Conference back40::soapbox

    
    The woman in McMinnville, Tenn., who left her kids in the sweltering
    car while she partied in a motel room, has been charged with murder.
    

          <<< Note 14.2196 by TROOA::COLLINS "City Of Tiny Lights" >>>
    
>   The woman in McMinnville, Tenn., who left her kids in the sweltering
>   car while she partied in a motel room, has been charged with murder.
 
I missed most of this story.

How old were the children?
How long was she gone?
How hot was it?   

    
    .0:
    
    Expecting some debate on this, Di?
    
    :^)
    

    RKO jocks were discussing this yesterday.  Not sure there's enough
    info yet to form an opinion myself, but if she really fell asleep,
    it would seem more like negligent homicide than first-degree murder.
    People are already calling for the chair.

    
    1 yr. old
    
    the other almost 2
    
    Windows all rolled up... estimate was over 120 degrees inside...
    

The two boys were toddlers, under 2-years old, I think.
All the car windows were shut.  I heard 120 degrees in
reference to the temp inside the car. 

She went into the motel room in the late night (~2AM or so?) and came out
before noon  (~10AM or so?).

Murder?  That would require proving that the mother intended the children
to die.  I have not heard that there is any reason to suspect that,  much 
less proof of that.


Phil

    
    Probably trying to scare her into a plea-bargain.
    

	She (Jeannie Bain? haven't seen it written) is being called the
	Susan Smith of McMinnville or whatever the town is.  That would
	seemingly diminish the seriousness of the Smith case a tad.
	It doesn't appear to have been premeditated, but the deaths were
	heinous, to be sure, so there's a great deal of outrage over it.

    Sounds like negligent homicide would be a more appropriate charge.

    Don't you get a plea-bargain at a plea market?

>	It doesn't appear to have been premeditated, but the deaths were

I dunno... for a woman to leave her kids alone in a car for that long...
It doesn't say to me she was looking out for their interests, or that she
gave a crap about them... To me, it says she was probably hoping that
some sick guy would steal her kids or something in that order... She might
not have premeditated the cooking of 'em, but she might certainly have 
premeditated the thought of getting rid of them via someone stealing
them. 

I think she should die for what she did... but at the very least, life in
prison.

/scott

>>I dunno... for a woman to leave her kids alone in a car for that long...

	Some accounts say she fell asleep.  So the " for that long" bit
	is questionable.

she was "partying", right?  She was probably loaded.
But that doesn't excuse a thing.

    What fell asleep?????  It's called passing out.  

>>    What fell asleep?????  It's called passing out.  

	Perhaps you have heard reports that say she passed out. 
	I have heard there was no evidence of "partying", but have
	no idea how reliable the information is.  I'm certainly
	not trying to excuse her behavior, but whether she "fell
	asleep" or "passed out" would seem to make little difference
	regarding intent.

    No, but it may have impact on the negligence angle.

>>    No, but it may have impact on the negligence angle.

	yes, it might.  it wouldn't seem to matter when one is
	talking about leaving them in the car "for that long" though.
	my guess would be that the 10-hour period was unintentional,
	but that's just a guess.

    My guess is this isn't the first time she left the kids in the car.
    She probably has done it before and it was unnoticed because the kids
    were alive...now they're not!
    

    
    She blew a .06 on the breathtest. Supposedly she fell asleep but passed
    out seems more appropriate. The guys she was partying with claimed she
    periodically went outside to check on her car, they claim they didn't
    know the children were out there. Doesn't sound like a real caring Mom.
    What a horrible way to die. 
    

    The type of car that both the Tennessee and Atlanta children died in
    was the Cutlass Supreme Coupe (2-dr).  This is a model that looks to have 
    the biggest ratio of glass to steel in the "greenhouse" of any car on
    the road.  The rear window is huge, and exposes most of the back seat
    (where the children were probably sitting) to the sun.

    This really burns me up!

	Wouldn't a Pacer be more of a greenhouse?

Look for a class-action suit against GM.

    or even a glass-action suit against GM.

    I think she should be tried for at least a minimum of negligent
    homicide.  Don't know about the death penalty for this though.  If it
    was found to be premeditated, definitely.   

    
    Yes...I heard that her boy friends give good time.
    

      <<< Note 461.7 by BOXORN::HAYS "Some things are worth dying for" >>>

>    She went into the motel room in the late night (~2AM or so?) and came out
>    before noon  (~10AM or so?).

Wow!

She left two toddlers unattended at 2 A.M. for more than a couple of minutes!

If that is true, then, IMHO, that demonstrates a disregard for human life.
I believe that in many states, if the person demonstrates a disregard for 
human life and a person is killed as a result, that is not just negligent 
homocide, it is second degree murder.

Outrageous.

    
    	1st degree - premeditated murder
    	2nd degree - assault with intent to kill, death resulting
    	3rd degree - negligent or accidental homicide
    
    	I don't think they'll get any better than 3rd degree on her.
    

>Yes...I heard that her boy friends give good time.

Getting a little ahead of yerself, aintcha?

>    	1st degree - premeditated murder
>    	2nd degree - assault with intent to kill, death resulting
>    	3rd degree - negligent or accidental homicide

Depends on the state.

    Re .29:
    
    > She left two toddlers unattended at 2 A.M. for more than a couple of
    > minutes!
    
    You think children should be attended at 2 a.m.?  Really?  If you had
    children, did you really stay in the same room with them, awake, every
    single night at 2 a.m.?  Or did you, every night, make sure somebody
    was attending them at 2 a.m.?  Or, if you don't have children, do you
    expect us to believe you are going to do that?
    
    I expect not.  Of course, most people leave their children unattended
    at home instead of in a car.  But, really, how much difference is there
    between a child unattended in a locked home with a person in another
    room of the house and a child unattended in a locked car with a person
    in a nearby room?  Some difference maybe, but I doubt any house this
    mother could afford would be much more secure against burglars or
    kidnappers than a car.  Lots of people have terrible houses that don't
    provide much protection for children, but we don't call them negligent
    for it.
    
    The real problem here is that the children were left in the heat and
    sun.  That's pretty stupid, but a lot of people are pretty stupid.  And
    at 2 a.m., the problem may not be apparent.  If the mother had left the
    kids in the car during the day, negligence would be obvious to many
    people -- but to make the same realization at night requires thinking
    ahead, and a lot of people just _cannnot_ think ahead.  Locking them up
    won't make them any brighter.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Note 461.33

    >...but to make the same realization at night requires thinking
    >ahead, and a lot of people just _cannnot_ think ahead.
    
    This, if I recall correctly, was quoted in `The Bell Curve' as one
    reason why less intelligent people are more prone to crime - that they
    aren't capable of grasping the consequences of their actions.
    
    Locking *them* up won't make them any brighter, either, I would
    imagine.
    
    

    
    
    This whole thing saddens me greatly.

    
    
    What kind of person takes their kids out at 2A.M. to go party???
    
    
    Mary
    

I heard that story over here recently.  They reckon that she was as
pissed as a fart.

Chris.

    
    .36
    
    Perhaps she felt it was better than leaving them home alone?

     
    .39:
    
    Or she could have simply said "pass" on the party.  Lots of parents
    have to do that, lots of times.
    

    You aren't trying to tell me she was supposed to behave responsibly,
    are you? Next thing you'll be saying that she has to be held
    accountable for her actions!

    I skipped most of this topic, did they say what the temp was outside
    the car?  This happens once in a while here in the desert.  A tragic
    way to go for sure.
    
    It happens to pets sometimes too, but animals can be replaced.

    
    Sorry, Doctah, I lost my head there for a second.
    

    
    
    Thing is, if the kids had been okay we wouldn't have heard word one
    about it.  People do stupid things all the time to put others in
    danger.  Let's hear how many of you aren't guily......

    
    I'm not guily.

    Don't hold back, Scott, tell us how you really feel.  8^)

    
    I, also, am without guile.
    

    
    
    
    Sounds like another boxtrial Deb...... :')

    
    I once did a phenomenally stupid thing that endangered someone else.
    
    I was 13 at the time.
    

    
    	Seems that edp is baiting someone for something, although I have
    	no idea what that could be [yet].
    
    	He knows full well that there is a world of difference between a
    	kid locked in a car and a kid locked in a house, especially when
    	you consider that "a place she can afford" will be as drafty as
    	a picket fence in a wind storm and therefore wouldn't even come
    	close to matching the greenhouse effect of the sun beating through
    	a car's windows.
    
    	And is it true she blew a .06?  I thought the legal limit was .08,
    	so she wasn't even legally drunk.
    

    
    
    Yup, but that .06 was supposedly after she had slept for a period of
    time, I suspect not drinking.

>    	And is it true she blew a .06?  I thought the legal limit was .08,
>    	so she wasn't even legally drunk.
    
If she blew a .06 at 10am, just think what it would have been during
the night...

/scott

I am SHOCKED and DISGUSTED by this note:

>    You think children should be attended at 2 a.m.?  Really?  If you had
>    children, did you really stay in the same room with them, awake, every
>    single night at 2 a.m.? 

I have children around the age that those kids who died were... I have a 
monitor to listen in to make sure all if fine for 1 kid. The other (who
is only 1 month old) stays in our room. 

>    I expect not.  Of course, most people leave their children unattended
>    at home instead of in a car.  But, really, how much difference is there
>    between a child unattended in a locked home with a person in another
>    room of the house and a child unattended in a locked car with a person
>    in a nearby room?  Some difference maybe, but I doubt any house this

I can't believe this... 

How dare you try and make this low-life for a mother out to be just someone 
who just did something really stupid!!! 2 kids died because she didn't give a
rat's behind about them!!! "Some difference"??? I'd like to see you leave
your kids (if ya have kids) in a parking lot all night long, since you
don't see anything wrong with it... 

Stealing a car takes 30 seconds BTW.

>    mother could afford would be much more secure against burglars or
>    kidnappers than a car.  Lots of people have terrible houses that don't
>    provide much protection for children, but we don't call them negligent
>    for it.

houses don't drive away.

>    The real problem here is that the children were left in the heat and
>    sun.  That's pretty stupid, but a lot of people are pretty stupid.  And
>    at 2 a.m., the problem may not be apparent.  If the mother had left the

No... the real problem is she was a low-life who couldn't give a damn about
her kids and was probably hoping someone would steal her car or steal the
kids...

>    kids in the car during the day, negligence would be obvious to many
>    people -- but to make the same realization at night requires thinking
>    ahead, and a lot of people just _cannnot_ think ahead.  Locking them up
>    won't make them any brighter.

obviously you can not think ahead. Locking up that mother won't make her
brighter, but she won't be able to do it again (i say she should die).
I don't even leave my kids in the car for 30 seconds if I run into a store
to get some milk... let alone 2am in a motel parking lot for 10 hours!!!    

edp, you really really need to turn your brain on and stop insulting the
intelligence of normal everyday people who realize what a low-life this mother
is and realize what should be done to her... stop making excuses for her,
because it really makes you sound very stupid and I'm sure you don't want
people to think that way of you...

/scott

    
    
    (the original was better... ;>)
    

    Re .50:
    
    > He knows full well . . . wouldn't even come close to matching the
    > greenhouse effect of the sun beating through a car's windows.
    
    *I* know.  *You* know.  But does this woman know?  Stop thinking in
    your terms.  We're educated and intelligent and we figure things out. 
    But do you know if this woman even finished high school?  Do you know
    if anybody ever explained the greenhouse effect to her?  Tell me, *how*
    was she supposed to know the car would get fatally hot?  If your brain
    doesn't work to the point where you can put together facts about
    greenhouses and sun and heat and glass and realize the similarities
    between a greenhouse and a car even though they are very different
    objects, then how can you figure out a car will get hot?  And even if
    you do know about the greenhouse effect, how can you figure out what
    will happen in eight hours if your brain simply doesn't think ahead?
    
    Sure, it's obvious.  To you.  To me.  But let me tell you, even people
    of average intelligence do things that seem amazingly stupid to me. 
    Even people in Mensa do some apparently stupid things.  What then do
    people with IQs of 90 or 85 do?  They do really, really, really stupid
    things.
    
    Does that mean it was okay for her to do it?  Of course not.  But was
    it criminal?  If a tree without any brains falls on a house, has it
    committed a criminal act?  Do you call it an evil tree?  No.  So how
    can you call a person without sufficient brains evil?
    
    Certainly there should be some corrective action taken against a person
    who kills two people through negligence.  But the calls for a death
    penalty are just bloodthirst, not justice.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

uh-oh.

I have it on good authority that this woman was a founding member of Mensa,
a Rhodes Scholar, and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

    Re .54:
    
    > I have children around the age that those kids who died were... I
    > have a  monitor to listen in to make sure all if fine for 1 kid. The
    > other (who is only 1 month old) stays in our room. 
    
    Oh, a monitor.  Aren't you glad for the 1990s?  What would you have
    done 20 years ago?  What about the people who can't afford a monitor,
    are they negligent?
    
    > How dare you try and make this low-life for a mother out to be just
    > someone who just did something really stupid!!!
    
    How dare you try and make this low-life for a mother out to be just
    someone who did something evil!!!
    
    > 2 kids died because she didn't give a rat's behind about them!!!
    
    If YOU did this, the only reason would be because you didn't care about
    the kids, because YOU know better.  But if you do not KNOW that the
    mother did know better, you can't conclude her acts were caused by lack
    of concern rather than lack of intelligence.
    
