A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FWD bad judgement or abuse Trunk kids begged to ride



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 24th 03, 09:51 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FWD bad judgement or abuse Trunk kids begged to ride

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:37:15 GMT, "Henry W. Moritz"
moc.ishcm@ztiromwh wrote:


"Blossie750" wrote in message
...

"Henry W. Moritz" moc.ishcm@ztiromwh wrote in message
news:1PRTa.136897$H17.47080@sccrnsc02...

"Blossie750" wrote in message
...


This is an invalid comparison. A child eating a pretzel is a

very
low
risk
behavior.

Very low risk on who's scale? gotta link?

Okay...you're suggesting that, in fact, a child eating a pretzel

is a
high
risk behavior?


No. I'm suggesting that ALL behavior carries some 'risk'. But, is a

ride
in the
trunk more dangerous than a ride on the wooden coaster at Knobles?


Yup. Their own lawyer noted that it was a very stupid thing to do.

Or a childs
first attempt to walk tightrope without a safety net?


???

You advocate for
government intrusion into private family because of a 'risk' you

have
labeled
'high'. Is this one of your 'feelings'?


Geez, is that what I did? Because, I gotta tell ya, I don't

remember doing
that. I do remember stating that letting kids ride in the trunk was
irresponsible and that an arrest and fine were not unreasonabe --

hardly a
exhortation for "government intrusion".

Or do ya gotta link? Is this high risk
you speak of documented? Is it indeed a 'substantial' risk? Or just

more
risky
than eating pretzels?


I don't need a link. Common sense demonstrates the danger of this

activity.
Trunks are not designed to be passenger compartments. They are not
ventilated. They are locked from the outside. They typically have
equipment in them, such as spare tires, tools, and possibly other

items
(although we don't know about this particular trunk). They aren't

typically
padded very well and can have plastic and metal component components
protruding inside. Cars are not designed to protect the contents of

trunks
in the even of a collision, for example a rear-end collision. Trunks

are
positioned close to the car's exhaust system. As I recall, this car

was an
older car (a 1982 Pontiac Bonneville, I think), thus a reasonable

person
would probably have to consider the possibility that it might have

rust
damage or present a higher than typical risk for carbon monxide. The
statistics for casualties regarding folks that don't wear seat belts

is
common knowledge. That's why states have seat belt laws, in

particular for
children. At a minimum, these kids obviously weren't wearing seat

belts.
Moreover, the car was traveling in an urban area, the most likely

setting
for an automobile accident.

Here's what the cops said:

Lt. Joseph Jordan, a spokesman for the Anne Arundel County Police
Department, said the parents are lucky no one was hurt.

"They're supposed to be in seat belts," Jordan said on ABCNEWS' Good

Morning
America. "If there would have been a rear-end collision, they could

have
been seriously injured. So we feel that it was reckless to put the

kids in
the trunk."


It isn't the same as a parent giving assent to a risky

behavior
and then compounding it by participating in it.

It's not that some behaviors are risky and some are not, it's

that
some
behaviors are more risky than others. Our differences stem from

where
we'd
like
to draw the line on the scale. We put our kids in danger when

we send
them
off
to school, or put them in the trunk. MA criminalized 'reckless

acts'
involving
children just last year. The 'risk' must be 'substantial'.

I agree. I think putting children in a trunk and driving around

is
pretty
risky. I think more substantially more so than pretzel eating.


Of course different behaviors fall to different places on the risk

scale.
Some
is more risky, some less risky. That's not the question. Should our

government
interfere by force because some behaviors are more risky than

eating
pretzels?

Yes, our govenrment should interfere by force on some types of

behaviors.



The reason how we feel
about it is relevant is because the risk to serious injury to

those
boys
is
much higher in the trunk, which was not designed as a

passenger
compartment,
and the possibility of dire consequences were not at all far

fetched.

Risk seems like a logic calculation to me. The relevance of

'feeling'
still
escapes me.

Risk is a logic calculation, but the consequences of the risk are

relevant
to our societal standards and opinions, that is, how we feel

about it.
For
example, a person might decided to throw a water baloon at

something
and,
thus, incur a great deal of risk of getting wet. But, absent the

presense
of some other high risk circumstance, most folks would feel that

getting
wet
probably isn't much of a consequence. But folks tend to get

pretty
serious
feelings regarding death and injury.


Nope. Allowing 'feelings' to cloud our logic calculations leads to

the
wrong
choices. Feelings allowed us to put thousands of innocents on the

dead
pile
because of the 'feelings' evoked by the picture of a mushroom cloud

over
Chitown. Likewise, 'feelings' evoked by dead kids in a trunk

completly
skew the
picture - causing otherwise sane people to go bonkers and insist

government DO
SOMETHING.


Sorry, but I didn't advocate that we allow feelings to "cloud" our
judgement. I just said that our feelings, especially as a society,

are
relevant factors in making our judgements. If we don't recognize

the fact
that some types of behavior can lead to more dire consequences than

others,
then we would have to be pretty stupid.


Determining if a behavior demonstrates a 'substantial' risk

requires
thinking,
not feeling.


Once again, it's not just the risk, it's also the consequences of

assuming
the risk.

But fortunately no one got hurt.

Yup. Wish we could say the same for GW's 'poor judgement

call'.


Would the other little boy's father have been so

forgiving if
his
kid had died?

Again, obviously not.

Forgiving? Every sad thing is not somebodys 'fault'.

Sorry, but allowing someone else's little kid to ride in your

trunk
and
then
die of carbon monoxide poisoning would hardly be judged

faultless.

No one died. He allowed the kids to ride in the trunk. The kids

'could
have'
died.

True. But I believe your "every sad thing" comment was meant to

suggest
that even if there had been a more serious outcome that the

adults
involved
wouldn't have been at fault.


Exactly. I said as much. While I imagine if we apply hindsight to

every
tragic
accident, we're bound to reach a point where we can say - were it

not for
HIM/HER, it would have never happened. In fact, we may find any

number of
people who could have done things differently thus preventing the

tradegy.
IMO,
people acting reasonably are not at 'fault' when bad things happen.

My point was that potential consequences of
allowing children to ride in a trunk are too serious and risky to

wave
off
as normal everyday behavior. If the kids had died, my guess is

that the
consequences would have been far more serious.


But 'too serious and risky' is your 'feeling'.

And your skewed view of 'normal
everyday behavior' just compounds your mistake. The seriousness of

the
consequences do not alter the risk involved. We can destroy

families,
arrest
parents, try them, fry them, make em suffer as sully would say -

all based
on
these feelings - without any real knowledge of the actual risk

involved.

OK, so you appear to believe that allowing kids to ride in the trunk

is
reasonable behavior. What can I say? I don't share your opinion. The

police
and prosecurtor's office in Edwater (or whatever the jursidiction is)

don't
appear to share your opinion. The government of Maryland doesn't

share your
opinion. I suspect most people wouldn't share that opinion, but of

course,
that's just my opinion. ;-)

But regarding your comments regarding risk and consequences, I'm

afraid
you're just plain wrong there. Our society routinely takes

consequences
into account when assessing risk. To go back to your curious

"tightrope"
example. Would you really say that a person walking a tight rope

over a pit
of spikes is assuming the same risk as someone walking a tightrope

over a
safety net? The former example is more risky -- because we recognize

that
making a mistake over a pit of spikes has a more dangerous

consequence than
landing in the safety net. This is also reflected in our system of

law.
Society routinely assigns more serious punishment to behaviors where

the
consequences of an action are more dire.

And if they did, it would have been a tragic accident. Many of

my
friends
rode
in their parents trunk. It was a fad. The older kids did it to

get in
the
drive-in free, and younger siblings burned with envy. And back

then,
while
some
parents may have chosen not to indulge, nary a whisper was

heard of
criminalizing 'such behavior'.

Societal opinions change, environments change. Society used to

accept
all
sorts of behavior that is now illegal.


Yup. Sad ain't it.


I guess it depends on what behaviors you're lamenting. I can think

of a lot
of behavior that we used to accept that we now reject. For example,

I
really don't mourn the end of slavery.

We have a swaggering, mentally challenged, talks to G*d,
beadie eyed liar as leader of the free world - finger on the

trigger of
Armageddon. We watch our allies load babies on dumptrucks with

pitchforks
and
say they deserved it, then light up our cigar to solve the problem

of
giving a
kid a ride in the trunk. It's good to be king.


Uh...never mind...




Now you want to tell me the people I knew - the parents and

grandparents
who
gave the kids a ride in the trunk are morons and criminals.


I don't even think that the adults involved in this particular

issue are
"morons and criminals"


Sure you do. You said as much. You said their decision was

'moronic' and
that
arrest was justified.


Yes, it was a moronic decision. Just because someone makes a stupid
decision, it doesn't follow that the person is stupid.

Are we cascading yet?


One of the more serious things only too lightly touched on in this
event was the risk of CO poisoning.

In an open area or even an ordinarily ventilated house CO can build up
to toxic levels and toxic exposers over time...but here's what the EPA
says, and we are thinking enclosed space.

Those boys had at the least 20 minutes in there...and we don't
actually know if any damange was done. I've a hunch that's one reason
the state does not wish to return one of them to his parent. They need
access to have him examined for harm. So here yah go:

http://tinyurl.com/hyo1

More at the url above.....

"Carbon Monoxide Can Be Deadly
You can't see or smell carbon monoxide, but at high levels it can kill
a person in minutes. Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced whenever any
fuel such as gas, oil, kerosene, wood, or charcoal is burned. If
appliances that burn fuel are maintained and used properly, the amount
of CO produced is usually not hazardous. However, if appliances are
not working properly or are used incorrectly, dangerous levels of CO
can result. Hundreds of people die accidentally every year from CO
poisoning caused by malfunctioning or improperly used fuel-burning
appliances. Even more die from CO produced by idling cars. Fetuses,
infants, elderly people, and people with anemia or with a history of
heart or respiratory disease can be especially susceptible. Be safe.
Practice the DO's and DON'Ts of carbon monoxide.

CO Poisoning Symptoms
Know the symptoms of CO poisoning. At moderate levels, you or your
family can get severe headaches, become dizzy, mentally confused,
nauseated, or faint. You can even die if these levels persist for a
long time. Low levels can cause shortness of breath, mild nausea, and
mild headaches, and may have longer term effects on your health. Since
many of these symptoms are similar to those of the flu, food
poisoning, or other illnesses, you may not think that CO poisoning
could be the cause."

This latter was how the boys were discribed when the police got them
out of the trunk after a 20 mile ride. My guess is it took them more
than 20 minutes to get 20 miles, more than enough time to kill them
even with a small leak into the trunk from the exhaust system.

Oh, and knowing folks that were victims myself, I know those boys
wouldn't have even known to bang or yell to be let out. They would
just have gone to sleep quietly and never awakened.

I can't believe anyone would argue that this was not a lethal event in
the making, and that the perps should just be let off with a little
slap on the risk. If it were yours kids in someone else's car who did
that to your kids, what would you really want to have happen?

And don't run that, "the kids asked" nonsense by us again. The kids
were not informed of the risks nor could they, as kids, even give
informed consent.

Would you hand a kid a loaded gun with no instructions or supervision?

One of the most important reasons for penalties under the law is
deterence of others than the perp.

Wanna bet some yahoo isn't going to do this again pending lack of
severe penalties enacted? Yah gottah sometimes use a 2x4 to get some
attention yah know.

Kane
  #2  
Old August 4th 03, 07:44 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FWD bad judgement or abuse Trunk kids begged to ride

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 07:20:35 -0700, "bobb" wrote:

Well, Kane, I can't think of any good that might come out of riding

in a
trunk except the kids my find is rather smelly from exhaust and

scream to
get out.


The CO that comes from unburned fuel components is odorless and
tasteless. Exhaust fumes by themselves are not offense to all children
or adults. In fact there's a number of them that love the smell. I
kind of was hooked on deisal fumes myself when I was a teen. Now they
make me neusious.

A clue to get the exhaust system fixed. Nah.. that's too much of
a stretch.


Yeah, I'd say you are offering too much of a stretch. Kids tend to get
quiet in small spaces and most likely would kick up an fuss at all,
just considering the odor part of the excitement.

I recall a family searching for a missing three or four year old for a
couple of days, only to find him dead, in the station wagon that had
already been checked in the first few minutes of the hunt with people
loudly calling his name.

He was in the rear side tool compartment. Crawled in, pulled it closed
behind him playing hide and go seek, and it latched. I guess he just
waited for someone to find him, but didn't get it that he had to call
out.

I think that was over 15 years ago so I'm unable to find a referrance
but I remember it vividly. When I read it I imagined being that small
boy.

Of course, there is a chance those kids will learn that small
spaces are fun... and not to be afraid of the dark.


I can think of about 20 other safe alternatives that kids use. Hiding
in closets, hide and go seek games, hiding under the covers reading
comics by flashlight, building forts in brushpiles, to name just a
few.

Do you also advocate children learn about holding their breath by
putting plastic bags over their heads? I know kids do practice holding
their breaths.

