Boy, 9, beaten, dies; mom's boyfriend held
Lady Libra
http://www.cleveland.com/lake/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/lake/1041330668787
40.xml
Boy, 9, beaten, dies; mom's boyfriend held
12/31/02
Michael Scott
Plain Dealer Reporter
Painesville- Reece Mushrush was born prematurely in October 1993 and endured
his first year and a half in a hospital, but he still lived out a thin and
sickly life with a stunning smile.
Then - probably on Christmas Eve - the beatings began in earnest.
From Our Advertiser
By Saturday, Reece was dead - bashed to death by blows to the face, ribs and
head, resulting in a blood clot in the brain, Lake County Sheriff Dan Dunlap
said, citing a coroner's report.
Dunlap said Reece's body showed he had suffered bruises over a period of
time, most in the 48 hours before his death.
Emery Martin, the live-in boyfriend of Reece's mother, Heather Mushrush, was
charged yesterday with child endangering in the 9-year-old's death. Dunlap
said he was pursuing the case as a murder investigation.
Martin, 27, was being held on $500,000 bail yesterday. Dunlap said he will
take more evidence to a grand jury for possible indictments. He said
detectives were "looking into everyone who was in that house."
Deputies were called to the house at 11:54 p.m. Friday, and Reece was
pronounced dead at LakeEast Hospital at 12:23 a.m. Saturday. Dunlap said
both Martin and Heather Mushrush were at the house when deputies arrived.
Heather Mushrush could not be reached yesterday for comment, but Martin's
mother, Rose Burnett of Painesville, said she was sickened by what had
happened.
"And I'm angry at the system - the police and the people who could have
stopped this," she said.
Dunlap and Burnett both said that Martin had said he couldn't handle the
pressure of dealing with Reece's special needs.
Dunlap and his investigators said that not only did Reece have a
tracheotomy, but he also was on anti-psychotic drugs and had asthma.
"I told Heather that she had no business bringing my son into that home,"
Burnett said. She said she had not been speaking with her son because she
disagreed with his lifestyle, including recent drug charges.
Heather Mushrush and Martin lived in a house on Maplebrook Lane in
Painesville with four children ranging in age from toddler to pre-teen. The
youngest of the children was their natu ral child.
The oldest boy was adopted by Mushrush in 1994, and Reece was adopted in
1996 when Mushrush, a single mom, was living in Akron. The second-youngest
child was from another relationship.
In November 1996, the Mushrush family was named the Adoptive Family of the
Year by the Summit County Department of Human Services.
The award referred to Reece as a "bright, happy, well-adjusted little boy"
and commended Heather Mushrush for bonding with both Reece and the older
boy.
But somewhere between that glowing account and this December, something went
wrong in the Mushrush home.
Dunlap said deputies had been to the house this year on drug-trafficking
charges against Martin. That case has not come to trial. Dunlap also cited
an allegation made by a family friend in early December that Martin had
abused another child at the house.
He said the allegation could not be substantiated by the Lake County Job &
Family Services Department.
Family Services Director Art Iacofano said he could not comment on any
previous case involving Martin at the Mushrush home.
A Dec. 1 Sheriff's Department report, however, shows that both Heather
Mushrush and Emery Martin signed a "Family Safety Plan" presented by the
county that day. Iacofano said he could not release the plan, which is
designed to address specific problems in the home.
Jack Miley, the principal of Hale Road Elementary School, where Reece had
gone to school for the last four years, said the third-grader was known by
many of the school's 360 students.
"He's a great little guy. Everyone in the building knew Reece, and we loved
him dearly," Miley said. "His way of showing it back was a big smile and
periodic hugs, even though he had a lot of difficulties.
"This isn't supposed to happen," Miley said. "This is a time that kids are
supposed to be happy and enjoying life, not dying."
--
~there arriving she is sure of bliss, and forever dwells in paradise...~
Michael Snyder
to kill a child as the children's mother is.
Lady Libra wrote in message ...
Lady Taker
"Lady Libra" <shor...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Painesville- Reece Mushrush was born prematurely in October 1993 and
endured
> his first year and a half in a hospital,
With 18 months of medical care, he was, literally, a million dollar baby.
Too bad he didn't go to parents who would have appreciated such a precious
gift. It makes you wonder if perhaps nature doesn't know best and our
medical advances aren't all for the best, doesn't it?
--
Giselle
http://www.geocities.com/piperlvr/Bob.html
Nitamargarita
"Lady Taker" <Vol...@aol.comBV1> wrote in message
news:v14kmje...@corp.supernews.com...
By the time my son was 5 months old, he was a million dollar baby. I,
for one, feel blessed for all the medical advances that saved my son.
I was shocked to discover during my five months experience with the
NICU, that there is quite a large percentage of parents who don't even
come to visit their children. I was nineteen when I had my son and was
sickened by a woman who was in her late thirties who refused to have
anything to do with her daughter born prematurely and with Down's
Syndrome. I learned a lot during that time, and a lot of what I learned
is that SOME PEOPLE SUCK. If there child is born less than perfect,
they just want to exchange it like a pair of slacks that are tight in
the hips.
I think this mother should be charged with murder, also. If she just sat
by and let this happen, she killed this child by proxy.
They must have hidden this stuff well to be named Family of the Year.
If not, I hate to see what the other families are like.
Nita
tiny dancer
"Nitamargarita" <Nitama...@blahblahblah.cox.net> wrote in message
news:uUuQ9.102346$pe.39...@news2.east.cox.net...
Yeah, this is supposedly 'the cream of the crop'........
td
>
>
Nitamargarita
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kevQ9.100795$uJ5.8...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
More like "the cream of the crap"
Nita
>
>
Bo Raxo
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:3e124...@nopics.sjc...
> By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
> to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>
By my count, the mothers are aware their boyfriend is abusing the kid 100%
of the time. These are never isolated, one-time fatal beatings. There is a
pattern of violence, the mother sees it, and doesn't protect her kid. Until
and unless the sacred mommies get prosecuted for their cooperating with the
boyfriend, it won't stop. Heck, often in these cases the mom doesn't even
lose custody of the other children in the househodl, not permanently.
