Why would you feel sympathy for these asshats?

[KLin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: Vic
If you check the article now, you'll notice that the newspaper re-wrote it and (among other things) removed the reference to "borrowing cars". Why? Because neither the police nor the parents said the kids were "borrowing cars", that was the newspaper.

Howard Hurtt said his son and his friends had recently been borrowing cars from people they knew. He said he tried to get his son to stop the joyriding, but questioned why the group was pursued.

Just so I'm clear. The newspaper misquoted Howard Hurtt about his son and the son's friends? Mr Hurtt never said the above? And a follow up... How did you come into knowledge of what was said and what was not said by Mr Hurtt?

I'm sorry... where do you see quotes around that statement they attribute to him?
It appears they had a statement from him, but they chose not to quote it and instead paraphrased it. Now why do you suppose they did that?

I guess this would be a good question for Paul Nowell, Associated Press. It looks like he was the one that originally wrote the article with the quote from the father.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused

Actually, parents have been charged with negligence when their children harm others. No where in the Constitution does it say a parent cannot be held as negligent when how they raise their child is directly connected to why that child hurt someone or committed a crime.

It is not "vengeance," Vic. It's being held responsible for your actions. If you fail to teach your child right from wrong, you should be held responsible for that.

Perhaps we have a difference of opinion regarding the 6th Amendment.

And what if a parent does teach their child right from wrong, and the child chooses wrong anyway? Don't act like that never happens...

No, I wont. However, if a prosecutor can find sufficient evidence that the parent did NOT make every reasonable effort to keep their child out of trouble, that parent should be held as negligent.

 

[Nitemare]

"Meanwhile, more details emerged Tuesday about events preceded the tragedy. Statesville police confirmed that a city resident reported the Intrepid stolen on Sunday night.

In addition, Reed was being investigated as a possible participant in a home-invasion robbery in nearby Mooresville.

Mooresville police chief John Crone said four of the six robbery victims identified Reed as an assailant in the robbery, which took place about two hours before the fatal crash.

"He (Reed) was wearing the same kind of clothing as one of the suspects," Crone said Tuesday. "Four of the victims picked him out of a (photo) lineup."

Crone said two men broke into an apartment at the Piedmont Point Apartments and forced the occupants at gunpoint to lay down on the floor. They took $270 from three victims and a cell phone from another, he said."

The world is definitely a sadder place now that these innocent angels are dead.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: labgeek
Guess I expect a little more from my "reporting" than you do.

Funny... I see it as exactly the opposite.

Unless by that you mean that you expect the media to be truthful and generally assume that they are. In which case, you both expect and assume wrong. The purpose of the media is not to report the news but to sell advertising. Take everything else with a grain of salt. "Trust... but verify."

edit to your edit:

I expect when a "reporter" says that someone "said" something, they actually did say it.

So, if he had a statement, why did he paraphrase instead of quoting?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: labgeek
Guess I expect a little more from my "reporting" than you do.

Funny... I see it as exactly the opposite.

Unless by that you mean that you expect the media to be truthful and generally assume that they are. In which case, you both expect and assume wrong. The purpose of the media is not to report the news but to sell advertising. Take everything else with a grain of salt. "Trust... but verify."

well considering the car was verfied as being stolen i guess i will go with what the article first posted. that they were "borrowing" cars for a while and that the father knew about it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: labgeek
Guess I expect a little more from my "reporting" than you do.

Funny... I see it as exactly the opposite.

Unless by that you mean that you expect the media to be truthful and generally assume that they are. In which case, you both expect and assume wrong. The purpose of the media is not to report the news but to sell advertising. Take everything else with a grain of salt. "Trust... but verify."

Most of us do that, Vic. The problem here is, you seem to be doing it selectively. You are questioning any part of the stories that do not support your argument, and NOT questioning the parts of the stories that do.

If anything, the original AJC story was FAR too focused on the police and chase policies, than on the criminality of the kids and excuses of the parents.

See how this is so subjective?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: waggy
well considering the car was verfied as being stolen i guess i will go with what the article first posted. that they were "borrowing" cars for a while and that the father knew about it.

You all are seriously missing the point.
Because the reporter did not quote (when most likely he could have), the most suspect and inflammatory word is "borrowing". At least the reporter was kind enough to include how the father had tried to get his son to stop.

Anyway, before you go on accusing me of being "selective" to support my "argument", you might just want to figure out just exactly what my "argument" is, don't you think?

Hint: my argument is that this is much ado about nothing. It's a bittersweet tragedy. Stupid bad kids are dead. Parents who (according to the article and not being selective) tried to help their kids are mourning. I don't feel sympathy, but I think it's a bad day all around. Except, of course, for the media, which would quickly go out of business were it not for this kind of thing.

edit: the only reason I posted here was because I was pretty much horrified that people were wishing those kids an even worse death. Is it not enough that they died? Does your bloodlust and quest for vengeance have no fill? If I feel any sympathy here, it's to you people. How does that feel?

 

[tk149]

Evolution in Action (TM)

 

[spliffstar69]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: waggy
well considering the car was verfied as being stolen i guess i will go with what the article first posted. that they were "borrowing" cars for a while and that the father knew about it.

You all are seriously missing the point.
Because the reporter did not quote (when most likely he could have), the most suspect and inflammatory word is "borrowing". At least the reporter was kind enough to include how the father had tried to get his son to stop.

Anyway, before you go on accusing me of being "selective" to support my "argument", you might just want to figure out just exactly what my "argument" is, don't you think?

Hint: my argument is that this is much ado about nothing. It's a bittersweet tragedy. Stupid bad kids are dead. Parents who (according to the article and not being selective) tried to help their kids are mourning. I don't feel sympathy, but I think it's a bad day all around. Except, of course, for the media, which would quickly go out of business were it not for this kind of thing.

edit: the only reason I posted here was because I was pretty much horrified that people were wishing those kids an even worse death. Is it not enough that they died? Does your bloodlust and quest for vengeance have no fill? If I feel any sympathy here, it's to you people. How does that feel?

Im with you Vic reguardless of the situation reguardless of the stupididty the yongsters showed.

People are dead and you have people on here saying they are glad WTF?

 

[Mill]

To the people calling me psycho and all... relax. I was just being superfluous. I don't really want someone to suffer even in they made a terrible mistake. Their death was good enough for me, but I do think their parents have responsibility as well.

No, I don't wish the town exploded or the Enola Gay nuked them or anything like that. It was just my style of getting my point across like the AJC. They chose to look at it one way at an extreme and I chose to do the same. My true feelings are that of the majority in this thread. They got what they deserved and I don't feel any sympathy. Some of you should seriously relax. Most of you know how I overstate things to make a point. How did you get Skoorbed this time?

That being said, sorry if what I said really offended something. ATOT tends to wish torture and suffering on drunk drivers, so I figured most of you would be tolerant of what I said.

 

[StageLeft]

Silly policeman. He should have let them go. 15 year olds with no license and a willingness to drive at 100 mph are, overall, much less of a threat against society than police. That this happened only affirms my statement :evil:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: waggy
well considering the car was verfied as being stolen i guess i will go with what the article first posted. that they were "borrowing" cars for a while and that the father knew about it.

You all are seriously missing the point.
Because the reporter did not quote (when most likely he could have), the most suspect and inflammatory word is "borrowing". At least the reporter was kind enough to include how the father had tried to get his son to stop.

Anyway, before you go on accusing me of being "selective" to support my "argument", you might just want to figure out just exactly what my "argument" is, don't you think?

Hint: my argument is that this is much ado about nothing. It's a bittersweet tragedy. Stupid bad kids are dead. Parents who (according to the article and not being selective) tried to help their kids are mourning. I don't feel sympathy, but I think it's a bad day all around. Except, of course, for the media, which would quickly go out of business were it not for this kind of thing.

edit: the only reason I posted here was because I was pretty much horrified that people were wishing those kids an even worse death. Is it not enough that they died? Does your bloodlust and quest for vengeance have no fill? If I feel any sympathy here, it's to you people. How does that feel?

But Vic, you've been debating this with me more than anyone else, and I have never expressed glee over their deaths. Quite the opposite. Their deaths are horrible and a direct result of parental neglect.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Silly policeman. He should have let them go. 15 year olds with no license and a willingness to drive at 100 mph are, overall, much less of a threat against society than police. That this happened only affirms my statement :evil:

He tried pulling them over. They immediately sped up to over 100 MPH and crashed within a few miles. The cop had backed off and was a long way behind them when they crashed.

