Then going by drifters math it would be about 6 liters. Has he drank anywhere near that much? Has he being using the bathroom during that time?2-3 hours is the time frame
Can you provide more info?From what I understand he was forced to drink the water nonstop for 2-3 hours even after he complained of discomfort. It was a lot of water I am sure but there is no way to really know at what point he cross the line into water intoxication.
Whoa! I said all that?!?Ignorance is no defense, Dave. There's no justifying it, and saying that their guilt is punishment enough is insufficient.
That's the way things work here.Whoa! I said all that?!?
*reads post*
Nope. Didn't say that at all.
The thing about this is, the person doing the punishing probably didn't think it would lead to death. Water intoxication is a strangely little-known thing. The person was probably saying, "I'm teaching little Johnny a lesson but I'm not being abusive, hitting, etc." My guess is the person responsible is not exactly okay with the result and punishes themselves every day.
Added at: 15:28
edit: As to watching the kid suffering....Anyone who has ever watched, had or listened to children know that ANY punishment is treated by them as earth-shattering and deadly. The guy probably thought the kid was faking it or overreacting.
As I said, ignorance is no excuse under the law. But I'd be willing to bet he wasn't trying to hurt the kid when he did what he did.He was convicted solely because of the water thing so that was enough for the jury.
Kid pees a lot and learns a lesson.What exactly was he trying to do Dave?
What possible positive outcome of forcing a child to drink liters of water could there be?
Except for weed. Your lungs will explode before you die from "marijuana poisoning."I've heard college hazings go bad for the same reason. It's a pretty silly way to ruin one's health, because people believe something harmless will be harmless no matter the quantity. In fact, pretty much everything is toxic at high enough level. Conversely, pretty much everything harmful is good for you if taken in small enough quantity.
--Patrick
I've known people who have tried...Except for weed. You can smoke yourself till your lungs catch on fire and not die from "marijuana poisoning."
Now, smoking yourself retarded...I've known people who have tried...
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.He was causing him grievous pain and suffering also known as torture and the boy died. So he tortured a boy to death. The fact that he didn't mean to kill him is pretty damn irrelevant under those circumstances.
I am just torturing myself trying to imagine how that man could watch the boy suffering like that and just keep making him drink.
The above seems like a reasonable answer to me without attempting to justify the action. It doesn't excuse, it only explains.The thing about this is, the person doing the punishing probably didn't think it would lead to death. ... Anyone who has ever watched, had or listened to children know that ANY punishment is treated by them as earth-shattering and deadly. The guy probably thought the kid was faking it or overreacting.
Children often are experts at faking pain.He was trying to punish him so he was out to cause pain. Pain is the way the body says something is very wrong.
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.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.
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.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.
No one said what he did was ok. I think you're worked up from reading about this and failing your insight rolls.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?
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.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.
Yeah by talking about this one man, who is most definitely a monster, I am extrapolating the fact to all child deaths. Right.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.
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.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.
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
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.
Wait, so when I punished my kids I was out to cause them pain? Huh. Fuck I'm a MONSTER!!!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.
Read what you just wrote, and tell me a rational person could do that and not know any better.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.
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.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 find it very hard to believe he had "no idea."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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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."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.
I once poked a guy, and he died. I had no idea he'd be so fragile.
I mean, it was pretty hard. And with a gun. And I pulled the trigger six times. And hid the guy in an alley to bleed to death. But that's probably not relevant, I'll just leave that part out.
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.
... down some stairs and THEN onto the bullets.pffftt.. he totally fell on your bullets.
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.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.
Without a much better familiarity/frame of reference, I'm not even going to take a stab at this one.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.
My mom spanked me a few times when I was a kid. Did she want to cause some sort of pain? Yes, obviously, it was a punishment. Did I scream and cry? Yes, of course, and I exaggerated a LOT. Is she a monster? well, as much as I would like to say yes sometimes, the truth is, she's not. Do I agree with her methods? No, I don't, but that doesn't make her a monster.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.
Fucking exactly.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.
For some values of "irreparable" and "harm". At least the physical abuse is visible in many cases. Psychological abuse is possibly more prevalent, can be far more damaging, and may be perfectly permissible under the law depending on how the abuse is carried out. And the parents may be completely unaware of how damaging their words and actions are to their child's future.It's one of the most thought-provoking, and not because of its original subject matter. How much punishment is too much? To the point where irreparable harm is done, yes.
Why? We are debating something that has been debated on a lot. Hell, there are books about this sort of thing. We're all just trying to understand.Threads like these make me want to post less.
I think this is probably the crux of the disconnect in this thread right here - I know my response was predicated entirely upon makare's (now understood to be rhetorical) statement that she was struggling to understand "how" anyone could do this, and meant only to address that.I think, makare, since you mentioned you were 'torturing yourself trying to imagine how [he]... could watch', they're just offering explanations; though perhaps your statement was rhetorical?
Why? We are debating something that has been debated on a lot. Hell, there are books about this sort of thing. We're all just trying to understand.
Agreed.Sorry, the original post in this thread wasn't stupid. It's what it devolved into. I'd rather discuss and argue over how to cook steak versus the tolerance limits to torturing children, and rationalizing the intentions of sadists.
I guess I didn't see the conversation as that.Sorry, the original post in this thread wasn't stupid. It's what it devolved into. I'd rather discuss and argue over how to cook steak versus the tolerance limits to torturing children, and rationalizing the intentions of sadists.
This.Sorry, the original post in this thread wasn't stupid. It's what it devolved into. I'd rather discuss and argue over how to cook steak versus the tolerance limits to torturing children, and rationalizing the intentions of sadists.
the tolerance limits to torturing children, and rationalizing the intentions of sadists.