The girl who was run over

[XanBcoo]

How is this a hard concept to understand? No one is saying that the drivers are not to blame

I'm not saying you are.

But shifting any blame whatsoever to the parents is hardcore victim blaming, especially given the information we have at hand. Which is none. You have no idea at all of the events leading up to the video. To make any assumption about the parents is ridiculous.

And yes, several people have either directly stated or implied that the parents were irresponsible and therefor culpable or complicit in the running over of their daughter by 2 separate vans. I'm here to tell you that that is a wrong opinion.

Right now - unless they themselves ran over their daughter - they carry no blame or responsibility whatsoever. Please read Kraco's post again:

I'd bet it's statistically safe to say that most cases where a kid is temporarily separated from the parent(s) end up having no dire consequences. It actually happens all the time. Just listen to people reminiscing their early childhood and you will eventually hear stories of how horrible it is to notice your mommy isn't anymore standing next to you. Most cases are much shorter than the one in this video, but on the other hand getting into a traffic accident doesn't take more than a fleeting moment.

[shinta|hikari]

I explicitly said that the parents were not at fault.

I just think that leaving a 2 year old unsupervised on the road for more than a few seconds is careless, that is assuming that there were no extenuating circumstances that caused it. If we get more info showing that there was a valid reason why the parents left their child wandering like that, then I would gladly take back what I said about them being careless.

@Kraco - I think statistics on safety depend on the place. I can definitely say that leaving a toddler unsupervised for a few minutes on the urban roads of my country will almost surely cause severe injury or death. Traffic laws hardly matter here.

[XanBcoo]

I just think that leaving a 2 year old unsupervised on the road for more than a few seconds is careless

If we get more info showing that there was a valid reason why the parents left their child wandering like that, then I would gladly take back what I said about them being careless.

Ok, serious question then. Why are you insisting on using language that places the parents in an agentive role? Why are you assuming they were complicit in having their child run over?

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.

Edit: And of course bearing mind that a human child is not a goddamn plant. Seriously Lucifus...

[Lucifus]

Traffic laws hardly matter here.

This holds true for China, especially with the influx of new drivers on their new road infrastructure who believe the roads to be a massive free for all.

Edit @ above: Are you seriously trying to take every word literally? I don't believe or equate the value of a human life to a plant. I was trying to break things down for you, since you have difficulty understanding. Otherwise, there must be some deep miscommunication here.

What are you trying to argue? That the parents hold zero responsibility whatsoever, and should hold no guilt?

Please clarify this in your next post, because I truly find myself unable to follow your reasoning.

Oh god lord, why are you so stuck on these wikipedia syndromes? Do you think we (or maybe just me?) are that uneducated/inexperienced in life?

If I wanted to become a victim blamer XanBcoo, here's what I'd do.

That stupid little girl deserved it, she ran into the vehicle on its own territory. What right had she to be on the road? She deserved to have her bones crushed and bleed out without a soul to help her. Stupid little brat. I feel sorry for the truck drivers who had their lifes ruined by the careless actions of this little girl.

You need to remember, that this innocent, guiltless two year old child is the true victim here. I understand that the parents are victims as well, but to a lesser extent, and you can be damn well sure that they're feeling the guilt for not being with their daughter at the moment of the accident.

Yes, the parents are not guilty for the majority of the fault (according to the little information we have, and assumptions made - and pray tell Mr. Bcoo, there is no other accessible information that I know of. Of course assumptions are being made, but I think you need to relearn the definition of Assumption) whatsoever in the fact that their child was run over.

They are guilty of leaving their child outside of their immediate care. Not of getting in a van and running over their daughter. How much of this neglect was factored into the occurrence of the accident, I have no idea. That is up for people with more information to decide.

You also seem to misunderstand, that at least in my case (I can't speak for others, though I am somewhat certain they share this point of view), the parents are not the root cause or even a significant cause of what happened to their child, but they do hold a percentage of responsibility. Ask them yourself if they feel guilt; they probably (another assumption, woe is me!) feel even more guilty than they actually should.