Bo Raxo
"Lady Taker" <Vol...@aol.comBV1> wrote in message
news:v14kmje...@corp.supernews.com...
>
So you like the idea of having a life expectancy of 35? And I assume you
don't bother wearing glasses, taking vitamins, or brushing your teeth.
After all, nature knows best, right?
Sheesh!
Nancy Rudins
>By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
>to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>
Statistics and probability aren't the answer to everything.
They certainly didn't help this boy.
Kind regards,
Nancy
>Lady Libra wrote in message ...
>>
>>http://www.cleveland.com/lake/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/lake/1041330668787
>>40.xml
>>Boy, 9, beaten, dies; mom's boyfriend held
>>12/31/02
>>Michael Scott
>>Plain Dealer Reporter
--
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
LadyGiselle'Taker
"Bo Raxo" <cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:av0109$43v$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
WTF are you talking about Bo? Get a grip. Take a laxative. Or take a
flier. I don't care which.
I'm talking about the fact that we now have the medical experience to save
babies at four months premature. Some folks think that's a blessing if it
works out well for them. If their kid ends up gorked or, as in this case,
the parents were freakin' nitwits to begin with, maybe it's tampering with
nature a little too much.
Ever visited an critical care ward for premature infants? Give it a whirl,
why don't you? And then check out the costs involved and see who pays for
most of them. Literally millions of dollars are spent on kids that nature
had other plans for. Some are okay. Many are not. Some start out as
million dollar babies and continue piling up medical bills for their entire
lives. Some are brain damaged or nerve damaged. Many come with compound
medical problems. Ever seen a baby who was born so soon that its abdomen
hadn't closed and it was hooked to a bag holding its own innards that were
being dropped into it's abdomen by the force of gravity -- slowly, day by
day? THAT little one didn't even have eyelids yet so when it cried from the
pain it couldn't even produce tears. After eight months of 24/7 one-on-one
nursing care the baby died. It didn't live one day of its life NOT in pain,
NOT on drugs, NOT alone. It never got held by its mother. It never lived
outside an acrylic box. Not all medical "advances" are good ones.
My POINT with this case was that perhaps nature knew enough to try and save
this little one lots of suffering and we circumvented Her good intentions.
Now chill.
SHEESH is right.
--
Giselle
http://www.geocities.com/piperlvr/Bob.html
Sarah Monroe
>this little one lots of suffering and we circumvented Her good intentions.
>Now chill.
>
>SHEESH is right.
>--
>Giselle
>http://www.geocities.com/piperlvr/Bob.html
>
>
>
>
Not to advertise the Readers Digest again but, there is a very good article in
this month's issue about a doctor who tries to save every baby, no matter what.
I put this right up there with hooking people up to machines to keep the dead
alive, just because they can.
Anybody know of a group pushing for right to die laws? Cause I will be glad to
contribute to it.
Gms
If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or
disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting
complain to me, I will demonstrate.
Lucy A. Afar
> "Bo Raxo" <cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
> news:av0109$43v$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Lady Taker" <Vol...@aol.comBV1> wrote in message
> > news:v14kmje...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Lady Libra" <shor...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Painesville- Reece Mushrush was born prematurely in October 1993 and
> endured
> > > > his first year and a half in a hospital,
> > >
> > > With 18 months of medical care, he was, literally, a million dollar
> baby.
> > > Too bad he didn't go to parents who would have appreciated such a
> precious
> > > gift. It makes you wonder if perhaps nature doesn't know best and our
> > > medical advances aren't all for the best, doesn't it?
> > > --
> > > Giselle
> > > http://www.geocities.com/piperlvr/Bob.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So you like the idea of having a life expectancy of 35? And I assume you
> > don't bother wearing glasses, taking vitamins, or brushing your teeth.
> > After all, nature knows best, right?
> >
> > Sheesh!
>
> WTF are you talking about Bo? Get a grip.
I think that both of you are right, and your points (though they seem
contradictory) are valid. It's one of the difficulties we as a species
have to deal with, in our time.
Scientific progress is irreversible - for better or for worse, nuclear
bombs, cloning, antibiotics and life-saving procedures are here to
stay. And we, as a species, have to deal with the fact that we're
sometimes too smart for our own good.
The fact that we can keep alive those who would perhaps be better off
dead, is enabled by the same circumstances that prevent us from dying
at 35. It's a package deal, Giselle - you can't have one without the
other.
<snip>
> I'm talking about the fact that we now have the medical experience to save
> babies at four months premature. Some folks think that's a blessing if it
> works out well for them. If their kid ends up gorked or, as in this case,
> the parents were freakin' nitwits to begin with, maybe it's tampering with
> nature a little too much.
Maybe. But when you've got a premature baby and the technology to
allow a chance to save this baby's life, how to decide whether it's
worth trying to save it, or not? Who could tell how much a life is
worth?
> Ever visited an critical care ward for premature infants? Give it a whirl,
> why don't you? And then check out the costs involved and see who pays for
> most of them. Literally millions of dollars are spent on kids that nature
> had other plans for.
Nature doesn't have plans. Nature doesn't care if we all die tomorrow
- if all the humans disappear from the face of the Earth.
> Some are okay. Many are not. Some start out as
> million dollar babies and continue piling up medical bills for their entire
> lives. Some are brain damaged or nerve damaged. Many come with compound
> medical problems.
But for all these poor babies, there are others who would have died,
if left to Mother Nature's "mercy", and who are alive and well and
healthy and normal, thanks to the human science INTERFERING with
Nature's designs. How could one decide which baby to save, and which
not?
> Ever seen a baby who was born so soon that its abdomen
> hadn't closed and it was hooked to a bag holding its own innards that were
> being dropped into it's abdomen by the force of gravity -- slowly, day by
> day? THAT little one didn't even have eyelids yet so when it cried from the
> pain it couldn't even produce tears. After eight months of 24/7 one-on-one
> nursing care the baby died. It didn't live one day of its life NOT in pain,
> NOT on drugs, NOT alone. It never got held by its mother. It never lived
> outside an acrylic box.
