Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk
watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.

She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters
after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.

The little boy died.

Certainly, her defense attorney argued during her trial for
endangering the welfare of a child, his client had a moral
obligation to try to save the boy. But, he continued, she
did not have a legal one.

The jurors judging Ms. Newkirk's case obviously disagreed
when they convicted her in July. Last week, the Hollidaysburg
woman was sentenced to up to 18 months in jail.

But legal experts disagree with the verdict.

Instead, they say Ms. Newkirk did not have a "duty of care"
to the little boy because she had no special relationship with him.

Her public defender, David Beyer, has vowed to appeal her
conviction, arguing that she was not the child's parent or
baby sitter, and therefore had no duty to protect him.

On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought
torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms.
Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his
2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer
in Claysburg, Blair County.

While Mr. Reffner worked on the trailer, Ms. Newkirk walked
along South Poplar Run Creek.

She told police that Hunter had been with her and almost fell
in. At that point, Ms. Newkirk took the boy back to his father,
telling Mr. Reffner that Hunter should not be by the water.

A short time later, the toddler rejoined Ms. Newkirk.

"The little boy walked down to her," Mr. Beyer said.

As he was throwing sticks and stones into the water, Hunter fell in.

"She had no legal duty to go in and save this child," Mr. Beyer
said. "If a person is not a parent or guardian, then they owe
no duty to that child."

But Blair County District Attorney Dave Gorman said she was,
at that moment, the child's guardian.

"Common sense dictates someone in that close proximity to a
child is obligated to do something," Mr. Gorman said. "I think
anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Both the defense and prosecution agree that Mr. Reffner never
specifically asked Ms. Newkirk to watch his son. But the
district attorney doesn't think that matters.

"If she didn't believe she had a legal duty, then why did she
pull the kid back the first time?" Mr. Gorman asked.

Had Ms. Newkirk left the trailer after returning Hunter to his
father, she would have fulfilled her obligation, and there
would have been no charges, the prosecutor said.

"It's not just the fact she didn't go in after the kid," Mr.
Gorman said. Even having a child that close to a raging stream
violates a duty to care, he continued.

As for Ms. Newkirk's argument that she couldn't swim, Mr.
Gorman didn't think it was relevant. Two passers-by went into
the creek to try to save Hunter after he'd fallen in, and one
of them also couldn't swim. One man was able to reach Hunter,
but the boy slipped from his grasp before he could pull him
to safety, Mr. Gorman said.

David Herring, a professor of child welfare law at the
University of Pittsburgh, said there is no Good Samaritan
law in Pennsylvania.

"You can't ask them to have to sacrifice their own lives," Mr.
Herring said. "That's quite a stretch to impose that duty on her."

He called the case against Ms. Newkirk an "aggressive prosecution."

"The father's the one the law should be holding responsible,"
he said.

Mr. Reffner was charged, but he pleaded guilty to a lesser
charge -- reckless endangerment. He was offered probation
to testify against Ms. Newkirk. The prosecution, however,
never called Mr. Reffner to the stand. Mr. Gorman said his
testimony wasn't necessary.

As for the plea agreement, the district attorney said he
wasn't sure a jury would have convicted him.

"I'm not saying in any way, shape or form Mr. Reffner isn't
culpable," the prosecutor said. "I think there was an issue
as to whether a jury would have returned a guilty verdict on [him]."

But Kirk Henderson, an assistant public defender for Allegheny
County, said that's not a valid justification for the lesser
charge.

"A parent has the ultimate responsibility," he said.

Under the current case law, charging Ms. Newkirk should have
come down to whether she was aware of the duty to the child, Mr.
Henderson said. He didn't buy the district attorney's argument
that Ms. Newkirk recognized her duty when she returned Hunter
to his father the first time.

"I don't think that one time, telling a child what to do
invests that person with responsibility," Mr. Henderson said.

"People have their own choices they have to live with, but
that doesn't make it criminal."

Mr. Beyer agrees.

"The jury wanted someone to pay for this little boy," he said.
"I can understand from a moral perspective, we all think
something different should have happened here. That doesn't
mean she's guilty of a crime."


(Paula Reed Ward can be reached at or
412-263-1601.)
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm

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.

"Karen Preston" wrote in message ...
Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk
watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.

She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters
after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.

The little boy died.

Certainly, her defense attorney argued during her trial for
endangering the welfare of a child, his client had a moral
obligation to try to save the boy. But, he continued, she
did not have a legal one.

