Texas toddler dies after mom leaves her in a hot car for 45 minutes

[MsWhatsit]

@tim314

It’s more like saying you know your car keys are on the kitchen counter because you put them there, even though you’d swear up and down that they’re in your purse because that’s where they usually are, and you don’t realize you just left them on the counter.

But yeah, I agree with your general point.

Yes, that is a better analogy; thank you.

Incidentally, if I ever find myself in a thread where multiple people are attempting to patiently explain very basic concepts to me, such as what it means to “forget something,” I will know that it is time to take a very long break from the Internet and seriously re-evaluate my life.

[Canadjun]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That woman just never dropped the kid off. It’s not like somebidy told her the kid was with the sitter. She just said she’d forgotten to drop the kid off. She DID know the kid was in the car to begin with.

To me, lack of knowledge would mean that they NEVER knew the kid was in the car

So, if I forget the PIN to my bank card I still know what the PIN is (especially given that I knew the PIN when I created it)?! Interesting interpretation of “forget”.

[Cat_Whisperer]

The human brain is a magnificent and mysterious organ; I’ve told this story before, about how I was looking at a van in traffic and thought the name on the van was humourous. As I continued looking at the van, the letters re-arranged themselves as I watched into what the name on the van actually WAS. We are pattern-recognizers and short-cutters; we use pattern recognition all the time instead of actually seeing and processing everything around us. What your eyes see and your ears hear are NOT what your mind thinks is reality - it’s processed before it gets to the consciousness that is “you.” My point, I guess, is that if you think you know your own mind, you don’t even know what you don’t know.

[Bearflag70]

As a matter of law, people should be deemed to know today every fact or thing they have ever known throughout their entire lives.

[MsWhatsit]

@Bearflag70

As a matter of law, people should be deemed to know today every fact or thing they have ever known throughout their entire lives.

No worries; there are already laws and statutes about that. Plenty of them. They are on the books. Just look them up. I’m not going to because this is common knowledge.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Bearflag70

As a matter of law, people should be deemed to know today every fact or thing they have ever known throughout their entire lives.

I can barely remember what I had for breakfast. There’s a reason women stop being fertile right around the time they stop having a functioning brain. “Baby? What baby? I don’t have a…OHMYGOD!”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@InterestedObserver

And there have been such cases. Cases in which the spouse or someone else had strapped the child in to be dropped off and due to miscommunication, the driving parent never knew.

If the parent never knew, I find no negligence. if they did, I do. The child is their responsibility when they put it in the car. They don’t have a right to forget.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@tim314

As with any testimony, you listen to what they have to say and then judge if it’s credible. I find it hard to believe you actually read that whole article linked above and concluded that every single one of those parents was a liar who deliberately murdered their kids.

I didn’t conclude that. It’s possible they’re telling the truth. I don’t know. The fact that it’s impossible to tell is the point. What’s the difference in behavior betwen someone who’s lying and someone who’s not? Susan Smith sounded convincing.

Believe it or not, you can feel sorry for the kids who died, and also feel sorry for the parents who accidentally killed their kids. In my book, they’ve both suffered horribly.

I do feel sorry for the parents for whom it was legitimately an accident, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have to face consequences.

[Bearflag70]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

If the parent never knew, I find no negligence. if they did, I do. The child is their responsibility when they put it in the car. They don’t have a right to forget.

So now you are shifting the actus reus from the act of leaving the child in the car to the act of forgetting the child is in the car?

Overlooking the fact that this totally conflates the notions of actus reus and mens rea, care to explain how the act of forgetting is willful, knowing, or intentional?

[tim314]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I do feel sorry for the parents for whom it was legitimately an accident, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have to face consequences.

Their child is dead. Isn’t that consequence enough?

(And a followup for when you inevitably answer “No”: Why the hell not?)

[ToborAton]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Like I’ve been saying, it’s not that I think I’m immune to going on auto-pilot or spacing things out – on the contary, I’m more prone to that than most. I spend probably about 70% of my waking hours with my head up my ass. It’s because I know that about myself that I institute check routines when leaving my house or leaving my car.

In “Emotion-Induced Amnesia in Rats,” Dr. Diamond has looked at predator stress in rats; which is to say he exposed them to cats. He made the following claims:

1. predator stress selectively impaired working (hippocampal-dependent), but not reference (hippocampal-independent), memory;
2. a fear-provoking stimulus, and not merely novelty and increased arousal, impaired spatial memory;
3. increased corticosterone levels correlated withimpaired spatial working memory only under predator exposure, that is, fear-provoking
   conditions.

We have two different kinds of memory: spatial working memory (hippocampal-dependent) and spatial reference memory (hippocampal-independent). Your referential memory stores things like where you live, the names and faces and smells about your family. Your working memory stores things like mental checklists and what you believe to be happening in the world and that would include things like whether your kid is in the car, whether your coffee is in the car, whether you have already locked the car door and whether you have already checked to see if your kid is in the car.

Now I am going to make some IMHO type guesses about you that I suspect.

I can tell that personal responsibility is a big thing with you but it means that you are less likely than most to take a break when your obligations are stressing you out and you are more likely to miss sleep for the same reason. It also means that you are relying on complicated checklists that you shouldn’t trust as much as you do; if you ever actually did leave a kid in the car you would just be more certain that you didn’t. Your complicated checklists also mean that you are exceptionally prepared for situations that you are expecting and new situations will just cause that much more stress for you when they happen.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So if they’re good enough actors, they walk?