Poor baby!
> Not all medical "advances" are good ones.
Medical advances are neither good or bad - they just ARE. And, like
any form of power, it depends what use we make of them. I'd say that
there are worse things we do with the power that Science gives us,
than trying to keep a baby alive - even though in some cases this
means a lot of suffering for the baby. Just think of the time when
babies died of scarlet fever, or other diseases that today are
treatable.
> My POINT with this case was that perhaps nature knew enough to try and save
> this little one lots of suffering and we circumvented Her good intentions.
Again, Nature has no intentions. It simply doesn't care. As about
suffering, do you think that dying of hunger, of AIDS, of landmines
exploding, or simply beaten to death by those who should have cared
for him/her, is an easier, more humane death for a baby?
Lucy (that was a rhetorical question, of course)
formica63
> > > > "Lady Libra" <shor...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > Painesville- Reece Mushrush was born prematurely in October 1993
and
> > endured
> > > > > his first year and a half in a hospital,
> > > >
> > > > With 18 months of medical care, he was, literally, a million dollar
> > baby.
Giselle:
> > > > Too bad he didn't go to parents who would have appreciated such a
> > precious
> > > > gift. It makes you wonder if perhaps nature doesn't know best and
our
> > > > medical advances aren't all for the best, doesn't it?
> > > > --
> > > > Giselle
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/piperlvr/Bob.html
Bo:
> > > So you like the idea of having a life expectancy of 35? And I assume
you
> > > don't bother wearing glasses, taking vitamins, or brushing your teeth.
> > > After all, nature knows best, right?
> > >
> > > Sheesh!
> >
> > WTF are you talking about Bo? Get a grip.
Lucy:
Well. With apologies to Bo, I must make mention that I was born with a
medical condition that would certainly have caused me to die well over
twenty years ago had not I received sustained medical attention through my
childhood. So I obviously have a stake in this discussion! However ...
I think you cannot compare aggregated and epidemiological advances
(nutrition, opthamology, &c) to individual instances of medical
intervention. They are quite dissimilar. Extended life spans are a perk of
medical advances, and as you say, neither good nor bad, but much
appreciated. The kind of individual treatment Giselle is talking about is,
I think, quite different, and seems ethically problematic. I am not for a
moment suggesting we abandon infants to the "Will of God" or any such
brutality. The scenarios Giselle mentions are not, as she suggests, so
cut-and-dried, and I know a number of medicos who've experienced distress
and even anger at the tortured and fruitless antics of the medical
profession as it fosters life while doing harm. I don't pretend to know the
answer -- I don't think there is one. But it's not analogous to these
instances you cite, except perhaps there might be a valid comparison between
a child being beaten to death and put through the tortures of medical
intervention at 4+ months premature, though *intentions* are quite
dissimilar.
Form.
Michael Snyder
>
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:3e124...@nopics.sjc...
> > By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
> > to kill a child as the children's mother is.
> >
>
> By my count, the mothers are aware their boyfriend is abusing the kid 100%
> of the time. These are never isolated, one-time fatal beatings. There is a
> pattern of violence, the mother sees it, and doesn't protect her kid. Until
> and unless the sacred mommies get prosecuted for their cooperating with the
> boyfriend, it won't stop. Heck, often in these cases the mom doesn't even
> lose custody of the other children in the househodl, not permanently.
What else is interesting -- this almost never happens in reverse.
Very few children are killed by a single father's girlfriend.
Maybe girlfriends are less violent than boyfriends, or maybe
fathers are more protective than mothers, but either way, you'd
think the family courts would take notice and start giving fathers
custody more often.
After all, it's in the best interests of the child...
Michael Snyder
>
> According to Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com>:
> >By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
> >to kill a child as the children's mother is.
> >
>
> Statistics and probability aren't the answer to everything.
> They certainly didn't help this boy.
My message was not addressed to the boy. He's dead.
It was addressed to those who want to assume it was
the boyfriend, not the mother, who beat the child to death.
tiny dancer
You've never heard of evil step-mothers?????
td
Michael Snyder
That's right -- I forgot your whole position is based on fairy tales.
Nancy Rudins
There was no commentary. It was just a news account of the
incident.
Kind regards,
Nancy
Michael Snyder
Nancy Rudins wrote in message ...
>According to Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com>:
>>Nancy Rudins wrote:
>>>
>>> According to Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com>:
>>> >By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
>>> >to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Statistics and probability aren't the answer to everything.
>>> They certainly didn't help this boy.
>>
>>My message was not addressed to the boy. He's dead.
>>It was addressed to those who want to assume it was
>>the boyfriend, not the mother, who beat the child to death.
>
>There was no commentary. It was just a news account of the
>incident.
What makes you think I was talking about the news account?
SEE_SIG_BELOW Cacodemon
<msn...@redhat.com>sayeth::
>By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
>to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>
On that same not, where is the father in all this. Is this
another case of the father being seperated from his
kid in court while still having to shell out $$$ each
month to "support the child"?
--
My sig has been injured by Windoze and is taking a vacation.
Due to recent forgery, make sure this post is from earthlink
Nancy Rudins
were referring to someone's commentary?
SEE_SIG_BELOW Cacodemon
<msn...@redhat.com>sayeth::
>By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
>to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>
On that same note, where is the boy's father in all this?
Is this another case where the father was seperated from his
kid in court and ordered to shell out $$$ each
month to "support the child"? Did mommy dump
him and shack up with the asshole who commited
this horrendous crime? Did mommy even do anything
do to protect the boy?
--
SEE_SIG_BELOW Cacodemon
<msn...@redhat.com>sayeth::
>By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
>to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>
On that same note, where is the boy's father in all this?
Is this another case where the father was seperated from his
kid in court and ordered to shell out $$$ each
month to "support the child"? Did mommy dump
him and shack up with the asshole who commited
this horrendous crime? Did mommy even do anything
do to protect the boy?
--
SEE_SIG_BELOW Cacodemon
<Vol...@aol.comBV1>sayeth::
>
>"Lady Libra" <shor...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Painesville- Reece Mushrush was born prematurely in October 1993 and
>endured
>> his first year and a half in a hospital,
>
>With 18 months of medical care, he was, literally, a million dollar baby.
