I can’t agree that makes any legal difference. There is the moral argument, and that’s all.
Finally, something close to an attempt at a justification of the legality of forcing people to intervene. Thank you.
But I still don’t buy it. There is a huge difference between actively endangering a child and being forced to predict the likely consequences of a scenario involving a child and then intervene to prevent them. (I may have to bring back my bicycle helmet analogy ) Where does the government’s right to coerce such action come from?
And wipe that smile off your face. One more outburst like that and I’ll hold you in contempt. Now if anyone wants me, I’ll be sitting out on the ledge eating my lunch.
:::Sigh:::
My comment was in response to your outrage concerning what bystanders are required.
I can go back and repost your comments if you forgot what you wrote.
Two problems with your argument here. First, the likelihood of certain consequences to some dangers is, or should be obvious. Would anyone argue that allowing a two-year-old to play by a freeway is safe? Does it really take a genius to understand that swollen streams are dangerous to small children?
Second, the girlfriend had already recognized the seriousness of the situation. She had taken the child to the father once. Obviously, the father was also guilty of neglect, for which he pled guilty.
So do you believe that parents shouldn’t be held responsible if they allow their child to play near freeways, do summersaults near fires and stand on cliffs?
Wow. So if your boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s child are following you around, and follow you to an obviously dangerous situation, then you would turn a blind eye, and allow them to die? My thoughts aren’t permitted in this forum
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds
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.[sic] 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.
Oh really.
And my thoughts about you, aren’t permitted in public.
Where did I say anything like that?
My girlfriend’s child? I’m the guy who jumps in after stray dogs, I’d of jumped in save you.
If you’ll take the trouble to read the posts in this thread, you’ll see that the question of what the responsibilities of a stranger are, was there from the start.
The OP
“It doesn’t seem right to me. I haven’t read anything that indicates Mr. Reffner brought Ms. Newkirk along to babysit his child. I’ve also seen creeks around here after a major storm. It’s not advisable for non-swimmers to jump into them after a major storm, although two other people, one of whom couldn’t swim did jump into the creek to save the child. The father did plead guilty to a lesser charge, reckless endangerment.
What are the ramifications of this? If I tell one of the kids at my church “Don’t run into traffic” and they do so and get hit, have I assumed responsibility for the child by doing that, and am I responsible for his or her death?..”
See the question is,
Who has to jump in.
Mr. Reffner, because he’s the Dad?
Ms. Newkirk, if Mr. Reffner brought Ms. Newkirk along to babysit his child, and she said OK?
Ms. Newkirk, if Mr. Reffner brought Ms. Newkirk along to babysit his child, but didn’t tell her?
Ms. Newkirk, because she’s Mr. Reffner’s girlfriend?
What about a complete stranger?
I’d like to know who I’m legally required to rescue.
I’m the guy who jumps in after stray dogs, I’d jump in save you.
But I’d rather save the dog.
And if you were to take the trouble to read the posts, you will see that I have pointed out prevously that the question in this particular case concerns the girlfriend of the father of the child. This is much clearer in the other news articles cited.
No, that is not the question. As I quoted earlier in the thread from another news source:
The OP asked about the ramifications of this for strangers, but I don’t know if you go there from this court case.
Let’s meet in the middle and have a bottle of that stuff the Trappist monks in Belgium brew up. That’s cold, thick and rich, neither an American style “beer soda” nor a bitter, still and served with the chill off English ale.
That looks suspiciously like the link in the first line of the OP.
Really? You are cherry-picking from a two paragraph news blurb. Are you sure she was not convicted for not jumping in after him?
Nowhere was it suggested that she callously stood by and allowed him to fall in. None of the news stories tell us how close she was to the child or when she noticed his return.
I was “clear” about “this particular case” from THE BEGINNING.
I KNOW SHE"S HIS GIRLFRIEND.
The question is, what duty does Ms. Newkirk have to the child.
