Reply #87: again, the prosecution's argument DOESN'T posit a special relationship... [View All]

[NorthernSpy]

... between the woman and the child:

But Blair County District Attorney Dave Gorman said she was, at that moment, the child's guardian.

"Common sense dictates someone in that close proximity to a child is obligated to do something," Mr. Gorman said. "I think anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Both the defense and prosecution agree that Mr. Reffner never specifically asked Ms. Newkirk to watch his son. But the district attorney doesn't think that matters.

"If she didn't believe she had a legal duty, then why did she pull the kid back the first time?" Mr. Gorman asked.

Had Ms. Newkirk left the trailer after returning Hunter to his father, she would have fulfilled her obligation, and there would have been no charges, the prosecutor said.

The prosecution didn't claim that the woman had any actual responsibility to stick around and see to it that the child was safe -- a duty that a parent or guardian would have had. The prosecution argued that the woman created a duty of care in that particular situation by attempting to look after the child.

And yes, this line of reasoning could leave a perfect stranger who acted similarly vulnerable to prosecution.