>Too bad he didn't go to parents who would have appreciated such a precious
>gift. It makes you wonder if perhaps nature doesn't know best and our
>medical advances aren't all for the best, doesn't it?
The mother had a responsibility to protect her kid, and when it
became aparent that her boyfriend was abusive, she needed
to leave that boyfriend. She failed in her responsibilities.
>--
>Giselle
>http://www.geocities.com/piperlvr/Bob.html
Michael Snyder
>
> According to Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com>:
> >
> >Nancy Rudins wrote in message ...
> >>According to Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com>:
> >>>Nancy Rudins wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> According to Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com>:
> >>>> >By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
> >>>> >to kill a child as the children's mother is.
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Statistics and probability aren't the answer to everything.
> >>>> They certainly didn't help this boy.
> >>>
> >>>My message was not addressed to the boy. He's dead.
> >>>It was addressed to those who want to assume it was
> >>>the boyfriend, not the mother, who beat the child to death.
> >>
> >>There was no commentary. It was just a news account of the
> >>incident.
> >
> >What makes you think I was talking about the news account?
> >
> >
> That's all you posted in the reply. How was I to know you
> were referring to someone's commentary?
Perhaps from the fact that my comment did not bear on the news account?
Lucy A. Afar
> Well. With apologies to Bo, I must make mention that I was born with a
> medical condition that would certainly have caused me to die well over
> twenty years ago had not I received sustained medical attention through my
> childhood. So I obviously have a stake in this discussion! However ...
>
> I think you cannot compare aggregated and epidemiological advances
> (nutrition, opthamology, &c) to individual instances of medical
> intervention. They are quite dissimilar.
Of course. But they are both the result of the scientific progress
which enables us to interfere with Nature's way. Whether you immunize
against polio or smallpox, or you artificially prolong life, you're
going AGAINST Nature's way. That's how I read Bo's point, and I agree
with it.
Of course, power yielded without responsibility results in disaster,
and we often modify what we don't fully understand. That's how I read
Giselle's comment, and I agree with it.
> Extended life spans are a perk of
> medical advances, and as you say, neither good nor bad, but much
> appreciated. The kind of individual treatment Giselle is talking about is,
> I think, quite different, and seems ethically problematic.
Yes. It's what happens when we substitute our judgment to the "Will of
God". And we're doing it in every field of human activity, not only in
prolonging life for those who would perhaps be better off dead (yet
how to make such a judgment, that a person "would be better off
dead"?!). Modifying the genes of a tomato, cloning a sheep or a baby,
replacing a forest with a pasture, or a swamp with dry land,
connecting two oceans by a channel, detonating a thermonuclear device
- all these perturb the delicate balance Mother Nature created over
millions of years. And they perturb it in ways which are both
unpredictable and (potentially) dangerous. I mean dangerous for *us*,
since Nature doesn't care what new balance is created, as a result.
> I am not for a
> moment suggesting we abandon infants to the "Will of God" or any such
> brutality. The scenarios Giselle mentions are not, as she suggests, so
> cut-and-dried, and I know a number of medicos who've experienced distress
> and even anger at the tortured and fruitless antics of the medical
> profession as it fosters life while doing harm. I don't pretend to know the
> answer -- I don't think there is one.
Perhaps we should go back to old Hippocrates and keep to the "do no
harm" norm? I don't know. Suffering IS part of being alive. But there
are degrees, and no one should be forced to live in continuous,
unbearable pain, I think.
> But it's not analogous to these
> instances you cite, except perhaps there might be a valid comparison between
> a child being beaten to death and put through the tortures of medical
> intervention at 4+ months premature, though *intentions* are quite
> dissimilar.
>
> Form.
The child the article was about had survived the "medical tortures",
though one could wonder about the quality of his life (yet we should
keep in mind that healthy people view the "quality of life" thing
differently from what the sick themselves do). What killed this poor
child were the beatings. No, Form, I can't see a valid analogy between
the two.
Lucy
formica63
> Form wrote:
>
> > Well. With apologies to Bo, I must make mention that I was born with a
> > medical condition that would certainly have caused me to die well over
> > twenty years ago had not I received sustained medical attention through
my
> > childhood. So I obviously have a stake in this discussion! However ...
> >
> > I think you cannot compare aggregated and epidemiological advances
> > (nutrition, opthamology, &c) to individual instances of medical
> > intervention. They are quite dissimilar.
Lucy:
> Of course. But they are both the result of the scientific progress
> which enables us to interfere with Nature's way. Whether you immunize
> against polio or smallpox, or you artificially prolong life, you're
> going AGAINST Nature's way. That's how I read Bo's point, and I agree
> with it.
Well, yes, but it doesn't in fact follow. Many of the depredations of
illness occur precisely because of culture.
The pastoral conversion of vast tracts of this country created havens not
only for cattle, but for kangaroos, who now subsist largely now on
cultivated land, and are now many times more numerous than they were at the
time of colonisation. Even in a relatively newly westernised country like
mine, the distinction between nature and culture is at best hazy, and more
accurately, entirely fantasmatic. It "artificially prolongs" the lives of
bandicoots to ensure foxes have plenty of rabbits to eat, simply by doing
nothing. But doing nothing is a highly acculturated act. We eat too many
fish and their numbers decline exponentially. Is that unnatural? The simple
introduction of hand-washing and antiseptic for the use of doctors almost
entirely eliminated the incidenceof post-surgery infection and death. But
do you see washing your hands as "against nature's way"? Or sugery? Or
childbirth, with its formerly common consequence of puerpal fever?
Immunisation against smallpox is no more unnatural than its introduction, is
it?
> Of course, power yielded without responsibility results in disaster,
> and we often modify what we don't fully understand. That's how I read
> Giselle's comment, and I agree with it.
>
> > Extended life spans are a perk of
> > medical advances, and as you say, neither good nor bad, but much
> > appreciated. The kind of individual treatment Giselle is talking about
is,
> > I think, quite different, and seems ethically problematic.
