Prosecute the parents?

TerryinMD · Sep 7, 2001

Patrick,

I agree with you emphatically. You can't legislate intelligence or motivation. All we can do is provide legal recourse to try to mold members of society toward the behaviors society chooses to preserve and condone and provide degrees of punishment (state imposed negative outcomes) for behaviors that society wants to curtail. Surely no one on TBN thinks any law has ever stopped any crime absolutely. Laws and their administration, however flawed, are one of the civilizing influences we have to hold us back from the brink of chaos. If we let situationalistic emotions prevent their application then as a group we are backing off from civilization. There are ameliorating circumstances considered in many court room situations, most judges are not machines or machine like. Even prosecutors (not facing re-election soon) are human beings. 

Without going into an esoterical discussion of what "is" is, the snipped paragraph negates itself. It appears as though you want to have both sides of the argument. Maybe that is why this thread has gotten so emotional.

Most human's cannot deal with all of the rules, laws, statutes, etc. for a couple simple reasons. One, there are too many of them. Two, most are impossible to enforce. The reason being is that law officials need to determine WHAT laws they need to enforce. That is a big problem. A menu system for deciding how to charge someone!!

All the laws in the world cannot make people do what society deems correct. Just human nature. How many times have any of us learned of some new law, rule, or statute that blindsides us. Happens all of the time. Changes occur so frequently that it is impossible to keep up with them.

Just slow down. I don't think anyone is trying to be a pitbull and go after what you are saying. They are trying to understand and are having difficulty keeping the emotional side out of the argument.

This type of question is best discussed on a late Saturday afternoon, around a fire, with a few economy sized adult beverages.

I believe the score is: Stupid parent - 0
The rest of society - too big to count.

patrickg · Sep 7, 2001

Thank you MarkV!!! I have been so busy "defending" a position that I almost forgot why I started this. I didn't intend to start "T H I S" actually, just make a plea for tractor safety but then I apparently got some folks stirred up emotionally and then reacted to their reaction.

"Can't we all just get along?", Rodney King

We can agree to disagree. The real diff seems to only be whether the dad should get credit for time served (grieving) and no further punishment or if the law should function as designed with built in discressionary leniency (prosecutor is not asking for jail time).

Beyond that there is just my stiff necked posturing in defense of the rule of law (as I see it) and the folks who want a gentler kinder justice that follows public opinion (theirs) without benefit of a day in court.

Aside from that and a few red herring examples that were off the mark but very emotion laden nothing much happened to change my mind and I suspect that is probably mostly the case for the others as well. Contrary to how it must seem to the casual observer, I do have an open mind and would love to read a logical argument in support of why there should not be a legal consequence of some sort, however mild, if that logical argument could exclude clouding emotional content.

Again, thanks for the wake up call, MarkV

Patrick

PitbullMidwest · Sep 7, 2001

Patrick,

The State of Iowa does not require the use of helmets while riding a motorcycle, passengers are allowed if their feet can reach the footpegs. If some moron put his kid on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet and the kid is killed in an accident or falls off, you pick the method, should he be prosecuted under the law? After all everyone (except a few States) recognizes that helmets save lives.

patrickg · Sep 7, 2001

John, It isn't as much fun when we all agree, is it?

Note the last part of the preceeding post from me to MarkV. If you have a logical argument, devoid of emotional reference or example that explains why the rule of law should not be applied, I'd love to hear it.

I'm being cast as not caring or not qualified by self admission of childlessness all of which is not so just a lazy attempt to nulify my argument without having to make a viable counter case. I care deeply for the welfare of children. That is why I made the initial post. I have stuck to my guns because I don't take lightly the laws that protect children, other peoples children, our society's children. I do not easily excuse or condone irresponsible behavior that endangers these precious litle replacements for us irrespective of the quantities of tears shed after the fact. It was wrong, criminally wrong and should get at least a modicum of court time. Someone said it should be dropped for economic reasons, some comment about taxpayer's money. That kid deserves his day in court. He would have had the opportunity to become a taxpayer.

I don't want this to go on forever B U T ..... You say you don't agree with me. Fine. I value your judgement. What part don't you agree with? Can you be specific?

Patrick

patrickg · Sep 7, 2001

Cowboydoc, If it had been a car instead of a loader, the children would have been required to be in safetybelts and or child protective devices rated for their weight. Not using them would be a violation. A loader bucket not being approved as transportation seating and not having provisions for seatbelts etc would seem pretty obvious as not a legal means of transporting children. You have your opinion, I have mine. I think it was a clear case of reckless endangerment and violation of child welfare statutes too most likely. Apparently the county officials did too since they charged him. Us discussing whether it was a violation or not is not productive since he has already been charged and we aren't called to give our wisdom to the court.

