Boy killed after falling into African wild dog exhibit

[Locke]

Originally Posted by valo403

Nobody needs to 'press charges' for a prosecution to occur

Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that theres got to be something in it for someone.

Locking this woman away doesnt seem like its going to provide a whole lot of value to anyone considering the situation and really the only thing they can lay their hat on is that they're enforcing the rules.

Effectively, the state is going to lock this woman away to enforce the law of manslaughter or neglect causing death in order to provide an example to others of the readily apparent dangers of being an idiot.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that theres got to be something in it for someone.

Locking this woman away doesnt seem like its going to provide a whole lot of value to anyone considering the situation and really the only thing they can lay their hat on is that they're enforcing the rules.

Effectively, the state is going to lock this woman away to enforce the law of manslaughter or neglect causing death in order to provide an example to others of the readily apparent dangers of being an idiot.

Ah, yeah I should have picked up your point there.

It's certainly a weird situation. On the one hand there's the 'she's suffered enough' argument, but at the same time there is this sense of a need to punish (assuming her actions rise to that level). The motivation for that desire to punish is sort of strange here though, is it really going to act as a deterrent? I wouldn't think so, and I don't think people are going to be using it as some sort of loophole to get rid of annoying little brats, so what's the overall benefit? To say we enforced the law I guess. I don't know, certainly a weird one.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ah, yeah I should have picked up your point there.

It's certainly a weird situation. On the one hand there's the 'she's suffered enough' argument, but at the same time there is this sense of a need to punish (assuming her actions rise to that level). The motivation for that desire to punish is sort of strange here though, is it really going to act as a deterrent? I wouldn't think so, and I don't think people are going to be using it as some sort of loophole to get rid of annoying little brats, so what's the overall benefit? To say we enforced the law I guess. I don't know, certainly a weird one.

Right. Thats exactly my point. The state could do something, but is it worth it to bother? It doesnt seem like anyone will benefit in any way.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Green text? There are consistently cases where the negligent behavior of parents leading to the death of a child is prosecuted. Whether that rises to this level we don't know, but if there's a case to be made the prosecutor will be making it.

No green text at all. I wasn't talking about other cases. I was talking about this case.

There isn't a remote chance in hell that this mother gets charged.

[afc wimbledon]

I wonder whether it would pass muster as neglect actually, it was stupid no doubt but neglect would imply wilfull ignorance, such as not feeding or not providing medical care when it was needed, not a one off accident.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Iginla

No green text at all. I wasn't talking about other cases. I was talking about this case.

There isn't a remote chance in hell that this mother gets charged.

I wouldnt go so far as to say that, I just dont think theres any point.

valo and Erik are correct in that she probably could be charged with something. I just dont know what, and dont see the benefit in expending the energy to figure it out.

[RedMileDJ]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not trying to rag on you or parents or anything, but in light of this situation and the fact that I see people do this all time, why do people do this?

Your kid is 10 months old. He might get a mild kick out of seeing animals if he isnt asleep, but he will understand and remember nothing. Whats the point of holding him up so he can see?

Its basically you and your wife going to the zoo dragging a kid around because you have to or you cant really go out. Isnt that the basic deal?

The basic deal is that we involve our son with as much of our lives as possible. We're not "dragging" him around. He's very interactive with everything we involve him with. You may think that every 10 month old is the same, but this isn't the case. I'm sure other parents could and would say the same.

It's not a matter of dragging him around because we can't go out of find a sitter. We have plenty of options for people to take care of the little guy, if we need to do something.

We have a cat, and we have taught our son to pet the cat and be gentle. He likes watching the cat and gets a big kick out of it. So when I say that we're going to take our son to the Zoo to see the animals, I REALLY mean it. He won't be sleeping. He'll be pulling himself up to see the animals and giggling and having a great time seeing them.

Sorry Locke...not all babies JUST sleep, poop and do nothing else.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I wonder whether it would pass muster as neglect actually, it was stupid no doubt but neglect would imply wilfull ignorance, such as not feeding or not providing medical care when it was needed, not a one off accident.

I don't think it needs to be willful.


I wonder if the mother is presenting a claim against the facility.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Rudee

The boy and the parents responsible are idiots.

Blaming a 2-year old for being unable to balance on a railing. We've officially broken through whatever it is that was holding all the logic.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Locke

I wouldnt go so far as to say that, I just dont think theres any point.

valo and Erik are correct in that she probably could be charged with something. I just dont know what, and dont see the benefit in expending the energy to figure it out.

Of course she COULD be charged for something. And the police could charge a lot of people for a bunch of things that never materialize because it's just not worth it to them.

There are several instances where a person doesn't get charged because common sense prevails. This will be one of those instances.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iginla

No green text at all. I wasn't talking about other cases. I was talking about this case.

There isn't a remote chance in hell that this mother gets charged.

Based upon what? You know the details? Please share.

You stated that "[t]here isn't a prosecutor in the world dumb enough to want to pursue charges" when the fact of the matter is if the facts make a case every single prosecutor in the world will bring the case.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I wonder whether it would pass muster as neglect actually, it was stupid no doubt but neglect would imply wilfull ignorance, such as not feeding or not providing medical care when it was needed, not a one off accident.

Neglect doesn't imply a willful act or ignorance, it implies negligence.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Neglect doesn't imply a willful act or ignorance, it implies negligence.

Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.

Yep

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Based upon what? You know the details? Please share.

You stated that "[t]here isn't a prosecutor in the world dumb enough to want to pursue charges" when the fact of the matter is if the facts make a case every single prosecutor in the world will bring the case.

Yes, I do know the details. A mother made a bad mistake and it caused her kid to be killed.

There are a lot of cases where the prosecutor feels that a negligent persons already has had enough punishment and doesn't persue charges.

One case off the top of my head is off of the show "the first 48"

A guy and his friend are involved in a shootout with another party and he accidentally shoots and kills his friend with an illegal weapon. The prosecutor did not press charges at all since he already had to face the guilt of killing his long time best friend. Even though the guy was involved in a shootout with people wanting to sell him illegal weapons.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Neglect doesn't imply a willful act or ignorance, it implies negligence.

But how do you prove negligence though in this case? if it is proved by the kid dying then any parent who's kid runs into a road and gets run down is negligent. The womans lawyer will obviously argue that although foolish the woman could not forsee the accident happening, thought it was safe and so therefore it wasn't negligent.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Iginla

No I don't know the details I am making an assumption.

There are a lot of cases where the prosecutor feels that a negligent persons already has had enough punishment and doesn't persue charges.

One case off the top of my head is off of the show "the first 48"

A guy and his friend are involved in a shootout with another party and he accidentally shoots and kills his friend with an illegal weapon. The prosecutor did not press charges at all since he already had to face the guilt of killing his long time best friend. Even though the guy was involved in a shootout with people wanting to sell him illegal weapons.

that's better.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Yes, I do know the details. A mother made a bad mistake and it caused her kid to be killed.

There are a lot of cases where the prosecutor feels that a negligent persons already has had enough punishment and doesn't persue charges.

One case off the top of my head is off of the show "the first 48"

A guy and his friend are involved in a shootout with another party and he accidentally shoots and kills his friend with an illegal weapon. The prosecutor did not press charges at all since he already had to face the guilt of killing his long time best friend. Even though the guy was involved in a shootout with people wanting to sell him illegal weapons.

Ha, I'm going to need a citation to that, because you just told me that a prosecutor declined to file charges for capital murder.

And please, let's here these details. I assume you've reviewed the surveillance video, read witness accounts etc.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

But how do you prove negligence though in this case? if it is proved by the kid dying then any parent who's kid runs into a road and gets run down is negligent. The womans lawyer will obviously argue that although foolish the woman could not forsee the accident happening, thought it was safe and so therefore it wasn't negligent.

You prove it by pointing to the act of placing a toddler in a standing position on top of a 5ft high railing over a pit full of wild animals. You're a relatively reasonable person, what do you foresee happening in that scenario?

[undercoverbrother]

Puckluck which episode was it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st_48_episodes

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by Iginla

I hope you're joking. There isn't a prosecutor in the world dumb enough to want to pursue charges.

It's not uncommon to get charged for negligence resulting in the death of one's child. I don't know the fully story behind this case, but it sounds like the mother could be in some legal issues based on the information.