The jurors judging Ms. Newkirk's case obviously disagreed
when they convicted her in July. Last week, the Hollidaysburg
woman was sentenced to up to 18 months in jail.

But legal experts disagree with the verdict.

Instead, they say Ms. Newkirk did not have a "duty of care"
to the little boy because she had no special relationship with him.

Her public defender, David Beyer, has vowed to appeal her
conviction, arguing that she was not the child's parent or
baby sitter, and therefore had no duty to protect him.

On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought
torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms.
Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his
2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer
in Claysburg, Blair County.

While Mr. Reffner worked on the trailer, Ms. Newkirk walked
along South Poplar Run Creek.

She told police that Hunter had been with her and almost fell
in. At that point, Ms. Newkirk took the boy back to his father,
telling Mr. Reffner that Hunter should not be by the water.

A short time later, the toddler rejoined Ms. Newkirk.

"The little boy walked down to her," Mr. Beyer said.

As he was throwing sticks and stones into the water, Hunter fell in.

"She had no legal duty to go in and save this child," Mr. Beyer
said. "If a person is not a parent or guardian, then they owe
no duty to that child."

But Blair County District Attorney Dave Gorman said she was,
at that moment, the child's guardian.

"Common sense dictates someone in that close proximity to a
child is obligated to do something," Mr. Gorman said. "I think
anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Both the defense and prosecution agree that Mr. Reffner never
specifically asked Ms. Newkirk to watch his son. But the
district attorney doesn't think that matters.

"If she didn't believe she had a legal duty, then why did she
pull the kid back the first time?" Mr. Gorman asked.

Had Ms. Newkirk left the trailer after returning Hunter to his
father, she would have fulfilled her obligation, and there
would have been no charges, the prosecutor said.

"It's not just the fact she didn't go in after the kid," Mr.
Gorman said. Even having a child that close to a raging stream
violates a duty to care, he continued.

As for Ms. Newkirk's argument that she couldn't swim, Mr.
Gorman didn't think it was relevant. Two passers-by went into
the creek to try to save Hunter after he'd fallen in, and one
of them also couldn't swim. One man was able to reach Hunter,
but the boy slipped from his grasp before he could pull him
to safety, Mr. Gorman said.

David Herring, a professor of child welfare law at the
University of Pittsburgh, said there is no Good Samaritan
law in Pennsylvania.

"You can't ask them to have to sacrifice their own lives," Mr.
Herring said. "That's quite a stretch to impose that duty on her."

He called the case against Ms. Newkirk an "aggressive prosecution."

"The father's the one the law should be holding responsible,"
he said.

Mr. Reffner was charged, but he pleaded guilty to a lesser
charge -- reckless endangerment. He was offered probation
to testify against Ms. Newkirk. The prosecution, however,
never called Mr. Reffner to the stand. Mr. Gorman said his
testimony wasn't necessary.

As for the plea agreement, the district attorney said he
wasn't sure a jury would have convicted him.

"I'm not saying in any way, shape or form Mr. Reffner isn't
culpable," the prosecutor said. "I think there was an issue
as to whether a jury would have returned a guilty verdict on [him]."

But Kirk Henderson, an assistant public defender for Allegheny
County, said that's not a valid justification for the lesser
charge.

"A parent has the ultimate responsibility," he said.

Under the current case law, charging Ms. Newkirk should have
come down to whether she was aware of the duty to the child, Mr.
Henderson said. He didn't buy the district attorney's argument
that Ms. Newkirk recognized her duty when she returned Hunter
to his father the first time.

"I don't think that one time, telling a child what to do
invests that person with responsibility," Mr. Henderson said.

"People have their own choices they have to live with, but
that doesn't make it criminal."

Mr. Beyer agrees.

"The jury wanted someone to pay for this little boy," he said.
"I can understand from a moral perspective, we all think
something different should have happened here. That doesn't
mean she's guilty of a crime."


(Paula Reed Ward can be reached at or
412-263-1601.)
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm

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

"Harry K" wrote in message oups.com...

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.

As mentioned in the article, the state in which this happened has
no "good samaritan" law. She was not obligated to protect
anyone.

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.
At the point she returned the child to Dad the first time, she had
already gone above and beyond any requirement to protect the child.
The fact that the Dad let the child return to the dangerous situation
puts the blame squarely on his shoulders.

In article , Abe says...

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.
At the point she returned the child to Dad the first time, she had
already gone above and beyond any requirement to protect the child.
The fact that the Dad let the child return to the dangerous situation
puts the blame squarely on his shoulders.


The (somewhat ironically named) Good Samaritan principal in law holds that
individuals are *not* obliged to help others, unless there is a special
relationship, such as parent to child and spouse to spouse.

(This is different from Good Samaritan Laws, which hold that a person who does
volunteer to help is protected from legal action should there be a problem, as
long as the volunteer does not go beyond their training and usually there is a
'reasonable person' standard.)

Most probably this will be overturned on appeal.

Banty

"I think anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Certainly this DA is a complete moron, as is anyone who expects someone
who can't even swim to jump into a rain swollen creek to try to save
someone. This lady can be faulted for not doing the right thing by
taking the child back to his father the second time, or at least
keeping him away from the creek. However, I don't see where legally
she did anything wrong. She was not in charge of the kid, the father
was. I would almost guarantee this conviction will be overturned on
appeal. But it just shows you what hell some ass of a DA can put you
through, using public money. By the time it's over, you will be
broke and have your reputation ruined.

Banty wrote:
In article , Abe says...

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.
At the point she returned the child to Dad the first time, she had
already gone above and beyond any requirement to protect the child.
The fact that the Dad let the child return to the dangerous situation
puts the blame squarely on his shoulders.

The (somewhat ironically named) Good Samaritan principal in law holds that
individuals are *not* obliged to help others, unless there is a special
relationship, such as parent to child and spouse to spouse.

(This is different from Good Samaritan Laws, which hold that a person who does
volunteer to help is protected from legal action should there be a problem, as
long as the volunteer does not go beyond their training and usually there is a
'reasonable person' standard.)

Most probably this will be overturned on appeal.

The thing that I don't get about this case is that everything I've ever
learned about rescue is that you *don't* put yourself into a situation
where you could be fatally harmed in addition to the original victim,
because you're just making more trouble for professional rescuers.

Until this case happened, I would have been surprised if even a parent
was penalized for not jumping in to save a child when the parent
couldn't swim and the stream was in flood stage, making it extremely
likely that the parent would be killed along with the child. I could
see charges against the parent for letting the child fall in in the
first place, but not for not jumping in to render a probably futile and
potentially fatal attempt at assistance.

I mean, I'd do it if it were my child without thought, but I'm not even
sure it's the rational thing to do, just the only thing I could do
emotionally. I can't see how having the adult die along with the child
would improve matters.

Beth

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:21:08 -0400, someone wrote:

Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk
watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.

She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters
after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.

The little boy died.

If she had gone in, there would probably have been two dead. A guy
just died here, diving in after a 7 year old. The kid died too.
Usually the rescuer can't get the kid, and can't save his/her own life
either. There should not be any duty for a third party to sacrifice
their own life like that.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:
In article , Abe says...

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.
At the point she returned the child to Dad the first time, she had
already gone above and beyond any requirement to protect the child.
The fact that the Dad let the child return to the dangerous situation
puts the blame squarely on his shoulders.

The (somewhat ironically named) Good Samaritan principal in law holds that
individuals are *not* obliged to help others, unless there is a special
relationship, such as parent to child and spouse to spouse.

(This is different from Good Samaritan Laws, which hold that a person who does
volunteer to help is protected from legal action should there be a problem, as
long as the volunteer does not go beyond their training and usually there is a
'reasonable person' standard.)

Most probably this will be overturned on appeal.

The thing that I don't get about this case is that everything I've ever
learned about rescue is that you *don't* put yourself into a situation
where you could be fatally harmed in addition to the original victim,
because you're just making more trouble for professional rescuers

Oh absolutely.

Imagine if the law required all witnesses on the interstate to stop and try to
help if they see a rollover. The chaos at the scene, the jammed highway.
Imagine if you had the responsibility to determine that each panhandler you pass
really *is* starving or about to freeze.

The law, with few exeptions (taxes being one, certain special relationships
being another) does not put affirmative responsibilites on individuals. It's an
untenable requirement.


Until this case happened, I would have been surprised if even a parent
was penalized for not jumping in to save a child when the parent
couldn't swim and the stream was in flood stage, making it extremely
likely that the parent would be killed along with the child. I could
see charges against the parent for letting the child fall in in the
first place, but not for not jumping in to render a probably futile and
potentially fatal attempt at assistance.

I don't know what specifics would be decided - but a parent would be required to
take whatever steps they could. Parents do have affirmative responsibilites to
their children.


I mean, I'd do it if it were my child without thought, but I'm not even
sure it's the rational thing to do, just the only thing I could do
emotionally. I can't see how having the adult die along with the child
would improve matters.

