Let's break out the bolds and italics for emphasis.
XanBcoo, you can't be seriously arguing this. Parent or not, whoever is the guardian of this child is deemed to be responsible for the child's safety (a child by the way, at the age of two, is as intelligent as a brick. it would be easier to protect a chicken).
Admittedly despite this, guardians cannot operate twenty four/seven with the sole function of watching their children, and thus it becomes their responsibility to transfer the duty of their child's protection elsewhere for an allotted period of time. Accidents and unforeseen circumstances will always occur, however; the risk to a child's safety is always ever present, and it's up to a guardian to compensate for that risk.
This child was at the moment of this accident unsupervised. An unsupervised, curious, plant with legs.
Ex.)
Take this video, is anyone going to blame the child for walking into the slowly moving van approaching her? No, because this child might as well had been a plant at this stage in her life. Why a parent allowed for and granted the possibility for her to take root in the road of a back alley is not on the child, but on the guardian.
It should go without saying that a guardian is to be held responsible for their child's location, safety, education and well being for the entire duration of their 'can't fend for themselves' stage in life.
I'm not saying this parent deserves to be punished (obviously, they already have been), I am saying however that whatever circumstances led to this child being in front of a vehicle (in a country renowned for bad drivers, though the same claim can be made for just about everywhere) lie with the parent.
The fact that the child was run over, and the pedestrians horrifying indifference however, is an unforeseen circumstance/accident for which the parent cannot be held solely accountable for.
Reply With Quote