2 toddlers dead after been left in car overnight.

Keyzer

As a father of two young kids, I find it very upsetting reading these stories. Truly horrific behaviour from a supposed adult putting themselves first ahead of their kids.

What a truly, truly deplorable way to treat two young, innocent children which, sadly, ended with both of them losing their lives through no mistake of their own.

lawred2

It's hard not to think of those kids in the car - terrified and alone.

Noveight

lawred2 wrote: »

It's hard not to think of those kids in the car - terrified and alone.

An utterly heartbreaking thought

valoren

Having spent time in Texas and experiencing 40 c heat and humidity, I can only imagine what those poor kids endured.
Sickening.

ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Of course the two are comparable... just because that makes you uncomfortable, doesn't make it any less of a reality!

And you responded to that post by calling into question an element of the poster's character, rather than addressing the point. Even if you disagree with the comparison... automatically assuming that they must lack sensitivity, is wrong.

It is PC... your comment, as mod, shows that upholding a certain image around here, is more important than actually allowing a real serious debate to take place. Feelings before truth... Image over substance!

If that's what you wanna believe... it's not the reality of what I see around here. This place only wants soft debates. Once anything controversial breaks out, where there is a minority that hold perfectly legitimate, but often unpopular, views... those discussions are often shut down very quickly!!

Certain people are afraid to discuss certain issues, and this site frequently panders to their wishes over and above the need to actually have a worthwhile discussion. The ostriches, with their head's in the sand, get to set the agenda and decide what does and doesn't get discussed. Stamp your feet, throw a hissy fit... and the mods close the discussion! It's pathetic... but that's the world we now live in, sadly!

One simple question. If the father in the Tipp case was reminded that his baby was in the car at any time in the morning, do you think he would have stayed working and ignored her? Because that is a very clear and stark indication of the motives at play in the US case.

If you think yes, he would have stayed on and ignored any warning, he did not care for his child, at least you are being consistent.

eviltwin

I can't believe anyone would compare this case of obvious neglect to the tragic accident that happened in Tipperary. Like comparing chalk and cheese and a huge insult to the family of the little baby to even try and draw a link.

Rest in peace little ones.

Kimbot

lawred2 wrote: »

I'm not passing blame to anyone if that's what you think I was doing.. I'm just amazed that there wasn't even one single person near to her with a strong enough character to demand that she do the right thing..

There were numerous missed opportunities.

Sad. Really sad.

Ah no i got ya man, its just a heartbreaking story. I can't understand how anyone could do that to their own children

JP Liz V1

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't believe anyone would compare this case of obvious neglect to the tragic accident that happened in Tipperary. Like comparing chalk and cheese and a huge insult to the family of the little baby to even try and draw a link.

Rest in peace little ones.

I think it is because both were child fatalities caused by being left in a car by a parent so naturally comparisons will be made

RIP little angels in both cases, some people should not have kids :mad:

mdwexford

100 years in jail without the possibility of parole, or the death penalty.

Only two things this cunt deserves.

Sapphire3

Shocking and heartbreaking. Some people should be sterilised!

darced

This post has been deleted.

IvyTheTerrible

darced wrote: »

Why are people saying this was intentional? did she actually mean to kill her children? What she did was stupid beyond belief but I don't buy that she intended to kill them.

She left them deliberately in a car in Texas heat fir hours. Refused to bring them inside so she could continue drinking. Then she didn't take them to the hospital for hours after. Sounds fairly deliberate to me.

buzzwell

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

This is a load of rubbish and completely irrelevant to this thread. It's not about political correctness at all, so don't bother trying to turn the discussion into something it isn't.

My post that you quoted was made in response to somebody mentioning a toddler dying was caused by stupidity, when it was in fact a tragic accident and not comparable to this case.

That's a load of rubbish, both cases are a result of utter stupidity; do you want to defend one of them on the basis of it not being a "stupid" thing to do??

Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it.

buzzwell

buzzwell wrote: »

That's a load of rubbish, both cases are a result of utter stupidity; do you want to defend one of them on the basis of it not being a "stupid" thing to do??

Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it.

I think the mother in the US case is accused of more than mere stupidity. In that instance, the suggestion is that the potential danger was specifically brought to her attention but she ignored it. She knew of or chose to ignore the very clear threat to her children. There is no suggestion whatsoever that the father in Tipp even knew his child was in danger, the reports suggest something very different, that it was a tragic accident.