Leaving the whole question of the unrelated woman aside (that will be
overturned), for the parent, it's an awful situation where one doesn't know what
would create the optimal outcome. Other than that it's a fairly good guideline
that professional help should be sent for first. And to be grateful that in
our society any particular individual would only rarely have to make those
decisions.

Banty

Banty wrote:

I don't know what specifics would be decided - but a parent would be required to
take whatever steps they could. Parents do have affirmative responsibilites to
their children.

I'm not arguing that, they clearly do. However, I'd think there'd be
some limits to what the law would require even of a parent. If rescue
attempt is extremely likely to be fatal to the parent and extremely
unlikely to offer benefit to the child, i.e. the child's life is most
likely not preservable, I'd think it wrong for the law to require the
parent to act. I don't know what the law does think though.

In point of fact most of us who have kids would do it anyway, becase a)
we'd be moving before all of this logical cost/benefit analysis could
take place and b) the emotional burden of having let a child perish
while staying inactive would be crushing, even if it was the logical
decision. I'd just think it would be wrong for a failure to do so to
be prosecutable (again, in the situation I described where the rescue
attempt is probably both futile and extremely dangerous, not in normal
situations).

As described, child in raging flood waters and adult who can't swim,
I'd say a requirement for even a parent to act would be overboard.

Leaving the whole question of the unrelated woman aside (that will be
overturned), for the parent, it's an awful situation where one doesn't know what
would create the optimal outcome. Other than that it's a fairly good guideline
that professional help should be sent for first. And to be grateful that in
our society any particular individual would only rarely have to make those
decisions.

For sure.

Beth

wrote in message
oups.com...

Banty wrote:
In article , Abe says...

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.
At the point she returned the child to Dad the first time, she had
already gone above and beyond any requirement to protect the child.
The fact that the Dad let the child return to the dangerous situation
puts the blame squarely on his shoulders.

The (somewhat ironically named) Good Samaritan principal in law holds
that
individuals are *not* obliged to help others, unless there is a special
relationship, such as parent to child and spouse to spouse.

(This is different from Good Samaritan Laws, which hold that a person who
does
volunteer to help is protected from legal action should there be a
problem, as
long as the volunteer does not go beyond their training and usually there
is a
'reasonable person' standard.)

Most probably this will be overturned on appeal.

The thing that I don't get about this case is that everything I've ever
learned about rescue is that you *don't* put yourself into a situation
where you could be fatally harmed in addition to the original victim,
because you're just making more trouble for professional rescuers.


That's certainly what the American Red Cross teaches.

Until this case happened, I would have been surprised if even a parent
was penalized for not jumping in to save a child when the parent
couldn't swim and the stream was in flood stage, making it extremely
likely that the parent would be killed along with the child. I could
see charges against the parent for letting the child fall in in the
first place, but not for not jumping in to render a probably futile and
potentially fatal attempt at assistance.

I mean, I'd do it if it were my child without thought, but I'm not even
sure it's the rational thing to do, just the only thing I could do
emotionally. I can't see how having the adult die along with the child
would improve matters.

Beth

wrote:

As described, child in raging flood waters and adult who can't swim,
I'd say a requirement for even a parent to act would be overboard.

Sorry to follow up to myself, but just wanted to amplify. I mean a
requirement for the parent to act *by jumping in* would be overboard.
Obviously a parent has an obligation to do whatever is possible to save
the child by summoning help, trying to reach the child from the
riverbank, throwing something that will float to the child, wading in
if possible, etc. Just not hurling one's non-swimming self into a
river.

Beth

On 13 Oct 2005 05:53:26 -0700, wrote:

"I think anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Certainly this DA is a complete moron, as is anyone who expects someone
who can't even swim to jump into a rain swollen creek to try to save
someone. This lady can be faulted for not doing the right thing by
taking the child back to his father the second time, or at least
keeping him away from the creek. However, I don't see where legally
she did anything wrong. She was not in charge of the kid, the father
was. I would almost guarantee this conviction will be overturned on
appeal. But it just shows you what hell some ass of a DA can put you
through, using public money. By the time it's over, you will be
broke and have your reputation ruined.


As Robert Blake said - "You'fre innocent until proven broke."

wrote in message
ups.com...
"I think anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Certainly this DA is a complete moron, as is anyone who expects
someone
who can't even swim to jump into a rain swollen creek to try to save
someone. This lady can be faulted for not doing the right thing by
taking the child back to his father the second time, or at least
keeping him away from the creek. However, I don't see where legally
she did anything wrong. She was not in charge of the kid, the
father
was. I would almost guarantee this conviction will be overturned on
appeal. But it just shows you what hell some ass of a DA can put
you
through, using public money. By the time it's over, you will be
broke and have your reputation ruined.

or you sue.

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.

"Karen Preston" wrote in message ...
Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk
watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.

She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters
after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.

The little boy died.

(snip)

On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought
torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms.
Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his
2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer
in Claysburg, Blair County.

(snip)

I don't want to get into a debate, but I did want to point out that
according to the news article Ms. Newkirk was a friend of the boy's
father, so she was not a complete stranger. Perhaps the father saw his
son rejoin Ms. Newkirk and expected she would either watch him or bring
him back.

annette

wrote in message oups.com...

I don't want to get into a debate, but I did want to point out that
according to the news article Ms. Newkirk was a friend of the boy's
father, so she was not a complete stranger. Perhaps the father saw his
son rejoin Ms. Newkirk and expected she would either watch him or bring
him back.

She had ALREADY brought the kid back to his father once,
and had ALREADY warned him of the dangerous water.

Keep tabs on this case, her conviction will be overturned on
appeal. You can count on CourtTV/Fox News/MSNBC
jumping on her like some kind of monster.

Keep tabs on this case, her conviction will be overturned on
appeal. You can count on CourtTV/Fox News/MSNBC
jumping on her like some kind of monster.
Yeah, Nancy DISGrace will call for her hanging, I'm sure.

wrote:
Banty wrote:
In article , Abe says...

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.
At the point she returned the child to Dad the first time, she had
already gone above and beyond any requirement to protect the child.
The fact that the Dad let the child return to the dangerous situation
puts the blame squarely on his shoulders.

The (somewhat ironically named) Good Samaritan principal in law holds that
individuals are *not* obliged to help others, unless there is a special
relationship, such as parent to child and spouse to spouse.

(This is different from Good Samaritan Laws, which hold that a person who does
volunteer to help is protected from legal action should there be a problem, as
long as the volunteer does not go beyond their training and usually there is a
'reasonable person' standard.)

Most probably this will be overturned on appeal.

The thing that I don't get about this case is that everything I've ever
learned about rescue is that you *don't* put yourself into a situation
where you could be fatally harmed in addition to the original victim,
because you're just making more trouble for professional rescuers.

Until this case happened, I would have been surprised if even a parent
was penalized for not jumping in to save a child when the parent
couldn't swim and the stream was in flood stage, making it extremely
likely that the parent would be killed along with the child. I could
see charges against the parent for letting the child fall in in the
first place, but not for not jumping in to render a probably futile and
potentially fatal attempt at assistance.

I mean, I'd do it if it were my child without thought, but I'm not even
sure it's the rational thing to do, just the only thing I could do
emotionally. I can't see how having the adult die along with the child
would improve matters.

Beth

I was wondering if I had misread the OP. Nope. It is not clear at all
just what she was convicted of: Failure to keep the boy from falling
in? I suspect so. For not jumping in? I don't think so. Reading the
article, all the bits about jumping in are in opinions from the defense
attorney, the prosecutor and others. There is nothing at all saying
just what the charge was but it appears to be failing to exercise due
care. There I say she is guilty. Same as someone seeing a toddler
weaving his way into traffic and does nothing about it.

Harry K

And the USA is not responsible to bring "democracy" to Iraq.

Don't complain about the splinter in your neighbor's eye when there is a log
in your own eye.

"And the USA is not responsible to bring "democracy" to Iraq. "

I think, like just about everybody else, I fail to see the connection
here.

Then perhaps you should look closer. Or, think about it a bit more.

wrote in message
ups.com...
"And the USA is not responsible to bring "democracy" to Iraq. "

I think, like just about everybody else, I fail to see the connection
here.

"She had no legal duty to go in and save this child," Mr. Beyer
said. "If a person is not a parent or guardian, then they owe
no duty to that child."

But Blair County District Attorney Dave Gorman said she was,
at that moment, the child's guardian.

"Common sense dictates someone in that close proximity to a
child is obligated to do something," Mr. Gorman said. "I think
anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Both the defense and prosecution agree that Mr. Reffner never
specifically asked Ms. Newkirk to watch his son. But the
district attorney doesn't think that matters.

"If she didn't believe she had a legal duty, then why did she
pull the kid back the first time?" Mr. Gorman asked.


