Posted on 11/01/2012 1:25:42 PM PDT by Red Badger
Hmm.
Say there was a natural disaster and you had family members who could not fend for themselves and depended on you for survival.
Say the natural disaster was just beginning and you had no idea how things would turn out.
Then say that a random stranger showed up at your doorstep and said: "You don't know me, but I have two small kids and they were swept away into the flood. I'm not out there swimming in the flood looking for them right now, because I was hoping you would do that for me instead. So, do me a favor and abandon your family in the iddle of this disaster and go take care of my family now, please."
Then say that you decided from now on to stop posting without thinking.
I put the HTML code in there. Sorry...
BTW, this story stinks to high heaven IMHO...
I know for a fact what was reported in the article. If it is in error, then your problem is with the reporter.
"But we do know that your post was yet another gratuitous knock on New Yorkers- motivated, I'm sure, by a deep sense of charity."
Actually, it was motivated by a deep sympathy for the mother and the children, who I suspect are also New Yorkers.
This will unravel as soon as the cops begin to ask some questions, like “which house was it?”. What did they look like, etc....
Not the most rotten person in the world would do this, and yes, a person would wonder if they were criminally liable for their safety.
That said, my deepest condolences and thoughts regarding the two children. And unless the woman actually murdered the children, my heart goes out to her too, because losing a child by stupidity or negligence would be a guilt that nobody could bear. May God be holding these children now, and may they be free of pain for eternity.
Before you indict anyone, it might be a good idea to get the facts in the incident.
The reporter, if reliable, can only report the portion of the story that they can attribute.
It is up to the reader to use critical thinking when reading the article.
Yes, she "saw nothing wrong with it." How virtuous. She did resist the idea that there was such a notion as a "moral duty," however, particularly when it conflicted with one's self interest.
I wonder why the woman waited so long to evacuate? The storm surge was already there if a wave knocked her car off the road and another wave took the boys.
Moore knocked on a man’s door for help but he said no and turned her away?...
What was his name?
In other words, that is what the "the grandfather" was told by the mother.
So, if we are to believe the family, the mother spent the entire night through the storm on a doorstep, rather than turning back to look for her children.
That, in itself, is curious.
I'd like to know more.
There is no law requiring people to help others unless they are docs and nurses.
The original story that was reported the other day was that this woman drove her car or SUV through a flooded section of roadway and it crapped out on her. Considering that a big portion of Staten Island is part of the "Flood Zone A" area that was subject to evacuation orders even before the storm began, I'm wondering if she tried to leave her home long after the storm surge had already inundated the area.
So the reporter and the woman who lost two kids are lying?
There is no law requiring people to help others unless they are docs and nurses. And that is only for helath care, not to take people in or resue them from waters. No one is required to put their life on the line for others.
Yet
Yes, you are correct that I should have read more than just this one article.
If the situation were as listed in this one, where the woman asked for help and was turned away with her children, then I would still say that the person who turned them away was wrong.
I know if it were me and I answered the door and a woman with two small children were needing my help I would give it. My family would make sure of that.
I’ll hold judgement until all the facts are out.
I believe the legal term for that is “depraved indifference.”
I'm not going to sit here and call her "Susan Smith," but there's something about this particular story that simply doesn't make sense -- especially in the context of the previous reports about what happened to her kids.
Did she knock on the door at GWB’s house?
just kidding. . .
I see your point, but as I said I’ll keep up with the story and see what comes out before I give my opinion again.
What ever the case may be, those two children are dead and that is horrific. I pray for the souls of those who died in this storm.
The reporter can only relay what is learned from people who claim to have first hand knowledge.
If that information is inaccurate, that is not necessarily the reporter's fault, nor is the reporter lying.
The woman's story is, when you examine what we have told, very strange.
Is she lying? Not necessarily.
When I am told that a woman put her two kids on the roof of a car that had already been swamped by waves, that the kids unsurprisingly were swept away by another wave, that the mother went looking for help rather than go in after them, that she was denied help and decided to sit on a doorstep all night rather than go in after them, well - I feel like I need more details before I say that someone definitely refused a desperate woman help. Especially when I learn that the man being accused was sheltering various neighbors from the storm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.