Persephone kindness

jonnycivic wrote: »

All in all apparently she will only serve upto 2 years in prison :mad:

I am really sorry RIP.

It's not enough. It's manslaughter. I have zero respect for people like this.

I guarantee you this is not the first time she left her kids alone. I guarantee you she is an alcoholic and people close to her knew it was an issue.

buzzwell

Caden Unimportant Selflessness wrote: »

One was deliberate, the other was a tragic mistake.

You know this, how?
Has there been a trial I have missed?
If this begins to happen regularly, becomes a "thing", forgetting about children left in cars, how should we handle it? It IS a "syndrome" apparently.
Shrug shoulders and treat them all "sensitively"?
Carry on regardless or make an example of one in the hope it stops?
Which one do you make an example of, the first, third, twelfth case?
And how did you arrive at your decision?

buzzwell

buzzwell wrote: »

You know this, how?
Has there been a trial I have missed?

No, because those investigating the matter decided very quickly that there wasn't even evidence of the recklessness that may have justified a manslaughter charge. Again the mother in the USA seems to be way within the recklessness category.

Do you think they were equally aware of the dangers the children were exposed to?

buzzwell

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no suggestion whatsoever that the father in Tipp even knew his child was in danger, the reports suggest something very different, that it was a tragic accident.

I was responding to being told it was some kind of (presumably understandable mistake) not stupidity.

BTW, What's the source of all this certain knowledge about the case, Facebook??

Samaris

buzzwell wrote: »

I was responding to being told it was some kind of (presumably understandable mistake) not stupidity.

BTW, What's the source of all this certain knowledge about the case, Facebook??

Er, the news reports. There were quite a lot of them at the time.

The attempt to drag in the Tipp case needs to end. It is not relevant to the conversation unless one wants to make a point about the effects of heat stroke in a car. The Tipp case was a tragic accident, this was not. Given it's the intentionality of this case that is causing so much anger (coupled with the normal sorrow/shock at the awful deaths of two small children), the Tipp case is a thorough red herring.

buzzwell

buzzwell wrote: »

I was responding to being told it was some kind of (presumably understandable mistake) not stupidity.

BTW, What's the source of all this certain knowledge about the case, Facebook??

You've ignored my question in favour of some silly Facebook point.

Do you think the parents in both instances were equally aware of the dangers that their children were exposed to and are equally culpable?

Persephone kindness

She exhibited harmful behaviors towards herself and her children. These harmful behaviors alone were responsible for the death of her children.

buzzwell

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've ignored my question in favour of some silly Facebook point.

Do you think the parents in both instances were equally aware of the dangers that their children were exposed to and are equally culpable?

Yes they are equally culpable.
Whether they are aware of the dangers or not is immaterial.
It is immaterial in every other scenario that I can think of which leads to a tragic unnecessary death and if you want to explain why it should be different for an infants death be my guest.

I would go so far as suggesting that someone who finds themself in such an unimaginable position might even welcome criminal proceedings being brought against themselves as some form of brutal, base atonement for their actions.

Now, you or the poster I originally reponded to might answer my questions as to how we should proceed if these incidents, the quite widely accepted on boards "forgetting about baby in the car syndrome" starts becoming more prevalent here.

Bear in mind it could be a childminder forgetting it's yours or my baby in their car.

Do we keep treating it "sensitively" which is short for not touching it with a barge pole for fear of causing offence?

buzzwell

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Ultimately they are both cases of neglect... it's just that one appears to be a far worse example than the other!

People trying to convince themselves that the two cases are nothing alike, are quite frankly deluded and naive! There are different degrees of neglect... that is the only real difference we see here!



Yeah, because that's what matters most in this PC bs liberal fantasy land we inhabit... right??

Sensitivity before truth... Heaven forbid that forcing people to face the harsh reality of a given situation, might hurt a few feelings, bruise a few egos or bring about a moment or two of reflection or introspection!?

Well said. Calling a spade a spade.

Murrisk

I can't understand how people can't see the nuanced difference between the two cases.

Actually, it's not even a nuanced difference, it's a pretty fucking obvious one.

When I read the posts that say the two cases are comparable instead of quite disparate, I am reminded of the quote: "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

lawred2

Murrisk wrote: »

I can't understand how people can't see the nuanced difference between the two cases.

Actually, it's not even a nuanced difference, it's a pretty fucking obvious one.

When I read the posts that say the two cases are comparable instead of quite disparate, I am reminded of the quote: "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

the cases are different sure..

doesn't matter to the children though..