    > I'd like to see you leave your kids (if ya have kids) in a parking
    > lot all night long, since you don't see anything wrong with it...
    
    I did not say there was nothing wrong with it.  Represent your own
    positions, not mine.
    
    > houses don't drive away.
    
    Neither do locked cars.
    
    > No... the real problem is she was a low-life who couldn't give a damn
    > about her kids and was probably hoping someone would steal her car or
    > steal the kids...
    
    a) How do you KNOW she did not care?
    
    b) How do you KNOW she had any idea what might happen to the kids?
    
    > . . . stop insulting the intelligence of normal everyday people . . .
    
    That's rich.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Oooooooooo pleassssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!  It's time to get
    tough with these careless people!! Stop making excuses for them!!!!! 
    Everytime one of these stories comes out someone has an excuse for
    their behavior!!! 
    
    I'm sooooooooooooo sick of it!!
    
    Being educated or not educated is not an excuse!!! This is a clear act
    of just plan selfishness.  
    
    Momma wanted to not miss the party with the boys, so she throws her
    kids in the car at 2:00AM and takes off, gets totally plowed and the
    kids die!
    
    Well momma, the party is over.
     

    
    I think ANYone who owns a car below the 50th parallel has a pretty
    good idea how the greenhouse effect works, even if they can't put
    a name to it.
    

    
    Where was Papa?

    
    	Or maybe "WHO was papa"?  8^)
    
    	edp, you make some good points.  But if she owned the car, and
    	she's been in it during hot/sunny weather, she knows that it
    	will get really hot in the car if you don't roll down the wind-
    	ows [or turn on the A/C].  And since the car wasn't running [I
    	assume it wasn't running], she'd have to roll the windows down
    	[atleast a little bit].  She would have no excuse not to know
    	this.  This is not rocket science.
    
    	And I would never suggest the death penalty ... but I'd have to
    	think twice about letting her out of prison anytime in the near
    	future.
    

    Re .60:
    
    > Stop making excuses for them!!!!!
    
    Who says being stupid is an excuse?  (Or should that be "Who says being
    stupid is an excuse?!?!?!?!?!?!"?)  To fix a problem, you must
    understand the cause.  If the cause is malice, a cure might be
    punishment.  If the cause is stupidity, a cure might be education.
    
    If somebody robbed a bank and you, for some reason, wanted to send them
    to an accounting class to learn about money, would I be making an
    excuse for them if I said "No, the problem isn't that they don't
    understand money, the problem is that they didn't honor other people's
    property rights; you should punish them instead of sending them to
    class."?  No, that's not making an excuse; that is diagnosing the
    problem.
    
    > This is a clear act of just plan selfishness.

    How do you KNOW this was just _plain_ selfishness?  How do you KNOW
    that the mother's lack of KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE did not play any
    part in what happened?  Maybe she's retarded; the news stories have not
    said she is not.  Suppose she's got a 70 or 75 IQ and can barely feed
    herself.  Do you know that is not true?  Did anybody tell you she was a
    person of average intelligence, or are you just supposing that?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    	Or maybe "WHO was papa"?  8^)

Or "who were the papas?"

    
    John Phillips and Denny Mumble.

    Re .63:
    
    > But if she owned the car, . . .
    
    Did she?
    
    > . . . and	she's been in it during hot/sunny weather, . . .
    
    Was she?
    
    > . . . she knows that it will get really hot in the car . . .
    
    At 2 a.m.?
    
    Answer me this:  If she thought she would only be inside for a few
    minutes, and if she is one of the many people in this world whose brain
    does not come up with ideas about alternative events that might happen
    in the future, then how was she supposed to figure out what would have
    happened eight hours in the future?  Just tell me HOW.
    
    
    				-- edp                    
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	edp, it was said that she was going to a party.  I would have
    	to assume [bad word, but I already did] that she was planning
    	on staying for more than a few minutes.
    
    	So do you suggest a slap on the hand, and maybe a severe verbal
    	warning that she's not to do it again?
    
    
    	[I saw "Autopsy" on HBO and have a "similar" story that I'll put
    	 in here somewhere when I have a few minutes.]
    

    
    Eric, if she's that lacking in foresight, how did she survive to
    spawning age?
    

 ZZ  then how was she supposed to figure out what would have
 ZZ     happened eight hours in the future?  Just tell me HOW.
    
    I know leaving a child in the car is against the law in Massachusetts.
    Not sure if this is a state law or federal law.  If federal, she is
    without excuse.
    
    -Jack

    Lacking foresight of possible events is not an excuse for 
    irresponsible behavior leading to causing the deaths of others.  

    FRY her!!!! Any moron in their right mind would not leave two toddlers
    in the car for even a second unattended. 
    
    

	She should be tired for something.... just not sure what yet....

    
    You'd be tired too if you'd partied from 2am to 10am.

>              <<< Note 461.54 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>
>I have children around the age that those kids who died were... I have a 
>monitor to listen in to make sure all if fine for 1 kid. The other (who

BTW, don't go crazy with those baby monitors. You aren't the only one who can
listen in to what's going on in that room...

All it takes is another monitor, a cordless phone, a kiddie walkie-talkie, or
anything else that uses that radio frequency band.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting.

>><<< Note 461.72 by SHRCTR::SIGEL "Takin' care of business and workin' overtime" >>>
>>                                   -< ARGH! >-
>>    FRY her!!!! Any moron in their right mind would not leave two toddlers
>>    in the car for even a second unattended. 

    So anyone who leaves a child in a car should be put to death?
    Do I have you right?

    

    
    If she can't be responsible for herself, for whatever the reason may
    be, i.e. low IQ, lack of intelligence, whatever, then she shouldn't be
    out having kids.  Period!
    
    Sorry, but it pains me to see these people who can breed like rabbits
    causing the harm and deaths they are to their children.  For me, having
    friends who so much want to have a child and can't, it makes me sick.

    
    >Any moron in their right mind would not leave two toddlers
    >in the car for even a second unattended.
    
    If she is a moron, then I believe she *would* leave toddlers 
    unattended, if she was in her right mind.
    
    ;^)
    

Bet she's already tired of all the publicity...

       <<< Note 461.59 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>


    Re .54:

    Thanks, Scott.


    RE .59:

>   Oh, a monitor.  Aren't you glad for the 1990s?  What would you have
>   done 20 years ago?  What about the people who can't afford a monitor,
>   are they negligent?

Well, my son, when he was a baby had a cry that the neighbors in the house
next door could hear!  Believe me, if he needed something, he had a very 
effective low-tech way of letting everyone in the house know it!

Given this set of facts, I doubt if there was any way for her to hear her
children if they cried out.  I have problems with that.  The same goes for
people who leave small children at home.  If something goes wrong, they do
not have the ability to take care of themselves, protect themselves, or
call for help.

Furthermore, as you stated, there is a danger that the children will be 
abducted.  You can claim that if she lived in a dangerous place she could 
not have prevented it.  That is possibly true, but there is insufficient 
evidence of that.  Even if it were true, leaving the children out in a car 
is putting them at a greater risk in almost any set of circumstances,
as cars are easily broken into, easily stolen, and the parent was not 
around to prevent the break in.


>   If YOU did this, the only reason would be because you didn't care about
>   the kids, because YOU know better.  But if you do not KNOW that the
>   mother did know better, you can't conclude her acts were caused by lack
>   of concern rather than lack of intelligence.

There are basic rules of conduct that our society expects.  These rules do
not require tremendous intelligence or education.  If the mother was mentally
deficient or emotionally unstable so that she could no longer care for her
children, then I would hope that the state would have acted in the best 
interest of the child and taken her children from her.  Based on the 
assumption that she drove the car to the location (and probably had a 
driver's license), I conclude that she was not a complete moron.  Therefore, 
standard of reasonable behavior apply.

I don't think that leaving a child in a situation for that length of time,
where no one can see them or hear them, is right.  I'd be willing to bet that
twelve people on a jury would agree.  

    
    Being a moron does not explain this situation... Forrest Gump would
    _never_ have done such a thing!!! :-)
    
    -b

>    If she can't be responsible for herself, for whatever the reason may
>    be, i.e. low IQ, lack of intelligence, whatever, then she shouldn't be
>    out having kids.  Period!

She's 20 years old and stupid.  Shoulds and shouldn'ts don't count in real life.
What do you suggest?  Sterilization?

    
    	RE: .78
    
    	I'd like to nominate this one as "reply of the week".
    
    	8^)
    

    Glen??

I believe if they go ahead with a prosecution for first-degree murder that
 A jury will actually have to let her go. First degree requires
premeditation. I think it would be very hard/difficult/impossible to
prove that she intended the children die, as opposed to Susan Smith who
knew the effects of drowning.

If the prosecuter pushes for two counts of second degree which is commiting 
an act of violence which results in death the jury may also be forced to let 
her off.

A charge of two counts of third-degree(negligence, resulting in death) with
the sentences to be served consecutively would put her away for a reasonable 
time but is the most that she can be convicted of.

Various states interpret second/third degre differently so in her state
second might apply in which case the sentences would be longer. The idea
of a conviction on first-degree that won't get thrown out for lack of
premeditation is IMHO pretty far-fetched.

No matter what public outrage exists the prosecuters should only charge that 
which they can reasonably hope to convince a jury of consistant with the law.

Amos    

    
    Question:  If she is charged with first degree, can the jury find her
    `not guilty' of first degree but `guilty' of third degree?
    

    
    	Not if the prosecution goes for a 1st-degree conviction.
    
    	If they start there and plea-bargain with the defense down to
    	2nd, or start with 2nd and plea-bargain to 3rd, then that might
    	be the best bet.
    

    
    I see.  In Canadian homicide cases, the jury has the option of finding
    `not guilty' on the more serious charge, but `guilty' to a lesser
    charge, such as manslaughter.
    

    re: .56
    
    When I was 5 years old, I realized that the car got real hot in the
    summertime with the windows up (heck, even with the windows down).  I
    probably had this figured out at a much earlier age, but I don't have
    sufficient memory to dredge up my car experiences before this age.
    
    I knew nothing about the greenhouse effect at the time.
    
    Since it was 2am when she left them, it seems irrelevant to the point,
    however.  The real point is that she left her kids locked in a car all
    night, which resulted in their deaths, and that this neglect was most
    certainly due to her partying the night before.
    
    Did she intentionally kill her kids?  I doubt it.  Did she endanger
    their well being so she could have fun?  Absolutely.  Did her neglect
    end up in their death?  Yes.
    
    Neglegent homicide seems to be the obvious call here, going from the
    facts given in this topic so far.
    
    If she blew a .06 at 10 am, she was most certainly loaded the night
    before, unless she had a couple beers when she woke up, assuming that
    she at least slept a few hours.  
    
    
    -steve

    
      I once did this to a set of floppies containing the only copy
     of my source code.  Left it right out on the dashboard on a
     bright summer's day, I did.  The result was VERY floppy.
    
      Had to redo, from partial listings, human memory, doing over.
    
      bb

    re: .75
    
    Yeah, the Trilateral commission is listening in on your children.

    Re .68:
    
    > edp, it was said that she was going to a party.  I would have
    > to assume [bad word, but I already did] that she was planning
    > on staying for more than a few minutes.
    
    There were four questions in .67.  You haven't answered any of them --
    even if she was planning on staying more than a few minutes, that's
    still not eight hours and it doesn't explain how a person who can't
    figure out alternative events is supposed to figure out what would
    happen.
    
    > 	So do you suggest a slap on the hand, and maybe a severe verbal
    >	warning that she's not to do it again?

    If you would like me to answer your question, then please answer mine.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
                                                         
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.       

    Re .69:
    
    > Eric, if she's that lacking in foresight, how did she survive to
    > spawning age?

    Maybe somebody else took care of her -- family, friends, state,
    charities.  Maybe she's intelligent enough to feel when she is hot and
    do something about it but not intelligent enough to realize somebody
    ELSE is hot when she can't feel it herself.  Maybe she's stupid and has
    been luck up until now.  The point is you can't condemn a person to
    death without even considering these things.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                

    Re .71:
    
    > Lacking foresight of possible events is not an excuse for 
    > irresponsible behavior leading to causing the deaths of others.  

    Who said it was an excuse?  Did I write that NO corrective action
    should be taken?  Or did I in fact write that the death penalty is
    inappropriate and concluding that her act was malicious is
    inappropriate?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    .93:
    
    I don't support the death penalty, Eric.  But unless I hear otherwise,
    I will choose to believe that this woman posessed average intellectual 
    function; thus, guilty of negligence.
    

    
    	Well, you know I can't answer the questions, nor can anyone in
    	here with the information provided.  And maybe those questions
    	are even too specific:
    
    	Was it her car?  Does that matter?  A car is a car, for the most
    	part [at least for what we need it for in this discussion].
    
    	Has she driven it on hot days?  Does it matter?  Has she driven
    	[or ridden in] any car on hot days and know what it feels like
    	when the windows are up?  I'd say "yes".  Now, I know that this
    	conflicts with your idea that she is capable of understanding
    	something that directly affects her, but not capable of real-
    	izing that that same thing can affect someone else, but I don't
    	believe that.
    

