Parents Force Daughter to Drink Lethal Amounts of Soda

[DarthSkywalker]

Are you kidding? I just don't understand how or why this sort of punishment came to be popular as a form of dissuasion. *shrugs* Weird...

It is the extreme and painful version of the "let the kids try" it method.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, in ancient times, it was used as a form of capital punishment.

But I think it was popularized by stupid things like forcing your child to smoke a whole carton of cigarettes.

I have also hard of similar things with alcohol.

 

[charl_huntress]

There is a big difference between putting your child in the corner and telling them to think about what they did, and having them double the amount of liquid in their body. The little girl was in extreme pain and discomfort. This would have been obvious.

Well...I think that was probably the point, but I'm guessing they didn't think that much soda and water would kill her. If they did plan out to kill her that way they are smarter than I'm thinking they are. Also regarding her other injuries, keep in mind she's 5 yrs old. She might not have sustained those injuries from abuse, but just from being a child.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well, in ancient times, it was used as a form of capital punishment.

But I think it was popularized by stupid things like forcing your child to smoke a whole carton of cigarettes.

I have also hard of similar things with alcohol.

Do you see how this is supporting my view on the subject?

 

[charl_huntress]

Well, in ancient times, it was used as a form of capital punishment.

But I think it was popularized by stupid things like forcing your child to smoke a whole carton of cigarettes.

I have also hard of similar things with alcohol.

I know I have seen this on a TV show before, but it's an old one. I didn't really think people actually made kids do this.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well...I think that was probably the point, but I'm guessing they didn't think that much soda and water would kill her. If they did plan out to kill her that way they are smarter than I'm thinking they are. Also regarding her other injuries, keep in mind she's 5 yrs old. She might not have sustained those injuries from abuse, but just from being a child.

It doesn't need to be a plan to kill her. It was a plan to hurt her, to cause her pain because they were annoyed that she dare drink some soda they didn't want her too. How else do you explain forcing her to drink even as she complains of discomfort, pain and is throwing up?

Also, ignorance is not a defense here. If you don't know that drinking too much of anything can kill you, that is on you.

I know I have seen this on a TV show before, but it's an old one. I didn't really think people actually made kids do this.

And why would you think that? Because it is obviously so cruel?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I'm sorry, but being stupid is not an excuse or a get out of jail free card when someone is killed because you are stupid.

 

[charl_huntress]

It doesn't need to be a plan to kill her. It was a plan to hurt her, to cause her pain because they were annoyed that she dare drink some soda they didn't want her too. How else do you explain forcing her to drink even as she complains of discomfort, pain and is throwing up?

Yes, the point was to punish which would mean putting her in discomfort. I don't know the reasons for the punishment, and I'm not saying it's right, but the point was to punish. I just think that it will be hard to prove they tried or wanted to kill her.

Also, ignorance is not a defense here. If you don't know that drinking too much of anything can kill you, that is on you.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance is their defense they didn't mean to kill her.

And why would you think that? Because it is obviously so cruel?

No...because it's so obviously stupid. I don't even see the point in it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Do you see how this is supporting my view on the subject?

Not really. I don't think the parents, ill advised though they were who force their kids to smoke a whole carton, because they caught them smoking, were trying to kill their children. Or the one with alcohol.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I know I have seen this on a TV show before, but it's an old one. I didn't really think people actually made kids do this.

I heard of it, growing up, but it never happened to me.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes, the point was to punish which would mean putting her in discomfort. I don't know if the reasons for the punishment, and I'm not saying it's right, but the point was to punish. I just think that it will be hard to prove they tried or wanted to kill her.

The little girl took a couple of drinks of the stepmother's grape soda. This was her punishment.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance is their defense they didn't mean to kill her.

Which is irrelevant. Like if you rob a bank with no intention of hurting anyone, and then someone is killed. You are on the hook for murder.

No...because it's so obviously stupid. I don't even see the point in it.

Exactly.

Not really. I don't think the parents, ill advised though they were who force their kids to smoke a whole carton, because they caught them smoking, were trying to kill their children. Or the one with alcohol.

Why do you think it matters if their intent was to kill? They did something obviously dangerous, with malice.

Would it be different if they hit her?

 

[Thundercrack85]

For the record, I think they should get a very heavy sentence. I just think first degree murder would be hard to prove. Maybe second degree, with negligent homicide.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Why do you think it matters if their intent was to kill? They did something obviously dangerous, with malice.

Would it be different if they hit her?

Yes. Because even an idiot knows that physical harm can result in death, and would therefore know what they are doing.

This sounds more like a very poorly thought out, excessive punishment gone wrong.