Does Mr. Gorman truly believe that the ONLY reason a person would help
another human being is that she thought she had a LEGAL DUTY to do so?
Sheesh, what a sad world Mr. Gorman lives in. I believe it was proper for
Ms. Newkirk to pull the boy away from the water. If she chose not to risk
her own life saving the little boy later when he fell in, that reasonable
decision should not be a criminal matter.

This decision sets a dangerous precedence. If any child dies anywhere,
there had better not be any adults within a 200 mile radius of them when it
happens. If so, ALL those adults are going to jail!!! -Dave

As mentioned in the article, the state in which this happened has
no "good samaritan" law. She was not obligated to protect
anyone.

As I understand the "good samaritan" law, it is mainly to protect "good
samaritans". That is, the law is worded to the effect that if you
reasonably act to try to save someone's life, the person you tried to save
(or their relatives) can't sue you later.

She was not obligated to protect anyone, but that has nothing to do with any
good samaritan law, or lack thereof. -Dave

The thing that I don't get about this case is that everything I've ever
learned about rescue is that you *don't* put yourself into a situation
where you could be fatally harmed in addition to the original victim,
because you're just making more trouble for professional rescuers.


BINGO! If you don't know how to swim, don't jump in the water to try to
save somebody. -Dave

"Robert J." wrote in message
news:ggT3f.247667$084.7642@attbi_s22...
Then perhaps you should look closer. Or, think about it a bit more.


Robert does have a good point. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, could the Iraqi
people have sued us for not invading? Even worse, could the whole country
(USA) have gone to jail for failure to act? -Dave

"Then perhaps you should look closer. Or, think about it a bit more. "


Yeah, thanks for explaining your well thought out reasoning. I get it
now. Your one of those guys, where if a child dies and someone is
wrongly prosecuted, it;s linked to Iraq. If the price of oil goes up,
it's linked to Iraq. If it rains tomorrow, it's linked to Iraq.






wrote in message

In article ws.net,
Mike T. wrote:
As mentioned in the article, the state in which this happened has
no "good samaritan" law. She was not obligated to protect
anyone.
As I understand the "good samaritan" law, it is mainly to protect "good
samaritans". That is, the law is worded to the effect that if you
reasonably act to try to save someone's life, the person you tried to save
(or their relatives) can't sue you later.
She was not obligated to protect anyone, but that has nothing to do with any
good samaritan law, or lack thereof. -Dave

For years most places had "good samaritan" laws which protect people
who attempt to give aid in an emergency; ie you shouldn't be punished
for trying to be a good samaritan, even if things don't work out.

Much more recently some places have enacted laws which compel
bystanders to provide aid to crime/accident victims if they can safely
do so; ie you can be punished for not being a good samaritan. The
final Seinfeld arc was based on these laws. Many of these laws sprung
from a 1997 case in Nevada when David Cash walked in on a sexual
assault of a 9 year old girl and just walked right back out, choosing
to not get involved.

Unfortunately, the second type of laws are usually also referred to as
"good samaritan" laws so now the phrase is ambiguous. The initial
article seems to be using it to refer to the new laws.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY

wrote:
Mike Foss wrote:
Well said. Parents are responsible for their minor children, not
complete strangers.

[snip]
I don't want to get into a debate, but I did want to point out that
according to the news article Ms. Newkirk was a friend of the boy's
father, so she was not a complete stranger. Perhaps the father saw his
son rejoin Ms. Newkirk and expected she would either watch him or bring
him back.

I think he was wrong to assume that, and I think parents often wrongly
assume, sometimes with tragic results, that either their kid won't
wander into harm's way or that someone will prevent the worst from
happening.

But, that said, I can't fathom how this situation came about( and the
description of both the incident and the case were inadequate.)

They came there for the father to do repair work -- a task that
presumably would preoccupy him to the point where he couldn't watch an
active toddler. (A point driven home when she brought the child back
after he followed her to the river).

But even if she hadn't expected to babysit, and was angry that her
friend expected her to, why would she return to the river, knowing that
it fascinated the boy and that his father was preoccupied? If the
father was indeed her friend, why would she want to jeopardize her
friend's kid's well-being?

That's the behavior I think most people would have trouble with -- not
with her failing to sacrifice herself in a doomed rescue attempt.

Lori G.
Milwaukee, WI

I believe if I were in that situation, I would have sacrificed my life if
it had to be that way to save the child. If I did not know how to swim,
and I knew that I could perhaps jump in and throw the child up on the bank
even if I knew beforehand that I would die, I would have done it.

