PDA

View Full Version : The Brilliance in Parenting Awards



Pages : [1] 2 3

Fazor
2007-Jun-20, 02:53 PM
I am not a parent, so perhaps I have no right to comment on the way others raise their kids. It's not unusual for parents to disagree on what's good or bad for their children.

But every so often...well, very often it seems, parents go that extra mile to do something totally stupid, dangerous, irresponsible, and oft all of the above.

Some might say that people this dumb shouldn't have children anyway. Others might just be saddened knowing that all the years of evolution we've gone through still allows for members of our own species to be this pathetic.

Anyway, without further adu, here's the link to the latest award nominee
Tape and Pacifiers DO NOT Mix! (http://www.kirotv.com/news/13529889/detail.html?qs=1;bp=t)


A woman has been arrested in the death of her 4-month-old son after telling authorities she had taped a pacifier to his face to keep the device in his mouth.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-20, 03:09 PM
At least you can find humor in the Darwin Awards, since they did it to themselves. This just makes me want to smack the hell out of somebody.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-20, 03:24 PM
At least you can find humor in the Darwin Awards, since they did it to themselves. This just makes me want to smack the hell out of somebody.

Weren't we talking about people that shouldn't be allowed to have kids in another thread? :mad:

MrClean
2007-Jun-20, 03:36 PM
That and not being allowed to name them.

Fazor
2007-Jun-20, 03:42 PM
Here's another one (http://www.kpho.com/news/13530686/detail.html?qs=1;bp=t) from todays news.

An Avondale man has been arrested on suspicion of placing the wrists of his two daughters, ages 6 and 8, on a hot stove to discipline them, Avondale police said

I'm convinced when "cruel and unusual" punishment was barred from the US legal system, they weren't thinking about crimes against children.

Doodler
2007-Jun-20, 05:52 PM
Here's another one (http://www.kpho.com/news/13530686/detail.html?qs=1;bp=t) from todays news.


I'm convinced when "cruel and unusual" punishment was barred from the US legal system, they weren't thinking about crimes against children.

[expletive]! If you want enough inspiration to crush someone's skull with your bare hands, take a look at the pictures of those girls' arms...:mad:

SeanF
2007-Jun-20, 06:13 PM
[expletive]! If you want enough inspiration to crush someone's skull with your bare hands, take a look at the pictures of those girls' arms...:mad:
Not to diminish the horrible act perpetrated on those girls, but I'd like to smack the photographer's head against a wall until he learns how to focus.

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-20, 06:16 PM
Not to diminish the horrible act perpetrated on those girls, but I'd like to smack the photographer's head against a wall until he learns how to focus.
Skeptical me says that was intentional... Have the pictures so you can hype the fact that you have pictures of this horrific act. But leave them enough out of focus so you don't get people complaining that you are detailing images of violence.

SeanF
2007-Jun-20, 06:19 PM
Skeptical me says that was intentional... Have the pictures so you can hype the fact that you have pictures of this horrific act. But leave them enough out of focus so you don't get people complaining that you are detailing images of violence.
That could be what they were thinking, but focussed pictures would be much more useful when it goes to trial.

Of course, it may be that the newspeople took focussed pictures and blurred them after-the-fact for their reporting...

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-20, 06:23 PM
That could be what they were thinking, but...
And I'm sure there are a heck of a lot more than 3 or 4 pictures...

Swift
2007-Jun-20, 06:47 PM
I am not a parent, so perhaps I have no right to comment on the way others raise their kids. It's not unusual for parents to disagree on what's good or bad for their children.

I am not either, so I usually don't get involved in the details of child-rearing. But these two cases aren't a question of good parenting, like do you give your kids too many sweets or let them watch too much TV. These are criminal acts committed on children. :evil:

Fazor
2007-Jun-20, 07:51 PM
I am not either, so I usually don't get involved in the details of child-rearing. But these two cases aren't a question of good parenting, like do you give your kids too many sweets or let them watch too much TV. These are criminal acts committed on children. :evil:

Heh, yeah I was being a little sarcastic with that line. These two cases go well beyond the "I'm not a parent so I can't comment on what it's like" point.(sadly, the later case is extreemely common; to the point that I'm suprised it was on CNN national news). I have never considered myself to be a kid person. I don't like kids. I'm awkward around them. They annoy me. Of course I absolutely love my neice (she's 3) and I want kids some day, but like I said, I don't consider myself a kid person. But I would NEVER EVER want to hurt a child. They're the embodiment of innocence. They are trusting and helpless and...well, they're children. How can you abuse them like that?

Doodler
2007-Jun-20, 07:53 PM
Not to diminish the horrible act perpetrated on those girls, but I'd like to smack the photographer's head against a wall until he learns how to focus.

Is the camera out of focus, or is it Brownian motion in the subject being photographed? Also, you have a hand near the lense and a relatively larger body beyond, the camera autofocus could have been a little confused.

Fazor
2007-Jun-20, 08:55 PM
Jeeze, well here's the hat-trick for the day, although it's an older story with the newer development of charges.

Mothers of 5 Children Killed in House Fire to be Charged (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/13536590/detail.html?qs=1;bp=t)


The two mothers of five children who died in a house fire had left the kids alone while they had a beer at a bar, the attorney for one woman said Wednesday.

Both women will be charged, authorities said.

Originally there was allegedly a 15 year old girl watching the kids. But she couldn't be found. That was because, as they authorities had suspected, she didn't exist.

This, unfortunately, isn't very uncommon either. One horrifying thing I learned in police academy during the domestic violence unit was a trend that started in the Chicago area.

They noticed admission of children to hospitals on Friday nights would increase steeply. It turned out, parents would slip dish washing detergent into their kids food on Friday so they could be admitted under Uncle Sam's dollar to the hospital (fever, diarrhea, nausea, etc). The kids would remain in hospital care for the weekend allowing the parents to go out to the clubs and parties, then they'd pick their kids up on Sunday "good as new" (if you can be after being poisoned). If I ever caught someone doing that to their kid, the next time anyone saw them they'd be a sun-bleached skeleton in the Nevada desert.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-20, 09:00 PM
They noticed admission of children to hospitals on Friday nights would increase steeply. It turned out, parents would slip dish washing detergent into their kids food on Friday so they could be admitted under Uncle Sam's dollar to the hospital (fever, diarrhea, nausea, etc). The kids would remain in hospital care for the weekend allowing the parents to go out to the clubs and parties, then they'd pick their kids up on Sunday "good as new" (if you can be after being poisoned). If I ever caught someone doing that to their kid, the next time anyone saw them they'd be a sun-bleached skeleton in the Nevada desert.

Oh man! I'm pretty easy-going but I could easily beat the holy crap out of parents like that. :mad:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-20, 09:02 PM
They noticed admission of children to hospitals on Friday nights would increase steeply. It turned out, parents would slip dish washing detergent into their kids food on Friday so they could be admitted under Uncle Sam's dollar to the hospital (fever, diarrhea, nausea, etc). The kids would remain in hospital care for the weekend allowing the parents to go out to the clubs and parties, then they'd pick their kids up on Sunday "good as new" (if you can be after being poisoned). If I ever caught someone doing that to their kid, the next time anyone saw them they'd be a sun-bleached skeleton in the Nevada desert.

That's just disgusting. I'd be right there with you holding the shovel.

Doodler
2007-Jun-20, 09:06 PM
That's just disgusting. I'd be right there with you holding the shovel.

I'd be in the van scraping the bones clean...

Palomar
2007-Jun-20, 09:08 PM
Well, you got me started. In 2001 a baby -- a mere 6 months old -- was beaten, BITTEN, thrown into the air, RAPED by her father and uncle. This horrible abuse only came to light because the mother finally took Brianna to the ER when she was nearly lifeless. Brianna died from multiple internal injuries as you can imagine. Up until that time, mother and grandmother and another uncle did NOTHING to stop the abuse. >:-(

Another bad case I knew of 10 years ago: Family of 5 little boys. Dad enjoyed picking them up and throwing them against the wall, beating them with a belt. He tried shoving their mother out of a moving car, to kill her -- in front of them, screaming and crying for her safety. Finally he went to prison. By this time the eldest children were 11 and 13, very violent and angry -- as to be expected. Mother couldn't cope with it, despite offers of help; she ran off, abandoning all 5 boys, the youngest of whom was only 4.

::shakes head:: I've often wondered what became of those boys. The eldest had some sort of affinity for me; he'd come right over to me and stand close, as if knowing I'd protect him. This, despite our being of different races [nothing wrong with that of course!] I still say a prayer for them when they come to mind.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-20, 09:15 PM
And people often talk about "vicious" and "dumb" animals. I don't think you could find an instance in nature (outside of Homo sapiens) where the mother would do something as depraved as that. :mad:

EDIT: I purposely left out "father" because there are many species where the father will kill infants.

Doodler
2007-Jun-20, 09:53 PM
And people often talk about "vicious" and "dumb" animals. I don't think you could find an instance in nature (outside of Homo sapiens) where the mother would do something as depraved as that. :mad:.

Mothers in nature abandon offspring regularly for various reasons. The weaker ones are left to starve, or they're left behind because they can't keep up. Or are abandoned to predators in order to preserve themselves.

Not unlike a human mother watching her child being beaten to death and doing nothing but fleeing to preserve her own life.


With sentience, we do hold ourselves to a higher standard, even though there will always be those of us who give in to the inner animal. Despite all the trappings of civilization, the old instincts are still there.

None of these nightmares are new. Fathers have raped daughters, mothers have abused their children, other family members have predated upon each other since time immemorial. Our current attitudes towards these incidents, like they've never happened before, is the result of a long history of silence and shame imposed upon the victims. There are still places in the world where women who are raped are then murdered by their own family over the shame involved.

Sentience is a wonderful gift, but its a sad lie we tell ourselves that we imagine that as a species we've made all that much progress since we started using better tools to abuse one another.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-21, 02:29 AM
As to the blurry photograph, I doubt the cops would want a clear picture in the paper. I don't need to see the picture. I'm outraged enough already.

But Gods forbid we give the state the authority to take kids away from their parents before they're killed.

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-21, 07:41 AM
I'd be in the van scraping the bones clean...

and i'd be helping clean up

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-21, 07:45 AM
Well, you got me started. In 2001 a baby -- a mere 6 months old -- was beaten, BITTEN, thrown into the air, RAPED by her father and uncle. This horrible abuse only came to light because the mother finally took Brianna to the ER when she was nearly lifeless. Brianna died from multiple internal injuries as you can imagine. Up until that time, mother and grandmother and another uncle did NOTHING to stop the abuse. >:-(

Another bad case I knew of 10 years ago: Family of 5 little boys. Dad enjoyed picking them up and throwing them against the wall, beating them with a belt. He tried shoving their mother out of a moving car, to kill her -- in front of them, screaming and crying for her safety. Finally he went to prison. By this time the eldest children were 11 and 13, very violent and angry -- as to be expected. Mother couldn't cope with it, despite offers of help; she ran off, abandoning all 5 boys, the youngest of whom was only 4.

::shakes head:: I've often wondered what became of those boys. The eldest had some sort of affinity for me; he'd come right over to me and stand close, as if knowing I'd protect him. This, despite our being of different races [nothing wrong with that of course!] I still say a prayer for them when they come to mind.

Right, that's it, someone get me a body bag to put that [expletive] in:mad:

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-21, 07:51 AM
We should severely punish children who display signs of cruelty to stop them growing into abusive parents.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-21, 08:26 AM
No, we should bloody well get them into therapy whether the parents want them to be or not. It is possible to stop the cycle of abuse, but it takes a lot of care and a lot of willpower. That fact does not, however, give parents who were themselves abused a free pass. They're still hurting their children, and even killing them, and they can't just get away with it.

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-21, 10:15 AM
No, we should bloody well get them into therapy whether the parents want them to be or not. It is possible to stop the cycle of abuse, but it takes a lot of care and a lot of willpower. That fact does not, however, give parents who were themselves abused a free pass. They're still hurting their children, and even killing them, and they can't just get away with it.

my thoughts exactly

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-21, 10:33 AM
If I saw someone abusing a child I would not use violence against the abuser unless it was necessary to protect the child (or myself or others). I don't know what sort of emotions I might feel if I witnessed a severe case of abuse, but I hope that I wouldn't engage in violence but would instead call the police and allow the law to deal with it. In short I hope that I would show restraint. This is because I think that people who abuse other people often lack restraint and I don't want to become like them. I think a society that promotes restraint and only promotes the use of violence only after other options are exhausted is a society in which people are less likely to be abused.

djellison
2007-Jun-21, 12:02 PM
Sometimes I wonder if parents take their children to the supermarket just as an excuse to beat the living c**p out of them. That - or they've got a bet with their friends "I bet my Chantelle can get Lung Cancer younger than your Paris!!" as they hold the child in one hand, and smoke 40 a day with the other.

It gives me the rage.

Doug

Palomar
2007-Jun-21, 12:34 PM
If I saw someone abusing a child I would not use violence against the abuser unless it was necessary to protect the child (or myself or others). I don't know what sort of emotions I might feel

I stopped my ex-brother-in-law [thankfully he's an EX-] from belting my nephew [Tony] when he was 5; I was 22. Oscar had a chip on his shoulder. He often verbally took it out on my sister and nephew. Tony had run his fingers lightly over the stereo speakers in the living room. Oscar saw this and became enraged [misdirected anger/bitterness]. He yelled he'd told Tony never to touch the stereo, took off his belt and started to whip him.

I stood up, yanked the belt out of Oscar's hand and threw it about 10 feet away. We had words, let me tell you. I'm a woman, and I figured Oscar would beat me up; he was >this close< to it. My cowardly sister was in the bathroom, ignoring it all. I think the only reason Oscar didn't touch me is he knew I'd press charges.

I was glad when 1-1/2 years later my sister ditched him. But she wasn't a shining example of parenthood either...

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-21, 12:41 PM
That's was a nasty situation you were in Palomar. (And your nephew too of course.) Being fairly apelike I forget how frightening it can be for the average person to stand up to someone like that.

Swift
2007-Jun-21, 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by Tucson_Tim
And people often talk about "vicious" and "dumb" animals. I don't think you could find an instance in nature (outside of Homo sapiens) where the mother would do something as depraved as that. .
Mothers in nature abandon offspring regularly for various reasons. The weaker ones are left to starve, or they're left behind because they can't keep up. Or are abandoned to predators in order to preserve themselves.

There have also been documented cases (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18661491/)with wild chimps of females killing other female's offspring.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-21, 01:00 PM
Then there are gorillas. If a female has her child killed by an outsider male she will leave her current mate and mate with the killer of her child. It might sound terrible to us, but the outside male "proved" he was stronger than her mate as her mate couldn't protect the child. Persumably the murdering male will be strong enough to protect her next child.

please
2007-Jun-21, 02:06 PM
Tape and Pacifiers DO NOT Mix! (http://www.kirotv.com/news/13529889/detail.html?qs=1;bp=t)I don't get it how taping a pacifier killed him. Someone care to explain?

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-21, 02:14 PM
I don't get it how taping a pacifier killed him. Someone care to explain?

I presume it was taped over the mouth and prevented breathing. Not everyone can breath properly through their nose all the time.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-21, 02:21 PM
I presume it was taped over the mouth and prevented breathing. Not everyone can breath properly through their nose all the time.

Yes. I knew a pretty damn good athlete that had trouble breathing through his nose. He used to always say that if he was ever gagged he would surely die. He eventually had an operation to correct it.

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-21, 02:27 PM
I presume it was taped over the mouth and prevented breathing. Not everyone can breath properly through their nose all the time.
...and most infants and tots that I've seen, usually have runny noses anyway.

Doodler
2007-Jun-21, 02:35 PM
I presume it was taped over the mouth and prevented breathing. Not everyone can breath properly through their nose all the time.

Haven't met a baby yet whose nose wasn't constantly clogged.

Doodler
2007-Jun-21, 02:50 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19350561/


I've got to wonder when that sounded like a good idea...

Fazor
2007-Jun-21, 04:02 PM
Smaller hands can reach into the incision more easily? heh. or perhaps bill's filimg a new show, "Kids biopsy the darndest things".

