Well its official

I'm going to have another damn kid. When I found out about it I went straight over to Buckys to tell him as they is a good chance he might be the father, considering how drunked up I was on my birthday. Some guy answered the door and told me to go away. After I broke the windows I got arresteded and now Bucky has got a restraint order against me. Is that any way to treat family? Crap with feet. He aint never seeing this baby I tell you that! The state has already told me they are taking the baby as soon as its born anyhow which is fine by me I don't have the time to raise another kid. You mommies out there, Lake, know how it is. Hows a mommy supposed to have any fun when she has got a brat screaming he wants food, he thinks he needs a bath, he has a cough, he wants to be changed. Damn!

Becky,

Are you sure you don't live in some of the neighborhoods I patrol? I swear I've met you. [img]confused.gif[/img]

Maybe it's just really bad gas Becky! [img]eek.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/gulp.gif[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Becky Eliza Potter:
I'm going to have another damn kid. When I found out about it I went straight over to Buckys to tell him as they is a good chance he might be the father, considering how drunked up I was on my birthday. Some guy answered the door and told me to go away. After I broke the windows I got arresteded and now Bucky has got a restraint order against me. Is that any way to treat family? Crap with feet. He aint never seeing this baby I tell you that! The state has already told me they are taking the baby as soon as its born anyhow which is fine by me I don't have the time to raise another kid. You mommies out there, Lake, know how it is. Hows a mommy supposed to have any fun when she has got a brat screaming he wants food, he thinks he needs a bath, he has a cough, he wants to be changed. Damn!

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Becky, just forget your kid in your minivan on a hot day and that'll solve the problem. It's perfectly legal.

<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ August 22, 2008 01:12 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

Oh, Big Sexy!

I think we are on the same page on this one.

All day yesterday I heard all about how "stressed" the woman was and how her routine changed. BS!

I have three children and I do not remember the 80s or the 90s because I was so exhausted. BUT I NEVER FORGOT A CHILD IN THE CAR.

I'll be honest here. There were many, many times I would have sold all three to traveling gypsies (am I still allowed to use that word?) just to get a little peace and quiet, but that's just me.

I've been stressed, I've been exhausted, I'm probably crazy -- but how does a sentient human being leave a child in car?

Hell, even Becky wouldn't do that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gae:
Oh, Big Sexy!

I think we are on the same page on this one.

All day yesterday I heard all about how "stressed" the woman was and how her routine changed. BS!

I have three children and I do not remember the 80s or the 90s because I was so exhausted. BUT I NEVER FORGOT A CHILD IN THE CAR.

I'll be honest here. There were many, many times I would have sold all three to traveling gypsies (am I still allowed to use that word?) just to get a little peace and quiet, but that's just me.

I've been stressed, I've been exhausted, I'm probably crazy -- but how does a sentient human being leave a child in car?

Hell, even Becky wouldn't do that.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, yeah, I don't have any kids, so how could I know any better? It seems incomprehensible to me that someone would not think about their kids - not one time - over the course of over 8 hours. I think about my dogs more than she thinks about her kids.

This one smells. Not that the Slaby incident didn't (got time to buy the donuts and unload them from the car but too overwhelmed to notice the kid?). I said it back then: We've found a way to legally kill your kid in Southwest Ohio.

Oh my!

We agree! Does the world end soon?

Like Reason, I am not a parent either. But every parent I've spoken to about this phenomena has told me it can happen. They've told me that you can walk inside your home and then it hits you like a ton of bricks that there's a human being (namely your child) in the back of your car. They've told me you can be in line at Kroger, look away for what seems like just a second, turn around and your kid has run off and is out of sight.

Fine, I'll accept that- it evidently CAN happen a lot, because it apparently DOES happen a lot.

Well, that's all fine and good, but it still doesn't offer us any guidance here.

You're speeding down the street (let's say 40 in a 35). A kid runs out in front of you and you hit and kill him.

Did you mean to kill him? No. Are you going to have to live with this the rest of your life? Absolutely. Does this mean you're some terrible monster? Not at all.

