marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
TipsyMcStagger wrote:
+1
TipsyMcStagger wrote:
+1
-
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.
Mother Warned 2-Year-Old Son Moments Before He Shot Himself in Eye
- Thread starter MetalChris
- Start date
G
Gentleman Ranker
Guest
imported post
Let me ask a question, in the most respectful way possible, of the people who think that there should be no criminal charges in this case.
Is there anything whatsoever that a parent can do or not do, with respect to their own children, that should cause criminal charges to be brought against them?
If so, is there a "bright line" between that and this case? Where is it?
If not, ... okey-dokey. Just asking.
I am not trying to bait you or get into an argument, I just want to understand your point of view. Really.
regards,
GR
PS: I don't mean to hijack the thread or take it OT. If anybody thinks that I am doing that, just ignore me.
Let me ask a question, in the most respectful way possible, of the people who think that there should be no criminal charges in this case.
Is there anything whatsoever that a parent can do or not do, with respect to their own children, that should cause criminal charges to be brought against them?
If so, is there a "bright line" between that and this case? Where is it?
If not, ... okey-dokey. Just asking.
I am not trying to bait you or get into an argument, I just want to understand your point of view. Really.
regards,
GR
PS: I don't mean to hijack the thread or take it OT. If anybody thinks that I am doing that, just ignore me.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Criminality requires mens rea. There is none here, only grief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Criminality requires mens rea. There is none here, only grief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
And for criminal negligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
Doug Huffman wrote:
And for criminal negligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
G
Gentleman Ranker
Guest
imported post
Doug Huffman (21 September 2008 Sunday 19:02) replies:
regards,
GR
Doug Huffman (21 September 2008 Sunday 19:02) replies:
So, you regard the concept of criminal negligence, as noted by rodbender (21 September 2008 Sunday 19:20), as invalid, at least within the parent-child relation? Is that correct?
regards,
GR
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
The difference is between malum prohibitum and malum per se, between political correctness and evil.
Safety is a tyrant's tool...
The difference is between malum prohibitum and malum per se, between political correctness and evil.
Safety is a tyrant's tool...
G
Gentleman Ranker
Guest
imported post
Doug Huffman (21 September 2008 Sunday 20:15) continues:
I'm afraid I'm still not following you. Perhaps it would help if you would make clear the connection between mens rea and the legal distinction between the two types of evil acts.
Returning to the question of criminal negligence: can parents be guilty of criminal negligence against their own children? Yes or no?
Is not any culpable act which results in the death of a child malum in se? Is it your view that the death of a child is an evil only because the state prohibits it?
I really am trying to understand your position on this.
regards,
GR
Doug Huffman (21 September 2008 Sunday 20:15) continues:
You mean malum in se, of course ...
I'm afraid I'm still not following you. Perhaps it would help if you would make clear the connection between mens rea and the legal distinction between the two types of evil acts.
Returning to the question of criminal negligence: can parents be guilty of criminal negligence against their own children? Yes or no?
Is not any culpable act which results in the death of a child malum in se? Is it your view that the death of a child is an evil only because the state prohibits it?
I really am trying to understand your position on this.
regards,
GR
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
So, are you sayingit should not be illegal to run a red light because disregard of thesafety of others should not have a factor in prosecution? What if it results in an accident and death of another? Is there a difference in these 2 cases?Which onerefers torunning a red light malum in se or malum prohibitum?
I'm fairly certain that you meant malum in se, not malum per se.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum
Doug Huffman wrote:
So, are you sayingit should not be illegal to run a red light because disregard of thesafety of others should not have a factor in prosecution? What if it results in an accident and death of another? Is there a difference in these 2 cases?Which onerefers torunning a red light malum in se or malum prohibitum?
I'm fairly certain that you meant malum in se, not malum per se.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
You introduced the term 'culpable', modus ponens. If an act is culpable then of course it is ...
ETA: Somebody else introduced the term 'negligence', again modus ponens.
A hypothetical; is a parent guilty when a child dies in a crib defective for too distant spacing between the bars?
Again, trying to legislate a risk free life is the task of an evil tyrant.
You introduced the term 'culpable', modus ponens. If an act is culpable then of course it is ...
ETA: Somebody else introduced the term 'negligence', again modus ponens.
A hypothetical; is a parent guilty when a child dies in a crib defective for too distant spacing between the bars?
Again, trying to legislate a risk free life is the task of an evil tyrant.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
If an act is culpable, then of courseit is ... ??????
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
What does culpable mean to you? To me 'blameworthy' or 'wrong'. Just what someone was trying to decide. Please learn modus ponens.