Just varying degrees of negligence. One based in absent mindedness. The other based in vile blackhearted selfishness.

Murrisk

lawred2 wrote: »

the cases are different sure..

doesn't matter to the children though..

Just varying degrees of negligence. One based in absent mindedness. The other based in vile blackhearted selfishness.

Well, according to the guards, the former is not any kind of negligence that should result in a charge being brought. So I'd say the negligence there is, well, negligible. What happened to that father a few weeks ago could happen to any of us. No parent has never done something negligent. It's very easy for someone to say they wouldn't have done what he did. They will likely always get away with their moments of carelessness. Most people do.

The case with the woman is different because there was intent. Most people can safely and honestly say they would not do what she did. That is the difference between the two cases.

Saying the two cases are close comes across as the transparent, righteous posturing that it is. Nakedly so. And it's being treated with the disdain it deserves.

lawred2

Murrisk wrote: »

Well, according to the guards, the former is not any kind of negligence that should result in a charge being brought. So I'd say the negligence there is, well, negligible. What happened to that father a few weeks ago could happen to any of us. No parent has never done something negligent. It's very easy for someone to say they wouldn't have done what he did. They will likely always get away with their moments of carelessness. Most people do.

The case with the woman is different because there was intent. Most people can safely and honestly say they would not do what she did. That is the difference between the two cases.

The guards not taking a case means that they believe the negligence not to be serious enough to be a criminal matter..

It's still negligence. Just not premeditated.

I'm not saying that they are the same btw. But I'm also not saying that they are different.

Murrisk

lawred2 wrote: »

The guards not taking a case means that they believe the negligence not to be serious enough to be a criminal matter..

It's still negligence. Just not premeditated.

I'm not saying that they are the same btw. But I'm also not saying that they are different.

Well, they are different. Very, very different.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

the cases are different sure..

doesn't matter to the children though..

Just varying degrees of negligence. One based in absent mindedness. The other based in vile blackhearted selfishness.

Not sure there was varying degrees of negligence. Criminal law usually requires intent, sometimes that can be lowered to recklessness, in rare cases it can be lowered again to negligence, and for offences of strict liability there is no requirement to demonstrate any mens rea at all. It seems the US case is fairly within the 1st or 2nd category, there is no evidence that the Tipp tragedy was anything other than the 3rd.

buzzwell

buzzwell wrote: »

Yes they are equally culpable.
Whether they are aware of the dangers or not is immaterial.
It is immaterial in every other scenario that I can think of which leads to a tragic unnecessary death and if you want to explain why it should be different for an infants death be my guest.

Pick up a criminal law book. Read it. I could try to explain it, but it would take a few hundred pages. If you say they are "equally culpable", and actually advertise that you do not understand the significance of the difference between specific knowledge of the danger and no such knowledge, there is little point starting. You have placed a "I don't understand the issues" flashing neon sign on your own post.

mcgragger

horrendous - what a horrible world some times

I am not religious but in cases like this I wish so hard for a heaven and hell to exist!
Poor little kids :-(

buzzwell

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pick up a criminal law book. Read it. I could try to explain it, but it would take a few hundred pages. If you say they are "equally culpable", and actually advertise that you do not understand the significance of the difference between specific knowledge of the danger and no such knowledge, there is little point starting. You have placed a "I don't understand the issues" flashing neon sign on your own post.

Bravo. Marvellous sleight of hand deflecting from the questions I've asked regarding the local case of the "forgettting about child in a car syndrome" that people have been widely promoting here.

It must be difficult, if it was easy they would have been answered surely.

buzzwell

buzzwell wrote: »

Bravo. Marvellous sleight of hand deflecting from the questions I've asked regarding the local case of the "forgettting about child in a car syndrome" that people have been widely promoting here.

It must be difficult, if it was easy they would have been answered surely.

On the contrary, you have not shown one iota of evidence to demonstrate that the parties are responsible in the exact same way. The onus is on you, as the person suggesting the culpability was the same, to demonstrate why.

Look, it is glaringly obvious you do not understand the concepts of intent, recklessness and negligence. But you surely understand ideas like logic and argument. "Children died...cars...so tis all the same so" is neither.

And adding in the smart stuff like "bravo" or "did you get that on Facebook" doesn't really paper your fundamental inability to follow the issues. It just suggests you are getting rattled. It's like another neon sign flashing over your efforts.

buzzwell

Deleted User wrote: »

On the contrary, you have not shown one iota of evidence to demonstrate that the parties are responsible in the exact same way. The onus is on you, as the person suggesting the culpability was the same, to demonstrate why.

