we clog our court system with cases or we just let everyone get away with it scot free? How about this one "If you put your kid in a dangerous situation and he gets hurt, you can be arrested." How about taking it on a case by case basis and looking at the whole picture?
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539

7th November 2012, 10:44 AM	#274
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	Originally Posted by I Ratant . I'd called AAA to come tow the neighbor's broke down van, and the AAA guy told me he'd seen a wayward child, and when calling the mother, said she had little interest, it was only a welfare baby to her. For many folks, parenthood is a undesired result of fornication. And when they go through life having "accidents" all the time you have to wonder. Many parents don't give a crap about their kids but you can bet will use the "poor me" status to try to avoid responsibility or to elicit sympathy.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

7th November 2012, 10:46 AM	#275
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	Originally Posted by bookworm How about taking it on a case by case basis and looking at the whole picture? That's what the courts are there to do. Apparently way too many people feel sorry for this woman. There has been no testimony, no evidence from the mother, no witnesses really about her putting him. And yet all of you instantly believe this is a total accident and she's been "hurt enough. How is that taking it case by case?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,626	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain