Export thread

Does anyone know how much water the average 6 year old boy would have to drink in order to suffer water intoxication?

Just to get it out of the way: See a doctor if your really concerned about this sort of thing. They are better equipped to handle your questions than we are. That being said...

I don't think your kid's stomach could hold enough water to die of intoxication. He'd literally need to prevent himself from urinating for hours, while drinking water, in order for it to be possible.

Let me put it this way: Doctors advise drinking between 1 to 2 liters of water a day. You'd need to drink many times that for it be a problem. If your really concerned, go see a doctor, but I'd just give him something rich in electrolytes if your really worried about it.

Depends how often he's drinking. Quick math says two liters over an hour is asking for trouble.

2-3 hours is the time frame

makare said:

2-3 hours is the time frame

Click to expand...

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?

Sadly I am asking because I read a case where a boy was forced to drink water over a 2-3 hour period and died. I was wondering how much water he would have had to drink.

A lot...


Probably more than 2 liters. For a 30-50 lbs kid, something like 2, 2-liter bottles of water might do it.

It has happened with adults, too.

--Patrick

It depends on a lot of factors, including body size, electrolyte levels, whether the kidneys are doing their job well, whether he's able to empty his bladder, etc.

In extreme cases whe the electrolyte levels are way out of balance it can take very little water. When I was doing ultra marathon bicycle racing I had to watch out for hyponeutremia (iirc, I'm not going to look it up) which is caused by too much water, with not enough electrolytes to allow it to pass out of your system. Remember that water moves into and out of the blood stream through osmosis, and for that to work the has to be an electrolytic balance that draws the water into the correct areas. Sweating causes one to lose sodium and potassium chloride, and if it's not replaced you get too much water, and can die from that. Well, that's how I thought of it anyway, I could be getting major details wrong.

Small children who are healthy have a pretty big buffer, but if they are already malnourished, or if they are unbalanced electrolytically, then a sudden intake of water can lead to death, even at less than the typical rate needed to cause death in the average human. But even healthy children differ in significant ways in terms of how fast their body absorbs and sheds water.

So there's no one single answer.

If you feel thirsty, you're probably already dehydrated. If you're thirsty and have had a lot to drink, eat a banana or drink a sports drink. Don't force yourself to drink more than you feel comfortable drinking.

Active kids can and will drink a lot of water, even on a cold day. Suggest a drink if you want, but don't force them to drink more than they feel comfortable with.

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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

Can you provide more info?

No the case didn't really say much. The details of the incident weren't as important as the fact that it happened. It's so sad. The boy was being punished for taking food from the kitchen. After drinking the water he lost his eyesight and fell unconscious (from my reading on the web I would guess from the brain swelling). He never woke up and they took him off the respirator the next day. I guess I am just torturing myself trying to imagine how that man could watch the boy suffering like that and just keep making him drink.

I HATE that class. It kills my soul.

If we're talking death, then yeah, 4 liters per in an hour seems like a plausible amount.
-edit-
Over three hours, I think 6 liters might do it.

Why do I keep coming back to this thread? It hurts me.

I once considered doing social work. I don't thin I'd be cut out for it.

People who do social work, are children's attorneys, child protective services or foster care those people are my heroes. I have Children and the Law three times a week for only an hour each and I still need hours to recover afterwards. We are now heading into the sexual abuse chapter and I wish I could just skip class. It is agonizing. I just think back to every child I've ever hugged and wonder why the world is so fucked up.

sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication has some cases, including one four year old forced to drink too much.

Healthy kidneys hcan take care of one litre per hour, so even if you maintain a reasonable electrolyte balance, you can still cause death by consuming more than one liter per hour for an extended period of time. The cause of death is that when the blood becomes very dilute, the brain cells absorb more water as they have higher concentration of salts than the blood, and thus osmosis pulls more liquid in. This swelling leads to death if the pressure isn't relieved quickly, and in general it can't be relieved quickly. By the time you see the symptoms it's Likely too late.

The reverse happens when one drinks too much saltwater. The salt saturated blood pulls water from the cells, causing death by dehydration.