Gosh, our astronauts and
deep sea divers are contained in spaces far smaller than a car

trunk...

Not these days they aren't. Not as small as a car trunk.

and
I've heard some guys to there best work in the dark. :-)


And I do my best work by afternoon sunlight, thank you very much. {:-]

I would suppose doing something new, and perhaps scary at first, has

nothing
to do with engaging in other new experiences, either.


Scary in concept does not have to equate with dangerous in fact. Lots
of perfectly harmless activities can be organized to LOOK and feel
scary. The Fun house at the county fair comes to mind, or renting and
viewing a copy of Psycho.

A small, but
certain, a confidence builder. Kids, and for that matter, adults

learn
from play time experiences


Yes, they do that alright.

and we never know how those experiences and
opportunities affect later lives.


We don't? I guess my psych 101 college class was a waste of time, at
least the early childhood development and learning theory parts then.
We seemed to cover them in depth so well I was motivated to go on and
study learning theory in far greater detail.

I'm a little miffed the researchers wasted my time fooling me into
believing they had decades, actually centuries, of study of the
subject. I should have just come and asked you how to learn.

Got a question for yah though. Now that you know how to drive a car
what do you think about the predictability of your drivers ed, or cut
and paste experimentation, takes your choice, had to do with your
current ability?

There, see how easy it is to figure out how those experiences and
opportunities affected your later life?

Geez, bobb, could you dream up some more utterly inane statements to
make on this subject. I'm writing a book and you could be a big help.

"Ten Thousand Ways to Make a Complete Fool of Yourself" subtitled,
"bobb Explains Life"

Yeh... there are a lotta guys sitting in jail... innocents.


Uhhhh. Sure. If you say so, pal. "Lotta" is a powerful piece of data
that only a fool like me would discount.

Those who put
them there will claim they were following the laws, too.


Yeah. There's hardly a guilty party in jail these days. And those damn
prosecutors are mostly lying.

Those dead and injured victims, those child ****er's victims, and
other crybabies are all making a mountain out of a molehill.

There are a lotta
guys sitting in jail serving time that far exceed the nature of the

crime,
too.


No doubt. Gimme another "lotta" will yah huh?

One may argue the other side too.


That there are a lot of guilty sitting in jail? That Mayflies in
August portend a blustery winter? That Earnie Pyle was in fact a
Martian?

Help us out here, bobb.

I'm still waiting to see those from ERON
to go to jail.


Me too. The penalties might not be enough to satisfy my blood lust
revenge driven solutions to white collar crime. Hang`em all, is my
motto.

In perspective, they did a lot more to harm society as a
whole than some guy possessing a small amount of marijuana, or even

the
likes of Kobe.


I know. But then I wonder how they stack up against Pol Pot and
Richard Speck? Oh well, speculation is my game.

Ask and yee shall receive, I aims tah please:

(a partial quote from the web site that is monitoring the Enron case)
(and you won't get any argument from me about the seriousness)

http://tinyurl.com/iz5g

What is the current status of the Enron case?
Because of the complexity of the Enron case and because of the number
of people and partnerships being investigated, probes by the SEC and
Department of Justice are ongoing. In addition, a class action lawsuit
on behalf on Enron shareholders is in its early stages.

Convictions
As mentioned, the first to be convicted was former Enron executive
Michael Kopper. Kopper worked closely with Andrew Fastow, the former
chief financial officer, who has been indicted on 78 counts of
conspiracy. In August 2002, Kopper was convicted to charges of money
laundering and wire fraud. He had pled guilty to the charges.

In addition, Enron's accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, LLP, has been
convicted of obstruction of justice. Employees were involved in a
massive destruction of files pertaining to Enron, preventing the court
from seeing past financial records, transactions, emails, memos, and
other potentially relevant documents. Anderson was responsible for
auditing Enron and for ensuring that its accounting practices adhered
to regulations. Arthur Anderson was also fined $500,000 and was placed
on five years probation.

