On Sep 7, 7:57 pm, "Ron" <apositivepl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > What???
>
> > Of course the child is just as dead, and if he got what he 'deserved'
> > he would not be dead! Of course intentional killing (murder) should
> > be treated differently than accidental killing.
>
> So, by your logic an accident that could have been prevented by a parent
> that was doing their job should be forgiven. Hmmm, interesting.
Yes. If he or she meant no harm to the child, I surely would be, and
I
think any decent person would. There are degrees of negligence, of
course, and again I assign culpability based on intent. In the case
here,
of leaving children alone in a car, the parent almost surely either
didn't
realise the danger of it or made a mental slip as here; in either case
I
think sympathy, and not punishment, is called for. Such a mother is
unlikely to ever do it again!
> > I said 'is truly an accident', not 'the perpetrator claims it was an
> > accident'.
> > You are lying.
>
> Andy, there is no such thing as an accident. Not when the death of a
child
> is concerned. Negligence covers all the rest.
Negligence is not the same thing as intention.
> "I accidentally rolled over him in my sleep". Well, he should not have
been
> sleeping with you.
> "I accidentally dropped him from the 5th floor". Well, what was he
doing
> out the window?
> "He was accidentally thrown from the car when I hit the other vehicle".
Was
> he in a car seat? Was it strapped in properly? Was HE strapped in
> properly? Were you speeding, drunk, not paying attention?
If, if, if... ALL accidents are preventable by this standard, not just
those
involving children.
> No, I'm not lying Andy, I just know the difference between intentional
> killings and negligent one's.
Well at least you acknowledge that. And plurals don't use
apostrophes - write "ones" not "one's".
Andrew Usher
|