>
> Yes. It's what happens when we substitute our judgment to the "Will of
> God". And we're doing it in every field of human activity, not only in
> prolonging life for those who would perhaps be better off dead (yet
> how to make such a judgment, that a person "would be better off
> dead"?!). Modifying the genes of a tomato, cloning a sheep or a baby,
> replacing a forest with a pasture, or a swamp with dry land,
> connecting two oceans by a channel, detonating a thermonuclear device
> - all these perturb the delicate balance Mother Nature created over
> millions of years. And they perturb it in ways which are both
> unpredictable and (potentially) dangerous. I mean dangerous for *us*,
> since Nature doesn't care what new balance is created, as a result.
Yes. But -- no. I don't see Nature as intrinsically balanced, but rather,
at heart, in flux. Volcanoes, hyenas, droughts, tsetse flies, ice ages;
trilobites evolving for millenia without evidencing *any* superior fitness
through their endless mutation, and finally, mysteriously, just konking out.
My nature is "red in tooth and claw," (after Alfred Lord Tennyson). It's
not harmony, but a messy turbulent ambience, and we are its creations.
> > I am not for a
> > moment suggesting we abandon infants to the "Will of God" or any such
> > brutality. The scenarios Giselle mentions are not, as she suggests, so
> > cut-and-dried, and I know a number of medicos who've experienced
distress
> > and even anger at the tortured and fruitless antics of the medical
> > profession as it fosters life while doing harm. I don't pretend to know
the
> > answer -- I don't think there is one.
>
> Perhaps we should go back to old Hippocrates and keep to the "do no
> harm" norm? I don't know. Suffering IS part of being alive. But there
> are degrees, and no one should be forced to live in continuous,
> unbearable pain, I think.
No, not forced, though of course be free to choose.
> > But it's not analogous to these
> > instances you cite, except perhaps there might be a valid comparison
between
> > a child being beaten to death and put through the tortures of medical
> > intervention at 4+ months premature, though *intentions* are quite
> > dissimilar.
> >
> > Form.
>
> The child the article was about had survived the "medical tortures",
> though one could wonder about the quality of his life (yet we should
> keep in mind that healthy people view the "quality of life" thing
> differently from what the sick themselves do). What killed this poor
> child were the beatings. No, Form, I can't see a valid analogy between
> the two.
Well, I respectfully disagree. As I say, intentions are not an acceptable
way to calculate harm (for me, anyway). I'm not suggesting that there are
easy answers, but I do not think that some of the procedures experienced by
extremely premature children would be acceptable to most people if they
understood the pain and misery inflicted. I wonder if the better question
is not "do we have the obligation to sustain life?," but rather "do we have
the right to inflict such pain?" That's a good question for a doctor to
consider before another invasive procedure.
This is a tough problem, but it's really quite different from putting your
hand in front of your mouth when you sneeze, and other miracles of modern
epidemiology.
Form.
Lucy A. Afar
> > Form wrote:
> >
> > > Well. With apologies to Bo, I must make mention that I was born with a
> > > medical condition that would certainly have caused me to die well over
> > > twenty years ago had not I received sustained medical attention through
> my
> > > childhood. So I obviously have a stake in this discussion! However ...
> > >
> > > I think you cannot compare aggregated and epidemiological advances
> > > (nutrition, opthamology, &c) to individual instances of medical
> > > intervention. They are quite dissimilar.
>
> Lucy:
>
> > Of course. But they are both the result of the scientific progress
> > which enables us to interfere with Nature's way. Whether you immunize
> > against polio or smallpox, or you artificially prolong life, you're
> > going AGAINST Nature's way. That's how I read Bo's point, and I agree
> > with it.
>
> Well, yes, but it doesn't in fact follow. Many of the depredations of
> illness occur precisely because of culture.
>
> The pastoral conversion of vast tracts of this country created havens not
> only for cattle, but for kangaroos, who now subsist largely now on
> cultivated land, and are now many times more numerous than they were at the
> time of colonisation.
But that's exactly my point, that's what I mean by "interfering with
Nature's way". Like all the other living things, we modify our
environment. Unlike all the other living things, we do it in a much
more profound way, with deeper and long term consequences. And the
danger resides in the fact that we can't always anticipate the long
term results - excess of kangaroos, for instance, or global warming,
or a devastating flu epidemic.
> Even in a relatively newly westernised country like
> mine, the distinction between nature and culture is at best hazy, and more
> accurately, entirely fantasmatic. It "artificially prolongs" the lives of
> bandicoots to ensure foxes have plenty of rabbits to eat, simply by doing
> nothing. But doing nothing is a highly acculturated act.
But introducing rabbits in an environment where they were absent
before was a HUMAN intervention, rich in consequences - though no high
tech was involved, I agree.
> We eat too many
> fish and their numbers decline exponentially. Is that unnatural?
In the sense that it's, again, us HUMANS acting upon Nature on a scale
that provokes a qualitative change, yes, I think it is.
> The simple
> introduction of hand-washing and antiseptic for the use of doctors almost
> entirely eliminated the incidenceof post-surgery infection and death. But
> do you see washing your hands as "against nature's way"?
Well, it's an all-out war on deadly bacteria, THIS part of nature
we're pretty much against, aren't we? :-)
> Or sugery? Or
> childbirth, with its formerly common consequence of puerpal fever?
> Immunisation against smallpox is no more unnatural than its introduction, is
> it?
I'm not sure what your point is, here. As I've said, we do modify our
environment, which is natural, rabbits and lions and bacteria do so,
too. At some point, the modifications we produce are on very large
scale. So large, that they can cause global changes which ultimately
affect us, in unpredictable, often dangerous ways.
Of course, not everything we do has such powerful, long-term effects;
washing our hands is a less drastic change than environment pollution,
or hunting the tigers to extinction.
My point is that we are too powerful, in respect to our place in the
living world. I guess that what we need, at this time of our history,
is a different perspective: to try to think several moves in advance,
like when playing chess. When we connect a premature baby to those
tubes, what are that baby's chances to live, instead of being a (more
or less successful) experiment? But the question is not only difficult
to answer. It is often difficult to ASK.