Your pickup example: That was then, this is now. Hell, in CA you have to secure a dog with a short enough leash to keep it safely in your pickup bed or face a ticket and a fine. (Not an urban ledgend, just saving time)

I've seen seats to mount in a pickup bed by the back glass facing to the rear that are legal for in-pickup bed for passengers but don't know for what vehicles-years.

Been there done that, shooting at jack rabbits from a pickup bed while it was driving through the fields. Have set on the front fender with legs wrapped around it (cars were shaped differently then) and feet braced on bumperettes on the front bumber while the driver tried to catch jack rabbits between the headlights and get them running straight down the road (yes public road). Did this with my school teacher aunt on the other fender with her shotgun with my dad driving. Wonder we didn't qualify en mass for the Darwin awards. It was dumb, we shouldn't have done it. My excuse was it was fun, my dad, mon, and aunt condoned and participated. I would never do it again or suggest it to any youngsters. I guess from the circumstances you could say I didn't know any better. I sure do now. I don't defend what we did even though it was a common sport. It was dumb and should not be repeated. I take gun safety very seriously now. The local law probably did this too "for fun".

Life is precious and delicate. As a society we need to protect those who can't protect themselves. Setting an example is a bit like nailing the barn door shut after the horse runs away but it is done for the effect on others not just as punishment. If we could all learn from accident statistics we wouldn't need laws or highway patrol.

I have made my case and been applauded, ridiculed, and insulted. This is not about me, it is about willful child endangerment. You either condone it or you don't, think the laws should be upheld or not. Someone took offense at my Russian roulette example but didn't explain why it was not appropriate. I'm finding that this discussion can not be continued with a fair probabillity of anyone learning anything or really payiing attention to the core of the discussion. It has become an over emotionalized affair degenerating toward name calling and I reallyl don't want to participate toward that end.

Anyone with a logical argument devoid of ad hominems, fine. Otherwise, I gotta go.

Patrick

CVHoss · Sep 7, 2001

Patrick,
Been following this thread and, truthfully, I can't agree or disagree with you because I'm sure we don't have all of the facts of the case. As a father and grandfather, what I can say is that those of us who don't encase our children in an impenetrable cocoon at birth and keep them there until they're 18 are not all stupid, ignorant, moronic, idiotic, miscreant bastards. We are parents and parents make mistakes. If I let one of my kids go on a Boy Scout field trip and he gets bitten by a rattlesnake and dies, should I be prosecuted? If he climbs a tree (kids do that) and should fall and break his neck, should I be prosecuted for failing to watch him every minute of every day? Maybe so. In any case, it won't matter to me because the state can't do anything to me that's as bad as what I've done to myself. Parents are human. And sometimes we allow our children to talk us into things that we shouldn't. There are a lot of things that we allow our kids to do that, in hindsight, weren't very smart. But sometimes it just doesn't seem that bad at the time. Enough about that.

There are two aspects of your posts here that I'll take a little bit of an issue with.
First, you seem to be insinuating that some of the respondents here are allowing their emotions to rule the content of their posts:

I've been barraged with emotional commentary and inundated with inapplicable examples but no one has given a rational legal argument to sustain the "rightness"

while maintaining that you are only looking at the rational, legal, justice aspects of this. From the content of some of your statements:

Lucky for the father that I am not in a position to impose his sentence. I would parade him around the state with before and after pictures of his son. Cute kid with smile (before) gruesome gory bloody mess (after) and have him speak to various groups about child safety

I don't have kids (but I was one once) and I'm incensed at this report.

I think all the leniency required was shown by the prosecuter's intent to not jail the creep.

and get castigated for trying to lynch the poor ignorant bastard that can't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

I didn't prosecute the ignorant bastard.

Now we can all stop fussing over the evil decision to jail the moron.

The bozo is getting a tremendous break.

The outcomes of this miscreants actions are properly separated into two distinct categories.

In the case of the idiot with the kid in the loader bucket

I'd say there's enough emotion to go around.

The other thing is that you seem to be giving some special significance to this happening on a "state highway".

was killed while riding with his 5 yr old brother down a state highway in the bucket of a skid steer loader

My goodness running down the state highway with kids in a bucket??????

in their yard or driveway but a state highway????