Bills chased the car for about 15 seconds at about 100 mph and backed off about three-quarters of a mile away from the car before the crash.

Should the police just ignore every crime and traffic violation they see?

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: spliffstar69


People are dead and you have people on here saying they are glad WTF?

Just to be clear, and not speaking for anyone else, I have never said I was glad about thier death. To be more specific, I really care one way or the other. I am glad that thier little crime spree is done however. That community is just a little bit safer now. For that, I am glad. How that got accomplished, I really don't care.

 

[StageLeft]

The cop had backed off and was a long way behind them when they crashed.

If not for the cop these kids would surely still be alive.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The cop had backed off and was a long way behind them when they crashed.

If not for the cop these kids would surely still be alive.

...and breaking the law with impunity.

Answer my question: Are the police to ignore all crimes and traffic violations so no one gets hurt? Can you not see the anarchy that would follow such a policy?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The cop had backed off and was a long way behind them when they crashed.

If not for the cop these kids would surely still be alive.

...and breaking the law with impunity.

Answer my question: Are the police to ignore all crimes and traffic violations so no one gets hurt? Can you not see the anarchy that would follow such a policy?

I'm just being a dick and arguing the same way I've heard argued in the past 🙂 I have no problem with high speed chases, and as long as the police officer isn't being reckless I think that the chasee should be held liable for all damages (property and life) caused during a chase by them OR by the cop (ie, cop slams into a car full of kids - it's the chasee's fault for putting the cop in that position).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The cop had backed off and was a long way behind them when they crashed.

If not for the cop these kids would surely still be alive.

...and breaking the law with impunity.

Answer my question: Are the police to ignore all crimes and traffic violations so no one gets hurt? Can you not see the anarchy that would follow such a policy?

I'm just being a dick and arguing the same way I've heard argued in the past 🙂 I have no problem with high speed chases, and as long as the police officer isn't being reckless I think that the chasee should be held liable for all damages (property and life) caused during a chase by them OR by the cop (ie, cop slams into a car full of kids - it's the chasee's fault for putting the cop in that position).

😛

 

[StageLeft]

Did I mention I love watching high speed chases on tv? 😀

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Did I mention I love watching high speed chases on tv? 😀

You are an evil, evil man. 😛

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

They KNEW it was stupid

Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you but how many smart 15 year olds do you know?

"Smart" 14 yrs old.... 😛

To end this, the original question was if I would have any sympathy for these asshats and my answer would still be NO. If you decide to jump off a cliff tomorrow, it has the same affect on me, which still is a big NO on the sympathy. I do believe in cause and effect, part of that Karma thing, so whatever you do, the consequences are yours to bare. If you decide to be stupid, then go and be stupid, just leave me out of it and don't ask me for sympathy. If your stupidity in any way could cause harm to myself and others, I'm GLAD that it was only you that perished. The end.

 

[kenshorin]

Originally posted by: Vic
I said people should be judged according to what they actually did do, and not based on what you think they could have done.

So basically we should get rid of all speed limits... because in and of itself speeding isn't hurting anyone. Its when you slam your car into them doing 80mph that is the real problem...

I call bullsh!t. If we lived in a reactionary society that just simply mopped up the mess when something happens, we'd be surrounded by tragedy constantly. And don't give me crap about how "we all do stupid things" too... yes, I've done some stupid crap in my life. And guess what? If those things killed me, I would feel no sympathy for me either! Life is a high stakes game, and when the game is over there's no second chances. If your actions blow it... expect no sympathy. But the reason I am here is because I listened to instincts which told me "Hey, stealing cars is wrong! Driving a buck forty is gonna kill you unless you watch your ass! Trying to outrun cops when they are right on your ass is a no win situation!" and I listened to that... instead of being an asshat. I have had friends die in drunk driving accidents, and while I felt bad for the family's grief, I could only feel disappointment in my friends for doing something they knew they shouldn't have done and putting themselves in a no win situation. No sympathy for them either, and actually was glad they didn't hurt any innocent bystanders. And I know that the family felt that way as well. That being said, anyone who is "glad" this happened is a sick fvck. Its tragic, to be sure. But when you cook a sh!t sandwich, don't be surprised when you have to take a bite.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kenshorin

Originally posted by: Vic
I said people should be judged according to what they actually did do, and not based on what you think they could have done.