    
    
    I don't usually reply, but I can't help it this time... 13 years ago,
    when my sister lived on Fort Meade (her husband was in the Air Force),
    she was written up, and my brother-in-law was written up, because she
    left my neice in her car for 5 mins, while she ran into the clinic to
    get her allergy shot... the car was parked in the front, she stood in
    the doorway watching the car at all times.. the reason for this is that
    my neice was never a sleeper, she would NEVER sleep at night, after
    numerous doctor appointments, she was told to just let her sleep when
    she wanted to.. she happened to have fallen asleep on the ride to the
    clinic, so my sister (stupid at the time we know), did what she thought
    was RIGHT at the moment.. BUT... look at the penalty she had to pay...
    the doctor in the clinic even came out and tried to speak with the
    MP's, but they wouldn't listen.. they ripped her a new ***hole.  She
    NEVER, EVER did anything that stupid again... What this thing did
    (doesn't deserve the title 'mother') was selfishness on her part,
    going to a party was more important, and she should pay dearly for
    this. Calling her stupid isn't any way out for her.. I too had a baby
    at 20, NOT married... and I had to GROW up fast and LEARN fast... she
    had two kids... if she messed up the first time she had the second time
    to try to grow up again... She knew what she was doing.. she just got
    caught.

    Re .80:
    
    > Well, my son, when he was a baby had a cry that the neighbors in the
    > house next door could hear!  Believe me, if he needed something, he had
    > a very  effective low-tech way of letting everyone in the house know
    > it!
    
    That would have been no good whatsoever in case of SIDS or accidental
    strangulation.  Did you or did you not have your infant attended by an
    awake adult every second of every hour of every day?
    
    > Given this set of facts, I doubt if there was any way for her to hear
    > her children if they cried out.
    
    You doubt it.  And what, pray tell, is this doubt based upon?  Do you
    think the distance from the car to the motel room was too far?  How far
    was that distance, hmm?
    
    > That is possibly true, but there is insufficient evidence of that.
    
    Is there sufficient evidence to the contrary?
    
    > There are basic rules of conduct that our society expects.
    
    Violating society's expectations isn't necessarily a crime or
    malicious.  If it is stupidity and not evil, then the proper correction
    should be used -- the death penalty is wrong.
    
    > These rules do not require tremendous intelligence or education.
    
    So you say.  But a person of an 80 IQ may be capable of taking care of
    themselves and even caring for others under most circumstances.  If a
    person _appears_ able to take care of children over a period of years,
    do they suddenly become evil when they screw up for the first time in a
    major way?
    
    > If the mother was mentally deficient or emotionally unstable so that
    > she could no longer care for her children, then I would hope that the
    > state would have acted in the best  interest of the child and taken her
    > children from her.
    
    If the situation called for that, then these deaths would be the
    state's fault, wouldn't they?
    
    > Based on the assumption that she drove the car to the location (and
    > probably had a driver's license), I conclude that she was not a
    > complete moron.
    
    Really.  How interesting.  Tell us everything you know about the
    minimum IQ with which a person can get a driver's license.
    
    > I don't think that leaving a child in a situation for that length of
    > time, where no one can see them or hear them, is right.
    
    Nobody said it was right.
    
    > I'd be willing to bet that twelve people on a jury would agree.
    
    Twelve people on a jury wouldn't be asked about that.  It wouldn't be
    in contest in court.  Twelve people on a jury might be asked to decide
    whether the mother were competent to know what she was doing or to know
    the difference between right and wrong.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>                       <<< Note 461.91 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>
>    Yeah, the Trilateral commission is listening in on your children.

No, agents of the NWO in black helicopters, you fool...!

All I'm saying is, you have a gadget broadcasting everything you say, all day
long, to the whole neighborhood. How much of your business do you want them
know?

    
    	And I also have a hard time believing that someone can't foresee
    	consequences based on irresponsible behavior.  She's gotten her-
    	self this far [or, as you suggest, SOMEONE has], and her kids have
    	gotten this far [by chance ... possibly, but I have a feeling that
    	she's done most things right so far] ... and that doesn't happen
    	strictly by luck.
    

    
    	And I can't honestly say that she knows the car will get hot at
    	2AM ... it probably wasn't.  But by 8-9AM when the sun was coming
    	up, that's very probably when the heat started to really kick in.
    
    	And I know, I know ... she didn't know she wouldn't be back by
    	then.  And I say she should have foreseen this, or at least taken
    	precautions to prevent even a remote possibility of it happening
    	[like, for example, birth control].
    

    Re .87:
    
    > Not if the prosecution goes for a 1st-degree conviction.
        
    Some states allow the jury to find guilt of a lesser included offense.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re 89:
    
    > When I was 5 years old, I realized that the car got real hot in the
    > summertime with the windows up (heck, even with the windows down).
    
    You are thinking of *you* still.  I asked the reader to think of a
    person with an IQ of 85.  That's not you.  Even at age 5, that's not
    you.  A person with a low IQ is DIFFERENT.  They don't think the way
    other people do; some things they can't think of at all.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .95:
    
    > But unless I hear otherwise, I will choose to believe that this woman
    > posessed average intellectual  function; . . .
    
    a) Why?
    
    b) Given that she was either stupid or negligent, why do you choose to
    believe the latter given no other information?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	RE: guilty of an included offense
    
    	Well, they're not going to charge her with 2 counts of 1st,
    	2 counts of 2nd and 2 counts of 3rd degree murder and hope for
    	the best ... they can't do that.
    
    	They could charge someone with petty larceny and breaking and
    	entering and drop the breaking and entering charge, though.
    

    Re .96:
    
    > Was it her car?  Does that matter?
    
    You made that assumption and explicitly called it out -- so, yes, it
    does matter, it was a part of the reasoning you presented.
    
    > Has she driven it on hot days?  Does it matter?
    
    Same thing -- yes, it matters.  I know of people who moved from warm
    climates to colder climates and had automobile accidents because they
    didn't understand snow.  It's not beyond reason that somebody could
    move from a frigid climate to a warm climate and not understand
    suffocating car heat.  Even if a person has experience with the inside
    of a car getting hot, their experience might only be to the point where
    it becomes uncomfortable.  They might not understand that it can become
    fatal.
    
    > Now, I know that this conflicts with your idea that she is capable of
    > understanding something that directly affects her, but not capable of
    > realizing that that same thing can affect someone else, but I don't
    > believe that.
    
    Why don't you believe it?
    
    Do you not believe there are any people like that?  If so, what do you
    base that belief on?
    
    Or do you not believe she is one of those people?  If so, what do you
    base that belief on?
    
    > Well, you know I can't answer the questions, . . .
    
    Maybe not the specific questions about whether it was her car, but you
    can take a stab at the question about how a person with limited brain
    capacity is supposed to accomplish choices requiring forethought and
    hypothetical situations.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    Disclaimer incorporated by reference.  Send mail for copy.  No
    permission of any sort is granted to the moderators.

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
    

    Re .97:
    
    > She knew what she was doing.
    
    How do you know?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: EST:RANDOLPH
                 
    I reckon you'd need to know how sensitive those things are if it's
    upstairs and I'm down in the basement.  Nobody can hear me.  
    
    Then again, I heard about a couple doing the nasty in their nieces 
    bedroom while visting relatives.  The scene was equiped with one
    of those monitor deals.  Hopefully not a sensative one with the other
    end of the monitor in my sister-in-laws room.  

    
    .104:
    
    a) and b) are the same question.  :^)
    
    Why?  Because the odds are that she falls into the 90-110 range.
    That's what it means to be average: to be part of the majority.
    
    The odds are even better that she falls into the 80-120 range, and
    I think that range is sufficient for day-to-day operation in this
    modern world of ours.
    

>    	Well, they're not going to charge her with 2 counts of 1st,
>    	2 counts of 2nd and 2 counts of 3rd degree murder and hope for
>    	the best ... they can't do that.

Shawn, it's remarkable how much you know about Tennessee law.

I sat on a jury where the charges included attempted murder and assault.
The difference was intent to kill.  The verdict was not guilty of attempted
murder and guilty of assault.  This was in NY.

    Re: .98
    
    >And what, pray tell, is this doubt based upon?
    
    I doubt it too, based on my personal experience of how well sound
    travels through closed car windows.
    
    
    Re: .104
    
    >Given that she was either stupid or negligent, why do you choose to
    >believe the latter given no other information?
    
    Probably because people tend to assume the average case is true,
    lacking any indications to the contrary.

    I suspect she knew leaving the kids in the car wasn't the safest thing
    to do because if it was, she probably would not have kept going out to 
    check the car...like the guys said she did. Why check them if you've 
    locked the doors and if they're safe. Like I said before, she probably 
    has done this before and it was never a problem. Guess it is now!
    

    Re .100:
    
    > And I also have a hard time believing that someone can't foresee
    > consequences based on irresponsible behavior.
    
    Approximately half a billion people on this planet have IQs between 85
    and 90.  About a third of a billion are between 85 and 80.  About a
    fifth of a billion are between 80 and 75.  Another quarter of a billion
    have IQs under 75.  There are plenty of stupid people on this planet. 
    Do you not believe that, or do you not believe that stupidity goes down
    to the really, really stupid levels?  Do you know what a person with an
    80 IQ is like?  70?  60?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    This is too sad. There are people want kids in the worse way, would
    treat them with love and then there are people like this woman who dont
    give a hoot but anyone but themselves and leave two small children in a
    car for a long period of time without even cracking the windows to let
    fresh air in. It is just very very sad. Two innocent children whos
    lives did not even begin.

    Re .109:
    
    > That's what it means to be average: to be part of the majority.
    
    But the question is why do you suppose she is average?  What makes you
    think she is average instead of not average?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .111:
    
    > Probably because people tend to assume the average case is true,
    > lacking any indications to the contrary.

    And leaving two children in a car is not indication to the contrary?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Why was she leaving those kids in the car in the first place.  Was she
    so selfish and selfcentered that she wanted to party more than she
    was worried about her childrens welfare.  I think they should shut
    her in a car strapped to the seat in the hot sun for as long as the
    children were left in there.  If she survives then she goes to jail, 
    if not then justice has been served.
    
    Sorry to be so hard, but people who have children and then don't take
    care of them make me MAD!!!

    
|   I asked the reader to think of a person with an IQ of 85.  That's
|   not you.  Even at age 5, that's not you.  A person with a low IQ is
|   DIFFERENT.  They don't think the way other people do; some things
|   they can't think of at all.
    
    What was it Herrnstein and Murray said about IQ?
    
    "Measures of intelligence... are a limited tool for deciding what
    to make of any given individual."  (p 21)
    
    Your assertion that a person with an IQ of 85 does not think the way
    other people do is bordering on the obscene.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: 461.119
    
    I agree 100%! That is what she is, selfish and selfcentered and too
    worried about partying instead of her children.
    
     
    
    

>><<< Note 461.121 by SHRCTR::SIGEL "Takin' care of business and workin' overtime" >>>

    you haven't answered my question in .76, i notice.
    
    

    Re: .118
    
    >And leaving two children in a car is not indication to the contrary?
    
    No, because people of normal intelligence are still quite capable of
    acting stupidly or carelessly.

    
    	edp, I already said I was probably too specific with my assump-
    	tions, so I'm not going to bother debating whether or not she
    	owned the car or whether she has experience in driving in hot
    	weather.
    
    >> Now, I know that this conflicts with your idea that she is capable of
    >> understanding something that directly affects her, but not capable of
    >> realizing that that same thing can affect someone else, but I don't
    >> believe that.
    >
    >Why don't you believe it?
    
	I don't believe that people like that exist.  People know what
    	effect an action has, and know that the same action will have a
    	similar effect on others.  The difference is that some people
    	care, and some don't.  That's why we have robberies, assaults,
    	murders.  People know they're hurting others, but they don't care.
    
    	And you know I'm not a doctor, nor a psychologist, so please try
    	not to ask me if I am.  "I believe" means "IMO", "I think", "if
    	you ask me", etc.
    
    	How did the kids not starve to death if she didn't know that they
    	would starve to death if not fed?  Luck?  Crawled around on the
    	floor and licked up dust balls?
    
    >Maybe not the specific questions about whether it was her car, but you
    >can take a stab at the question about how a person with limited brain
    >capacity is supposed to accomplish choices requiring forethought and
    >hypothetical situations.
    
    	Well, I guess that depends on how limited her brain power is.  I
    	don't believe that brain power can be limited that much so as to
    	render someone like this, a mother and owner of a driver's license,
    	totally incapable of forward thinking.
    

    
    And if she went out periodically to check on them, like she says,
    wouldn't you think the kids would do something to indicate they wanted
    out of the car??  I cannot imagine any child being in a confined area
    for that long, and not reacting when someone came to check on them.
    
     
    
    

    
    	Why did she take the kids with her if she's that lacking in
    	forward thinking?  She knows enough not to leave them at home,
    	but she doesn't know enough not to leave them locked in a car?
    

    Re .123:
    
    >> And leaving two children in a car is not indication to the contrary?
    >
    > No, because people of normal intelligence are still quite capable of
    > acting stupidly or carelessly.

    Your assertion only shows that leaving children in the car is not
    _proof_ of below-average intelligence, since other people can do it too
    -- but it does not bear on whether leaving children in the car is an
    _indication_ of below-average intelligence.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	I took "checked on them periodically" to mean "between 2 and 5,
    	she checked them ... after that she was passed out and never
    	went back out until 10AM or so".
    

    Re .124:
    
    > I don't believe that people like that exist.  People know what
    > effect an action has, and know that the same action will have a
    > similar effect on others.
    