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 04:04 PM
The family that cuts together, goes nuts together.

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-21, 06:37 PM
It's one thing to be cute with kids, but I would consider sticking a kid with this to be child neglect.
N.Z. Couple Can't Name Their Son '4real' (http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3554416&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.7.1)


WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- New Zealand authorities have blocked a couple's bid to officially name their new son "4real," saying numerals are not allowed.


Or maybe the thought of being named like a license plate is a sign of possible things to happen the way he will grow up.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 06:42 PM
From the article:

"With this name, everyone knows what it means."

Yeah, it means your parents were idiots.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Jun-21, 06:44 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19350561/

I've got to wonder when that sounded like a good idea...
Same reason as the giant pig shooting discussed in another thread.

"Let's get our kid in the Guinness book of records, then we'll make money on him."

Gillianren
2007-Jun-21, 07:01 PM
Yeah, it means your parents were idiots.

No kidding.

Now, I do have a list of more unusual names that I want to give my prospective kids, but I wouldn't do that to them. Nor would I give them an oddly-spelled name in the hopes that using a "y" instead on an "i" will make them interesting. And, of course, the name that was my first choice for a girl's name--Rowan--is right out now, because Graham's last name is "Berry."

Swift
2007-Jun-21, 09:03 PM
It's one thing to be cute with kids, but I would consider sticking a kid with this to be child neglect.
N.Z. Couple Can't Name Their Son '4real' (http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3554416&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.7.1)

WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- New Zealand authorities have blocked a couple's bid to officially name their new son "4real," saying numerals are not allowed.

Or maybe the thought of being named like a license plate is a sign of possible things to happen the way he will grow up.
That's up there with naming a kid Nosmo King.

I wonder when we'll start getting kids named for Net/Text-messaging abbreviations...
"Lol Smith, I'd like you to meet Rotfl Jones and her sister Imho. I think you girls have something in common. I bet you'll all become BFFs".

Doodler
2007-Jun-21, 09:29 PM
No kidding.

Now, I do have a list of more unusual names that I want to give my prospective kids, but I wouldn't do that to them. Nor would I give them an oddly-spelled name in the hopes that using a "y" instead on an "i" will make them interesting. And, of course, the name that was my first choice for a girl's name--Rowan--is right out now, because Graham's last name is "Berry."

Hehe.

Variations on existing names are fine by me, so long as they're actually variants on normal names that in conversation won't have peoples' eyes crossing, its all good.

My neice's name was Tarra. When she slipped into the Terrible Twos, she was thusly anointed "Tarra the Terror". :)

Donnie B.
2007-Jun-21, 09:51 PM
No kidding.

Now, I do have a list of more unusual names that I want to give my prospective kids, but I wouldn't do that to them. Nor would I give them an oddly-spelled name in the hopes that using a "y" instead on an "i" will make them interesting. And, of course, the name that was my first choice for a girl's name--Rowan--is right out now, because Graham's last name is "Berry."I guess "Straw", "Razz", and "Blue" are by the boards too.

Let's just hope your kid doesn't join the Amish and grow up to be an Elder!

Noclevername
2007-Jun-21, 09:53 PM
I guess "Straw", "Razz", and "Blue" are by the boards too.

Let's just hope your kid doesn't join the Amish and grow up to be an Elder!

What a goose!

Whirlpool
2007-Jun-22, 12:50 AM
I am not a parent, so perhaps I have no right to comment on the way others raise their kids. It's not unusual for parents to disagree on what's good or bad for their children.

But every so often...well, very often it seems, parents go that extra mile to do something totally stupid, dangerous, irresponsible, and oft all of the above.

Some might say that people this dumb shouldn't have children anyway. Others might just be saddened knowing that all the years of evolution we've gone through still allows for members of our own species to be this pathetic.

Anyway, without further adu, here's the link to the latest award nominee
Tape and Pacifiers DO NOT Mix! (http://www.kirotv.com/news/13529889/detail.html?qs=1;bp=t)

:(

I felt bad for the baby. And for the mom, yes she made a fatal mistake not thinking that taping the pacifier on the face of the baby can lead to death.
Thinking of how the mom was raised by her mom, in this incident, I think she's a good mother , just "dumb" because it looks like she didn't intentionally wanted to kill her baby , she just taped the pacifier bec it always drops from the mouth of her child.

We cannot control people having babies , its part of our life cycle. But maybe we cantrol teenage pregnancies, or unwanted pregnancies , which sometimes gives results to physical abuse by the parent to the child, beatings and such.


Just my comment.

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-22, 07:30 AM
Yes. I knew a pretty damn good athlete that had trouble breathing through his nose. He used to always say that if he was ever gagged he would surely die. He eventually had an operation to correct it.

I used to be like that, but then i broke my nose in an accident.

My nose is now slightly bent, but at least i can breathe out of it now

Gillianren
2007-Jun-22, 07:32 AM
I guess "Straw", "Razz", and "Blue" are by the boards too.

Let's just hope your kid doesn't join the Amish and grow up to be an Elder!

Or a Mormon.

Yeah, Graham's mom actually named him Graham Berry. Sounds like a cereal, doesn't it?

Tog
2007-Jun-22, 08:17 AM
I worked with a woman who's parents were talked out of naming her "Penelope Candice" by the delivery nurse. The winning point was that by the time she started school she would be known as "Penny Candy".

But then my mother had a friend named Sandy Marble, She married Dusty Frisby, and they had a kid named Rusty. Pretty sure they were all hippies.

Another guy I worked with showed me his high school year book that had the twin sisters, Ima and Ura Pigg listed.

Fazor
2007-Jun-22, 01:12 PM
Or a Mormon.

Yeah, Graham's mom actually named him Graham Berry. Sounds like a cereal, doesn't it?

Better than naming him Gary. Or Lary. Or Kerry. Or...well, you get the idea. One of our clients at the other office had a first name of something like Disentia. I thought that sounded more like an STD. I'll just hope I'm pronoucing it wrong, or that it has some kind of cultural background.

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-22, 03:11 PM
Two urban legends:

Folks with the last name of "Lear" name their daughter Crystal Shanda.
Everybody knows a teacher who knows a teacher who had a kid in their class named (how do I write this so it's board appropriate?) "Shi - thead" (Moderators, feel free to delete if this is non-compliant withthe rules).

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-22, 03:15 PM
Two urban legends:
Yep; but not too far off.

My mom worked for the county for a short time, and wrote down all the unusual names she ran across. I wish she kept that list. There were kids named after cars, cleaning and grooming products, foods, and others that were just plain un-pronouncable.
One was actually named Jello.

Tog
2007-Jun-22, 03:24 PM
I mentioned this long ago but we were at an amusement park when a woman yelled for her some "Simian" to stop running around. It was later explained on here that there is a name that is spelled differently and had long been an acceptable name, but when we head, "Simian, stop running around like that!" at the food court, the first thing we both said to each other was "She wouldn't have really named him that?"

This inspired one the GF's better rants. Just because a word is pretty or you like the sound does not mean it's a good name. Walking into a day care and saying you are there to get your daughter, Chlamydia will drive that point right home. It's much better live.

Fazor
2007-Jun-22, 03:49 PM
We had a family friend who's name is Sandy. Her maiden name was Bottoms. 'Nuff said.

Swift
2007-Jun-22, 04:49 PM
One was actually named Jello.
Well, everyone loves Jello. ;)

NEOWatcher
2007-Jun-22, 04:51 PM
Well, everyone loves Jello. ;)
No; no... She's probably a small person since there's always room for Jello.:whistle:

Noclevername
2007-Jun-22, 04:57 PM
It's better than naming your kid "Kalash" after the Kalashnikov rifle! A real practice in northern Africa.

SeanF
2007-Jun-22, 07:36 PM
I mentioned this long ago but we were at an amusement park when a woman yelled for her some "Simian" to stop running around. It was later explained on here that there is a name that is spelled differently and had long been an acceptable name, but when we head, "Simian, stop running around like that!" at the food court, the first thing we both said to each other was "She wouldn't have really named him that?"
It's a Biblical (http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Simeon) name, even. :)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-22, 08:08 PM
As I said at the time of the previous conversation, it's not "Simian," it's "Simeon." A subtle distinction, but an important one.

I'm perfectly okay with naming your child "Simeon," despite the likelihood of confusion. It's not the same as naming your child Unique (possibly spelled differently), as a girl I knew once was named. (Conformist creature that she was!) Or any other of a number of wretched names I've seen bestowed on perfectly innocent children.

jamesabrown
2007-Jun-22, 08:50 PM
My wife has worked in a daycare, and one of her kids was named Darth.

I kid you not.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-22, 09:02 PM
Fair's fair; as soon as they're old enough to talk, the kids should get to rename their parents. ;)

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-23, 05:48 AM
Fair's fair; as soon as they're old enough to talk, the kids should get to rename their parents. ;)

i thought all kids called their parents ********...

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-23, 06:23 AM
i thought all kids called their parents ********...

I think that's only in Australia.

P.S. You may have to block out the entire word. Apparently common Australian words of endearment aren't acceptable here, even in partial form.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-23, 07:31 AM
While in a carpool back in the early 1990s, we had a "kill time while stuck in traffic" contest: what was the most unusual name you'd ever heard.

The part-time Baptist minister won. He related that a couple in his congregation had named their daughter "Steriliza".

Then there's the 2003 winner of The Masters, Michael Weir. Didn't his parents realize there are things called "nicknames"?

Gillianren
2007-Jun-23, 11:16 AM
No, and neither did the parents of Michael Hunt, someone an ex-boyfriend of mine went to school with.

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-23, 12:02 PM
I think that's only in Australia.

P.S. You may have to block out the entire word. Apparently common Australian words of endearment aren't acceptable here, even in partial form.

Why is it that all our terms of endearment are swear words everywhere else?

Gillianren
2007-Jun-23, 09:23 PM
Why is it that all our terms of endearment are swear words everywhere else?

Does that say something about you or about the rest of the world, do you think?

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-25, 08:11 AM
Does that say something about you or about the rest of the world, do you think?

us, clearly

actually... maybe both

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-25, 08:28 AM
Perhaps we're just more honest here.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-25, 08:41 AM
Maybe there's just more ********'s there, and the kids are right. :)

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jun-25, 11:41 PM
As I said at the time of the previous conversation, it's not "Simian," it's "Simeon." A subtle distinction, but an important one.

I'm perfectly okay with naming your child "Simeon," despite the likelihood of confusion. It's not the same as naming your child Unique (possibly spelled differently), as a girl I knew once was named. (Conformist creature that she was!) Or any other of a number of wretched names I've seen bestowed on perfectly innocent children.
Preaching to choir here, I get many versions of the same name where I work.
There is a british actor who played gay germen officer in "Allo 'Allo
and the actors name was Guy Siner.

Redtail
2007-Jun-26, 01:43 AM
It's better than naming your kid "Kalash" after the Kalashnikov rifle! A real practice in northern Africa.

Well we do have kids here named Colt.:whistle:

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-26, 02:40 AM
It's better than naming your kid "Kalash" after the Kalashnikov rifle! A real practice in northern Africa.

I'll mention that most English first names used to actually mean something, even though the meaning may have been lost long before English actually existed.

Having names that mean something is quite common. If you go to Japan and start translating names into English you soon realize that there are an awful lot of hippies in Japan.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-26, 02:44 AM
I'll mention that most English first names used to actually mean something, even though the meaning may have been lost long before English actually existed.



Like what Val Kilmer said about his name "Nick" in the 1984 movie Top Secret! "My Dad thought of it while he was shaving."

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-26, 03:31 AM
Like what Val Kilmer said about his name "Nick" in the 1984 movie Top Secret! "My Dad thought of it while he was shaving."

That was Val Kilmer? Wow, my respect for him just went up a notch. (Nipples on the Batsuit indeed.)

Noclevername
2007-Jun-26, 03:36 AM
That was Val Kilmer? Wow, my respect for him just went up a notch. (Nipples on the Batsuit indeed.)
Well, that was back in the day, before he started believing his own press.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-26, 03:39 AM
Well, that was back in the day, before he started believing his own press.

I think it was his first movie.

Noclevername
2007-Jun-26, 03:43 AM
(after a quick IMDB search)
Wow, you're right, that was before Real Genius! Hard to believe that the last thing he was really good in was "Willow"-- what a sad sentence that is. (The Doors was good in spite of him, not because of him.)

Gillianren
2007-Jun-26, 07:30 AM
(after a quick IMDB search)
Wow, you're right, that was before Real Genius! Hard to believe that the last thing he was really good in was "Willow"-- what a sad sentence that is. (The Doors was good in spite of him, not because of him.)

No one alive looked more like Jim Morrison than he did; you have to admit that. (And I, in fact, have quite liked a lot of things he's done since. Allow me to suggest, for example, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.)

Damien Evans
2007-Jun-26, 09:27 AM
No one alive looked more like Jim Morrison than he did; you have to admit that. (And I, in fact, have quite liked a lot of things he's done since. Allow me to suggest, for example, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.)

I liked him in top gun, not that he really had to do much

Click Ticker
2007-Jun-26, 01:02 PM
We had a game we used to play with the birth announcements in the local newspaper. Read the babies name and guess if the baby is that of a married couple, an unmarried couple (both mother and father listed, different last names), or a single mother with no father listed. It was quite accurate. Typically an apostrophe in a name was a guaranteed single mother with no father listed.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-26, 02:16 PM
No one alive looked more like Jim Morrison than he did; you have to admit that. (And I, in fact, have quite liked a lot of things he's done since. Allow me to suggest, for example, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.)

Yes. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is excellent! I think Val Kilmer is a fine actor - maybe his head is too big sometimes. :)

Noclevername
2007-Jun-26, 03:19 PM
IMO, Real Genius was his pinnacle. He rocked in that film.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-06, 04:57 PM
Next up...

Father takes 7-year-old son along on burglary (http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=72270)

The scary part is...


Boggs said. "But then, I was told by one of the officers that this is how they do it now. Nobody really suspects you when you're with a child."


And, I wish they would elaborate on this one.

The 7-year-old's mother told Channel 3 News that police wanted her to make sure that her son understood that he did nothing wrong.

Swift
2007-Aug-06, 08:41 PM
Well, maybe it was take-your-son-to-work day. ;)

Fazor
2007-Aug-06, 09:06 PM
There was a bunch of bad parenting stories lately, notebaly the LSD-baby (http://www.wisn.com/news/13814966/detail.html)and the Dedicated Employee (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug04/0,4670,DeadToddlers,00.html). The last I feel sorta sorry for; just seems like a woman with a bad life in a bad spot, with very bad decision making skills. I feel worse for her children, but she doesn't seem like a bad person--just an idiot.

Lastly, I propose the nieve parent awards to the mother of two of the four victims here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/06/schoolyard.killings.ap/index.html).

The four had been listening to music in a parking lot behind Mount Vernon School when they were gradually joined by a group of men, authorities said.

The Aerials' mother, Renee Tucker, said the last time she saw them was around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, when they told her they were going around the corner to get something to eat.
"They said they were going to come right back to the house," Tucker said.


Yes, they lied about going to get something to eat and were instead innocently "listening to music" behind the school late at night when they were attacked and killed for no reason. Yes it's a tragedy. No they had no criminal records. Was it drug related? Almost garunteed.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-08, 07:57 PM
Lastly, I propose the nieve parent awards to the mother of two of the four victims here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/06/schoolyard.killings.ap/index.html).
I too had some of the same thoughts you did since they kept using the words "kids". They were 18,19,20...Adults.


Anyway, It sometimes takes many parents or adults.
3-Year-Old Shoots 6-Year-Old (http://www.wisn.com/news/13846111/detail.html)
Quick summary.
Parent of a 3 and 6 year old keeps an illegal, loaded gun behind the stove.
Another 6 year old visiting (mother is out for a walk, and usually babysits)
10pm 3 year old shoots visiting 6 year old, other adults flee.

And nobody knows a thing.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-29, 05:23 PM
Mom Runs Over Son with Minivan (http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4197986&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)
Summary: backing up a 600 foot gravel driveway with the kids sitting on the back with their feet dangling.


