Wow, nice to see some action here. Interesing point, Ray. I think the difference between people being prosecuted for leaving a dog in a hot car versus a baby, however, is intent. People often leave dogs in cars on purpose, i.e., they know the dog is in the car and didn't just forget it was back there. Perhaps they believe the dog will be ok for the amount of time it will be in the car and don't realize how quickly a car heats up in the sun. In those cases, they should be prosecuted. With babies, at least in Gene's story, it was always accidental. People forgot the baby was there. If someone leaves a baby (or a dog) in a hot car on purpose, they also should be prosecuted. If someone goes through the mind blip Gene described and completely forgets there's a living creature in the car (either a baby or a dog), I agree with Gene that they should not be prosecuted.
I would never leave my dog in a hot car, and since he's so big, he's hard to miss standing there in the back seat. But I could totally see forgetting a sleeping kid, especially if I didn't usually have the kid in the car with me. Good think I have a dog and not kids. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Ray Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > --- In > [email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > Gina Ellis <gina_el...@...> wrote: > > > > > I couldn't read it, just skimmed, and still distraught. Wow. Going for a > pulitzer I think. Great writing, but I like my tears when reading Weingarten > to be of laughter... > > > > I generally like Gene's serious stuff, but I didn't think this was quite as > good as his other long pieces. He definitely did a fine job connecting with > the folks who had committed these acts and who don't think these are > criminal acts. And I definitely got hooked when he told the story of the > suicide attempts by the guilty parents. At no point did I feel like he > presented much more than a passing fancy to the DAs who prosecute these > folks. He admitted his story about Molly, and I think he was TOO emotionally > involved to adequately present the mindset of those who think these are > criminal acts. He dismissed the comments on the original story with disdain, > and that makes sense - why further beat himself up over an otherwise > careless, tragic mistake? > > The story did well to bring up how the frantic pace of life can be > distracting, and how otherwise well-intentioned parents can make horrible > errors. Also, he excelled in showing the ease of which such mistakes can be > prevented, either through technology or car warning systems or even simple > things like a well-placed teddy bear. > > To me, the most insane segment is the Chattanooga man. That's the best > impact of the column - he wrote it as casually as the man dismissed the car > alarm while his child broiled inside. > > However, while reading the story, one moral inconsistency kept screaming in > my brain - dogs. It's illegal to leave a dog in a hot car. That's a crime in > many places now, especially here in the DC area, and it's happened to all > types of folks on the socio-economic ladder as well, from harried moms at a > shopping mall to former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. I'm writing this > while sitting in bed with my two dogs, Bubby and Kramer, and though they're > two of my best friends on the planet, at no point do I value their lives > equal to a human's. I'm willfully playing Devil's Advocate here, and by no > means am I standing on any moral authority, but we prosecute those who > accidentally kill their dogs, but not their children? When did a pet > outweigh the life of a child? > > So while I know what Gene was going for in this piece - to portray these > folks as making a simple mistake and no criminal malice - I'm personally not > quite ready to say there still shouldn't be some other state sanction. > > - Ray > > >
