Baby drowns in bathtub, Mother busy on Facebook

[Jamieson 90]

Sometimes I just find it hard to understand how stupid some people can be. Seriously you left a 1 year old child in a bath unsupervised and you were expecting this to end well?

Now my mother was/is not perfect by any means but she knew not to leave me in the bath unsupervised. In fact I think she probably stopped when I was about 6-7 and then I could swim, she would still check up on me though to make sure I was ok.

 

[shoot and hope]

Similair story. This is just sick.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2005/06/547.ars

 

[Captain Pirate]

What a fucking idiot.
'She clearly cared for her baby', fuck that, if she did she wouldn't have left it alone to play fucking Facebook.

What a dumb *****.
I hope she is distraught. She damn well should be.

 

[Ickorus]

Great parenting right there.

Doesn't matter how bad she feels about it she was just stupid to leave a child alone in a bathtub, I mean christ if you're that bored get a laptop or something, at least you'd be in the same room as the kid.

 

[moretimethansense]

Arrested? So she is still innocent. Will be interesting to see how many people will jump on the speeding bandwagon of words as fact and forget the justice in the criminal justice system.

YOU AGAIN!?
She fucking confessed!
Where the fuck is the reasonable doubt!?

 

[BlackWidower]

I'm surprised this hasn't happened more often, what with people saying how addictive games are. Though I must ask, why didn't she just bring the computer in the bathroom?

I know many here may not think video game addiction exists, but a story like this should change your mind.

 

[shoot and hope]

I get addicted to games but I'm responsible enough to control myself. This woman was just immature.

 

[interspark]

Well "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies."
But still, Cafe World? C`moooon...

I'm surprised it wasn't Farmville this time.

what about bejewelled? i bet that's a regular baby neglectorater

 

[Sieggy]

Whatever faith I had in humanity had just been trimmed down even thinner...

 

[moretimethansense]

She fucking confessed!
Where the fuck is the reasonable doubt!?

Says this poster.

Police don't lie? Innocent people don't confess to crimes? Newspapers don't make mistakes? We have trials for a reason. Should we go ahead and convict people based solely on what they are reported to have said in the media? Good lord.

Best you calm down and mature.

She put a one year old in a bath, she left the one year old alone, she admited top leaving the one year old alone, she IS guilty of negligencesa plain and simple, she is directly responsible for the childs death.

Innocent people don't confess to crimes?

So you're telling me that she never left the baby on it's own?
So what, she drowned the child deliberatly?
She saw the child go under but did nothing?
There is nio room for interpretation, either she killed it through negligence, or she killed it on purpose, I'm gonna follow the old saying "never attribute to malice, that which can be adaquetly explained by idiocy."
If you want to believe she deliberatly killed the child then go ahead, but let it be know I think that you are sick.

 

[Amaury_games]

This is why we can't have Facebook, people. It seeds and rewards irresponsibility.

I hope you're being funny. I don't understand the idea of blaming the tool instead of the user. It's like blaming guns for homicides where people got shot and blaming videogames/movies when some lunatic chooses to kill people based on something he/she played/watched/read. These people will be irresponsible anyways; it's their problem that they have to correct.

tragic, but blaming facebook for this is silly

I completely agree with you.

 

[moretimethansense]

snip

Your inability to comprehend the legal system of your country, nor, apparently, the term 'trial by media', baffle me.

And your inability to apply common logic baffle me.

The facts:

She had one baby

She is now less one baby

The baby was found drowned in the bathtub

She claims to have put the child in the bathtub

She claims to have left the child alone

There are four possible outcomes

1.
She put tyhe baby in the bath, left it and it drowned, this is a clear case of neglect.

2.
She drowned the baby andf is lying to make it look like an accident, this is a clear case of murder.

3.
The one year old baby somehow put water in the bath itself and drowned, this is highly fucking unlikely, and she would have to be lying, why would she possibly lie?

4.
Someone else killed her child and she is covering up for them, again not likely and again why?

If you can think of another possible outcome feel free to share.

