GA - Suspicion over heat death of Cooper, 22 mo., Cobb County, June 2014, #5

Status
Not open for further replies.

belimom

Speak the truth even if your voice shakes~M.Kuhn
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
10,571
Reaction score
86
Georgia toddler's death -- first blamed on heat -- is ongoing probe, police say

(CNN)
-- It was a tragedy from the outset: a toddler found dead apparently after being left alone for hours in a hot car, a distraught father blaming himself and facing serious criminal charges.

Now, Cobb County, Georgia, police imply there is more -- much more -- to the story.

"Much has changed about the circumstances leading up to the death of this 22-month-old since it was first reported," Cobb County Police Sgt. Dana Pierce told CNN. He would not elaborate, citing an ongoing investigation, but his words made it clear this was not just another case of a young life left and lost to heat exposure in a hot car.

"I've been in law enforcement for 34 years. What I know about this case shocks my conscience as a police officer, a father and a grandfather," said Pierce.

140620201004-nr-brooke-mom-lost-kid-in-hot-car-00004516-story-body.jpg




More at http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/21/us/toddler-car-death-probe/?sr=google_news
 
Good Morning Everyone. Seems you all had a busy night, early morning.

Please read the following:

"POWER POSTING" where one responds over and over to every post with little time in between and always to drive a single point home is a violation of etiquette, as is stating unknowns as knowns, or stating them as fact. If you state a fact, you need a link. Power Posting is very disruptive on the thread and it's not allowed.

If it is determined that a member is power posting in a thread, they will be asked to leave the thread. If the member chooses not to leave the thread, TOs will be issued.

"GANGING UP ON OTHER MEMBERS" is not allowed. If you disagree with something, but your only comment is to tell another they are wrong, then don't post it. Just scroll. Everyone gets their own opinion. If you must respond, then post the link that refutes their statement and MOVE ON. Members that participate in ganging up will be issued TOs. This is bullying guys, and it's not tolerated here.

Please read your post before hitting reply. If your post is personal to someone else, don't post it.

Salem
 
Mom is considered a victim here unless you have a link from LE/MSM saying otherwise. She can be discussed in the context of what she has said in the media and in the warrants.

Please post accordingly.

Salem
 
For me it is about intention. That has to be proven to me before I am convicting him of anything.
 
De ja vu?

May 28, 2014 mother in Tuscaloosa Alabama, cleared in the death of her daughter who was left in a hot SUV in July 2013...

"Investigators have said Luong and her husband had been trying to have a baby for years and were very distraught when they were brought in for questioning by police."

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20140528/NEWS/140529724


“I had an uneasy feeling,” she said. “I told my mom I felt like something was going to happen.”*
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-of-children-left-to-die-in-boiling-vehicles/
 
I understand your point scarlett, but that is not the way the law is written in GA.

have a good night guys, my spot is marked on this new thread so I can catch up. Don't you guys dare fill up a whole thread before I get back!
 
For me it is about intention. That has to be proven to me before I am convicting him of anything.

You don't have to prove intention for the charges against him. It's not legally about intention right now.

If you were on that jury, you would not be considering intention.
 
So when he pulls into the space, his 2 yr old is SILENT? Not a peep out of him that whole time?

This is one of the things that leads me to believe that he didn't "forget" Cooper was in the car.

It's been reported how Cooper would call out "Bye red car - bye red truck" during trips in the car. I find it hard to believe that he was completely silent during the ride from the restaurant to RH's work. I also find it difficult to believe that RH "forgot" to drop Cooper off at daycare during that very brief span of time.

I really want to give RH the benefit of the doubt, but these are some of the reasons why I can't at this point.

If information comes out that outweighs the current information, I'll have no problem backtracking.
 
For me it is about intention. That has to be proven to me before I am convicting him of anything.


let's say a child tragically "accidentally" died after drowning or ingesting poison.

If that child's parents told police

"well golly gee, we were JUST researching 'how long does a child have to stay under water before they drown?"

or

"well golly gee, we were JUST researching 'how much poison does it take to kill a child?"

We would all be screaming for their heads.

Cooper died in a hot car and his parents allegedly told police:

well golly gee, we were JUST researching what temperatures and amount of time in a hot car can lead to a child's death.


IMO, this is very damning evidence and given any other scenario, nobody would question it shows intent.
 
You don't have to prove intention for the charges against him. It's not legally about intention right now.

If you were on that jury, you would not be considering intention.

You may not, But for me, In the case if I was on the jury, It would matter to me a great deal.
 
You don't have to prove intention for the charges against him. It's not legally about intention right now.

If you were on that jury, you would not be considering intention.

Blue, then why go to trial? Sincerely, I really mean that. Why bother with a trial if everything needed to send him for life in prison/death penalty is already fully known and agreed to by all parties?

He's already admitted he left his baby in the car all day in the heat, and now the baby has died.

Those facts are not in question, at all, and if all you need are those facts everyone would agree he's guilty as charged.

But that's why we have juries. So they can look at it and see mitigating factors. He has not pled guilty to the crime - but has in fact, agreed that he's guilty of the very minimal tenets of the crime he's being charged with.

This is where juries come in. And sometimes, they go all the way to a "jury pardon" - meaning yes he's guilty as charged but due to the circumstances shouldn't be punished to that degree.

Whether they admit it or not, jurors if this comes to trial will be considering intent.
 
De ja vu?

May 28, 2014 mother in Tuscaloosa Alabama, cleared in the death of her daughter who was left in a hot SUV in July 2013...

"Investigators have said Luong and her husband had been trying to have a baby for years and were very distraught when they were brought in for questioning by police."

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20140528/NEWS/140529724


“I had an uneasy feeling,” she said. “I told my mom I felt like something was going to happen.”*
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-of-children-left-to-die-in-boiling-vehicles/

“I want to tell everybody that I wish I was in that car seat, not her,” the weeping 31-year-old mother tells AL.com/The Birmingham News. “If I had to die for her to live, I would have done that.”

This is a very different response we got from Cooper's ...family. (I want to attribute, but am following tos)
 
De ja vu?

May 28, 2014 mother in Tuscaloosa Alabama, cleared in the death of her daughter who was left in a hot SUV in July 2013...

"Investigators have said Luong and her husband had been trying to have a baby for years and were very distraught when they were brought in for questioning by police."

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20140528/NEWS/140529724


“I had an uneasy feeling,” she said. “I told my mom I felt like something was going to happen.”*
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-of-children-left-to-die-in-boiling-vehicles/


This case was in Birmingham, AL, and this mother was not charged.
 
Blue, then why go to trial? Sincerely, I really mean that. Why bother with a trial if everything needed to send him for life in prison/death penalty is already fully known and agreed to by all parties?

He's already admitted he left his baby in the car all day in the heat, and now the baby has died.

Those facts are not in question, at all, and if all you need are those facts everyone would agree he's guilty as charged.

But that's why we have juries. So they can look at it and see mitigating factors. He has not pled guilty to the crime - but has in fact, agreed that he's guilty of the very minimal tenets of the crime he's being charged with.

This is where juries come in. And sometimes, they go all the way to a "jury pardon" - meaning yes he's guilty as charged but due to the circumstances shouldn't be punished to that degree.

Whether they admit it or not, jurors if this comes to trial will be considering intent.


IMO the charges are brilliant.

No motive or premeditation is required for conviction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ScarlettScarpetta

Sure. I have had 3 kids. Sometimes just putting them in the car after eating sends them into lala land. Some kids nap at that time of day.

Kids are not always making noise.


At 9 am? A 2 yr old is going to instantly fall asleep, within minutes, at 9 am? I wish my toddlers had done that. They would never fall asleep at 9 am.
 
Blue, then why go to trial? Sincerely, I really mean that. Why bother with a trial if everything needed to send him for life in prison/death penalty is already fully known and agreed to by all parties?

He's already admitted he left his baby in the car all day in the heat, and now the baby has died.

Those facts are not in question, at all, and if all you need are those facts everyone would agree he's guilty as charged.

But that's why we have juries. So they can look at it and see mitigating factors. He has not pled guilty to the crime - but has in fact, agreed that he's guilty of the very minimal tenets of the crime he's being charged with.

This is where juries come in. And sometimes, they go all the way to a "jury pardon" - meaning yes he's guilty as charged but due to the circumstances shouldn't be punished to that degree.

Whether they admit it or not, jurors if this comes to trial will be considering intent.

He admitted he left the child there, but obviously believes that he did not do so negligently. HE questions the facts. HE does not agree with the charges. There is a trial if he doesn't agree with the charges. It's simple, why is that even a question.

We know why there is a trial, he plead not guilty. The same exact reason there is always a trial. Why is that fact even a debate?
 
IMO the charges are brilliant.

No motive or premeditation is required for conviction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The charges are certainly effective in being able to put someone away who had no intent of harming his child! I don't think that's "brilliant" I think that's horrific. That someone could be sent to death for a crime the legal system doesn't think they intended to happen.

In my opinion, honestly, to be convicted of a crime it should have to be proven there's intent.

Isn't that what all this hubub is about on this board with this sad case? Those who firmly believe it was his INTENT to harm that child?

So why not make that a part of this criminal prosecution process? PROVE intent - or at least make it a requirement of the charge.

I also don't celebrate when people are used as "examples", of when prosecutors purposely charge someone with the MOST they think they can "make stick" and so there's bargaining room. I think people should be charged fairly, for what they did, and not more than that.
 
From the other thread (now closed) - You said you could forget things in a manner of seconds. You also said you had 3 kids. Could you forget your kids in a manner of seconds? As the Mom of 2 boys, I never, ever could. Not in a few seconds, not if we drove for 12 hours straight. Not even when they are with their Dad and not in my physical custody (I wake up from naps in a panic, looking for them!) As other parents have posted, they have forgotten their kids in the car for minutes, not 7 hours or even 3 hours! That's just irresponsible, especially when your child is a toddler who can't fend for him/herself!

That is you. I know people who have left their children at home, in a car, At school..
We are parents we are not perfect.

I have put water on the stove to boil and forgotten in seconds because I am distracted by something.
I have been mothering for 24 years, I have forgotten my child was in the back of my car. I did not leave her in there because she then called my name but I forgot all about her being there.

IT is possible. I think people who think it is not possible, Are just kidding themselves. Anything is possible.

I just need to see something that proves intention.
 
Blue, then why go to trial? Sincerely, I really mean that. Why bother with a trial if everything needed to send him for life in prison/death penalty is already fully known and agreed to by all parties?

He's already admitted he left his baby in the car all day in the heat, and now the baby has died.

Those facts are not in question, at all, and if all you need are those facts everyone would agree he's guilty as charged.

But that's why we have juries. So they can look at it and see mitigating factors. He has not plead guilty to the crime - but has in fact, agreed that he's guilty of the very minimal tenets of the crime he's being charged with.

This is where juries come in. And sometimes, they go all the way to a "jury pardon" - meaning yes he's guilty as charged but due to the circumstances shouldn't be punished to that degree.

Whether they admit it or not, jurors if this comes to trial will be considering intent.

He admitted he left the child there, but obviously believes that he did not do so negligently. HE questions the facts. HE does not agree with the charges. There is a trial if he doesn't agree with the charges. It's simple, why is that even a question.

We know why there is a trial, he plead not guilty. The same exact reason there is always a trial. Why is that fact even a debate?

The jury will NOT be considering intent to look at these charges. Intent is NOT part of these charges. If they go in there and debate about intent, they are not correctly looking at the charges. The judge will carefully give them instructions on what factors to debate here.

ETA: I feel like you are really going in circles with this. There is a trail, because he did not plead guilty. PERIOD. There is not a trial, because the prosecution doesn't believe the facts. Come one now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
2,208
Total visitors
2,394

Forum statistics

Threads
589,954
Messages
17,928,223
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top