I am merely saying, at this point with the information that I have, that they shoulder at least a small percentage of the burden (for not having been watching their daughter, though for all I know, the mother could have been just a few feet away sitting down with no idea her daughter had been run over), despite not having anything to do directly with the accident.


Edit 2: BETTER QUESTION. This should help me understand your point of view.

XanBcoo, let me propose a hypothetical situation for you. Say you had a daughter, and you took her out shopping with you. You get a phone call, and it starts going on for longer than you had expected. You sit down, and get into a deep conversation and your daughter wanders off without your knowledge, or even worse, you tell her to go play outside. Stay by the window. Regardless, you don't see your daughter get run over because you were too sucked in to your conversation.

Would you feel guilt? And do you think you should rightly feel guilt?

The same situation could be applied to your driving. Say this occurs, or you have some sort of lapse in focus while driving. An accident occurs, should you feel at least partially guilty for what has happened?

[Animeniax]

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.

If I see a 2 year old child wandering about with no supervision, pancaked or not, I'm thinking she has some shitty parents or something is seriously wrong.

I think I've figured out the confusion here. Xan sees the parents as party to the victim in this tragedy. Some others, including myself, see only the child as the victim, both of asshole drivers and lack of parental/guardian supervision. I don't see how people can separate a 2 year old from her parents as far as legal or moral separateness, like she's an individual with her own agency, but if that's how you roll, good luck raising your own kids.

The fact remains that the child was left unattended, opening her up to all sorts of dangers. And when speaking of a 2 year old, her parents are very much to blame for her being left unattended.

[XanBcoo]

So you both believe that the child is its own, independent entity.

But you also believe that the child is not its own, independent entity.

So the little girl is considered to be grouped under the parents until something outside of their control goes wrong, and only then are the parents removed from the equation.

...Kay.

[Lucifus]

What?

Please, please. Expand. I feel that whatever is going on here is due to miscommunication.

Otherwise, you truly are 'In my own little world'.

Edit: Ah, did not see Ani's post sandwiched in-between.

[Animeniax]

So you both believe that the child is its own, independent entity.

But you also believe that the child is not its own, independent entity.

The child became its own independent entity when its parents left it to nature and providence. Unfortunately providence cursed the child with shitty parents, and nature eats its own young. Prior to that, a child is its parents.

And replying to Kraco's quote:

I'd bet it's statistically safe to say that most cases where a kid is temporarily separated from the parent(s) end up having no dire consequences. It actually happens all the time. Just listen to people reminiscing their early childhood and you will eventually hear stories of how horrible it is to notice your mommy isn't anymore standing next to you. Most cases are much shorter than the one in this video, but on the other hand getting into a traffic accident doesn't take more than a fleeting moment.

No 2 year old remembers shit about being 2. This one, if she lives, won't even remember getting run over, much less that mommy wasn't next to her.

[Carnage]

I'm not saying you are.

To make any assumption about the parents is ridiculous.

No its not, because I dont see any parent outside with the child. Based on the fact that I dont see any parent outside within a radius of a few feet, its safe to assume the parent was not outside (unless invisiblity superpowers). In the best case scenario, they were right by the door. So no, its not ridiculous to assume they werent close enough to the child.

Right now - unless they themselves ran over their daughter - they carry no blame or responsibility whatsoever. Please read Kraco's post again:

Statistics are conditional. If for a majority of the time children are left unattended within then household or even the same room, then yes, most of the time its reasonable to assume nothing will happen if they are within eyesight. However this was outside the home, and the child was literally outside. You want to tell me its unlikely for something bad to happen to an unattended 2 year old walking out on the street? Parents should have the sense to know that this is a bad idea, hence why they are partially, even if only a little, at fault. I do feel very bad for them, and they are victims as well. But I have to blame them a little under these basic assumptions/circumstances.

[Animeniax]

What?

Please, please. Expand. I feel that whatever is going on here is due to miscommunication.

He's saying that I'm arguing on one hand that the child and parents are one (thus the parents are responsible for the child), and on the other hand they are separate since the child is victim and the parents are not. I'm saying it's two stages. The child and parent are one until the parents show complete and utter disregard for the child and let it come to harm, as which point the they are separated because one is the victim and the other is party to the offender.

