Teen killed after sticking head through party bus roof near George Washington Bridge - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493158]What assumptions? You were the one bringing up "you are prone to act stupid when with peeps"[/QUOTE] Let's start with "he's 16 and should be logically thinking at this point"

It was stupid of him to stick his head out of a moving vehicle, but I am not going to pretend I didn't do stupid shit when I was 16.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37493168]What does stupidity have to do with morality?[/QUOTE] Bad choice of words. The point is that the line between extremes is greatly blurred when you're younger. In the heat of a moment you don't usually think that "hey maybe if I stick my head out of a bus I'll get killed!"

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493175]Bad choice of words. The point is that the line between extremes is greatly blurred when you're younger.[/QUOTE] True, but it's hard to overlook the danger or sticking your head out of something as tall as a double-decker.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37493184]True, but it's hard to overlook the danger or sticking your head out of something as tall as a double-decker.[/QUOTE] It's really not.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37493184]True, but it's hard to overlook the danger or sticking your head out of something as tall as a double-decker.[/QUOTE] Easy for you to say, but I think you're miscalculating the variables that went into this situation.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493190]Easy for you to say, but I think you're miscalculating the variables that went into this situation.[/QUOTE] I only really have my own experience as a 16 year old to go on, but I certainly understood the danger of sticking bodyparts out of a moving vehicle. Sticking your head out of a vehicle is stupid, peer pressure or not.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493170]Let's start with "he's 16 and should be logically thinking at this point"[/QUOTE] Don't make this a meta discussion please. Facts: He did something stupid although he was PERSONALLY TOLD NOT TO BY A SECURITY OFFICER. You say he couldn't know there was an overpass it was an accident. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY RANDOM PEOPLE SHOULD NOT OPEN IT AT ALL. To prevent accidents. This, just the facts, is not different to telling your kids not to touch the rails of a subway. They could be electrified, they could not. Point is , kids are told not to touch them at all. And you can't see electricity without warning signs. (Just like you can't see an overpass without looking out of the front window) Now when a teen hangs around with friends at a station and goes "hey look guys", jumps to the rails and gets electrocuted, following your logic, it would just be an accident "well because teens do stupid stuff when in groups"

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37493202]I only really have my own experience as a 16 year old to go on, but I certainly understood the danger of sticking bodyparts out of a moving vehicle. Sticking your head out of a vehicle is stupid, peer pressure or not.[/QUOTE] Well, you're much more likely to get injured if you stick a body part out of the side of a vehicle than you are sticking your head out of the top. And again, nobody is arguing that what he did wasn't stupid, it's a matter of why "kid deserved to die because he did something I think is stupid" is terrible logic.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493218]Well, you're much more likely to get injured if you stick a body part out of the side of a vehicle than you are sticking your head out of the top. And again, nobody is arguing that what he did wasn't stupid, it's a matter of why "kid deserved to die because he did something I think is stupid" is terrible logic.[/QUOTE] Be didn't say "he deserved" at all. In fact I said nobody deserves to die. I said it was inbound. He had it coming. That is a major difference to "deserving".

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493206]Don't make this a meta discussion please. Facts: He did something stupid although he was PERSONALLY TOLD NOT TO BY A SECURITY OFFICER. You say he couldn't know there was an overpass it was an accident. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY RANDOM PEOPLE SHOULD NOT OPEN IT AT ALL. To prevent accidents. This, just the facts, is not different to telling your kids not to touch the rails of a subway. They could be electrified, they could not. Point is , kids are told not to touch them at all. Now when a teen hangs around with friends at a station and goes "hey look guys", jumps to the rails and gets electrocuted, following your logic, it would just be an accident "well because teens do stupid stuff when in groups"[/QUOTE] The difference is you're explicitly taught, don't fuck with the rails in case they're electrified, as far as we know the kid wasn't made aware of any dangers and you're pretty unlikely to open a hatch at the precise moment that a bridge comes at you, it's pretty rare I've gotta be honest.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493229]Be didn't say "he deserved" at all. In fact I said nobody deserves to die. I said it was inbound. He had it coming. That is a major difference to "deserving".[/QUOTE] Saying "he had it coming" basically means the same thing as "he deserved it" to most in the US. Simple misunderstanding.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493206]Don't make this a meta discussion please. Facts: He did something stupid although he was PERSONALLY TOLD NOT TO BY A SECURITY OFFICER. You say he couldn't know there was an overpass it was an accident. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY RANDOM PEOPLE SHOULD NOT OPEN IT AT ALL. To prevent accidents.[/QUOTE] And you're telling me normal people are 100% obedient? I find that hard to believe. [QUOTE=Killuah;37493206]This, just the facts, is not different to telling your kids not to touch the rails of a subway. They could be electrified, they could not. Point is , kids are told not to touch them at all. And you can't see electricity without warning signs. (Just like you can't see an overpass without looking out of the front window) Now when a teen hangs around with friends at a station and goes "hey look guys", jumps to the rails and gets electrocuted, following your logic, it would just be an accident "well because teens do stupid stuff when in groups"[/QUOTE] Right, but based on the fact that he's a kid whose decision center in his brain is nowhere near fully developed, and based on how these situations usually pan out, I find it very unsettling when people say that teenagers in these situations [I]deserved[/I] to die.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37493235]Saying "he had it coming" basically means the same thing as "he deserved it" to most in the US. Simple misunderstanding.[/QUOTE] A better phrase in this case would be "What's for you won't go by you."

