Kansas girl, 5, may face murder charges in drowning

So the babysitter fell asleep, leaving a baby in the tub crying? Sounds like she was drunk or something.....
Clearly the babysitter should be charged, not some little kid....

Originally posted by silo13

Where did Saturn say anything about intentionally killing the goldfish? Didn't happen.

Originally posted by saturnFX
(yes, wait a week or so, then sneak into their room and kill it..bleach will do the job nice and quick...remember, its a lesson we are going for afterall)

Ill take your apology now for basically calling me a liar.

So saturn, it may give them nightmares, but thats OK? Thats not how you teach. You do not teach through fear. We have been doing that, and look where it has gotten us? We are supposed to be evolving.

I believe highly in the tenets of buddhism. it is wrong to kill a living animal, no matter what. you are not "teacing" anything by killing.

Originally posted by ronishia
that babysitter should be brought up on charges of murder and neglect of a child imho, if it wasn't for her falling alseep this wouldnt have happened

Murder?

you realize murder means she went there and drown the child herself maliciously...

it was an accident. Why do people demand blood when accidents happen. barbaric

If the child in question fell and broke his leg, should the babysitter be charged with assult? no...that would be stupid..so is charging her with murder for this.
Juvenile neglect...perhaps. slap on the wrist...but actually, if the punishment fits the crime, I think the court should assign the babysitter x amount of hours working for the parents for free as community service, be it gardening, house cleaning, etc...but not sure what even that would serve.

The lesson no doubt is already learned by this kid...and for the rest of her life, she will have to live with the fact that someone died due to her inattention. That to me is psychologically damaging enough, nothing the state could do will come close to the torment she will carry with her.

Sometimes a sad event is just sad...no need for vengence or payback...just mourn and learn.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Dying isnt even a bad thing! its just part of the circle...killing is the bad thing. you cant tell kids stuff like that at that age, it sticks with them through life and is hard to shake. It is called "indoctrination".

If dying isn't a bad thing why do people go to such lengths to avoid it?

You apparently never got the goldfish lesson.

I dont know, because they like all the stuff they have accumulated in their flesh suits? I fear no death.

reply to post by Equinox99


Missouri girl in Kansas city...you mistyped. wrong state...

a 1995 Missouri law removed the minimum age limit, which had been 14, for trying children as adults in cases involving drug dealing, murder, rape, robbery, and first-degree assault. The law also permits children 12 years old to be prosecuted as adults for other crimes. www.libraryindex.com...

been looking but haven't found the legal status of a 5 yr old in Missouri...maybe others can help.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by silo13

Where did Saturn say anything about intentionally killing the goldfish? Didn't happen.

Originally posted by saturnFX
(yes, wait a week or so, then sneak into their room and kill it..bleach will do the job nice and quick...remember, its a lesson we are going for afterall)

Ill take your apology now for basically calling me a liar.

Ya, I totally said intentionally kill a goldfish.
aching_knuckles is right..kill it with a vengence

So saturn, it may give them nightmares, but thats OK? Thats not how you teach. You do not teach through fear.

Teaching comes with knowledge
it is a absolute fact that things die..and death is permanent. how do you best teach such things? children do not understand complex concepts...they understand simple examples.
yes, it will give them nightmares...as it should..because death is a nightmare at any age. you simply cannot protect a child from the realitys of the world...try to do so actually puts them in danger.

Many parents also avoid having the "good touch/bad touch" talk with their kids because they simply don't want their child to know such a world exists.
Tell me, is a parent keeping a child ignorant of knowing what a good and bad touch is doing them a service, or putting them into danger because the adult isn't adult enough to handle it?

We have been doing that, and look where it has gotten us? We are supposed to be evolving.

I see it the opposite. we teach children that people are immortal now (see the cartoon example in previous post).
We detatch the youngest from mortality and feed them nonsense of never dying...and as a result, you get nieve actions like this.

Kill the bloody goldfish already!

I believe highly in the tenets of buddhism. it is wrong to kill a living animal, no matter what. you are not "teacing" anything by killing.

depends on the higher purpose. if you can knock down a single tree to save a forest, then you do that.