The body has a great capability to deal with imbalances, though, it really takes an extreme to hit the wall on either side and cause death. Drinking two liters of water in one hour isn't going to do it for most adults, but it is easier to cause the condition in children due to slower kidneys and lower body mass.

That is seriously fucked up.

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

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

• Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
• Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
• Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
• DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
• Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
• Contributes to soil erosion.
• Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
• Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
• Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
• Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
• Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
• Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

Har-har.

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.

Ignorance is no defense, Dave. There's no justifying it, and saying that their guilt is punishment enough is insufficient.

Null said:

Ignorance is no defense, Dave. There's no justifying it, and saying that their guilt is punishment enough is insufficient.

Click to expand...

Whoa! I said all that?!?

*reads post*

Nope. Didn't say that at all.

Dave said:

Whoa! I said all that?!?

*reads post*

Nope. Didn't say that at all.

Click to expand...

That's the way things work here.

Yeah well he got convicted of first degree murder by torture so he is probably thinking pretty long and hard about it.


This isn't all he did. There were other kids in the house too and his discipline methods were bizarre and cruel.

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are saying he was ignorant of the result. And ignorance is not an excuse. So that is exactly what you are saying.

Ignorance is no excuse under the law. I wasn't saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions. But is ignorance an excuse for doing dumbfuck things? Hell to the yes! Otherwise, nobody would ever do dumbfuck things.
Added at: 16:27
In addition, we didn't know about the other kids so without knowledge of his other indiscretions this very well could have been a one-shot OHMYFUCKINGGOD kind of thing.

Knowing the facts is a good thing and you withheld them. ON PURPOSE!

He was convicted solely because of the water thing so that was enough for the jury.

Ignorance is not an excuse, but you need to prove intent to kill to get a 1st degree murder charge.

makare said:

He was convicted solely because of the water thing so that was enough for the jury.

Click to expand...

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.

So if he can find a good lawyer who would give a crap about a child killer, that sentence could be reduced.

What exactly was he trying to do Dave?

What possible positive outcome of forcing a child to drink liters of water could there be?

makare said:

What exactly was he trying to do Dave?

What possible positive outcome of forcing a child to drink liters of water could there be?

Click to expand...

Kid pees a lot and learns a lesson.

Without knowing as much as you did from the case it is difficult to assess intentions. Like the radio staion thing where the DJs had the people all drink a shitton of water to win a Wii. The lady died from water intoxication. They didn't do it to be mean.

This guy? Apparently he did do it to be mean. But that doesn't mean he did it to kill.

PatrThom said:

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

Click to expand...

Except for weed. Your lungs will explode before you die from "marijuana poisoning."


Actually, I lied the LD50 for THC is something like 45mg/kg body weight. It's still ridiculously high.

Mathias said:

Except for weed. You can smoke yourself till your lungs catch on fire and not die from "marijuana poisoning."

Click to expand...

I've known people who have tried...

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.

sixpackshaker said:

I've known people who have tried...

Click to expand...

Now, smoking yourself retarded...

That's another kettle of fish.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

makare said:

I am just torturing myself trying to imagine how that man could watch the boy suffering like that and just keep making him drink.

Click to expand...

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

makare said:

He was trying to punish him so he was out to cause pain. Pain is the way the body says something is very wrong.

Click to expand...

Children often are experts at faking pain.

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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

WHO THE FUCK EVER SAID IT IS OK?

makare said:

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?

Click to expand...

No one said what he did was ok. I think you're worked up from reading about this and failing your insight rolls.

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.

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

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

GasBandit said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

Read what you just wrote, and tell me a rational person could do that and not know any better.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe he had "no idea."

Ravenpoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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."

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dude, you can't just give people tid-bits of information and get pissed off when they make assumptions about them, while you have every detail of the case.

For the record, I'm bailing out of this thread. I can't stand reading about child abuse and abuse methods.

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Ravenpoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

pffftt.. he totally fell on your bullets.
Added at: 18:23

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Mathias said:

pffftt.. he totally fell on your bullets.

Click to expand...

... down some stairs and THEN onto the bullets.

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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

Without a much better familiarity/frame of reference, I'm not even going to take a stab at this one.

