When morons breed...

[gtc]

Can we try and reach some agreement on this.

We all agree that the child was fed the wrong food, despite the soy milk cartons containing warning labels. This damaged the child but was not fatal. Correct?

We all agree that the child died because it was underfed. Correct?

We all agree that the parents were warned that the child was in need of serious medical attention but the baby was never taken to see a doctor at any stage. Correct?

We all agree that if the parents had fed the child and/or taken the child to see a doctor the child would not have died. Correct?

So the only issues are whether:
a) the parents deliberately starved the child and deliberately with held medical attention; or
b) the parents behaved so recklessly and/or negligently that they should be considered responsible for the child's death irrespective of intent; or
c) the parents did the best they could, but the child died anyway.

From the articles I have posted, it seems that the jury decided that the parent's were aware that their actions were damaging their child.

I recognise that we don't have all the facts, but I tend to agree with the jury from what I have seen. Certainly, I would agree if the jury had found that the parents actions were so reckless as to constitute manslaughter.

It seems that almost all posters in this thread agree with me that a) or b) would be correct. This appears to be in accord with the findings of the jury and established legal practice throughout the common law world (plus the rest of Europe from what I gather).

Does anyone have any reason why c) would be the appropriate finding. Reference should be to actual articles about the case rather than simply assertions.

We don't need to go into the reasons why infanticide is illegal and why parents should bear a duty of care (to the best of their ability) to those unable to look after themselves. The reasons are not controversial and everyone knows them or can look them up. It is up to those who disagree to explain their reasoning.

I personally think that the duty of care to children is not particularly great as society has created foster care and adoption as options for parents unable or unwilling to discharge their duty of care.

 

[HappyDance]

From the facts available to me. If you have additional facts, please share them.
From the facts available to me, they did feed their child an overabundance of vegan milk.

In what sense?

I agree, if they had the knowledge which you seem to say they did. Evidence?

You are clearly not reading/viewing the same items that the rest of us are. In the video I linked they showed the condition of the couple's refrigerator: it contained 1 carton of soy milk and 1 small bottle of organic apple juice. The article here: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/13245543/detail.html reports that the rest of their cupboards were bare. They could not have fed their son "an overabundance of vegan milk".

 

[HappyDance]

gtc, I think the only one not in agreement with you is DanishDynamite. Given his posting history I'm inclined to think he's trolling.

Perhaps it's time to lock up the pigpen and take a shower.

L

 

[skeptifem]

If they were aware of what to look for, yes.

again, in DD's world, someone can simply stab another person to death for no reason and say "gee, im sorry judge, i just didnt know that bleeding profusley from multiple stab wounds would cause them to die!" and be let free, because we reaaaally cant blame them for not knowing that, right?

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid suddenly runs across the road and is killed by a car?

if they let their kid play in the street for 6 weeks straight then yes.

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid suddenly throws up and chokes on his vomit, while he was out of sight for 2 minutes?

2 minutes is not six weeks. its not the same at all and you know it. if their kid vomited for 6 weeks straight and they did nothing to help and the child died in that manner, yes they deserve to go to prison.

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid and themselves live in some African boondocks, where the parents are relief workers, and the kid suddenly dies after apparently not gaining as much weight per week as he should?

are you really comparing the vegan kid's death to a situation where food is not readily available???

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid, regularly fed, suddenly dies, despite the parents best efforts?

no, because thats the exact opposite of what happened in this case.

I don't see how that follows from my position.

i dont see what any of the questions you asked have to do with the case being discussed.

 

[gtc]

Given his posting history I'm inclined to think he's trolling.

I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is not easy.

In post 381 he seems to agree that the child was underfed, but then in post 437 he repeats his claim that the child was fed enough food (albeit the wrong kind).

I will be annoyed if the entire thread is moved to AAH.

 

[DanishDynamite]

We have this thing in the US called "common sense". Do they not have that in Denmark?

Not legally, as far as I know.