See, the prosecutor says the girlfriend was, at that moment, the child’s guardian. “Common sense dictates someone in that close proximity to a child is obligated to do something,” Mr. Gorman said. “I think anybody in their right mind would jump in.”
But the prosecutor doesn’t cite a law, he cites common sense.
Common sense dictates someone in that close proximity to a child is obligated to do something,but does THE LAW
He says the girlfriend believed she had a legal duty when she pull the kid back the first time. Did she believe that? Or was she just using common sense.
The prosecutor says if the girlfriend just left the trailer, after returning Hunter to his father, knowing that the child might wander away from him again “she would have fulfilled her obligation, and there would have been no charges”.
“It’s not just the fact she didn’t go in after the kid,” Mr. Gorman said. So not jumping in IS pretty significant to the prosecutor.
Even having a child that close to a raging stream violates a duty to care, he continued.
So why wasn’t Dad charged again?
He’s the one who LET the kid wander away!
Newkirk and Hunter returned to the mobile home and she told his father that Hunter should not be near the stream. But the boy soon rejoined Newkirk along the bank and fell in.
Who let the child go that close to a raging stream, violating a duty to care, the girlfriend or Dad!
Child endangerment charges were filed today in the drowning death of a Claysburg toddler…father Thomas Reffner and…girlfriend Susan Newkirk have been charged with neglect…
You found this phrase important, She was convicted for not moving him away from the water.,
no, not quite.
Susan Newkirk…convicted of endangering the welfare of a child.
Thomas Reffner plead guilty to endangering the welfare of a child.
Yes, you do.
P.S.
:mad: I’m still waiting for you to explain this,
Originally Posted by TokyoPlayer
“Wow. So if your boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s child are following you around, and follow you to an obviously dangerous situation, then you would turn a blind eye, and allow them to die? My thoughts aren’t permitted in this forum”
The gentleman I’m seeing, hell, my boyfriend, cannot swim. He tells me he sinks and, from what I know of his build, that sounds entirely reasonable. He’s chivalrous and altruistic, but if he jumped into a creek, even to save a drowning child, I would seriously wonder about his sanity and chances are very good we’d have two drowning victims, not one.
Look, I’ve worked with kids, even though I’ve never had any. I’ve also walked beside my share of creeks, reading or enjoying nature. There are some toddlers who don’t like being told what to do. They can also move surprisingly quickly if you’re not prepared, or sometimes even if you are. I still remember a five year old at the church I used to teach Sunday School at. She was absolutely adorable looking, with the face and curls of an angel, but she had an incredible knack for finding trouble. I remember taking my eyes off her for less than 5 minutes once, only to look back and realize she’d unscrewed the bulb from a Lite-Brite which, I think (this was over 15 years ago) was plugged in. When I was a little younger than the boy who drowned, my father nearly ran me over with the family car. He was leaving for work and he thought I was with Mum and Mum thought I was with him. I was actually behind the car.
When Ms. Newkirk took the little boy back to his father and told him he’d need to keep an eye on him, I would take that as an indication that she didn’t want to be responsible and didn’t feel she could be. It’s not easy discipining other people’s kids or telling them what to do, and telling him not to play by the water fits that category. I also know the terrain, if not that specific town, and, if he was playing quietly, she may honestly not have noticed him until it was too late. We don’t know.
Creeks around here can be several feet wide and quite fast and deep, especially the day after major flooding. I’m a good swimmer, but I’d be calling myself a fool who was likely to die even as I did jump in after a kid who fell into one. It also takes a certain amount of presence of mind to be able to work out whether jumping in is a good idea. If you can’t swim, I would say it definitely isn’t. If you can, it’s still going to take a bit of time to take your shoes off. Jeans and a t-shirt become waterlogged pretty quickly and drag you down and it’s going to take you a minute to find the kid and get oriented once you get in the water. During that time, you and the child will continue to be swept downstream. There are shallows; there are also overhanging tree limbs. While both of those can save the life of an older child or an adult if they respond in time, they can also injure you. Judging by the photo Bosda linked to, visibility in the water would not have been good. A non-swimmer who jumped into the water, however noble her intentions, would have been a suicidal fool in my opinion, and this is speaking as someone who’s been one.