    Oh, come on.  Do you know there are actually a few rare babies born
    without any brains at all?  You don't think they know what effect
    actions have, do you?  And in between those unfortunates and average
    people are all types.
    
    Do you know at what age average children realize that other people's
    knowledge of the world isn't the same as their knowledge?  You aren't
    born with it.  It develops later, as the brain grows.  Some people's
    brains don't grow correctly.
    
    > How did the kids not starve to death if she didn't know that they
    > would starve to death if not fed?
    
    Imitation.  She saw children eating.  She saw other people feeding
    children.  She was taught to feed children.
    
    > I	don't believe that brain power can be limited that much so as to	
    > render someone like this, a mother and owner of a driver's license,	
    > totally incapable of forward thinking.
    
    The requirements for a driver's license are some simple motor skills,
    recognition of a few signs, and the minimum reading comprehension to
    understand some questions.  The latter is the most difficult part as
    far as intelligence goes, but can be repeated.  None of these parts
    require ability to plan ahead.  Motherhood has fewer requirements.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Enough already with her "limited brain capacity". She was reckless,
    plan and simple.  Going to a party was more important to her than
    thinking of the welfare of her children.
    
    You can use the excuse "limited brain capacity", "lack of experience
    due to her age" whatever.
    
    The woman thought about boozing it up as her first priority, not her
    kids. 
    
    

Don't forget that there was alcohol involved.
Alcohol profoundly diminishes critical thinking. 

    
    After she went to the party, or who knows, maybe she was already 1/2 in
    the bag when she went off at 2:00 AM.
    
    

    
    .116:
    
    Why do I suppose she is average instead of not average?  Because,
    as I said, the odds are that she *is* average.  One might argue, as
    you seem to be, that her actions are evidence to the contrary.  One
    might also argue the the police and the DA (whom one would expect to 
    be of at least average intelligence) wouldn't have laid a charge of
    any kind if they thought they had little chance of securing a
    conviction.  I think we can safely say that, these days, no jury would 
    be able to convict a person of significantly sub-standard intelligence 
    of a crime like murder in a case like this.
    
    As Chelsea said, even smart people are capable of doing stupid things.
    
    Never done anything stupid, Eric?
    
    jc
     

    
    .131:
    
    Ummmmm...so I hear.   ;^)
    

    Well, whatever the outcome of the charges, if this peron is allowed
    to live, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, I think she is a REAL good case
    for STERILIZATION...
    
    
    This person needs not foul another child.
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    Re: .127
    
    >but it does not bear on whether leaving children in the car is an
    >_indication_ of below-average intelligence.
    
    Sure it does.  If doing stupid things is common across all levels of
    intelligence (and it is), then if someone does a stupid thing, we can't
    assume that it's an indication of any level of intelligence.

    Re: .125
    
    >I cannot imagine any child being in a confined area for that long, and 
    >not reacting when someone came to check on them.
    
    Unless they were asleep, unconscious, or dead, all of which could
    easily apply here.

    Think about how STUPID the AVERAGE PERSON is,
    then remember, half of them are EVEN MORE STUPID THAN THAT !
                                       George Carlin

    :-)
    Dan

    
    
    I don't think this is a matter of low intelligence.  This is more like
    someone so immature and self centered that they rationalize as being
    necessary, leaving two children alone in a car (under any weather 
    conditions) and see themselves as having had no other option.  She 
    wanted to party and the children got in the way.  She probably see 
    herself as a good mother for taking them with her and not leaving 
    them at home alone.
    
    

    Here's another plug for stupidity--
    
    Got a very disturbing call from a woman friend of mine, whom up until a
    short while ago, had a "perfect" life -- a stable marriage, two
    *beautiful* children, a lovely home in Atlanta, etc.  She's beside
    herself because her husband just announced he is leaving her and the 
    children for another man.  
    
    Now, here's the kicker -- "huzzy" knows that the man he is leaving his 
    wife and family for a) is poor b) has aids c) probably won't be around 
    for much longer than another 6 months.
    
    Now, why would *anyone* in their right mind leave all of that behind?
    And risk his health in the process??
    
    How does one rationalize someone so selfish and just plain STUPID?!
    
    /b
                                              

Z    She's beside
Z    herself because her husband just announced he is leaving her and
Z    the children for another man.  
    
    Just so I read this right...the guy is leaving his wife for a man???
    
    -Jack
    

 C'mon, Jack...its the 90's!  

Re: .135

>Sterilize the pig!

You're not serious, are you?

What she did was inexcusable and she should serve time for it.
However, sometimes people make lousy judgement calls.  And when
alcohol is involved, people are prone to make incredibly irrational
and sometimes fatal judgement calls.

Ever driven a car after a few pops?  Ever known a drunk who shouldn't
have been behind the wheel?  Most drunk drivers are lucky, they never
kill anyone.  And for some, well, their luck runs out.

I'm sure this young woman is thinking "if only, if only".
And I'm pretty sure she'll pay for her behavior every day of
her life.

    no differnt than driving the kids into the local pond strapped into
    their car seats....
    

    
    "different"
    
    It hasn't been said that she did it _deliberately_, unlike Susan Smith.
    

    I agree with the basic premise of what Bonnie wrote, she should serve
    time, unless it was premeditated, then death.  I stop short of surgical 
    procedures as a preventative measure against future indiscretions. 
    Somehow though serving time just doesn't seem to be justice enough for
    her irresponsibility.    

>>    Somehow though serving time just doesn't seem to be justice enough for
>>    her irresponsibility.    

	If it was accidental, what could be worse than a lifetime (in
	or out of prison) of waking up every day with the realization that
	you're responsible for your children's deaths?  Simply unimaginable.

    Being made to go out and educate folks on the consequences of
    selfishness and stupidity perhaps.  The deaths of the two kids in TN
    was not accidental.  Maybe not on purpose either but it wasn't an
    accident.  I believe she will feel remorse for her misdeeds but her
    suffering should be shared so other may possbily learn and prevent
    similar actions from occuring in the future.  

   .149  It's not a bad idea to have her do that, but it arguably could
	 serve to assuage her guilt a little.  If it wasn't intentional,
	 then it was likely accidental, I would say.  Negligent homicide.

    Seldom is a person with a smoking gun going to not regret what they did.
    How the hell does a couple of toddlers get into the trunk of a car? I
    know! It wasn't Susan Smith. The kids drove themselves into the bloody
    lake. The black guy did it! Never them... Lord forbid they would ever
    do anything execpt stick the childs tiny hands into boiling water....
    
    

    
    Um, I don't believe this particular person put her kids into the trunk
    of the car, George.

>How the hell does a couple of toddlers get into the trunk of a car?

What the hell are you talking about?

    
    	Maybe they folded the back seat down and crawled in.
    
    	[No, they were sitting on the seats.]
    

    
    
    i agree with whomever (is that right, deb) said that just because she
    did this doesn't make her lower on the intelligence totempole.  it was
    pure selfishness.  she wanted to party.  obviously had no baby sitter
    at that time of nite.  so she had 3 choices.  leave the kids home,
    take them with her, or not go.  she didn't choose the appropriate
    choice.  (my mother used to frequently leave my brother and i alone
    when she had us for the weekend to go next door for parties and
    whatnot...granted, nothing ever bad happened and i was a bit older...7 
    or so, but still, it was most immature and irresponsible and it is just 
    one of the things for which i won't forgive her)sure, she has suffered 
    already by losing her children in a most permanent way.  but it isn't 
    enough.  don't know if the death penalty is called for, but something
    is.
    
    

    
    	I don't think they'd give your mother the death penalty, raq.
    
    	And edp is playing "Devil's Advocate", or "defense attorney"
    	if you wish.  Either he doesn't actually believe that his pos-
    	ition is right, or he's on a "she has rights!!" kick.
    

    
    I can't wait to hear the stuff that comes out of this one. Like after
    Susan Smith was arrested, stories of abuse, allegations against her
    stepfather, blah, blah, blah.  Excuse, excuse, excuse, after she her
    conjured up story.
    
    Something will come out about this woman to try to dull the senses of
    reality that she was reckless.
    
    Mary
    

    
    RE:  .157
    
    Exactly!!!  Excuses, excuses, excuses!
    
    If only people spent less time making up excuses and putting
    the blame elsewhere,  and more time owning up to their 
    responsibilities!  sheesh!
    
    Those kids were her responsibility.  One responsibility she
    didn't own up to, now she has to pay the consequences for being
    so selfish!!!  No ifs, ands or buts about it!
    
    /kfb

    
    Where was Papa?

Absolutely!!!  I'll say it again!!!  Absolutely!!!

    
    What did you say?
    

Papa musta been a rollin' stone.

Blood, I want blood!!!  

>>    ... now she has to pay the consequences for being
>>    so selfish!!!  No ifs, ands or buts about it!

	It would seem that the big question here is what those
	consequences should be.  

    
    Well, she wouldn't have been reduced to taking her children to a party
    and leaving them in a car if the father(s) hadn't abandoned them
    without so much as a backward glance, as men are wont to do.
    
    
    
    I dunno, we've had so many other outrageous comments in this topic that I
    thought I'd throw that in 8^).

    
    papa could be dead
    
    or maybe papa (or papas) don't know they were papas
    
    or maybe she didn't tell him of her plans
    
    
    

    
    
    Maybe Papa(s) were with Mama havin' a grand ole time!
    
    Who knows (and who cares)?

And what about the blokes partying with her?
Couldn't _one_ of 'em even think to check on the
kids or were they too busy with their buds???

Oh yeah, I know.  It was her responsibility.

    
    or....maybe mama don't dance and daddy don't and rock-n-roll...
    
    

    
    Maybe Mama had a squeeze-box and Papa couldn't sleep at night...
    
    -b

    
    re.  169    Maybe the friends didn't know the kids were in the car.
    
    Mary
    

    .153
    If this is the story that I saw on the tube..... the woman went into
    the hotel, fell asleep. And the toddlers were found dead in the trunk
    of the car....

    .165
    
    Perhaps, if the courts would give fathers a better chance at
    visitation. There would be less abandonment. Most of the times, the mom
    does her best to alienate the children from the fathers. 
    
    

According to the local police, one of the attendees stated that before
she fell asleep, she went to the car to check on the kids a few times.

    
    Papa was in the process of trying to get custody of the two children...
    
    Seems that momma has done things like this in the past...
    
     I guess there's on accounting for responsibility...
    

    ...or they were not aware she had kids in car, in the parking lot. 
    Wasn't that one of the statements from one of the co-partiers? 
    Personally I find it hard to believe they weren't aware but this is
    bizarre enough as it is so it's possible.  
    
    As for the father(s), their presence or lack of does not justify her
    irresponsibility.   It is not as if she were going to work (or was
    she?) and could not get a sitter and therefore had to take them with
    her so she could earn a wage and feed the kids, pay rent etc.  She went 
    out to party, took the kids, left them unattended, they died.  Did she 
    need to go out?  Not apparently.  She gambled and lost her family.  She 
    had choices and made the wrong one.     

    
    RE: .176  Andy, is that what you really heard (Papa trying to get
    custody)?
    
    Mike

.172

>re.  169    Maybe the friends didn't know the kids were in the car.

And maybe they did.  Let's wait and find out.  Apparently you have
no problems coming to _their_ defense either way.

    
    Mike,
    
     That's what the Boston Globe reported last week when the story
    initially broke...
    
    But it may all be just lies!! Lies!! Lies!!!
    

    
    I'm not coming to anyone's defense. I know SHE knew they were in the
    car and it is not clear that anyone else did.  
    
    And if they did know, then they should be considered for punishment
    also.
    
    

Fat chance.

    
    	They have no responsibility for her kids.
    
    	If they knew, then they can all plead insanity like edp thinks
    	the mother should and they'll all get severe hand slaps and
    	strict warnings never to do it again.
    

    
      Can he get custody now ?
    
      bb

| <<< Note 461.182 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

| Fat chance.

	Are you talking about the odds would be on a certain pool champion?

    
    >Most of the times, the mom
    >does her best to alienate the children from the fathers. 
    
    Misogynistic broad brush alert.
    
    I was joking, but this guy's serious as a heart attack.

    RE: .173
    
    George, I think you have a couple of stories mixed together here. 
    
    

    a regular gallimaufry of factoids, that george.

    Not only that but I think he has his facts jumbled. 

       <<< Note 461.98 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>   That would have been no good whatsoever in case of SIDS or accidental
>   strangulation.  Did you or did you not have your infant attended by an
>   awake adult every second of every hour of every day?

I have never heard of a case where parents were held responsible for the 
death of an infant due to SIDS.  I'd be willing to bet that if a court 
could prove that a parent were warned about a specific situation that would
lead to strangulation and the parents did nothing about it, that might be
cause for negligence, but I have never heard of such a case.

However, my point is still valid.  If the parent can hear the child cry, 
that is, IMHO, that child is "attended".  His or her needs, if the child 
cries out, can be met.  I'm sure that there are no courts that will require
that a parent must stay with their childen ever minute of the day.


>   You doubt it.  And what, pray tell, is this doubt based upon?  Do you
>   think the distance from the car to the motel room was too far?  How far
>   was that distance, hmm?

