• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When morons breed...

Architect said:
In the case of the starved baby, however, the parents had weeks to consider and reflect on their action before things reached the point of no return. Yet they failed to do so. That is a different order of magnitude.
Click to expand...


I agree, Someone posted earlier that a relative expressed their concerns with the parents, we don't know the details of that conversation. I imagine that relative testified, and probably carried a lot of weight with the jury.
 
slingblade said:
And I would think, "How cruel to have to go to prison, when you've already lost a child--isn't that punishment enough for their stupidity?"
Click to expand...

They are not being punished for their stupidity. They are being punished for causing the death of someone who was in their care by not using a car seat as required by law.

It is bad enough that society had to make a law to get parents to protect their own children, now we want to excuse them for causing the death of those children?


However. They had 6 weeks to be stupid in, these parents. The baby suffered. He suffered every day. He was hungry. Someone should have to pay for that, and it shouldn't be pleasant. That's just my opinion, I know.
Click to expand...

But the parents who were tossed in jail for not using a child's seat had more than six weeks notice that this would be coming into law. They really aren't any different than a parent that starves their child to death in my view.
 
I think the posters point was that one might have a momentary lapse re: child seats, without the opportunity to reflect and reconsider, whereas the many weeks this poor child lived allowed plenty of time. But hell, ask him yourself.
 
Architect said:
I think the posters point was that one might have a momentary lapse re: child seats, without the opportunity to reflect and reconsider, whereas the many weeks this poor child lived allowed plenty of time. But hell, ask him yourself.
Click to expand...

I fully understand what the poster's point was. However, I think it is a moot point because failing to use a car seat is no more a one time lapse than failing to feed is.
 
Architect said:
With respect, you've deliberately misconstrued what he writes.

At one time, the importance of child seats was not properly realised. Hence an accident at that time did not give rise to claims of culpuable recklessness. However once it did become known, the whole situation changed. It is also an issue which is widely promoted by safety bodies on both sides of the Atlantic, so parents cannot readily claim ignorance.

Now his second point was that one might cause serious injury because of a brief lapse, or single error. In the case of the starved baby, however, the parents had weeks to consider and reflect on their action before things reached the point of no return. Yet they failed to do so. That is a different order of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, yeah.


(and it's "she," but no harm, no foul. :))
 
qayak said:
I fully understand what the poster's point was. However, I think it is a moot point because failing to use a car seat is no more a one time lapse than failing to feed is.
Click to expand...

Then, with the deepest respect, you fail to grasp the basic legal or moral issues behind culpable liability. The seat example may be a momentary lapse. There is no guarantee that the car will crash. It would be difficult to argue that the driver knew that a failure to use the seat would certainly result in death. On the other hand not feeding your child properly, over a period of not a few minutes but many weeks, will almost certainly result in death. In what bizarre planet is there any comparison between the two?
 
DanishDynamite said:
In their own minds they did the best thing they could.
Click to expand...
How do you know this?

One of the main problems with this discussion is the lack of information, as a court transcript is not available. There are inconsistencies in the judgement which make it dangerous to read too much into the facts we do have available. However, where do we have any evidence that, intheir own minds, the parents did the best they could?

Oh, and have you figured out yet which language "ya eedjit" is?

Rolfe.
 
Architect said:
With respect, you've deliberately misconstrued what he writes.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I am not a fan of the nanny state making it a criminal matter not to put your own kids into a car seat. Sorry, you overstate my objection.

Glad to see the improvement in tech that made carseats better. My wife and I used them. We also let the kids out of the straightjackets on long highway trips, reloading them as traffic density increased.

I don't need a law to tell me to take care of my kids, nor how, and I reject your premise that a law is necessary.

I tend to agree with you that better information is good, and better techniques are a good idea to adopt. Our insurance company made available to the members industry leading car seats, at a massive discount from the prices I could get elsewhere.

If you want something to happen, make it easy for it to happen.
A one time, the importance of child seats was not properly realised.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The seats are merely a tool. My parents made us wear seatbelts, and, this is the critical part, were the best defensive drivers I have ever met. THAT is how you avoid accidents and the maiming of your children: be a smarter driver.
In the case of the starved baby, however, the parents had weeks to consider and reflect on their action before things reached the point of no return. Yet they failed to do so. That is a different order of magnitude.
Click to expand...
Yes, they were stupid and lost their kid, just as people who let their kids play with poisonous snakes are stupid and may lose their kids.

DR
 
It looks like you can actually watch the trial at Court TV (with subscription), there is some additional info here.

It seems all of their children were below the lowest percentile in height and weight. They also gave the baby wheatgrass enemas. It is suggested a possible other ailment may have contributed to the child's death. But, given the child was not reaching any of the base level milestones, a doctor could have noted this and helped. While I have no problem with the vegan aspect, I have a huge problem with these kids not seeing doctors, being too short and light due to malnourhshment (The surviving kids have gained 20lbs and a foot in height, apparently, since being removed from the home). It is the overall neglect of the children's health that probably led to their conviction.

A doctor could have referred to a nutritionist to help them nourish their children properly while being vegans. But they didn't seek this basic care to make sure their kids were ok. That bothers me a lot, and I DO think it's criminal.
 
Miss Anthrope said:
It seems all of their children were below the lowest percentile in height and weight.
Click to expand...

Anyone who had children already would have known the warning signs of severe illness. Heavens knows what their excuse was...."well the others didn't die"
 
Miss Anthrope said:
It looks like you can actually watch the trial at Court TV (with subscription), there is some additional info here.
Click to expand...

That's a different case. This thread has been about Lamont Thomas and Jade Sanders.

You're linking to the Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn case who were found not guilty of aggravated manslaughter in the death of their 6 month old daughter. The infant weighed less than 7 pounds and was 22 inches long when she died. The couple were convicted however, of child neglect in regard to their other children.
 
Alt+F4 said:
That's a different case. This thread has been about Lamont Thomas and Jade Sanders.

You're linking to the Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn case who were found not guilty of aggravated manslaughter in the death of their 6 month old daughter. The infant weighed less than 7 pounds and was 22 inches long when she died. The couple were convicted however, of child neglect in regard to their other children.
Click to expand...

Ack, how completely boneheaded of me. Thanks for pointing it out, my apologies guys and gals!
:th:
 
slingblade said:
Just a quibble, but infants can't really make use of seatbelts. And they're less than useless on children below a certain weight and size.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
Gee, it is a wonder that I am alive. ;) See my remark on defensive driving as a method. It never goes out of style.

DR
 
In actual fact, infants and small children wearing seatbelts can be at particular risk because the straps sit at the wrong positions, leading to increased damage to the vital organs and to the neck. It is a criminal offence to so seat children in the UK.
 
That's why the car seat has to be the correct size. Heck, as a shortie, I have to make adjustments to ensure that the shoulder harness doesn't cross my neck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom