- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'Prayer Baby' drowns in church's baptism tank
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:47 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:47 pm to Darth_Vader
You're full of fricking shite, Darth. I never once said such.
Kids get loose, land owners should expect that; especially when kids are constantly welcomed on said land.
It's seemingly obvious that the church did not have the tank secured and safe, considering a small child entered it, which is negligence defined.
Kids get loose, land owners should expect that; especially when kids are constantly welcomed on said land.
It's seemingly obvious that the church did not have the tank secured and safe, considering a small child entered it, which is negligence defined.
3
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:47 pm to Darth_Vader
A baptismal is an attractive nuisance, make no mistake. Whether a judge sees it that way is another story. It would be a pretty aggressive policy decision for an appellate judge to declare all baptismals in a district "attractive nuisances."
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:48 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
It's seemingly obvious that the church did not have the tank secured and safe, considering a small child entered it, which is negligence defined.
It certainly seems reasonable that the person in charge of the baptismal knew or should have known that there was standing water in the tank and that the entrance was not secured.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:50 pm to Sev09
quote:
Well, it is true
How tall does the fence need to be?
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:51 pm to Tornado Alley
The few churches that I've been in, had them drained unless they were in use.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:52 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
You're full of fricking shite, Darth. I never once said such.
You said this....
quote:
They should sue the church for having such a hazardous attractive nuisance like a baptismal tank.
That statement indicates you feel the mere presence of the baptismal is grounds for the parents to sue.
quote:
It's seemingly obvious that the church did not have the tank secured and safe, considering a small child entered it, which is negligence defined.
That's not for us to decide here on a message board based off very limited information. I have never been to this church so I cannot speak to what means they had to keep this baptismal secure versus the actions of the person that was at that time responsible for the child. There are a number of variables that we don't know.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:53 pm to CaptainsWafer
quote:
The few churches that I've been in, had them drained unless they were in use.
I don't wonder why.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:57 pm to Tigerfan56
quote:
All in God's plan, our lord works in mysterious ways
Serious question...have you ever experienced the death of one of your own children?
I have. And being brutally honest here...it really makes you question the premise of a loving God. What possible explanation could anyone give me to explain taking my child that would sooth a mother's heart? There is not one. From anyone, including God himself.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:57 pm to The Third Leg
Maybe God, Buddha, Allah whoever the frick can find the power to make you fall into one.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 2:59 pm to Carolina_Girl
quote:
Serious question...have you ever experienced the death of one of your own children?
I have.
I know I have no words that can comfort or help you understand what happened so I'm not going to insult you by trying. All I will say is I'm sincerely sorry for your loss.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:01 pm to Darth_Vader
The tank is a nuisance, and precautions should be taken to prevent kids from accessing it. It would cease to be a hazardous nuisance when properly secured, or even drained. I'm sorry that you missed the logical follow-on.
To your last part, get out of the thread if you don't like it. Every motherfricking idiotic thing imaginable is discussed here without details, yet we cannot discuss liability in a death because it's a child, and a church.
Look to the "Atlanta toddler in the car thread." Many of these same posters in here that think this is some shameless display on my part were filling that thread with opinions derived from assumption.
To your last part, get out of the thread if you don't like it. Every motherfricking idiotic thing imaginable is discussed here without details, yet we cannot discuss liability in a death because it's a child, and a church.
Look to the "Atlanta toddler in the car thread." Many of these same posters in here that think this is some shameless display on my part were filling that thread with opinions derived from assumption.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:06 pm to Darth_Vader
I honestly mean no disrespect to anyone...at best I would call myself agnostic. Do I want to believe? Yes. More than anything. But that kind of loss, at least for me, completely screwed up everything I thought I knew to be true. I appreciate your words of sympathy, though. Thank you. My heart goes out to the family of this child and I just hope it doesn't lead them down the same path that I took after my son's death.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:21 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
The tank is a nuisance, and precautions should be taken to prevent kids from accessing it. It would cease to be a hazardous nuisance when properly secured, or even drained. I'm sorry that you missed the logical follow-on.
The tank in and of itself is not a nuisance. And none of us know what steps were or were not taken to secure this tank. Just because this accident happened does not automatically mean the church is at fault.
quote:
To your last part, get out of the thread if you don't like it. Every motherfricking idiotic thing imaginable is discussed here without details, yet we cannot discuss liability in a death because it's a child, and a church.
The fact this is a church and the victim being a child has nothing to do with it. It does seem though that you really want to blame the church out of your own hostility towards religion in general.
quote:
Look to the "Atlanta toddler in the car thread." Many of these same posters in here that think this is some shameless display on my part were filling that thread with opinions derived from assumption.
And you derided them for giving opinions based on assumptions I'm sure.
Look, the bottom line is that the Church may be responsible for this child's accidental death based on what precautions they had taken to secure the baptismal versus the actions of the people responsible for the child at that time. But just the fact hat the church even had the baptismal is not grounds for their guilt.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:22 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Lot to be said for those of us who sprinkle instead of dunk.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:22 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Well he's with jeebus now
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:29 pm to Carolina_Girl
I've experienced my child suffer debilitating disease. I was fairly atheist before. After that, no question about it.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:31 pm to Caplewood
quote:
Caplewood
dude. Come on.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:33 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Why didn't god save the baby? Was it gods plan? Pretty ironic story.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:35 pm to Green Chili Tiger
That's terrible
Posted on 9/25/14 at 3:35 pm to Tigerfan56
quote:
All in God's plan, our lord works in mysterious ways
Ahhhh yes. The catch all dumb statement.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News