But have you committed a crime? Maybe. The essence of what constitutes a criminal act is the intention (and actions) that lead up to act in question, both before and during its execution. What happens AFTER the fact, while it does play a bearing in sentencing, has absolutely zero relevance in whether a crime was actually committed.

In this case, I'm sure she feels devastated by what happened. I can't even begin to comprehend how she feels. Same thing as we discussed about Brenda Nasby. I don't have a child, I can't begin to imagine how I would feel if I killed my own (or any child, for that matter).

That still doesn't mean she couldn't be guilty of a crime. You let the grand jury decide if there's enough evidence to go forward. And if they do, you let the jury decide if a crime has been committed. As Reason and I discussed in the Nasby case, I have no problem if a jury comes back with an acquittal. Hell I don't have a problem if the grand jury doesn't return an indictment.

What I do have a problem with is when these a-hole prosecutors decide to not even bring the case in the first place. Sorry, Gae, to let my closet socialism show again, but I don't think Joe would be having such moral qualms if this case involved a different race.

The Nasby case was worse because there you had her lawyer being the de facto boss of the prosecutor. At least we don't seem to have that issue with Joe in this case, but that still doesn't mean charges shouldn't be brought.

Most people assume the mother "will have to live with this the rest of her life." We assume that she won't be able to live with herself.

Should we assume this?

I don't think we should assume anything. We assume because she's a highly educated counselor at a Bible college that she's this good person who is simply overwhelmed?

People do crazy things. People do crazy things for crazy reasons.

Quite frankly, I don't care how the mother feels. What I *do* care about is that justice be brought to the deceased child.

<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ August 24, 2008 12:49 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

I saw this post on the Enquirer forum and think it's a very good post. I cut and pasted to share:

roseonthehill:
I am amazed at this discussion, and by any expert's opinion that excuses a parent forgetting a child in this way , making such an event even seem reasonable. Forgetting a child in this manner is a lack of due care; our children deserve our first, highest, and best consideration, always. Failure to provide this care by allowing other things to distract us is not acceptable, reasonable, or excusable. If this woman had spent her day in a bar drinking, at a mall shopping, or even in her own home cleaning, and claimed she had "forgotten" her child in the back seat of her car to die of heatstroke, I have no doubt none of these excuses would be made or accepted. Why is it different simply because the mother went to work? If society is willing to accept forgetfulness, for ANY reason, as an excuse in the death of a child, the smallest and weakest, the one who deserves the greatest care and concern imaginable, then we must accept forgetfulness as an excuse for everything and anything.

Mrs Edwards didn't just harm her daughter, her family, and herself... she harmed us all. She broke her contract with society; the one that said she would be responsible for her child's safety and well being. She bahaved irresponsibly and her irresponsibility cost Jenna her life, and all of us our peace of mind. Now we all live with the terrible image of a blistered baby crying in a locked and lonely car, and each of us wish we could have done something to keep Jenna safe. But we couldn't. It was her mother's job, and her mother failed. Poor baby. She deserved so much more and so much better.

Sorry, but this thing is really eating at me. I hope I can effectively express myself...

I really think we are seeing pure evil here when we see people defend the mother. Has society totally lost its sense of priorities?

What happened was *completely* inexcusable. Period.

A defenseless human being lost her life because of the carelessness of the person she trusted most. That should be our singular focus from which all our thoughts and decisions emanate.

No more talk about how busy the mother was. Maybe she was. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter that mom was busy. Or stressed. What matters is that a child died.

<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ August 24, 2008 12:58 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

I imagine that a charge of "reckless homicide" could be made. The only element is to recklessly cause the death of another.

I read some of the comments from the enquirer article posted by some of our more erudite citizenry....quite frankly I think most of them are 2/3rd's retarded.

I believe there should be some kind of charge. Otherwise the person reason cut and pasted from is exactly 100% spot on.

Jump, you're the expert, but wouldn't it be negligent homicide?

(Am not a lawyer, and unlike Lewbaby, I don't play one on the Internet.)

The charges aside, how in the world does one "forget" one's child when going to work? All this BS about a change in routine, blah, blah, blah. The woman is a moron.

