I just want to point out that these need not be two separate “hands.”
One might reasonably say that killing an infant by abandoning it in a parked car is a most loathsome crime and something that might, just possibly, happen accidentally to any of us.
…leading to their negligence and the death of their child.
As I’ve said in discussions of another kind of vehicular killing, the fact that an event is accidental does not mean that it’s nobody’s fault.
I’m not eager to be construed as taking Dio’s side, but he is correct that leaving a baby in a parked car is always negligence. At best. Whether it is criminal negligence is perhaps a matter of debate, but indisputably a child has been neglected.
Everything that is forgotten is stuff you once knew. That’s an essential part of the definition of the word forget. You’re distorting “willfull” to the point of meaninglessness.
If you think about it, its nearly a circular definition, making a it a point barely worth making. Its almost like saying when something bad happens its like bad dude.
Off the top of my head, to me negligence means when something isnt done or done improperly and bad things result from that.
I dont think it takes a fracking rocket scientist to see that applies to babies left in cars to die.
There is a reason all these other fancy words keep appearing in front of the word negligence when discussing this story and the legal aspects of it. Because the word by itself really doesnt tell you anything you didnt already really know.
So the test is purely whether they say it was an accident? The ones who intentionally leave their kids in the car while they go to gamble or get their hair done get a free pass if they just say, “I forgot.”
You’re the one who wants to legalize cooking babies in cars and you say I’M not compassionate? My compassionate is for the victims here. These are not CD’s getting warped on a dashboard. These are completely helpless, suffering, innocent little victims. The people who cook them are not.
So the test is purely whether they say it was an accident? The ones who intentionally leave their kids in the car while they go to gamble or get their hair done get a free pass if they just say, "I forgot."QUOTE]
If they can convince a ADA they forgot, heck, yes.
Nothing to do with the discussion, but every time I read the thread title I keep seeing the following scene;
Somewhere in legendary Texas, in the 1880’s. A stranger rides into town. He gets off his horse and goes to the nearest saloon, to meet people and establish his peacable intentions.
He walks in and is approached by a rangy fellow with a six shooter on his side.
“Howdy stranger” says the gunslinger.
“Howdy.” says the stranger “My names Clem Burke, on my way to Abeline.”
“I’m Jake Johnson, but most folks here call me the Texas Kid.”
There’s a bit of embarrassed throat clearing among a group of men in the background. After some whispered discussion one comes forward.
“Uh, see, Jake, turns out there’s another Texas Kid, down in Beaumont. We needed to come up with a new nickname for you.”
Dio, it’s been sad for me to watch the downward spiral you’ve been in lately. I used to look forward to reading what you had to say.
First of all, you said these parents were guilty of murder. Murder does require intent. Now you are moving the goalposts and saying it’s criminal neglect. You have challenged people to google the statute, which surprisingly nobody has yet done. So here is the Indiana statute:
Bolding mine. It goes on to enumerate harsher penalties for different circumstances; it is a Class A Felony if it results in the death of the dependent. It clearly states it must be intentional.
I await your detraction, I hope it will not be necessary for me to go back and quote the times that you stated that intentionality is not required for the crime of neglect.
No it doesn’t require “willfully”… the essence of negligence is that you did not intend to commit the action in question which has caused the harm.
First. the parent is aware that leaving a child in a baking car will and can cause harm to the child. Second… the parent has a “duty” to the child to ensure his/her safety and to take reasonable measures to do so. Third… the parent NEGLECTED to do their duty causing said harm to the aforementioned child. Hence… you are responsible for your kid… left them in harms way… harm occurred… now if you want to argue that it’s an anomaly with this particular parent… or that certain stressful issues were at play fine… But the parent can potentially be liable for criminal negligence… If you google you’ll fine several cases where the presentation was made before the grand jury…
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG… did you not read “Knowingly or Intentionally”??
Hence either of those two must be in play for the law to be in effect. You knew you left your kid in the car… you just forgot to take him out. Like… you knew you left your loaded .38 on the armoire in the living room… you just forgot to put it up when your 11yr old’d friends came over to play Nintendo.
This is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. If you forgot that you left your kid in the car, you don’t know you left your kid in the car.
Also, leaving a loaded .38 sitting around is always dangerous. Putting a kid in the car is not. The negligence in leaving the gun out comes from the initial act of knowingly leaving it where a kid can get it, not in forgetting about it later. Forgetting you left a gun laying around (an illegal act in itself) is not the same as forgetting you put your kid in the car (a legal act.)
You mean retraction, not “detraction,” and none is warranted. What I said the parents were guilty of was leaving a baby unattended in a car, which is is explicitly forbidden by statute in and of itself (and the relevant state is Texas, not Indiana).
Beyond that, all these parents knew those kids were in the car, so no excuse there under the neglect statute you quoted (not that the Indiana statute is pertinent to Texas anyway).
The intent to take a certain action does not necessarily require an intention/knowledge/desire that a specific harmful outcome will occur.
Don’t know if I am handcapped by virtue of being a lawyer, but I though Chicagojeff’s description in#272 quite well phrased. For better or worse, many plain English words and phrases have specific definitions when used in legal context than when commonly used elsewhere.
Yes, of course retraction. Here is your quote, that I was hoping I would not have to dig up:
“Any statute” includes the Indiana statute. You were not merely arguing about that one specific Texas case, you were arguing about all of these cases in general. You asked for a statute that said it had to be intentional, and I provided one. And you never provided a cite for the Texas statute you keep referring to, despite being asked.
I remember the way you used to demolish people who used these kinds of tactics. Wonder where that person went.
I was talking about the unattended child statutes, not neglect statutes. Your cite is off point. It is illegal in Texas to leave a baby unattended in a car. It isn’t necessary to interpret a broader neglect statute. Leaving a baby in a car is a specific, delineated crime in itself.
When he says “illegal” now, he means an infraction under a strict liability statute, probably in the Vehicle Code. He’s moved on from murder and criminal negligence to an infraction statute with a fine of something like $100, as referenced in the other thread, because he’s got nothing else to hang his hat on at this point.