Yep, that’s how the legal system works.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bearflag70

So now you are shifting the actus reus from the act of leaving the child in the car to the act of forgetting the child is in the car?

Only if the parent was never made aware at all that the child was in the car. If they knew and forgot, then they knew.

Overlooking the fact that this totally conflates the notions of actus reus and mens rea, care to explain how the act of forgetting is willful, knowing, or intentional?

It’s negligent. It’s their job to make sure they DON’T forget.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@tim314

Their child is dead. Isn’t that consequence enough?

Not if they wanted the child to be dead.

[Bearflag70]

Criminal negligence only becomes relevant when the defendant is accused of willfully allowing a child … to be placed in a harmful or dangerous situation where the person are likely to be injured…

So you are saying the parent willfuly failed to take sufficient measures to ensure protection against their own potential forgetfulness?

[Bearflag70]

@Bearflag70

Overlooking the fact that this totally conflates the notions of actus reus and mens rea, care to explain how the act of forgetting is willful, knowing, or intentional?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s negligent. It’s their job to make sure they DON’T forget.

I didn’t ask you if it was “negligent.” I asked you how the act of forgetting is “willful.” You don’t get to just declare something is criminally negligent unless you first find something is willful.

[Chicagojeff]

@Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley

Uh, no you didn’t. Now you’re just straight up lying. You were asked for a cite. You quoted the request for a cite and said “Google any statute. Show me one that says it has to be intentional.”

That’s it. That’s what happened. You never provided a cite. For obvious reasons, since the cite would have shown how full of shit you are.

I think what this has proven is your inability to read a cite. I can see that you can google that bad boy… but you surely can’t interpret it. Once again… the OR shows you that either knowing or Intentionally can be used in the enforcement. And what cockamamy idea is it that if you forget you surely didn’t know? HUH? Okay… you left junior in the car… you FORGOT you left him but junior surely didn’t materialize inside of the vehicle. YOU put him their.
If you forgot the kid because of some say big business deal… then knowingly would apply… if you left him in the car so you could hit the slot machines… then intentionally would come into play.
And btw… i know I’m stuck in a very red GA… but where is it illegal to leave a loaded firearm on a table? That’s interesting. The firearm only comes into play when a minor picks it up and harm is done. I had no idea my kid would pick up my gun i forgot about and shoot his neighbor buddy. See… hence i had no intent. But see i did have knowledge because I’m the dumbass who left it out. Forgetting i left the gun out, or forgetting junior is in the backseat doesn’t put you in the clear. As for the flaming of DIO… enough already…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bearflag70

So you are saying the parent willfuly failed to take sufficient measures to ensure protection against their own potential forgetfulness?

Yes. I always take those measures, why can’t they?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bearflag70

I didn’t ask you if it was “negligent.” I asked you how the act of forgetting is “willful.”

They willfully neglected to take measures to make sure they didn’t forget the baby.

[Bearflag70]

@Chicagojeff

I think what this has proven is your inability to read a cite. I can see that you can google that bad boy… but you surely can’t interpret it. Once again… the OR shows you that either knowing or Intentionally can be used in the enforcement. And what cockamamy idea is it that if you forget you surely didn’t know? HUH? Okay… you left junior in the car… you FORGOT you left him but junior surely didn’t materialize inside of the vehicle. YOU put him their.
If you forgot the kid because of some say big business deal… then knowingly would apply… if you left him in the car so you could hit the slot machines… then intentionally would come into play.

Holy hell.

---

Texas penal code 5-22-10
Sec. 22.10. LEAVING A CHILD IN A VEHICLE. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly leaves a child in a motor vehicle for longer than five minutes, knowing that the child is:

(1) younger than seven years of age; and

(2) not attended by an individual in the vehicle who is 14 years of age or older.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

---

1. If you have knowledge of a fact and then you forget that fact, then you no longer have knowledge of that fact. You had knowledge at one time and then that knowledge went away. A person cannot willfully or intentionally forget something.

2. When you put the kid in the car, you have knowledge. However, putting the kid in the car is not a dangerous thing. Leaving the kid in the car unattended is what’s dangerous.

3. After you put the kid in the car, you forget that fact. Thus you no longer have knowledge of the fact that the kid is in the car with you.

4. When you get out of the car, you have no knowledge the kid is in the car because you forgot, and that knowledge left your brain.

5. You left the car with the kid in it, but you did not knowingly do it because you did not know the kid was there at the time you did it. (See 1-4, above).

6. You also did not knowingly leave the kid in the car knowing the kid is not attended by someone at least 14 years old because you did not know the kid was even in the car at the time you closed the car door and walked away.

7. Crimes require temporal concurrence of the requisite mental state and the act or omission causing the harm. In plain English, this means your knowledge and your harmful act must occur at the same time. Otherwise there is no crime. The question is not whether you ever knew the kid was in the car, but whether you knew at the time you left the kid in the car that the kid was actually in the car. You had no such knowledge because you forgot that fact some time after you got in the car but before the time you got out of the car. (See 1-4 above).

8. You did not intentionally leave the kid in the car because you had no knowledge the kid was even there at the time you closed the door and walked away. You had no knowledge at the time because you forgot. You had no such knowledge because you forgot that fact some time after you got in the car but before the time you got out of the car. (See 1-4 above).

Please tell me, specifically, where and how my analysis fails.