I said both are equally culpable. Equally deserving of blame for the death of children in their care.
Maybe you'd now like to try going down the "victim blaming" route by ascribing blame to the toddlers themselves or someone else?

My questions about it remain there for you or anyone else to answer, I've no wish to be baited into an ad hominem spat with you or be accused of badgering you to answer them.

buzzwell

buzzwell wrote: »

Maybe you'd now like to try going down the "victim blaming" route by ascribing blame to the toddlers themselves or someone else?

No. Again you only underline your inability to grasp the issues at stake.

Understanding the distinctions between intent, recklessness and negligence does not amount to blaming the victims at all. They are children. Not one person, not one, has suggested they were to blame. If you think someone has, point to that poster. To drop that in is akin to your "did you get it on Facebook" point. It is just designed to inflame, not to add anything of note to the issue.

Johngoose

Why have the kids in the first place if you don't want to look after them?

MonkieSocks

Yourself isit wrote: »

I swear I thought I saw that story a few years ago with the same picture of the woman.

Maybe that was Casey Anthony you seen a few yers ago.

Think she partied while her child was reported missing and later found murdered.

buzzwell

Deleted User wrote: »

.

Understanding the distinctions between intent, recklessness and negligence does not amount to blaming the victims at all. They are children. Not one person, not one, has suggested they were to blame. If you think someone has, point to that poster. To drop that in is akin to your "did you get it on Facebook" point. It is just designed to inflame, not to add anything of note to the issue.

I didn't say anyone had, so why make as if I had suggested they had???

To distract and distort what I did say I suppose. Trickery.
If youre so interested why not actually deal with my questions and not what I haven't said?

I totally get that there's a reluctance to answer but don't get why you keep replying if you've got nothing to say on the matter.

I'd respect it if you said that rather than trying to twist what I did say.

Samaris

buzzwell wrote: »

Bravo. Marvellous sleight of hand deflecting from the questions I've asked regarding the local case of the "forgettting about child in a car syndrome" that people have been widely promoting here.

It must be difficult, if it was easy they would have been answered surely.

No idea what your actual question was, but the major, huge difference is as follows;

Tipp case: There was no evidence of deliberate neglect. The father did not intentionally leave his child in the car. There was no evidence that he realised the little one was still there. This is something that, as awful as is it, happens, has happened to people from all walks of life, some excellent parents as well as less involved parents, and is recognised as a tragic accident that can leave children dead and families destroyed. This is so goddam tragic and also important to realise because it can happen to anyone. Even you or me (god forbid). The fault is ultimately the parents', that's true, but it is not criminal neglect unless done intentionally (there was one case where it was).

This case: There was every evidence of deliberate neglect, she was reminded consistently about the children, she was asked to bring them in, someone else actually went and stayed in the car and had to push her to bring the children to the hospital. She made a deliberate decision to leave the children in the car.

The only connection is that the children were in a car when the fatal effects of heat stroke occurred that killed them. It's insane to keep trying to compare them as the same thing. It is utter rubbish, it plays down what happened here and it exaggerates what happened in the other case. Just because the results are the same - children are dead through no fault of their own - does not mean that all surrounding factors were the same.

somefeen

Samaris wrote: »

No idea what your actual question was, but the major, huge difference is as follows;

Tipp case: There was no evidence of deliberate neglect. The father did not intentionally leave his child in the car. There was no evidence that he realised the little one was still there. This is something that, as awful as is it, happens, has happened to people from all walks of life, some excellent parents as well as less involved parents, and is recognised as a tragic accident that can leave children dead and families destroyed. This is so goddam tragic and also important to realise because it can happen to anyone. Even you or me (god forbid). The fault is ultimately the parents', that's true, but it is not criminal neglect unless done intentionally (there was one case where it was).

This case: There was every evidence of deliberate neglect, she was reminded consistently about the children, she was asked to bring them in, someone else actually went and stayed in the car and had to push her to bring the children to the hospital. She made a deliberate decision to leave the children in the car.

The only connection is that the children were in a car when the fatal effects of heat stroke occurred that killed them. It's insane to keep trying to compare them as the same thing. It is utter rubbish, it plays down what happened here and it exaggerates what happened in the other case. Just because the results are the same - children are dead through no fault of their own - does not mean that all surrounding factors were the same.

