Dan, Dan, Dan, Surely you can see the inapplicability of your first example. Yes that was an accident brougt on by lack of expoerience and the emotional state generated by the first contact with the kid and the going the wrong way. You would be amazed how many people push the wrong pedal in the car. When they don't get the desired outcome they push it harder. This puts a lot of people into the front of a mall shop. Funny thing no matter how hard you press the accelerator it doesn't become the brake. These are accidents. In my personal oppinion they are cause to test the person strenuously for fitness to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads.
Ok, In your example the driver did not set out to do anything intentionally wrong, dangerous, or stupid. In the case of the idiot with the kid in the loader bucket joy riding on the state highway, that is different. The kid did not get into the bucket by accident. The father was not UNAWARE of his being in the bucket. If (and this is a giant IF) if the kid got into the bucket and hid and his father did not see him nor had a history of the kid hiding in the bucket then I would be a lot more sympathetic with the cause of not charging him under the law. That however was very clearly NOT the case.
Sorry but your example is just not applicable. It is a real tear jerker but has nothing to do wilth the case at hand.
As far as your "instant reaction" to this accident(?) doesn't bear on the situation either. Don't confuse our loose use of the word accident with chance or probability. If while playing Russian roulette you blow your brains out, was it an accident? It wasn't a "sure thing" the hammer just accidently happened to come down on a loaded cylinder. Don't you agree that playing Russian roulette is patently dangerous and stupid and that if the guy had played Russian roulette with the kid's head and a gun and blown his brains out that he would have had the DA after him for more than community service and safety training?
Taking the kid for a joy ride in a skid steer loader bucket on the state highway, irrespective of any fun intentions, was just as dumb as playing Russian roulette with the kid would have been. What about child restraints for heaven's sake. If the child were killed in an auto accident while not in a restraint or seat belted that would be a clear violation of law and might result in criminal proceedings. So why does everyone want to condone a joy ride in a skid steer loader bucket on a state highway? The father had to afirmatively commit several blunders to cause this, Why are we afraid to call a spade a spade? I really think emotion is clouding judgement and no one wants to see themselves in a bad light for doing things with children that are as nearly stupid but haven't had their luck run out yet so they are wont to whistle in the dark!
I give, why wasn't grandmaw charged? I'm not imortal, just superhuman, but not allways omnicient. (or a very good speller) Surrely by now you must have noticed that laws are not always enforced uniformly.
Dan, I'm sorry that you and or your wife have difficulty taking the time to be "baby safe". It isn't easy, and the fact that we make it at all as a society growing our replacements, is amazing. I hope nothing bad happens but would encourage yo to asses risk from a couple directions. Severity of outcome and liklihood of occurence. Something bad that is likely to happen but the worst outcome isn't too severe can be priortized below something less likely to happen but results in an unacceptable outcome (death, dismemberment, maiming).
My best friend has only two thirds to three fourths of a trigger finger on his right hand (the Marines still drafted him for Viet Nam but I counselled him on how to get out of it). Seems his mom only turned her back for a couple seconds. He was at the just walking good age when he stuck his finger in the output side of the meat grinder in between the blades and his sister, a year older, turned the crank, just like mommy did. His mom jfigures she had her back turned for maybe 2 seconds to pick up something on the counter behind her. Do I think she should have been jailed, no! If she gave it to them to play with (see the joyride analogy forming) then I think the state should have considered charging her or deciding if she were a fit mother.
Yes, yes, people do stupid things all the time. Some of them are criminal and come of them aren't. Just because two things are stupid doesn't make them equal. There are degrees of disregard for safety (sometimes called stupidity, an overworked term) Society has enacted laws to protect itself from excessive and flagrant acts of disregard for safety of its members. The child in the loader bucket was a deserving member of society not a pet, not the parents property to do with as they please, not a critically evaluating member of society. Children are due, deserve, and should get special treatment by society. That is how child protective services steps in to protect a child's welfare when parents don't. Raising a child is difficult. they are accidents waiting to happen. They shouldn't be placed in jeopardy for any instant gratification motivation or layziness of yours or theirs.
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.
Ive been baraged with emotional commentary and innundated with inapplicable examples but no one has given a rational legal argument to sustain the "rightness" of taking a virtually defensless baby for a joyride in a skid steer bucket on a state highway. Until or unless that can be done then isn't a consequence of his criminal actions to be tried for them by law?
Better to light a single candle than to forever curse the darkness.
Patrick