> > Of course, power yielded without responsibility results in disaster,
> > and we often modify what we don't fully understand. That's how I read
> > Giselle's comment, and I agree with it.
> >
> > > Extended life spans are a perk of
> > > medical advances, and as you say, neither good nor bad, but much
> > > appreciated. The kind of individual treatment Giselle is talking about
> is,
> > > I think, quite different, and seems ethically problematic.
> >
> > Yes. It's what happens when we substitute our judgment to the "Will of
> > God". And we're doing it in every field of human activity, not only in
> > prolonging life for those who would perhaps be better off dead (yet
> > how to make such a judgment, that a person "would be better off
> > dead"?!). Modifying the genes of a tomato, cloning a sheep or a baby,
> > replacing a forest with a pasture, or a swamp with dry land,
> > connecting two oceans by a channel, detonating a thermonuclear device
> > - all these perturb the delicate balance Mother Nature created over
> > millions of years. And they perturb it in ways which are both
> > unpredictable and (potentially) dangerous. I mean dangerous for *us*,
> > since Nature doesn't care what new balance is created, as a result.
>
> Yes. But -- no. I don't see Nature as intrinsically balanced, but rather,
> at heart, in flux.
OK, you're right. The word would be "stationary state", I guess.
> Volcanoes, hyenas, droughts, tsetse flies, ice ages;
> trilobites evolving for millenia without evidencing *any* superior fitness
> through their endless mutation, and finally, mysteriously, just konking out.
Hey, the superiority was proved by the very fact that they survived.
Sharks are hardly what comes to mind when thinking of superior forms
of life, but in what fitness to survive is concerned, they are
champions.
And yes, even the most successful species have to leave the stage,
some day. Which should be food for thought for us humans, too, IMO.
> My nature is "red in tooth and claw," (after Alfred Lord Tennyson). It's
> not harmony, but a messy turbulent ambience, and we are its creations.
It IS harmony, Form, but of a pretty cruel kind. It is beauty,
symmetry and economy of means: energy flowing from one form of life to
the next, with extreme efficiency, what engineering feat could compare
to the beautiful economy of a food chain? The way plants and animals
coexist, as food for each other, all orchestrated by the great
environmental changes, all life forms so similar, and yet so
different, "red in tooth and claw", yet caring to their young, smart,
swift, brave and ruthless... And nothing wasted, all eaten to the last
tiny piece... If there is a God, He certainly is no God of mercy.
> > > I am not for a
> > > moment suggesting we abandon infants to the "Will of God" or any such
> > > brutality. The scenarios Giselle mentions are not, as she suggests, so
> > > cut-and-dried, and I know a number of medicos who've experienced
> distress
> > > and even anger at the tortured and fruitless antics of the medical
> > > profession as it fosters life while doing harm. I don't pretend to know
> the
> > > answer -- I don't think there is one.
> >
> > Perhaps we should go back to old Hippocrates and keep to the "do no
> > harm" norm? I don't know. Suffering IS part of being alive. But there
> > are degrees, and no one should be forced to live in continuous,
> > unbearable pain, I think.
>
> No, not forced, though of course be free to choose.
Yes, this sounds wonderful, but it's so very, very tricky to
implement.
>
> > > But it's not analogous to these
> > > instances you cite, except perhaps there might be a valid comparison
> between
> > > a child being beaten to death and put through the tortures of medical
> > > intervention at 4+ months premature, though *intentions* are quite
> > > dissimilar.
> > >
> > > Form.
> >
> > The child the article was about had survived the "medical tortures",
> > though one could wonder about the quality of his life (yet we should
> > keep in mind that healthy people view the "quality of life" thing
> > differently from what the sick themselves do). What killed this poor
> > child were the beatings. No, Form, I can't see a valid analogy between
> > the two.
>
> Well, I respectfully disagree. As I say, intentions are not an acceptable
> way to calculate harm (for me, anyway). I'm not suggesting that there are
> easy answers, but I do not think that some of the procedures experienced by
> extremely premature children would be acceptable to most people if they
> understood the pain and misery inflicted. I wonder if the better question
> is not "do we have the obligation to sustain life?," but rather "do we have
> the right to inflict such pain?" That's a good question for a doctor to
> consider before another invasive procedure.
You're right, but - as you say - there are no easy answers. What works
for one baby and saves his/her life, may prove useless for another. In
both cases, pain is caused: life-saving pain, in one case, prolonged
agony and death, in the other. How can a doctor know, in advance, if
the outcome justifies the means? How to tell the parents "We could
save your baby, but it could be too painful to try"?
> This is a tough problem, but it's really quite different from putting your
> hand in front of your mouth when you sneeze, and other miracles of modern
> epidemiology.
>
> Form.
It's different, but it's caused by the same progress that allows us to
understand how the human body works. If you think of the bottom line -
that the fact that we CAN save a life doesn't let us not TRY to do so,
be it when we wash our hands or when we perform complicated surgery on
babies - the two are somehow related, don't you think?
Lucy (agreeing to disagree on this, with you)
Feminists Rule
> > The misogynist, forging troll going by the name of "Michael Snyder"
> > is a 45 year-old virgin and known kook who posts anti-feminist
> > rhetoric to soc.men and infests the soc.women, alt.feminism,
> > alt.feminism.individualism, and soc.feminism newsgroups like
> > a blood-sucking parasite.
> >
> > He's made tens of thousands of Usenet posts -- and all of them have
> > demonstrated an obsessive hatred of women.
> >
> > He blames women for rape, he blames women for deadbeat deads, and
> > he blames women for being women. One of his favorite tactics
> > is to blame women for being raped and to praise the rapists
> > for their criminal acts.
> >
> > This man, if you could call him that, is the lowest of the low.
> > Calling him a scumbag is way too kind. Calling him a cretin
> > maligns true creins everywhere. The worst one can say about him
> > is that he's a vapid windbag capable of nothing but hatred for
> > women. The best one could say about him is that he's a fairly
> > good liar. He spends most of his time forging me on Usenet, and
> > blaming women for violent crimes committed by men. He claims
> > that deadbeat moms outnumber deadbeat fathers -- without any
> > evidence -- and he insists that he pleasures himself through
> > self-fellatio on a daily basis.
> >
> > "I've been doing that since I was 14. Jealous?
> > I charge women for blowjob lessons. After all,
> > who could possibly give better feedback than a
> > man who's been on both ends at once?"
> >
> > - Michael Snyder (msn...@redhat.com)
> > in Message <3D2F6FC5...@redhat.com>
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G11412A82
Thanks for the info.
tiny dancer
"Feminists Rule" <world_f...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:879836c.0301...@posting.google.com...
Why does this not surprise me?
td
Glek
in news:3e160be6...@news.earthlink.net:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:57:21 -0800, "Michael Snyder"
> <msn...@redhat.com>sayeth::
>
>>By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
>>to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>>
I have always heard the opposite, stepfathers and boyfriends are far more
likely to kill the progeny of the woman they are sleeping with than is the
woman herself. (I would google to back up my claim, but it is late).
>
> On that same note, where is the boy's father in all this?
> Is this another case where the father was seperated from his
> kid in court and ordered to shell out $$$ each
> month to "support the child"? Did mommy dump
> him and shack up with the asshole who commited
> this horrendous crime? Did mommy even do anything
> do to protect the boy?
>
<snip>
Heather Mushrush and Martin lived in a house on Maplebrook
>>>Lane in Painesville with four children ranging in age from toddler to
>>>pre-teen. The youngest of the children was their natu ral child.
>>>The oldest boy was adopted by Mushrush in 1994, and Reece was adopted
>>>in 1996 when Mushrush, a single mom, was living in Akron. The
>>>second-youngest child was from another relationship.
<snip>
The news account describes Mushrush as adopting Reece in 1994, which would
leave me to conclude that Reece is not her natural child (unless I missed
something) If so, I would like to know what happened to the boy's biological
parents.
Michael Snyder
Glek wrote in message ...
>(SEE_SIG_BELOW)_balanco01@no$pam@yah_nothanks@oo...@o.hm (Cacodemon) wrote
>in news:3e160be6...@news.earthlink.net:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:57:21 -0800, "Michael Snyder"
>> <msn...@redhat.com>sayeth::
>>
>>>By my count, mothers' boyfriends are about 1/4 as likely
>>>to kill a child as the children's mother is.
>>>
>
>I have always heard the opposite, stepfathers and boyfriends are far more
>likely to kill the progeny of the woman they are sleeping with than is the
>woman herself. (I would google to back up my claim, but it is late).
>
Not true. Stepfathers and boyfriends come in a distant third.
A child is at more risk from its mother than from anyone else,
by US Dept. of Justice statistics. See "Murder in Families",
US DOJ/BJS 1994. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/mif.htm
formica63
But of course!
Form.
Michael Snyder
Aannnddd... (leading Formica by the hand) perhaps that could mean
that my comments were referring to ... something else? Something
like ... the text of the message ABOUT the news account?
Glek
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/mif.htm
Thanks for the link! However, the abstract states that in cases where a
parent killed an offspring, mothers were more likely than fathers to commit
murder. (Something I did no know before) The abstract says nothing about
males not related to the child, i.e. mother's boyfriends or stepfathers.
On the Net, I am unable to find any hard government statistics on the
incidence of murders committed by mother's boyfriends and stepfathers in the
US. There are websites devoted to the issue, mostly profamily and pro-father
sites, but even these seem to be largely void of statistics on adult male
nonrelatives murdering a child they live with and the statistics they site
are offline sources. I would think the incidence would be high, and some site
would have the statistics to prove or disprove my contention. (For that
matter, I would think that stepmothers and father's girlfriends would also be
more likely than biological parents to murder the nonrelated child they are
living with.)
Victorhntr
litter is gone-and females kill offspring of non-alpha females if they're
breeding at the same time. It appears that the closer human beings are to
animals the more likely they will do the same thing.
Bo Raxo
Okay, I'll dive in here. Plug in to google:
child homicide totals by relationship
and you'll get lots of interesting results.
For starters, check out
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvvoatvx.pdf
which talks about violent crimes in which children are the victim (not
just murders). For starters, it says that 97% of the offenders are
male....sorry, Michael. And 3/4 of the victims are female.
From an early 90s study in state prisons the authors draw the
following conclusions:
One-third of the offenders victimized their own child (i.e., bad dad).
About half had a relationship with, but wasn't the parent of, the
victim. This would include mom's boyfriends, stepfathers, neighbors,
uncles, brothers, etc. Pretty broad group, and I suspect that
neighbors, teachers, and relatives account for a lot of that.
About one in seven were strangers to the victim.
Three quarters of the crimes took place in either the victim's home or
the offender's home.
For homicides, children accounted for 11% of the total of homicide
victims ('94 numbers). About one in five of those victims were killed
by another child (I found that surprising). The victim-offender
relationship correlates with the child's age, not surprisingly. Young
children are most often murdered by family members, while those aged
15-17 were most often killed by an aquaintance or an unknown
assailant. Only one in five child homicides are committed by a family
member, although those numbers may be skewed by the big increase in
homicide rates for kids aged 15-17 (particularly among black teens).
The document has a nice table that breaks down percentages of murder
victims by age and relationship - family, acquaintance, or stranger,
as well as chart that breaks down the offenders by age.
Oh yeah, and I have to add this: half of all child murders are
committed using a handgun. For kids aged 15-17, that figure rises to
about 70%. But then, we wouldn't want to infringe on your sacred gun
rights, eh people?
The state of Colorado breaks down homicides by the offender
relationship at
http://cbi.state.co.us/dr/cic2000/supplemental_reports/homicide.htm
but the statistical base is small. Still, it shows that in 2000 there
were three victims killed by a parent, and only one killed by the
boyfriend or girlfriend of their parent. Oh yeah, and it shows that as
for preferred methods, guns were used more often than all other
methods combined; the majority of those were handguns, of course.
