Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

"Charged for pool death of toddler"

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by grue, Jul 5, 2012.

  1. So because this lady failed as a parent, this guy is now in trouble? What a load of bullshit.

    If you don't want your crotchfruit to drown in a stranger's pool, supervise the kid and don't let it near pools.

     
     Top
  2. That's not the issue; there is no law saying you have to watch your child 24/7, even though you should, but there IS a law saying you must fence your pool. The poor lady will be suffering for her inattention for the rest of her life, but the guy should have had his pool fenced so HER inattention did not result in her child's death.
     
     Top
  3. One big can of worms, yes according to the LAW a fence should have been erected. I feel for the lost child and the pool owner, the mother well ? not so much.

    I see this everyday, with kids / parents [ its ok someone else will stop my kids before they get into trouble ]

    My 'nuff nuff son in law too be recently broke his ankle ... How ? by jumping off a 2nd floor balcony, when asked why, I got the reply well I had done it 3 times already and it was fun !
    So you didn't think that maybe you had been lucky 3 times ?
    um nope .. but isn't my cast cool ?
    Lets see how cool it is when you tell your boss you cant work for 6 weeks and you cant pay your rent ect !
    Oh I didn't think off that !!

    Society is becoming a "it will be alright" mentality, some else will watch out for me.
     
     Top

  4. It's a stupid fuсking law. It's his property, his pool, and should be his choice. Once again the state is telling people how to live their lives and spend their money.
     
     Top
  5. how is it a stupid law if it saves one little life :? :?

    you obviously don't have children......
     
     Top
  6. I neither have nor want them. If I want to show off to the world that I've had sex I'll just tape it some time. Less stress, less expensive.

    as for why it's a stupid law? Because it's the government telling someone what to do with their own property, which I am not OK with. Worse yet, it's forcing someone to spend money on something he doesn't want, and shouldn't be required to have.

    Know what could have saved that little life? Its mother not being a failure.

    Know what would save a lot MORE than one life? Banning alcohol and tobacco. Or banning motorcycles. Or skydiving. Or knives in the home. Bathtubs. Food that must be chewed. tree nuts. strawberries. But those would be stupid laws, too.

    Not everyone can be saved, and they shouldn't be even if they could.
     
     Top
  7. I'm going to fence sit on this one.
     
     Top
  8. [​IMG]
     
     Top
  9. With this attitude your argument is invalid
     
     Top
  10. You're welcome to your beliefs on the matter. I disagree but would defend to my death your right to have them. The government, by the way, does not feel you have a right to them.

    I would rather have the occasional sad death than more government regulation of private property and behaviour. This is already one of the most pussified risk-adverse nations of general cowardice, must we make it more so?

    If a person wants to do something that does not affect the life, liberty or property of someone else, the government should have no say in the matter.

    Someone will invariably say "Oh but it DID affect the life of someone else!", and I point out that the kid was trespassing, and if the kid hadn't been trespassing he'd still be alive. Was the kid too young to understand property rights? Absolutely. That's why the mother is the one SOLELY responsible for the child's death.

    If the kid had been there with permission and the property owner knowingly left the kid unsupervised, I would say he's absolutely responsible and should be charged with criminal negligence. But since that isn't the case, it's moot.

    This law is not substantially different from one saying that I have to, out of my own pocket, install locks on any drawers that contain sharp objects, and get a big safe to keep my wickedly sharp kitchen knives in.
     
     Top
  11. not to mention being both offensive and obscene...
     
     Top
  12. Then you have a choice to make:

    You could be like the government, decide that adults cannot be trusted to make their own decisions regarding what they find acceptable to read and see, and ban or censor me.

    You could be what passes for a man these days and put me on ignore.

    Or, and this is a crazy idea, and you could be an adult and try and take the emotional value of a dead child out of the argument and look at it based purely on logic. I'm not asking you to agree with me, because I respect your right to choose what to believe, but simply to look at my side of the argument. Do I jump to wild ends to try and show how I feel? Sure, but that's just how I am. Look at the core of my point of view: I don't think the law is just, and I think someone is now very likely going to prison for something that shouldn't be his problem. This person's going to prison isn't going to bring the kid back, and it's not likely to save any lives in the future. It's a pointless expenditure of taxpayer money to try and assuage the feelings of a parent and make her feel like it wasn't her fault… when it was.


    (Or I guess you could just ignore the thread)
     
     Top
  13. I wonder what the pool owner himself thinks about his decision to not install a pool fence? Having seen his neighbour's child die, does he still think it's an unjust law?
     
     Top
  14. He's always been allowed to, if he so decided.
     
     Top
  15. Not sure how old the pool is, but when we got ours build we had to get all that fencing installed with the pool or we couldn't get the permit. So either this is an old pre-regulation pool or he's taken it down. He shouldn't be held responsible if it's the former.
     
     Top
  16. More info here. There was a fence but it wasn't adequately maintained.

     
     Top
  17. "a matter of seconds"

    2 year olds must be a lot quicker now than they were when I was one.
     
     Top
  18. I am on some acreage and have a pool that is fenced by regulation, but also have 2 dams that are not fenced that are just as close to the house as the pool is that do not need to be fenced.

    Great government beaurocracy and reguation at work.
     
     Top
  19. I don't think you can take the emotionality out of this sort of situation when a child is involved.

    Two year old's can, and do, disappear within seconds - anyone who's had one knows that. I'm sure the mother didn't just abdicate her responsibilities and playing the blame game doesn't help anyone at this point.
     
     Top
  20. Yeh there is some grey area with old pools. I have an old pool with no fence and I'm pretty sure at some point it was legal now I think it may be illegal. I think the regs are per council. When I was trying to find out the rules the one part that was clear as day was that if your pool can be accessed by public without gates (as in your house as no fence or side gate so anyone can get in without breaking and entering etc) then you need a fence. That sounds like it was the case in this article. I think that's pretty fair.

    I will put up a regulation fence when eventually redo the yard and pool area, even if I don't have to because I don't want that bs looming over my head.
     
     Top