Anyone else heard the 911 call? I couldn't be that calm if I'd broken a dozen eggs on a nice clean kitchen floor.

Reason-

I'm on board with you for the most part, but let me offer a few things. One, I don't know as if we're talking "pure evil" here. By comparison, I offer the case of China Arnold up in Dayton, who is charged with microwaving her baby. Obviously there are degrees of fault (and rightfully so). And her frame of mind BEFORE the incident is relevant in making that determination.

But like I said, her frame of mind AFTER the incident is relevant only to sentencing (and only then if the judge buys it).

One thing I've noticed about chld killings over th e years- the younger the child, the seemingly "less" heinous of a crime has happened (I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just saying that's my observation). And it's almost as if, if I kill your kid, I'm in trouble, but if you kill your own kid, well, that's different.

And of course, that's ludicrous. You either committed a crime or you didn't, and if you did, you should be punished accordingly. But of course, you can't be sentenced if you're not found guilty, and you can't be found guilty if you're not charged in the first place.

I agree with Jumper that there has to be some charge here. And I'm sorry, but if she were some poor black woman from OTR, her ass would have been indicted faster than the clerk could have entered it onto the record.

Her ass ShOULD be in jail.

Negligent homicide occurs when one "negligently causes the death of another by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance"

If billy bob is cleaning his weapon and thinks its unloaded but it isn't and he blows a hole in his wife/sister, that is negligent homicide. Its a misdemeanor of the 1st. 6 months max and a thousand dollar fine.

Reckless is a felony 3.

Two more kids were killed in a vehicle in Kansas via hyperthermia. [img]frown.gif[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lew:
Reason-

I'm on board with you for the most part, but let me offer a few things. One, I don't know as if we're talking "pure evil" here. By comparison, I offer the case of China Arnold up in Dayton, who is charged with microwaving her baby. Obviously there are degrees of fault (and rightfully so). And her frame of mind BEFORE the incident is relevant in making that determination.

But like I said, her frame of mind AFTER the incident is relevant only to sentencing (and only then if the judge buys it).

One thing I've noticed about chld killings over th e years- the younger the child, the seemingly "less" heinous of a crime has happened (I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just saying that's my observation). And it's almost as if, if I kill your kid, I'm in trouble, but if you kill your own kid, well, that's different.

And of course, that's ludicrous. You either committed a crime or you didn't, and if you did, you should be punished accordingly. But of course, you can't be sentenced if you're not found guilty, and you can't be found guilty if you're not charged in the first place.

I agree with Jumper that there has to be some charge here. And I'm sorry, but if she were some poor black woman from OTR, her ass would have been indicted faster than the clerk could have entered it onto the record.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While an attitude of the general populace doesn't have the same pop as a woman who microwaves her baby, the outcomes are the same.

I guess my point is that the attitude is just as insidious because it takes on the cloak of "good an proper reasoning" to justify something so terribly bad, and to me that's a very dangerous thing when society begins to use that as its moral code.

"Oh we all could have done that" doesn't fly with me. Either does, "Do you know how hard it is to work and raise a child?" Nor do any of the other excuses that have been flying around to defend the mother.

It's defending the indefensible. The message it sends is that the job (and all those things one can buy with that salary) is more important than the child.

I don't think it's cruel to come down hard on the mother. I think it's reasonable, and I think it's necessary.

<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ August 26, 2008 09:43 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gae:
Jump, you're the expert, but wouldn't it be negligent homicide?

(Am not a lawyer, and unlike Lewbaby, I don't play one on the Internet.)

The charges aside, how in the world does one "forget" one's child when going to work? All this BS about a change in routine, blah, blah, blah. The woman is a moron.

Anyone else heard the 911 call? I couldn't be that calm if I'd broken a dozen eggs on a nice clean kitchen floor.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My mom still likes to tell 40+ year old stories of how one of her 4 kids (ages 6 and under) disappeared when she turned her head or how she panicked when one of us wasn't where we were supposed to be. While she wasn't always successful at keeping us under foot, she was always aware of when something was amiss. (I don't know how she ever went shopping - we'd hide inside the clothing rounds at McAlpins. It would drive her nuts.) Point is, for her these were traumatic incidents which she will never forget. (Ask her about New Alsace, Indiana, around 1968. It's one of her favorites.)

