Parents Accidentally Killing Child - Left Them In The Car

[Avatar]

While I'm sure that the parents in this case feel terrible about the death of their child, there's no getting around the fact that the father let other things take precedence over being a father.

I agree with that, certainly.

Not all accidents are preventable...

Not so sure about that...if you did or didn't do something, the accident wouldn't have happened.

I don't see how jail is going to improve it or make it better though. Maybe if we were talking about a community service type of sentence, that would be different. But if putting people who forgot their kids in the car in jail prevented it from happening, why does it still happen?

--A

[sgt.null]

I don't see how jail is going to improve it or make it better though. Maybe if we were talking about a community service type of sentence, that would be different. But if putting people who forgot their kids in the car in jail prevented it from happening, why does it still happen?

--A

the same reason we have any crime. we are too soft hearted to do what needs to be done. you want people to stop leaving their kids in cars? minimum 40 year sentence (day for day) for anyone convicted of the crime. no exceptions.

you don't like it? too bad. and while we are at it. anyone who rapes a kid, makes child porn, does anything in this matter should get life. no exceptions. you kill and permanently damage a child during rape? death penalty.

that will change attitudes and actions.

[Rawedge Rim]

Man am I hearing a boat load of self rightousneous. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that each and every person here has come within a split second of having something occur do to inattention, distraction, weariness, one too many beers, etc., that could very well have lead to the death or serious injury to another.

Perhaps it was backing out of the driveway while buckling your seat belt and you barely missed running over a kid playing in the yard, or a jogger\biker. Or while changing the radio station in the car you began to veer into another lane. Maybe while getting ready for work you left a pot on the burner, or forget to unplug the iron, or left the dryer on. Maybe while crossing the street with your kid you didn't look both ways before setting foot into traffic. and I could go on and on.

There is a huge difference in " I got distracted and forgot", and "I didn't have any other choice but to leave my kid in the car while I went into the casino, or strip club, or work."

The first was unintentional, the second was deliberate.

Both should be investigated, to ensure that it wasn't deliberate, and wasn't a pattern.

[Fist and Faith]

I agree entirely with RR. (How often does that happen! Heh)

Also. Parents who love their children beyond all, who would die or suffer greatly to save their children, who would never even consider leaving their child in the car while doing X, Y, or Z, will not be one iota less likely to forget, as (presumably) the father did in this case, because of the threat of any punishment. How a parent who feels as he seems to have felt about his child could have forgotten for nine hours is literally beyond my understanding. How a parent could forget for a life-ending amount of time is more understandable, but even that is very rare. The stories we usually hear are almost always some fuck who never deserved to live themselves, much less have kids, leaving the kids in the car for four hours while getting a perm, or some such thing. But parents who feel about their kids as I do, and this guy seems to, aren't going to remember the kid because it's illegal not to if they don't just because they think of the kid a hundred times every hour. If I don't think, "I wonder how my baby is right now. OH MY GOD!! I LEFT HIM IN THE CAR!!!", what are the odds I'm going to think, "Am I doing anything illegal? Hmm... Well, yeah, I left the kid in the car. Better go get him out so I don't get in trouble."

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Man am I hearing a boat load of self rightousneous. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that each and every person here has come within a split second of having something occur do to inattention, distraction, weariness, one too many beers, etc., that could very well have lead to the death or serious injury to another.

Your presumption of self-righteousness on other people's part does not invalidate their argument: there is no excuse for forgetting a child in a hot car. None. Period. To say "I was so distracted with x" or "I thought I dropped them off" or anything else is a pathetic excuse designed to absolve guilt and culpability.

[Rawedge Rim]

Man am I hearing a boat load of self rightousneous. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that each and every person here has come within a split second of having something occur do to inattention, distraction, weariness, one too many beers, etc., that could very well have lead to the death or serious injury to another.

Your presumption of self-righteousness on other people's part does not invalidate their argument: there is no excuse for forgetting a child in a hot car. None. Period. To say "I was so distracted with x" or "I thought I dropped them off" or anything else is a pathetic excuse designed to absolve guilt and culpability.

Never said there was an excuse. There is a difference between "excuse" and "explanation". OTOH, the condemnation comes off as very self rightous, as if no one here ever could have something like that happen in thier lives, and frankly, only by the grace of God is that true. Hundreds of actions, or inactions are made by people everyday that could easily lead to the death or serious injury of a child or another person.

I just find that I have compassion for someone who faces something like this unintentionally.

For those who are purposely leave children in cars and run off, or allow them to play in dangerous areas without supervision just because they don't care enough to look after children, I have little to no sympathy.

[rdhopeca]

Man am I hearing a boat load of self rightousneous. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that each and every person here has come within a split second of having something occur do to inattention, distraction, weariness, one too many beers, etc., that could very well have lead to the death or serious injury to another.

Your presumption of self-righteousness on other people's part does not invalidate their argument: there is no excuse for forgetting a child in a hot car. None. Period. To say "I was so distracted with x" or "I thought I dropped them off" or anything else is a pathetic excuse designed to absolve guilt and culpability.

Never said there was an excuse. There is a difference between "excuse" and "explanation". OTOH, the condemnation comes off as very self rightous, as if no one here ever could have something like that happen in thier lives, and frankly, only by the grace of God is that true. Hundreds of actions, or inactions are made by people everyday that could easily lead to the death or serious injury of a child or another person.

I just find that I have compassion for someone who faces something like this unintentionally.

For those who are purposely leave children in cars and run off, or allow them to play in dangerous areas without supervision just because they don't care enough to look after children, I have little to no sympathy.

This is basically where I come from as well. If there's one iota that someone did this with intent and motive, then yeah hang em. But if an otherwise doting and loving parent forgets, truly, horribly, accidentally forgets, I have a lot of empathy for that person. It could happen to any one of us just as easily as it did to these people.

Again I come back to the purpose of prosecution. If it's to punish the parent and throw them in jail as a deterrent to others, in the scenarios we're talking about, it's ineffective. I've never forgotten my child anywhere but it could happen. Would you have the same feeling if you turned your back on your child for two seconds to answer a question, they ran out into the street, and got hit by a car, because you were momentarily distracted?

[Vraith]

One of the weird intersections that pop up I have to note when i see them...

I agree with RR...

I said up-thread...

EVERYONE pretty much constantly has things like this happen that DON'T result in death purely by chance.
Folk can say they don't all they want...
The evidence shows they're wrong....these lapses are ubiquitous, not rare, ignorant, irresponsible only luck keeps death from being the same.

[some ARE ignorant/irresponsible...that usually, not always, shows up as a pattern.]

[Fist and Faith]

Just because there is no excuse for an action/inaction that leads to tragedy does not necessarily mean that action/inaction is, or should be, a crime. Intent should play a role, imo. I might play football with my 10 year old son, and accidentally break his arm. I do not think I should be labeled a child abuser for that. Likely an idiot, and we could say the same about this father.

[Cail]

Ok, so let's say that dad comes home from his job as a cop, takes his heavy duty belt off and gets a phone call. He wanders away while he's on the phone (it's a work call, and he needed to get something out of his car). His 5 year old son finds dad's duty weapon and shoots himself in the head.

Dad is crushed and heartbroken, and cries when the police come.

Y'all are ok with not prosecuting this guy either, right?

[Rawedge Rim]

Ok, so let's say that dad comes home from his job as a cop, takes his heavy duty belt off and gets a phone call. He wanders away while he's on the phone (it's a work call, and he needed to get something out of his car). His 5 year old son finds dad's duty weapon and shoots himself in the head.

Dad is crushed and heartbroken, and cries when the police come.

Y'all are ok with not prosecuting this guy either, right?

absolutely correct.

OTOH, had he handed that same weapon to his 5 year old and said "Want to hold Daddy's gun" and 5 year old shoots himself, I might feel a bit different. Same end result, but now we have a bit more willful negligence.

[Holsety]

The more I see this story weighed back and forth the less I feel capable of arguing for the imposing of consequences (or lack thereof), though I do think the case obviously warrants interest. I lean more towards a kind of mental abstention.