Did you look at the video? Did you see the pictures of the baby's bones protruding from his skin? I can say with some assurance that he didn't look like that when he was born.

No, I have not looked at the video. If I had, what difference do you feel that might make to my view?

And that's the problem. They chose to remain ignorant. Relatives told them that the baby did not seem to be thriving; they had six weeks worth of opportunities to do something about it. They didn't. That's not a mistake, it's a conscious choice. A choice which killed their baby. They killed their baby with their poor choices. I don't know how else to explain this to you (she said as she heard the happy snorting and despaired of the mud on her clothes...).

You introduce a lot of new evidence here. Stuff I never heard before. Would you have some evidence that this new testimony is the truth!

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Sorry.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Can we try and reach some agreement on this.

We all agree that the child was fed the wrong food, despite the soy milk cartons containing warning labels. This damaged the child but was not fatal. Correct?

We all agree that the child died because it was underfed. Correct?

We all agree that the parents were warned that the child was in need of serious medical attention but the baby was never taken to see a doctor at any stage. Correct?

We all agree that if the parents had fed the child and/or taken the child to see a doctor the child would not have died. Correct?

The last assertion is speculative. If the parents had fed the baby the right food, yes, things would be different.

So the only issues are whether:
a) the parents deliberately starved the child and deliberately with held medical attention; or
b) the parents behaved so recklessly and/or negligently that they should be considered responsible for the child's death irrespective of intent; or
c) the parents did the best they could, but the child died anyway.

From the articles I have posted, it seems that the jury decided that the parent's were aware that their actions were damaging their child.

I recognise that we don't have all the facts, but I tend to agree with the jury from what I have seen. Certainly, I would agree if the jury had found that the parents actions were so reckless as to constitute manslaughter.

Why?

It seems that almost all posters in this thread agree with me that a) or b) would be correct. This appears to be in accord with the findings of the jury and established legal practice throughout the common law world (plus the rest of Europe from what I gather).

Legal Common Law is of no relevance here.

Does anyone have any reason why c) would be the appropriate finding. Reference should be to actual articles about the case rather than simply assertions.

Could you perhaps provide your assertions as links? Thanks.

We don't need to go into the reasons why infanticide is illegal and why parents should bear a duty of care (to the best of their ability) to those unable to look after themselves. The reasons are not controversial and everyone knows them or can look them up. It is up to those who disagree to explain their reasoning.

I personally think that the duty of care to children is not particularly great as society has created foster care and adoption as options for parents unable or unwilling to discharge their duty of care.

I look forward to reading the new information available in your links.

 

[gtc]

The last assertion is speculative. If the parents had fed the baby the right food, yes, things would be different.

The nutrition expert in the article I quoted from last week disagrees says that the child was underfed and not merely fed the wrong foods. This has been pointed out repeatedly. I will post the link again

Why?

I have explained that repeatedly. They did not feed their child enough, they fed their child the wrong things, they did not seek medical attention. They recieved adequate warnings about what to feed the child and about the effect they were having on their child and about the need to get medical assistance. Even if they could not have recognised the problem for themselves (and there is no evidence that they were incapable of recognising the problem) they still recieved adequate warning over many weeks. They had the opportunity to give the child to someone who could look after the child properly or to seek medical help. They did not.

Legal Common Law is of no relevance here.

Yes it is. It provides the legal basis on which they were tried and convicted. The field known as jurisprudence is merely one of the places where you can find the arguments posed in favour of the common law concepts regarding duty of care.

Could you perhaps provide your assertions as links? Thanks.

Which assertions? Are you mistaken about the context in which I used the term "assertions". I was referring to anyone who wishes to argue that there should not be the possibility of legal sanction for those who neglect their children.

 

[strathmeyer]

I disagree. They lost their child. Don't you think that is punishment enough?

I don't know, why don't you ask their son what he thinks?

 

[Architect]

I said that we must accept that children die, through accident or ignorance of their parents. It is not acceptable that they die through willfull negligance.

Sir, you are a liar.

