To clarify …
Some states agree with you and have enacted strict liability infraction statutes.
Maybe they should. Maybe it is negligent for a particular person to pursue a certain career, while they have young children. Maybe it is negligent to think you can have it all - at the same time. Maybe people need to make hard decisions, such as between starting a family and pursuing certain demanding careers. And perhaps as a society we need to examine the effect and costs of styling careers in certain ways - such as the resident doc you describe.
Does the reasonable person continue to pile more and more onto their plate until disaster strikes? I see no reason why this couldn’t be a factual determination to be made on a case-by-case basis. Courts do just this type of thing all the time.
I was suggesting that publicizing their example through a trial might remind others in society of what their priorities ought to be.
I used the word “stress” because I believe that was used in the WP article, and by several posters to suggest a situation in which brain function breaks down.
I dunno - it bothers me, even in the “good parent” examples, that it is considered w/in the acceptable bounds of normalcy for people to assume lifestyles in which the parent loses track of whether or not a child is in the car. Maybe a small child is important enough and helpless enough that parents ought to be more cognizant of their location at all times, and ought not rely on assumptions.
I don’t wish to come across as overly sanctimonious or heartless, tho I fear I am. I readily acknowledge that there were undoubtedly any number of occasions when my kids could have experience greater damage than they did while on my watch. But just because an element of misfortune is involved is not IMO by itself to eliminate the possibility of criminal liability.
And the bottomline is likely that with only 15-25 such deaths a year, this really may not be a sufficiently significant situation to worry about how it is handled.
Every time a child dies due to an accident, there will always be a question of whether the parent could or should have done more. Either you have to throw them all in jail or you have to figure out where to draw the line between tragic accident, ordinary negligence, and criminal negligence. Current law says preventable harm, alone, without a requisite mental state, is insufficient to warrant prison. Obviously, some people are ok with that and others are not.
Well, here’s a news story for y’all to chew on…
Deputy Not Charged with Crime In Accidental Child Shooting
A child’s father, an off-duty deputy, was cleaning a gun. He turned to prepare the gun to go in a safe, when his daughter walked up to the open safe, grabbed another gun and shot herself.
The father said he did not know his daughter was so close to the safe.
The article says the case is going to be referred to the DA, but the news channel is now reporting no charges will be filed.
Here’s my initial reaction:
The deputy knows loaded guns are dangerous, hence the safe.
He apparently knows his child is somewhere in the house. He doesn’t know exactly where his child is within the house when he turns his back, but, as far as I can tell, he knows the child is in the house. His defense is that he didn’t know she was that close to the safe.
He knows the safe is open, willfully.
Her knows the door to the room is open, willfully.
He knows turning his back on a loaded gun with a child somewhere nearby presents a risk of harm.
He knows the child could come into the room at any moment.
If he didn’t know the child was home at all, then maybe I can see a lack of sufficient knowledge in his part. If he knows the child is somewhere at home, then he should have taken more precaution.
In this case, he willfully provided access to his loaded gun in an open room, with an open safe, with a child at home, with his back willfully turned.
There is no excuse for this. I pointed out an example eerily familiar with this because this has happened several times prior. Sometime in 2001 i was in roll call when the Deputy Sup made a surprise appearance. She passed out gun locks and we had to sign for them. She then informed us essentially that if a situation such as the one the Deputy was involved in occurred then basically it was our asses on the line.
The death of that child is tragic and also unwarranted. Gun locks are not very expensive and easy to use. And yes… i have one on all three of my firearms.
Feel free to start a new thread – probably in the Pit.
I’m going to lock this one, which has, blessedly, run its course.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
There’s been a request that I reopen this thread and move it to GD, so I have done so. It’s up to the GD mods what happens with it now.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Are you proof against depressive illness, bereavement reaction, early onset dementia or other illness likely to affect your mrmory and actions.
Are you proof against being given medication with side effects that might change your abilities.
Are you proof against every little failing that mankind has?
Yes. Yes he is.
I am not sure who asked that thei thread be re-opened, but if all it attracted in the way of participation in over 36 hours were a couple of half-hearted personal comments, I am not leaving it open to fester.
Closed again.