Don't forget the uncle that was practicing voodoo rituals on the boy since birth that you forgot to mention.

makare said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

At no point did I say that people who physically discipline their kids are monsters. The only method of punishment I have talked about is forcing a kid or anyone to drink loads of water. If your parents made you drink loads of water or you are a parent who forces your kid to drink loads of water then yes I have a serious problem with that regardless of whether they or you knew about water intoxication.

What she did or didn't mention is irrelevant. The jury only had the water situation, she only gave the water situation. It was enough for those 12 fucknuts to see was wrong, it was enough for the fucknuts here. For all we know, the jury deliberated on whether the guy meant to kill him or not, or meant to harm him or not, or whether the guy was too stupid to see the harm he was causing as he pushed it to keep going, or whether the guy didn't give a shit.

Fucknuts: The guy's a piece of shit. I don't stand up from the toilet and consider how far gone were the murderous intentions of what I've left in the bowl, so I don't see why you're all going through all this.

Makare: Our fucknuts are saying maybe the guy didn't know he was going to kill the kid, even if he was trying to hurt him. That's it. I know how it feels having to read this shit all day; it does things to you, and can lead to the jumping-down-throats of those who are... I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, but they're not saying he's innocent. In any case, it doesn't leave one in the best frame of mind and one can take out those emotions on others. I've done it, you can do it, but it's not the best way to deal with the (understandable) feelings generated. I don't envy you moving into the sex abuse stuff; I just had to read a bunch of that shit a couple days ago and I just wanted to go to sleep and not think about it.

Mathias:

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.

Click to expand...

Fucking exactly.

I am not saying that the people in this thread think he is innocent I am saying that he chose to use physical discipline and the child died. That was the risk he took. Whether he knew it could result in death or not doesn't matter.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. They're just noting it.

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? I think everyone agrees it doesn't matter whether he knew or not in terms of his deserving punishment, but it would matter in explaining the disconnect that would allow him to watch/inflict such a punishment, from an insight/armchair psychologist point of view, excluding the legal ramifications of his actions (and while excluding a simple "He's a sadist" answer, which may also be valid).

I was definitely being rhetorical and I regret it since people seem to think I am very upset about the case and it is affecting how I feel about this conversation.

I still don't see the First Degree Murder Charge. He should have been charged manslaughter, or whatever the most gross form of negligent homicide/child abuse that will fall short of First Degree Murder. It sounds like the DA and the jury went with their emotions and not the law.

In reality if he was cooking up perverse ways to harm his kids as punishment, he should really spend most of the rest of his days in a mental institution. One of the major shortcomings of our legal system is the large number of the untreated insane that are in the general population of our prisons.

The torture aspect is what bumped it up to first degree murder. It's in the statute and definitely the law. But like I said I am not sure if it would work but I would have gone for felony murder.

I take back my explanation of the others in regards to sixpack.

Torture to death = accident! Derp! (Cause that's the way things work here.)

And someone can be sadistic without being insane. Not everyone who does sick shit does it because they're crazy. Some of them just don't feel. That's a psychological disorder, but disorders are not the same as disconnection with reality.

I can say, with out hesitatation, you can torture a child with out being insane. There are just some cruel fucks out there that enjoy the misery of others.

I'm really sad that I can say this so...firmly.

I just don't see why anyone here even tried to come up with reasons why it wasn't "as bad". It's a waste of effort, and it makes the people doing it look bad.

I don't think people are coming up with reasons why it was better or worse than what it was on the surface.

I think people are trying to understand what was going on in this guy's head. It's what humans do. They see behavior, they classify it, and hopefully they learn from it.

Yes, he was torturing this kid. Yes, the kid died. Yes, he committed murder, and is now locked away.

But there are likely a dozen different reasons why he might have decided to take this path.

There are probably a dozen plausible reasons why he continued to take this path when he observed the negative effects.

It is reasonable to consider the possibility that he didn't understand that it was torture, and that it could lead to death. Why is it valuable to consider this path of reasoning?

It's because of the very real, and terrifying thought, that perhaps there are things we are doing to our own kids which may be torture and/or could reasonably lead to death that we are unaware of.

It's precisely the theory that stupid people are not aware of their limitations and inability to recognize their own stupidity that makes me want to understand why this person did what he did, and whether he understood the consequences or not, in an attempt to improve my ability to see the oncoming train if I'm too stupid to realize I'm standing on the track.