Here is what you actually said (bolding mine):

I see. So in your world, letting a child run free for a brief moment is comparable to starving them for something like 6 weeks until they die.

Yes.

You also seem to think that it is acceptable for parents to kill their children, whether by accident or design. What an unusual perspective, and one which I suspect you would find hard to find sympathy for in any forum where you had to actually ineract with real people.

Of course it is acceptable. It happens all the time.

However now that you realise that you're trolling has passed any measure of acceptability, you have attempted to backpeddle.

Tosk

 

[Lonewulf]

Sometimes I think back to whether I should act like so much of a butthole on this forum.

Then I read the posts that caused me to act the way I do, and then I feel satisfied with myself.

This alone caught my interest:

Do you think parents should be sent to jail for life if their kid and themselves live in some African boondocks, where the parents are relief workers, and the kid suddenly dies after apparently not gaining as much weight per week as he should?

So here's my question:

Is Danish Dynamite a spy, working to make the Danish look as stupid as possible?

 

[Architect]

Well if he is, he's going to do particularly well at his next annual review.

 

[Kerberos]

So here's my question:

Is Danish Dynamite a spy, working to make the Danish look as stupid as possible?

Probably an undercover Swede.

 

[Architect]

Probably an undercover Swede.

Thus the [Scottish] joke about him being a Tumshie.

 

[Rolfe]

Where is he getting these statements about the parents doing the best they could, sincerely, and even feeding an "overabundance" of soya milk? Does he even read the information that is in the public domain?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is appealled successfully, on the grounds that culpable homicide is not murder, but even if that happened it wouldn't support anything DD has said.

Rolfe.

 

[bluess]

I just looked at the video link above. The father is a bit skeletal in appearance, but the mother is certainly getting enough food. How, how, how, how, HOW could they have not looked at their baby and NOT noticed there was something wrong? They worked in a city. I cannot believe they never saw another child, and never thought to themselves, hmmm, wonder why all the other kids look so lively. Its bad enough that there are children starving due to lack of resources. I dont' have anything rational to say, just ranting. I feel ill. And DD, whether the life sentence is appropriate is completely separate from the parents' obvious culpability in the death of their son. I don't believe that you have a child, (for which I am heartily grateful), so I don't believe you understand what a loving parent will do for their child. Which includes going without for your kid. Which includes running to someone more experienced if something seems even a little bit off. Which includes being willing to move heaven and earth for your child to thrive. They didn't. LOOK at the pictures of that baby.

 

[g4macdad]

Sometimes I think back to whether I should act like so much of a butthole on this forum.

Then I read the posts that caused me to act the way I do, and then I feel satisfied with myself.

This alone caught my interest:



So here's my question:

Is Danish Dynamite a spy, working to make the Danish look as stupid as possible?

How can someone's opinion be stupid or wrong?

To me, you are only making yourself look really, really stupid.

That's my opinion.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't know, why don't you ask their son what he thinks?

Do you mean the dead child, or their other child?

DR

 

[slingblade]

Folks, I hate to tell you, but your suspicions about DD's arguments are all true. His arguments have been on my ignore list for some time.

His arguments seem to be formed from the least substance available, and a total disregard of facts, evidence, and relevant details will always, always, always be maintained.

I can't remember the thread title now, but there is one here about the case of H. Beatty Chadwick, a man who has been in prison for contempt of court for 11 years now. DD's arguments all stemmed from incredulity and they never seemed to accept that in this case of contempt of court, the imprisoned holds the key to his own cell.

If you want to understand the futile game this all is, and ever will be, check out that thread.

But maybe you ought to steer clear of the ones on age of sexual consent and pedophilia. Those will make your blood absolutely boil.

 

[Architect]

How can someone's opinion be stupid or wrong?

Well, some people's opinion is that those of different race or religion are somehow less worthy. That would be stupid and wrong.

Some people used to think that the sun moved around the earth. That was wrong.

Some people think that killing your child is - and I quote - "acceptable". That is most certainly stupid and wrong.