So basically we should get rid of all speed limits... because in and of itself speeding isn't hurting anyone. Its when you slam your car into them doing 80mph that is the real problem...

I call bullsh!t. If we lived in a reactionary society that just simply mopped up the mess when something happens, we'd be surrounded by tragedy constantly. And don't give me crap about how "we all do stupid things" too... yes, I've done some stupid crap in my life. And guess what? If those things killed me, I would feel no sympathy for me either! Life is a high stakes game, and when the game is over there's no second chances. If your actions blow it... expect no sympathy. But the reason I am here is because I listened to instincts which told me "Hey, stealing cars is wrong! Driving a buck forty is gonna kill you unless you watch your ass! Trying to outrun cops when they are right on your ass is a no win situation!" and I listened to that... instead of being an asshat. I have had friends die in drunk driving accidents, and while I felt bad for the family's grief, I could only feel disappointment in my friends for doing something they knew they shouldn't have done and putting themselves in a no win situation. No sympathy for them either, and actually was glad they didn't hurt any innocent bystanders. And I know that the family felt that way as well. That being said, anyone who is "glad" this happened is a sick fvck. Its tragic, to be sure. But when you cook a sh!t sandwich, don't be surprised when you have to take a bite.

In fact, I do believe we should get rid of speed limits. God knows they're just a hidden tax anyway. Instead, just jack up the punishment/penalties for causing an accident through reckless driving. I think the same thing about DUI. Instead just dramatically increase the punishment for causing an injury accident while DUI. I've posted to this effect more than once here in the past. Because that's right, it's when you slam into someone at 80mph that is the real problem.

And it's not bullsh!t. Or are you saying that the society (world) we already live in is NOT surrounded by tragedy constantly? Because it most certainly is.
Otherwise (picking apart the pieces of your rant) I agree with most of the rest of your post.

The problem is that we are trying to legislate intelligence and morality by these "proactive" laws. I guarantee you that, as they have not succeeded thus far, they will never succeed in the future. No matter what we do, people will still be idiots, people will still kill each other, kill themselves, kill innocents, do harmful drugs, drive too fast, drive drunk, rob banks, rape women, run from the cops, steal cars, and cause wars, etc.
No amount of laws will stop that, and (I would argue) that only the most immoral of people would refrain from doing such things ONLY because they are illegal.
It's not the fact that stealing is against the law that keeps me from doing stealing, it's the moral knowledge that stealing is wrong and harmful. To those who don't have that moral understanding, no amount of laws will stop them.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
In fact, I do believe we should get rid of speed limits. God knows they're just a hidden tax anyway. Instead, just jack up the punishment/penalties for causing an accident through reckless driving. I think the same thing about DUI. Instead just dramatically increase the punishment for causing an injury accident while DUI. I've posted to this effect more than once here in the past. Because that's right, it's when you slam into someone at 80mph that is the real problem

Comments directly from the Moronsphere by way of the Stupidizone. The most important laws you're ignoring totally are a couple of Newton's laws of physics.

Two masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time. That's what causes dents and other bent metal. It has a similar effect on human bodies

A body in motion tends to remain in motion at a constant velocity and direction. That is, it takes more energy to slow down, stop, or turn out of the way of whatever's in front of you than it does to plow into it.

Most people don't have a high level awareness of the safe limits of a car in motion, especially considering varying road conditions and especially at high speeds. Even if YOU think you're a total physics and driving genius, your skill level is impared if you're fatigued, or you've been drinking, or the roads are slightly damp and slick, or hundreds of other conditions. And even if you believe YOU can compensate for that and moderate your driving under those conditons, YOU are not the only one on the road. Traffic laws are a means to set a norm for most drivers out there, not just special little YOU.

Then, there the simple fact that, for some idiots, the only thing acts as any constraint against challenging these laws is the legislative prohibition that means they could go to jail for violating both speed and DUI laws.

Too bad it didn't have that effect on those idiot kids. I don't think their death is anything to celebrate on a grand scale, but they certainly achieved the reasonably forseeable result of their own stupid conduct. They may have done the world a favor by deleting themselves from the gene pool.

 

[IGBT]

Good reason to raise the driving age to 21...let em joy ride on the bus.