Mom convicted in son's death

• gut

  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mom-convicted-son-jaywalking-death-never-end-151356884.html
  
  Looks like 3 years is the going rate down south for negligence in the death of a child.
  
  Although, to be fair, if ever there was a time for jury nullification this would have been it. I'm kind of shocked not only by the verdict (just on quick scan of what the case appears to be), but also the penalty.
• gorocks99

  

  Weird case. Just goes to show, don't run across 4-lane highways at night.
• gut

  gorocks99;840682 wrote:Weird case. Just goes to show, don't run across 4-lane highways at night.

  If you click on one of the links in the article, apparently another mom was charged with involuntary manslaughter when she lost her child while jaywalking. Yeah, it's unsafe and unwise...but should these people really be going to jail? Is it really more negligent or irresponsible than all the children who die in accidents in the home? Don't know, maybe it is different because maybe this is just a terrible unsafe place to cross.
• gorocks99

  

  I'm not sure, there are a lot of nuances. I have a hard time comparing it to an accident in the home however, where the child isn't necessarily ordered by the parent to engage in potentially dangerous activity (or, at least, persuaded heavily as I would assume is the case when you cross a street) and there maybe isn't as much of a reasonable expectation of danger. Like, if a child falls out a window, the parent probably didn't encourage the child to lean up against the screen. But in this case, the mom starts across the street the kid is gonna follow. It would be somewhat akin to a parent jumping off a roof and expecting the child to do the same.
  
  But like I said, it's all very nuanced and grey.
• thePITman

  

  The potential 3-year jail sentence she could serve is 6 times longer than that served by the man who hit and killed the child (and admitted to have been drinking beforehand). That's what is ludicrous to me.
• gorocks99

  

  thePITman;840705 wrote:The potential 3-year jail sentence she could serve is 6 times longer than that served by the man who hit and killed the child (and admitted to have been drinking beforehand). That's what is ludicrous to me.

  
  And yes, that part is ridiculous.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  thePITman;840705 wrote:The potential 3-year jail sentence she could serve is 6 times longer than that served by the man who hit and killed the child (and admitted to have been drinking beforehand). That's what is ludicrous to me.

  
  I agree wholeheartedly.
• WebFire

  thePITman;840705 wrote:The potential 3-year jail sentence she could serve is 6 times longer than that served by the man who hit and killed the child (and admitted to have been drinking beforehand). That's what is ludicrous to me.

  
  How the hell did he get off with only 6 months? Drunken vehicular homicide. Are they joking?
• thavoice

  --Cannot compare this to casey anthony. Two different juries.
  
  --Did the driver get charged with any sort of vehicular homicide? I presume he got 6 months for DUI and leaving the scene correct? Just because he was drinking doesnt particularly mean that caused this incident. At night, on a 4 lane type of highway, it CAN be very possible that no matter whom was driving, someone dead sober or having a few drinks, could have hit that kid. People die all the time crossing the street and hit by sober drivers.
  
  Dont gasp people.....not all accidents that involve someone who had been drinking are a result of the person drinking.
  Few years ago was in a van with someone. He had like 3-4 drinks and someone pulled out in front of us. I dont know how he avoided the accident but he did. Thing is...if he hits him, he would get banged pretty good even though there woulda been nothing he coulda done.
  
  --they talk about why a bus stop is so far from a cross walk. Decent argument if you dont think about it. What percentage of people who get off at a normal bus stop and their destination is directly across the street? I would say not many. You get off at the normal bus stop and most people have to walk either direction a decent amount. Even if you need to cross the street from where the bus stop is MOST people still have to walk in either direction anyways so MOST will have to walk and cross a cross walk anyways.
  
  
  
  Very poor parenting for a parent to try and cross a 4 lane road like that.
• Mulva

  

  WebFire;840724 wrote:How the hell did he get off with only 6 months? Drunken vehicular homicide. Are they joking?

  
  Hitting someone who jaywalks in front of your car on the highway is entirely not your fault. Being drunk is, but I don't think 6 months is shocking. It's not like he ran off the road and plowed the family down.
• Glory Days

  

  People living in a city couldnt tell you what a crosswalk was for if you showed them the definition.
• gut

  thavoice;840766 wrote:--they talk about why a bus stop is so far from a cross walk. Decent argument if you dont think about it. What percentage of people who get off at a normal bus stop and their destination is directly across the street? I would say not many. You get off at the normal bus stop and most people have to walk either direction a decent amount. Even if you need to cross the street from where the bus stop is MOST people still have to walk in either direction anyways so MOST will have to walk and cross a cross walk anyways.

  Excellent point. Didn't think of that. Again, some sketch facts or what not, but the kid darts across the street and that can happen regardless if it's 4 lanes. It just seems a harsh sentence for stupidity, or perhaps in this case for a kid that didn't listen well - which is the real reason he died and not because of jaywalking. Now we can debate whether it was a foreseeable consequence of jaywalking, but to me your kid runs off and you say stop he can get hit on a country road just as easily as a 4-lane highway. So my perspective would have been is she accountable - is she responsible - for her kid not listening?
• WebFire

  Mulva;840924 wrote:Hitting someone who jaywalks in front of your car on the highway is entirely not your fault. Being drunk is, but I don't think 6 months is shocking. It's not like he ran off the road and plowed the family down.