EDIT: Also, my country?
I'm English, I may be wrong but didn't this happen in America?

 

[ReservoirAngel]

sorry, but just because a child wants to be left alone doesn't make them independant. it could jst mean your own child doesn't like you very much.

leaving a child of that young alone in water is just not a good idea. I don't care how stupid you are, you should be able to realise that

there's no excuse for this woman's behaviour, but I don't think blaming Facebook is a good idea. the same woman would probably get distracted playing with a laser pointer

 

[moretimethansense]

The facts:

She had one baby

She is now less one baby

The baby was found drowned in the bathtub

She claims to have put the child in the bathtub

She claims to have left the child alone

These are facts are they? You know this person first hand and are sure they once had a child who is now dead? No? How odd that you know this for fact then. Was it because they were (supposedly) reported in a news paper? Well, then every word of it must be true. I mean, who needs anything more than the word of a journalist, right?

I guess you'd be willing to stake your entire bank account on all of the above being completely truthful. All of your possessions. Your future. Your life. You know it's all 100% accurate - you just said so. So that would be no problem. No? Well, if you're not sure beyond any and all reasonable doubt, do not claim to know this person is guilty of any crime. We are talking about a very serious situation that could see someone spend a length of time in a prison. They would lose their house, their friends would most likely abandon them, they would have extreme difficulty ever getting a job again, and most of all, you would be convicting them of being responsible for the drowning death of their child.

Unless you're willing to bet your life on it, do not so casually claim to know facts that could ruin a persons life, all because you read a forum post.

Please do think long and hard about how you view media - for T.V. and newspapers, as it were, are not fact.

Yes actually, are you sereously claiming that this news post was made with none of these facts being true?

That for some reason they just decided "hey guys! let's run a story about a woman whose child died!" are you clinicly insane!?
It's not even April the first!

The media often claim bias as fact, they may make mistakes, they may even make shit up about celeberaties love lives to sell papers, but they can't force the police to arrest a woman for the wrongful death of a child if she never had a fucking child or if it didn't fucking die!

Tell me do you even listen to yourself!?
do you even read what you type!?
Do you honestly believe that they decided to run a paper about child murder for a laugh?
Cause I'm pretty sure they're not the fucking onion.

Please tell me what the fuck kinda drugs you've been taking, so that I know to avoid them!
And if you haven't taken any drugs then maybe you should!
That is not a rational human beings thought pattern.

 

[Lost In The Void]

snip

You believe anything you read? Interesting. Nice to know anyone can convince you of something so easily. Did you know I read about a man that caught Big Foot? Amazing, huh?

Arrested? So she is still innocent. Will be interesting to see how many people will jump on the speeding bandwagon of words as fact and forget the justice in the criminal justice system.

Actually I believe, though I could be wrong, that America has started to employ the "Guilty until Proven Innocent" clause instead. So actually it might be presumed that she's guilty now until her defence, if she goes for it, proves her innocent.

Just my two cents

They haven't. If that was the case, anyone could accuse anyone of anything and they would be assumed guilty until the conclusion of a trial -- which could take months or even years to resolve. Any country that uses that... 'legal system', if you can call it that, is barbaric and unevolved.

I hate to say this but that really isn't the case, even with a system such as that one. There is still due process; that phrase is only usable once you get into the court system. You first actually need to be charged with a crime, the police need decent enough evidence to obtain an arrest warrant and they need to make sure they have enough evidence to hold their case in court.

Really the phrase isn't any different from the other one, except now its you defending your innocence, rather than the prosecution proving your guilt

I think you got the system wrong. Its 'Innocent until proven Guilty'. Unless they just had some big political change yesterday or something. We're talking about United States of America right? I'm not trying to be rude or anything

Yes I was talking about the American system, as I noted in my first place, I wasn't sure if they were employing it, only that they were discussing it a couple years ago. In Pirate Kitty said it was barbaric if it did exist and I elaborated