As for whether Ms. Newkirk was convicted because she didn’t take the little boy back to his father, I don’t know how long he was in her sight for or how close he was to her, among other things. Banks next to creeks can range from fractions of inches in the shallows to a few feet or a meter or so. From what I know of the creeks around here and the photo Bosda linked to, the shallows were probably flooded. On the other hand, if the little boy was floating sticks down the creek, the banks can’t have been too high. I spent a lot of my childhood floating sticks down creeks or racing sticks with my brothers and it was more fun when the water was high. I also didn’t necessarily obey my own mother when she told me to come away from the water. We don’t even know if Ms. Newkirk told the little boy to get away from the water. If she did, I think anyone who’s been around toddlers can picture him telling her “No.” We don’t know how long the little boy had been by the creek or how much time elapsed between her seeing him and him falling in. It may not have been long.
I’m female, but not particularly maternal. I am particularly altruistic. If I’d been there, I would have jumped in, but I might well also have got fed up with having to look after a child who wouldn’t stay away from a known hazard and a father who wouldn’t look after him. The gentleman I’m seeing is good with children and quite altruistic. If he’d been in that situation, I would expect him to stand on the bank and yell for help because he would not be capable of jumping in after the child without great risk to his own life.
It seems to me all they’ve done here is pile tragedy upon tragedy.
Do I know all the facts to the case based on a few news reports? No. Nope. Absolutely not. But neither does anyone else on this thread. The first time I quoted that article, Post #47, I qualified it “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.” I should have, but failed to make that same qualification the second go-around. However, others on the tread are making a seemingly great leap of logic that strangers are being convicted for not jumping in. As Siege points out, we don’t know very much about the story. The account linked in the OP is written such that one could interpret it this way. It also referred her to as a “friend” rather than as the girlfriend. Other posters have pointed out that this makes a difference to how they perceive her possible guilt.
Other accounts have been less detailed, but there is:
IANAL, and have not attempted to interpret the law here. One of the few things I do remember from my one class in law back years ago in school was that the instructor, an attorney, pointed out that many times there is more to the story in “outrageous” lawsuits, for example, than you here in the 15-second news clip. He gave the example of the McDonalds coffee (post 27 in this thread, sorry don’t know how to post just one reply). People just hear about the amount of money awarded and think that’s it outrageous, but didn’t hear the complete story.
It’s impossible to determine the complete story here, but the known facts do not seem to support a conviction of Ms. Newkirk for not jeopardizing life, but again it doesn’t seem to point to a clear precedent of disinterested bystanders.
So, are you not saying that in a situation like Ms. Newkirk, that had you taken the child back to the father once, and the two-year-old child followed you a second time down to a dangerous place you would turn a blind eye to a likely fatal situation because it’s not your child? You’ll jump in once the child is in the water but you won’t take the child back a second time because it ain’t you kid? What do you mean by “it ain’t my kid?”
Where does it suggested thta she callously stood by and allowed him to fall in.
You really think the PROSECUTOR is a reliable source for this?
I smell cherry pie!
You think it’s a crime to not jeopardize your life?
But ya see I’m NOT Ms. Newkirk, or in her shoes. If I was Ms. Newkirk,(or Mr. Reffner) I wouldn’t have let a kid I cared about out of the car in the first place!
Yes, I would turn a blind eye.
If I stop your kid, running with scissors,
bring the kid to you, the parent,
tell you what your kid was doing,
then see your kid doing it again,
I’m not bringing the kid back to you a second time.
If you don’t care enough, about what your kid is doing, to stop it,
why does it become my problem?
And when you make it my problem, and your kid gets hurt, or
gets into a dangerous situation.
I will render first aid, I will risk MY LIFE to save your kid, and
I will ream you a new a-hole for not stopping your kid in the first place. I warned you this could happen, what did you do, nothing.
