JamesCanby
Activist Member
The child died.
The proximal cause of her death was being forced to drink an inordinate amount of soda.
Should there be no penalty for that?
Really?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
We must bans sodas - 5 yr old girl dies from drinking some - murder charge
- Thread starter davidmcbeth
- Start date
The child died.
The proximal cause of her death was being forced to drink an inordinate amount of soda.
Should there be no penalty for that?
Really?
OC for ME
Regular Member
No law against forcing your kid to drink too much soda, is there? Or, should there be?
Yes there should be a penalty. No more so than the penalty for thinking you were pulling a taser and not a gun when you shoot a unarmed citizen. No more so than a cop getting his comeuppance for riddling a car with bullets because he is scared and shot with his eyes closed. No more so than any other person.
The problem I have is singling out the "child/children" part. A citizen died. Fit the facts to existing law and go from there. Even a plea bargain is warranted. Those nitwit parents lost their daughter, how much more punishment do you think they merit?
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Those nitwit parents didn't lose their daughter, they killed their daughter. No sympathy for them. You sound like the kid who killed his parents and then plead for clemency because he was an orphan...
arentol
New member
There is such a law. It is the same one as applies to any other form of homicide. The definition of homicide is kept intentionally broad to act as a catchall for things like this.
Your argument is invalid. Those are independent cases that you believe were handled improperly. The mishandling of those has no bearing on the handling of this one.
This isn't about children, the same thing would apply to anyone whose life was the responsibility of another. You could argue that a frat boy who died due to drinking too much water in an initiation rite did so voluntarily and so nobody else is guilty of manslaughter. But you can't make that argument when it comes to a parent/child relationship, nor elderly or disabled and caregiver situation. These parents were responsible for their child's life and they willfully did something that recklessly endangered, and caused the end of, that life.
Also, all arguments based on not knowing this could kill the child are BS. Besides the fact that you simply should know drinking too much liquid can easily kill someone, this was done with the express intention of causing harm. That is all that is required to make this murder. It would be like if you shot someone in the leg and they died and you tried to argue that side you only meant to harm them, not kill, it wasn't murder.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
In this particular case, no. I don't think any penalty should be assessed. Why? Did they hate their daughter? Did they try to kill her?
They just lost a daughter through their own actions ... I would think that this in itself is enough "punishment".
A 2L isn't alot ... I have guzzled much more than that in the past ... should I be charged with something (attempted suicide)? Then every beer drinking college student would be in trouble.
Let the people grieve and leave any punishment to a higher authority. Its too easy to point a finger.
If one accidentally runs over a child with a car or causes the death of a child via other strange reasons or circumstances I would think that people would feel sorry for all involved.
OC for ME
Regular Member
It is not always for/about the children. The facts of this case and TN law must hold primacy. A jury must decide based on the facts of this case.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I admit that my natural inclination is to drop the proverbial hammer on them, being a parent and all. I can not fathom why any parent, let alone both parents, subject their child/children to such a thing.
arentol
New member
People kill other people on accident all the time. Drunk drivers don't TRY to kill people, but they do something very irresponsible and dangerous and people sometimes die anyway. Sometimes they kill their own child. Does their lack of intent to cause death mean they should get a free pass? Does a drunk driver that kills his own child get a pass while one that kills somebody else's child does not simply because losing your own child is punishment enough?
These parents did something very irresponsible and dangerous, and did it with malice (they may not have intended death, but they meant to cause harm). They should be held to the same standard a stranger would be held to, at the very least.
Your experience with 2 Liters is irrelevant, you are not 5 years old.
Also, there is a huge difference between driving responsibly and accidentally running over a child, and intentionally forcing a child to drink until they die.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
Again, it is the law in TN that will decide this case. Was there not a case a couple of years back where a cop left a gun in his vehicle, at a 'C' store, one of his kids got a hold of it and shot their sibling? What legal peril did that cop suffer? What was the rationale for not prosecuting? I seem to recall, and I could be wrong, that "the family has suffered enough" as the justification for not pursuing a criminal case. I'm sure there are tragedies more times than we would like happening where the state does not hold anyone to account.
TN will decide, and then TN will let a jury decide.
TN will decide, and then TN will let a jury decide.
A
