Decades after shaking baby, Dad jailed again...

[Duddits]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36618238/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Perfect example why trailer trash shouldn't be allowed to breed. (No offense to all the normal people who live in trailers.) :facepalm: Too bad they didn't lock his ass up for decades when this happened. I have no sympathy for this piece of shit.

 

[Thelona]

wow what a heart breaker all around.

the woman that adopted her is amazing tho, truly inspiring.

if the father has even an ounce of humanity in him, he'll hate himself till the day he dies.

 

[Zaltana]

wow what a heart breaker all around.

the woman that adopted her is amazing tho, truly inspiring.

if the father has even an ounce of humanity in him, he'll hate himself till the day he dies.

Seeing as he managed to turn his life around i would have to say he already does. He didn't fight the DA on this at all, so yeah.

 

[Reauland]

All I can say is thank God there are people in the world like her foster parents.

They may be outnumbered by like a thousand to one, but I don't give a damn. One of them is worth a million of her real dad.

 

[Eilistrae]

I'm not really sure how I feel about this to be honest. Yes the man did a horrible thing and I think that he should have served more jail time in the original jail sentencing. I just don't understand how they can charge him with homicide when he was already convicted of the abuse and served time. She lived for 19 years after that fact, granted, it was a terrible life I am sure. Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations in cases such as these (unless they are considering this a 'heinous crime')? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the charge. Its just, like other people have said, he is probably a different person now from who he was back when the abuse occurred. Plus, they knew she would die someday from the damage caused by the abuse. This just seems like such a huge stretch...

edit: lol spelling error, sue me

 

[Hexx]

I gotta agree with Ellistrae here, 19+ years is WAY too long of a stretch for charging him in his daughter's death. Yes, what he did is bad, but at the same time, he paid his debt to society by spending that year in jail. He moved on, had more kids with the same woman, never got in trouble with the law again, so why the fuck are they coming back to toss him in jail again?! If they "knew" she was gonna die because of said injury, then why didn't they just keep him locked up, instead of letting him live his life and in the process of being jailed again, taken from the family he built during the time of his freedom? I think that DA is touched in the head or something....

 

[Duddits]

I just don't understand how they can charge him with homicide when he was already convicted of the abuse and served time. She lived for 19 years after that fact, granted, it was a terrible life I am sure. Isn't there some sort of statue of limitations in cases such as these (unless they are considering this a 'heinous crime')? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the charge. Its just, like other people have said, he is probably a different person now from who he was back when the abuse occurred. Plus, they knew she would die someday from the damage caused by the abuse. This just seems like such a huge stretch...

I believe it's "Statute of Limitations" and there is no statute of limitations on murder which it became when the daughter died.

 

[Hexx]

I believe it's "Statute of Limitations" and there is no statute of limitations on murder which it became when the daughter died.

So then, say I trip you, you bonk yourself on the head but walk away with only a scar, then 20 years later you die because it caused some sort of brain injury, I would hit with homicide? Sorry but, thats kinda ridiculous. Had the girl died within the year, or say within 5 years ok, I'll give the DA that one, but TWENTY FUCKIN YEARS? Come on now, seriously.

 

[Duddits]

So then, say I trip you, you bonk yourself on the head but walk away with only a scar, then 20 years later you die because it caused some sort of brain injury, I would hit with homicide? Sorry but, thats kinda ridiculous. Had the girl died within the year, or say within 5 years ok, I'll give the DA that one, but TWENTY FUCKIN YEARS? Come on now, seriously.

It wouldn't surprise me that there are some asshole prosecutors out there that would literally try to charge you for something like that. This isn't the first time something like this has happened and it certainly won't be the last.

 

[Morcheeba]

So then, say I trip you, you bonk yourself on the head but walk away with only a scar, then 20 years later you die because it caused some sort of brain injury, I would hit with homicide? Sorry but, thats kinda ridiculous. Had the girl died within the year, or say within 5 years ok, I'll give the DA that one, but TWENTY FUCKIN YEARS? Come on now, seriously.

This sounds accidental, the original abuse doesn't. Manslaughter vs. murder, variables...

 

[Hexx]

This sounds accidental, the original abuse doesn't. Manslaughter vs. murder, variables...

I never said it was accidental cheebs I could have tripped him on purpose with the intent to harm, but not kill. This dad probably did the same, shook the baby w/o the intent to kill, either immediately or in the future. The fact that it took the daughter 19 years to pass means that altho she was brain damaged, it wasn't the brain damage that killed her. I'm pretty sure that smarmy DA was just keeping tabs on this and probably had the coroner label it as "homicide" 20 years after the fact?

 

[Thelona]

Since the infant suffered other injuries — broken ribs, a broken clavicle and a bruise on the head — the prosecutor said he was able to home in on the shaking and covering of the child's mouth as separate, specific acts that caused Christine's brain damage and eventual death.

"shaking a baby without intent to kill" what does that mean Hexx?! what else would you expect shaking a baby, i think anyone knows what happens when you shake a baby that hard.

"Broken ribs and clavicle and bruises to the head." seems like a pretty violent act to me, what he deserved was a life sentence the first time imo. sorry I don't have much sympathy for the guy.

you're right he could be a completely diff person, but a murderer can change, that doesn't change what they did.

 

[Zaltana]

I think this is a bit of a stretch myself. The guy did not fight the DA at all on this. This matter did not even go to court from what i read. The father took a 15 year sentence plea bargain. But if it was known that said injuries would result in the child's death it seems that a stiffer sentence should have been imposed in the first case. This does have the look of a bit of personal motivation behind it, but there is no way to prove that.

It said that defense attorneys could have made a case to have the charges dismissed had they been smart in arguing or pushed enough through the system. But since the father did not even try to get the charges dismissed i can't help but feel that he thinks this is what he deserves. The crime he commited 20 years ago is inexcusable and i, too, feel he should have been punished more severely then. But still he did have more children after said event and has had no repeat episodes, and has not gotten in to serious trouble as far as we all know. that speaks to me of a major change in character.

With all the loopholes in our justice system, and the emotional weight such a case carries, the prosecutor had more then enough ammo to convict the father of 1st degree murder had he gone to trial. However, possibly playing on the fathers obvious sense of guilt, they gave him a plea with a slightly lesser charge. If it wasn't the same prosecutor this would look less shady as well. But also the father had no intention of killing his daughter when he injured her. To me that would put this under a manslaughter charge, vice a murder one. We can go in circles for days about this really. Had the girl lived this thread wouldn't even be made. What a tangled web we humans weave.

 

[Duddits]

I agree with what Zaltana said to a certain extent but you can't charge someone with manslaughter or murder if the person didn't die...yet. Whether it be manslaughter or murder 19 years later, the daughter died as a direct result of the injuries she received at the hands of her father. I wish I could give you examples of other cases where a person was attacked and it took them years to die as a result of it and the person responsible was convicted of the crime decades later. I don't know if there is any statute of limitations on manslaughter but there sure as hell isn't any on murder.

 

[Georgebobbilly]

I agree with what Zaltana said to a certain extent but you can't charge someone with manslaughter or murder if the person didn't die...yet. Whether it be manslaughter or murder 19 years later, the daughter died as a direct result of the injuries she received at the hands of her father. I wish I could give you examples of other cases where a person was attacked and it took them years to die as a result of it and the person responsible was convicted of the crime decades later. I don't know if there is any statute of limitations on manslaughter but there sure as hell isn't any on murder.

Then every mother and father should be charged when their child dies, throw the doctor/midwife in for aiding, since everyone dies as a direct result of being born.

 

[Tristam Green]

Then every mother and father should be charged when their child dies, throw the doctor/midwife in for aiding, since everyone dies as a direct result of being born.

Awesome, my parents are accessory to murder.

 

[Thelona]

Then every mother and father should be charged when their child dies, throw the doctor/midwife in for aiding, since everyone dies as a direct result of being born.

how the hell is that a fair comparison? Giving birth causes someones death in the same way that shaking a baby to the point of brain damage and broken bones? sorry i don't think that makes any sense at all. That'd be like saying you can charge the doctor with murder for failing to save someones life.

Don't get me wrong, i think its a tragedy all around, i feel for the guys family and kids that he didn't kill/severely injure.

and there have been cases of someone being charged with murder after someone dieing as a result to the injury years later, there was one a few years ago where a guy shot a cop and the cop sat in a coma for like 3 years before dieing, when he died they charged the guy with murder and upped his prison sentence to life. Hows this any different?

I guess what don't get is how people are talking like theres a "man slaughter" or "accidental death" aspect to this, I've known from the time when i was a little kid that Shaking a baby = severe brain damage, and death, I would think that is pretty much common sense.
Its not like this is the first case in the news of someone shaking a baby.

 

[Raesvelg]

Except that most people who shake babies don't know how dangerous it is. For the most part, they just want the kid to shut up, and in a moment of frustration, give them a quick shake, following roughly the same instinct that makes you shake someone who is being hysterical.

There's a lot of things that can kill someone that the average person is largely unaware of. Strike someone hard enough in the sternum, and even if you're not intentionally trying to kill them, you can stop their heart. Think it's unlikely? Realize that Dolph Lundgren very nearly did it to Stallone while filming Rocky IV, and Stallone wound up spending four days in the hospital with a bruised heart, and that was with boxing gloves on.

When you're not trying to kill someone, and they wind up dying anyway, we typically call that manslaughter.

 

[Tristam Green]

There's a lot of things that can kill someone that the average person is largely unaware of. Strike someone hard enough in the sternum, and even if you're not intentionally trying to kill them, you can stop their heart. Think it's unlikely? Realize that Dolph Lundgren very nearly did it to Stallone while filming Rocky IV, and Stallone wound up spending four days in the hospital with a bruised heart, and that was with boxing gloves on.

True story: I was punched in the sternum when I was 10 years old by a boy who thought I was "hitting on his girlfriend". It triggered my congenital heart defect and made my heart beat up to 300 bpm for about five minutes. When my mother told him that his actions could have nearly killed me, in the calmest voice she possibly could have, he broke down in tears.

 

[Georgebobbilly]

how the hell is that a fair comparison? Giving birth causes someones death in the same way that shaking a baby to the point of brain damage and broken bones? sorry i don't think that makes any sense at all. That'd be like saying you can charge the doctor with murder for failing to save someones life.

Don't get me wrong, i think its a tragedy all around, i feel for the guys family and kids that he didn't kill/severely injure.

and there have been cases of someone being charged with murder after someone dieing as a result to the injury years later, there was one a few years ago where a guy shot a cop and the cop sat in a coma for like 3 years before dieing, when he died they charged the guy with murder and upped his prison sentence to life. Hows this any different?

I guess what don't get is how people are talking like theres a "man slaughter" or "accidental death" aspect to this, I've known from the time when i was a little kid that Shaking a baby = severe brain damage, and death, I would think that is pretty much common sense.
Its not like this is the first case in the news of someone shaking a baby.

What Raes said, add to that the fact that being bed ridden could have very well extended her life, you never know she could have been out riding a horse at age six if not for that, and if the horse got spooked the girl could have died. Fact is that 20ish years later is a bit of a stretch.