"He'd picked them up from their mother's house on Thursday, driven around for a couple of days partying, while they were in the back of the vehicle," explained Lt. Brad Piros of the Jackson County Sheriff's Office.
Piros says Labo's little boys - aged just four and six - were found hungry and upset early on Sunday morning in a 1994 Pontiac Grand Prix. "The kids indicated they'd had a little bit of candy to eat over the period of two days," Piros says.
"There were beer cans located in the vehicle. Six to eight empties, also two half-full beer cans located in between the two front seats," he says.
Deputies don't know where this alleged drinking bender started, but they do know where it ended: Gypsy's in Summit Township. That's where they say someone saw the little guys sleeping in the car all alone and called 911.
Both Labo and his brother, Eric, were arrested at the scene, but Eric will not face charges because he's not legally obligated to the kids. The boys were taken by deputies, given something to eat, then returned to their mother. Authorities say Labo could face eight years in prison for his weekend of mistakes.
With news video.
7 comments:
The brother won't be arrested or charged while he was on a roll with the father but he's not legally obligated to the kids????
Doesn't that make him or any other grownup that would have joined while knowing those kids were there equally responsible then for neglecting and even abusing his nephews????
What world do we live in..................................?
Spot on Foreigner. Both should be prosecuted. No question about it.
<span>"What world do we live in..................................?"</span>
One where excessive punctuation is acceptable, apparently.
"Labo could face eight years in prison for his weekend of mistakes."
A mistake is locking your keys in the car, even with the kids inside. (for fun try to encourage a six year old to let you in your own car, sometime. At least you can look back and laugh) What he's done goes far beyond a mistake. I'd say sterilyze 'em, but it's too late. Take away his rights as a father, at least.
The court could argue that, as a blood relative to the kids, the brother has a "special relationship" to the victim and is responsible for their safety, but it would likely be thrown out. You aren't legally required to be a good samaritan except in cases where a special relationship is attached.
For example, if your own child is drowning, you are legally required to try to save them. If your nephew is drowning, it would be harder to prosecute you if you did nothing (unless you're the legal guardian). If some stranger's kid is drowning and you stand there eating a snowcone and watching the kid drown, you'd be a total scumbag, but the criminal court can't do anything about it. The government can't force you to save people you aren't legally responsible for. That's one of those dark sides of living in a free society.
Thanks for the explanation.
It does sound completely Nuts.
Now I begin to understand why a friend of mine dropped out halfway his law-studies.
Thanks to MBSICJFHAU up there for the explanation!
Still, if the father has committed a crime, wouldn't that make the uncle an accessory?
It IS sad that you're not under any obligation to try and save someone who is in danger. My understanding (as a non-lawyer, so maybe -- hopefully -- I've got it all wrong) is that if you do try and save them, and you mess it up, you can be sued. On the one hand, I guess this means that the saving is left to those with the proper training. On the other hand, it would be a tragedy if someone dies because someone else is afraid of being sued.
...........
Yep.
Post a Comment