• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Little sis distracts you from video games? Kill her.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
her209 said:
Hmmm didn't think it was legal to show pictures of minors.
Click to expand...

It is perfectly legal to show pictures of minors. Contrary to popular belief, minors share no extra expectation of privacy. Victims of crime often do (such as possibly the 9 month old here)- but those are special cases.

Essentially, if you are in public and are doing public things - you can photograph anybody at all. The controversy is always when it comes to using a "likeness" for commercial purposes. If you publish the photograph as part of something in which you benefit - than you have violated that persons right of publicity, and they can sue you for it. Just like a copyright holder has the right to control the way his/her brand is represented, the person being photographed has the right to control his/her likeness if used commercially. Most often a person is paid and a model release (liability release actually) is obtained.

Editorial use is far more protected and is considered "news". This teen's apparent mugshot is most definitely editorial use.

Paparazzi get away with the crap they pull because they only produce the image, which is perfectly legal. They are not the publisher, who is the entity liable for any damages to the photographee concerning their right of publicity. And the TMZ's of this world tread on a really thin line where their rags are considered "newspapers" thus enjoy the same editorial privilege.
 
maziwanka said:
really sad.

skull fracturing sounds suspicious, but I'm not a doctor and I don't know whether shaking can cause that
Click to expand...

If he was shaking her and the head was hitting the wall, or threw her on the ground or the infant fell after being shaking and hit the ground that could do it.
 
Sluggo said:
I think the shaking is out of sheer frustration, the rest is science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome
Click to expand...

Yep.

Its so common, that hospitals now show mothers and accompanying dads a video called "purple crying" that drills the message into your head: "if you're are becoming overwhelmed/frustrated with the baby's crying, put the baby down in the crib or pack and play, and walk away from the room". Its not just adults that do this, there have been a lot of cases where older siblings have done it (like the OP's article) without realizing how much damage it causes to infants.
 
Must have been playing Demon's Souls.

Really sad though. That's devastating. Hope that little shit never sees the light of day again.
 
khon said:
No way that's first degree murder.

Obviously no pre-meditation here, and I very much doubt he even intended to kill her. Plus this is no adult, just a 13-year old kid.

Sounds like a frustated teenager who didn't know what he was doing, and tragic accidental death. Maybe you charge him with manslaughter, but certainly no more than that.
Click to expand...

I could agree with that.

As someone who has cared for younger siblings, this kid is a fucking idiot.
 
slayer202 said:
I was going to get pissed until I read




Sounds like the shaking excuse might have been BS.
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia article on Shaken Baby Syndrome:

Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a form of child abuse that is diagnosed from a triad of symptoms: subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage, and brain swelling. In a majority of cases there is no visible sign of external trauma.
SBS is often fatal and can cause severe brain damage, resulting in lifelong disability.
Click to expand...
The characteristic injuries associated with SBS include retinal hemorrhages, multiple fractures of the long bones, and subdural hematomas (bleeding in the brain).
Click to expand...
 
Wingznut said:
I wonder where mom and dad were.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Let's leave our 9 month old daughter with this big fat loser son of ours who just sits around all day playing video games and eating cheetos...what could go wrong? 🙄

Edit-I also don't think the kid should be charged with murder.
 
santz said:
if the kid played video games and died in them, and killed in them, then he is somewhat capable of understanding real death to have understood enough of what he did to his sister.

Anyone here who thinks he is a child and did not understand what he was doing is just plain funny in the head! I do agree that parents are partly to blame as to leave a9 month old with an irresponsible brat.

Some humans are truly disgusting!
Click to expand...

I think as a 13 year-old, he should be capable of understanding real death.

but saying that experiencing video game death would expose him to that is a bit silly. You want to argue that as experience, then shouldn't he assume that his little sister is just going to respawn in her crib, assuming that is where she last saved?

Oh, I almost forgot:

BAN 13 YEAR-OLDs!

/torch
/pitch fork
/rabble rabble
 
maziwanka said:
really sad.

skull fracturing sounds suspicious, but I'm not a doctor and I don't know whether shaking can cause that
Click to expand...

an infant's head is not fully developed. the skull is sitll relatively soft, not to mention the posterior/anterior fontanelle--essentially, membrane covered holes in the skull.

the larger, anterior fontanelle remain open up until 2 years of age.
 
LookBehindYou said:
Kid clearly has issues. If it wasnt the 9 mo old, it would've been someone else eventually. Death sentence and be done with him.
Click to expand...

you people are fucking insane. I doubt that the kid had murder on his mind.

consider that the mother was only a few years older than her son is now when she gave birth to him. Speculating on her mothering skills, and perhaps those that she gained from her parents, she probably isn't the best example.

more than anything, the kid was frustrated and certainly acted in a stupid manner, but I doubt he had malice in his heart, much less any notion that shaking the baby was inherently wrong--do you think perhaps this was a learned behavior?
 
13 years is old enough to take care of an infant. Also, he surely had no idea he was actually about to kill her. Video games can be very infuriating, specially when you are a fat ltitle sh*t with no friends and no chance of getting sex until 26 years old. 1st degree is a bogus charge.
 
SunnyD said:
The kid is covering up for his mother.
Click to expand...

I think this could be a possibility because what I find strange about the whole thing is that the parents didn't notice something was wrong with her after they returned. It sounds like they took her to the doctor but you think they would be having a conversation with the doctor like "I know she fell out her car seat, but that just doesn't make sense." It sounds like the parents knew and were trying to cover it up. Whether the brother did it and they didn't want him to get in trouble for it or whether they did, who knows. Shaken baby syndrome is one of the saddest things.
 
EVEN if an adult were to do this, first degree isnt the answer. People who take games this seriously are obviously messed up. It's like the people who game too much where their kids die. It's NOT first degree. They're stupid and unfit parents sure, but how does this compare to a planned murder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top