The injuries happened last Monday when Aaron and his mother Rose Ridgway were doing something she says they have done routinely for the past four years.
How many times does it take to be successful before you consider it to be safe? :think:


"I didn't even know I had ran him over; I didn't know he was under there until my daughter jumped out and started screaming, and by that time my front tire was already on him," Ridgway explained.
So, you also weren't paying attention?


"I guess it's a bad idea to have your kids in a hatchback, because look at what's happened to my son."
Of course, that is just a guess. :wall:

Neverfly
2007-Aug-29, 05:39 PM
I don't know how many pick-ups Ive ridden in the back of.
On and off road. On the freeway too.

I climbed every tree I could as a kid.
Before age eleven I managed to fall off the back porch(Two story house- back porch was on the second story) by walking the railing.
Fell off the roof twice.
Fell off the garage once.
Racked myself pretty hard falling from one branch to another.

My dad managed to mangle me three times trying to teach me how to ride a bike.
A teacher managed to put a good sized knot in my head in gym class.
My mom once closed a car door on my hand.

Had a foster mom almost do it once too, but I pulled my hand out of the way in time.

An uncle managed to park his car on my foot.
This same uncle threw an apple core out his window and happened to tag me while I was going the opposite way on my bike. Lucky shot.

Almost drowned in a public pool when I was like 5. Lifeguard never seemed to notice. I managed to grab the edge in my flailing and pull myself up.

I rode my bike across logs over a ravine. Thin log too not a big one. I tried doing a handstand while in motion on the handle bars once. Neat trick.
Didn't end so well...

At school I stood on one end of a teeter totter and a fat guy ran and jumped and landed on the other side throwing me considerable distances before i landed wrong and dug my face into gravel.
That one was ouch...

I've ridden on all my grandfathers tractors and flatbed trucks on the back.
I've sat at the front of a boat and dangled my feet in the water while the boat sped along. That could have been disasterous.
I fell out of a duece and half in the army.
More than that happened in the army too. Wasn't a kid then though.

Simply put- crap happens. You can try being "safe" til your blue in the face... crap still happens.

I am a father. Love baby boy more than life itself.
Im protective too. But crap happens.

It's easy to point the finger at this "idiot". But think back to your own childhood. How many of our parents did this too?

I wouldn't want to live my life without risks.

Fazor
2007-Aug-29, 05:40 PM
haha, I love that last quote. I also guess its not safe to have your kids lie down in the tall weeds while you mow paths through it with the tractor. And perhaps it's unsafe to dangle your children over the grand canyon by the ankles so the can view it upside-down.

Now if only someone was around to tell me that putting little saddles on hungry crockodiles and letting your children ride them around the slaughterhouse was dangerous...oh well, off to Bert's Butcher and Allegator Farm I go.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-29, 05:41 PM
haha, I love that last quote. I also guess its not safe to have your kids lie down in the tall weeds while you mow paths through it with the tractor. And perhaps it's unsafe to dangle your children over the grand canyon by the ankles so the can view it upside-down.

Now if only someone was around to tell me that putting little saddles on hungry crockodiles and letting your children ride them around the slaughterhouse was dangerous...oh well, off to Bert's Butcher and Allegator Farm I go.

Dude, you're totally blowing this out of proportion.

Fazor
2007-Aug-29, 05:43 PM
Neverfly, your real name isn't "private pyle" by any chance, is it? :) Yeah, "stuff" happens, but wow. If we ever happen to be at the same place in person, remind me to bring a camcorder. America's Funniest gives out decent prize money :lol:

Fazor
2007-Aug-29, 05:44 PM
Dude, you're totally blowing this out of proportion.

I know, exaggeration is my favorite litterary style (i'm a cartoonist, remember). But I always think it's funny when the obvious happens, and someone says, "gee, who would have thought that could happen?!" :)

Neverfly
2007-Aug-29, 05:46 PM
Neverfly, your real name isn't "private pyle" by any chance, is it? :) Yeah, "stuff" happens, but wow. If we ever happen to be at the same place in person, remind me to bring a camcorder. America's Funniest gives out decent prize money :lol:

NOt at all.
As a kid I was a thrill seeker.
Im not clumsy or klutzy-In the neighborhood I succeeded at most of the dares that the other kids gave. I was tough too, rarely got injured or ended up in the emergency room. (ETA- throughout my childhood I went a total of twice. The first time I was very young and it was for salmonella- not an activity related injury).
The second time was when I stepped on a ribbed nail.

Didn't you do crazy stuff as a kid?

Ive ridden in the backs of open vehicles- tailgate down too.
yeah, in HINDSIGHT it's pretty dumb but...
A lot of things in everdy life that we ALL do are dumb in hindsight.

We just don't look at it until something bad happens.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-29, 05:49 PM
Neverfly;
While I agree with your statement in general (although some of those things are obviously stupid) I have 2 questions...
1)

I don't know how many pick-ups Ive ridden in the back of.
How many were driving backwards?

2)
How many times did you need to broadcast to the world and warn them that they need to know it was stupid, rather than just saying "drats, I got what I deserved"

Neverfly
2007-Aug-29, 05:53 PM
Neverfly;
While I agree with your statement in general (although some of those things are obviously stupid) I have 2 questions...
1)

How many were driving backwards?

Forwards and backwards. Think ranch setting. Wasn't on a ranch though- lot of property though...


2)
How many times did you need to broadcast to the world and warn them that they need to know it was stupid, rather than just saying "drats, I got what I deserved"


I think that's part of the modern age.
Due to her feeling guilty, likely feeling dumb too...

She almost HAS to do that in todays society. If she did like our grandparents did in their day, society would "flog" her and call her inept.
The media is telling everyone about it so she can only attone for it by making a Public Image Stance that shows caring and concern.

I'm sure that she didnt call the media and tell them what happened. They found out and zoomed in for the scoop.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-30, 06:08 PM
Police Say Impaired Mom Let Son, 5, Drive (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14011967/detail.html)



"I asked, 'Is this toddler driving your car?' She said, 'He's a good driver.'"

Everything's relative...

Neverfly
2007-Aug-30, 07:22 PM
Bizarre...

If he couldn't reach the pedals... How was he driving?

What happened is exactly what should have happened, don't get me wrong. But I think the story is being "built up."

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-30, 07:29 PM
But I think the story is being "built up."
What? The media never does that... they are always sane, rational, and never glamorize a story...
...znknrk... good morning, I just had this strange dream.

Yes; I think they are letting the reader imagine he was driving when it was only that the mother's intent was to let him drive.
Smart neighbor...take the keys.

Neverfly
2007-Aug-30, 07:33 PM
What? The media never does that... they are always sane, rational, and never glamorize a story...
...znknrk... good morning, I just had this strange dream.

Yes; I think they are letting the reader imagine he was driving when it was only that the mother's intent was to let him drive.
Smart neighbor...take the keys.

<chuckle>

Yeah, only logical.

Which is very foolish anyway. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you let a five year old drive they would drive right to McDonalds instead of where you want them to go.

Fazor
2007-Sep-19, 03:02 PM
Here's another one. Like all these types of topics, could also fit into the dumb criminal catagory. But I like it here better.

Police: Irate Woman Throws Baby At Trooper (http://www.wbaltv.com/news/14143146/detail.html)


Police said they told Doninger she was being arrested. The documents said she became "incredibly irate," stood up from a chair and threw the 6-month-old at least 5 feet at one of the troopers.

The child struck the trooper's chest and he caught the baby just before it hit the floor, according to court documents. Doninger then shoved the trooper, striking both him and the baby.

It's normal for primates to fling feeces at a percieved threat...but generally it's not contained in the diaper of their own offspring. I think it'd be fun to have this woman cuffed and immobilized, then beaten. You know, just to make sure she knows what abusing someone who cannot defend themselves feels like. Oh well, she'll have plenty of that type of fun in prison.

Neverfly
2007-Sep-19, 03:33 PM
Here's another one. Like all these types of topics, could also fit into the dumb criminal catagory. But I like it here better.

Police: Irate Woman Throws Baby At Trooper (http://www.wbaltv.com/news/14143146/detail.html)



It's normal for primates to fling feeces at a percieved threat...but generally it's not contained in the diaper of their own offspring. I think it'd be fun to have this woman cuffed and immobilized, then beaten. You know, just to make sure she knows what abusing someone who cannot defend themselves feels like. Oh well, she'll have plenty of that type of fun in prison.

That's incredibly awful:neutral:

mugaliens
2007-Sep-19, 04:19 PM
Mom Runs Over Son with Minivan (http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4197986&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)
Summary: backing up a 600 foot gravel driveway with the kids sitting on the back with their feet dangling.

Something about seat belts and common sense is missing from this picture...

Fazor
2007-Sep-19, 04:33 PM
Deja Vu (http://www.bautforum.com/1060365-post91.html) (Scroll up to #91 ;))

NEOWatcher
2007-Sep-19, 04:36 PM
Deja Vu (http://www.bautforum.com/1060365-post91.html) (Scroll up to #91 ;))

Uh, yep... that's why that post was quoted.

Come on Fazor... what are you eating for lunch?... (or is that drinking) Can I have some? :lol:

mugaliens
2007-Sep-19, 04:38 PM
That's incredibly awful:neutral:

What I find far worse is the following:
Neighbors who spoke with WBAL TV 11 News said that the allegations are shocking, but most turned away when 11 News asked them about it for fear of retaliation from drug dealers who the neighbors said have a strong presence in the area, according to 11 News reporter Lowell Melser.

When people continue speak up, things eventually get cleaned up. When they turn a blind eye, they will only get worse.

The stupid are always eventually conquered. The bold and the brave (preferrably the ones with honest, law-abiding morals) are the ones that, in general survive and conquer.

It's a reason I spent four years doing neighborhood watch in a neighborhood that needed it, and yes, we caught several criminals during that time and drove crime down by more than 60% during that time in that neighborhood.

Fazor
2007-Sep-19, 04:39 PM
Uh, yep... that's why that post was quoted.

Come on Fazor... what are you eating for lunch?... (or is that drinking) Can I have some?

Woops. I guess sometimes things do slip past my eagle-like perception skills. :lol:

Fazor
2007-Sep-19, 04:45 PM
What I find far worse is the following:

When people continue speak up, things eventually get cleaned up. When they turn a blind eye, they will only get worse.

The stupid are always eventually conquered. The bold and the brave (preferrably the ones with honest, law-abiding morals) are the ones that, in general survive and conquer.
True. Sadly, there's the very real possibility that some of the brave and bold good guys will die for the cause along the way. It's that fear that keeps them from acting. People want to help make things better, however not many wish to be marytrs.



It's a reason I spent four years doing neighborhood watch in a neighborhood that needed it, and yes, we caught several criminals during that time and drove crime down by more than 60% during that time in that neighborhood.
I applaud your neighborhood's effort. These programs are great tools. But it's also much different than un-anonymously speaking out against a particular drug opperation to the media.

Gillianren
2007-Sep-20, 05:33 AM
I applaud your neighborhood's effort. These programs are great tools. But it's also much different than un-anonymously speaking out against a particular drug opperation to the media.

Quite right. After all, the article didn't say they weren't talking to the police, just the TV cameras.

NEOWatcher
2007-Sep-26, 06:24 PM
Couple Faces Endangerment Charges, Police Say (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14209061/detail.html)


BEAVER COUNTY, Pa. -- A couple in Center Township is facing charges after the man and woman fled a mobile home fire, grabbing their pet dogs but leaving a young boy behind, police said.

Donnie B.
2007-Sep-26, 06:33 PM
Couple Faces Endangerment Charges, Police Say (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14209061/detail.html)
Now that's just...sad.

Unless he was the kid from The Omen, that is. Then I could understand. :evil:

:rolleyes:

Fazor
2007-Sep-26, 06:38 PM
Yeah, they "forgot" he was in there, allegedly despite the fact that police asked them "is anyone inside" multiple times.

Fazor
2007-Sep-28, 02:52 PM
Well, this one is almost too common to mention, but Fridays 'round BAUT tend to be slow so I'll post it anyway.
Police: Couple Abandoned Baby So They Could Party (http://www.wisn.com/news/14223467/detail.html)
Here's the "highlights"

-- A Glendale couple said they couldn't afford a baby sitter, so they strapped their 14-month-old son in his stroller at home while the couple went out, police alleged.

on charges they neglected baby Gabriel so badly that his body was covered with diaper rash, his body temperature was 12 degrees below normal and he stopped breathing, requiring 21 minutes of CPR to revive him.

The couple recently got jobs at Pizza Hut, police said Anderson told them... Good, so they got the job so they could afford a babysitter, and proper care for their child. Oh, wait:
...and the couple used the money for drinking parties.
Also mentioned that the mom changed diapers once per day, and that the dad "didn't do diapers. that's her job".

Fills my heart with pride to know that I come from the same species as these two wonderful individuals :sick:

NEOWatcher
2007-Sep-28, 05:37 PM
Fills my heart with pride to know that I come from the same species as these two wonderful individuals :sick:
Just because we are genetically compatable doesn't mean we are the same species. I firmly believe that there was some branching of the species not long ago.

Gee, 14 months and the neighbor never saw the child? Sounds like they weren't too proud of him.


Anyway... We can train our crimals young...
Toddler forced to steal purse (http://www.wkyc.com/news/national/news_article.aspx?storyid=75147)

OCEAN COUNTY, N.J. -- New Jersey police are on the lookout for what they're calling a modern day "Oliver Twist."

SeanF
2007-Oct-02, 04:25 PM
Here's a contender for Mother of the Year:

Mom arrested for prostitution, child endangerment (http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S212458.shtml?cat=300)

Police say at one point Cook even snorted cocaine off the baby's stomach as she was breastfeeding.

NEOWatcher
2007-Oct-10, 06:07 PM
Baby Drowns While Mom Online, Police Say (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14309359/detail.html)

Not just a lapse in attention...but to actually place to children in a tub, then leave the floor? :hand:

Neverfly
2007-Oct-11, 04:17 AM
Baby Drowns While Mom Online, Police Say (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14309359/detail.html)

Not just a lapse in attention...but to actually place to children in a tub, then leave the floor? :hand:

Reading the article, everything sounded prtetty common.

The lady wasn't on net chat or flirting, she was buying shoes...

Kids are often left unattended in the tub, and I've left my son unattended in the tub as well. Not often and not for long but still.

MOST parents do leave their kids alone in the tubfor periods at a time. I've witnessed it a lot. She could hear them and reacted when it got silent.

from the article:

Bodem is charged with two counts of second-degree manslaughter. If convicted, she could face up to 10 years in prison and $20,000 in fines.

I think this woman just lost her child.
Now the government needs to punish her further and destroy the rest of her life?
Now she needs to lose all her kids too?
The childs death, while tragic, was an accident. This is part of life. In the old days, the mortality rate for children was higher due to accidents.

This modern age of Punishing the Punished is very disturbing.
Let the lady grieve and leaver her alone.
On top of losing a child she will also have guilt issues enough.
For something that could easily happen to anyone.

Gillianren
2007-Oct-11, 05:49 AM
You can leave a two-year-old unattended in a bath for a couple of minutes. You can leave a six-year-old unattended for the entire bath. But an eleven-month-old? That's young enough so that you still hold the child for the entire bath.

Neverfly
2007-Oct-11, 06:31 AM
You can leave a two-year-old unattended in a bath for a couple of minutes. You can leave a six-year-old unattended for the entire bath. But an eleven-month-old? That's young enough so that you still hold the child for the entire bath.

This is true. I missed the part about the childs age.
When mine was 11 months old I bathed him in the sink:p

When he was over a year old he wouldn't LET me leave him alone in the tub.
Even today, he prefers company when he's in the tub and I usually sit in there and read or play boats. It isn't that I don't leave him alone so much as he doesn't LIKE to be left alone.

I still stand by my earlier statement though.
Pretty dumb and tragically, the child died.

But I think that in itself is punishment.

Adding additional charges and punishment seems cruel on top of redundant.

It's further statement that people cannot learn from their lives and so the government needs to "correctionally" punish us even further.

NEOWatcher
2007-Oct-11, 11:49 AM
Pretty dumb and tragically, the child died.

But I think that in itself is punishment.

