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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |