Should Vice Principal Lose Her Job? - (*Warning-Gruesome topic")

[Blarg]

Agreed. It looks to me to be another feeble extension of this culture of victimhood that America seems to have so wholeheartedly embraced that we now want to make even someone who repeatedly rolls the dice on her child's life come out looking like she's just been misunderstood and is unfairly being set upon. There's a victim here all right, but it's not the mother.

[DeuceKicker]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, if you're a douchebag and try to pass it off as something else, and get called on it, don't act so surprised and indignant.

[/ QUOTE ] Would that qualify as an ad hominem remark?

[ QUOTE ]
You also seem to be very perverse in insisting that those who disagree with you have not thought about an issue or have closed minds. Believe it, disagreeing with you does not make anyone your inferiors. Casting them as such really sucks, though.

[/ QUOTE ]Come of that utterly silly Straw Man. Disagreeing with you is not acting superior to anyone.

[DeuceKicker]

[ QUOTE ]
She backed her car up. She should have seen the child, and I think she did.

Sending her to jail at the very least keeps her from neglecting her other child and possibly endangering the children at her work.

[/ QUOTE ]I meant to respond to this earlier, but got sidetracked in all the silliness.

At two most kids are in a forward-facing seat. My daughter is small for her age and was forward-facing at age two. This makes the likelihood that mom would have glanced over her shoulder and not seen her child close to nil, IMO. I'd have to hear her explanation of how she backed up (did she look over her left shoulder? Did she use her mirrors?)

I guess the crux of the matter to me is that I'd want really strong evidence before I put her away for this. I don't see how jail helps her or society as a whole. If the concern is that she might endanger children in her care through neglect or incompetence, then she should lose her job. If there's some reason she can't be fired, maybe the school board could mandate that there always be another adult with her if she's ever going to be around children. Then her contract would not be renewed at the end of the year.

On the off chance that she wasn't malicious or willfully negligent, and just had a really really disastrous brainfart, I guess I lean toward the allow one guilty person to go free to be sure 100 innocents don't go to jail camp.

Again I'll refer back to the man in Detroit who forgot his baby in the car. (And let's assume for a second that he really was "innocent".) Should he have gone to jail? Should his wife and other children have been deprived of his presence (and paycheck)?

[jzpiano]

Thinking about this more I'm really leaning towards of the side of she knew about this, but just didn't care and therefore should be punished. My reasoning is as follows, but let me preface it by saying that I do not have children, so I'm not speaking from experience, but rather my own instincts/feelings.

I assume like 99% of other working adults with children, she probably has a picture of them on her desk. Therefore at any point she is at her desk she should see the picture of her children and be reminded of them. Even if she isn't at her desk, I'm sure most parents think about their kids often during the day (or so I'm told). Therefore, when she thought of her children, shouldn't it have occurred to her that she left one of them in the car! This is much like leaving your keys in the car and saying oh [censored], i forgot my keys, during the middle of the day or insert another example here.

I just think this whole thing is a load of crap and that saying this is a forgivable accident in the eyes of society is a bunch of bull. And then letting her return to her job with a bunch of children, as an educator, don't even get me started on that.

[DeuceKicker]

What if she passed a polygraph and the examiner concluded that she somehow didn't see her child in the back seat?

Should she go to jail?
Should she lose her job?
Should she lose custody of her other child?

Assuming she's married, I guess I'd answer No, Yes, No.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

What if she passed a polygraph and the examiner concluded that she somehow didn't see her child in the back seat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having experienced something as traumatic as losing her child and facing blame for it, she's going to start believing that she didn't see her child and thus render a polygraph test unreliable.

Now hypothetically if the above weren't an issue, then my answer would be no, yes, maybe. She could keep her kid so long as she is never solely responsible for her care.

[Michaelson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, stop trying to mask ad hominem remarks with the patronizing "voice of reason" schtick. If you don't want to stir up the pot, don't poop into it.

[/ QUOTE ]How about you stop with the condescending lectures, hypocrisy, and silly armchair psychoanalysis, and I'll stop with the schtick. You go first.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not supposed to put your newborn in a crib with loose bedding, yet a number of babies die every year from getting twisted up in loose bedding and being strangled. Did those parents "kill" their child? What about the parent who lets their baby sleep with them and rolls over in the middle of the night and smothers them. (I think this happens much less often, but can still happen.)