This case in particular highlights the gray area between knowing what will kill and what won't - even outside the spectrum of egregious child abuse.

So is it reasonable to wonder what was going through the guys head? Sure.

Is it reasonable to ponder the path that perhaps he truly didn't intend to kill the child? Yes.

Is there a possibility that he honestly didn't believe that he was doing anything more than causing mild discomfort? There's a possibility that it started out that way. Without more details we can't tell, though. If he was forcing liquid down the child's throat, then it's plain and simple torture and murder, and the first degree charge is justified. If he simply placed 16 twelve ounce glasses of water (which is 6 liters) in front of the kid, and said, "You can't play your video games until you drink all that," and the kid was motivated to consume it all (one glass per 7.5 minutes over two hours) and subsequently died, then suddenly things become a lot more murky.

It's not an attempt to excuse his behavior, or to undermine anyone else's arguments that he's a bad person. It's merely an exercise in trying to understand human behavior.

Regardless:

1. It's natural (and should be acceptable) to discuss possible mental state and the events leading up to it in an attempt to understand and come to terms with how someone could possibly do such a thing.
2. It should be blindingly obvious that in the absence of full case information, all we can do is discuss it with a variety of assumptions, all bad, but none any better than another.
3. Due to our various assumptions, the thread is ripe for miscommunication and misunderstanding. It's stupid to take posts too seriously when we're all operating on a different set of assumptions about this case.

This is quite possibly one of the stupidest threads ever made on halforums.

You must be forgetting the thread on german toilets.

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. To death, certainly. There is a fine line between "This will hurt me more than it hurts you," and "This is me transferring my hurt onto you." Keeping that line at a respectful distance is one of the most important duties of a successful parent.

And I've said my piece.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I deliberately made no distinction between physical and mental harm. One might also argue that part of the duty of a parent is to know (or learn) what might be harmful to one's progeny. An utterly impossible task, by anyone's measure, but the most successful parents are the ones who know they'll never be able to prepare for everything, and yet still take it seriously.

--Patrick

Threads like these make me want to post less.

I just want to cover something about Asian punishment (well from my side of the family)
There are many different type of punishment out there and some may cause hard and possible death if not apply correctly.
couple of note: my parents never punish me when in anger. That can cause a lot of problem and more than likely more harm than good. The punishment can be physical or mental. All punishment are meant to "harm" in someway but the person receiving suppose to learn from the lesson.

I'm gonna give two examples in my life.
When I was growing in Bangkok, Thailand, I was living with my grandmother who doesn't approve of her son's marriage to my mother. She despise me but took me in while my father was having a divorce at the time. She physically punish me whenever she could. It is a sheer malice. She spank me with bamboo until I bleed in different places. Is it malice? yes. Is it willful? probably. Child abuse? people in the western world would say yes BUT it is common in Thailand so that is matter of society debate.

My father use to punish me via the belt. Yes, it hurts. Yes, I did deserve it (lying was the crime) did it hurt? hell yes! could I have been injured or death? possible if the metal part of the belt hit me in the head in the right way. Was it child abuse? my father's intent was to punish me and teach me that lying is worst crime you can commit in the family. He loved me and wouldn't kill me or put me in that level of harm (in terms of physical disable or something intentionally) but bad thing could come from it if it wasn't in controlled environment (i.e. if he punish me while in anger)

Now I am NOT saying this particular father is right in anyway, but to me, any sane parents wouldn't want to hurt their children intentionally. Yes, the father is ignorant the water intoxication could happen and probably should have use a different method of punishment, but the hardest thing when looking into a single incident to see if there is malice involved (I mean in general not just in this case) or was trying to teach a lesson and it went horribly wrong.

Philosopher B. said:

Threads like these make me want to post less.

Click to expand...

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.

I'm not interested in understanding someone who tortures their child to death. Accident, ignorance, horrible mistake, or malicious deliberation, it really doesn't matter.

Chad Sexington said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't see the conversation as that.

Mathias said:

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.

Click to expand...

This.

Mathias said:

the tolerance limits to torturing children, and rationalizing the intentions of sadists.

Click to expand...

You have a great gift for dramatizing things.