The state of Illinois also has an interesting breakdown on violent
crime by offender-victim relationship at
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/cii/cii97/cii97section6.pdf
For crimes against children, family members were the offender abotu
20% of the time. The remainder was about evenly split between
non-relative but someone who knew the child, and strangers.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but it seems to generally
indicate to me that people kill kids they know more often than kids
they don't know, and that they more often kill kids who aren't related
to them than they do kids that are. Admittedly, lots of this data is
about violent crime in general (and the Illinois study lumps in
property crimes, which seems pretty idiotic), but that's what I get
out of these statistics.
Take care,
Bo Raxo
Michael Snyder
> Glek <gle...@email.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9300C4820...@207.217.77.26>...
> > "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in news:3e192aa8$1...@nopics.sjc:
> >
> > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/mif.htm
> >
> > Thanks for the link! However, the abstract states that in cases where a
> > parent killed an offspring, mothers were more likely than fathers to commit
> > murder. (Something I did no know before) The abstract says nothing about
> > males not related to the child, i.e. mother's boyfriends or stepfathers.
Well, that's why they call it an abstract.
Order the full paper. It's free. You don't even have to pay postage.
> > On the Net, I am unable to find any hard government statistics on the
> > incidence of murders committed by mother's boyfriends and stepfathers in the
> > US. There are websites devoted to the issue, mostly profamily and pro-father
> > sites, but even these seem to be largely void of statistics on adult male
> > nonrelatives murdering a child they live with and the statistics they site
> > are offline sources.
I'm at work now -- let me get back to you on that, when I have a bit of time.
> > I would think the incidence would be high, and some site
> > would have the statistics to prove or disprove my contention. (For that
> > matter, I would think that stepmothers and father's girlfriends would also be
> > more likely than biological parents to murder the nonrelated child they are
> > living with.)
From memory, that's not the case. Step-mothers are actually very rare,
(as the murderer of a child), and so are fathers' girlfriends. But
mothers' boyfriends are a smaller percentage than mothers themselves.
I had a huge research project of my own on this, but I left it unfinished.
I do have thousands of individual stories of child murder, collected from
news accounts (not by me, by someone else). I was running some statistics
on those, comparing fathers to mothers to boyfriends etc. Be happy to
share my raw data --
Here's one bunch:
http://members.telocity.com/~snyderboy/leelah/index.htm
and here's another:
http://members.telocity.com/~snyderboy/angels/
Michael Snyder
Bo Raxo wrote in message <81bfcfe1.03011...@posting.google.com>...
>Okay, I'll dive in here. Plug in to google:
>child homicide totals by relationship
>
>and you'll get lots of interesting results.
>
>For starters, check out
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvvoatvx.pdf
>
>which talks about violent crimes in which children are the victim (not
>just murders). For starters, it says that 97% of the offenders are
>male....sorry, Michael.
That's odd, because it says here
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm)
that fathers and mothers kill equal numbers, while if you
consider only non-relatives, 82 percent are killed by males.
If you average 82 percent with 50 percent, I'm pretty sure
you won't be coming up with 97 percent.
> And 3/4 of the victims are female.
That's odd too, because the above DOJ site says that
the majority of child homicide victims are male.
And so does "Murder in Families" (DOJ, 1994).
You really should order your copy now:
http://www.ncjrs.org/statordr.html, ncj report #143498, it's free.
>From an early 90s study in state prisons the authors draw the
>following conclusions:
>
>One-third of the offenders victimized their own child (i.e., bad dad).
Bad dad 1/2 the time, bad mom 1/2 the time.
This australian study found a gender ratio of 76 percent male offenders
for child homicide (as opposed to 89 percent for all homicide):
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti53.pdf
Glenn Sacks reports:
According to the US Department of Justice, 70% of confirmed cases
of child abuse and 65% of parental murders of children are committed
by mothers, not fathers. According to the US Department of Health and
Human Services, adjusting for the greater number of single mothers, a
custodial mother is five times as likely to murder her own children as a
custodial father is. Children are 88% more likely to be seriously injured
from abuse or neglect by their mothers than by their fathers. There's no
reason to think that children are safer in the primary care of a mother
than of a father. [http://www.glennjsacks.com/father_care_the.htm]
mary
Michael Snyder wrote:
> Bo Raxo wrote in message <81bfcfe1.03011...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>Okay, I'll dive in here. Plug in to google:
>>child homicide totals by relationship
>>
>>and you'll get lots of interesting results.
>>
>>For starters, check out
>>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvvoatvx.pdf
>>
>>which talks about violent crimes in which children are the victim (not
>>just murders). For starters, it says that 97% of the offenders are
>>male....sorry, Michael.
>>
>
> That's odd, because it says here
> (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm)
> that fathers and mothers kill equal numbers, while if you
> consider only non-relatives, 82 percent are killed by males.
> If you average 82 percent with 50 percent, I'm pretty sure
> you won't be coming up with 97 percent.
>
from the DOJ article:
"All but 3% of offenders who committed violent crimes against children
were male."
"3 in 4 child victims of violence were female."
"About 1 in 5 child murders were committed by a family member."
mary.
ps--violent crimes include more than just murder, mike.
Michael Snyder
>
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> > Bo Raxo wrote in message <81bfcfe1.03011...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >>Okay, I'll dive in here. Plug in to google:
> >>child homicide totals by relationship
> >>
> >>and you'll get lots of interesting results.
> >>
> >>For starters, check out
> >>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvvoatvx.pdf
> >>
> >>which talks about violent crimes in which children are the victim (not
> >>just murders). For starters, it says that 97% of the offenders are
> >>male....sorry, Michael.
> >>
> >
> > That's odd, because it says here
> > (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm)
> > that fathers and mothers kill equal numbers, while if you
> > consider only non-relatives, 82 percent are killed by males.
> > If you average 82 percent with 50 percent, I'm pretty sure
> > you won't be coming up with 97 percent.
> >
>
> from the DOJ article:
>
> "All but 3% of offenders who committed violent crimes against children
> were male."
From the DOJ article:
Murderers of children were 31 percent mothers, and 30 percent fathers.