I believe in the vulcan saying...the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one (goldfish). the thought of killing a lifeform simply to teach someone about death is a bit disturbing, but it is a disturbing subject to begin with.

If the child can understand the complex teachings of buddah, then fantastic...but I think you have a better chance of teaching a cat quantum physics frankly.

When I was a child of 4-5, I self taught myself what death was, sitting on my front porch torturing bugs...I was the bane of ants and houseflys..total Krull the insect conquorer...but, it really wasn't until my cat died that I understood death (come to find out, I didn't have any connection to the bugs)...and when my cat died, I stopped torturing bugs (beyond those unfortunate soul that crawled on me or my stuff anyhow).

experience for a small child is the teacher overall...a quick tap on the butt when you do something wrong is much faster at teaching than a lecture on the merits and flaws of action...
once they reach say, 8-10 years of age, then sure...talk it out...but until then...examples works best (generally speaking).

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Juvenile neglect...perhaps. slap on the wrist...but actually, if the punishment fits the crime, I think the court should assign the babysitter x amount of hours working for the parents for free as community service, be it gardening, house cleaning, etc...but not sure what even that would serve.

why because if this was my child i would demand blood pure and simple, that babysitter was put in charge to care and look after the children, if it wasn't for that babysitters actions i.e falling asleep whilst in charge of them, this this tragedy wouldn't have happened. pure and simple. and the babysitter working for the parents for free.??..im sorry but do you seriously think that 16yr old would be trusted ever again to be in charge of other peoples children. The babysitter should be held culpable for this tragedy not a 5 yr old child who doesn't know any better. this of course is in my own humble opinion speaking as a mother to 5. yes accidents happen but when you leave your child in the charge of another you expect them to look after your child, protect them, keep them safe. not fall asleep with an 18month old is in the bathtub and the rest to look after themselves.

and asking for proper justice to be done is not seeking vengeance, people need to be held accountable pure and simple and not passing the buck onto a 5 yr old child who doesnt know any better IMO

Missouri statutes allows family court judges to decide if a child, of any age, goes to trial. [Emphasis mine]

At the same time, numerous juvenile court officials told NBC Action News that state law considers it impossible to prove criminal intent on children younger than 10.

“A child this age does not have a fully grown and fully connected brain,” said Carla Wakefield, M.D., a child psychiatrist.www.nbcactionnews.com...

Originally posted by ronishia

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Juvenile neglect...perhaps. slap on the wrist...but actually, if the punishment fits the crime, I think the court should assign the babysitter x amount of hours working for the parents for free as community service, be it gardening, house cleaning, etc...but not sure what even that would serve.

why because if this was my child i would demand blood pure and simple, that babysitter was put in charge to care and look after the children, if it wasn't for that babysitters actions i.e falling asleep whilst in charge of them, this this tragedy wouldn't have happened. pure and simple. and the babysitter working for the parents for free.??..im sorry but do you seriously think that 16yr old would be trusted ever again to be in charge of other peoples children. The babysitter should be held culpable for this tragedy not a 5 yr old child who doesn't know any better. this of course is in my own humble opinion speaking as a mother to 5. yes accidents happen but when you leave your child in the charge of another you expect them to look after your child, protect them, keep them safe. not fall asleep with an 18month old is in the bathtub and the rest to look after themselves.

and asking for proper justice to be done is not seeking vengeance, people need to be held accountable pure and simple and not passing the buck onto a 5 yr old child who doesnt know any better IMO

I doubt that the parent legally hired the babysitter in question...so perhaps the parents should be charged for employment fraud or tax evasion...whatever the charge is for hiring people under the table.

why not just toss everyone in prison...

Point is, no...this kid will never babysit again I reckon, however, the ironic part is, there may never be a better babysitter than that one at this point. talk about on the job training of consequence.

But, there is no justification for vengence in this case...it was an accident...anyone whom has spent any time babysitting knows that kids are all over the place and unless your going to chain them into a single room, chances are they are going to get into all sorts of mischief in record time....

no, the babysitter shouldn't have fallen asleep...thats bad, and perhaps something is deserved here, be it neglect or something similar...just saying your call for murder charges...is way outside of the scope..why not just execute the babysitter...eye for an eye..someone died, so someone else should die...
:-\

Originally posted by silo13
Kids need to learn the finality of death - and there's just no venue for such thing these days for the most part. (No chickens to kill down on the farm type thing)...

The venue is the same venue as has always been. Own pets. Own pets, love them, care for them. Pets die...life lesson teaching opportunity available for the astute parent. Owning pets teaches kids responsibility, caring and about death.

Originally posted by TKDRL
So the babysitter fell asleep, leaving a baby in the tub crying? Sounds like she was drunk or something.....

It never ceases to amaze me the different perspectives, outlooks, we all have.

Clearly your life experiences and types of people in them have been different from mine...

reply to post by Aggie Man


Children act out on what they see.I bet she saw something
like that in a movie or on tv.She is too young to be held
accountable for her actions.I bet she has only been out of
diapers herself for about 2-3 years.

Originally posted by ronishia
dude she is 5 YEARS OLD please explain to me how a 5 year old grasps the concept of the severity of what she has done?

As I've previously stated, the actions of those who don't possess fully-fledged cerebral capabilities will, no doubt, be taken into consideration.

If guilty, then she should be taken into a correctional facility which caters for criminally errant children. There, she will be emotionally assessed and analysed.

Originally posted by ronishia
in her mind all she was doing was tryint o stop the child from crying.

That will be up to the jury to decide.

The point is, that we can't have all of this PC, wrist-slapping mumbo-jumbo interfering with the justice systems of our countries.

Originally posted by ronishia
do u seriously think it entered her mind to intentionally kill?

Quite possibly.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

The point is, that we can't have all of this PC, wrist-slapping mumbo-jumbo interfering with the justice systems of our countries.

PC? heh

ok, fine...send the 5 year old to criminal court

now, you are allowed a jury of your peers

what is a peer?

peers:
3rd person singular present, plural of peer
Noun: A person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.

so, get a jury full of 5 year old girls with annoying brothers and voila...you got justice.


Will stick to PC verses kangaroo court.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Not sure what you mean. Are you saying you have fallen asleep, leaving a baby crying in the tub? Or know someone that has?

Honestly I had to read this several times. A five year old child does not have the ability to understand death, their minds aren't developed to the point where they have the ability to understand the finality of death. It is not in their experience typically. The babysitter had the responsibility of watching the children, even a five year old should not be unattended in a bath let alone a 1 1/2 year old.

The responsibility lies with the babysitter not the five year old child. In any case their is plenty of blame to go around in this case. The five year old will grow up knowing that she killed her brother, the babysitter will live the rest of her life knowing her negligence cost a child his life and the parents will also feel guilty for having that babysitter who allowed this to happen.

Rather then casting blame on a five year old child perhaps we should pray for the family or send positive thoughts whatever your belief may be.

reply to post by newcovenant


You are right most states define criminal culpability as ages 1-7 or those defined with some mental deficiency or extremely low IQ. Ages 8-13 are generally regarded as knowing right from wrong; however, again there is a rebuttable presumption of this right or wrong knowledge, meaning every person between ages 8-13 does not know every right or wrong that exists and while some might know it is wrong to kill someone, may not understand the act they were committing would lead to that death.

Little kids sometimes have a block on their rationale ability to interpret the effect of their actions. They may simply believe that by holding a childs mouth closed they would stop them from crying, without giving any thought to the possibility the child would not be able to get any air. Little minds do stupid things sometime when viewed at from an adult perspective.

Originally posted by Yfactor1980
I live in Kansas City, and this has become a highly debatable topic. Problem is, however; it's not really a debate because no one I've talked to could even fathom why anyone would even bring up a 5 year old being tried as an adult. And no, it isn't the news that is making that statement up, those were words spoken by the DA. A 5 year old does not comprehend life and death. This child will now enjoy a life full of remorse and regret. All responsibility goes to the baby sitter IMO.

Now I know your system is insane! Is this what 35 years of cop shows featuring bully boy police and hardline prosecutors has brought you to?
V

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
I dont know, because they like all the stuff they have accumulated in their flesh suits? I fear no death.

Oh boy...

Maybe just because being alive is pretty interesting...

I wouldn't say I fear it but I'm surely trying to avoid it for the time being, same as you I'd expect.