Adding additional charges and punishment seems cruel on top of redundant.
I wouldn't automatically jump to that statement. It's going to depend a lot on her attitude and history. At the very least, she should be guilty with time served.
And; yes; lots of people have left thier child in the tub. It's still wrong, and many have been lucky. Lots of people have also run red lights without killing anyone.

NEOWatcher
2007-Oct-23, 04:03 PM
It's not often you get a dumb parent, smart kid combination.

Child In Car Calls 911 On 'Not Normal' Mom (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14396777/detail.html)



VANCOUVER, Wash. -- An 8-year-old boy riding in a car with his mother called 911 several times Saturday to report that she wasn't "acting normal."
When police caught up with the mother, Paulette Lynn Spears, 33, they arrested her for investigation of drunken driving and other charges, authorities said.

closetgeek
2007-Oct-31, 03:54 PM
That is how my great-grandmother punished my grandmother for sneaking bread during the depression. She was also a bit psycho. IMHO cruel and unusual punishment should be reinstated in cases such as these. Hey mom, if the baby keeps spitting out the binky, the baby doesn't want the binky. time to put down the bonbons and be a mother.
As a parent, I have to admit that sometimes my ideas for creative punishment/consequences can run a little extreme, but that is why they remain idea's and not actions. Any injuries I have caused to my kids were purely unintentional and mainly because I am a total clod. [I went to grab the hot water humidifyer (because I didn't know any other type existed at the time) before my son got to it, knocked the bowl out of the top when my hand became tangled in the cord, and poured it right onto my sons foot] The burn scars have long since healed but I don't think I ever will. I declared myself unfit and refused to go near my children for days. Thank goodness the other one didn't result in any serious injuries. [an overwhelmed mother with a 4 yr old, 2 yr old, and 18 month old attempting to get the children through the entrance to the basement and into the garage to get in the car, bents over to help the two yr old back up when he fell, did not realize that the 18 month old was directly behind her. In the bending over action, managed to use her ginormous rear end to push the 18 month old down the stairs to the basement] the stair were plush carpet and the child, upon coming to a stop at the bottom of the stairs responded with a giggle. I declared it was time for a diet.


Here's another one (http://www.kpho.com/news/13530686/detail.html?qs=1;bp=t) from todays news.


I'm convinced when "cruel and unusual" punishment was barred from the US legal system, they weren't thinking about crimes against children.

triplebird
2007-Oct-31, 05:59 PM
Parent leaves very small child in a running vehicle, child gets caught in power window, then parent goes on national TV to blame not just the manufacturer of her vehicle, but also Transport Canada for "allowing" power windows that lack an auto-reverse:

from CBC Marketplace (http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2007/08/power_windows.html)

Leave a child unattended in a running vehicle, and windows will be the least of your problems. How hard is it to shut off the engine and take your keys when you step out?


Now, name rant time:

Parents are so obsessed with making their child "feel special" that they make sure the name they give their child is as unusual--sorry, "unique"--as possible. Don't they think how the child will probably go through life being made fun of, having people mispronounce and/or misspell (whether accidentally or on purpose) his or her name, and otherwise feeling like an oddball because he/she has a "special" name? How much will that build up their self-esteem?

Whew. Got that off my chest.

NEOWatcher
2007-Oct-31, 07:01 PM
Parent leaves very small child in a running vehicle, child gets caught in power window, then parent goes on national TV to blame not just the manufacturer of her vehicle, but also Transport Canada for "allowing" power windows that lack an auto-reverse:
And; the good samaritan didn't stop her from driving away while her daughter was laying dead in the back seat? :think:

Noclevername
2007-Oct-31, 07:27 PM
Now, name rant time:

Parents are so obsessed with making their child "feel special" that they make sure the name they give their child is as unusual--sorry, "unique"--as possible. Don't they think how the child will probably go through life being made fun of, having people mispronounce and/or misspell (whether accidentally or on purpose) his or her name, and otherwise feeling like an oddball because he/she has a "special" name? How much will that build up their self-esteem?

Whew. Got that off my chest.

Sometimes it's also just a result of the parents being selfish and self-indulgent, and/or treating their children like pets or possessions; for example all the Celebrities who give their kids therapy-inducing names just because they can.
"Moxie Crimefighter"? More like Future Trainwreck.

Tog
2007-Nov-01, 07:42 AM
Parent leaves very small child in a running vehicle, child gets caught in power window, then parent goes on national TV to blame not just the manufacturer of her vehicle, but also Transport Canada for "allowing" power windows that lack an auto-reverse:

When I was 5 we had a Datsun pick up. My mom left me in it while she ran into the store for a minute. This was a small town and the store was about the size of a living room. The owner lived above it. It was raining this day, and my mom was taking longer than my attention span allowed, so I tried to turn on the windshield wipers to see if she was close to coming out.

They didn't turn on. I thought about it for a second, and realized that the engine had to be running to make them work, so I started the truck. It was in gear and jumped forward into the front of the store. No damage or injuries, but that was more luck than anything. Modern cars won't start in gear unless the clutch pedal is depressed, but it's still one more in the long line of examples of why kids should never be left alone in a car before a certain age.

It wasn't the fault of the car, or the car-maker. It was my fault for starting the car, and my mom's fault for allowing me to be in a position where I could do something stupid and virtually unexpected.

Could be worse though. I had a friend who was left in a car while it was running. He kicked it into drive, causing it to go down a hill and rear end a police car. He was about 18 months old at the time.

closetgeek
2007-Nov-01, 01:26 PM
Alright 18 months is a bit too young to leave alone in the car for many reasons. Down here the law is, the child must be at least six, the car must be turned off, and for no more than 15 minutes. My kids are 7, 8, and 10 now and I am still terrified to leave them alone for that long. Not to mention, for most of the year where I live, 15 minutes is probably long enough for someone to start getting heat exhaustion in a car that is turned off. There is also the fact that I live in the same town, if anyone is old enough to remember that television movie Adam, where his head was found in the canal. That guy was never caught. Florida, maybe it is just the media, seems to be a safe haven for child predators, so I just don't feel like leaving my kids as bait.
As for names, I am iffy. Some celebs are a little out of hand with it, but I think I may have unintentionally done that to my oldest. I have seen girls with that name before, it just happens that the year she was born, it was the most popular name used for a boy. Anytime I make an appt for her or sign her up for something, until they meet her, they constantly refer to her as a he. Kids have teased her by telling her she has a boys name but I didn't pick it to be different, I just loved the name for a girl. I just always thought it was a name that goes both ways like Chris. Then again, my mother gave me a very normal typical name that happens to rhyme with a certain part of the male, and it was relentless growing up.


When I was 5 we had a Datsun pick up. My mom left me in it while she ran into the store for a minute. This was a small town and the store was about the size of a living room. The owner lived above it. It was raining this day, and my mom was taking longer than my attention span allowed, so I tried to turn on the windshield wipers to see if she was close to coming out.

They didn't turn on. I thought about it for a second, and realized that the engine had to be running to make them work, so I started the truck. It was in gear and jumped forward into the front of the store. No damage or injuries, but that was more luck than anything. Modern cars won't start in gear unless the clutch pedal is depressed, but it's still one more in the long line of examples of why kids should never be left alone in a car before a certain age.

It wasn't the fault of the car, or the car-maker. It was my fault for starting the car, and my mom's fault for allowing me to be in a position where I could do something stupid and virtually unexpected.

Could be worse though. I had a friend who was left in a car while it was running. He kicked it into drive, causing it to go down a hill and rear end a police car. He was about 18 months old at the time.

Donnie B.
2007-Nov-01, 04:58 PM
...my mother gave me a very normal typical name that happens to rhyme with a certain part of the male, and it was relentless growing up.
Nice to meet you, Venus.

closetgeek
2007-Nov-02, 09:42 PM
lol but very close.

Nice to meet you, Venus.

SeanF
2007-Nov-07, 01:43 AM
Here's another nominee.

SUBJECT WARNING: This one involves child molestation. The link is to a news report, but it's fairly uh, "descriptive."


The mother ó who told detectives she has a degree in English and was trying to get into tutoring ó said she asked her daughter if Cardillo was making her do anything she didnít want to and the girl said no, so she had to respect that, according to the warrant.
Yeah, good thinking, Mom. :doh:

NEOWatcher
2007-Nov-07, 02:59 PM
Here's another nominee.
Yeah, good thinking, Mom. :doh:
From your post it only sounded like a "My kid doesn't lie" story about a parent's naivete.
But; the kid told her mom of the horrible things, and only that the kid didn't object to doing them. :mad:

Like the story says..."Phil West said. He said she may be mentally ill."

Neverfly
2007-Nov-07, 03:02 PM
May be?

Met him at a Hare Krishna meeting.

If I had a daughter I would be up on charges. For killing that guy.

NEOWatcher
2007-Nov-16, 01:25 PM
Police Find Drunken 13-Year-Old In Truck Stuck In Mud (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/14613644/detail.html)



The father said he turned over the driving duties to his son because he'd had too much to drink.

Doodler
2007-Nov-16, 02:49 PM
Like the story says..."Phil West said. He said she may be mentally ill."

File that one under "BLATANTLY OBVIOUS". There has been nothing more mindshattering that I have personally encountered in my life than the realization that many of the kids being exposed to this abuse are exposed in such a manner that they become willing and cooperative participants.

:sick:

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-17, 08:36 PM
I still stand by my earlier statement though.
Pretty dumb and tragically, the child died.

But I think that in itself is punishment.

Adding additional charges and punishment seems cruel on top of redundant.

It's further statement that people cannot learn from their lives and so the government needs to "correctionally" punish us even further.
The punishment is not for her, it's for the other parents who would otherwise use this case as a recipe for getting away with murdering an unwanted child.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 08:45 PM
The punishment is not for her, it's for the other parents who would otherwise use this case as a recipe for getting away with murdering an unwanted child.

Then that punishment should be excersized against murderous parents. Not innocent ones.
In modern times, the laws that were intended to deal with the criminally minded are now being applied nilly willy to everyone.

Making an example out of one person to discourage others is morally wrong, a sign of corruption and was one of the many main motivators during the Revolutionary War for just exactly why we wanted our own Nation.

It is not just(justice) to assume. Should a childs death occur, and foul play is suspected, detectives investigate the events. You don't just assume people are guilty of murder, nor that people will be guilty of murder in the future.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 08:47 PM
Then that punishment should be excersized against murderous parents. Not innocent ones.
In modern times, the laws that were intended to deal with the criminally minded are now being applied nilly willy to everyone.


So how do you determine who is innocent and who is a criminal just using this as an excuse? The law has to apply equally to everyone, at least until we find a reliable means of mind-reading.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 08:57 PM
So how do you determine who is innocent and who is a criminal just using this as an excuse? The law has to apply equally to everyone, at least until we find a reliable means of mind-reading.

What part of detectives investigating the nature of the event did you not understand?
The blanket coverage, by HenrikOlsens post, says that all people either are guilty, or will be guilty in the future.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 09:07 PM
What part of detectives investigating the nature of the event did you not understand?
The blanket coverage, by HenrikOlsens post, says that all people either are guilty, or will be guilty in the future.

Non-telepathic detectives, yes. Fallible as anyone else.

And I disagree about your... interesting interpretation of HenrikOlsen's statement, why don't you ask him if that's what he actually meant?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 09:46 PM
Non-telepathic detectives, yes. Fallible as anyone else.

And I disagree about your... interesting interpretation of HenrikOlsen's statement, why don't you ask him if that's what he actually meant?

My interpretation of HenrikOlsen's post was that in punishing the lady, it discourages would be harm doers. A ridiculous notion at best.
However, I doubt I misinterpreted it. He said it pretty clearly and I was pretty clear too.

So frankly, I don't care if you disagree. It seems to be your nature to follow after my posts disagreeing with them.

Detectives may be non telepathic- But it's the best we've got. It's a lot better than just punishing the already punished or going for 'pressume guilty.'

Noclevername- I have stated my case- as have you. HenrikOlsen is a grown man- I'm sure he can handle himself appropriately if he feels the need to respond to my rebuttle. So let him do it.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 09:54 PM
My interpretation of HenrikOlsen's post was that in punishing the lady, it discourages would be harm doers. A ridiculous notion at best. Well, if you think it's "ridiculuous" for some reason, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.



So frankly, I don't care if you disagree. It seems to be your nature to follow after my posts disagreeing with them.
It's my nature to respond to what I disagree with by disputing it. Not just you, O center of the Universe. ;)

Detectives may be non telepathic- But it's the best we've got.
True.

It's a lot better than just punishing the already punished or going for 'pressume guilty.'
It's part and parcel of, not better than or worse than. Investigation is a tool to be used to enforce laws, not a substitute for human judgement.

Noclevername- I have stated my case- as have you. HenrikOlsen is a grown man- I'm sure he can handle himself appropriately if he feels the need to respond to my rebuttle. So let him do it.
I will indeed, just as I will continue to add my own two cents to the discussion whenever I have something to say.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 09:59 PM
Well, you've added it. Plus a few bucks.
And I added mine: Blanket punishments are unjust, immoral and a sign of corruption.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 10:02 PM
Well, you've added it. Plus a few bucks.
And I added mine: Blanket punishments are unjust, immoral and a sign of corruption.

Is this a blanket punishment? I thought the discussion was about one specific case. I agree, in some cases an across-the-board mandatory sentence can be overkill. I don't know for sure if this is one of those cases, or that the punishment being called for here even fits that description.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-17, 10:12 PM
My blanket statement comes from a belief that all people has a choice when it comes to becoming guilty.
The chance of punishment for that choice will influence the decision, and if it results in fewer people who chose to become guilty, then it's a good thing.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 10:15 PM
My blanket statement comes from a belief that all people has a choice when it comes to becoming guilty.
The chance of punishment for that choice will influence the decision, and if it results in fewer people who chose to become guilty, then it's a good thing.

I'm not so sure, I think the publicity of the case... and the knowledge of what happened to the kid... might be more effective at making parents pay a little more attention and not leave their kids alone in bathtubs that any jail time tacked on.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 11:15 PM
Maybe. But then, most people probably already pay attention.

This woman didn't choose guilty or not- What happened was a tragic accident!

This woman didn't murder her child. She wasn't online showing off or talking to internet boyfriends.

The article describes her as trying to balance her attention among all the kids in the house and herself too. It seemed perfectly normal. Granted, you don't leave a child that young in the tub- albeit the child was not alone -

Hard lesson to learn, learned the hardest way...

Punishing this woman even further is extreme and preposterous. She just lost her baby for God's sakes. Have a heart.

Punishing her is certainly not detering other people from doing anything they either were already in the mind to do or are too stupid for it to make a difference anyway.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 11:20 PM
Punishing her is certainly not detering other people from doing anything they either were already in the mind to do or are too stupid for it to make a difference anyway.

That's an unknown factor, though. You can't make assumptions about the motivations and decisions of 6.5 billion total strangers, any more that I could. So maybe it does make a difference. Or maybe it doesn't. We don't know enough to start making absolute statements like that.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 11:22 PM
HenrikOlsen, if you think it is justifiable to torment a person and destroy their life- to make an example out of them- ask yourself this:

What if that person was you? What if a bit of human error on your part- A misjudgement, a mistake- resulted in tragedy? Would it be ok for me to amplify that tragedy? Jump in and rub salt in your wounds and make it worse- then say, "Look everyone! Look what happend to him!"

Perhaps I'm too compassionate- I don't know. But I would not do that to you. I would figure you were in enough pain without adding to it.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 11:24 PM
That's an unknown factor, though. You can't make assumptions about the motivations and decisions of 6.5 billion total strangers, any more that I could. So maybe it does make a difference. Or maybe it doesn't. We don't know enough to start making absolute statements like that.

Well buddy... You can't make assumptions that they are going to commit crimes either then.

It certainly speaks for my case- You cannot justify taking away her surviving kids, throwing her in jail for ten years etc then can you?

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 11:29 PM
Well buddy... You can't make assumptions that they are going to commit crimes either then.

It certainly speaks for my case- You cannot justify taking away her surviving kids, throwing her in jail for ten years etc then can you?

