Comments on: He’s Suffered Enough!!!

By: It is hunting season. | The X Blog

It is hunting season. | The X Blog — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:38:49 +0000

[…] do. The dads who shot their kids, the kids who shot their dads, the friends who shot each other. Surely, they’ve suffered enough. Share this:StumbleUponPrintFacebookEmailDiggReddit Posted in Gun Ownership Tags: Firearms, gun […]

By: Father shoots son, will stand trial | The X Blog

Father shoots son, will stand trial | The X Blog — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:31:47 +0000

[…] old son. One can easily imagine a scenario where everyone would feel bad for Robert Duda, figure he had suffered enough with the loss of his son, got him some therapy, and perhaps sent flowers to be lain on young […]

By: gwen

gwen — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:12:55 +0000

It dismisses the human worth of the victim….who had no choices in the matter.

By: The Nerd

The Nerd — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:02:37 +0000

This is a case of legal issues vs social issues. Of course the law should apply to everyone equally. It shouldn’t matter if he is suffering or if he got over it in one day, the law applies. Child neglect is child neglect.

But as far as community response goes, the sheer emotional shock of hearing about the child’s death will be plenty of awareness raising for the message to go around: lock up your guns or this could be you too. No need to also socially ostracize or otherwise punish the man who suffers, only the one who has no repentance.

By: Andrew G.

Andrew G. — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:05:42 +0000

@Doug: What proportion of parents actually know about the problem? Many of the cases of children forgotten in cars happen to parents who have otherwise been scrupulous about child safety. They simply didn’t know about the risk. Concepts of “responsibility” and “neglect” cannot legitimately be taken to extend to cover dangers that someone doesn’t know about and can’t reasonably be expected to know as a matter of course.

Knowing that guns (or knives or poisonous chemicals) are dangerous is something we reasonably expect of parents. Knowing that cars are dangerous is something we reasonably expect of drivers. But people are for the most part ignorant of the tricks their own brains can play on them, as can be clearly seen by the responses any time the question comes up; it’s always “how could anyone possibly forget the kid”, never “why didn’t they take the usual precautions”.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:31:04 +0000

I see your point, but even if forgetting is biological, that doesn’t really relieve the parent of responsibility for forgetting a child in a car. Let’s say, for example, that I fall asleep while driving and cause an accident that takes someone’s life. I am still responsible, even though falling asleep is certainly a matter of biology. It’s my responsibility to operate a motor vehicle safely, and if I fail to do so, I’m negligent, period. The The irresponsible act was not falling asleep, it was failing to recognize that my ability to drive was impaired and taking appropriate action. You note in your response a few things that adults can to help them remember their children in a car. I would suggest that failure to use these sorts of techniques is irresponsible and neglectful, especially if it leads to the death or injury of another person. Accidental or unintentional neglect is still neglect.

By: Glodson

Glodson — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:58:31 +0000

I think that when a kid gets an unsecured gun is quite similar to when a parent forgets to get their kid out of the car on a hot day. Both events happened because of the neglect of the parent, and both can be life threatening and dire situations.

And both should be punished appropriately. In both cases, the victim is the child. That’s who suffered the most. The only reason that people want to shift guilt in the case of a gun would be because they must think that people have a right to keep guns wherever the fuck they want to keep them. I guess they believe a gun safe and a cookie jar both make great gun holding containers.

By: Andrew G.

Andrew G. — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:04:03 +0000

@Doug: because the “forgetting” part isn’t preventable; it can literally happen to anyone under the right circumstances. It’s not a matter of “responsibility”, it’s biology.

The way to prevent it from causing harm is to accept that fact, and set things up so that when (not if) you do forget, there’s something there to immediately remind you. For example, keep a stuffed toy in the car seat at all times except when the kid’s in it, at which point you move the toy to the front seat. Put something you always need on the back seat, so that you always have to look in the back when exiting the car. Make it an ironclad habit to always open the back door and look in when parking the car for any reason under any circumstances, even when you know the kid’s not there. These things will all massively reduce the probability of the kid dying.

On the other hand, the belief that no responsible person could possibly forget about the kid will make it more likely that you’ll end up killing your own kid this way, because you won’t understand the need for precautions or the right kinds of precautions to take.

For further info, see kidsandcars.org.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:49:53 +0000

Was was the legal outcome of the 7 year old killing himself with an uzi?

This: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/10/charles_bizjl_allows_his_son_t.php

developed to this:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/11/remember_the_boy_who_killed_hi.php

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:43:05 +0000

in the vast majority of cases, the parent really is innocent of anything that can legitimately be called neglect.

Say what? If you forget your kid in your car, you're responsible. If the kid is injured or dies, it's neglect. How can it not be?