Then maybe the child would have been shocked enough to cry loudly and
attract attention or crawl and climb away. A childs life is worth so much
more than an adults. A lot of adults today are self-centered, vain, all
about myself type people that would watch the little baby drown and say; I
might die if I try to save the child, so I will just let the baby die.

Deep down it is not self preservation, it is cowardice. A childs
existence on this earth is delicate at best in many circumstances and they
rely on us to protect and save them from the hazards that await them. We
know the dangers, but they do not. We should step up and do what many of
them want us to do as their little lives are slipping away and they do not
understand the pain and sudden, unexpected horror that is overtaking them.
We should sacrifice ourselves if need be.

Whether or not the child is yours that is dying should not matter. Every
child is precious, they all belong to someone. Just because their parents
may not should have ever had children and put them in danger or the
situation they find themselves in happens to be a true, unavoidable
accident is not the childs fault.

What I am trying to say is, don't worry about your own life when a little
precious, innocent, life is slipping away. Do what needs to be done and if
both of you die in the process, it was worth it to try. The baby wanted
you to try.

Alt

"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote in message
ink.net...
I believe if I were in that situation, I would have sacrificed my life if
it had to be that way to save the child. If I did not know how to swim,
and I knew that I could perhaps jump in and throw the child up on the bank
even if I knew beforehand that I would die, I would have done it.

Then maybe the child would have been shocked enough to cry loudly and
attract attention or crawl and climb away. A child's life is worth so much
more than an adults. A lot of adults today are self-centered, vain, all
about myself type people that would watch the little baby drown and say; I
might die if I try to save the child, so I will just let the baby die.

Deep down it is not self preservation, it is cowardice. A child's
existence on this earth is delicate at best in many circumstances and they
rely on us to protect and save them from the hazards that await them. We
know the dangers, but they do not. We should step up and do what many of
them want us to do as their little lives are slipping away and they do not
understand the pain and sudden, unexpected horror that is overtaking them.
We should sacrifice ourselves if need be.

Whether or not the child is yours that is dying should not matter. Every
child is precious, they all belong to someone. Just because their parents
may not should have ever had children and put them in danger or the
situation they find themselves in happens to be a true, unavoidable
accident is not the child's fault.

What I am trying to say is, don't worry about your own life when a little
precious, innocent, life is slipping away. Do what needs to be done and if
both of you die in the process, it was worth it to try. The baby wanted
you to try.

Alt



Well, Altie, that sounds like conventional wisdom and probably would have
occurred decades ago without a thought, a camera, a news story or a lawsuit,
but today we live in the MTV generation where babies are such horrendous
inconveniences that they must be disposed of at the earliest possible time,
preferably before they even get to experience any life. Daily this occurs by
the thousands and to those much more helpless than a two year old; and
it is such a big business that people fight and argue over the right to dispose
of them. So what's the big deal about a two year old? He got to live longer
than millions do and for that you should be grateful. I'm inclined to believe
that all the talk about valuing children is nothing but a big lie, and the evidence
for that is amply demonstrated by the millions of lives that are thoughtlessly
snuffed out and the little kids that are abused daily. Five years ago the stats
were 1:4 for little girls and 1:5 for little boys. That's a huge majority of American
children that are abused daily! Every three minutes in the USA, some child is
being abused. Perhaps this case is simply another little boy saved from a live of abuse?
To most people, children are merely things to be used and abused at will.

There was a time in this country when your neighbor would discipline your children
in your absence and then inform you. Today you would be sued and deprived of
your family and home if you look cross-eyed at some one else's child. It used to
be that teachers could discipline misbehaving children, now they cannot. It used
to be ... a semi-civil society, now it's the culture of death and you must conduct an
international meeting before you can correct a child. It's the result of the "if it feels
good, do it" philosophy. It's the result of what passes for "choice", it's the result
of selfishness and hatred for children. Children are supposed to do whatever they
want, when they want, how they want because that absence of control over them
allows them to flourish and grow...and sometimes fall in the river and drown. No
biggie. They're just animals, aren't they? Animals are worth more than children
and so don't worry about a slip-and-fall case where the slip is into a raging river.

"Helen" wrote in message ...

"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote in message
ink.net...
I believe if I were in that situation, I would have sacrificed my life

Hey it's a free country.

Natural selection hard at work.

The Iraq war has EVERYTHING to do with oil.

On the one hand, some people think this woman was not obliged to help the
child. The same people, however, think going to the other side of the world
to start a war against a country that never attacked us, is just dandy.
Hypocritical.