And it could not be made any clearer than the above.
If you read that and still fail to grasp the difference between the two cases, then your intelligence has to be questioned

buzzwell

Samaris wrote: »

No idea what your actual question was, but the major, huge difference is as follows;

Tipp case: There was no evidence of deliberate neglect. The father did not intentionally leave his child in the car. There was no evidence that he realised the little one was still there. This is something that, as awful as is it, happens, has happened to people from all walks of life, some excellent parents as well as less involved parents, and is recognised as a tragic accident that can leave children dead and families destroyed. This is so goddam tragic and also important to realise because it can happen to anyone. Even you or me (god forbid). The fault is ultimately the parents', that's true, but it is not criminal neglect unless done intentionally (there was one case where it was).

This case: There was every evidence of deliberate neglect, she was reminded consistently about the children, she was asked to bring them in, someone else actually went and stayed in the car and had to push her to bring the children to the hospital. She made a deliberate decision to leave the children in the car.

The only connection is that the children were in a car when the fatal effects of heat stroke occurred that killed them. It's insane to keep trying to compare them as the same thing. It is utter rubbish, it plays down what happened here and it exaggerates what happened in the other case. Just because the results are the same - children are dead through no fault of their own - does not mean that all surrounding factors were the same.

I am well aware of all of the above.

I have not confused one case with the other, if you believe I have, please show where you think you saw that.

My questions arose from another poster mentioning the "Tipp" case and the subsequent, inevitable closing of the thread because the topic was not the usual boards fare.

Presumably it's OK to discuss and and fall for "genuinely forgotten baby in the car syndrome" if it happens in the US but not so if it's too close to home.

That's your prerogative, that's how boards is operating now, discussions with only mainstream views are encouraged.

Thinking outside the box and against the grain is not, for fear of upsetting the PC brigade.

My questions, which seem to be presenting some difficulties, were about how people would react should the "syndrome" they have now so considerately embraced from the US become more widespread here and whether they'd be so understanding if it was their baby that had been a victim of the "syndrome".

No is to blame if I follow that rightly.
It's all explained away.
Would you still be so understanding if your own child died in a hot car, a victim of the syndrone, presuming that you're also a proponent of this syndrome, as most posters here seem to be?

I don't think anyone would if it hit them personally, I certainly wouldnt.

If I'm off topic that's one thing, but please dont make out I'm confusing one case for the other.

osarusan

buzzwell wrote: »

That's your prerogative, that's how boards is operating now, discussions with only mainstream views are encouraged.

Thinking outside the box and against the grain is not, for fear of upsetting the PC brigade.

I can understand that it's kind of attractive to think that you are being disagreed with because of this...but actually it's just because you are talking bollocks.

Mrfrosty

buzzwell wrote: »

BS removed

A syndrome you have alright, we get it what age are you 12 ffs.

Kimbot

buzzwell wrote: »

My questions arose from another poster mentioning the "Tipp" case and the subsequent, inevitable closing of the thread because the topic was not the usual boards fare.

Presumably it's OK to discuss and and fall for "genuinely forgotten baby in the car syndrome" if it happens in the US but not so if it's too close to home.

That's your prerogative, that's how boards is operating now, discussions with only mainstream views are encouraged.

Thinking outside the box and against the grain is not, for fear of upsetting the PC brigade.

MOD - Buzzwell, the Tipp thread was closed for valid reasons, if you have an issue with that you can PM any one of the After Hours mods to discuss but discussion of it in this thread ends now!

buzzwell

jonnycivic wrote: »

MOD - Buzzwell, the Tipp thread was closed for valid reasons, if you have an issue with that you can PM any one of the After Hours mods to discuss but discussion of it in this thread ends now!

That's fine thanks, no, Im not interested in trying to have a board management decision overturned and I appreciate you not saying Im confusing one case with the other.

Cee-Jay-Cee

In this instance I think the only justice is an eye for an eye. She should be locked in a car with no fluids or way out during similar weather/temperature conditions to experience exactly what her kids suffered. If she survives it, she should then be jailed for life.

What an utter fücking low life scumbag bitch.

Samaris

Tbh, she probably would. Adults (particularly those in the prime of life) have much better internal temperature control. Children suffer most from this sort of thing not only because they're less likely to be able to get themselves out, but also because their bodies are simply more susceptible to both over-heating and freezing.

Not that I agree with "eye for an eye" in general.