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

[katyseagull]

She gave her first interview to the newspaper yesterday. I don't think you will be impressed, Blarg. She wants to return to work ASAP and she doesn't think that she will be a distraction to her school.


3 things that i recall her saying in the interview --

- she felt pressured to be the perfect mother and perfect administrator, and was stressed on that morning or something like that (that's not a quote, btw. I should probably look that one up before you take off and run with that)

- something about how she and the school's principal compliment each other and she is needed back at the school for the sake of the kids,

- she and her husband are starting a "foundation" in their daughter's name to help collect money for the schools, specifically, for playground equipment.

sounds like a PR move to me. Can she for one moment stop thinking about the damn school already [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Blarg]

Seems like a standard diversion of attention away from herself, to me. Now she gets to be the self-less, long-suffering hero of nurturing.

I can't think of a more tacky display than to make a foundation named after the kid she killed herself. And for playground equipment?

P.S.: Stress? Well why didn't she say so! Nobody else has to cope with stress!

[Fishwhenican]

Oh for god sake.
This person needs to be removed from the gene pool!

I can't even in my wildest dreams imagine going back to the place where I killed my kid TO WORK!!!!

This would also be if I somehow managed to keep from actually pulling the trigger on the gun I had in my mouth and made it out of the years of therapy I would need for actually being stupid enough to KILL MY OWN CHILD!!!

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
If this wouldn't deter future incidents, then does any prison sentence ever deter future incidents?


[/ QUOTE ]The reason it wouldn't deter future incidents is that the deterrent reason is only useful for reckless or intentional conduct. You can't deter accidental conduct preceisely because it was accidental.

The deterrent aspect of prosecuting for this is that it eliminates "put child in back seat of car" as a method for killing. Some sickos want to kill a child. If they shoot the baby, they get life in prison. If they leave the baby in the car and claim that it was an accident, they get zero prison time. Fair?

[daveT]

For those who have compassion for this woman. Is it because you feel that you aren't beyond doing this?

I agree fish, I would not be able to live with myself either. I remember one of my friends was killed in a car crash. I knew the driver, and I can't imagine how he could wake up everyday. All I wanted was some sort of revenge. I was never able to see this guy as a good person.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this wouldn't deter future incidents, then does any prison sentence ever deter future incidents?


[/ QUOTE ]The reason it wouldn't deter future incidents is that the deterrent reason is only useful for reckless or intentional conduct. You can't deter accidental conduct preceisely because it was accidental.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can deter accidents by punishing them. If your parents raised hell every time you banged into a table and knocked a glass of water over, you'd be more careful next time.

[Chips Ahoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Since it is impossible to distinguish between the truly accidental deaths and the people who want to kill their child, you have to punish everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the old saying?

Better that 100 innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free.

[prohornblower]

I haven't read the whole thread but it's pretty apparent to me that she left the kid in there purposefully. No way anyone is that brain-dead. And if they were, they should NOT be allowed around other children.

She should, at the very least, lose her job. I hate how society allows itself to be held to such a low standard. This is pathetic

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason it wouldn't deter future incidents is that the deterrent reason is only useful for reckless or intentional conduct. You can't deter accidental conduct preceisely because it was accidental.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't an accident though. She has been warned on several occasions not to leave her child in the car. And I don't believe for a second she didn't see the kid while she was backing up or while she was taking donuts out of the trunk.

[jzpiano]

[ QUOTE ]
She gave her first interview to the newspaper yesterday. I don't think you will be impressed, Blarg. She wants to return to work ASAP and she doesn't think that she will be a distraction to her school.


3 things that i recall her saying in the interview --

- she felt pressured to be the perfect mother and perfect administrator, and was stressed on that morning or something like that (that's not a quote, btw. I should probably look that one up before you take off and run with that)

- something about how she and the school's principal compliment each other and she is needed back at the school for the sake of the kids,

- she and her husband are starting a "foundation" in their daughter's name to help collect money for the schools, specifically, for playground equipment.

sounds like a PR move to me. Can she for one moment stop thinking about the damn school already [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly I don't understand how this women isn't losing her job (how can she manage hundreds of kids if she can't handle 1?), losing her other kid, and being put in jail. And then on top of it! She needs to get back to school for the sake of the kids, you have to [censored] be kidding me?! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] People like this need to be killed for the sake of our society and I'm not a violent person