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

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think something like this can be an accident

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier I quoted statistics that showed the rate tripled when SOP changed to car seat in the back and the rate has remained that high since. People forgetting fits that data well -- making the kid less visible makes it easier to forget. If you believe forgetting is impossible, what could cause the jump in frequency? Or do you reject the data?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading a lot more about people killing their kids in general. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a societal trend.

Additionally this was not a woman of ordinary circumstances making a mistake for the first time. She works with children, so should be especially aware. She also has been previously warned for the same behavior. If anyone were to forget, she seems among the least likely.

Just because the incidence of kid killing accidentally goes up, doesn't mean that's what went on in this case.

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]
"Me" time is not about wanting attention.
It is a phrase that people use when they want to dump/neglect the kids. It is a phrase I hear a lot from selfish people. They need "me" time at the gym. "Me" time at a nightclub. It means that they find kids a drag - that ticket has been punched - onto the next ego satisfying thing - be it career, drugs, adventure.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, gotcha. (I'm kinda slow [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] ) It's funny that you bring this up because I had made a similar observation at my work a few months back and was thinking of doing a thread on it.

There's this woman who works at my company who has 4 relatively young kids and she's always going to the gym after work and on weekends. I would never say anything to her face but to myself I'm thinking... geez, how often do you have to go to the gym lady?! Aren't you skinny enough yet? As a casual observer it doesn't seem like she wants to be around her four kids. This same woman also went away to Florida for a whole week and left the kids with dad. It made me go hmmm. (God I'm a judgmental bitch, aren't I? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

Also, there's a young mom who has a 1 yr old daughter who is so cute. Anyway, she is constantly going on her "girl's night out" or overnights to the casino for the weekend with a bunch of her girlfriends even though she complains to the rest of us that she only gets to see her baby for 2 hours every evening. I just wonder why she thought she wanted a baby.

Now, all that said, surely you aren't implying that moms who hold down a job are indulging in "me" time, are you StaggerLee? A working woman is no more having her "me" time than a working father, right?

[DeuceKicker]

[ 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.

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The phrase "killing your child" is an example of the emotionally-charged language that strikes me as extreme. 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.)

Is there anything that can happen to a toddler that we'll call an accident?


[/ QUOTE ]

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




[/ QUOTE ]


I have to say that I agree with DeuceKicker on his first example here. I think it could be considered analogous in the sense that it is an act of carelessness by a parent. Most people have heard by now that you shouldn't put a baby to bed in a crib with lots of blankets and bedding that could entangle them. It could certainly be perceived by some as reckless to the point of negligent, especially if the baby were to die.

[DeuceKicker]

[ 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.

[DeuceKicker]

Also (and so I don't paint myself into the corner of appearing to argue too strongly about something, when I don't yet hold a strong opinion either way) I don't know how much of an issue it is locally, but the relationship between the prosecutor and her lawyer needs to be looked into more closely.

Obviously if she did this intentionally, then she should be prosecuted for murder. Or if she saw the baby in the back and said, "I don't have time to drop her off... It's not that hot, she'll be OK. Maybe I'll pop out between meetings and check on her..." then she is, IMO, at minimum an unfit mother. I doubt these things can be proven, but if there is any chance that the prosecutor has done less than a full investigation because of his relationship with her lawyer, then he needs to be replaced, and an independent investigator brought in.

Edit: WTF? What is the County Commissioner doing taking on individual defense cases in the first place, if he controls the budget for the Prosecutor's Office? How is such a glaring conflict of interests allowed? How many cases has he taken since becoming CC? I'll bet he has stellar defense record.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
I also see no point in sending her to jail as this wouldn't deter future incidents;

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a good feel for this (I'm not a parent), but you're probably right Boris.

I'm surprised that this isn't considered criminal negligence, and that the "accident" argument stands.

I understand how one could have sympathy for this woman, but personally I find the situation intolerable. There are defining moments in people's lives - this is Brenda Slaby's, and she must be held accountable.

I'm not sure that parsing the difference between "accident" and "negligence" is particularly critical here. I don't view this situation as an accident, either way, what's clear to me is that a direct series of actions (over an 8-hour timeframe) on this woman's part led to her child's death. I believe this point is inarguable.

I don't consider myself a particularly judgmental person, but this level of "absent-mindedness" is tantamount to throwing her baby down the stairs, imo.

I am of the view that people are not held accountable enough for their actions in today's society, and in no way should she get a pass on this. If one of my children attended the school where Slaby is VP, I would take a stand and request her dismissal. We need no further evidence of her incompetence.

-Al

[Blarg]

[ 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.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think something like this can be an accident, but I can't say I know why she would do this on purpose. If we accept what seems obvious to me, the incredible level of narcissism necessary to not just once but repeatedly endanger your child like this, it would be enough merely that she felt the child was an impingement on her freedom and self-indulgence, which of course any child is to a parent, no matter how loved. Whether her act was a matter of depraved indifference or an active intent to kill with plausible deniability built-in -- more than that, a chance to make herself the star of her own sick show -- I don't know.

Her motives might not be entirely conscious. I can see someone with narcissistic motivations not admitting cruel and selfish motives to herself. In fact, that goes with that disorder perfectly. What narcissist wants to think less of themselves by bringing to their full consciousness the depth of their problem?

She might not have known herself until just now. And I mean that in both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg - some interesting points. I think you're spot on wrt her narcissism.

However, I also don't think it's necessary to plumb the depths of her psyche in passing judgment on this situation. The gross negligence on display and the resulting death of her child is enough for me.

-Al

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The phrase "killing your child" is an example of the emotionally-charged language that strikes me as extreme. 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.)

Is there anything that can happen to a toddler that we'll call an accident?


[/ QUOTE ]

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




[/ QUOTE ]


I have to say that I agree with DeuceKicker on his first example here. I think it could be considered analogous in the sense that it is an act of carelessness by a parent. Most people have heard by now that you shouldn't put a baby to bed in a crib with lots of blankets and bedding that could entangle them. It could certainly be perceived by some as reckless to the point of negligent, especially if the baby were to die.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that there are degrees of carelessness, and I don't think it's an obscure one.