I may have been moved to file on him for the kids not being in a child restraint while on a state highway

joy riding on the state highway

taking the kid for a joy ride in a skid steer loader bucket on the state highway

condone a joy ride in a skid steer loader bucket on a state highway?

of taking a virtually defensless baby for a joyride in a skid steer bucket on a state highway

Since I don't know where this took place, it could be significant, but maybe not. I'm not sure how things were in California, but I would imagine that Oklahoma would be much like here in S.E. Kansas. Around here, a "state highway" only means they fill the potholes every other year. I can show you sections of state highway around me that are only a few miles long and have nothing along them but farms. The repeated use of "state highway" makes it sound like the guy took the skid steer down the closest Interstate.

I think we can all agree that this was a horrible tragedy. If this thread accomplishes nothing else, it may make us think the next time the kids (or, in my case, grandkids) are whining that they want to ride the tractor with Papa.

Hoss

patrickg · Sep 7, 2001

I don't live in that county or in Pensylvania. Not charging the first and any succeding cases and not thereby generating publicity may have in fact contributed to that fathers continued carelessness. In CA he would sue the prosecuter for not doing that and making him aware that the state cared.

I think this exchange has devolved to the point that scoring points seems more important than civil discourse so lets go to another topic.

If there is any doubt, this should clear it up.

I lose. I admit it. Public oppinion is against me and for everyone else.

As I won't be reading or responding to any more posts on this thread, anything on this topic left unsaid can be sent to me privately. Maybe not having an audience to perform for will cool this down.

RichNJ · Sep 7, 2001

Yesterday evening I was giving my 3 yr old a ride in the cart behind the GE ElekTrak tractor in low gear(real slow). I turned around just in time to see him fall out the back. There is no back on the trailer. He was sitting near the back and let go of the side and lost balance and out he went. He landed on his butt on the grass, got up and went right back into the trailer. I went back and took a look at him. He was OK.
SO, I need to know - Am I a bad parent?

For those of you that don't know what a GE ElekTrak is - It's an electric lawn tractor that use 3 deep cycle marine batteries. 36" mowing deck. Made in the 70s.

Bird · Sep 7, 2001

Please Bird, Cut me some slack

Sorry, Patrick, I just couldn't resist since you were so wound up on the topic./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

like to know what you think regarding any violations of law

Whew, I'm not a lawyer and haven't kept up with the laws the last several years (Texas just had 900 new ones go into effect this last weekend/w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif). I don't know of any law that father was violating when he let the kid ride in the bucket (as Cowboydoc has mentioned). However, I suppose every state has some kind of negligent homicide statutes (perhaps called manslaughter in some states) so that if a person is killed and the police and/or prosecutor believe they can convince a judge and/or jury that a "reasonable" person could or would have foreseen the likelihood of a death occurring . . .. So, I'm assuming that is the kind of law the prosecutor is using in this case.

Incidentally, one of Texas' new laws is to prohibit kids from riding in the back of pickups, with certain exceptions, of course./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Bird

glennmac · Sep 7, 2001

There is an aspect to this tragic story no on has touched on. In his first post, Patrick reported that the killed 3 year old was riding in the bucket with his 5 year old brother. It seems entirely possible to me that the two kids were goofing off while riding in the bucket together. It is further possible that the 5 year old accidently pushed or knocked his brother out of the bucket. If this is true, that 5 year old will be emotionally and mentally scarred for the remainder of his life, too. Another tragedy.

Patrick, I can't tell from the facts whether any law was broken in whatever state this was. But I agree with your general principle that the emotional grief of a lawbreaker should not prevent his prosecution. That is a factor that should be taken into account by the judge when imposing sentence. Drunks are classicly truly emotionally sorry when they sober up after they kill people. That, however, is rarely a defense to the criminality of the act.

I also think Patrick is correct when he suggests that we need to view this tragedy from a societal position, not just from a parental position. People here are naturally identifying with the father. But consider a change in the facts. Suppose it was not the father (ie, you) who took the child (your child) for a ride down the road in a skidsteer bucket. Suppose you had brought your two children to a day care or summer camp. Then the teacher/counsellor takes your children for in ride in the bucket down the road, and your child falls out and has his head crushed in front of his 5 year old brother.

Do you now feel differently about whether the driver should be prosecuted under criminal negligence laws that may apply or whether you want to file a civil negligence suit? Or do you just let it slide because "accidents happen in life" and the driver is sincerely grief-stricken?