Indictments, Defendants, and Investigations
There are more than 29 defendants listed in a case filed by the
federal government against Enron and its executives. Some of those
suspected of wrongdoing a
Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron president who served as CEO from
February to August 2001
Andrew Fastow, former chief financial officer who was in charge of
LJM and has been indicted on 78 counts of conspiracy (he has pleaded
not guilty on all counts)
Richard Causey, former chief accounting officer
Jeffrey McMahon, former treasurer
Ben Glisan Jr., former treasurer
Kenneth L. Lay, founder, former chairman, and former CEO of Enron
J. Clifford Baxter, former vice chairman, died of apparent suicide
in January 2002
Wendy L. Gramm, member of Enron's Board of Directors and its audit
committee
Gary Mulgrew, Greenwich Nat West bank employee, accused of
defrauding his company through the LJM investment
Giles Robert Hugh Darby, Greenwich Nat West bank employee, accused
of defrauding his company through the LJM investment
David John Bermingham, Greenwich Nat West bank employee, accused of
defrauding his company through the LJM investment

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. officials have been interrogated regarding
their role in dealings with former Enron executives, but no criminal
charges have been filed.

In addition, a lawsuit has been filed against Enron's law firm, Vinson
& Elkins LLP.

Timothy Belden, a former Enron energy trader pleaded guilty to charges
of conspiracy regarding illegal dealings that took advantage of the
California energy crisis. In essence, he explained, Enron took energy
out of California to avoid price caps, sent it elsewhere to make a
profit, and then sold it back to California at higher prices."

Apparently there's more to come.

It seems Sen. Patrick Leahy agrees with us though.

http://tinyurl.com/iz85

The following quote is from his web site suggestion some changes in
the fraud laws:

(it's worth the read to understand the changes coming on fraud-go
look)

"In addition, the current statutes and penalties for actually
committing securities fraud are inadequate. S. 2010 would remedy these
shortcomings. Current laws are filled with overly technical
requirements and do not always take into account the extent of the
securities fraud in fashioning punishment. The law should penalize
those is corporate management who actually defrauded thousands of
investors, not just those at accounting firms who destroyed documents
to cover it up."

I want you to notice that while the actual prosecutions are going
rather slowly, that is a good thing, while laws are changed to reflect
the seriousness of these crimes and, will be in place in time for the
coming trials, or so we can hope.

bobb


Kane
  #3  
Old August 5th 03, 05:54 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FWD bad judgement or abuse Trunk kids begged to ride

Kane, all these incidents you mentioned were unsupervised. Big difference.

Don't beg the issue by saying today's astronauts now have larger living
quarters. I'm not that easily distracted from the original thought.





We don't? I guess my psych 101 college class was a waste of time, at
least the early childhood development and learning theory parts then.
We seemed to cover them in depth so well I was motivated to go on and
study learning theory in far greater detail.

I'm a little miffed the researchers wasted my time fooling me into
believing they had decades, actually centuries, of study of the
subject. I should have just come and asked you how to learn.


Fortunately, I was never subjected to the brain-washing of drivers ed. I
say that because I was surprised to learned some very basics of safe driving
are not taught. That's another subject but suffice it to say I have driven
cars and trucks and buses, I have driven in more that 30 countries under
varying laws and conditions.. all without an accident.


Good luck on your book, and feel free to give me credit. It'll be a best
seller for sure.


Those who put
them there will claim they were following the laws, too.



It's not to say there aren't any guilty people in jail.. but it does seem
there are far too many innocents. Remember, the only one exposed to date
have been those on death row. This say nothing about those who are in jail
for lesser crimes. This is to say nothing about those who plead guitly to
crime they didn't committ in order to avoid a longer sentence. It's called
plea bargining... or legal black mail... take your choice.

I wasn't talking about the likes of a Richard Speck. The majority of people
in jail are there for much less serious crimes. But, as I've often said,
there are those who need to the move the extreme to justify a point when all
else fails.


As for ENRON and other white collar criminals... they have stolen millions
of dollars. Yet now matter how long their jail sentences are they will
have gained more money each year than we will in a lifetime. In very few
instances will they ever be called upon to repay what they have stolen.
Therein lies a huge injustice. And do they really do 'hard time'?
Hahaha.... I think not. The familes of convicted while collar criminals
will go on with little effect. Dad may as well be on vacation yet he
defrauded and stole from thousands, if not thousands of people... and who
knows how many were driven to suicide and bankruptcy.

Still... there are those who advocate jailing a mother who engaged in
'negligent' behavior or did in fact use poor judgement and suffered the loss
of a child. A lifetime sentence of guilt.

Think as you will...but justice and fairness is sorely lacking in our legal
system.


bobb



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Child abuse or poor judgement? Kids wanted to ride in trunk [email protected] General 4 August 3rd 03 04:02 PM
Article on kids and concerts Bill1255 General 6 July 21st 03 01:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.