Mike Foss wrote:
Well said. Parents are responsible for their minor children, not
complete strangers. This conviction is just a result of the absurd
"takes a village" mentality, and would be easily overturned on
appeal. Her defense lawyer was wrong to claim she had any
kind of responsibility, moral or otherwise to the kid.



I'll disagree that she had no responsibility. She recognized the
danger and returned the kid to daddy. Kid returned and she saw him
again by the water. She knew it was dangerous and should have returned
him to daddy again.

I agree that after the kid fell in she had no obligation to jump in
herself. There is nothing in law that requires a person to sacrifice
their own life. That someone else did jump in and didn't die has has
nothing to do with it.

The jury here is both right and wrong. Right that she had an
obligation to protect the kid. Wrong that she should have jumped in if
indeed they did rule that way.

Harry K