[/ QUOTE ]

These things are in no way analogous to what this woman did.

[/ QUOTE ] Wow. You think committing murder in the course of an armed robbery is “very similar” to this case, but my examples are “in no way analogous”? Why don't you tell me why my analogies don't fit? I'll grant that it's not a perfect fit because child-rearing experts aren't unanimous about the loose bedding and co-sleeping issues. But seriously... loose bedding is a complete miss while armed robbery is a bullseye?

[ QUOTE ]
There's not a loud of cloudiness in the issue, but I would hope that at least that would have a clarifying effect.

[/ QUOTE ] It must be nice to live in a world of such startling absolutes. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't have that luxury. From what I saw on the short clip, and from the posts on this forum, opinions are split on the issue. Plenty of people see some cloudiness.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Still, I remember a news story from years ago when I was living in Michigan. A man left his baby in the car all day and it died. It normally wasn't his job to take the baby to daycare, but his wife couldn't for some reason and he completely forgot.

Besides, I just don't see what purpose sending the parent to jail serves. Despite how things are being worded in this forum, she did not choose to leave her baby in the car.




[/ QUOTE ] You know no more about her intention than anyone else. For my part, I'd say it stretches credulity quite a lot to impute your standard good intentions to this woman. I think it's just that what is very likely the truth is unbearable compared to trying to construct a kinder, even though ridiculous, story.

[/ QUOTE ] Ugh. I wonder why twenty people before me made as much of a claim to knowing her intentions as I--including yourself who did it a dozen times and included a psychological profile to boot—-but you found it necessary to point out that I can't read minds. This is a discussion forum where the OP asked for opinions. If anyone knew her personally, or claimed be able to read her mind from across the country, they should have said so. Otherwise everyone is just giving opinions.

Here is, to me, a central issue: Why does it stretch credulity to believe it could have been an accident? This happens dozens of times each year in the U.S., with at least one or two such cases featuring claims that they were completely unaware the child was still in the car when they went to work. Is each case some diabolical plot by a murderous parent who's figured out the closest thing to committing the perfect crime? When this happened in Detroit, news cameras were there soon after he discovered his child. This guy was utterly destroyed. If he was pretending the whole thing was a tragic accident, then he missed his calling because he was the best actor the world has ever seen. At some point I think you have to accept that a number of times per year the authorities, who have seen it all, are satisfied that there was neither intent nor gross negligence involved.

[ QUOTE ]
Certain things are very scary to think about, but can only be more so when you are closer to the situation. I'm sure criminals are a lot more afraid of going to jail than law-abiding citizens are, and swimmers are more worried about running into sharks. That's hardly a vote for reason.

[/ QUOTE ] Neither here nor there, but I think you're wrong on both counts.

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, saying that people who disagree with you, repeatedly, are doing so without distinction or perhaps even the ability to make distinctions, as you appear to be doing, is poor form and disingenuous. It's possible for people to disagree with you without being your inferiors, and in this case, you do them a disservice by disavowing that they have done so. If anyone is making blanket condemnations in this thread, it is you.

[/ QUOTE ] Well you got the point. You just missed the application.

I'll consider the blanket condemnations, ignoring the rest as ridiculous.
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody needs to be warned about this even once. People know not to do this even to their dogs. The lady did it knowingly and was unconcerned about her kid to a degree that is truly appalling.

This lady is sociopathic enough that I would not want her around any children again for the rest of her life. She should not just lose her job, but her career. And then she should go before the courts and lose something more serious, in accordance with the depths of her depravity.

Even if we disavow any chance that this person murdered her kid on purpose, she is still quite responsible for his death and it was no accident. She chose to put the kid in a position in which his death could happen. This was of her own free will and not under duress. She even had lots of time to change her mind before the kid died. She didn't. And she had even been warned before of the dangers, which are apparent to anyone of functional intelligence. Much like the armed robber, she was not the victim here, nor was any accident involved. She was the perpetrator, and, at best, she decided to spin the wheel of fortune and let fate decide. That choice itself exhibits at best a depraved indifference to her child. That this act is such an unnatural thing for anyone to consider doing to anyone, much less a child, and much less their very own child, speaks to the staggering, toxic depth of this woman's narcissism.

