Kane
July 24th 03, 09:51 PM
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
<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