 

[charl_huntress]

The little girl took a couple of drinks of the stepmother's grape soda. This was her punishment.

Well...it sounds stupid. I'm not saying they should have punished her for that, but they did, but I don't think they were trying to kill her. tbh...I didn't even imagine parents did this, but if these people did I'm sure they are not the only ones who have.

Which is irrelevant. Like if you rob a bank with no intention of hurting anyone, and then someone is killed. You are on the hook for murder.

Yes, but if you crash your car into someone and kill them while driving fast it's manslaughter...not premeditated murder.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes. Because even an idiot knows that physical harm can result in death, and would therefore know what they are doing.

This sounds more like a very poorly thought out, excessive punishment gone wrong.

This is physical harm.

This is a clear case of parents being angry and wanting to hurt their child for making them so.

Yes, but if you crash your car into someone and kill them while driving fast it's manslaughter...not premeditated murder.

When you are driving fast you aren't necessarily trying to hurt someone. When you inflict a punishment clearly intended to cause harm, that is a completely different ball game.

 

[charl_huntress]

When you are driving fast you aren't necessarily trying to hurt someone. When you inflict a punishment clearly intended to cause harm, that is a completely different ball game.

Yet you are reckless and could easily hurt someone even though your intention is not to hurt anyone. Again...it's the intent that matters here. They wanted to cause her harm with the punishment, but not kill her.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yet you are reckless and could easily hurt someone even though your intention is not to hurt anyone. Again...it's the intent that matters here. They wanted to cause her harm with the punishment, but not kill her.

What stops that from being a defense to someone that shakes a child, or throws them into a wall? As long as they don't intend to kill, it isn't murder?

You don't have the right to harm another. To cause them great bodily harm. Even if your intent isn't to kill, you are not allowed to torture, and that is what this was. Torture.

 

[charl_huntress]

What stops that from being a defense to someone that shakes a child, or throws them into a wall? As long as they don't intend to kill, it isn't murder?

It's not premeditated unless they planned to kill them that way and you can prove it. I think in this case they are going to have a hard proving the parents planned to kill her with soda and water ingestion.

You don't have the right to harm another. To cause them great bodily harm. Even if your intent isn't to kill, you are not allowed to torture, and that is what this was. Torture.

Well...that's extreme and passionate, but I just don't believe they are going to be able to prove it was premeditated. Extreme and excessive...most definitely, but not planned or thought out with the intent to end the child's life. Again, the intent does matter.

 

[jmc]

This is why I'm firmly against abuse as a form of punishment. Physically harming a child does nothing but make the situation worse, in this case it went to the very extreme and now those parents have to live with that decision and the consequences.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I can't say I'll have any sympathy for them if they get life.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

keep in mind she's 5 yrs old. She might not have sustained those injuries from abuse, but just from being a child.

Well, after we've learned what these imbeciles did to her after they caught her dinking Soda,i'm more inclined to believe that they're most likely an abusive pair of scumbags.

If they could force a child to dink over 2 liters of Soda...over a period of a couple of hours, while watching her suffered from it-because i'm pretty damn sure that there was a lot of throwing up in those two hours...

I'm also sure these scumbags wouldn't even blink if they had to smack her once or twice.

There are times when it's sensible to play the devil's advocate...this ain't one of them

I wouldn't feel bad if i have to watch someone run over these pair of trailer park trash with a cement truck.

 

[charl_huntress]

This is why I'm firmly against abuse as a form of punishment. Physically harming a child does nothing but make the situation worse, in this case it went to the very extreme and now those parents have to live with that decision and the consequences.

I think everyone is against abuse, but what do you deem child abuse verse discipline? Is it not okay to spank a child any longer? What these people did was excessive and stupid, but would it have been better for them to spank the child if they felt she needed discipline? Forget you don't think she needed to be disciplined to begin with. What sort of discipline would have been best?

I ask this question because I'm curious as to what others might say. It is easy to criticize parenting techniques from the outside looking in, and it's really easy to do this when you have no children. Yet I think we all agree raising kids is difficult, so what's the solution to disciplining kids in this day and age?

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

so what's the solution to disciplining kids in this day and age?

Using common sense would be a good start.

 

[charl_huntress]

Using common sense would be a good start.

True, but I am recalling seeing this discipline technique more often now that I think about it. There's a scene in some movie or film where a father is encouraging his son to drink as many beers as he wants until he throws up and is sick. The next day the son has learned his lesson and never wants to drink again. Now what if these people saw this in a movie, or heard about this from someone else who saw it in a movie, and thinks it is common sense?

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Was the son in the movie a 5 year old child?