| 11/10/2008 1:02:21 PM From: BCAR Well is his mother had practiced her rights under the law and aborted the kid we wouldn't have this nasty bit of business to contend with. |  |
 |
|
| 11/10/2008 1:11:04 PM From: Feckless Wench In the case of a child being neglected I think that a person should indeed have a case to asnwer, a child cannot protect itself. As for failing to help another adult in need, whereas it should be a thing that you just DO, I don't see how it could be held against you in law if you fail to help. |  |
|
|
| 11/10/2008 1:12:03 PM From: MrsK NO MORE ABORTION TALK!!! ARRRRRGH! I think that one should report abuse. I think that probation is a fitting pubishment. Had they given him hard time I might be screaming about this. When it pertains to a minor child, I think adults are responsible in some way to protect them - parent or not. They aren't able to defend themselves the way adults are. |  |
|
|
11/10/2008 1:16:46 PM From: Rani That is what I meant, I would never stand by for a minute and let a child be abused, after I read that again, it doesn't sound right as to what I meant...so clarification. There is a huge part of me that applauds that they held the brother, who knew what was happening but did nothing to stop it was brought up on charges too.
When it comes to kids, I think all the "adult" rules are off and one should have a legal complusion to act.
As long as it stays there. |  |
|
|
11/10/2008 1:20:52 PM From: mercury He saw it and did nothing to correct it; he IS guilty of neglect, IMO.
Kids, especially little ones, need someone to look out for them. |  |
|
|
| 11/10/2008 1:22:40 PM From: Peanuts Sure it should be a crime. The difference with the women drowning is the man might have felt stund or helpless. If the brother could see the deterioration of the child he should be tried with murder too. |  |
|
|
| 11/10/2008 1:25:32 PM From: BCAR Fact is there are laws on the books that have to do with aiding and abetting a felony. Active participation is not always required to be considered an accomplice. | |
|
|
| 11/10/2008 1:27:53 PM From: BCAR Seeing someone drowing is a whole different ball game that watching systematic child abuse happen. Case in point you drive someone to a place where that person kills someone, you saw it happen, you're an accessory to murder. This case is no different and no precident for new laws. | |
|
|
11/10/2008 1:30:06 PM From: Peanuts Qoute: Now if you don't act to save a life you can be charged with a crime....
This ones for you MK. Don't be helping with no abortions! | |
|
|
| 11/10/2008 1:39:46 PM From: mercury abortion is not a crime; moral implications, aside. | |
|
|
| 11/10/2008 1:42:42 PM From: eddo Frankly I am surprised that no one is going to jail for beating the ever loving crap outta these two... |  |
|
|
11/10/2008 1:44:00 PM From: Ali What if the guy couldn't swim?
Drowning is a touchy situation because if you do get involved in saving someone who is drowning, there is a good chance that you could also drown if you don't know the proper procedure in rescuing someone who is.
Personally I would try to save them.
Did anyone else think of that Phil Collins song while they read this or am I just a weirdo? |  |
|
|
| 11/10/2008 1:45:35 PM From: mercury you're a werdo, but not for thinking about Phil Collins while reading this :P | |
|
|
11/10/2008 5:57:56 PM From: Radman
BCAR.. "you're an accessory to murder"
Only if you didn't report it or if you didn't say anything when asked by law enforcement.
I know you meant that. It was just a little funny the way it was written.
|  |
|
|
11/10/2008 6:01:48 PM From: Radman What is interesting is..
In most jurisdictions an accessory cannot be tried before the principal is convicted.
Which makes sense because, there has to be a proven crime before you can be an accessory.
| |
|
|
11/10/2008 11:49:19 PM From: PapaBryant "This reminds me of a case many years ago that sparked a controversial debate where a man watched a woman drowning but did nothing to help her. The court back then stated, while one would feel a moral complusion to act in order to save a life, one was not compelled by law to do so.
I guess that is all changed now. Now if you don't act to save a life you can be charged with a crime."
Boy did you misread this one.
The premise is you don't have to try to save someone's life IF YOU MIGHT DIE IN THE PROCESS! The case you remember about the drowning woman was settled because her would-be savior couldn't swim.