It's not just a matter of distance.  It's also the fact the cars are built
to keep out noise.  It is also my experience that the reverse is true: 
people inside the car have a tough time being heard outside of the car.
Furthermore, please note that the mother was inside the motel.  Even if the
car were directly outside the room, I doubt if the children could be heard.
I'd also bet that the party provided a fair amount of background noise and
that the room had an air conditioner and that the air conditioner was running.

    
>   Violating society's expectations isn't necessarily a crime or
>   malicious.  If it is stupidity and not evil, then the proper correction
>   should be used -- the death penalty is wrong.

I wouldn't push for the death penalty here, and I wouldn't use the term
"malicious", either.  I think that the act of leaving the children in the
car unattended for more than a few minutes was sufficient cause for 
negligence.  

    
>   > These rules do not require tremendous intelligence or education.
>   
>   So you say.  But a person of an 80 IQ may be capable of taking care of
>   themselves and even caring for others under most circumstances.  If a
>   person _appears_ able to take care of children over a period of years,
>   do they suddenly become evil when they screw up for the first time in a
>   major way?
 
The ever popular legal standard is: "What would a 'reasonable' person do?"
I don't think that a reasonable person would leave the kids in the car.
Period.  The matter is for a jury to decide, but even if she went to work
instead of a party and even if the temperatures were much lower, I think 
that she's still in trouble.  The act of leaving the children in the car 
for more than a few minutes is sufficient cause.


>   > Based on the assumption that she drove the car to the location (and
>   > probably had a driver's license), I conclude that she was not a
>   > complete moron.
>    
>   Really.  How interesting.  Tell us everything you know about the
>   minimum IQ with which a person can get a driver's license.

Clearly she has to have some ability.  She must be able to read or to 
listen to questions read to her.  She must be able to understand English
sentences of, perhaps, eight-grade complexity or better.  She must be
able to demonstrate basic motor skills.

    
>   > I'd be willing to bet that twelve people on a jury would agree.
>   
>   Twelve people on a jury wouldn't be asked about that.  It wouldn't be
>   in contest in court.  Twelve people on a jury might be asked to decide
>   whether the mother were competent to know what she was doing or to know
>   the difference between right and wrong.

If her defense is based on insanity or diminished capacity, yes.  I doubt
that those are issues.  I believe that the prosecution in a negligence 
case will attempt to show that the defendent acted "irresponsibly" or 
without due care.  Specifically, that the defendent did not perform his or 
her duties according to the minimum standard of the community.  By leaving 
the children unattended, she put them in a situation in which she could not 
possibly carry out her responsibilities to the children.

    .187
    Sorry I didn't see a happy smile. And there was a rather nasty slam in
    there about it. There are many men who do pay, see, and work hard at
    being a good dad. And your broad brushing wasnt very funny.
    

 deb, it is, how you say, hopeless.

Rather.

    Well, at least he's not trying to pawn off the blame on the other
    partiers...

Re: .174

>Most of the times, the mom
>    does her best to alienate the children from the fathers.

Sorry I didn't see a happy smile. And there was a rather nasty slam in
there about it.  And your broad brushing wasnt very funny.

re: alienation of children

I believe George has some personal experience in the matter. I wouldn't
be inclined to take his opinion particularly lightly.

    >I believe George has some personal experience in the matter. 
    
     What difference does that make? He's an easy target and besides he
    misspells things...

    
    I'm aware of George's situation, but personal experience doesn't exactly 
    equal "most of the time" in my book.

	i do believe the fact that he made a gross generalization enters
	into the equation.

    
    
    Some wounds cut very deep......

    We give slack to others who have been victimized when they make "gross
    gemeralizations," why not George?

>>    We give slack to others who have been victimized when they make "gross
>>    gemeralizations," why not George?

	Who's this "we"?  

    And I suppose that had a woman said, "Most of the times, the dad
    does his best to alienate the children from the mothers.", you
    would have all sat there quietly.  rrright. ;>

    Nary a peep from me, honest.  

    Welp. I do not believe I have been a general in the generalization(sp).
    I will say that my spelling is in error. I am trying to do two jobs.
    Answer the phone and sticking my nose into this file. 
    
    Yes. I have personal experience with the alienation process. I have
    been a member of a local fathers group and have seen first hand what
    moms have done. And how the evil father is villinized to become lower
    than whale poop in the 7 mile trouth. I have seen a man, arrested for
    seeing his daughter at a Christmas pagent. And there were no
    restraining orders. I have seen a woman throw a tantrum in the hallway
    of 300 chestnut street superior courthose. 'Keep that man away from me!
    He is crazy!!' It was a big scean to villianize the man. Who had done
    nothing execpt show up to court and see a day time soap acting done by
    his ex wife. 
    
    

    
    	I wouldn't expect a local father's group to by typical of the
    	"average single father", on the grounds that they're probably
    	there because they've been alienated and are looking for sup-
    	port from same.
    

    George- just say "in most of the cases with which I am personally
    familiar..." and you'll prevent most of the overgeneralization
    accusations. And for God's sake, use the spellchecker.

   .206  But you don't see "Most of the times..." as a generalization?

	Doctah, his spelling abilities have nothing to do with this
	issue. 

    But they do constitute an eyesore.

 .211  Granted, but in .198 you seemed to be saying that it entered into
       "targeting" George, which, for my part, it certainly didn't.
      

Re: .208

Oh, so Mark, it's an accusation?  The statement is question is
a generalization.  That's as plain as the nose on your face.

    There are more than the single father. There are second wives, parents,
    and grand parents of the families. There are men going thru and have
    pass thru the hole of their lives. It beats destructive things.... like
    doing in yourself...
    
    For the most part it educates us all to the legal system. And helps us
    become better consumers. And when you hear and see and give witness to
    others who are in pain. It lessons your own. For, I cried because I had
    no shoes till I met a man who had no feet.
    
    Victumn?? Me? Nope! Remember that 'bears say they love you with a
    slap!' Bongo the Circus bear.
    

>>That's as plain as the nose on your face.

	Bad analogy, Oph, as he happens to have a very nice nose,
	not in the least bit plain, but you are correct! ;> 

    Was he not accused of making an overgeneralization? Hmmm?
    
    Did I claim the accusation was unfounded?

You're such a poop, sometimes.

Re: 201

>Some wounds cut very deep......

Yeah, like the one about the fathers constantly abandoning 
their children.

>Bad analogy, Oph, as he happens to have a very nice nose,

Tell me, does it ever appear to be growing longer when he
gallups in on his white horse to save a brother?

    
    
    .218  Why do you lie?

    Re: 461.144 
    
    Yes, I am serious; Dead serious.
    
    A lousy judgemnet call is over running a base.  To blame alcohol and
    drugs for an "incredibly irrational and sometimes fatal judgement call".
    is absolutely falacy of arguement.
    
    I for one can speak with some expertise regarding the ABUSE of alcohol
    and drugs.  THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE... The ISSUE is MURDER/DEATH or what 
    ever you want to call it.  Those CHILDREN...REPEAT "CHILDERN"
    had no chance, had no SAY, and died due to "incredibly irrational
    and a fatal judgement call".
    
    So, I can only assume that you are implying that because she was 
    partying, and under the influence..It is ok?
    
    I am sure that this person will, for the rest of her life say
    "if only, if only".  So WHAT!!  We both will only assume that she 
    may have these hind sites...
    
    I can guarentee that those babies will only rot in the graves their
    mother put them in; This is a FACT!!
    
    Can I assume that you are giving the "Alcohol influence" EXCUSE
    credibility..?
    
    YES, I again say Sterilize the woman...How many more babies would you
    like to see this woman kill due to "incredibly irrational and sometimes
    fatal judgement calls"?
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    re-2...yep.. thats attack...ops/.
    
    re-1...Wellll...Yeah it can be real delicate...
    
    Ooohhh hummmm... Fat fingers and all
    
    

    RE.54
    Scott you're a charming decent fellow. Really you are, probably a role
    model for me. Form now on when I see one of your notes I'm going to
    save it so's that I can emulate you, you are really a very reasonable
    charming fellow.
    
    chris
    

>    Scott you're a charming decent fellow. Really you are, probably a role
>    model for me. Form now on when I see one of your notes I'm going to
>    save it so's that I can emulate you, you are really a very reasonable
>    charming fellow.

Chris...

By your note, I can tell you think I was somehow being unreasonable in
that note (.54)

Why not express your comments on my note, and show where you disagree, instead
of just referencing and passing it all off as unreasonable. If you don't
have any comments about the content, why bother with your note above, since
it adds nothing to the discussion...

Come one - I'm waiting... 

/scott

    Re .133:
    
    > Because, as I said, the odds are that she *is* average. 
    
    Really.  How interesting.  Say, what odds would those be?
    
    The "odds" that a person selected at random from a uniform distribution
    of the population has an IQ within 10 points of the average is just
    UNDER 50%.  The odds are that a randomly selected person is NOT
    average.
    
    But this person wasn't selected randomly.  The odds that a person who
    did an incredibly stupid act is not of average intelligence are even
    higher.
    
    You can't just guess at the "odds" of a random person being one thing
    or another and then assuming that's the case for a specific person. 
    This person, if the reports are accurate, did something either very
    evil or very stupid.  Your "average" person is neither -- so they must
    be in some way not average.
    
    Why do people so much prefer to jump on the "evil" theory than the
    "stupid" theory?  What makes that theory better?
                                                    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .136:
    
    >> . . . _indication_ of below-average intelligence.
    
    > . . . assume that . . .
    
    Indications and assumptions are different.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .139:
    
    > I don't think this is a matter of low intelligence.
    
    Why?
    
    > This is more like someone so immature and self centered . . .

    What information do you base this conclusion on?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .149 contains the best suggestion yet.  At least somebody here is
    thinking instead of reacting with hate.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .156:
    
    > 	And edp is playing "Devil's Advocate", or "defense attorney"
    > 	if you wish.  Either he doesn't actually believe that his pos-
    >	ition is right, or he's on a "she has rights!!" kick.
    
    Or maybe I'm willing to consider all the possibilities and wait for
    more information before calling for the killing of another human being.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Wonder if she had to wake her kids up so she could go out and party? 
    Wonder if she weighed all the possibilities of what could happen or
    what she should do before heading out for a few.
    
    Mary
    

     EDP's questions relating to the intelligence of the woman in question
    or lack thereof raise fundamental issues regarding public policy. Is
    lack of intelligence an excuse which can be used to mitigate one's
    culpability for crimes (I'm speaking about the area above which one is
    considered to be competent to stand trial)? Ought we punish people of
    varying intelligence differently?
    
     My personal opinion is that the woman in question's only relevant
    intelligence issue is whether she is competent to stand trial. Whether
    her stupidity was inherited or intoxicant induced makes little
    difference to me as far as the charges are concerned. From my
    understanding of the incident, she ought to be charged with negligent
    homicide. This will not bring the children back; nothing will. However,
    this does not mean we ought not enforce the law. What would looking the
    other way accomplish?

    
    Note 461.227
    
    >The "odds" that a person selected at random from a uniform distribution
    >of the population has an IQ within 10 points of the average is just
    >UNDER 50%.
    
    "Uniform distribution"?  How about "selected at random from a pool of
    people who hold driver's licences"?  "Just under 50%" would probably
    compose about the largest group, would it not?  And if you include the
    people above 110, I'd say that ODDS ARE she has an IQ of 90 or greater.
    Even better that she has an IQ of 80 or greater, which would, as I
    said, be sufficient for day-to-day operation.  No-one is asking her to
    design rockets, here.
    
    >This person, if the reports are accurate, did something either very
    >evil or very stupid.  Your "average" person is neither -- so they must
    >be in some way not average.
    
    AS Chelsea said...that she did something very stupid IS NOT an
    indication that she is, in general, as stupid person.  You want to call
    MY assumptions bogus?  I can just as easily say that YOUR assumption in
    the above statement is bogus.
    
    >Why do people so much prefer to jump on the "evil" theory than the
    >"stupid" theory?  What makes that theory better?
    
    Tell me something, Eric.  If she IS stupid, does that mitigate her
    actions?  I hinted at that issue in .34, and the Doctah has asked it
    outright in .233.
                                                    
    jc
    

re: .233

 >    EDP's questions relating to the intelligence of the woman in question
 >   or lack thereof raise fundamental issues regarding public policy. Is
 >   lack of intelligence an excuse which can be used to mitigate one's
 >   culpability for crimes (I'm speaking about the area above which one is
 >   considered to be competent to stand trial)?

The SCOTUS has allowed the execution of a mentally retarded person in Texas.

Bob

    Re: .233
    
    >Is lack of intelligence an excuse which can be used to mitigate one's
    >culpability for crimes (I'm speaking about the area above which one is
    >considered to be competent to stand trial)?
    
    To some extent, this is addressed by "not guilty by reason of mental
    defect."  The defense demonstrates that the accused was not capable of
    distinguishing between wrong and right.  Someone with below average
    intelligence might not be capable of making that distinction.  If the
    defense doesn't prove its case, but does show some level of diminished
    capacity, then theoretically that should be taken into account during
    sentencing, as a mitigating factor.

    
    
    
    You people are rich.  I know people with IQ's of well under 100 that
    got more sense than some of the intellects I know.
    
    signed,
    
    Forest Gump
    

    Re .233:
    
    > What would looking the other way accomplish?
    
    I NEVER suggested that anyone should look the other way.  Why do people
    think that if an act were committed out of stupidity instead of malice,
    that means no corrective action should be taken?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .234:
    
    > How about "selected at random from a pool of people who hold driver's
    > licences"?
    
