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

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



What you have here is something very similar in certain respects to an armed robbery gone awry, where somebody gets shot. The robber might not have meant it to happen and hoped something like that wouldn't happen. Maybe his partner did the shooting, not him. Or maybe he turned to see a security guard raising his pistol and shot as much out of blind fear as anything close to calculation. Yet the law holds him responsible, and correctly. He chose to bring along a weapon, and get himself into a situation where using it was definitely a possibility. That situation could not possibly have happened were it not for the choice he made to bring a gun, and that choice was not made in the heat of the moment, but away from the scene. It was always possible to make another choice.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree. I think it was accidental. The difference between this and the robbery situation is that the robbers went with the intent of committing a crime and they knowingly placed everyone in danger.

The assistant principal went out into her driveway that morning and strapped her baby in a baby car seat with every intention of being a reasonably responsible mom. She was just pathetic at it. She then, evidently, had a major brain fart and simply forgot she ever had the child with her, somehow thinking that the kid was already at the babysitters.

Yes, she had been warned. And yes, she was arrogant and flippant in her attitude towards her daughters safety. But I do not believe that she purposefully left the little girl in the car knowing that the girl would suffer. I think she forgot completely about her own child which, obviously, is extremely troubling and would indicate to all of us that she is not suited to be a parent (understatement of the year [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).


I will have to give your argument some more thought. I do see your point that placing a child in a car on an extremely hot day (and hell it was so hot here that week [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ) is knowingly placing a child in danger. To be reckless with any child is a crime. So in one sense I do see your point, Blarg.

I believe that some of us have more limited capabilities than others. We cannot fulfill all those roles and dreams that we were led to believe we could. Clearly, this mom was too mentally ditzy and distracted to hold both a job and be an alert parent.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

This reminds me of an old Steve Martin routine, in which he says that if you just say, "I forgot," you can't be convicted for anything. "Say you're convicted for armed robbery," he goes. You just tell the judge, "I FORGOT ... armed robbery was a crime." Steve gives a huge shrug and a smile. "What can he do?"

It should not have to matter, but this lady had additionally been warned. 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.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The assistant principal went out into her driveway that morning and strapped her baby in a baby car seat with every intention of being a reasonably responsible mom.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that she's been warned about this in the past makes me believe she was not going out with every intention of never leaving her kid alone in the car. Which is the real issue. Her definition of being responsible does not include never leaving your kid alone in the car. So whatever her intention regarding responsibility, it was not to fully comply with the law under all circumstances. You don't accidentally keep leaving a kid in the car unless you purposefully disregard this risk. Nothing accidental when you knowingly disregard risks (and the law) because they're inconvenient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Just because things do not turn out the way you hoped they would, has no effect on whether what you did was an accident. The volition involved is setting up the array of possible consequences in the first place, NOT choosing which of several possible outcomes came about. By definition, this was not an accident.

[BeatUp]

Well, if you can't fking remember you put your kid in the car repeatedly...not only do you not need to have kids but you need to be eliminated from the gene pool to prevent anyone as stupid as you from being born. There's stupid and then there's stuff like this where the people involved just need to be erased completely and never spoken of again.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



What you have here is something very similar in certain respects to an armed robbery gone awry, where somebody gets shot. The robber might not have meant it to happen and hoped something like that wouldn't happen. Maybe his partner did the shooting, not him. Or maybe he turned to see a security guard raising his pistol and shot as much out of blind fear as anything close to calculation. Yet the law holds him responsible, and correctly. He chose to bring along a weapon, and get himself into a situation where using it was definitely a possibility. That situation could not possibly have happened were it not for the choice he made to bring a gun, and that choice was not made in the heat of the moment, but away from the scene. It was always possible to make another choice.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree. I think it was accidental. The difference between this and the robbery situation is that the robbers went with the intent of committing a crime and they knowingly placed everyone in danger.

The assistant principal went out into her driveway that morning and strapped her baby in a baby car seat with every intention of being a reasonably responsible mom. She was just pathetic at it. She then, evidently, had a major brain fart and simply forgot she ever had the child with her, somehow thinking that the kid was already at the babysitters.

Yes, she had been warned. And yes, she was arrogant and flippant in her attitude towards her daughters safety. But I do not believe that she purposefully left the little girl in the car knowing that the girl would suffer. I think she forgot completely about her own child which, obviously, is extremely troubling and would indicate to all of us that she is not suited to be a parent (understatement of the year [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).


I will have to give your argument some more thought. I do see your point that placing a child in a car on an extremely hot day (and hell it was so hot here that week [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ) is knowingly placing a child in danger. To be reckless with any child is a crime. So in one sense I do see your point, Blarg.

I believe that some of us have more limited capabilities than others. We cannot fulfill all those roles and dreams that we were led to believe we could. Clearly, this mom was too mentally ditzy and distracted to hold both a job and be an alert parent.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

This reminds me of an old Steve Martin routine, in which he says that if you just say, "I forgot," you can't be convicted for anything. "Say you're convicted for armed robbery," he goes. You just tell the judge, "I FORGOT ... armed robbery was a crime." Steve gives a huge shrug and a smile. "What can he do?"

It should not have to matter, but this lady had additionally been warned. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just last month, my brother-in-law forgot his dog was in the car and the poor thing suffered dehydration and had to be at the vet's for three days. My sister and Brother-in-Law have four young kids...and while I could never even imagine them doing something like this with one of their children - they are FANTASTIC parents - it did happen with the dog. And the dog almost died.