She may be a lot of things, but the victim of an accident she is not. There is nothing about this that is accidental.

Nobody is that ditzy, Katy. For someone literally retarded, I would take back my words. Otherwise, something this severe is not going to happen. Not once, ever.

There is zero chance she did not comprehend the danger. She just was unwilling to take it seriously. Not when the interruption of her own selfish needs was at stake. Katy, there is no possible way someone forgets something like this. Her saying she did so is one of the most absurd and disingenuous claims I've ever heard in my life -- and I grew up with and worked around lawyers.


I think the only people talking about forgiving her for making a simple error are people afraid of their own stupidity and making a very dumb leap of empathy. That fear is unwarranted, too. No matter how unconfident you are that you will not do the wrong or the stupid or shameful thing sometime, that is all very, very, very far from killing your kid through this kind of negligence. NOBODY is that big of a [censored] up by accident.

[/ QUOTE ]I'll start with these, and try to figure out where I could have been less certain in my condemnation, and more open to outside ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, if you're a douchebag and try to pass it off as something else, and get called on it, don't act so surprised and indignant.

You also seem to be very perverse in insisting that those who disagree with you have not thought about an issue or have closed minds. Believe it, disagreeing with you does not make anyone your inferiors. Casting them as such really sucks, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the biggest cop out I have seen on 2p2. You complacently dismissed DeuceKicker's perspective from the get go. He replied by rationally outlining his case, as well as pointing to some clear problems with yours and the hypocrisy evident in your criticisms of him. Then you turn around and just dismiss that as well! Not only that, but you have the gall to suggest that he is the one complacently assuming an air of supperiority.

I guess it can be hard having your views challenged when you've already determined beyond all doubt that you're right, though.

Anyway, that's not my fight, so whatever. I just couldn't let it go unmentioned.

FWIW, I'm sorry to railbird The Lounge. I got to this thread late and don't have much new to contribute. Like DeuceKicker, though, I have been struck by the ease with which people are willing to pass judgment in this case. I have also been struck by the fetish for retribution.

The problem has been that as I have read on the facts of the case have seemed to become more and more damning. I wouldn't dare try to diagnose her psychological state from a few newspaper clippings and a forum discussion, but the possibility that this was pure forgetfullness to me seems to be highly unlikely. What really shocked me was the speed with which people have been willing to jump to this conclusion.

[Stagger_Lee]

Why should forgetfullness reduce the culpability anyway?

It doesn't work for the mother who left methadone in reach of a child.

It doesn't work for the mother who forgot her kids in a casino carpark.

It doesn't work for the mother who forgot her kids were in a bath unattended.

It doesn't work for this woman either.

[Stagger_Lee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is this "me" time?

[/ QUOTE ]"Me time" is the notion that people will actually do a better job at something if they occasionally take some time away to relax and recharge. Many (most? all?) childcare and relationship 'experts' suggest, for example, that mothers who have daddy watch the kids while she takes a relaxing bath or other indulgence will be refreshed and re-energized and less likely to suffer from burn-out. Parents are also told to set aside some couple's time (a date night) so they don't become locked into the role of parent-and-nothing-else.

[/ QUOTE ]


I understand the concept of "me" time. In practice it is something else entirely. I have never heard anyone use the phrase who wasn't already a completely selfish [censored] who was already at the point of neglecting their kids. It is why I see the phrase as a derogatory remark rather than what it's original intention was.

"Me" time in practice is always at the expense of others - in this day and age that usually means kids and grandparents get to spend a lot of time with each other while mum & dad indulge their habits. If this really was about a bit of time out and balance it would never be a problem. People who don't have these issues, don't tend to use the phrase.

The McCanns did - within days of their daughter going missing they needed some 'alone' time up a mountain. That is [censored].

[diebitter]

Wow I find the quantity of times that presumption being stated as clear and obvious fact, and condemnation where there is some doubt about what happened and how it played out very, VERY depressing and distasteful

I'm glad there's been at least a few reasonable posts which basically suggested maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge, and give good reasons why we shouldn't.