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 |
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 |
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com