[Orlion]

Ok, so let's say that dad comes home from his job as a cop, takes his heavy duty belt off and gets a phone call. He wanders away while he's on the phone (it's a work call, and he needed to get something out of his car). His 5 year old son finds dad's duty weapon and shoots himself in the head.

Dad is crushed and heartbroken, and cries when the police come.

Y'all are ok with not prosecuting this guy either, right?

absolutely correct.

OTOH, had he handed that same weapon to his 5 year old and said "Want to hold Daddy's gun" and 5 year old shoots himself, I might feel a bit different. Same end result, but now we have a bit more willful negligence.

Here is what I think: there's feeling empathy for someone and there's just the plain fact that in this case as in the case of the child left in the car, they should be prosecuted anyway. There are few things that I think an officer can say, "no harm no foul" when a law is broken. When death is the result, it should go before a jury. That's why I wanted Zimmerman to stand trial, and he was absolved... case closed (damn these puns). Same with these two cases: just because you go to trial does not mean that you will be found guilty. But in such a case as this, where death resulted, a trial there should be (at least a preliminary hearing, fergodssake!).

[Rawedge Rim]

Ok, so let's say that dad comes home from his job as a cop, takes his heavy duty belt off and gets a phone call. He wanders away while he's on the phone (it's a work call, and he needed to get something out of his car). His 5 year old son finds dad's duty weapon and shoots himself in the head.

Dad is crushed and heartbroken, and cries when the police come.

Y'all are ok with not prosecuting this guy either, right?

absolutely correct.

OTOH, had he handed that same weapon to his 5 year old and said "Want to hold Daddy's gun" and 5 year old shoots himself, I might feel a bit different. Same end result, but now we have a bit more willful negligence.

Here is what I think: there's feeling empathy for someone and there's just the plain fact that in this case as in the case of the child left in the car, they should be prosecuted anyway. There are few things that I think an officer can say, "no harm no foul" when a law is broken. When death is the result, it should go before a jury. That's why I wanted Zimmerman to stand trial, and he was absolved... case closed (damn these puns). Same with these two cases: just because you go to trial does not mean that you will be found guilty. But in such a case as this, where death resulted, a trial there should be (at least a preliminary hearing, fergodssake!).

Not too sure about prosecution, but I'm absolutely OK with an investigation to ensure that we aren't dealing with willful negligence, or possible murder.

[Fist and Faith]

Ok, so let's say that dad comes home from his job as a cop, takes his heavy duty belt off and gets a phone call. He wanders away while he's on the phone (it's a work call, and he needed to get something out of his car). His 5 year old son finds dad's duty weapon and shoots himself in the head.

Dad is crushed and heartbroken, and cries when the police come.

Y'all are ok with not prosecuting this guy either, right?

I'm not. "I have to put my gun away" should be the only thought he has after taking the gun off until the gun is away. Apparently, he has a more casual attitude toward it. Or, uncharacteristically, this one time, he thought "I'll take care of it after this phone call." Long term or just this once, it was a decision. A choice. It doesn't take two hands to answer the phone. The gun should have been in one hand. Or let the person leave a message. There's a child in the house, for God's sake. We've all heard the stories. He's a trained professional who carries a gun for a living.

The father in this thread's story did not choose to leave his baby in the car. There was no decision. At no time did he think it was ok. He didn't intend to, and he would have screamed in fear and run to the car as fast as he could if he had remembered at any point. Unlike the cop in your scenario (if we assume the best of the cop), he did not think, "I thought it would be ok this one time" or "I only intended it for a moment, then forgot." He did, indeed, forget, but he never had the wrong thought. Intent should matter.

[Cail]

Ok, so let's say that dad comes home from his job as a cop, takes his heavy duty belt off and gets a phone call. He wanders away while he's on the phone (it's a work call, and he needed to get something out of his car). His 5 year old son finds dad's duty weapon and shoots himself in the head.

Dad is crushed and heartbroken, and cries when the police come.

Y'all are ok with not prosecuting this guy either, right?

I'm not. "I have to put my gun away" should be the only thought he has after taking the gun off until the gun is away. Apparently, he has a more casual attitude toward it. Or, uncharacteristically, this one time, he thought "I'll take care of it after this phone call." Long term or just this once, it was a decision. A choice. It doesn't take two hands to answer the phone. The gun should have been in one hand. Or let the person leave a message. There's a child in the house, for God's sake. We've all heard the stories. He's a trained professional who carries a gun for a living.