    So you are going to use one known fact about the person to modify what
    is known about her intelligence, but you are going to ignore the
    humongous fact that she did something incredibly stupid?
    
    >> Why do people so much prefer to jump on the "evil" theory than the
    >> "stupid" theory?  What makes that theory better?
    > 
    > Tell me something, Eric.  If she IS stupid, does that mitigate her
    > actions?
    
    Okay, I'll answer your question -- if you'll answer mine.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

Re: 222    

>So, I can only assume that you are implying that because she was 
>    partying, and under the influence..It is ok?

You wrote that.  I didn't.  I never even _implied_ that.  Read
into it whatever serves your purpose.

>Those CHILDREN...REPEAT "CHILDERN"
    had no chance, had no SAY,

Yeah, no kidding.

>YES, I again say Sterilize the woman.

Well why don't you round up all the instruments you'll
need and go do the procedure yourself?  Perhaps it will
assuage your supreme moral outrage.

    
    .239, Eric:
    
    >So you are going to use one known fact about the person to modify what
    >is known about her intelligence, but you are going to ignore the
    >humongous fact that she did something incredibly stupid?
    
    This is the question I'm to answer?  Okay...yes, I am going to ignore
    the humongous fact.  My own IQ (when it was last tested, long before
    my introduction to alcohol) is (or was) quite above average, and that 
    has not prevented me from doing mind-numbingly stupid things.  Once, 
    shortly after getting my new motorcycle, I arrived home one night after
    an evening of drinking, and decided to take my friends for a short spin
    on the bike.  I was still on a beginner's licence at the time, so I was
    forbidden to drive at night or to take a passenger, much less ride
    drunk and without a helmet.  FOUR BIG MISTAKES, and four illegal acts.
    If I had dropped the bike and killed my friend, do you think I would
    have escaped serious charges?  
    
    I therefore have no reason to believe that this one action on her part 
    is clearly indicative of her level of intelligence.
    
    >> Tell me something, Eric.  If she IS stupid, does that mitigate her
    >> actions?
    >
    >Okay, I'll answer your question -- if you'll answer mine.
    
    I quiver with antici...
    
    jc
    

    
    SAY IT!!!
    

    Re .241:
    
    > My own IQ (when it was last tested, long before my introduction to
    > alcohol) is (or was) quite above average, and that  has not prevented
    > me from doing mind-numbingly stupid things.
    
    Doesn't ANYBODY else in this conference understand conditional
    probability?  Look, the probability that a given person is of exactly
    average IQ or above is one-half.  So that I don't have to keep writing
    that phrase, let "X" denote the event that a given person is of exactly
    average IQ or above, and let P(X) denote the probability of the event.
    
    Now, when that person does an incredibly stupid thing, which we will
    call A, it is not the case that P(X given A) is zero -- Just because
    the person did A does not mean X can't be true at all.  But that's
    exactly what your comments imply:  You're going to ignore A because you
    don't believe P(X given A) is zero.  But nobody says P(X given A) is
    zero!  While the occurrence of A does not mean P(X given A) is zero, it
    IS true that P(X given A) is LESS THAN one-half.
    
    The event A does ALTER our estimate of the probability of X; it doesn't
    eliminate it.  In response .234, you used an event B, the person has a
    driver's license, to alter the probability of X -- You figured that
    because the person had a driver's license, X was more likely than if
    the person had just been selected at random from the population.
    
    You didn't think that because B occurred, P(X given B) was necessarily
    1, did you?  No, it just raised the probability some, but didn't make
    it certain?  So why would you think that P(X given A) would be zero,
    unless you ignored A?  It's not.  The simple fact is that the
    occurrence of A reduces the probability of X, and silly examples about
    how smart people sometimes do stupid things doesn't change that.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

         
    The assumptions made about distribution determine whether a tester uses
    parametric or non-parametric statistical methods to determine
    probability.  If you make an assumption based on a certain population,
    and your IQ tests are normalized on that populations, then you can make
    assumptions about distribution and select appropriate methods of
    determining probability within that population.
    
    Knowing sampling factors, such as that the woman had a driving license,
    sets her "sample" apart from the whole population and skews the curve
    of distribution.  For example, there is a subset of the whole popluation
    that has an IQ which is too low to allow driving, therefore she is in a
    sub-population with a positively skewed curve of distibution, not the
    traditional Gaussian.
    
    There's another old saw in psychology:
    
    	"intelligence is what intelligence tests measure"
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin

    
    .244, Eric:
    
    >Doesn't ANYBODY else in this conference understand conditional
    >probability?
    
    Sorry to be so dense, Eric.
    
    >Look, the probability that a given person is of exactly average IQ or 
    >above is one-half.
    
    I'm not talking about 100 or better.  I'm talking about 80 or
    better.  And nothing you wrote convinced me that this argument
    boils down to anything but this:
    
    I assume: that she has an IQ of 80 or better, and the fact that she
    hold a driver's licence supports my theory, and that her incredibly 
    stupid action is not convincing evidence to the contrary.
    
    You assume: that her incredibly stupid action (A) is evidence that 
    her IQ is below 90.
    
    >The simple fact is that the occurrence of A reduces the probability 
    >of X,
    
    ...and I believe that you have set an incorrect value for X...
    
    >and silly examples about
    >how smart people sometimes do stupid things doesn't change that.
    
    ...any more than A indicates an IQ of less than 90.  Stalemate.
    
    And I notice that you didn't answer my question.
    
    jc
    
    

    re: .246
    
    "I assume: that she has an IQ of 80 or better, and the fact that she
     hold a driver's licence supports my theory, and that her incredibly
     stupid action is not convincing evidence to the contrary."
    
    
    You've never driven in Massachusetts, have you? :-)

    > Doesn't ANYBODY else in this conference understand conditional
    > probability?
        
    Those of us who have the sense not to argue against it.  Some people
    are so hard to please.
    
    DougO

    >> Doesn't ANYBODY else in this conference understand conditional
    >> probability?
    
    Welllllll... maybe.
    
    Chris

    Re .246:
    
    > I'm not talking about 100 or better.  I'm talking about 80 or
    > better.
    
    The same statements apply to any level you want to set.  There's some
    probability a randomly-selected person is at or above that level.  Add
    the fact that they have a driver's license, and the probability goes
    up.  Add the fact that they did something really stupid, and the
    probability goes down.
    
    > I assume: that she has an IQ of 80 or better, and the fact that she
    > hold a driver's licence supports my theory, and that her incredibly 
    > stupid action is not convincing evidence to the contrary.

    Note the different phrasings you use:  "driver's license supports", but
    "stupid action is not convincing".  By the same token, holding a
    driver's license is also not CONVINCING evidence for your theory, and
    the stupid action does SUPPORT the contrary.  NOBODY says the stupid
    action is CONVINCING evidence to the contrary, but it is SUPPORTING
    evidence to the contrary, just like the driver's license is SUPPORTING
    evidence.
    
    > And I notice that you didn't answer my question.
    
    That's because you didn't answer mine.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    .250
    
     Still stalemated, Eric.
    
    >> And I notice that you didn't answer my question.
    >
    >That's because you didn't answer mine.
    
    Then you must be referring to a question I missed, which was...?
    Or are you simply dismissing my answer because you don't find it
    convincing?
    
    jc
    

    
      I can proudly state that the phrase "conditional probability"
     causes my eyes to cross.
    
      bb

Wow, I've never been able to cross my eyes.  Lemme try this...

    Re .251:
    
    > Still stalemated, Eric.
    
    That's your response?  I'll take it I've made clear the difference
    between supporting/indicating evidence versus proof, and you have no
    rebuttal. 
    
    > Then you must be referring to a question I missed, which was...?
    
    When you asked the question in .234, you ignored mine.  When I repeated
    it in offer to answer yours if you'd answer mine, you ignored it again:
    
    .234>> Why do people so much prefer to jump on the "evil" theory than the
    .234>> "stupid" theory?  What makes that theory better?
    .234> 
    .234> Tell me something, Eric.  If she IS stupid, does that mitigate her
    .234> actions?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    .254
    
    >That's your response?  I'll take it I've made clear the difference
    >between supporting/indicating evidence versus proof, and you have no
    >rebuttal.
    
    You've made it clear that your position is no more or less plausible 
    than mine.  I don't think I EVER claimed ANY proof.  I merely said that 
    my theory was as likely to be true as yours, so I was unconvinced that 
    I should abandon it.

    What percentage of the population has an IQ of 80 or greater?  60%?
    70%?  Let's say 70%.  So there's a 70% chance that she falls into that
    specific group.  Her stupid action *decreases* the odds that she falls
    into that group.  Her driver's licence *increases* the odd that she falls
    into that group.  Unless we can quantify the relative value of those
    two variables, then we will have to say that they pretty much negate
    each other, leaving the odds at 70% (or whatever, but it's more than
    50%, for sure).
    
    .234>> Why do people so much prefer to jump on the "evil" theory than the
    .234>> "stupid" theory?  What makes that theory better?
    
    THIS is the question you want me to answer?  Okay...well...I DON'T think 
    she's evil.  `Evil' implies malice, and I doubt that we could demonstrate
    any malice in this crime.  I could say `careless' or `negligent', perhaps.
    Criminally so, given the result.  Perhaps her need for company clouded her
    judgement.  
    
    But let's go back to my drunken night on the motorcycle: dropping the 
    bike and killing my passenger would not have been evil, and wouldn't
    have been the action of a *generally* stupid person...but it WOULD have
    been a stupid and negligent act, and one that I would have quite
    rightly been punished for.
    
    Disagree?  
    
    And now you may answer my question: If she is stupid, does that absolve
    her of responsibility or liability in this situation?
    
    jc
    

    Re .255:
    
    > What percentage of the population has an IQ of 80 or greater?
    
    91%.
    
    > Her stupid action *decreases* the odds that she falls into that
    > group.  Her driver's licence *increases* the odd that she falls into
    > that group.
    
    Now you have admitted my point, that the stupid action decreases the
    chance the person is at or above a certain intelligence level -- and
    hence increases the odds to the contrary.  That's what "indicate"
    means.  Before, you said you were just discounting it, but now you say
    it does have an effect.
    
    > Unless we can quantify the relative value of those two variables,
    > . . .
    
    Rough estimates can be had by considering the frequency of the events. 
    Lots of people have driver's licenses.  Not just lots of people, but a
    vast majority.  So having a driver's license doesn't tell you a whole
    lot about a person that distinguishes them from the general population. 
    They may have passed the test easily the first time, or they may have
    been coached and made several attempts.  On the other hand, leaving
    kids in a car is rare and very stupid.
    
    >.234>> Why do people so much prefer to jump on the "evil" theory than the
    >.234>> "stupid" theory?  What makes that theory better?
    >
    > THIS is the question you want me to answer?  Okay...well...I DON'T think 
    > she's evil.  `Evil' implies malice, and I doubt that we could demonstrate
    > any malice in this crime.  I could say `careless' or `negligent', perhaps.

    You didn't really answer the question; you reworded it and said what
    you do think, but the question was WHY.  Why do people so emotionally
    oppose the notion that people do stupid things because they are stupid,
    not because they are malicious or even "careless"?
    
    Still, I'll answer your question.  No, being stupid does not absolve a
    person of responsibility.  It may make the act not criminal since there
    may have been no intent to do anything wrong, but that doesn't mean a
    person shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.  Even if the
    act isn't criminal, there should still be civil actions possible.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
                                                      

    >You didn't really answer the question; you reworded it and said what
    >you do think, but the question was WHY.  Why do people so emotionally
    >oppose the notion that people do stupid things because they are stupid,
    >not because they are malicious or even "careless"?
    
    Well, I felt your question left me only two options, and I preferred
    a third option.  For me to answer `why', I would have to speculate
    on the opinions of others.
    
    Why?  I guess because people just don't want to see other people get
    away with this sort of thing.  You see the same complaints about
    `not guilty by reason of insanity' (as if people like Paul Bernardo
    don't have SOMEthing wrong with their wiring).  Maybe they feel cheated
    when someone walks on a charge like this.
    
    People want to believe she's part of that 91%.  Why?  You tell me.
    
    jc
                                                      

    
   " On the other hand, leaving kids in a car is rare and very stupid. "
    
    Oh really? Talk to the security folks down at the casino in CT.  They
    were having LOTS of problems with folks leaving their kids, pets, etc.
    in cars in the parking lots so they could go in and gamble.
    
    It's not as rare as you think.
    
    Mary
    

    Re .257:
    
    > I guess because people just don't want to see other people get
    > away with this sort of thing.
    
    Now there's a leap of logic (on those other people's part, not yours). 
    I did say that locking up a stupid person won't make them any brighter,
    but I didn't say nothing should be done to teach them a lesson, and
    I've repeatedly denied asserting that no corrective action should be
    taken.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Hmmm...so...what shall we argue about now?
    

    
    how about left handed people vs right handed people.

    You mean people that are dexterity challenged versus right handed
    people?  :-)

    
    Right-handed is WAY better, obviously.  Left-handed is so sinister.
    

    
    
    MCBRIDE!!!!!!! <POW> 
    
    there's a left for you.....
    

    Hey!  I'm bleedin' here!  I'm gonna sue!

