@white_swan53 Said 
Generally when a minor is involved in a crime it is a kept pretty quite and very few if any details are made available to the public . The fact that this doesn't seem to be the case here , both reports have details and information about all three minors directly involved , the 18 month old victim, the 5 year old , and the 16 year old care taker . Reporting on the little girls 'confession' , the teenagers mental health issues . While saying a bare minimum about the adults . Except for to give the baby's fathers name and mention he's asking for donations on his facebook account .
The 5 year old obviously knew that putting the baby into and holding him under the water would 'shut him up'
But a five year old doesn't have the capability mentally to understand that it would forever and permanently shut him up. I can't imagine a five year old have the capacity to 'hate' or be angry enough think in terms killing forever another human .
But names aren't released of the minors. Sure the circumstances are shared but not more. And as someone who worked with law enforcement, it's obvious they're not going into details when they can't talk about it.
Law enforcement only job is to uphold the law. Whatever opinion they have on the case shouldn't be part of how they charge someone because that would make things biased.
I'm not saying the 5 girl should go to jail. I have never said that. Nor have I said that 5 year old knew the full amount of what "death" is. You can read that in my previous posts.
What I said is that the girl had enough knowledge to do what she did and that is being taken into consideration.
And again if you read the article. Law enforcement themselves said that they are handing the case over to prosecutors to see if charges against the girl will be carried forward or not. Law enforcement has has nothing to do with that. But the circumstances around the death of the boy is implicit enough to single out the girl. It was clearly not a mistake because the girl knew that it would "shut the boy up," - she may not understand more than that, but for what she did understand, it was enough to treat the case as a homicide on part of the little girl. Again, the article only is telling you how the CASE is being handled. A homicide.
It hasn't really gone into detail of what the actual charges are or WHO it is applied to, but it does make clear that the little girl COULD have charges pressed against her.
Plus this is only one article. It's bad to condemn a whole slew of people when we don't have all the facts or know the situation intimately.
I was only was speaking about the 5 year old girl and why it seems logical that charges COULD be brought against her because that is what the ARTICLE was talking about. Just because I haven't commented on the other circumstance of of the situation doesn't mean I'm excusing it. It would irresponsible for me to comment when I don't have any more than a two line blurb telling me what that situation entailed.
I don't know why people are jumping on my case. The only thing regarding the parents and the babysitter that i have commented on is that there is nothing else is in the article because law enforcement probably can't talk about it.
I don't know how that gets turned to meaning that law enforcement are in the wrong here.
You seem to be forgetting what law enforcement's role is. They are not the prosecutors, or the jury, or the judge, or the medical examiner. Their only job is to investigate the case and press charges.
The article hasn't explicitly stated that it's charging the five year, nor does it go into detail of of who it is charging or WHAT any of the charges are, so that doesn't mean charges against the parents or baby sitter hasn't be brought up.
The only thing the article state was that they were treating the case as a homicide. And homicide has a direct definition to it, and the 5 year old girl is more directly tied to that definition than the baby-sitter, however that doesn't mean that the baby-sitter won't be charged for it.
There isn't enough information, so excuse me for ONLY talking about the information that WAS provided.
Jun 10, 2011 @ 13:13:32
