Special K Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Wow,.charging the mom with negligence is a bit much, dont you think.Every parent that has successfully raised a kid into adulthood has gotten lucky a number of times. Every parent makes some split second, dumb decisions, without even thinking about them, oblivious to the danger they expose their child to. And it is only by the grace of God that those decisions didnt end in catastrophe, not because they are such superior parents, so you can get off your high horse now. Ever answered your cell phone will driving with kids in the back? You're lucky, you could have killed your kid Ever decided to wait a day or two to see if your toddler's fever would go down before taking him to the doctor? You're lucky, that could have been meningitis and two days later would be two days too late. Ever hoisted your kid onto your shoulders so he could get a better view of something? You're lucky you didnt trip, else that could have ended badly for both of you Ever thrown a baby into the air and caught it, to get a giggle out of them? You're lucky you dont have Leonard Hankerson's hands. Ever let you kid play near a street, even a neighborhood street? You're lucky a drunk driver didnt come tearing along Ever let go of your childs hands for a millisecond while yo were near a street, maybe to fish something out of your wallet? You're lucky your kid didnt dashi into the streeet and get runover. Making a bad decision does not constitute negligence, and people who think that obviously have never seen true negligence. True negligence is forgetting to feed your kids days at a time. True negligence is showing a lack of basic care and total lack of love. NEGLIGENT PARENTS DONT BOTHER TAKING THEIR KIDS TO THE ZOO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! This is most likely a woman that loved her kid as much as anybody, and made a mistake. If you dont think youve ever made a mistake that put your kid in danger, then you are precisely the type of clueless moron that has probably put their kid in a 1000 bad situations but is not introspective enough or too retarded to ever realize it. You can stop judging now. Great examples Give me a break, comparing letting a child's hand go when walking across the street or answering your cell phone in traffic to PLACING A CHILD ON A LEDGE DIRECTLY ABOVE WILD DOGS is absurd. Your other examples are even dumber than the first few. The only ones you forgot to throw out there were "what if you're a parent who lets their child walk outside and he gets hit by a lightening bolt, or abducted by aliens?" Like it or not, there is a continuum on the negligence scale, with some things constituting negligence and child endangerment, while other things are stupid, but don't necessarily constitute a crime. Furthermore, some actions (like letting your child play outside when they could, gasp, potentially get hit by a drunk driver in that .000000000000000001% chance) are commonly recognized as UNrisky behaviors due to the statistical likelihood of a injurious or fatal result. Saying those of us saying charges should be considered are clueless morons is ridiculous. Negligence can occur EVEN WHEN a parent loves their child just as much as the next parent. For example, I know of a couple who had a toddler...loved their child very much. BUT, placed a loaded gun on a high shelf, toddler crawled up, retreived the gun, and accidently shot himself. The parents were devastated because they loved their child, but their supremely STUPID decision to keep a loaded gun in the house, unlocked, constitutes negligence. Michael Jackson acted in a negligent manner when he dangled his baby child over the hotel balcony for the paparazzi to photograph years back in Germany. Bottom line, there are ceratin actions that are universally recognized as stupid and negligent. In my opinion, placing your child on a ledge above a wild animal pit (whether holding on to the child or not) is negligent behavior. Just like placing your baby in a microwave because you love them and think they just need to be warmed up...is negligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Lol those analogies were pretty ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I understand we don't have full details (although the video reenactment if true disproves your argument) but come on do you really believe he lunged out of her arms? And even if he did he should not have been up there in the first place. I guarantee there were a bunch of signs saying do NOT stand, climb or pull yourself over the railing which is there for a reason. So you stay fully behind it. It's her fault even if the kid unlikely lunged. Again, when everyone was jumping to conclusions, I just thought it was a bit much. It looks like we're getting some more information in, which was all I asked people to do. But it's typical of people to form a lynch mob without knowing everything. Yes, it's her fault if she put him up on the rail. I just want you all to sit back and think for a minute how her state of mind is right now. I would not want to be her therapist after this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Again, when everyone was jumping to conclusions, I just thought it was a bit much. It looks like we're getting some more information in, which was all I asked people to do. But it's typical of people to form a lynch mob without knowing everything. Yes, it's her fault if she put him up on the rail. I just want you all to sit back and think for a minute how her state of mind is right now. I would not want to be her therapist after this. Quite true. Especially because the incident unfolded in front of her and there was nothing that could be done. The awful feeling of helplessness after a mistake you made must have been unbearable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Again, when everyone was jumping to conclusions, I just thought it was a bit much. It looks like we're getting some more information in, which was all I asked people to do. But it's typical of people to form a lynch mob without knowing everything. Yes, it's her fault if she put him up on the rail. I just want you all to sit back and think for a minute how her state of mind is right now. I would not want to be her therapist after this. Hey, you saw my earlier post saying there has to be a level of compassion for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Hey, you saw my earlier post saying there has to be a level of compassion for her. I did. I was speaking generally of the mood in here. Anyway, dude, we need hockey or the Redskins to win a game or something. I'm going out of my mind lately. I cannot, repeat, cannot count on the Wheezers (Wizards) to win anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I did. I was speaking generally of the mood in here. Anyway, dude, we need hockey or the Redskins to win a game or something. I'm going out of my mind lately. I cannot, repeat, cannot count on the Wheezers (Wizards) to win anything. The Wiz aren't even that fun to watch when they lose. It sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Pathetic parent 101. Put her up on charges, if that isn't negligent, I don't know what is. You put your child in danger for no reason at all...that's negligent. Period. However to address the endangered species point...that is because most people don't eat wild dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Pathetic parent 101. Put her up on charges, if that isn't negligent, I don't know what is. You put your child in danger for no reason at all...that's negligent. Period. However to address the endangered species point...that is because most people don't eat wild dogs. I disagree, dumb decisions are not legally the same as negligence. Youd have a better argument with child endangerment than negligence. If you have a friend that works for Child Protection Services or Social Services, youll quickly learn to distinguish between negligence and momentary stupidity, and thats what I dont think some in this thread are quite grasping. As I understand, negligence is, first of all, a pattern of behavior. If a child comes in, is physically weak and malnourished because the parents just dont bother feeding them, thats likely negligence. If a child lives in filthy conditions that expose him to disease, thats negligence. If a child is never bathed and wears the same clothes over and over, thats negligence. If a child is locked in a room for most of the day and given no human interaction, thats negligence. If a child is not put into school at the appropriate age and taken to school when legally required, thats negligence. As I said before, and I hope it sinks in this time, negligent parents dont take their child to the zoo in the first place. Because negligent parents are not loving parents, they are hardly parents at all. Child endangerment is probably what people are trying to get at. Child endangerment is when a parent makes a ridiculously bad decision that puts a child's life at risk. It speaks more to the parents intelligence and state-of-mind, than it does about their heart. Now, my examples earlier werent quite as bad as this woman's choice, but my point with that was to show that loving parents can make bad decisions. Sometimes really bad decisions. Brain cramps happen. Its quite likely that this parent made a bad decision, and mix in ignorance of how dangerous wild dogs are, and voila, you have a tragedy. I belabor this point, because IMO, negligent parents by defiintion, are not loving parents. They are truly the turds of the earth. OTOH, dumb people or otherwise relatively smart people can have brain cramps that lead to child endangerment. I tend to be a little more forgiving of these people, unless there is a pattern of child endangerment. But for one incident, no matter how tragic or how dumb, I dont feel the need to pile on to a loving parent who has already suffered the worst punishment possible for a loving parent. I dont feel a need to throw them in jail, or to take away their other kids automatically, I would rather wait for a social services investigation to determine whether or not a pattern of child endangerment can be established, before I toss this women into the same category as the true turds that are negligent parents. ---------- Post added November-7th-2012 at 04:48 PM ---------- Great examples Give me a break, comparing letting a child's hand go when walking across the street or answering your cell phone in traffic to PLACING A CHILD ON A LEDGE DIRECTLY ABOVE WILD DOGS is absurd. Your other examples are even dumber than the first few. The only ones you forgot to throw out there were "what if you're a parent who lets their child walk outside and he gets hit by a lightening bolt, or abducted by aliens?" Like it or not, there is a continuum on the negligence scale, with some things constituting negligence and child endangerment, while other things are stupid, but don't necessarily constitute a crime. Furthermore, some actions (like letting your child play outside when they could, gasp, potentially get hit by a drunk driver in that .000000000000000001% chance) are commonly recognized as UNrisky behaviors due to the statistical likelihood of a injurious or fatal result. Saying those of us saying charges should be considered are clueless morons is ridiculous. Negligence can occur EVEN WHEN a parent loves their child just as much as the next parent. For example, I know of a couple who had a toddler...loved their child very much. BUT, placed a loaded gun on a high shelf, toddler crawled up, retreived the gun, and accidently shot himself. The parents were devastated because they loved their child, but their supremely STUPID decision to keep a loaded gun in the house, unlocked, constitutes negligence. Michael Jackson acted in a negligent manner when he dangled his baby child over the hotel balcony for the paparazzi to photograph years back in Germany. Bottom line, there are ceratin actions that are universally recognized as stupid and negligent. In my opinion, placing your child on a ledge above a wild animal pit (whether holding on to the child or not) is negligent behavior. Just like placing your baby in a microwave because you love them and think they just need to be warmed up...is negligent. You are confusing child endangerment and negligence. Many jurisdictions do make this distinguishment, with different sentences, and for the sake of this discussion I have made this distinguishment, for the above reasons. If you disagree, and believe that this parent, probably guilty of child endangerment, should be considered for the same harsh penalties as neglectful and abusive parents, then go a head and argue that. But lets be clear what we are arguing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Good post Koala. Basically said everything that I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.