- Status
Dave
Staff member
I agree. I think what he did was a terrible, terrible thing and I'd never do anything like this. My only point is the guy probably didn't realize it was causing actual pain or could be deadly. If here did then he's worse than ever. But most people do NOT realize that drinking large amounts of water causes said pain or death.
M
makare
He was trying to punish him so he was out to cause pain. Pain is the way the body says something is very wrong. A reasonable person would figure out that even if he didnt think drinking loads of water could kill that if it hurt to do it maybe it wasn't a good idea.
You may need to read up on water intoxication some more. And the Jury should have also.
GasBandit
Staff member
The above seems like a reasonable answer to me without attempting to justify the action. It doesn't excuse, it only explains.
Added at: 16:50
Children often are experts at faking pain.
M
makare
Well the boy was crying, screaming and repeatedly vomiting from all the water. I think that's a little more than the average kid pulls when he doesn't like a time out.
GasBandit
Staff member
The vomiting probably should have been a clue, but crying and screaming is not exactly unheard of for reasons no more serious than a denied request.
Again... not excusing. He did kill the boy, and his ignorance of the matter is irrelevant to his final disposition... just trying, as Dave was, to illustrate "how someone could do that" with some answer other than "he is a completely deranged, psychopathic, sadistic maniac."
C
Chibibar
Well... note: I am not defending the father BUT my grandmother tried to punish me in various ways and I have figure out ways to "fake it" in order to shorten my physical punishment.
Sounds more like the kid had gastroenteritis.
M
makare
In my view there is absolutely no outcome that would make what he did ok. If the boy hadn't died we would still be reading the case under a felony child abuse statute. Forcing someone to drink water until it causes physical discomfort is unacceptable unless perhaps for a medical reason. Forcing someone to drink water just to make them pee alot, again unless for a medical reason, STILL unacceptable. There is no way that behavior is ok.
Does gastroenteritis cause blindness?
Does gastroenteritis cause blindness?
WHO THE FUCK EVER SAID IT IS OK?
No one said what he did was ok. I think you're worked up from reading about this and failing your insight rolls.
M
makare
The argument is that the guy might not have known that the boy was suffering or that the water could kill him. thus saying that what the guy did was ok from his perspective. But it shouldn't have been ok because he was out to hurt the kid anyway regardless of the actual result on the kid. So even if the kid was fine after the fact that the man was out to hurt the kid makes the behavior unacceptable.
I don't think anyone is trying to say it was ok at all, they're just trying give a dumbass child abuser the benefit of the doubt.
Abuse is abuse. What if the guy was spanking the kid as punishment and beat him to death? Would you guys try to rationalize his motives then? It's the same principle.
Any and every rational person knows how to control themselves when they discipline their child. If you don't discipline your kid in a controlled manner, you're an abuser. Plain and simple.
Abuse is abuse. What if the guy was spanking the kid as punishment and beat him to death? Would you guys try to rationalize his motives then? It's the same principle.
Any and every rational person knows how to control themselves when they discipline their child. If you don't discipline your kid in a controlled manner, you're an abuser. Plain and simple.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nobody said it is ok. They were explaining, not excusing. As I and others have said several times now. If you need to believe that anyone who ever is involved with the death of a child is a complete monster whose mental processes are completely foreign to anything resembling humanity at all, that's fine... just remind us of that ahead of time so we don't try to assuage your tortured soul any more.
Added at: 17:08
But as was said earlier, water intoxication is still a fairly obscure thing. Not THAT obscure, but I bet I could find someone in the building where I am now who didn't know what it was, or even that you could die from drinking too much water.
Added at: 17:08
No. I cannot think of an instance in which a person beating the child to death could not understand the harm and damage he was doing, other than complete dementia and insanity.
But as was said earlier, water intoxication is still a fairly obscure thing. Not THAT obscure, but I bet I could find someone in the building where I am now who didn't know what it was, or even that you could die from drinking too much water.
M
makare
Yeah by talking about this one man, who is most definitely a monster, I am extrapolating the fact to all child deaths. Right.
He was out to hurt the kid. That is important to this case. So whether he knew it would kill him or not is not important. His intent was to cause pain and suffering.
I can. A man beat a teenage boy on the legs and buttocks very severely. A few days later the boy died as a result of those injuries. The man was beating him to death and had no idea.
Yeah, me neither, so why are people trying to dissect why a dipshit would force his son to drink a shit-ton of water? That's the fluke in the logic I'm seeing. No normal person would do that, so why bother playing devil's advocate in this case?
Dave
Staff member
Wait, so when I punished my kids I was out to cause them pain? Huh. Fuck I'm a MONSTER!!!
