That’s outrageous! By that “logic”, every single passer-by, including the aged, the infirm, and the handicapped, should be legally required to enter burning buildings and exploding fireworks factories and toxic chemical leaks and melting-down nuclear plants to rescue people inside!
What the hell are you thinking!?
I can see an ethical argument that that might change the morality of the issue, but certainly not the legality. Any law that requires people to risk their own life for others – even their own children – seems outrageously unjust to me. See my post above. Those that believe otherwise, please cite your reasons.
Just to clarify;
Are we using “the reasonable man” standard here?
Mr. Gorman sounds like a giant dink. As Mangetout said, can’t I do anything without it being a ‘duty’? If it’s not my ‘duty’, I guess it would be perfectly fine to watch people fall in the drink and sell popcorn?
I’m thinking you’ve made a hasty generalisation, and a strawman to boot, and you can take your scare-quotes around “logic” and <snipped out of consideration to the forum rules>.
Reference the OP, for whom I ordinarily have much respect:
And my response was based on the opinion that, generally speaking, societal expectations place more pressure on men to risk and even sacrifice themselves for a child, even a stranger’s child, than on women. Complete the following well-known phrase or saying traditionally applied to lifeboats: “***** and ******** first”. You have ten seconds starting… now.
Whether Ms. Newkirk has had a raw deal or not I leave to the experts :: points thumb back up the thread ::, but the assertion that she’s been worse treated because of being female I find a little :dubious: .
Thanks! That gives me all the justification I need to swat people’s cigarettes out of their mouths and take children off their bicycles if they’re not wearing a helmet and the like (hey, I’ve got a responsibility to save their life, don’t I?)
[
Nor should people die in burning buildings and exploding fireworks factories and toxic chemical leaks and melting-down nuclear plants, that’s why all adults in the vicinity should be forced to rescue the people inside (hey, there could be two year-olds inside who are not being adequately protected by their parents, right?) Your “argument” – at best – boils down to nothing more than what another poster wrote:
Okay, 10 out of 10 for your personal morality, but your sense of justice sucks out loud.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
That is not your kid however, it is someone elses kid, who is engaging in highly dangerous activity right in front of you. You don’t step in because the parent should?
[QUOTE]
I’m sure you would please your pastor with that moral assertion, but where is your legal and rational justification that people should risk their lives for others, no matter what?
Hold on folks. I wonder if the past about not jumping in was the major factor. Obviously, that is how the defense is spinning it, but from this article cited above,
it sounds like allowing her boyfriend’s child to play by the dangerous stream was the reason for the conviction of endangering the welfare of a child.
She’s watching the child, and although she takes the child back to the father, the child rejoins her. Since she can’t swim, then what is she doing not taking the child back a second time? This is not a stranger, the woman is the girlfriend of the father.
From the original article
WTF? The child comes back to a dangerous place and since the woman has removed him once, she’s not going to a second time? Especially since she can’t swim?
Unless the conviction is for allowing a two year old to play in by the dangerous stream.
Attacking me doesn’t make your logic any more credible. You still haven’t justified your views; you’ve just repeated them.
I see you are ignoring the logic of my position or just blankly rejecting it without justifying your rather extreme position legally requiring people to risk their own lives rescuing others. I specifically said “legally required”, not morally obligated, and I sure as hell didn’t suggest that one gender is more morally obligated than another. Your counter-argument makes no sense and furthermore evades the issue I raised. Scoffing at is and calling it a “strawman” doesn’t make it so. My so-called “strawman” actually follows inevitably from your position.
[/QUOTE]
I admit that certainly makes more sense than what the other sources have said, but I still don’t accept the legal justification. While there’s a well-justified law against explicitly endangering a child – a positive act – I can think of no legal justification to force a bystander to perform an act to restrain someone – even a child.
As I said previously, I’d like to see people’s legal justification for forcing people to perform such an act.
No, I think you’re ignoring the context of my original post to this thread. I’ve been good enough to quote the sentence in the OP that led me to say it, and I said nothing about “legally obligated”; I said “expected” as in “societal expectations”. So yes, the strawman is entirely of your own making.