God forbid should one of us not return on time or leave without notice, or be found somewhere where we weren't supposed to be. We didn't want to be subjected to the wrath of an angry mom. OMG.

With her, it was clearly instinctive, always present. What a contrast to Slaby and this latest incident. These two women make NO sense to me at all.

I forget things all the time, but I can't comprehend leaving a living thing inside a hot car.

Ok. I've said enough. This is more about venting than anything.

Well, shockingly, Joe D decided not to pull the trigger. And of course, race (and religion) had nothing to do with it.

In other surprising news today, it was determined that the Pope is Roman Catholic.....

Lew, I know it's Greg's job, but can you tell me if water is still wet?

And I know this is going to sound obvious, but I hope to God that my hypothetical poor black mom from OTR does not leave her kid in a car to die. Aside from the obvious, it would put the city in danger. If Joe were to prosecute, it could lead to a volatile situation like what we had in 2001. But if he doesn't prosecute, then we really are sending a message that it's ok to kill your kid so long as you didn't mean to. As much as I despise Joe, it's a situation I hope he (and therefore the rest of us) doesn't have to face.

Of course, there would have been no danger of this happening had he gone to the grand jury in the first place.

And look, I know the NAACP often likes to stir crap up for the sake of stirring crap up, but I'm going to agree with Smitherman in this case. The people who most wanted Joe not to prosecute are the vintage Hamilton Co conservatives who keep people like him in office to begin with. Do not even think for one moment this didn't come into play.

Being a new father, the thought of leaving my daughter in the car for 8 hours and then reliving in my mind how horrible and savage her death would have been....well..lets just say I couldn't live with myself. Emphasis on "live"

I look at my daughter and just the thought of her dying the slow, drawn out, brutal and unbelievably cruel death that Mrs. Edwards child did makes my skin crawl and brings tears to my eyes.

That there are going to be no charges brought against her in unimaginable in my mind. A complete and utter travesty of justice. Its been said before and it bears repeating. We have discovered a way to legally kill a child.

And the thing is, Jumper, that I don't doubt for a second that you'd feel the way you said you would if it happened to you.

But there are two aspects of criminal punishment- deterrence, which is what I speak of the most, but also retribution (i.e. justice for the victims) that Reason often alludes to.

In the case of these babies being left to die in cars, I don't know that criminal punishment offers us much in terms of deterrence. I think we all agree that (in most of these cases) the parent certainly did not ever intend for their child to die, ergo I'm not so sure that the thought of potential punishment is anywhere on their radar screen.

But, in terms of retribution, in terms of justice for the baby, we can't let people get away with this sort of thing. It completely trivializes the life of the baby.

Let's face it- you drive off with $10 worth of gas, society will punish you far worse than if you leave a baby to die in a car. Yet the guy who does the drive-off....his argument is that the oil companies won't miss that $10 (which, obviously, they won't). But we, as a society, still have to punish him. Granted, mainly as a deterrent so he (and others) won't keep doing that. But still, the message sent is very clear- it's wrong to steal gasoline, and if you do, you will be punished.

Here, it's like it's not even "wrong" what happened, it's just a tragic accident. Well again, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

And you know what? It's not like Joe couldn't mail it in in front of the grand jury. You know, get up there, go through the motions, and not really care if he got an indictment. No, that's not how you should practice law, but even then, at least he could say he "tried."

ANd let me clear-up my earlier point- I brought up race, but as I've posted on here so many times before, social and economic status are the primary driving factors. I don't doubt for a second that if a prominent black mother left her kid to die in the car, there would still be no charges filed. Likewise, if we're talking white trash, here comes the indictment.

And yes the Slaby case was worse, because in that case you had Brenda retaining the boss of the prosecutor to be her lawyer (and the prosecutor insulting all out intelligence by acting shocked at the very suggestion that there could possibly be a conflict of interest). But this case is yet another sad example.