Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, he left the AC on and checked on the child periodically, much UNLIKE the other two fathers in the news (Georgia and Connecticut) who "forgot" to drop their kids off at daycare, leading to two deaths.
He's not heartless, he's just not too bright, but he tried to do the best he could I guess. I wouldn't put this guy in the monster category like some people.
I would like to know more about the child becoming lethargic around 2 pm. Could it be that there were no windows open a crack and carbon monoxide was filling up in the car ... even though he had the AC on?
Well, he left the AC on and checked on the child periodically, much UNLIKE the other two fathers in the news (Georgia and Connecticut) who "forgot" to drop their kids off at daycare, leading to two deaths.
He's not heartless, he's just not too bright, but he tried to do the best he could I guess. I wouldn't put this guy in the monster category like some people.
I would like to know more about the child becoming lethargic around 2 pm. Could it be that there were no windows open a crack and carbon monoxide was filling up in the car ... even though he had the AC on?
He turned off the AC later on to protect the car.
Quote:
"Two hours later, he told police he checked on the baby, who was OK, but told
police he didn't think it was good for the car's engine to be running for an extended period of time.
According to court paperwork,
"He believed the car was cool enough for the child. Brokale left his son
inside the car, windows rolled up and doors locked, returning to work."
"
How does this situation translate to "business owners out here who overwork and underpay their employees?" For your underpay comment, he said he couldn't find a sitter, not that he couldn't afford one. For your overwork comment, he was going to work at 9:00 AM, which is a typical start time for a day shift. I could see this complaint, if, for instance, the father was summoned to work overtime in the middle of the night with a "You better show up NOW or you're fired!" from a pushy employer and he ended up bringing the baby along because he didn't know what else to do. From the known details about this instance, you cannot place blame on the employer or employers in general.
He had made $90,000 so far that year (it was September). He could afford it.
It is not an issue of human nature. We are not animals who go in to estrus and have no control over our base emotions and behavior. It is an issue of values and integrity. Choosing to have a child or not based upon the type of life they will have.
It is painfully obvious that people like Brokale and anyone else who have children they cannot care for properly, are incapable of having any decent values or integrity. Case closed. It's not a money issue either. If you BOTHER marrying your baby mama, and living a good, decent life, there are usually responsible adults around to care for your children when you cannot. Most likely all of Brokale's family members are doing hard time in the slammer or under the influence of drugs.
Makes me sick.
20yrsinBranson
It's not quite as easy as "then don't have kids" like many posters are writing. It's not "Simple! Case closed!"
It is indeed an issue of human nature.
For example, please explain all the people literally starving to death that reproduce constantly in third-world countries or famine stricken regions. If anyone should choose not to have kids, it would be them living under those conditions.
Why do they "choose to have children?" I cannot even figure out how they have the energy or desire to spend their time having sex instead of looking for food or doing something productive if they are starving to death in the first place.
Are they really CHOOSING to have kids or is the sex drive actually that strong for us humans (yes, just like animals that go into estrus) that they cannot "control their behavior" even when they know without a doubt any kids that are born will most likely suffer brutally and then die young?
Then we get treated to watching all those sad TV commercials about these children who are facing starvation and disease and how ___ number of children die every single day. Why are they shooting out babies like mad and nobody condemns them like this stupid guy is getting? Political "incorrectness"?
As for the "excuse" of lack of birth control, that is only a legitimate excuse in tribes that are cut off from the rest of civilization and have no government or humanitarian aid at all, as birth control programs are one of the main things humanitarian aid organizations teach about and give out for free to anyone who wants it (with the exception of organizations that are against birth control, such as Catholic ones).
Anyway, regardless of the availability of artificial birth control methods, ABSTINENCE happens to be the most foolproof one of all and would be practiced by "rational" people who are starving to death if they didn't want to bring children into this world to suffer.
But we know that doesn't happen as the numbers of children (and their deaths) expand constantly in these regions.
The sex drive is a strong part of human nature. People will "do it" against all odds, regardless of the consequences of bringing a child into this world to suffer.
People are people and people in first world countries are the same and will have sex and gamble on conceiving a child that is not wanted and will not be taken care of properly. Look at all the kids in this country abused and neglected because two people couldn't help having sex. Look at all the abortions. If it "wasn't human nature" there wouldn't be any reason for them.
Last edited by I_Love_LI_but; 08-24-2014 at 01:47 PM..
Seems he also had a few McDollars burning a hole in his pocket as well.
Right now, the state rewards people for reproducing that which they cannot afford.
Yup, seems like something could go wrong with that as well. Oh yea, they are reproducing at the fastest rate of all! Expect plenty more stories like this to follow America.
Very true with the Welfare State in America and in other developed countries. Irresponsible reproduction assures being taken care of by the daddy government.
Yet even in famine stricken, war torn, third world countries when there is no financial "reward" and just the spectre of producing children to suffer horribly and then die, people who are literally STARVING TO DEATH and DYING OF DISEASES are still having sex and reproducing!
Well, I have lost a job because I could not get a babysitter. While it is sad that this man felt he probably had no choice in the matter, you simply cannot leave a child in the car while you work, even if it was mild weather, it doesn't matter. A 1 year old, if not overheated, could choke on something or who knows what else.
I'm guessing that this man (I hope) was going to have someone come by at a later time to pick up the child (I'm sure, I hope, this was not an 8 hour deal), but it really was not an option.
Well, what did you dare have children for if you couldn't afford them and cannot take proper care of them? (NOTE: Not serious, just SARCASM depicting the opinion of many people in this thread.)
However, the fact remains that people will continue having sex and sex can lead to children. Good luck changing human nature. Might be kind of difficult.
It's true! To complicate matters further, all birth control has a percentage for FAILURE. None of it is 100% except either ABSTINENCE or STERILIZATION.
So, in conclusion, to live up to Reverend Falwell, Jr.'s post, people who cannot take care of kids should just not have sex, period! Shouldn't that be very easy to do? Reverend Falwell, Jr. thinks reproduction IS NOT HUMAN NATURE!
So let's get back on track in context to the OP's (313Weather) concerns and the subforum. 313Weather's point has been that this is the employer's fault for making the father work. I would like to learn more about 313Weather's thought process and see whether other people agree or disagree.
See my post above. I vote to exonerate the employer (and all employers) in this case!
I'd be fine if that stopped as well. At the same time I think some things should be tolerated. Leaving a kid in a car - no. Leaving them alone at home - I can't see why that should be illegal. You gotta give people some opportunity to go to work.
I cannot agree with that.
What if there's a fire, for instance?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg in objections to leaving kids home alone ... especially an infant or toddler!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(NOTE: Not serious, just SARCASM depicting the opinion of many people in this thread.)