What does culpable mean to you? To me 'blameworthy' or 'wrong'. Just what someone was trying to decide. Please learn modus ponens.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Ah. OK. Good night gentlemen.
Ah. OK. Good night gentlemen.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Do you think that running a red light resulting in an accident that takes your childs life is any different that leaving a loaded handgun where your child gets it and kills himself? Do you think these parents have no culpability? Do you think it was nottheir fault that the pistol was left where the child could get it? What would you do if your 2 year old was about to mess with a firearm? Tell him it causes bad boo boos, then go somewhere you can't see him? I'm sure you are smart enough to put it up before hand, butno, you wouldmove it towhere he couldn't reach it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability
Culpability descends from the Latin concept of fault (culpa), which is still found today in the phrase mea culpa (literally, "my own fault").
Do you think that running a red light resulting in an accident that takes your childs life is any different that leaving a loaded handgun where your child gets it and kills himself? Do you think these parents have no culpability? Do you think it was nottheir fault that the pistol was left where the child could get it? What would you do if your 2 year old was about to mess with a firearm? Tell him it causes bad boo boos, then go somewhere you can't see him? I'm sure you are smart enough to put it up before hand, butno, you wouldmove it towhere he couldn't reach it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability
Culpability descends from the Latin concept of fault (culpa), which is still found today in the phrase mea culpa (literally, "my own fault").
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Your hypothetical does not apply. The crib manufactureris the possible"at fault" party, not the parents. Did they do enough research to determine the best configuration?Civil actionis the way to find the answer to that question.The state should have no say in the matter.
I don't want the state to try to legislate a risk free life. The child should have a reasonable expectation that the parents will keep it safe, since it does not yet know the ways of the world and what will harm it and what will not. These parents failed this and should be held accountable. Yes, by the state.
Doug Huffman wrote:
Your hypothetical does not apply. The crib manufactureris the possible"at fault" party, not the parents. Did they do enough research to determine the best configuration?Civil actionis the way to find the answer to that question.The state should have no say in the matter.
I don't want the state to try to legislate a risk free life. The child should have a reasonable expectation that the parents will keep it safe, since it does not yet know the ways of the world and what will harm it and what will not. These parents failed this and should be held accountable. Yes, by the state.
G
Gentleman Ranker
Guest
imported post
To Doug Huffman.
Though you have made oblique references to various terms from law and formal logic, you have consistently refused to answer any direct question put to you.
I believe that I have finally grasped the essence of your position. Thank you for your time and trouble.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
regards,
GR
To Doug Huffman.
Though you have made oblique references to various terms from law and formal logic, you have consistently refused to answer any direct question put to you.
I believe that I have finally grasped the essence of your position. Thank you for your time and trouble.
And likewise to you, sir.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
regards,
GR
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
One of you asked for opinions on the OP and I provided mine - not an argument. I am sorry if you find fundamental concepts 'vague' and logic 'formal'.
One of you asked for opinions on the OP and I provided mine - not an argument. I am sorry if you find fundamental concepts 'vague' and logic 'formal'.
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
SouthernBoy wrote:
Three days ago a friend of mine lost his 1 yo son when his wife went to move the car in the yard and ran over their baby. It's a tragic loss, and they'll suffer for it for a long time, but their situation won't be improved by criminal charges, and the same is true for the parents in this case.
SouthernBoy wrote:
We do. The parents have a tragic loss. We should all learn from it.
Three days ago a friend of mine lost his 1 yo son when his wife went to move the car in the yard and ran over their baby. It's a tragic loss, and they'll suffer for it for a long time, but their situation won't be improved by criminal charges, and the same is true for the parents in this case.
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Most do not know Latin, nor the meaning of the Latin terms used in law or quotes. Doug, rodbender, and GR used the following quotes.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nillius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare=Any man can make a mistake, only a fool keeps making the same one
Mens Rea=Guilty mind or thought
Malum Prohibitum=Wrong because prohibited
Malum In Se=wrong in and of itself
Malum Pro se=wrong for self=something wrong for an individual, has no use in law
Culpa=fault
Mea Culpa=my fault
Modus Ponens= logic term, "if, then" argument as in "if"Xis guilt"then"Xis conviction, fault exists ifpremise isfundamentallyflawed as in "if" there were no guns "then" there would be no murder
Do you think that running a red light resulting in an accident that takes your child's life is any different that leaving a loaded handgun where your child gets it and kills himself? Yes, the difference is the traffic accident is the fault of the parent, while the gun was actually the fault of the child, as the parents had taken "some" precautions against that possibility. Do you think these parents have no culpability? What culpability they have is notfor us judge nor any other person once it is discovered the parents themselves didtake precautions against this action, but failed due to the child's disregard for his parents warnings.Do you think it was nottheir fault that the pistol was left where the child could get it? It was their fault and they will suffer for the rest of their lives knowing it was their fault.What would you do if your 2 year old was about to mess with a firearm? My parents beat my..... red and punished me withgrounding me from playinggames and watching TV as well as locking up the gun in a place I couldn't find it. I may do something similar.Tell him it causes bad boo boos, then go somewhere you can't see him?This is kind of a cheap shot to take at these parents, their punishment is worse thananyone here would want to suffer for a similar mistake.I'm sure you are smart enough to put it up before hand, butno, you wouldmove it towhere he couldn't reach it.