The kid in this case could be saved, unless the brother wanted to say his sister would have killed him if he spoke up. Somehow I doubt that would happen. I hope they give that woman the chair. |  |
|
|
11/11/2008 4:26:25 AM From: timesjoke Only manslaughter for the torture and slow killing of a small child?
Probation for helping to enable the torture and slow killing of a small child?
Well we are certainly showing the signs of devaluing life in our "modern" society. Killing 1.2 million babies in the womb every year is showing it's result in the way even our courts respond to intentional murder of our young. This was not even the child's mother and still a woman killing a child is not really a big deal. The women's crime was not considered a big deal so her accomplice who helped to make this death possible was given a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.
No, I am not trying to make this an abortion discussion, but clearly things like abortion and the attitudes of certain kinds of killing of the innocent being acceptable can bleed over into our morals in other ways. Accepting bad morals leads to accepting other bad morals. Once you start making excuses, the trend will never stop.
In my opinion, this woman and her brother are guilty of felony murder. My State and many others have this charge and it says simply that if your "involved" the commission of a felonly (to include accomplices) and someone dies as a result of that felony, then you have committed felony murder. Torture and killing of a child is certainly a felony, the brother watched and enabled the actions, he could have taken the child himself and cared for him without calling the cops on his sister. The brother is directly involved and that child is dead because of the brother's direct actions to turn the other way.
Looking away "is" an action. |  |
|
|
11/11/2008 7:06:48 AM From: Rani Yes, he couldn't swim but he didn't call for help either. He just stood there and did nothing, not because he was scared or anything like that, he just did not want to get invovled. He could have thrown her a rope, all kinds of things to help her that did not endanger his life but didn't and that was what the controversy was all about.
I agree, when it comes to a child being abused one should step in and do something to stop it.
And I am not speaking of a situation where one has abetted or enabled the crime to take place.
What if I am in my own home and hear my neighbors arguing, I learn later one of the neighbors killed the other, does that mean I should face criminal charges because I ignored the fight? What if a child also got killed? Does that change my guilt status? | |
|
|
11/11/2008 7:18:07 AM From: timesjoke The guilt lies in the knowledge and being directly involved. Yelling does not mean killing, you do not know for sure.
The brother knew without doubt his sister was torturing this child, he could have stopped it himself or reported it.
The drowning person is not the same because as was already pointed out, this was a dangerious situation and he could not swim himself. His own fear of water could very well have frozen him from being able to act. | |
|
|
11/11/2008 8:10:58 AM From: Rani I understand the differences.
I am moving the picture beyond this incident and wondering what could we face in future cases where a witness of a crime can be prosecuted for witnessing the crime but do nothing to prevent it from happening.
What should they be and how come.
So far everyone agrees, if you witness a case of child abuse and do nothing to stop it, then you should face criminal charges.
Is that the only time a witness should take responsibilty for what they have witnessed? | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 8:20:16 AM From: Rani This man was not directly involved, he did not participate in withholding fluids, he did not lace cups. He witnessed the abuse, his role was "arguably passive." Now it the article lead me to believe he knew about it to the extent it was but what if he didn't know it had been going on that long, what if he only witnessed it happening only on one occasion? What if he argued with his sister over it but just didn't report it to the police? | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 8:20:54 AM From: Ali "Well when you told me you were drowning, I would not lend a hand...." | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 8:21:27 AM From: Rani What if he was afraid of his sister, I am terrified of my brother, it happens. | |
|
|
11/11/2008 8:39:42 AM From: timesjoke To me you can break it down in two parts.
The "right now" events where something happens and in a short time it is over. Many things like shock, feal, surprise, etc, can cause someone to not be capable of reacting.
The "over time" events where things took time to develop into the mess it became. People who watch and refuse to act in these situations are just as guilty in my opinion. Turning a blind eye "is" a direct action to assist in the crime. | |
|
|
11/11/2008 8:53:34 AM From: Rani So, if I witness someone slap a child across the face, slap them so hard, it left a bruised handprint across that child's face and neck.