I agree with gas on this (mark your calendar). That he didn't know about water toxicity is a perfectly viable theory to why he did what he did. It is not necessarily contrary to the belief that what he did was wrong, and should be punished.
It's looking at the things presented logically rather than emotionally.
It's looking at the things presented logically rather than emotionally.
Read what you just wrote, and tell me a rational person could do that and not know any better.
GasBandit
Staff member
Logically, causing discomfort, suffering, and yes, even pain, is the obvious point of any form of "punishment." My parents didn't spank my bottom because it felt good. Now, if you're saying he was doing this maliciously, well, that's another ball of wax.
I find it very hard to believe he had "no idea."
I don't think that's logical at all. If you're a normal functional person, you don't force your kid to drink water until they vomit and pass out. The guy clearly has some shit loose in his head, and did what he did purposefully, as Makare stated - to hurt the kid.
M
makare
I was just saying it was a case where a man beat the child and had no clue he had caused the kids death. It actually happened a day and half later. I think he should have known better. And on top of that the kid was mental disabled. The whole thing was bullshit.
The beating was also with a hose and the kid was tied to a tree. It was bizarre.
But the point is as far as the guy was concerned it was just a beating and it ended up resulting in death. So he beat someone to death without 1. intending to and 2. realizing he did it.
The beating was also with a hose and the kid was tied to a tree. It was bizarre.
But the point is as far as the guy was concerned it was just a beating and it ended up resulting in death. So he beat someone to death without 1. intending to and 2. realizing he did it.
Ok, well now I don't understand why you're disagreeing with Dave. This is exactly what he said about the water-torture case.
In both cases the abusers have mental issues. End of story.
M
makare
Ok I take it back. He didnt want to hurt him (since people are getting weird about that word) he was out to harm him. Make him suffer egregiously.
To me the water thing is enough and it was enough for the jury but just to be clear about this "monster" here are the other things he did:
"paddling the children on the soles of their feet to conceal bruising, giving them cold showers to “cool down,” putting hot sauce on their tongues, washing their mouths with soap, making a 6 year old wear a diaper and carry a bottle “because he was acting like a sissy”, taunting the children, making the little girl sleep in urine-soaked bedding to “teach her not to wet the bed” when she was only 2-3 years old."
I am saying both people were wrong in what they did regardless of what they knew. Gas said he didnt know of an instance where someone wouldn't know the harm they were inflicting. Well there it is. He didn't know but it doesn't matter because he should have known the potential danger was there.
To me the water thing is enough and it was enough for the jury but just to be clear about this "monster" here are the other things he did:
"paddling the children on the soles of their feet to conceal bruising, giving them cold showers to “cool down,” putting hot sauce on their tongues, washing their mouths with soap, making a 6 year old wear a diaper and carry a bottle “because he was acting like a sissy”, taunting the children, making the little girl sleep in urine-soaked bedding to “teach her not to wet the bed” when she was only 2-3 years old."
I am saying both people were wrong in what they did regardless of what they knew. Gas said he didnt know of an instance where someone wouldn't know the harm they were inflicting. Well there it is. He didn't know but it doesn't matter because he should have known the potential danger was there.
GasBandit
Staff member
You have the advantage of being a highly educated relatively worldly person. Not everyone has that advantage. As I said, I would put a month of my pay against a month of yours that I could find someone in the building where I work that did not know that a child could die from drinking 6 liters of water.
If that man truly had no inkling that [shouting]TYING A CHILD TO A TREE AND BEATING HIM WITH A HOSE[/shouting] could be a threat to his life, he fits the very definition of "irretrievably stupid."
M
makare
I have details the jury didn't have yeah. But the jury only knew about the water incident it was enough for them and it is enough for me. The water incident is what the case was about.
pffftt.. he totally fell on your bullets.
Added at: 18:23
If I was on the jury, it would have been enough for me. (I probably wouldn't have made the jury duty list though, since I'd want to hang him from the moment I heard about what he did).
GasBandit
Staff member
... down some stairs and THEN onto the bullets.
M
makare
I was kind of wondering if they could have gotten this guy on felony murder. Felony child abuse + Death in the course of a felony = Felony murder.
Have to check the statutes I guess.
Have to check the statutes I guess.
GasBandit
Staff member
I agree that the water intoxication should have been enough for an abuse conviction. That someone could reasonably be thought to be ignorant of the effects of water intoxication is grossly insufficient mitigation in an instance of purposeful action resulting directly in the death of a child. If you set out to punish a child, you take responsibility for any consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, of that punishment.
M
makare
You know who I really want to get though? That mom. What was her problem. She said she gave him power to discipline the kids. It's just mind boggling.
GasBandit
Staff member
Without a much better familiarity/frame of reference, I'm not even going to take a stab at this one.
- Status