    
    
    The boy named sue, eh?
    

| <<< Note 461.263 by TROOA::COLLINS "Paging Dr. Winston O'Boogie..." >>>


| Right-handed is WAY better, obviously.  Left-handed is so sinister.

	OHMYGOD JOAN!!!!  BEING LEFTHANDED IS A SIN!!!!! 

    
    well, we left handers are the only ones who think with the right side
    of our brains. well, those who have brains that is. :-)

69 snarf +200!

    
    Glen, you seriously need a life

    
    `69' *is* his life...
    
    ;^)
    

    Well, talking about it is...

    If this hasn't been mentioned yet, how does this case compare
    to *another* recent case of a baby dying in a hot car (where the
    father went to pick the baby up from daycare and they said that the
    baby had never been delivered, so he looked in the back seat and
    found the baby dead in the car seat)?

    In this case, the father thought he had dropped the baby off at daycare 
    for the day so he could work, but was mistaken (and the baby died.)

    Is this less stupid than someone leaving babies in a cool car at
    night then falling asleep (so that they died when the sun came out
    and the car heated up)?

    Should the father be charged with anything?  (I'm only asking because
    I can't figure out which action is more stupid but I DO realize that
    it looks a lot worse in our society to make such a mistake due to 
    partying than due to being distracted on the way to work.)

    No, the father should not be charged with anything as stupid as it may
    have been.  
    
    IMO of course

    Although neither parent intended for the kids to end up dying in a 
    hot car, it does sound a lot worse that the mother made the mistake 
    while partying (instead of being on the way to work), doesn't it?

    In Denver (around 12 years ago), one boy had a sleep-over at another
    boy's house (they were both 8-10 yrs old) and the parents who were
    watching both boys decided to drop by a party for a few minutes.
    It was during the winter, so they took the boys in the car and left
    it running outside to keep the boys warm.

    The parents of the one boy ended up staying at the party for a few
    HOURS and when they returned to the car, both boys were asleep in
    the back seat.  They drove to their house and could not wake either
    boy.

    Both boys died from carbon monoxide poisoning while sitting inside
    the running car while the one boy's parents partied.

    Should they have been charged with anything?  (I don't believe they
    were, but I don't recall specifically whether they were charged or not.)

Yes.

    
    
    Look... if certain (stupid) localities are going to charge parents of
    children who find their (parents) firearms and shoot themselves or
    others of <pick-your-favorite-lawyer-term>, then individuals like the
    "dumb" (and drunk) mother and the stupid father should be charged with
    negligent homicide...

    RE: .278
    
    Yes.

    Re: .274
    
    We don't care about charging them.  We just want to know how smart they
    are....

    Okay, I have pondered the specifics, and now I am prepared to render
    the verdict:
    
    The forgetful father who neglected to drop off the child should not be
    charged.  The sleep-over parents should be charged.  The distinguishing
    factor is not attending a party.  The distinguishing factor is that
    those parents who attended parties made a conscious decision to put the
    children in their respective, ultimately fatal, situations.  The father
    who left the child in the car was terminally, but not criminally,
    careless.  His punishment?  He should have been required to inform his
    wife of what happened.

    good night, I agree with Chelsea!

    
    Anyone remember the case a few years back on RT290 (I think) where the
    dad had forgot to put his kid, who was in a car set, into the car???
    Instead, he drove away with the child strapped in the car seat on top
    of his car roof.
    
    I believe he was charged, but I don't remember with what.
    
    Mary
    

    
    No, he wasn't charged. Being a totally dense moron is not a
    crime.
    
    It's worth noting that said moron was from the lovely (blech)
    town of Millbury. He was, as far as I can tell from personal
    experience, one of the smartest folks in town.
    
    -b

The most amazing thing was that the kid
flew off the car top and landed on the highway
in the carseat.  And was unharmed by any passing
cars.  The carseat remained intact.

I have relatives in Millbury - not one sloping 
forehead in the bunch, thank you very much.

>>not one sloping 
>>forehead in the bunch...

 Please, please! - this is the 'box!  That's "slopping forhead".
 I thank you.

    re: .274 and .285
    
    Ok, if you don't think they should be charged, should the judge
    prohibit them from having any more children?  I mean, really, if 
    you can't remember where you put the kid, should you be trusted with
    more?
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    I asked before in the court ordered pregnancy notification note how can
    a judge order someone to not have children?  Is there a legal ability in
    this country to prevent people from having babies?  
    
    Brian

    > I asked before in the court ordered pregnancy notification note how can
    > a judge order someone to not have children?  Is there a legal ability in
    > this country to prevent people from having babies?  

    Minor nit....
    I believe the defendant was ordered not to become pregnant during her
    sentence and parole.  One that was completed the court no longer had
    jurisdiction.

    Dan

    Ok, I agree with Chelsea, too - the distinguishing factor is not the 
    partying but the conscious decision to put the children into the 
    situations which killed them (i.e., being deliberately left in cars 
    without adults present.)

    Another case I remembered a few days ago involved someone who was
    having trouble affording a babysitter (about 10 years ago).  The baby
    was 5 months old and had a bad cold, so the mother gave the baby some
    medicine (over the counter cold medicine) and went to work.

    The baby's face was stained with tears (and the baby was dead) when
    she got home later that day.

    The mother was charged with murder.  No partying involved, but she was
    accused of making a conscious decision to leave the baby alone.  Her
    claim at the trial was that she believed she had made arrangements with
    a neighbor to come over to babysit (but how many parents take off
    BEFORE the sitter arrives to care for an infant instead of AFTER the 
    sitter is there?)

    Another situation:

    How about parents who do not have their children in car seats (or 
    seatbelts) and the children are killed in car accidents?

    If a parent puts the car in motion without the child being secured
    (in a car seat or seatbelt), do you think it should be regarded as a 
    conscious decision to put the child into this situation?

    (I'm aware that a man was charged with murder - negligent homicide,
    I think - for this very thing in Florida a few years back, I believe,
    when his daughter was killed in a car accident.)

     re: .293
    
     That's the law in NH.

    Awhile back charges were filed against a mother in Cobb County
    when her child was killed in what should have been a minor auto
    accident; the child was not in a car seat.
    
    Yesterday two more children were left in a car (College Park, Ga.)
    in front of a Kroger's grocery store while their mother was shopping
    inside the store.  Although the mother claimed she was only in the
    store 10 minutes, police said the children were in distress by the
    time they arrived and paramedics stated the children were only 10
    minutes away from irreversable harm, possibly death.  The mother
    has been charged with child endangerment.  This last incident is too
    much for me to comprehend; the two previous incidents received an
    enormous amount of TV coverage.  As temperatures climbed back into
    the 90s (after a brief respite) TV weatherpersons have continued to
    remind people that the temperature plus humidity are providing for
    heat indexes that can be quickly fatal to children and pets left in
    cars. This is the deep south folks; you live here, you learn to live
    with the climate.  It seems as though it's going to take a public,
    painful trial to get through to some of these morons, so be it!!
    
    

    >Anyone remember the case a few years back on RT290 (I think) where the
    >dad had forgot to put his kid, who was in a car set, into the car???
    >Instead, he drove away with the child strapped in the car seat on top
    >of his car roof.
    >I believe he was charged, but I don't remember with what.
    
    
    i think the guy was coming from umass medical...
    
    and it was a gerry carseat, and i believe i remember hearing that after
    that incident, sales for that model carseat (or the gerry brand in
    general) went up...
    
    

    Yup.  Parents left the car unlocked and the toddler climbed into it to
    play.  

    
    That sucks.  Anyone think these parents should be charged with
    negligence?

Since there was a similar incident a few weeks ago, I'd expect conscientious
parents to keep their cars locked.

    Negligence for not locking the car or keeping a watchful eye on the
    whereabouts of the child?  Don't know the circumstances so it's hard to
    tell.  It is also possible the parents are media impaired and have not
    read about the recent events.  If it wasn't for this forum, I would not
    have.  

    A toddler was able to open a car door, get inside, and close the door?
    Mebbe a 3 year old, but a toddler?
    
     What I don't understand is why a child of such a tender age would be
    unattended for that kind of time.

	Obviously, it's been a while since you've seen a determined
	3 year old in action.

	Faster than lightening, they are.

    Whole family taking a nap?  Child playing in one room, parent(s)
    working, cleaning, cooking in another?  Child taking a nap, gets up
    finds way downstairs and escapes before parent notices?  Definitely
    tragic but no evidence of negligence yet.  

    Given where this happened, and how common it is here, I would think
    parents would know better by now.  You have to lock your car(s) if you
    live in any major U.S. city as it is.  
    
    The same happens here with infant/toddler drownings.  The city had to
    pass a law requiring pool owners to have a secure fence around their
    pools to curb the annual drowings.  
    
    Mike

    >Obviously, it's been a while since you've seen a determined
    >3 year old in action.
    
     Perhaps you misunderstood my note. I can understand how a 3 year old
    might be able to open a car door, get in a close the door, but I can't
    understand how a toddler (in my book is from walking to about 18 months
    to 24 months or so) could.
    
    >Faster than lightening, they are.
    
     So is my 2 year old.

	Well, I still call my 3 year old a toddler, what do I know ?

Doctah, I'd hardly determine the kid's age from the casual use of the word
"toddler" in Soapbox.

If I remember right the child had just learned to walk, which is why
I said "toddler".  I think they said something about leg braces so the
kid may have been older than the usual "learn to walk" age.

    Sorry. My daughters learned to walk @ ~9 months, but could not possibly
    have opened a car door. I don't think my 2 year old can, be I might be
    surprised. She's really strong for her size and climbs like a monkey!

    >> and climbs like a monkey!
    
    well, she is your daughter... ;> :> :> :> :>
    
    

    True enough.

Aha! So it's not the parents who should be prosecuted, but
the poor kid's brothers and sisters! Lynch 'em!

  Jack, couldn't we wait until they get a little bit older and
  get into a barroom brawl?  It's bound to happen.

    
    
    My dear Di....
    
    You should really start putting in smiley faces and not assume everyone
    assumes you are being humorous...
    
     You then might not have to clarify and/or ask as you did in the
    'running over the little critter' reply...

>> <<< Note 461.317 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease!" >>>

>>    You should really start putting in smiley faces and not assume everyone
>>    assumes you are being humorous...

	well that leaves me in quite the quandary, now doesn't it, Andrew?
	see, iffen you use 'em, the 'box intelligentsia frowns its little
	frown.  oh that's simply not done!  why stoop so low?  smiley
	faces? - feh!!  etc.
	
	can't please everyone.  in fact, can't please anyone these days.
	woe is me.

	

Careful, Mr. Topaz.  You'll drive her into Jack Kevorkian's arms.

    
    re: .318
    
    Di...
    
    
    >iffen you use 'em, the 'box intelligentsia frowns its little frown.
    
    
      Since when have you let the "box intelligentsia" influence your way
    of noting/replying/thinking?? ... and they put you in a "quandary"???
    
     I rather doubt that dear lady...
    

  .322  you don't know me, andy.  i'm very impressionable.  oh yes.

    
    re:.324
    
    >i'm very impressionable.
    
    
     In what sense?
    
    

    I made a great impression once while skiing.  You could see my face
    quite clearly in the snow bank where I augered in at Mach 8.  I also do
    a great impression of Yoda, does that count?  

    
    Another case of this reported yesterday in the Boston area.
    Grandparents locked the kid inside the car to go to some park.  When
    people around heard the crys, they called the police and a state
    trooper got the child out.
    
    Said it was 100 degrees inside the car.
    
    Where are people's brains????
    
    

                       <<< Note 461.328 by TLE::PERARO >>>
                           -< Grandparents no less! >-
    
>   Where are people's brains????

Maybe their brains got cooked in a hot car many years ago.    

    
    
    	Is that the one I heard about this morning?  The child 
    	was just an infant?
    

    Shouldn't this be in the `Children Cry In Hot Car' topic?

    
    I looked for the `Children Sweat In Hot Car' topic, but couldn't find
    it, so I improvised.
    

    You are indeed an astute fellow Sir Joan.

    
    if the temperature reached 600C inside ther car I'd have
    to question whether this happened on earth or on some
    warmer planet..

    Well it was in America so anything could happen.
    
    :*)

>if the temperature reached 600C inside ther car

Huh!

	Has there been any more word on the Massachusetts' foster
	parents that left a 3 month old baby in the car last weekend ?

	Apparently, they each thought the other had taken the baby
	out of the car.  The baby died.

	The last I heard, the case was still under investigation.

	Karen

Actually, the foster mother and her teenage daughter each thought that the
other had brought the baby in.  From all accounts, it was a tragic accident,
unlike most of the other recent foster case scandals.

    
    last i heard, the state was comtemplating taking away the remaining
    foster children from this house...
    
    

I'm pretty sure they _did_ take the rest of the foster children away.
BTW, this was considered a model foster home.

 A foster home for models?

    Hmm. Bet they get lots of volunteers for that one. Only draw back is
    putting up with the bulimia. 

    
    
    Or the occasional inhaler overdose...
    

    
    The woman mentioned in .1 has been sentenced to 18 years in prison.
    

>    The woman mentioned in .1 has been sentenced to 18 years in prison.
    
this is good (better is she got life w/o parole or death, but still, it's
good to hear about this...)

I think in 6 years she'll be up for parole...

/scott

While not _exactly_ related to the title of the topic, this seems as good a
place as any to put this.