Mind you, a ONE TIME incident. I don't know these people from a hole in the ground.
My response was "arguably passive."
I should be prosecuted? | |
|
|
11/11/2008 10:14:31 AM From: Rani Some new interesting tidbits that wasn't in my local paper.
Lawyers in the case have said that Sharon Patterson has mental health issues. She has been ruled incompetent to stand trial.
She had previously lost custody of four children because of drug addiction.
Mom, paid a terrible price for her role in this child's death.
It brings a new element to the case.
Should parents who know the person they are leaving in the direct care of their child into the hands of someone who has already been convicted of child neglect/abuse be up for prosecution.
While I sympathize with the mother who is greiving the death of her son, I feel like she knowingly put her son in the hands of a murderer and she too should pay for that.
| |
|
|
11/11/2008 10:27:40 AM From: timesjoke In your slapping example, it is not an isolated incident, anyone who does something like that has and will do it over and over. If I saw someone slap the shit out of their child like that, I would most likely be taken to jail from my reaction.
At the least I would call the police and child services to protect the child from more abuse.
---------------------------
I agree with your assessment of the mother's bad choice of babysitter. The mother should have checked into this woman at least that much. No record of past abuse, I would not hold the mother partly to blame, but in this case, yes.
That still does not excuse this woman's actions though, nor the direct actions of the brother to enable the torture and killing of the child. | |
|
|
11/11/2008 10:31:34 AM From: Rani I am not saying it absolves anyone.
I agree about the slap thing, I personally would have gone off like a demon on said adult. I would face assualt charges, gladly. One of the quickest ways to piss me off is hurt a child.
But that is not my point, my point is, what if I didn't, what if I saw it happen and just walked away in disgust? Should I be prosecuted? | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 10:35:30 AM From: Rani I am in WalMart and I see an adult slap a child, should I be legally complused to take action. Morally complused is a whole different set of circumstances. I believe everyone should be morally complused to take action. | |
|
|
11/11/2008 10:35:43 AM From: timesjoke Yes.
Turning a blind eye "is" a direct action to enable the abuse the child is suffering. | |
|
|
11/11/2008 10:47:24 AM From: Rani I am not so sure it would be helpful to prosecute witnesses. In many cases it would be difficult to prove someone actually witnessed the abuse take place. In other cases it could deter someone who has been suspicious for a while abuse was taking place from reporting it for fear of prosecution for not reporting it earlier.
While morally, I am willing to jump on the bandwagon and root for legal complusion to act on the behalf of child abuse you just get into a huge can of worms by taking criminal action against witnesses. | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 11:25:46 AM From: timesjoke They are not a witness once they have decided to turn a blind eye to bause they "know" is happening. They have become a willing partisipant, enabling the abuse to continue. | |
|
|
11/11/2008 11:26:56 AM From: timesjoke Man I need to slow down:
They are not a witness once they have decided to turn a blind eye to abuse they "know" is happening. They have become a willing partisipant, enabling the abuse to continue. | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 11:35:44 AM From: emkay64 So then putting my kids in personalized rubbermaid containers with breather holes where i can feed then frozen hotdogs would be wrong? Hypothetically speaking of course. |  |
|
|
11/11/2008 11:37:39 AM From: mercury nah. it's probably the safest place for them to be. just make sure you slice the hotdogs lengthwise  | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 11:38:39 AM From: emkay64 What if I put cool glittery, glow in the dark stickers on the plastic tubs? Would it be okay then? Just wondering.... | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 4:03:41 PM From: Rani emkay, why did ya have to go and tell...now I gotta turn you in. How many times I gotta say, don't let people know you lock the kids up in rubbermaid. | |
|
|
| 11/11/2008 4:04:19 PM From: Rani but the cool glittery glow in the dark might make it all better. | |
|
|
| 11/13/2008 2:35:06 PM From: wildbob It would seem only fair that the woman should have to dye of dehydration because she caused the death of someone else by dehydration. | |
|
|
| 11/13/2008 2:44:29 PM From: Rani That sounds fair. | |
|
|