I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm saying that you can't argue that you know who's going to do what, as both you and HenrikOlsen are trying to do. Some may indeed be dissuaded by the sentencing more than by the direct consequences, I can't say for sure. And neither can either of you. You both made assertions about how it "will" or "won't" make difference to other people. All pure speculation.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 11:31 PM
I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm saying that you can't argue that you know who's going to do what, as both you and HenrikOlsen are trying to do. Some may indeed be dissuaded by the sentencing more than by the direct consequences, I can't say for sure. And neither can either of you.

Yes, exactly. She has lost a child in tragedy. Legal action is not required.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 11:36 PM
Yes, exactly.
...I wasn't agreeing with you. I don't know how you got that from "Some may indeed be dissuaded by the sentencing more than by the direct consequences." Let me clarify: You're both wrong. This is a pointless arguement of exaggerated straw men, with no real solution.

She has lost a child in tragedy. Legal action is not required.In your opinion.

It may or may not be "required". It's a subjective matter.
It's just not our call to make. We're just expressing opinions on a chat board, with no power to affect the outcome.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-17, 11:43 PM
...I wasn't agreeing with you. I don't know how you got that from "Some may indeed be dissuaded by the sentencing more than by the direct consequences."
In your opinion.

It may or may not be "required". It's a subjective matter.
It's just not our call to make. We're just expressing opinions on a chat board, with no power to affect the outcome.

I really don't care if you agree or not.

It isn't Opinion though.

To punish the punished is wrong. No matter how you look at it.

Opinions are irrelevent. We all have opinions. Opinions are what people make up to satisfy how they want things to be.

But there is right from wrong- regardless of opinions.

To punish the punished- as if this somehow deters people from doing wrong- Can you not see she has been punished? Do you think people are mindless, that they cannot see the pain - and avoid it on their own?

In discussing the disturbing trend in modern days to punish the punish, others can see this.Hopefully, in time, people will also learn right from wrong, and this trend can be reversed.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-18, 12:24 AM
You know, I do think the woman should have been punished. It's criminal neglect to leave an infant alone in the bath, and anyone with a lick of sense should know that drowning is a possibility.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 12:25 AM
It isn't Opinion though.

To punish the punished is wrong. No matter how you look at it.

Opinions are irrelevent. We all have opinions. Opinions are what people make up to satisfy how they want things to be.

But there is right from wrong- regardless of opinions.



It may be your opinion that this is so. Doesn't make it true. Each case is unique, each individual is unique, there are always unique circumstances, there are no absolutes.

And since there are no ways to make your belief and mine compatible, I'll say nothing more on the subject.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 12:29 AM
Bold Mine:

You know, I do think the woman should have been punished. It's criminal neglect to leave an infant alone in the bath, and anyone with a lick of sense should know that drowning is a possibility.

Well, I have great news for you then. You will be thrilled to know.


She was.

Her child will never look up at her and call her "Mommy" again.
Because she's dead.
[Line removed for being out of line]

ETA: What were you saying about empathy?:think: :doh:

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 12:36 AM
I hope this bit of news brings a satisfied smile to your face.


That's low. You have no call to say something so rude and petty.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 12:37 AM
That's low. You have no call to say something so rude and petty.

Sure drives home the reality though.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 12:38 AM
Sure drives home the reality though.

Brattiness and ad homs drive home nothing but your own lack of self-control.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 12:54 AM
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=266976
Ok, how's this for satisfaction then?
$20,000 bail and supervised visitation with her kids only.

The article fails to mention that she went to check on the other two children and incidently checked online for the shoes while she was at it.

They are trying to make an example out of this person - even though they admit that it was not criminal intent nor neglect- but an error in judgement.

The child was not alone, she was monitering four children, tragedy struck.

And to be heartless about it- totally cruel and take everything else away- for what?
To say that it will deter criminally minded people?!
NONSENSE!
That it will warn other people to not leave kids alone in a tub?
NONSENSE!

The prosecutor wants another nice fat conviction under his belt- while being hailed as a hero for children- locking away naughty parents.

For you folks hailing the prosecutors here- Let me ask you:
Do you ever screw up? Not use your best judgement? Have you ever changed lanes on the freeway and almost hit someone?
How many near misses and close calls have you had in your life when you made a dumb mistake?
But because tragedy didn't strike- because you got out of it lucky - You want to point the finger and condemn others.
Just because you Got Away with it? Do we need to hire a team of law enforcment officers to go around investigating Near Misses that could have happened in order to prevent accidents in the future?
Shameful. Seriously. Sit there and feel ashamed of yourself for a moment.

And if you think I'm resorting to ad homs or brattiness Noclevername- It's called a reality check. Real life. You know. That stuff we all have to go through. No dreamer ideology is going to save you. That's reality.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 12:59 AM
And if you think I'm resorting to ad homs or brattiness Noclevername- It's called a reality check. Real life. You know. That stuff we all have to go through. No dreamer ideology is going to save you. That's reality.

No, it's uncalled for visciousness over a difference of opinion. You owe Gillian an apology. No tragedy to someone else excuses you acting in such a way to her.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 01:03 AM
No, it's uncalled for visciousness over a difference of opinion. You owe Gillian an apology. No tragedy to someone else excuses you acting in such a way to her.

Uncalled for visciousness is trying to punish the punished.

And every apology I ever made to Gillianren went unacknowledged with a Haughty flare as she looked down her nose at me.

The tragedy does not excuse the prosecution of making an example out of a person. That is immoral, corrupt and outright wrong. Reality Checks are a harsh thing.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 01:06 AM
Uncalled for visciousness is trying to punish the punished.

And every apology I ever made to Gillianren went unacknowledged with a Haughty flare as she looked down her nose at me.



Neverfly, for someone who says so vehemently that you believe in absolute right and wrong, why are you acting so wrongly?

Stop, take a moment, and calm down. Gillian has done nothing to harm or punish anyone. She is expressing an opinion, nothing more. You are taking this too personally.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 01:13 AM
Neverfly, for someone who says so vehemently that you believe in absolute right and wrong, why are you acting so wrongly?

Stop, take a moment, and calm down. Gillian has done nothing to harm or punish anyone. She is expressing an opinion, nothing more. You are taking this too personally.

Because the mentality that makes it "ok" to add tragedy to tragedy disturbs me greatly.

And I'm not going to keep my mouth shut. I will speak out against it.

While we are sitting here talking about it- Someone is suffering. You are not suffering that persons fate. It's so easy to point the finger and condemn- as long as it is not you in that position right?
Most people don't Listen until you whack 'em upside the head and make them see the reality of it.

ETA: This case is as wrong as wrong can get.
Taking a position that supports this government nanny- only encourages it to continue. The more people that think this way- the more lives are going to get ruined- destroyed while the crowd shouts in supportive encouragement. It's all good- until it happens to you.

Tog
2007-Nov-18, 01:32 AM
Neverfly, I'm also of the opinion that your are letting this get to you. Some stuff you seem to be overlooking include the definition of Manslaughter (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m013.htm):

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

From the article you linked:

"We are making no allegations that this was intentional conduct in any respect other than it was an intentional decision for her to leave this child alone, unattended in a bathtub while she went downstairs for a significant period of time," Backstrom said.

"We are alleging that is a major mistake in judgment."

A mistake which cause the death of an 11 month old baby. Yes, it's tragic, and yes, the woman is probably going to suffer with this the rest of her life, but where do you draw the line?

Would she be more or less responsible for the death if she'd been playing an online game, or taking a home study test to get an online degree? What excuse for leaving an 11 month old in a tub with a 2.5 year old to supervise would be acceptable?

She hasn't been convicted, let alone sentenced. And maybe, just maybe, the investigation did reveal factors that were not included in the news report that might apply a bit. We have a total of two news stories to go on. Did you see the bit in the first story about the woman taking out a restraining order on her mother? Or her mother saying that she feared for the kids'? Maybe there is something more to it all.

As for the charge itself, how could they NOT have filed? She made a choice to spend more than a minute (could be 10 to 20) away from a tub of water with a baby in it. And yes, people do dumb stuff all the time. When that dumb stuff results in the death of another person you get things like manslaughter, and negligent homicide.

Whether or not she's been punished enough will probably be a factor in the punishment phase of the trial, and that requires a conviction. She may get convicted and end up in counseling, or having a social worker stopping by from time to time. She may get a suspended sentence for several years. She may go to prison. Until it's decided, there is no cause to speak of "punishing the punished" as if it has already happened.

In any event, not filing charges could set a precedent in other gray area cases where it probably should happen. The police don't get to make that choice. The DA does. The DA doesn't get to set the punishment, the judge does. Charged does not equal convicted, and convicted does not equal sentenced.

I'm off for the night so I won't be able to see any response to this until very late.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 01:42 AM
A big part of whether or not severe charges are filed or punishment is more- is whether or not the story hits the news. This one has.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 01:55 AM
Because the mentality that makes it "ok" to add tragedy to tragedy disturbs me greatly.

And I'm not going to keep my mouth shut. I will speak out against it.



None of which excuses a personal attack. You can speak out without being hateful about it.
No one's asking you to "keep your mouth shut" about your beliefs. Just to keep a civil tongue in it.

I see the line was removed. Thank you, that was the right thing to do. And an apology to Gillian will make it complete.

EDIT: And please leave the case out of it, I already pointed out that I'm through discussing the rights or wrongs of the case. Just the rights and wrongs of a civilized discussion.

Tobin Dax
2007-Nov-18, 02:22 AM
I've not read the article, so this is just going on information in the posts above (of which I've skipped the last few).

Neverfly, as a parent, justify to me that leaving a one-year-old child alone in the bathtub to go look for shoes online is not stupid and negligent, but just a "dumb mistake."

Before you say again that she was checking on the other kids, she also went online, by your own admission. (That was not incidental, that was negligent.)

Yes, she now doesn't get to raise the rest of her kids, but she has put something trivial above the well-being of one in a potentially dangerous situation. Should she be allowed to do so to her other children as well?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 07:58 AM
I've not read the article, so this is just going on information in the posts above (of which I've skipped the last few).

Neverfly, as a parent, justify to me that leaving a one-year-old child alone in the bathtub to go look for shoes online is not stupid and negligent, but just a "dumb mistake."

Before you say again that she was checking on the other kids, she also went online, by your own admission. (That was not incidental, that was negligent.)

Yes, she now doesn't get to raise the rest of her kids, but she has put something trivial above the well-being of one in a potentially dangerous situation. Should she be allowed to do so to her other children as well?

OK so by your own admission, you haven't read the article-You admit you don't know anything really about the case - You admit you skipped posts...
Yet you are going to voice an opinion?

Brilliant!

I'll answer your question anyway...
It was a Dumb thing to do- Yes.
It was.
And it ended in tragedy.

It is similar to the same mistakes we all- yes all- including you my human friend, make every day.
How often do you get under a vehicle that is on a scissor jack instead of proper jack stands?
Ever been driving with your kids in the car- and you were playing with the radio and didn't have your eyes on the road? Or eating a hamburger? Or looking at your cell phone?
Don't bother answering the specific question- Just think about it. You are just as guilty. We all are.
What if the car ahead of you slammed on its brakes- but you are so busy with your stupid cell phone- That you rear end the person on the freeway. What if someone dies?
But it didn't happen. You got away with it.
You may get away with it a thousand times. Then again- it could happen.
We ALL do it. Admit it to yourself at least. Think about it...
Fortunately it Rarely ends in tragedy.

But for you to be just as guilty as this person in this specific case- maybe not with a tub involved but all the other things we all do and point your finger in self rightiousness and condemn this person is wrong? You know the truth as well as I do.

If I took a national poll- anonomous poll- Im willing to bet that the majority of parents have left their kids unattended in the tub for a few minutes. Sent a text message while driving with their kids in the car. Since tragedy hasn't yet happened, we get dumb and take dumb chances.

Hers died.

So we all get to point the finger in smug self exhaultation and smug self rightiousness? Prosecute and add tragedy to tragedy? Isn't the agony of your childs death enough torment? No, I guess not. Let's really sock it to her! Make an example out of her- Which was my original rebuttel to HenrikOlsen - to deter other people? From what? HenrikOlses referred to criminal intent. That wasn't even the case here. Even if you exclude that, what about the cars and cell phones and ten million other things? - just tragedies waiting to happen.

There is another thread- where everyone is laughing about the toy safety concerns that exist these days. They are all talking about how they played with much more dangerous toys as kids. They are mocking the ridiculousness of the Toy Safety concerns that exist now. Read that thread- it's the same thing really.
Go to all the people that posted in that thread- and tell them that their parents were negligent. Tell them that their parents should have been prosecuted for negligence and them and their siblings should have been put in nice, safe, cozy foster care. Or group homes. I was in foster care and a group home after I was eleven. It was no picnic.
The whole reason that thread exists is because of the hyper-active paranoia like this case.


Look, I agree she was negligent. I agree it was a tragedy for her and her family.
I do not agree that further punishment is needed. She will suffer that loss for the rest of her life.
As a parent- I know.

Now, I have had a moderator warn me for my responses in this thread.

However, I also think it's equally important for each one of the posters here, Tobin Dax, Tog, Noclevername and Gillianren to also step up and recocgnize what exactly they are doing.
I may not be good with words or always express myself in the 'proper, nice' way...
All I know how to do is just come out and say it. You are being hypocrites. You are pointing the finger in self rightiousness- Simply because you have managed to (luck) not have had this kind of tragedy occur to you. I hope it never does, but if it should- maybe if you learn something from my vehement post, you will know that we all need to watch ourselves- everyday. Because we are all guilty of this one.

The drunk parents handing their keys to the kid- in this thread- YES that is stupid- YES that deserves legal action. Most likely those kids don't belong with those parents. But clumping all cases together is wrong. This woman wasn't drunk, she did what almost all parents do, whether it be a cell phone, hamburger, playing with "dangerous toys' and rough housing or some other stupid risk.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 01:14 PM
Taking a moment to chill out- Without retracting from my argument One Bit...

I did get carried away and went too far in earlier posts.

I got angry about it for two reasons:
1.)I pity the woman. Her childs death is on her own hands.The punishment has already been served...
The problem is that we are supposed to set the law out on the people that create victims- Not the victims themselves...

Pity the poor fool, don't prosecute.

2.)Because when we frivilously prosecute anyone that messes up- anyone that has created their own punishment- we can all fall prey to Double Jeopardy.

This does not justify me saying harsh things. But I think It does demonstrate why I so strongly react to where we try to draw the line.

Tog
2007-Nov-18, 01:40 PM
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but there is no hypocrisy on my part. I'm not saying this woman should be punished further, I'm saying that not charging her with the crime would be wrong. You may not see it as such, but there is a difference.

Let's say I'm driving down the road one night and some kid on a skateboard pops out from behind a van, right in front of me. There is no time for me to react, and I hit him. That's a tragic accident, but it's just that, an accident. No charges would be filed.

Now, if I were doing something in the car like talking on the phone, or trying to balance a drink in my lap, and had time to stop before I hit the kid, I would probably be charged with negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter. And I should be. I did something stupid and someone dies because of it.

How about it if I go out drinking, then run over my own kid when I get home? Would I have suffered enough to not get arrested for DUI and vehicular homicide? I chose to drive drunk, and someone died.

How is it hypocritical for the formula bad choice+death= charged with a crime to be applied to all cases where it happens. To me it seems far more hypocritical to say that the law should not apply to one person in one special situation. What if this woman was a teen and the child that dies was her little sister? What if the child was a niece? What if the child was actually the neighbor's and the woman was sitting while they went out? At what point do we draw the line and just say, "You know what, that okay we'll just pretend an infant left in your care didn't die because you did something stupid"? How close of a relationship does there need to be for that to be a valid reason for not charging the person? Blood relative? Legal guardian?

One last thing. I'd like to say that if the articles actually tell the whole story, and if there is nothing else going on that didn't make it into those articles, then I don't think she should be convicted in any way that results in her losing her kids, or spending time in jail. If the events in the articles really tell the whole story, then I would agree that she has suffered enough, and that any punishment handed down by the legal system couldn't be worse than what she's having to endure. That said, the charges should still apply.