[shinta|hikari]

Ok, serious question then. Why are you insisting on using language that places the parents in an agentive role? Why are you assuming they were complicit in having their child run over?

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.

This is where you misunderstood me. The parents were not complicit in having the child run over. They were only at fault for leaving her unsupervised. Leaving a child unsupervised for me is already a mistake, considering where the child was at that time, even if she did not get run over. That is where the parents' responsibility ends.

If she returned happy after her solo trip, I would still be just as pissed at her parents for leaving her alone.

[Lucifus]

Just in case you he doesn't follow, perhaps you should italicize the 'for leaving her alone' part.

I am not saying they are responsible for their daughter being run over. They are responsible for leaving her unsupervised, which in turn results in the possibility of their daugther being run over. Once again, I ask. What are you saying?

[Dark Dragon]

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.

That's a ridiculous assumption. EVEN if the little girl had NOT been run over, their parenting SHOULD be called into question. I don't know how you deal with the children in your family, but i watch over my little cousins like a hawk if we ever go out together.

It's common sense, children are very curious and most often get themselves into dangerous situation. It is the adult job to be responsible and keep watch over them. The fact that it took them as long as they did to get to the child (much less than i initially thought) means that she wander far enough from them that they couldn't respond immediately when something happened. That's a far cry from letting her play within your sight and keeping one eye on her.

[darkshadow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...soYWwJA#t=381s

[Animeniax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...soYWwJA#t=381s

Watch the episode of Louis where he berates a parent for getting physical with his teenage son (episode is called "Bully"). Apparently he has different views on parenting for different comedy routines.

And again, there is a big difference between a 2 year old and a child who is old enough to ask annoying questions.

So the little girl is considered to be grouped under the parents until something outside of their control goes wrong, and only then are the parents removed from the equation.

...Kay.

Monitoring and supervision of your 2 year old child is not "outside of their control". The parents are never out of the equation; they just get moved to the other side with the other people who should be held accountable for what happened to the 2 year old.

[Lucifus]

The child has died. For anyone who actually still cares.
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-toddle...020238365.html

[Assertn]

I blame video games.

[rockmanj]

I saw that she died...what a sad story. I do not want to get into this debate, but I will say that although accidents happen, there are a number of people at fault.

[Kraco]

And replying to Kraco's quote: No 2 year old remembers shit about being 2. This one, if she lives, won't even remember getting run over, much less that mommy wasn't next to her.

Catching the point as splendidly as only Ani can. It doesn't matter if it's 2, 3, or 4 - all of them will panic sooner or later when they notice they can't see their mom (or dad) anywhere.

However this was outside the home, and the child was literally outside. You want to tell me its unlikely for something bad to happen to an unattended 2 year old walking out on the street? Parents should have the sense to know that this is a bad idea, hence why they are partially, even if only a little, at fault. I do feel very bad for them, and they are victims as well. But I have to blame them a little under these basic assumptions/circumstances.

Nah, and I won't even deny that if you push a kid out of the airlock in space, something bad will happen. Mentioning particularly the street is irrelevant. Especially since the video showed some bloody backalley or whatever, certainly not a proper street with cars driving 40-50 km/h. So, for all we know, the kid might have escaped from indoors. In any case, if we start from the Western tradition of assuming not guilty unless proven otherwise, then it's plausible to assume the parents didn't let the kid to wander the street alone. She simply ended up there in some manner that will remain unexplained forever. Just like a few people here claim the parents did too little to ensure she was safe, it's also possible to claim somebody else did too much to make it possible she wasn't. Like open a door the parents thought would remain locked.

Still, I admit there's a reasonable chance the mother will bear real responsibility by having been negligent. We will never know.

[Animeniax]

Catching the point as splendidly as only Ani can. It doesn't matter if it's 2, 3, or 4 - all of them will panic sooner or later when they notice they can't see their mom (or dad) anywhere.

A lot of cognitive development occurs between the ages of 2-4, so there is a huge difference between the minds of a 2 year old and their 4 year old self. The 2 year old might not even know who her mother is, or that she's been left to her own devices on in the middle of a busy back road.