Hope that clears it up for you.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Then perhaps you should look closer. Or, think about it a bit more. "


Yeah, thanks for explaining your well thought out reasoning. I get it
now. Your one of those guys, where if a child dies and someone is
wrongly prosecuted, it;s linked to Iraq. If the price of oil goes up,
it's linked to Iraq. If it rains tomorrow, it's linked to Iraq.






wrote in message

Precisely.

During the Raygun-Bosch years they almost built enough jails for that! We
have more people locked up than Stalin did.

"Mike T." wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Robert J." wrote in message
news:ggT3f.247667$084.7642@attbi_s22...
Then perhaps you should look closer. Or, think about it a bit more.


Robert does have a good point. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, could the Iraqi
people have sued us for not invading? Even worse, could the whole country
(USA) have gone to jail for failure to act? -Dave

I have to believe this story is either false, or mis-reported.

"Robert J." wrote:

I have to believe this story is either false, or mis-reported.

I have heard through another group that the father was underneath a
car working on it at the time.


grandma Rosalie

"What I am trying to say is, don't worry about your own life when a
little
precious, innocent, life is slipping away. Do what needs to be done and
if
both of you die in the process, it was worth it to try. The baby
wanted
you to try. "

Are you for real? Maybe YOU want to throw away your life in a futile
attempt to save a child. But most reasonable people would not. The
track record of people unskilled in rescue jumping into deep water to
save someone else is not a very poor one. Many times both wind up
drowning. And here you have a lady that could not even swim, and you
think she should have jumped into a rain swollen creek and just thrown
the child to shore? How realistic is that? Have you ever seen a rain
swollen creek, how fast the current moves and how chaotic it is?

Like most people, if I have a shot at saving a person, with reasonable
risk to myself, I would do it. But I don't make a big distinction
because it's a child. Nor would I knowingly sacrifice my own life in a
foolish rescue attempt which is only likely to result in two people
winding up dead or perhaps putting even more lives in jeopardy as
rescue workers now have to try to save two people, instead on one.

You are assuming that your life or my life have no purpose or value
and that the child's life is more valuable. I do not feel that my
life is less important that a child's life (except my own child of
course). If I am a parent and die while trying to rescue a child, who
will there be now to take care of my children? Are my children not
just as important as a non-related child that I should selfishly
sacrifice my life (possibly in vain)?

"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:

I believe if I were in that situation, I would have sacrificed my life if
it had to be that way to save the child. If I did not know how to swim,
and I knew that I could perhaps jump in and throw the child up on the bank
even if I knew beforehand that I would die, I would have done it.

Then maybe the child would have been shocked enough to cry loudly and
attract attention or crawl and climb away. A childs life is worth so much
more than an adults. A lot of adults today are self-centered, vain, all
about myself type people that would watch the little baby drown and say; I
might die if I try to save the child, so I will just let the baby die.

Deep down it is not self preservation, it is cowardice. A childs
existence on this earth is delicate at best in many circumstances and they
rely on us to protect and save them from the hazards that await them. We
know the dangers, but they do not. We should step up and do what many of
them want us to do as their little lives are slipping away and they do not
understand the pain and sudden, unexpected horror that is overtaking them.
We should sacrifice ourselves if need be.

Whether or not the child is yours that is dying should not matter. Every
child is precious, they all belong to someone. Just because their parents
may not should have ever had children and put them in danger or the
situation they find themselves in happens to be a true, unavoidable
accident is not the childs fault.

What I am trying to say is, don't worry about your own life when a little
precious, innocent, life is slipping away. Do what needs to be done and if
both of you die in the process, it was worth it to try. The baby wanted
you to try.

Alt


grandma Rosalie

Well, it MAY be true, but I've found that when something sounds this absurd,
it ain't.

Robert J. D. Rossett, M.D., Ph.D., D.D.R, P.E., Esq.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
"Robert J." wrote:

I have to believe this story is either false, or mis-reported.

I have heard through another group that the father was underneath a
car working on it at the time.


grandma Rosalie

In article , Rosalie B. says...

"Robert J." wrote:

I have to believe this story is either false, or mis-reported.

I have heard through another group that the father was underneath a
car working on it at the time.


grandma Rosalie

Sounds like a case of - if more than one person is watching a child, *no one* is
really watching the child. Because each tends to assume the other is.

Also, it may be a case of the unspoken presumption that, because a person of the
non-dangling genetalia type is present, automatically said person becomes the
local childminder. If ya know what I mean. He may have assumed she'd watch the
child closely, without acutally making any such arrangement.

Banty