Naturally, my brother-in-law felt absolutely terrible and we still can't figure out how it happened.

So...I do think the woman was negligent, but not criminally so.

[katyseagull]

Was it a tiny dog?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



What you have here is something very similar in certain respects to an armed robbery gone awry, where somebody gets shot. The robber might not have meant it to happen and hoped something like that wouldn't happen. Maybe his partner did the shooting, not him. Or maybe he turned to see a security guard raising his pistol and shot as much out of blind fear as anything close to calculation. Yet the law holds him responsible, and correctly. He chose to bring along a weapon, and get himself into a situation where using it was definitely a possibility. That situation could not possibly have happened were it not for the choice he made to bring a gun, and that choice was not made in the heat of the moment, but away from the scene. It was always possible to make another choice.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree. I think it was accidental. The difference between this and the robbery situation is that the robbers went with the intent of committing a crime and they knowingly placed everyone in danger.

The assistant principal went out into her driveway that morning and strapped her baby in a baby car seat with every intention of being a reasonably responsible mom. She was just pathetic at it. She then, evidently, had a major brain fart and simply forgot she ever had the child with her, somehow thinking that the kid was already at the babysitters.

Yes, she had been warned. And yes, she was arrogant and flippant in her attitude towards her daughters safety. But I do not believe that she purposefully left the little girl in the car knowing that the girl would suffer. I think she forgot completely about her own child which, obviously, is extremely troubling and would indicate to all of us that she is not suited to be a parent (understatement of the year [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).


I will have to give your argument some more thought. I do see your point that placing a child in a car on an extremely hot day (and hell it was so hot here that week [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ) is knowingly placing a child in danger. To be reckless with any child is a crime. So in one sense I do see your point, Blarg.

I believe that some of us have more limited capabilities than others. We cannot fulfill all those roles and dreams that we were led to believe we could. Clearly, this mom was too mentally ditzy and distracted to hold both a job and be an alert parent.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

This reminds me of an old Steve Martin routine, in which he says that if you just say, "I forgot," you can't be convicted for anything. "Say you're convicted for armed robbery," he goes. You just tell the judge, "I FORGOT ... armed robbery was a crime." Steve gives a huge shrug and a smile. "What can he do?"

It should not have to matter, but this lady had additionally been warned. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just last month, my brother-in-law forgot his dog was in the car and the poor thing suffered dehydration and had to be at the vet's for three days. My sister and Brother-in-Law have four young kids...and while I could never even imagine them doing something like this with one of their children - they are FANTASTIC parents - it did happen with the dog. And the dog almost died.

Naturally, my brother-in-law felt absolutely terrible and we still can't figure out how it happened.

So...I do think the woman was negligent, but not criminally so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I submit to you that one's concern for and mindfulness of one's dog is not even remotely like that for one's child, and that includes the cranks who think the value of an animal's and a human's life are equal. We're talking about entirely different things here. I could see someone doing this with their dog 20 times before doing it with their child once.

[blackize]

50 bucks says someone asked "How are your kids?" that day at work too.

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
So I ask the lounge this - Does gross negligence of your own child justify dismissal from your job if you work in a school?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just answer your own question?

We don't really know if she is remorseful over her kids death. However, chances are she is. This would be more than enough punishment.
So, I don't think she should be prosecuted, but only if she agrees to a never be alone or in supervision of ANY minor.
This would force her to resign. Any profession not involving supervision of minors (or pets for you Vick haters) should be permissible under what I deem as fairness/justice.
<font color="white">
PS Katy, I wanna give you a foot massage and lick your toes </font>

[Suigin406]

blarg and others hit it right on, this kind of person should not be around children as one failed time is more than enough to support her losing her career...

as for criminal charges, ugh, not compltely sure if this is reckless vs mistake...i think it's the former simply because this is a role of a parent and there should be strict liability in these situations...

meh, change laws so these idiots can be prosecuted

[RobMcB]

[ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just answer your own question?

We don't really know if she is remorseful over her kids death. However, chances are she is. This would be more than enough punishment.
So, I don't think she should be prosecuted, but only if she agrees to a never be alone or in supervision of ANY minor.
This would force her to resign. Any profession not involving supervision of minors (or pets for you Vick haters) should be permissible under what I deem as fairness/justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain that the mother in this case feels a certain remorse over the incident. But my instinct tells me that her remorse is more of the "oh, no, now my wonderful life is ruined" variety. This would be in keeping with the narcissistic personality disorder which she may very well be suffering from.
As for remorse being punishment enough... no. Not even if she were truly remorseful with every fiber of her being for the horrible thing she had done to her poor undeserving, innocent child.
That child was %100 defenceless and dependant upon her for all of the necessities of its life. She failed, and now that child will never see the light of another day. The child never had a chance to scream for help or do anything to avoid their death.
Should she rot in jail? That is for a jury to decide (I'm leaning towards no). Should she see the inside of a prison? Absoloutely yes. Justice for the child, and an example to the rest of the community.

Oh, and the links between the prosecutor, and the lawyer/commissioner constitute a CLEAR conflict of interest. That this point is even being debated and not simply acted upon and corrected would be hilarious if it were not so sad and disturbing. God bless 'American Justice' where it's not what you did, it's who you know.