Donnie B.
2007-Nov-18, 04:42 PM
I'm just going to jump in here to point out that some contributors to this thread (well, one) seem to be confused about who the victim is in this case. Hint: it's not the mother who let the baby drown.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-18, 07:38 PM
HenrikOlsen, if you think it is justifiable to torment a person and destroy their life- to make an example out of them- ask yourself this:

What if that person was you? What if a bit of human error on your part- A misjudgement, a mistake- resulted in tragedy? Would it be ok for me to amplify that tragedy? Jump in and rub salt in your wounds and make it worse- then say, "Look everyone! Look what happend to him!"

Perhaps I'm too compassionate- I don't know. But I would not do that to you. I would figure you were in enough pain without adding to it.
To me, excusing something because it's "human error" boils down to "I could have done that, let's not punish him for something I could just as easily have done, because that would mean I should be punished for being stupid."

Newsflash. I don't agree. If I did something as negligent as that, I think it right that I be punished. I probably wouldn't like being punished for it, but it would be right that I was.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 08:10 PM
I did get carried away and went too far in earlier posts.

I got angry...
<Snip>

This does not justify me saying harsh things.

These are the only parts that I'm responding to. Glad you said it, NF.


For my part, I'm sorry I added to the situation instead of stepping back. I know I could have done better.

Tobin Dax
2007-Nov-18, 09:41 PM
Just in case anyone missed this post earlier, here it is again.

I'm just going to jump in here to point out that some contributors to this thread (well, one) seem to be confused about who the victim is in this case. Hint: it's not the mother who let the baby drown.
It deserves to be repeated.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 10:32 PM
To me, excusing something because it's "human error" boils down to "I could have done that, let's not punish him for something I could just as easily have done, because that would mean I should be punished for being stupid."

Newsflash. I don't agree. If I did something as negligent as that, I think it right that I be punished. I probably wouldn't like being punished for it, but it would be right that I was.

what part of 'Her Child Died' does not seem like punishment to you?

Are you a parent?
Do you not understand? Does this not strike you as very severe punishment?

It is not being "excused."
The child is dead. Slamming the mother, who is also a victim in this, will not bring that child back.
Oftentimes no further action is needed.
You originally said that you thought it would deter others, now your statement has changed to - you want her punished. I assure you- She has been punished. Severely.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 10:35 PM
Just in case anyone missed this post earlier, here it is again.

It deserves to be repeated.

And I will repeat that the child is not the only victim.

It must be nice to be able to discount a persons tragedy just for the satisfaction of thinking you could punish them.
(again.)


The death of a child must be a light hearted matter to some of you. I guess you think she hasn't suffered enough with the loss and guilt and self inflicted suffering, lets twist our knives and really drive it home.

My point is that you want her punished- She already has been. I really do not understand the cruelty in trying to draw more out of it.

It is an act of honor to consider a paid debt to be paid- Not to try to milk further payment out of a settled debt.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 10:44 PM
The death of a child must be a light hearted matter to some of you.
See, now, that's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Don't start throwing things like that around, just because someone disagrees with you. It does not make anyone more likely to take your argument seriously if you're going to call them monsters everytime you don't like what they express.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 10:46 PM
I'm not saying this lady was not wrong.

I'm not saying she shouldn't pay a price.

The problem is that the very wrongness has paid the price- Never again will her child breathe, cry, laugh...

The price paid was very severe. She has been already punished. The debt is more than paid.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 10:50 PM
See, now, that's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Don't start throwing things like that around, just because someone disagrees with you. It does not make anyone more likely to take your argument seriously if you're going to call them monsters everytime you don't like what they express.

Well, a bunch of you sure seem to be forgetting it. Call it a reminder.

It isn't because you disagree- It is because you are wrong.

You don't like being wrong? Tough. Guess what. People get wrong sometimes.

That mother got wrong. Now her child is gone, dead, deceaced. Her punishment has already been dished out.

If you think losing a child, your flesh and blood, your pride and joy is not severe enough punishment - then I said that to remind you.

I'm outta this thread. The cruelty's expressed by the self rightious are driving me nuts.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 10:54 PM
No matter what the source of your anger, still, try not to resort to making negative assertions about people on this board. This isn't a place for hateful messages.

And there will be plenty of times in life that people will say far worse things to your face than "I disagree". Do you respond the same way to them?

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 10:57 PM
It isn't because you disagree- It is because you are wrong.

I am not one of "you", because I already stopped discussing the case. At the moment, the only action I'm addressing is what's being said right here.

You can say someone's wrong without accusing them of cruely or sadism. You can disagree without accusation.

You need to stop resorting to emotion.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 10:57 PM
No matter what the source of your anger, still, try not to resort to making negative assertions about people on this board. This isn't a place for hateful messages.

And there will be plenty of times in life that people will say far worse things to your face than "I disagree". Do you respond the same way to them?

I AM trying. But how far can you go and still be nice?

It's not a nice topic.

That woman was wrong too. And someone died.

It must be nice to be wrong and not have someone die...

But in this case, that same wrongness is killing the mother over and over again- it's double, maybe triple jeopardy.

I'm not discounting what she did- I'm saying it was punished already.

I'm not saying let drunk drivers go- that it was a dumb mistake- NO, they knew the consequences already. They have not yet been punished. Comparing the two is apples to oranges.

I'm not saying negligence is ok- I'm saying that sometimes the crime punishes itself. To take it further is cruelty.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 10:59 PM
I am not one of "you", because I already stopped discussing the case. At the moment, the only action I'm addressing is what's being said right here.

You can say someone's wrong without accusing them of cruely or sadism. You can disagree without accusation.

You need to stop resorting to emotion.

Sometimes people need to hear it.

What I have said is also quite logical.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-18, 11:01 PM
Sometimes people need to hear it.

What I have said is also quite logical.

What you have said is emotional invective. No one needs to hear insults.

This isn't about the case, it's about behaving like a civilized human being. I don't care if they said it's okay to eat people, AD HOMS ARE WRONG. Period.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-18, 11:06 PM
What you have said is emotional invective. No one needs to hear insults.

This isn't about the case, it's about behaving like a civilized human being. I don't care if they said it's okay to eat people, AD HOMS ARE WRONG. Period.

Well, if you are not going to discuss the thread- take the rest to PM then.

In the meantime, I seem to be unable to discuss this case in the manner that you want me to.

I'm trying to let the posts stand for themselves and get OUT of the thread now. All statements have been made- All points have been clarified.

I'm not going to learn your method of 'perfect debate' today...

And I'm certainly not going to change my mind one bit on this issue...

So stop replying to my posts in this thread and let me stay out of it before I'm granted forced vacation.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 01:36 AM
Leaving your infant alone in the bath while you shoe-shop online is hardly an innocent activity. Anyone with an ounce of sense should know that dire consequences are possible. I'm sure the woman is grieving, but I have to admit, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her, because she should have known not to do that. I was told to take responsibility for my own actions; the responsibilty for this act of negligence is to suffer legal consequences.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 02:15 AM
In the meantime, I seem to be unable to discuss this case in the manner that you want me to.

It's also the way that BAUT Forum rules want you to.

2. Civility and Decorum

Politeness is the top rule here. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! Thatís fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be nice.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.


This will also be my last post on this thread.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-19, 02:21 AM
And every apology I ever made to Gillianren went unacknowledged with a Haughty flare as she looked down her nose at me.


Oh? I certainly remember an acknowledgment when she took you off her ignore list after hearing about your apology. I doubt I would have been as forgiving under the circumstances. As for attitude, I'm reminded of a line about not throwing stones . . . .

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-19, 02:35 AM
Maybe. But then, most people probably already pay attention.

This woman didn't choose guilty or not- What happened was a tragic accident!

This woman didn't murder her child. She wasn't online showing off or talking to internet boyfriends.


At the very least, it was extreme negligence. However, from the article, it is not clear that it was just an accident. Her mother stated she had concerns about her daughter's state of mind. From the article:

"Last November, I [the mother] called Dakota County ... and said I am so scared for those children because my daughter is suffering from postpartum depression," Koberoski told the newspaper. "I still do not know the details. It is so sad. I loved that child so much. I love my daughter."

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 02:35 AM
OK, Neverfly has informed me by PM that he's taking some time off from this thread to chill out. I recommend we all do the same.

End transmission.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-19, 03:07 AM
Leaving your infant alone in the bath while you shoe-shop online is hardly an innocent activity. Anyone with an ounce of sense should know that dire consequences are possible. I'm sure the woman is grieving, but I have to admit, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her, because she should have known not to do that. I was told to take responsibility for my own actions; the responsibilty for this act of negligence is to suffer legal consequences.

Yes, I ran into the same attitude with the kid that killed my nephew. There were two people killed and one other person badly injured because a kid who was supposed to be a designated driver had been drinking and drove at high speed while others were screaming at him to slow down. After the fact, there were comments of the sort that this poor young fellow surely felt very bad about what he had done, and he shouldn't have his life disrupted with further punishment for something he already felt badly about. It wasn't a "deliberate" killing, they said, just an "accident." Sound familiar?

As it turns out, he had a history of similar behavior, and it finally caught up with him. He also received a much longer sentence for the injury than the two deaths (which still mystifies me).

Now, it's possible that in this case this was a completely exceptional event. No doubt she will have a defense, and it may well turn out that they decide not to put her in prison. At the other end of the scale, there might be some strong hints that it wasn't an accident at all, but this is as much as prosecution thinks they can prove.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 09:42 AM
Probably my last flame out post for BAUT.


Leaving your infant alone in the bath while you shoe-shop online is hardly an innocent activity. Anyone with an ounce of sense should know that dire consequences are possible. I'm sure the woman is grieving, but I have to admit, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her, because she should have known not to do that. I was told to take responsibility for my own actions; the responsibilty for this act of negligence is to suffer legal consequences.

And I was given quite a speech about 'empathy.' Something you have never shown me. Ever.
Meanwhile- the report says she went to check on the other two children and could hear the kids in the tub.
I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense never takes their eyes off the road or hands off the wheel while driving. EVER. They always check their blind spot too when switching lanes too.
And if they don't?
Prosecute! Punish them! Punish Punish! Take away all their kids! Excessive bail! Lock 'em up for a decade!

Whatever!
Can you see why I have an attitude? This overwhelming support for the nanny is extremely dangerous to society.

I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense would also abide by the Safety Regulations on Modern toys.

If any of you post in that Safe Toy thread in favor of the line of reasoning over there- I will never stop laughing at you.

Oh? I certainly remember an acknowledgment when she took you off her ignore list after hearing about your apology. I doubt I would have been as forgiving under the circumstances.

Read the post again. There was no acknowledgement to the apology whatsoever. Instead she added further insult claiming that it was against her better judgement and her therapists advice.
I had to literally calm myself down and just let it go before I posted a flame out at that one.
Then I couldn't help but laugh at it.

As for attitude, I'm reminded of a line about not throwing stones . . . ..
Would that be "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"
Because that completely supports the case I made.



Yes, I ran into the same attitude with the kid that killed my nephew. There were two people killed and one other person badly injured because a kid who was supposed to be a designated driver had been drinking and drove at high speed while others were screaming at him to slow down. After the fact, there were comments of the sort that this poor young fellow surely felt very bad about what he had done, and he shouldn't have his life disrupted with further punishment for something he already felt badly about. It wasn't a "deliberate" killing, they said, just an "accident." Sound familiar?
In this case you describe- I agree that legal action is required. He drove drunk.
He wasn't checking a missed call on a cell phone. He wasn't distracted by a spilled drink suddenly. He drove drunk. Apples and oranges.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 10:00 AM
Ya know...


Outta idle curiosity...

How do people behave with their kids at SWIMMING POOLS!?!?

Go to the neighborhood Pool and Check it out sometime. A lot of the kids Go there alone even!

Tog
2007-Nov-19, 10:19 AM
Meanwhile- the report says she went to check on the other two children and could hear the kids in the tub.
I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense never takes their eyes off the road or hands off the wheel while driving. EVER. They always check their blind spot too when switching lanes too.
And if they don't?
Prosecute! Punish them! Punish Punish! Take away all their kids! Excessive bail! Lock 'em up for a decade!

And if they don't check their blind spot and run over a guy a motorcycle, let em go, right? they didn't mean it and they probably feel really bad about it. All of these other examples you pull out seem to always leave out that one small matter. A person died because of this.

I've done some stupid stuff, but I never hurt or killed anyone doing it. When I see something like this, it makes me think that maybe the next time I'm going to do something stupid, i should think about it from a slightly different view.

20 minutes. She left the kids in the tub for 10-20 minutes. Where were her other kids that it took her that long to check on them? If it were really that important that she shop for shoes, or she was so pressed for time that there was no other time to do it, have the 10 year old sit in the bathroom with the kids for a few minutes. Would a 2.5 year old and a 1 year old even know how to wash themselves? You never did answer some of the questions I asked in an earlier post about this, but I attributed that to you taking some time off to cool down a bit.

So, just so we're clear on where you stand on this, if a person does something stupid and irresponsible and accidentally kills a kid, it's okay as long at was their own kid right? Does this extend to all blood relatives? How about if her kid had died at a day care under the exact same circumstances?

What was her sentence again? I missed it in those articles.

What if the news articled didn't actually relate the full story? What if the investigators arrived to find that all 4 kids shared one room while the two other rooms were full of shoes? Would that change things at all?

In the end, what it comes down to is that she put a kid in a situation that caused that kid to die. The DA found enough cause to move forward with manslaughter charges. If the jury agrees to convict, the judge will impose a sentence. Whose kid it was shouldn't make a lick of difference in the charging of the crime. It might make a big difference in the outcome of the case and the verdict, if any.

One other thing that struck me when I first read the story. She was quoted as saying it was her fault and that she'd had a really bad year. The way it came across to me was a very self centered statement about how bad this was for her, not her daughter. This may come off as very unsympathetic, but the truth of the matter is, I do feel badly for this woman, but not as badly as I do for her kids.

You may not agree, that's your right. You have your own opinion on the matter. I don't agree with it, but it's yours, and from your point of view it's correct. Just as from my point of view, mine is correct. Our two views will probably never be the same on this matter, so there is probably no sense in trying to change the other persons. What I do object to, is calling those who have a different view "wrong" or a hypocrite. They are opinions, and as such can't be "wrong".

Tog
2007-Nov-19, 10:27 AM
Ya know...


Outta idle curiosity...

How do people behave with their kids at SWIMMING POOLS!?!?

Go to the neighborhood Pool and Check it out sometime. A lot of the kids Go there alone even!
Again, this is different. A kid that wanders into a pool on their own is a different matter than a parent putting a baby in the water then leaving.

You can't keep a kid from getting into trouble now and then. You can keep from placing that kid directly in a hazardous situation and walking away.

If I were to see a woman toss an infant into a pool and walk away, you better believe there would be police involvement.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-19, 11:52 AM
Read the post again. There was no acknowledgement to the apology whatsoever. Instead she added further insult claiming that it was against her better judgement and her therapists advice.
I had to literally calm myself down and just let it go before I posted a flame out at that one.


You might want to consider what she felt when she read the post you were presumably apologizing for. I'll try to explain this one time (if you don't get it after this, you never will). After the offending post, I thought her response of putting you on "ignore" was very reasonable. I was surprised she took you back off: Apology or not, it didn't change the reason she had put you on "ignore." When she said she did so against advice I am quite sure she meant it. That she did so despite her better judgment indicates she is more forgiving than I would be. If it makes you angry that she told you these things, think about what it says about you.

Now, when I say something highly offensive, I don't expect that the aggrieved party should be thrilled just because I apologize, and I do expect that an apology will need to be followed up with a change in behavior. If I were to continue with the same habits, that would indicate it was an empty apology.

My bet is that you won't really get the point of any of this, and will simply want to argue it. But, I'm hoping you'll surprise me and try a bit of behavior change.

Whirlpool
2007-Nov-19, 12:06 PM
You might want to consider what she felt when she read the post you were presumably apologizing for. I'll try to explain this one time (if you don't get it after this, you never will). After the offending post, I thought her response of putting you on "ignore" was very reasonable. I was surprised she took you back off: Apology or not, it didn't change the reason she had put you on "ignore." When she said she did so against advice I am quite sure she meant it. That she did so despite her better judgment indicates she is more forgiving than I would be. If it makes you angry that she told you these things, think about what it says about you.