The father in this thread's story did not choose to leave his baby in the car. There was no decision. At no time did he think it was ok. He didn't intend to, and he would have screamed in fear and run to the car as fast as he could if he had remembered at any point. Unlike the cop in your scenario (if we assume the best of the cop), he did not think, "I thought it would be ok this one time" or "I only intended it for a moment, then forgot." He did, indeed, forget, but he never had the wrong thought. Intent should matter.

Situational ethics. There's no difference in intent, as neither father wanted their kid dead.

[Fist and Faith]

That's true. However, one knowingly did something that has resulted in the deaths of many children, thinking it was worth the risk. The other did not intentionally take any risk. One played fast & loose with his son's life. The other did not.

[finn]

Same with these two cases: just because you go to trial does not mean that you will be found guilty. But in such a case as this, where death resulted, a trial there should be (at least a preliminary hearing, fergodssake!).

Agreed, I tried to make this point up thread. There are two things being weighed here, the action and the consequence. The action results in a child's death (or harm) and as such breaks the law. The consequence of that is a trial to establish the degree of guilt, mitigating circumstance, etc and come to a conclusion about the who was at fault and what the penalty should be. A trial needs a prosecutor and defender to argue the case otherwise its just a hearing or inquest; thus "prosecution".

However emotive the tragedy is, at some point the legal process has to be followed. I say again, you can't play as fast and loose with the law if its about a patent infringement or tax evasion...... the law has to be applied equally. It may well be that the jury or the judge decide that the case is proven, but the circumstances warrant compassion. However, a record of the incident and the verdict stands so that you don't get some sad but fundamentally dumb individual taking a job the following week in a crèche.

If people behave stupidly this is not an excuse when someone else gets harmed.... I really don't know where this notion comes from that because it was an accident the person causing that accident is not the responsible party. If Billy is horsing around and breaks a window, its down to Billy to be responsible for its repair. If Billy is a cop and leaves his weapon around a child, in spite of his training, anything done with that weapon is his responsibility. If someone leaves their kid in the car on a hot day to cook slowly, or for any kidknapper or paedophile to find, the death or harm is their responsibility............ claim it was an accident, sure. But the accident was as a result of what they did or didn't do and as such is their responsibility: as are the consequences. The intent is for the court to evaluate.

[Cail]

That's true. However, one knowingly did something that has resulted in the deaths of many children, thinking it was worth the risk. The other did not intentionally take any risk. One played fast & loose with his son's life. The other did not.

Ahhh, so now you know what he was thinking? Neither parent, given the information I've given you, did anything intentionally. You've refocused my question through the lens of your own biases.

[Fist and Faith]

That's true. However, one knowingly did something that has resulted in the deaths of many children, thinking it was worth the risk. The other did not intentionally take any risk. One played fast & loose with his son's life. The other did not.

Ahhh, so now you know what he was thinking? Neither parent, given the information I've given you, did anything intentionally. You've refocused my question through the lens of your own biases.

Ok, so let's say that dad comes home from his job as a cop, takes his heavy duty belt off and gets a phone call. He wanders away while he's on the phone (it's a work call, and he needed to get something out of his car). His 5 year old son finds dad's duty weapon and shoots himself in the head.

Dad is crushed and heartbroken, and cries when the police come.

Y'all are ok with not prosecuting this guy either, right?

1) Did the policeman father leave his police gun where his 5yo son could get it and shoot himself in the head with it?
2) If Yes to #1, did he leave it in that place accidentally? That is, was it some odd scenario like it accidentally slipped out of the holster and landed on a cushion, so he didn't hear it and didn't know it was no longer on his person?
3) If Yes to #1 and No to #2, we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the phone was near enough to the gun that answering it did not put the gun out of his sight. So the problem might only be the trip to the car. So did he need to get the thing out of his car within several seconds or someone would die? Or was there time to pick up his gun before going to the car?

Edited because it was late when I posted and I messed up a little.