can parents be guilty of criminal negligence against their own children? Yes or no? Yes, if the parents had not put any effort into stopping the child(which they did) or encouraged the child to touch the gun(which they didn't) then they would be guilty of criminal negligence towards the child.
Is not any culpable act which results in the death of a child malum in se? NO, there are too many factors in any situation to make such a broad finding.Is it your view that the death of a child is an evil only because the state prohibits it? NO, the death of a child is evil ifdeath was the intent of the act, if it was not the intent but it was likely an act would cause the death of a child then it could be considered criminal negligence maybe something worse.
So, are you sayingit should not be illegal to run a red light because disregard of thesafety of others should not have a factor in prosecution? Doug never said this. What if it results in an accident and death of another? Then the reckless driver would obviously be guilty of manslaughter at the least. Is there a difference in these 2 cases? The driver isguilty in the event of the crash and the child is the one that pulled the trigger.Which onerefers torunning a red light malum in se or malum prohibitum? Running a red light is Malum Prohibitum, but crashing into another individual is Malum In Se.
I'm fairly certain that you meant malum in se, not malum per se. Yes, that is what Doug meant.
Your hypothetical does not apply. The crib manufactureris the possible"at fault" party, not the parents. But it is possible it is the parents fault, so the hypothetical stands. Did they do enough research to determine the best configuration?Civil actionis the way to find the answer to that question.And finding out if the parents knew their child was too small for the crib could find them negligent. The state should have no say in the matter. But since negligence might be possible shouldn't the state be involved? at least if I understand your position?
I don't want the state to try to legislate a risk free life. The child should have a reasonable expectation that the parents will keep it safe, since it does not yet know the ways of the world and what will harm it and what will not. The parents made a reasonable attempt at keeping the children safe, but the child ignored warnings. These parents failed this and should be held accountable. Why should they be held accountable? What good will it do? How would it help society? I agree with Leagueof1291, this situation does not require the involvement of the state for justice to be had against the parents. The punishment for not securing their firearmswas the life of their child, are you not satisfied? Yes, by the state.
Criminal negligence IMO should not apply to this case because the parents did take precautions against the child shooting itself or handling the gun. The child was yelled at for reaching for the gun and it was explained in terms he would understand the consequences of handling the gun "boo boo" if he touched it. They had purchased a gate for the room so the children could not get in to the room and the gun was left in a place which would be hard for the child to reach. The parents did not want nor did they make it easy for the child to shoot itself, as such mens rea as required for criminal negligenceis lacking in this case so no criminal act has taken place.
Most do not know Latin, nor the meaning of the Latin terms used in law or quotes. Doug, rodbender, and GR used the following quotes.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nillius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare=Any man can make a mistake, only a fool keeps making the same one
Mens Rea=Guilty mind or thought
Malum Prohibitum=Wrong because prohibited
Malum In Se=wrong in and of itself
Malum Pro se=wrong for self=something wrong for an individual, has no use in law
Culpa=fault
Mea Culpa=my fault
Modus Ponens= logic term, "if, then" argument as in "if"Xis guilt"then"Xis conviction, fault exists ifpremise isfundamentallyflawed as in "if" there were no guns "then" there would be no murder
Do you think that running a red light resulting in an accident that takes your child's life is any different that leaving a loaded handgun where your child gets it and kills himself? Yes, the difference is the traffic accident is the fault of the parent, while the gun was actually the fault of the child, as the parents had taken "some" precautions against that possibility. Do you think these parents have no culpability? What culpability they have is notfor us judge nor any other person once it is discovered the parents themselves didtake precautions against this action, but failed due to the child's disregard for his parents warnings.Do you think it was nottheir fault that the pistol was left where the child could get it? It was their fault and they will suffer for the rest of their lives knowing it was their fault.What would you do if your 2 year old was about to mess with a firearm? My parents beat my..... red and punished me withgrounding me from playinggames and watching TV as well as locking up the gun in a place I couldn't find it. I may do something similar.Tell him it causes bad boo boos, then go somewhere you can't see him?This is kind of a cheap shot to take at these parents, their punishment is worse thananyone here would want to suffer for a similar mistake.I'm sure you are smart enough to put it up before hand, butno, you wouldmove it towhere he couldn't reach it.
can parents be guilty of criminal negligence against their own children? Yes or no? Yes, if the parents had not put any effort into stopping the child(which they did) or encouraged the child to touch the gun(which they didn't) then they would be guilty of criminal negligence towards the child.
