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