Please do nothing else to make you look like margin’s sock puppet :rolleyes: ← not a serious accusation.
Ambushed, take a look at my posts, I have never suggested that she needed to jump into a raging creek to save the kid. I said she should have grabbed the toddler’s hand and led him away from danger, exactly the same thing she did earlier in the day, and something that a person can do over and over again without risking their lives. If the question is “should she have jumped in to save a kid she couldn’t have prevented from falling in?” then I’d probably say no.
And let’s be honest, a kid riding a bike without a helmet is not exactly the same as having a toddler playing at the edge of a swollen, raging, creek. It would take an unlikely confluence of events for the bike rider to get seriously hurt, it takes a toddler falling down (not exactly unlikely) for the kid to wind up stone dead.
You can stuff up as many strawmen as you like, but this situation is THIS situation. There are no burning buildings, no danger to the passerby, no adult smokers to assault. It is a 2 year old playing next to a raging stream. Do you remove him from danger, or pass it off as someone elses responsibility?
You are the only one asserting that she passed it off as someone else’s responsibility. The father was warned that the child was endangering himself. Did the kid outweigh him? If he had no verbal control over his son he should have locked him in a room, or put a harness on him.
::shrug::
Dad didn’t bring the kid in and put him somewhere safe. Woman watched him fall in and drown.
There’s enough blame to go around; it doesn’t have to be “either/or”.
this entire discussion strikes me as hypocrit.
someone (no matter whether she was f/m and/or a (live-in or not) partner or a neighbor or just a bystander) gets a (heavy) guilty verdict - mainly because the other person directly involved (the father) has negotiated a deal with the prosecutor.
the father gets a minor sentence in exchange for putting blame on another person, who obviously did more than the father did (returned the kid once, informed the father, and called for help). but i want to leave aside the question of the guilt of the father.
it seems that to find someone ‘guilty’ is equal to atone or even undo the tragedy and to get a guilty verdict all means are allowed.
does this strike anyone else as morally flawed and utterly questionable?
This is rehash, but it’s not a bystander it’s the girlfriend of the father. Allowing a two-year-old to play by a dangerous stream is endangering that child.
But that is apparently what she did. Yes, she returned the child once, but the child came back and played by the stream, throwing sticks in. Since she had done it once, she doesn’t have to do it again? That’s depraved, in addition to being illegal. The procecuter said that had the girlfriend returned the child and then left the place that she would not have been guilty.
Hey,Dad was busy doin’ manly Dad things (and Mom’s out there know, man stuff is more important than the kid).
See post #6
Both the defense and prosecution agree that Mr. Reffner never specifically asked Ms. Newkirk to watch his son.
Who allowed “a two-year-old to play by a dangerous stream”, Dad didn’t seemed too concerned about it.
But Kirk Henderson, an assistant public defender for Allegheny County…“A parent has the ultimate responsibility,” he said.
Under the current case law, charging Ms. Newkirk should have come down to whether she was aware of the duty to the child, Mr. Henderson said. He didn’t buy the district attorney’s argument that Ms. Newkirk recognized her duty when she returned Hunter to his father the first time. “I don’t think that one time, telling a child what to do invests that person with responsibility,” Mr. Henderson said.
If I had been there and grabbed the child, does that create a duty upon me to act in loco parentis until I find his legal guardian. Am I legally required to babysit everybody’s kids. When I leave the kid with Dad, am I free. And when I discover that your kid is following me like a lost puppy?
It ain’t my kid.
I’d like to see people’s legal justification for forcing people to perform such an act.
deleting stuff in a quote and so changing its meaning… how impressive.
Me? I agree with you, the whole trial stinks!
Ok, I’ve calmed down. Sorry to you and Malacandra about putting your feet to the flames like that. You’re right: my analogies are not commensurate with the actual facts, especially if TokyoPlayer’s cited story is the correct one.
I would make the moral decision to intervene, including jumping in after the child (but I’m a swimmer). However, to repeat, my outrage concerns the blatant injustice in legally require people to intervence.