  
  Yeah I see that side too. Just seems like a sad case all the way around.
• thavoice

  gut;840943 wrote:Excellent point. Didn't think of that. Again, some sketch facts or what not, but the kid darts across the street and that can happen regardless if it's 4 lanes. It just seems a harsh sentence for stupidity, or perhaps in this case for a kid that didn't listen well - which is the real reason he died and not because of jaywalking. Now we can debate whether it was a foreseeable consequence of jaywalking, but to me your kid runs off and you say stop he can get hit on a country road just as easily as a 4-lane highway. So my perspective would have been is she accountable - is she responsible - for her kid not listening?

  
  From what I took from the story is that the whole family, the mom and a couple of kids, were all crossing the street. When someone dies when you are breaking a law, and I know jaywalking seems like a chinsy law, then usually something bad comes from it. It is very unfortunate, no doubt about that. It is a bad-bad situation as she loses a kid AND goes to jail. When a parent puts a kid in jeapordy and he dies it ends up bad many times.....(except if you are a school administrator I think in cincy and leave your kid in the very hot car and forget and the kid dies).
  
  Did the punishment fit the 'crime'? I dont know. I am just looking at it, trying to at least, from the other side. The headlines some articles use are misleading after you read up and get the whole story. At first glance it seemed odd, but when I read more about it then I can see why she got charged. Unsure if the penalty fits the crime, but she did do something illegal that resulted in a childs death.
• Tiernan

  Just like the jury, I'm fairly certain none of you Holier Than Thouists ever have to take public transportation or worry about transporting young kids to day-care while single Mom goes to work either. This woman has suffered enough by losing a child that she knows was due in part to her negligence and impatience. Sometimes the law has to see that is the punishment period. Maybe Children Services puts her on probation with periodic check-ins over a couple of years, but that should be tyhe end of it.
• WebFire

  Tiernan;841509 wrote:Just like the jury, I'm fairly certain none of you Holier Than Thouists ever have to take public transportation or worry about transporting young kids to day-care while single Mom goes to work either. This woman has suffered enough by losing a child that she knows was due in part to her negligence and impatience. Sometimes the law has to see that is the punishment period. Maybe Children Services puts her on probation with periodic check-ins over a couple of years, but that should be tyhe end of it.

  
  And who here hasn't jaywalked? Even with kids. Maybe not across a 4-lane road, but was a 4 lane city street, not a highway. Tragic is all I can call this.
• thavoice

  Many people jaywalk. Just like many people speed. Many people drive after a few drinks. Many people drive when they are too tired. Many people drive distracted.
  
  A VAST majority of the time nothing happens to them. This is an unfortunate and tragic accident, no doubt, and when she put her kids in danger by crossing 4 lanes she opened herself up to bad stuff.
• Tiernan

  WebFire;841521 wrote:And who here hasn't jaywalked? Even with kids...

  uh...not with kids ever. But my degree isn't stamped with a huge "M" for moron either.
• WebFire

  Tiernan;841539 wrote:uh...not with kids ever. But my degree isn't stamped with a huge "M" for moron either.

  
  Maybe I need a definition of jaywalking then. What dictates whether a road is covered by a jaywalking law?
• gut

  WebFire;841521 wrote:And who here hasn't jaywalked? Even with kids. Maybe not across a 4-lane road, but was a 4 lane city street, not a highway. Tragic is all I can call this.

  I think it's the 4-lane road that's key. Because certainly we all cross streets (even with kids) that don't have crosswalks. The issue here really isn't not using a crosswalk, it's not having control of your kids as they run off and don't listen. But that street may simply not be safe to jaywalk (like most of us wouldn't normally cross a highway even without kids).
• thavoice

  We jaywalked 4-6 times a day while on vacation at Panama City Beach. Was all 5 of us each time, and each time either I or the wife held the hand of the little one so he wouldnt get too rambunctious and bolt across. We always waited to the light that was about 300 yards away that was red and stopped traffic. Granted....people there knew the drill and would stop for people but still.
• Glory Days

  

  Tiernan;841509 wrote:Just like the jury, I'm fairly certain none of you Holier Than Thouists ever have to take public transportation or worry about transporting young kids to day-care while single Mom goes to work either. This woman has suffered enough by losing a child that she knows was due in part to her negligence and impatience. Sometimes the law has to see that is the punishment period. Maybe Children Services puts her on probation with periodic check-ins over a couple of years, but that should be tyhe end of it.

  
  i dont believe that for a second if she wasnt facing jail time.
• Mulva

  

  She got a year of probation. No jail time. Plus a chance to clear her name in a new trial.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/ga-mom-gets-probation-sons-jaywalking-death-152407635.html
• thavoice

  That sounds fair.
• Glory Days

  

  "What is anybody going to learn from this? Raquel lost her precious son. The lesson she learned already is quit using transit and buy a car to get around. It's too dangerous to cross the streets here."

  No, the lesson is use a crosswalk and not walk out into the middle of a 4 lane highway and stop in the median with your kids.