Just to comment Van Rijn.

I read the apology posts of Neverfly after the exchange of posts with Gillianren. It is indeed offending on both sides, because both sides were hurt.
It's not because Gillianren has illness and Neverfly isn't , that he can't get hurt too. All of the last posts on that thread were all full of hurts coming from people who have hurtful pasts in their lives.

Please don't bring that up again , Van.

Apologies given or not , acknowledged or not , still both parties made their efforts .

Let's leave it to that .

Please.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-19, 12:15 PM
In this case you describe- I agree that legal action is required. He drove drunk.
He wasn't checking a missed call on a cell phone. He wasn't distracted by a spilled drink suddenly. He drove drunk. Apples and oranges.

Drunk driving isn't negligent behavior? Driving fast when people are yelling at you to slow down isn't negligent behavior? Wow. That's sure news to me. I'm not interested in detailing this case (there is a lot more), but I want to make it very clear that negligence was a large and well acknowledged factor.

In the case of this woman, there clearly was negligence. Whether it is sufficient for a conviction, and if so the extent of the punishment depend on the facts of the case. All we have to go by are a couple of news articles, so there is no doubt we have very limited information on the case.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 12:15 PM
You may not agree, that's your right. You have your own opinion on the matter. I don't agree with it, but it's yours, and from your point of view it's correct. Just as from my point of view, mine is correct. Our two views will probably never be the same on this matter, so there is probably no sense in trying to change the other persons. What I do object to, is calling those who have a different view "wrong" or a hypocrite. They are opinions, and as such can't be "wrong".

Opinions are irrelevent. Do you have an opinion about what color blue is?
There IS such a thing as right and wrong and just because two people don't agree doesn't mean that opinions are relevent. They aren't. Someone- is wrong.


Again, this is different. A kid that wanders into a pool on their own is a different matter than a parent putting a baby in the water then leaving.

You can't keep a kid from getting into trouble now and then. You can keep from placing that kid directly in a hazardous situation and walking away.

If I were to see a woman toss an infant into a pool and walk away, you better believe there would be police involvement.

I didn't say 'wanders.'
Either parents let them go to the pool - or parents take them to the pool. Do you think they are hovering over them staring at them every single second the kid is in the water?
No, they are not.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Neverfly
In this case you describe- I agree that legal action is required. He drove drunk.
He wasn't checking a missed call on a cell phone. He wasn't distracted by a spilled drink suddenly. He drove drunk. Apples and oranges.

Drunk driving isn't negligent behavior? Driving fast when people are yelling at you to slow down isn't negligent behavior? Wow. That's sure news to me. I'm not interested in detailing this case (there is a lot more), but I want to make it very clear that negligence was a large and well acknowledged factor.
(snip)

Are you intentionally warping my words into the exact opposite of what I said - OR did you just not read the post at all?:neutral:

ETA: I'm reading your response and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It is like if I asked what color the sky is and you said that chimpanzees fling poo.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-19, 12:21 PM
Please don't bring that up again , Van.


I have no interest in attempting any further explanations on that, as I thought I made clear in my post. However, I do want to point out that Neverfly brought it into this thread, here:

http://www.bautforum.com/1115402-post165.html

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 12:25 PM
You might want to consider what she felt when she read the post you were presumably apologizing for. I'll try to explain this one time (if you don't get it after this, you never will). After the offending post, I thought her response of putting you on "ignore" was very reasonable. I was surprised she took you back off: Apology or not, it didn't change the reason she had put you on "ignore." When she said she did so against advice I am quite sure she meant it. That she did so despite her better judgment indicates she is more forgiving than I would be. If it makes you angry that she told you these things, think about what it says about you.

Now, when I say something highly offensive, I don't expect that the aggrieved party should be thrilled just because I apologize, and I do expect that an apology will need to be followed up with a change in behavior. If I were to continue with the same habits, that would indicate it was an empty apology.

My bet is that you won't really get the point of any of this, and will simply want to argue it. But, I'm hoping you'll surprise me and try a bit of behavior change.

I'm not as argumentative as you think.
In all reality- I prefer not to argue.

But in a heated debate- stopping and thinking clearly isn't always easy either.
Here you make a good point. And I'll think about it.

I've got people PM'ing me on yahoo now over this thread and instead of taking some much needed time to take off and let it relax- I can't seem to get away from it.

It isn't easy to calm down when we all post here attacking eachother.

Let me be very clear about something.

I may not behave in the "prescribed manner" or the same as some of you do.
But just because a person says an insult etc in a 'nice way' shielding their own bad behavior doesn't make them Ok either.

There is a LOT of bad behavior on BAUT from the 'nice and polite' people too.

I'm not the only one that needs to consider his behavior here...
Not by a long shot.

Let me stay off BAUT for a while and let my head clear out. If I need to keep coming back and defending myself- I'll end up banned and this thread- which overall is a very good thread- may even end up closed off it's putting off too much heat.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-19, 12:30 PM
Are you intentionally warping my words into the exact opposite of what I said - OR did you just not read the post at all?:neutral:

Try explaining what I got wrong. I've reread your post, and I don't see the issue. I had previously made clear that negligence was a large factor, but you appeared to just brush that off with the "drunk" bit, and declaring these to be "apples and oranges." They both involve negligence. Do you disagree? In both cases, someone died. Do you disagree?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 12:38 PM
Try explaining what I got wrong. I've reread your post, and I don't see the issue. I had previously made clear that negligence was a large factor, but you appeared to just brush that off with the "drunk" bit, and declaring these to be "apples and oranges." They both involve negligence. Do you disagree? In both cases, someone died. Do you disagree?

Read my post where I quoted it. Ok? I'm not going to hold your hand.
I said the drunk was negligent and you said that I said he wasn't.

I also pointed out where negligence can occur without force of will.

A drunk driver KNOWS he's wrong from the moment it all begins.

But what about the thousands upon thousands of things you and I and everyone else do all the time- the 'negligent behavior'?

Picking your nose while driving.

Sipping hot coffee while driving. What happens if you spill it and burn your lap and lose control of the vehicle? Can you be prosecuted for burning your crotch and causing an accident?

Looking at your cell while driving.

Not following all safety precuations when working under your vehicle in your garage.
I'm ASC cert- I am willing to bet that you don't follow them all. Shall I list them all in order?

Ever climb a ladder on your house without an OSHA approved safety harness?

While on the roof- are you wearing Non Skid- specially approved boots for walking on a shingled slant?


But in alllll these times- no one dies. The accident didn't happen. The odds are against it. So you get used to it. You don't really think about it. It kinda escapes your brain that an accident may be about to happen. But since MOST of the time you get away with it- since MOST of the time no one dies- It's ok?
It's ok you are negligent too?
It's ok that you can get away with it?

By the arguments you guys are giving- EVERY LAST PERSON ON EARTH would need to be prosecuted- for negligence. Everyone. All of us. Not one person on the planet is innocent of it. Not one.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 12:48 PM
Mistakes have consequences.
That is the nature of life.

Sometimes- Not always- But sometimes these consequences don't cover the mistake.

Like a drunk driver killing someone. For these cases- Prosecution is necessary.

But a lot of the time too, the consequences for a mistake punish and teach- so prosecution is not necessary.

If I date a cheating , lying manipulative girl- Can I prosecute her for a broken heart?
Nope.
But the mistake in dating her- had a consequence- and teaches me how to choose my dates more appropriately.

If you carelessly swing a hammer and hit your thumb- were you negligent?
Can I prosecute you for it?

I think a judge would throw it out- Guessing that after that first strike of the hammer- you probably learned your lesson.

When we justify- when we make it "ok" to prosecute willy nilly anybody for whatever- simply because "YES they Were Wrong"- We endanger society itself.
This is a threat. A big threat. It breeds corruption. It breeds frivilous prosectution. It breeds fear.

THAT is why I'm reacting so strongly here.

Tog
2007-Nov-19, 01:16 PM
Opinions are irrelevent. Do you have an opinion about what color blue is?
Color can be quantified. Light at a given wavelength is assigned the name of "blue", so most people will have a general idea of what blue is, even if we don't all see it as the same shade.
What we are talking about here is the interpretation of the law as it applies to these events. There is very little room for absolutes.


There IS such a thing as right and wrong and just because two people don't agree doesn't mean that opinions are relevent. They aren't. Someone- is wrong. I agree there is such a thing as right and wrong. What I don't agree with is that you are in any position to dictate to anyone other than your self and maybe your kids what constitutes either. That's sort of why there are trials by the way. To have a system that can, as impartially as possible, set common guides for the interpretation of the laws, so that the personal opinions don't result in something bad happening.

A few posts back I posted the definition of manslaughter and asked you how this case was different from that definition.

A few posts back I asked for the second time what type of relationship should be required for being legal excused for killing your own kid. Since you seem to feel that your opinion is the only one that can possibly be right, I'm still curious to see just what that opinion might be.




I didn't say 'wanders.'
Either parents let them go to the pool - or parents take them to the pool. Do you think they are hovering over them staring at them every single second the kid is in the water?
No, they are not.
Maybe I misunderstand your scenario then. In your example, a parent drops off a toddler at a public pool, with no one around, and leaves?

If a parent takes a kid to a public pool then leaves the kid unattended, then yes, it's wrong. Child endangerment comes to mind there.

Or are you saying that a parent takes a kid old enough to know about water, and fails to keep an eye on them while other people are around? To me, those are quite different.

Which one more closely applies to leaving a baby in a bathtub for 20 minutes?

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 07:23 PM
Neverfly, it was against medical advice, and I was very hesitant about removing you from my ignore list. However, in doing so, that was me accepting your apology. I'm sorry if you don't like the manner in which I did it; I don't like that you're still posting in the way that made me put you on my ignore list in the first place.

For heaven's sake, though, this was an infant. How many people have you seen leave infants alone in public pools? I started being left alone in a pool after I'd had extensive swimming lessons, but never before then. At the pool I attended, if anyone left any kid under perhaps four unattended, that person got a serious talking-to from the lifeguard. That, therefore, is a different situation from leaving an eleven-month-old baby alone in a bathtub for ten to twenty minutes.

korjik
2007-Nov-19, 08:48 PM
Mistakes have consequences.
That is the nature of life.

Sometimes- Not always- But sometimes these consequences don't cover the mistake.

Like a drunk driver killing someone. For these cases- Prosecution is necessary.

This is illegal. The definition of manslaughter was posted in this thread already. To paraphrase, it is illegal to put another in a situation that kills them.


But a lot of the time too, the consequences for a mistake punish and teach- so prosecution is not necessary.

If I date a cheating , lying manipulative girl- Can I prosecute her for a broken heart?
Nope.
But the mistake in dating her- had a consequence- and teaches me how to choose my dates more appropriately.

Last I checked, it is not illegal to lie and cheat or be manipulative as long as there is no other crime involved. How do you prosecute something which is not a crime?


If you carelessly swing a hammer and hit your thumb- were you negligent?
Can I prosecute you for it?

I think a judge would throw it out- Guessing that after that first strike of the hammer- you probably learned your lesson.

I dont think there are any laws against hitting yourself with a hammer. So what exactly is there to prosecute?


When we justify- when we make it "ok" to prosecute willy nilly anybody for whatever- simply because "YES they Were Wrong"- We endanger society itself.
This is a threat. A big threat. It breeds corruption. It breeds frivilous prosectution. It breeds fear.

THAT is why I'm reacting so strongly here.

You are completely missing the point that the legal system is about laws, not right or wrong. She is getting prosecuted for causing a death. Which is illegal. That is all the law looks at. The fact that the death was her child is not considered. This is not frivolity, but the way the law is supposed to be applied. If it goes that far, a jury of her peers will make a determination that in their opinion, her actions were or were not the direct cause of the death of another person. It is not until this point that the fact that it was her child becomes important. It is not until this point that the punishment is determined. A trial is not a punishment, but the determination as to wether punishment is needed. It may not be a nice thing to go through, but it is needed if we are going to live in a society ruled by laws.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-19, 10:11 PM
Gillianren, yes- It was an infant.

Looking at my own son, I asked myself last night- Could I have left him alone in the tub at that age?
I couldn't. Not a chance. In fact at that age I didn't bathe him in the tub. I bathed him in the sink! I even had bought one of those plastic infant tubs where they lay with their head raised. He didn't like it though and neither did I. Hard to wash a babies back when they are laying on it.
He's four now and he still doesn't get left alone in the tub.

Since he was about two, I've never left him alone in the tub for more than 3 seconds before rushing back. I always had his toy's, soap and towel ready so I wouldn't have to leave. I never really actually thought about it before. It's like it was automatic.

All this time, I have been equating what she did with the simple mistakes we all make. From almost hitting someone changing lanes (I've done it twice in my life and it scared the heck outta me- I checked my blind spot even- Afterward I couldn't figure out where the guy came from!) to sending a text message from my cell phone while driving.
I've climbed ladders in some precarious ways...

I've been under plenty of vehicles without a proper jackstand.

I've driven with hot chocolate in my lap.

So why didn't I ever leave my son alone in the tub?

While working today, I chatted idly with one of my customers about her kids. Small talk, you know, talked about dangerous toys and how kids have a tendancy to get bumps and bruises when you aren't looking. And I was thinking about 'simple mistakes.'

Some mistakes aren't quite that simple. I never left mine alone in the tub. Why didn't I?

Ok.
Now the hard part.

I was wrong. I still don't agree with the full extent of the prosecution- but I was wrong.

Leaving an infant alone in a tub - is a bit beyond looking at your cell phone while driving. I've made some dumb mistakes in my life. But it was automatic that I never left my son alone in the tub.

Tog, You are right. There is some difficulty in quantifying right from wrong. But I believe right and wrong exists. That is exactly why I hash it out. So it can be quantified. Someone was wrong - and it was me.

Now the even harder part.
Why have I been so adamant?
Taking that moment to reflect on that I have no personal experience of leaving my own son ( Or for that matter- when I watched other peoples kids- I never let them play in the pool at all and I watched them like a hawk) I asked why was it so important?
Remembering what my own mother did- she didn't just leave me alone- she held me under.
And I think the lizard part of my brain that accepted that part and decided to forgive her for just being sick- wanted to equate that. That I just want to forgive. For me- personally - I think this thread helped me overcome yet one more obstacle of 'letting go.'

Ok, so I'm not good at agreeing to disagree.
I'm not very good at following proper debate.
I'm not too quick to accept that there is such a thing as an opinion. There is only what is real and true.
I don't let go of a disagreement easily because I want to know that real truth.

It isn't fun.
But it can be productive if one side or the other can learn something about it.
Sometimes things just gotta be hashed out. And I have a very hard head. I had a moderator put a hammer to it - the warning did not go unheeded and I stopped myself from posting a lot of what I wanted to - several people PM me, but in the end- I just had to bull forward until I got the answer.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 10:22 PM
It's never easy to acknowledge when one is wrong, and it takes a lot of strength to do so openly. Congratulations, Neverfly; that took a lot of courage, and I really admire it.

Do, however, remember that she hasn't been prosecuted yet. However, that being said, it is legally manslaughter. You're right; it should be unthinking that you don't leave your eleven-month-old alone in a bathtub. You're right; you shouldn't be bathing your eleven-month-old in a bathtub in the first place. And it is, I think, much worse to go shoe-shopping online when your infant is alone in a bathtub than to do anything else brought up as a parallel other than drunk driving, and that only because drunk driving might kill more than one person. Sending a text message while you're driving doesn't take very long--it is stupid and dangerous, but it doesn't take very long, and there's nowhere near as great a likelihood that you'll hurt someone than there is when you leave an infant alone in a dangerous situation for ten or twenty minutes.

If it had been a minute or two while she looked out the door to see what the older kids were up to, that would engender pity on my part. But shoe-shopping? That's inexcusable. I can't even except the argument that it was the only time she had; surely finishing the infant's bath and lying it down in its crib has to happen either way, as--as has been pointed out--the infant assuredly cannot bathe itself.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 12:09 AM
Neverfly, I'm glad you were able to come to that conclusion. Even gladder that you were able to admit it, especially to those who you fought so hard against. It gives me some hope, to know that sometimes there's a way to find argreements even in the hardest fought arguments.