A Danish actress, in NYC visiting her baby's father, left the child in a
stroller on the sidewalk just outside a window table while having dinner
in an East Village restaurant.

Someone noticed the apparently unattended baby and called police.  When the
police arrived and began to take the baby, Annette Sorensen and her child both
began to scream.  Her husband, Disney production assistant Exavier Wardlaw,
attempted to intervene, and both have been charged with endangering the
welfare of a child.

After spending two nights in jail, they were released and have sought
legal counsel.  The child is still in the custody of Children's Services
until they determine whether it will be returned.

Sorensen blames the incident on cultural differences, and claims that
parents in Denmark leave their children outside restaurants "all the time".

/john

Idiot parents.

Maybe the kid would have been safer locked in the car.

    Remember, people in here have told us that:
    
    We should do things like they do in Denmark...

    
    No no no, that's the Netherlands.
    
    

    People in the Netherlands are saying we should do things like they do
    in Denmark?

Denmark is in the Netherlands, isn't it?

It must be ... it sounds like one of those sort of countries.

Life is wonderful in the Netherlands. 

70% of all Americans think so.

    
    I'm going to assume you're kidding.
    

    Copenhagen is one of my favourite cities.  I stayed in yet another
    hostel in a red light district, near Tivoli Gardens.  Some moron had
    tried to knock the head off the Little Mermaid that summer. ahhh... to
    be foot loose and fancy free again!

    Those from Denmark are not afraid to leave their children alone. Why,
    because in Denmark people respect each other and help each other. It
    would never occur to a Dane that leaving a child alone outside in a
    busy city would be dangerous to the child. 
    
    I wonder why that is? 

I don't believe them.  Even if there are no Danes who would snatch an
unattended child (which I doubt), an out-of-control car or dog could harm
a child left outside the restaurant.

    I'm tired of hearing about how great Danes are.

    >Sorensen blames the incident on cultural differences, and claims that
    >parents in Denmark leave their children outside restaurants "all the
    >time".
    
     This is possible, but to me the litmus test is whether they could see
    the child from where they sat. If they could, then "cultural
    differences" could very well explain their behavior.
    

Maybe it's an ugly kid and they didn't WANT to see him/her.

  So in Denmark do they have, like, one of those bars they tied the horses
 to outside saloons in westerns ?  (what do you call those things ?)

  Only, you have to re-engineer a Danish kid-tying thingy.  What would be the
 method of attachment ?

  bb

According to the article in this morning's Globe, the kid was out there
for an hour.  And she was crying.  And the parents ignored patrons' pleas
to take care of her.  Eesh.

    the baby had a seizure?

    that's awful!

This is becoming quite the international incident.

An article by the Washington Post (which appeared in the Boston Globe
with a few edits such as announcing that charges had been dropped against
the woman in Massachusetts who had recently left her children in the car
for approximately two minutes while dropping something off at a store)
informs us that the parents spent part of the day yesterday at the
Danish consulate, where Kim Christiansen, a vice-consul, said that
"a lot of people in Denmark park their child in a stroller outside
while they are in for a short period.  Nobody seems to have a problem
with that in Denmark."

She explained that news of this story in Denmark has caused the Danes
to respond with "surprise."

On Monday, Sorensen had been arraigned on the charges of child endangerment
in front of a judge who was unable or unwilling to act in response to her
repeated shouts, "Please give me my baby."  After Danish consular officials
worked with the prosecutor's office and with children's services, the court
agreed Tuesday evening that the child, which had been placed in the care of
foster parents, was to be returned by Wednesday, on the condition that it
not be left alone with its mother, but that another adult be present at all
times.  Its safety will be monitored by the City's Administration for
Children's Service at least until the parents appear in court on May 21st
to answer the charges against them.

Patrons at the restaurant claimed that the baby had been crying outside,
where it had been left for an hour on a cold evening under a blanket but
with no jacket.  The parents, who were drinking margueritas while sitting
immediately opposite the stroller at a plate-glass window, had refused
admonishments from at least two patrons, responding the "baby was fine,"
according to a waiter at the Dallas BBQ.  The baby was inside a chained-
off area with outdoor tables which were not in use due to the cold.

Wardlaw's lawyer claims that he is considering pressing charges against
the police for brutal treatment when he was brought into the police
station, claiming that officers put his head into a toilet and kicked
his shins.

Mayor Giuliani has said that police intervened because "patrons in the
restaurant were complaining that the baby was left alone, that the baby
was crying and the baby was being neglected."

"I think we did the right thing," the mayor said. "If they acted out of
an excess of caution, so be it." 

/john

    I wonder if the restaurant advertises "seize Danish" as one of its
    offerings.

 Maybe these folks didn't recognize that New York City is not part of
 Denmark.


 Wonder when the UN will step in.

    Danish babies are little wee danishes.

    There probably are lots of quaint little Danish villages where
    babies in stollers can nap peacefully while mom shops.
    
    I doubt very much that this happens in Copenhagen.

The Danish mother spent the whole day today in Family Court trying to
deal with the paperwork and other arrangements to get her child back,
but even though a judge on Tuesday ordered the child returned, it was
unlikely as of Wednesday evening that the child would be returned
before sometime Thursday.

One unresolved issue was a plan for the mother and child to stay at the
Danish consulate.  The city's Administration of Children's Services was
unable to release the child under those circumstances because of the
requirement for social workers to have access to the child at any time to
verify that the terms of the mother's temporary custody are being kept.

The baby must never be left alone with Sorensen; another adult must
be present at all times.

Next week she has both an appearance in criminal court and a hearing
in family court on continued custody of her child.

Michael Dyrby, an editor of Denmark's TV2, told CNN, "It happens all the time
you have your child with you that you leave them outside a restaurant or
outside of a shop. ... We consider that the mother knows what's best for the
child."

Danish TV stations broadcast a sound bite from Hillary's visit to Denmark
in 1995, in which she said, "Oh, if we all could live in cities where we
could leave our babies in baby carriages outdoor while we went into shops
without any fear."

The New York Post declared the Second Avenue location of the incident to
be "about as kid-friendly as a shark tank."

/john

    
    	I have a question that may, or may not, be relevant.
    
    	Is she here on vacation or has she moved here?  I'm just
    	curious as to why everyone is sticking their nose into this
    	if she's here on vacation.  If it's been said by people 
    	in Denmark that what she did *is* the norm over there, why
    	are we judging her so harshly?  Granted, if she knew anything
    	about New York she'd know not to leave the baby unattended but
    	I think it's wrong to admonish this woman for doing something
    	that comes second nature to her back home.
    
    	I may not have worded all the correctly, but hopefully someone
    	well get what I'm trying to say.
    

	She's on vacation.

	So, if someone abuses their child on vacation, local authorities
	should ignore it?   "Hanging a child by its thumbs is the norm
	in the old country."

	The authorities in New York believe that the child was abused,
	and intend to prove it in court.

	/john

 Isn't the person with whom she was dining a resident of NYC?  And if
 we let this one go, do we not prosecute anyone for something that is
 illegal in this country, but OK in another?



 Jim

    But in her country, this sort of thing isn't considered abuse, right? 
    If not, she has a case.  I agree that it is neglect, which is most
    definitely a form of abuse.  Different cultures 'n such.

But the child's _father's_ country _is_ the United States.

He was there.  Do we prosecute him, but not the mother?

/john

  Who cares what they think in some teeny two-bit yurpian country ?

  How many aircraft carriers or stealth bombers do they have ?

  bb

    I'm not disputing that it was indeed abuse.  If the baby resides with
    her in Copenhagen and was here with her on vaca, she most definitely
    has a case.  The father's residence is irrelivent if the baby lives
    with the mother.

	Ah!  I see a new legal principle being developed!

	If you're in the company of someone from another country,
	a "bubble zone" around that person keeps you from being
	subject to our laws!

	How conveeeeeeeenient!

    Isn't there some nasty little gotcha in the laws yearabouts that sez it
    don't make no nevermind if you don't know the law?  Violate it and
    you're toast ennyhoo.  Like you can get ticketed for not wearing your
    seat belt if you just happen to be traveling through some state with a
    belt law, no matter that you've never been there before and it's the
    other side of the country and there were no signs posted.

    Oh poo.  All I'm saying is that our courts might be a little more
    lenient on her because of her origin.  But you knew that.

If they left the kid in the tub too long, would he be a prune danish?

 "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

 "I didn't know that, either!"

    Now I'm more than a little worred as to what goes into a cheese danish.

"Then you're guilty on both counts."

    Then I guess no one minds losing all the tourism dollars
    because European countries will begin to consider us a less
    than "family friendly" place to vacation.  
    
    Most Europeans already think Americans are too uptight.
    
    It seems odd when so many people are complaining that
    American families have so little say in educating, punishing
    and raising their own children that we jump so quickly on
    a foreigner for doing what she feels is acceptable in
    her home country.

    <---- where have you been?

>    Then I guess no one minds losing all the tourism dollars
>    because European countries will begin to consider us a less
>    than "family friendly" place to vacation.  
    
 

 huh?  Because we don't think babies should be left outside a restaurant
 in the middle of New York City??

  if the lesser dane had been swiped, the yurpians would be whining also

  bb

    lesser dane, sounds like an allergy medicine.

What if he'd been mauled by a great dane?

     <<< Note 461.386 by SMURF::MSCANLON "a ferret on the barco-lounger" >>>

>    Then I guess no one minds losing all the tourism dollars
>    because European countries will begin to consider us a less
>    than "family friendly" place to vacation.  
 
	How many tourism dollars do you think we would lose if someone
	had come along and snatched the kid?

	I've always thought that it was prudent to learn at least a bit
	about the customs and laws of a foreign country BEFORE I visited.

	Sounds to me like mom and dad are both world class stupid.

	Easy resolution, "Here's your baby, that's the way to the airport,
	have a nice flight."

Jim

children of a lesser dane?

 
I say give them a bowl of chile, denmark 'em with "return to sender", and
tell 'em "we don't care where ya libya can't come back here!

Norway we can do that!  Even if you sweden the deal.

    that reminds me of the man carrying turkey on china and slipped on
    greece.

Then what happened? [tm]

    {BANGLADESH}

    re: .387
    
    I've been working :-).  I got a new job and moved upstairs.
    The initial learning curve has been steep, but fun.
    
    re: other replies
    
    I would love to have been a fly on the wall when this incident
    took place.  If someone had calmly explained to the woman that
    here in New York it isn't a real good idea to leave a baby outside,
    that the baby could be in some real danger due to violent crime,
    etc., and that the child was welcome in the restaurant, the outcome
    might have been different.
    
    I suspect what happened is that people glared, made rude remarks
    and or gestures, and finally called in the authorities - all the
    while looking down their noses at someone who was not informed and
    obviously not emoting "proper American behavior". 
    
    It is not really illegal to leave your child in a carriage outside
    a shop or restaurant, in a car in plain view, or to reprimand them
    in public if they misbehave.  It may not be real bright to do these
    thing in front of a public and a government that have become paralyzed
    with fear regarding child abuse and dysfunctional behavior,
    but it's not illegal to my knowledge.
    
    Who really owns the underlying social problem, though, I'm not sure.
    It's more like a case of someone believing doing something=doing the
    right thing.
    
    Mary-Michael  

re "It's not really illegal..."

I'd be rather careful about passing out such ill-informed legal advice.

It _is_ illegal to leave a child in a dangerous situation, and all that
has to be done to obtain a conviction for child endangerment is to convince
a jury that the child was endangered.

Parents have been charged (not clear that they have been convicted) of
child endangerment -- and had their children taken into custody by
child welfare authorities -- for bringing the children with them to
political protests.

/john

Annette Sorensen managed to find her way to State Supreme Court in
Manhattan (woulda thought that was in Albany, but this is what the
AP sez), in which her case was given "an adjournment in contemplation
of dismissal" with an adjournment for six months.  If she's not
arrested again within that time period, the charges are to be
dismissed and the arrest records sealed.

[Sound familiar?  Remember the Natick Mall caper?]

The AP reports that "the case has reverberated on two continents,
with Danes expressing outrage" and New Yorkers "stunned by the
idea of parents leaving a child on the sidewalk."

Wardlaw is still scheduled to appear in court on a disorderly
conduct charge on June 4th.

/john

Reuters reports that Sorensen appeared in "Manhattan Criminal Court"
where a deal was reached before Judge Michael Gross by Sorensen's
attorney, the Manhattan D.A., and the Danish Consulate.

Sorensen still must appear in Family Court on Wednesday.  The Danish
Consulate hopes that they will also have managed to work out a deal
with the New York Administration of Children's Services by then to
end the requirement that Sorensen always have another adult with
her.  That service has been provided by the wife of the pastor of
the Danish Seamen's Church.

The attorney for the baby's father is complaining that his client,
Exavier Wardlaw, was not offered a similar deal because he is black.

"Exavier Wardlaw had a right to protest when New York cops ripped his
14-month-old daughter from her mother's arms," Ron Kuby said. "We plan
to drag the white cops into court."

 ..and so, Johnny, that's how dubbya dubbya three got started..

> ..and so, Johnny, that's how dubbya dubbya three got started..

That should be "dubbya dubbya three dot com"...

I hear that site is a real blast.

/john, the State Supreme Court is not the highest court in NY.  The highest
court is called the Appellate Division.  There are two courts that handle
criminal complaints.  Criminal Court deals mostly with misdemeanors.
Supreme Court deals mostly with felonies.