Townfolks divided.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:39 pm

Oh, sticky situation. She knew she was disobeying the law, and her children's safety. She should have charges filed against her-whether the judge/jury decide she has suffered enough will be their decision. The judge could also choose to drop the charges to something lesser, and like Bryn's suggestion she do community service by promoting child safety seats. Probably a different venue should be chosen to hear this case, not local.

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:40 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Faults in the application don't invalidate the principle.

The juries don't hand down the sentence. I find the more worrying examples are the likes of the rape case where the judge decided the victim was partly responsible "because she'd had a drink".

But the juries are a large part of the application. It's not often that the judge will overrule the jury, and yes they do have a part in the sentencing sometimes.

And as far as the rape victim, the judge is usually a man. "No means yes" and all that. (LOL sort of)

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:42 pm

chonsigirl wrote: . The judge could also choose to drop the charges to something lesser, and like Bryn's suggestion she do community service by promoting child safety seats. Probably a different venue should be chosen to hear this case, not local.

Then social services should be allowed to check on her periodically to see that she is now using them for the other child and any child in her car.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:44 pm

chonsigirl wrote: Oh, sticky situation. She knew she was disobeying the law, and her children's safety. She should have charges filed against her-whether the judge/jury decide she has suffered enough will be their decision. The judge could also choose to drop the charges to something lesser, and like Bryn's suggestion she do community service by promoting child safety seats. Probably a different venue should be chosen to hear this case, not local.

I cannot claim that one - it was Koan's excelent suggestion.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:46 pm

Of course, they should check on her. I am surprised she was never stopped and ticketed for this offense before.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:46 pm

chonsigirl wrote: Oh, sticky situation. She knew she was disobeying the law, and her children's safety. She should have charges filed against her-whether the judge/jury decide she has suffered enough will be their decision. The judge could also choose to drop the charges to something lesser, and like Bryn's suggestion she do community service by promoting child safety seats. Probably a different venue should be chosen to hear this case, not local.

I think this sums up exactly how I feel about the situation.

Great minds think alike:sneaky:

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:46 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: I worry at the number of people saying she must go to jail with so many unanswered questions still hanging around.
I believe people are saying that charges should be brought, not neccessarily that she should go to jail.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:48 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: I cannot claim that one - it was Koan's excelent suggestion.
Thank you, Bryn. It was an excellent suggestion.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:49 pm

BabyRider wrote: I believe people are saying that charges should be brought, not neccessarily that she should go to jail.

Right on, BR. And that is an important distinction.

911 · Post by **911** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:49 pm

BabyRider wrote: I believe people are saying that charges should be brought, not neccessarily that she should go to jail.

Why not?

Even ninety days in jail would push the point home.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:54 pm

BabyRider wrote: I believe people are saying that charges should be brought, not neccessarily that she should go to jail.

My apologies - I thought several were suggesting she should.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:01 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: My apologies - I thought several were suggesting she should.
Obviously, we would all like more of the particulars of the case, and I'm not saying she should or shouldn't go to jail. I just don't have enough information to make that decision. All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not going to be the one who has to!!

(And no need to apologize, Bryn!) :yh_bigsmi

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:17 pm

BabyRider wrote: Obviously, we would all like more of the particulars of the case, and I'm not saying she should or shouldn't go to jail. I just don't have enough information to make that decision. All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not going to be the one who has to!!

(And no need to apologize, Bryn!) :yh_bigsmi

Why not? If I'm in the wrong - I've misunderstood several peoples intended meanings, then I apologise for my mistake.

If I think I'm right then I'll let you know about it.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:22 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Why not? If I'm in the wrong - I've misunderstood several peoples intended meanings, then I apologise for my mistake.

If I think I'm right then I'll let you know about it.

Misunderstanding someone's intended meaning is not something that needs to be apologized for, in my opinion, as it's not deliberate, that's all. :yh_bigsmi

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:27 pm

BabyRider wrote: Misunderstanding someone's intended meaning is not something that needs to be apologized for, in my opinion, as it's not deliberate, that's all. :yh_bigsmi

Politeness costs nothing and never hurts.

No different from apologising if you inattentively bump into someone. Not deliberate but still your fault.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:31 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Politeness costs nothing and never hurts.

No different from apologising if you inattentively bump into someone. Not deliberate but still your fault.
You are a stickler for manners, aren't you Bryn? I like that in a guy.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:32 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Politeness costs nothing and never hurts.

No different from apologising if you inattentively bump into someone. Not deliberate but still your fault.

Well said. And such a gentleman!

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:37 pm

He's polite, like our southern gentlemen here.

We love it!:)

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:41 pm

BabyRider wrote: You are a stickler for manners, aren't you Bryn? I like that in a guy.

twere how I were brung up Maam

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:41 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Politeness costs nothing and never hurts.

No different from apologising if you inattentively bump into someone. Not deliberate but still your fault.
I take it then that you'd never be able to join in a mosh pit?? :yh_rotfl

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:44 pm

BabyRider wrote: I take it then that you'd never be able to join in a mosh pit?? :yh_rotfl

Ã‚¿Que?

As someone else said - straight over my head.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:46 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Ã‚¿Que?

As someone else said - straight over my head.
A mosh pit is a gathering of heavy metal rockers at a concert, usually congregating at the very foot of the stage bouncing off each other as hard as they possibly can, slamming into each other, body surfing....great fun!!!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:48 pm

BabyRider wrote: A mosh pit is a gathering of heavy metal rockers at a concert, usually congregating at the very foot of the stage bouncing off each other as hard as they possibly can, slamming into each other, body surfing....great fun!!!

Oh - that's just fun and doing what's expected.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:22 pm

Ok sorry guys, neglected your questions, but I had a raging headache and decided to lay on couch and watch cartoons with Ayden. anyways...

I'm not sure why carseats were not in the vehicle. As for how the accident happened, she went off the road onto the shoulder then overcorrected.

I've been trying to find a news article on the accident, but the Amarillo paper has nothing and our local paper doesn't update it's website very often. :rolleyes:

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:59 am

Would anyone feel differently if the woman lost BOTH her children in this awful accident - im sure if both children had died people would be baying for her blood . The fact that one child survived should not make any difference, she failed to use the restraints available, just because shes grieving for the one child she lost doesn't mean she shouldn't be punished for putting them BOTH IN DANGER . Prosecute i say for reckless behaviour .