And searching for the truth is a goal I can definitely relate to. It's hard to admit, but sometimes I've also been prone to do what was done here; to hold onto a position so hard that I felt like everyone was against me, which made me hang on harder (does that make any sense?). But you should never stop searching for the truth, just remember that sometimes, the truth isn't what you expect it to be. And sometimes the truth isn't simple. So it can sometimes be a good idea to listen to those with other viewpoints, they might have something to say after all! Or not, of course.

Donnie B.
2007-Nov-20, 12:32 AM
Remembering what my own mother did- she didn't just leave me alone- she held me under.
Neverfly, did you mean this literally? Your mother held you under water?

If so, and it's a true memory, I can certainly understand why this discussion touched a nerve with you. It sounds like you had some serious challenges in your early life. Those things tend to sink in deep.

I hope you have, or will, find some peace with those memories.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by Neverfly
Remembering what my own mother did- she didn't just leave me alone- she held me under. Whoah, I completely missed that part. Man, no wonder you were so angry about this story!

Damn, I don't know what to say.
I hope you can find a way to make peace with that memory.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-20, 01:02 AM
Ok, now this is really embarrassing...

Yes, I had mentioned it in a couple other threads too.
I was just thinking - what was it about mothers, tubs and drowning kids would cause a strong reaction?
It doesn't tie in very well- but maybe I'm just trying to forgive my own.
I thought I had- years ago- But now I'm wondering if maybe I haven't completed it yet.

I thought I was worked up because anyone can make a dumb mistake and if we all get prosecuted over it- what a terrible world this would be.

But I had to step back and analyze myself first before I started thinking I was a loony nutjob.

Ok, so a simple apology or a post saying I was wrong would have seemed very shallow- without an explanation.



Originally posted by Noclevername:
Neverfly, I'm glad you were able to come to that conclusion. Even gladder that you were able to admit it, especially to those who you fought so hard against. It gives me some hope, to know that sometimes there's a way to find argreements even in the hardest fought arguments.
That is exactly why I hash it out. I'm not always going to subjectively analyze myself and other people aren't either. But just agreeing to disgree doesn't solve anything; it just avoids conflict.

Originally posted by Noclevername:
And searching for the truth is a goal I can definitely relate to. It's hard to admit, but sometimes I've also been prone to do what was done here; to hold onto a position so hard that I felt like everyone was against me, which made me hang on harder (does that make any sense?). But you should never stop searching for the truth, just remember that sometimes, the truth isn't what you expect it to be. And sometimes the truth isn't simple. So it can sometimes be a good idea to listen to those with other viewpoints, they might have something to say after all! Or not, of course.

It makes sense. And sometimes the popular view is still wrong too. You have to fight it harder. Sometimes we are just stubborn. Sometimes we are right. You just gotta get through it if you're gonna figure it out.

But yeah, this post was a bit of wisdom on your part.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 01:09 AM
Sometimes we are just stubborn. Sometimes we are right. You just gotta get through it if you're gonna figure it out.

But yeah, this post was a bit of wisdom on your part.

Thanks. It's never easy, is it?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-20, 02:07 AM
Thanks. It's never easy, is it?

Bite me.

Tog
2007-Nov-20, 07:53 AM
Wow. I had a feeling that there was something personal going on with you on this, but if I'd known what it was I would have chosen a different set of examples in my posts. I sincerely hope that you work though that.

As for the debate, I'm glad it's over. I had some concerns about moderator action coming into play, and while that is good thing for the forum and the thread in many cases, it isn't always best for the discussion.

I have always seen opinions as being very different from facts. A fact is a universal thing. It can't reasonably be argued. If you fall, you will fall "down", for example. By my definition, and opinion can never be a fact. Even if a billion people out of a billion and 1 have the same opinion about adding onions to a stew, it's still an opinion that it's the right thing to do, not a fact. Laws are opinions. They have to be. If everyone on earth had the exact same definition of right and wrong, enough to make it a fact, there would be no need for trials or interpretations. Everyone would just "know" if someone were guilty or not. I think that one of the strengths of the legal system, well juries, is that it forces people with different opinions to have to work together and hash out ides, much as we've done here.

For the future of this thread, I'd really like to see it run out of material for the original topic. Sad to say, I don't see that happening. So if must keep going, let's keep it going with something we can all agree on.

Neverfly, and anyone else that might have an interest in it really, there is a book called Aikido in Everyday Life (http://www.amazon.com/Aikido-Everyday-Life-Giving-Second/dp/1556431511/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195544187&sr=8-1) you should look into. Aikido is a martial art built on conflict resolution through harmony. The amazing thing about this style is that the principles can be applied in verbal, or even online conflicts just as well as they can in physical ones. It's the verbal conflict resolution that is the focus of the book. It's not very long, and you don't need to know anything about martial arts to follow it, but it's been very helpful to me. The basic premise is that in order to end the conflict, you use your opponent's argument to unbalance them. You do this by getting on their side and understanding their point of view. Once you see the situation from their side, you can either accept that they are correct, or you can use their point of view to lead them to that point where their argument falls back on itself. There are other times you should attack outright, but the book explains these, and even has little scenarios you can use to test yourself. I've only pulled it off twice, and both were in face to face discussions with irate customers, but when it works, it's like magic. They main thing stressed in the book though is to recognize that whatever view your opponent has is valid to them, and can't just be dismissed out of hand.

So, I'm all for letting this thread die until something new comes along. I'm also glad to see that everyone that started it got to finish.

Donnie B.
2007-Nov-20, 06:49 PM
I'm also glad to see that everyone that started it got to finish.
Hear, hear! Makes me proud to be a BAUTer, actually.

*pours oil on troubled waters*

*gets arrested for polluting*

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 07:33 PM
Bite me.

:confused:

Now what's wrong?

Doodler
2007-Nov-29, 04:49 AM
:sick:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/28/child.remains.ap/index.html

Just...wow...:mad:

Whirlpool
2007-Nov-29, 05:01 AM
Oh dear. My heart was broken again. <sigh>


But.. the bail is too big.
Is it really the amount appropriate for the case?

:sad:

Gillianren
2007-Nov-29, 05:29 AM
Oh dear. My heart was broken again. <sigh>


But.. the bail is too big.
Is it really the amount appropriate for the case?

:sad:

Yes. Once again, we've encountered people I'm not going to feel sorry for.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-29, 06:56 AM
Oh dear. My heart was broken again. <sigh>


But.. the bail is too big.
Is it really the amount appropriate for the case?

:sad:

After reading that? Easily, if not more. I wouldn't want to see them (or one of them) scare up a bail from a sympathetic relative and run off.

Tog
2007-Nov-29, 07:46 AM
But.. the bail is too big.
Is it really the amount appropriate for the case?

In the US, bail is set and if that amount is paid, the person gets out of jail until the trial. When they show up for the trial, the full amount is returned. Some places have a business call "bail bonds". The way they work is the family or friends will pay 10%, in this case $35,000 to the bail bond company, then the bond company puts up the full 350,000. If the person doesn't show up for trial, the bond company loses the full amount. This makes them angry and they often hire bounty hunters to find the person and return them to jail.

So, in this case, each person can get out of jail, and try to run, for the price of a standard full sized car.

Doodler
2007-Nov-29, 12:54 PM
Oh dear. My heart was broken again. <sigh>


But.. the bail is too big.
Is it really the amount appropriate for the case?

:sad:

Bail isn't necessarily a get out of jail free card. If the judge feels there's an imminent threat of violence from the accused, or a serious flight risk, he has the authority to impose sufficient bail to make those prospects unlikely.

On at least one live court case, I've watched a judge impose bail, have the DUI driver say, "no problem, I can cover that" only to have the judge go and triple it specifically to keep him in jail (the guy had a seriously expensive pet shark representing him, so the odds of "hard time" were slim).

Whirlpool
2007-Nov-30, 01:08 AM
Hmm.. so if the couple is so Rich and can afford to pay that kind of money , they can get away with what they've done and be free.

In my opinion , these case and other related cases that involves a death of a child .. shouldn't have bail. They need to be prosecuted and put to jail for life or face "death sentence".

Noclevername
2007-Nov-30, 01:13 AM
Hmm.. so if the couple is so Rich and can afford to pay that kind of money , they can get away with what they've done and be free.
If you consider being on the run from the police and bounty hunters the rest of your life "free". Skipping out on bail is a crime. Bail has nothing to do with the punishment for the crime.


In my opinion , these case and other related cases that involves a death of a child .. shouldn't have bail. They need to be prosecuted and put to jail for life or face "death sentence".

In some cases they don't have bail. But bail doesn't mean no prosecution or sentencing. Just whether they'll wait in jail or out of it before the case goes to trial. They still have to stand trial regardless.

Whirlpool
2007-Nov-30, 01:34 AM
If you consider being on the run from the police and bounty hunters the rest of your life "free". Skipping out on bail is a crime. Bail has nothing to do with the punishment for the crime.

What do you mean skipping out? What I'm saying is , if those people can afford of Paying the Bail , then after that they will be set free , right. So which means , they are out of jail , not by ecaping or skipping out but because they PAID the Bail.



In some cases they don't have bail. But bail doesn't mean no prosecution or sentencing. Just whether they'll wait in jail or out of it before the case goes to trial. They still have to stand trial regardless.

In what I understand of cases with bail , if the murderer paid the bail , he's free, Unless the family of the victim files charges, then the murderer faces trial.

:think:

Noclevername
2007-Nov-30, 01:38 AM
What do you mean skipping out? What I'm saying is , if those people can afford of Paying the Bail , then after that they will be set free , right. So which means , they are out of jail , not by ecaping or skipping out but because they PAID the Bail.




In what I understand of cases with bail , if the murderer paid the bail , he's free, Unless the family of the victim files charges, then the murderer faces trial.

:think:
They're not FREE. They're just allowed to be out of jail UNTIL THE TRIAL. And you can bet that in a high-profile case like this, the police will be keeping an extra eye on them until then to make sure they don't skip bail.

When the trial occurs, then the bail is no longer applicable. Any time they get after that is the real deal, no bail, no "but I left the water running at home", no nothing. Real, grownup prison.

EDIT: When a death is involved, no one needs to file charges.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Nov-30, 01:42 AM
In what I understand of cases with bail , if the murderer paid the bail , he's free, Unless the family of the victim files charges, then the murderer faces trial.

Maybe you should look up the word bail.

And in the case of a crime, society is the victim.
That's why we have public prosecutors.

Personally I think the bail system is a stupid idea.
Either someone is a threat-to-society/flight-risk, or they are not.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-30, 01:45 AM
Maybe you should look up the word bail.

Personally I think the bail system is a stupid idea.
Either someone is a threat-to-society/flight-risk, or they are not.

The usual argument is that there's just not enough jail space and cops to hold every single suspect just sitting around living off other people's taxes while waiting for a clear space on the court docket.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Nov-30, 01:51 AM
The usual argument is that there's just not enough jail space and cops to hold every single suspect just sitting around living off other people's taxes while waiting for a clear space on the court docket.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States#Population_statistics ):


The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population.

:doh:

You guys must be doing something wrong.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-30, 02:02 AM
You guys must be doing something wrong.

Wasn't me, I swear!

Maksutov
2007-Nov-30, 02:25 AM
[edit]You guys must be doing something wrong.Washint me, occifer!

Neverfly
2007-Nov-30, 11:09 AM
Let the punishment fit the crime...:whistle:

In the meantime- Sitting in jail until trial ensures that the person will make it to the trial.

Bailing out of jail isn't a bail out of sentencing- it is just not having to be held in jail while waiting to see the judge. Bail is not a payment. it is collaterall.

Essentially, you want your money back so you will show up to court.

SeanF
2007-Nov-30, 02:16 PM
You guys must be doing something wrong.
Maybe it's the rest of you who are doing something wrong. ;)

Doodler
2007-Nov-30, 07:04 PM
Hmm.. so if the couple is so Rich and can afford to pay that kind of money , they can get away with what they've done and be free.

In my opinion , these case and other related cases that involves a death of a child .. shouldn't have bail. They need to be prosecuted and put to jail for life or face "death sentence".

Remember that "innocent until proven guilty" thing. All the evidence in the case can point right to them without a shadow of a doubt, but until a judge slams the gavel down, punitive measures are completely out of line except where a clear and present danger to the community can be demonstrated.

Yeah, its sicker than heck that these people beat a girl to death, but unless someone can demonstrate that they're likely to off someone else in the interim, or will most certainly be a flight risk, then the law defines withholding bail completely to be unconstitutional.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-30, 07:43 PM
Hmm.. so if the couple is so Rich and can afford to pay that kind of money , they can get away with what they've done and be free.
It is my impression that bail is set depending on income, with the intent to make it possible for the accused to raise the amount so they don't take up jail space until they're actually found guilty, but it will hurt them too much to stay away from trial and forfeit the money.

Fazor
2007-Nov-30, 07:44 PM
Wow, I've missed a lot here. (Reminds me of my days at the firing range, but that's a different story. Sorry Sgt. Squarjaw, we wish you a speedy recovery).

I hate missing out on a criminal-justice-related debate :( Oh well, I don't want to re-ignite the thread. I guess I'll just take this space to state how that, even when emotions flare like in this thread, the result is the reason I love BAUT. It's people talking about many different sides of real issues, that so often go ignored (at least in my typical day-to-day conversations). No one is ever going to say something that everyone agrees with (everyone, feel free to agree with that just to prove me wrong ;)). But I find it refreshing when more than one side of a given topic is represented.

Fazor
2007-Nov-30, 08:02 PM
It is my impression that bail is set depending on income, with the intent to make it possible for the accused to raise the amount so they don't take up jail space until they're actually found guilty, but it will hurt them too much to stay away from trial and forfeit the money.

That's part of it, yes. Obviously, the seriousness of the charges and more or less likely a person is to flee from said charges is a factor. As a judge, I'd imagine you'd have to be carefull however. If you set a rediculously high bail for someone like, say, our favorite hotel heiress just because you know she is rich; then a crafty lawyer might have a shot at arguing his client is not recieving fair and impartial judgement.

IIRC, most non-murder related offenses have maximum limits for bail, but I could be mistaken.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-30, 08:57 PM
Wow, I've missed a lot here. (Reminds me of my days at the firing range, but that's a different story. Sorry Sgt. Squarjaw, we wish you a speedy recovery).

I hate missing out on a criminal-justice-related debate :( Oh well, I don't want to re-ignite the thread. I guess I'll just take this space to state how that, even when emotions flare like in this thread, the result is the reason I love BAUT. It's people talking about many different sides of real issues, that so often go ignored (at least in my typical day-to-day conversations). No one is ever going to say something that everyone agrees with (everyone, feel free to agree with that just to prove me wrong ;)). But I find it refreshing when more than one side of a given topic is represented.

I most vigorously, strenuously and vehemently disagree.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Dec-01, 06:24 AM
I most vigorously, strenuously and vehemently disagree.
But that's just wrong. :)

Noclevername
2007-Dec-01, 07:04 PM
I agree with your agreement to disagree!

(Wait, I'm confused...)

Neverfly
2007-Dec-01, 10:46 PM
I agree with your agreement to disagree!

(Wait, I'm confused...)

I disagree with your agreement to disagree.

Whirlpool
2007-Dec-03, 12:25 AM
Well, obviously all of you, guys, defined Bail well.

Thanks for enlightening.

filrabat
2007-Dec-03, 04:26 AM
I'm not saying let these frankly sick people go their merry way in the world. In fact, they SHOULD answer for their actions. For one thing, right after getting charged, the first thing the AG office ought to do is do brain scans on these people (with PET, MRI, EEG, or whatever). The findings can be used as evidence for either side.

If the abuser is able to know it's wrong, then he should be sentenced to the maximum allowed by law for such heinous treatment of children. If he clearly cannot see that burning those girl's wrists (from p 1 or 2) is wrong, then he should be confined to a mental institution.

Regardless, child abusers clearly have emotional, mental, psychological issues.