I am a hero, not a babysitter.
If I take him back to his Dad, is my obligation to the child over or not?
If the parent doesn’t stop the child from wandering away,
and allows the child to follow me to a dangerous place,
or allows the child to wander off to another dangerous place,
am I supposed to take better care of kids than their parents do?
Has anyone told me that I’m supervising the kid,
or asked me to?
I’m a hero, not a lifeguard, nobodies paying me to watch the neighborhood kids.
Am I responsible for the safety of every child I see?
ME a complete stranger?
ME a guy in the neighborhood?
ME a next door neighbor?
ME a guy who knows Dad and the kid?
ME a friend of the family?
Who has the ultimate responsibility to protect the child,
the parent or the non-parent?
If I am not the legal guardian of a child,
[INDENT]unless,
there’s a law, that I don’t know about, requiring me to be,
or I chose to be,
I am not legally responsible for that child.[/INDENT]
P.S.
“Originally Posted by TokyoPlayer
Wow. So if your boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s child are following you around, and follow you to an obviously dangerous situation, then you would turn a blind eye, and allow them to die? My thoughts aren’t permitted in this forum”
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds
Oh really.
And my thoughts about you, aren’t permitted in public.
Where did I say anything like that?
My girlfriend’s child? I’m the guy who jumps in after stray dogs, I’d of jumped in save you…
I’d jump in save you.
But I’d rather save the dog.
You think this is cute too?
"Wow. So if your boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s child are following you around, and follow you to an obviously dangerous situation, then you would turn a blind eye, and allow them to die? My thoughts aren’t permitted in this forum"Ya see, TokyoPlayer, you’ve insulted me.
I’m this guy from post 11 . I’ve got to involve myself even when I shouldn’t. I’ve stopped too many kids doing dumb things, and I’ve been yelled at by too many parents, “Who do think you are telling MY KID what to do”. It’s really nice to hear that after you just saved their child’s life.
Save my girlfriend’s child?
Nobody dies if I can do ANYTHING about it.
I’m the guy who pisses everybody off, and stops traffic, so ducks can cross the street.
I’ve read a few of the articles and one, very important thing is unclear to me.
When she brought the child back to his father, I understand she then started walking by the creek again. The articles I’ve read then say Hunter (the child) “rejoined” her. Now, it’s one thing if by “rejoin” we simply mean the child entered her general vicinity. She may have or may not have been aware that he was even around. If that was the situation, and then suddenly she looks around and sees the kid playing by the stream, and he falls in before she can get to him, well then I don’t think she can be held responsible.
If, however, by “rejoin” it means Hunter started walking with Ms. Newkirk again, that’s a different issue. That would mean he was literally walking around with her, started playing by the creek, and she watched as he fell in. Obviously she did the right thing in response to that, but she did the wrong thing in walking around with him as he played perilously close to the creek.
I may be misreading you, but if what I’ve highlighted means what I think it does, you are mistaken. You can indeed be retried if your conviction is set aside on appeal. There are many cases where an appeals court will set aside a conviction for some reason, and then the prosecution will again try the person for the crimes. IANAL but I’m guessing the legal voodoo done to allow this relates to the fact that the original conviction was “thrown out” so the trial legally hadn’t ever ended in a verdict. So, just a like a mistrial, it can be done again.
There’s lots of cases where this has happened, and I’ll give a link to one of them to show what I’m talking about: Link
In the case I linked, a guy is convicted of rape. An appeals court says that the trial court wouldn’t allow the admission of certain evidence, which made the original outcome of the trial inappropriate. The appeals court throws out the conviction, and the guy is RETRIED. He is convicted a second time and spends roughly 7 more years in prison, when eventually due to DNA testing he is proven to be innocent and is released.
You’re right, of course. I should have written, if you’re tried and acquitted of something, you cannot be tried again on the same charge in that court (although the Feds might prosecute you on civil rights charges or the like - different court, different jurisdiction, no double jeopardy problem).
) Where does the government’s right to coerce such action come from?
