Plan B Forum

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:26 pm**

Conn. boy killed helping dad with wood chipper
April 10, 2012
by CBNews.com

(CBS/AP) SALEM, Conn. - Connecticut state police say a 6-year-old boy has died in a wood chipper accident while helping his father on a landscaping job during school vacation week.

Lt. J. Paul Vance says Jeffrey Bourgeois was putting a branch into the chipper Tuesday morning in Salem when it pulled him into the machine after his father turned his back for a moment. Vance says Jeffrey had gone to work with his father and two older siblings.

The boy's father runs a Salem landscaping business and was doing a job when the accident happened shortly before 9 a.m. Jeffrey was pronounced dead at the scene.

CBS affiliate WFSB reports neighbor and Salem Fire Chief Gene Mairorano said "basically we're getting counseling for the family. I was first on the scene and kept everyone away."
According to the station, state police have launched an investigation into the accident but it is not criminal.

It pisses me off when cops play lawyer.

I know how devastating this incident was, but still, I'd charge the father with criminal endangerment - assuming CT has a statute similar to Montana's.

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:37 pm**

I figger he is now serving a life sentence...

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:47 pm**

You know, that's always the excuse for going easy on parents who kill their kids through nothing but their own neglect. People need to learn that parenting does not carry any rights whatsoever, only responsibilities, and if it takes throwing a few idiots in prison to teach that lesson, then so be it.

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:53 pm**

Is his guilt sufficient justice for the victims?

Imagine how this boy experienced the final moment of consciousness. Imagine the trauma experienced by the brothers who were eyewitnesses. Imagine the lifetime of nightmares his mother will endure.

Only a shockingly careless parent would EVER turn his/her back on a small child in close proximity to heavy machinery, much less a WOOD CHIPPER.

If this family were poor or brown, DFS would have removed the other two kids before the sun had set that day.

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:02 pm**

That child should have been nowhere near a wood chipper. If the father was letting him use it, he is directly responsible for his child's death.

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:32 pm**

Well there's 3 we only need 9 more...

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:55 pm**

bigskygal wrote:Is his guilt sufficient justice for the victims?

Imagine how this boy experienced the final moment of consciousness. Imagine the trauma experienced by the brothers who were eyewitnesses. Imagine the lifetime of nightmares his mother will endure.

Only a shockingly careless parent would EVER turn his/her back on a small child in close proximity to heavy machinery, much less a WOOD CHIPPER.

If this family were poor or brown, DFS would have removed the other two kids before the sun had set that day.

Have you EVER been on a working farm? Children will be operating tractors as soon as they are tall enough to reach the pedals. My uncle learned to run a bulldozer before he was eight & a Farmall before he was ten. He learned to use a chainsaw when he was nine, though he couldn't use it alone until he was 12 (and had grown enough to be able to pull-start it when it stalled).

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:58 pm**

And if they aren't being properly supervised their parents should face the consequences when they injure or kill themselves. So your point was...

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:11 am**

I grew up across the street from my uncle's working farm and my cousins did such chores at early ages - however, the developmental differences between a 6 and 8 or 9 year old are pretty vast. Additionally, kids in most middle class families stay stupid longer these days - 'coddling' is the norm.

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:15 am**

Oh please! Wrap them all in bubble wrap, if they get out throw the parents in jail.

Put em on swing they fall off Jail!

Ride a bike fall down Jail!

Dude will never get past it, bet ya'll can...

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:19 am**

It's disingenuous to conflate a swing or bicycle with a WOOD CHIPPER.

Dontcha think?

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:20 am**

Wrapping a kid in bubble wrap is child abuse.

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:25 am**

bigskygal wrote:It's disingenuous to conflate a swing or bicycle with a WOOD CHIPPER.

Dontcha think?

It's disingenuous to think about JUSTICE when some guy is burying his son because of a moment he can never take back.

But hey I'm not a lawyer what do I know?

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:26 am**

Joe Guy wrote:Wrapping a kid in bubble wrap is child abuse.

Yeah but in a perfect world nobody gets hurt...

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:37 am**

I agree that the father who lost his son will be punished enough because he will have to live with his tragic mistake for the rest of his life.

But what if the child was not his?

How do we draw the legal line?

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:38 am**

Was the child NOT his?

Are we talking about this situation or is there another I'm not aware of?

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:07 am**

Apparently you missed the part of my post relating to the legal question.

Should it be legal to be negligent enough to cause your own son's death but illegal to do exactly the same thing to cause another person's child's death?

If so, why?

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:08 am**

We have a case where dad drove drunk and killed his kid. Some folks say he shouldn't be prosecuted because his child's death is punishment enough. We have another where man drives drunk, wrecks and is paralyzed. Some folks say he shouldn't be prosecuted because his paralysis is punishment enough.

I think the cases are comparable because they also involve criminal negligence.

What is the message this approach would send except; if you do enough damage to yourself or others, you get a free pass on your criminal act?

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:14 am**

The cases are not the same.

So hop on over to CT tell em they're backwards show em how it should be done and put him in the can.

I'm comfortable with the outcome for THIS situation.

Posted: **Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:19 am**

keld feldspar wrote:The cases are not the same.

So, do you believe that a father should not be punished for the same exact act of negligence that causes any child's death, regardless of relationship?

The only difference is the relationship between the negligent adult and the child, so I guess the guy shouldn't be punished in either case, right?

Plan B Forum

Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?

Re: Tragic & totally avoidable - criminally negligent?