Is not any culpable act which results in the death of a child malum in se? NO, there are too many factors in any situation to make such a broad finding.Is it your view that the death of a child is an evil only because the state prohibits it? NO, the death of a child is evil ifdeath was the intent of the act, if it was not the intent but it was likely an act would cause the death of a child then it could be considered criminal negligence maybe something worse.
So, are you sayingit should not be illegal to run a red light because disregard of thesafety of others should not have a factor in prosecution? Doug never said this. What if it results in an accident and death of another? Then the reckless driver would obviously be guilty of manslaughter at the least. Is there a difference in these 2 cases? The driver isguilty in the event of the crash and the child is the one that pulled the trigger.Which onerefers torunning a red light malum in se or malum prohibitum? Running a red light is Malum Prohibitum, but crashing into another individual is Malum In Se.
I'm fairly certain that you meant malum in se, not malum per se. Yes, that is what Doug meant.
Your hypothetical does not apply. The crib manufactureris the possible"at fault" party, not the parents. But it is possible it is the parents fault, so the hypothetical stands. Did they do enough research to determine the best configuration?Civil actionis the way to find the answer to that question.And finding out if the parents knew their child was too small for the crib could find them negligent. The state should have no say in the matter. But since negligence might be possible shouldn't the state be involved? at least if I understand your position?
I don't want the state to try to legislate a risk free life. The child should have a reasonable expectation that the parents will keep it safe, since it does not yet know the ways of the world and what will harm it and what will not. The parents made a reasonable attempt at keeping the children safe, but the child ignored warnings. These parents failed this and should be held accountable. Why should they be held accountable? What good will it do? How would it help society? I agree with Leagueof1291, this situation does not require the involvement of the state for justice to be had against the parents. The punishment for not securing their firearmswas the life of their child, are you not satisfied? Yes, by the state.
Criminal negligence IMO should not apply to this case because the parents did take precautions against the child shooting itself or handling the gun. The child was yelled at for reaching for the gun and it was explained in terms he would understand the consequences of handling the gun "boo boo" if he touched it. They had purchased a gate for the room so the children could not get in to the room and the gun was left in a place which would be hard for the child to reach. The parents did not want nor did they make it easy for the child to shoot itself, as such mens rea as required for criminal negligenceis lacking in this case so no criminal act has taken place.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I fully agree with those arguing that criminal charges should not be pursued in this case. I have known too many people who have lost children through various tragedies and their loss and guilt over this will punish them for the rest of their lives. To pursue criminal charges and the accompanying expenses will only further damage the family and the life of the surviving 3 month old. Tragic, avoidable event to be sure but every tragic, avoidable event does not warrant further gov't punishment.
I do agree though with keeping loaded firearms in a retention holster even when not on your body. I keep my carry sidearms in a SERPA at night even when carried in a different holster during the day. My fiancee asked why I bother and as I explained to her, it hopefully keeps one of us from a ND/AD as the SERPA holster helps ensure indexing the index finger on the slide when drawing in the dark of night, under stress, groggy from sleep while trying to orient on what is occurring. And if it is just being picked up to move it, the trigger is fully protected and the pistol is not falling out even if dropped. When we have kids we'll invest in a biometric safe to keep near our bed for loaded sidearm not on our bodies.
I fully agree with those arguing that criminal charges should not be pursued in this case. I have known too many people who have lost children through various tragedies and their loss and guilt over this will punish them for the rest of their lives. To pursue criminal charges and the accompanying expenses will only further damage the family and the life of the surviving 3 month old. Tragic, avoidable event to be sure but every tragic, avoidable event does not warrant further gov't punishment.
I do agree though with keeping loaded firearms in a retention holster even when not on your body. I keep my carry sidearms in a SERPA at night even when carried in a different holster during the day. My fiancee asked why I bother and as I explained to her, it hopefully keeps one of us from a ND/AD as the SERPA holster helps ensure indexing the index finger on the slide when drawing in the dark of night, under stress, groggy from sleep while trying to orient on what is occurring. And if it is just being picked up to move it, the trigger is fully protected and the pistol is not falling out even if dropped. When we have kids we'll invest in a biometric safe to keep near our bed for loaded sidearm not on our bodies.