Guilt by association? by Wishimay

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Guilt by association?

POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Thursday, November 28, 2013 23:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 799
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:31 AM

WISHIMAY

http://www.14news.com/story/23846164/nashville-mother-accused-of-child
-neglect

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The people watching the child couldn't get a hold of either parents. And when police sorted it out, every adult in the house was arrested for either child abuse or child neglect.

Assistant District Attorney Brian Holgrem asserts Barnett and the other adults delayed seeking medical care for the injury to the point where it couldn't be sutured by the time the child was actually seen by a doctor. Holgrem said that count alleges serious bodily injury.

Barnett's lawyer Sam Wooden argues it wasn't her role.

Well, as usual, the media isn't presenting the full story.

A severed limb is usually viable for several hours, provided it's packed in ice. That means that the adults there either did nothing or tried to cover up/ ameliorate the accident while the child's tongue is hanging by a thread... or perhaps has fallen to the floor. This would be like a workplace accident, where an illegal worker cuts off his finger and the foreman dicks around with ineffective first aid instead of calling 911 because of all the legal complications, and everyone turns away from the man screaming in pain and bleeding all over the place for hours, and just goes back to work. With the added complication that the injured person is a CHILD.

For an adult victim, I don't think there's anything such as being a mandatory good Samaritan, although certainly I would castigate all adults present for severe callousness and profound lack of judgment. But for a child, who depends on the care and intelligence of ALL adults around him/her, other laws probably do (and should) apply.

Hopefully, Barnett gets a good lesson in not being a selfish dick.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:08 PM

WISHIMAY

It doesn't actually say what extent the child's tongue was injured, if it was just a deep laceration or what. Maybe the guardian was ignorant as to whether or not it would be okay on it's own. Maybe the kid wouldn't let anyone look at it (mine does that).
Either way, I do agree the women were oblivious, but the only one that could even be considered legally responsible IS the child's guardian... There has to be at least an implied transfer of responsibility, unless there was a belief of imminent death or clear danger, it wasn't HER responsibility to act.
Most people don't know there is a window where a suture can be performed. Maybe she though after the kid calmed down they would take it to the doctor later...There is a lot of maybes here.
It's tragic that no one cared enough, but threatening all five with 20 years in prison is a gross over-reaction... The ONLY thing that would be accomplished is more suspicion and distrust of the establishment by black people, and I'm not convinced they aren't right...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 28, 2013 4:27 PM