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37493234]The difference is you're explicitly taught, don't fuck with the rails in case they're electrified, as far as we know the kid wasn't made aware of any dangers and you're pretty unlikely to open a hatch at the precise moment that a bridge comes at you, it's pretty rare I've gotta be honest.[/QUOTE] He was told repeatedly not to do it during the ride.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37493234]The difference is you're explicitly taught, don't fuck with the rails in case they're electrified, as far as we know the kid wasn't made aware of any dangers and you're pretty unlikely to open a hatch at the precise moment that a bridge comes at you, it's pretty rare I've gotta be honest.[/QUOTE] What kind of thinking is that. You speak him free of any responsibility for the consequences of his actions because there was no sign or sentence telling him "there might be an overpass coming" ?

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493229]Be didn't say "he deserved" at all. In fact I said nobody deserves to die. I said it was inbound. He had it coming. That is a major difference to "deserving".[/QUOTE] Saying he had it coming is exactly the same as saying "he received punishment for the actions he took" which is basically the definition of "deserving."

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493244]And you're telling me normal people are 100% obedient? I find that hard to believe. Right, but based on the fact that he's a kid whose decision center in his brain is nowhere near fully developed, and based on how these situations usually pan out, I find it very unsettling when people say that teenagers in these situations [I]deserved[/I] to die.[/QUOTE] WE DIDN'T SAY [B]DESERVE[/B] We say ACTION <-> REACTION and by doing stuff you are warned not to do you are responsible for the consequences.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493244]And you're telling me normal people are 100% obedient? I find that hard to believe. Right, but based on the fact that he's a kid whose decision center in his brain is nowhere near fully developed, and based on how these situations usually pan out, I find it very unsettling when people say that teenagers in these situations [I]deserved[/I] to die.[/QUOTE] Not all disobedience is the same. This isn't really comparable to sneaking out at night or smoking a joint with your friends.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493252]What kind of thinking is that. You speak him free of any responsibility for the consequences of his actions because there was no sign or sentence telling him "there might be an overpass coming" ?[/QUOTE] Again, it's not that we're trying to abolish him of any responsibility for his consequences. It's a matter of that it's just tragic that he died for a lapse in judgment.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493258]Saying he had it coming is exactly the same as saying "he received punishment for the actions he took" which is basically the definition of "deserving."[/QUOTE] It is absolutely not.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493258]Saying he had it coming is exactly the same as saying "he received punishment for the actions he took" which is basically the definition of "deserving."[/QUOTE] "Deserve" is more about morality. Like Killuah said, this is more action/reaction that morality.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493267]Again, it's not that we're trying to abolish him of any responsibility for his consequences. It's a matter of that it's just tragic that he died for a lapse in judgment.[/QUOTE] I think it is tragic when people die although they do NOT have a lapse in in judgement. When they did nothing wrong.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37493267]Again, it's not that we're trying to abolish him of any responsibility for his consequences. It's a matter of that it's just tragic that he died for a lapse in judgment.[/QUOTE] "Lapse is judgement" is a [i]really[/i] nice way of saying "he disobeyed repeated orders not to do it, then did it and got killed".

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493272]It is absolutely not.[/QUOTE] Alright, I've fucking had it with this semantic bullshit. This argument has moved from the original point on a bullshit basis of semantics that it's not even laughable. Not to mention the repeated times my attempts to steer this into a better direction have been thwarted several times.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37493250]He was told repeatedly not to do it during the ride.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between saying "here' mate, gonnae no dae that," and saying "here mate, you're face is gonna get all fucked up if you stick your head out the window."

Then stop saying that I somehow said "he deserved it". I say he did the wrong thing -> bad things happened. No tragic. Unfortunate, yes. A shame, of course.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37493287]There's a difference between saying "here' mate, gonnae no dae that," and saying "here mate, you're face is gonna get all fucked up if you stick your head out the window."[/QUOTE] Why would somebody tell you not to stick your head out of the roof hatch if not to keep you from smashing your face? [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37493267]Again, it's not that we're trying to abolish him of any responsibility for his consequences. It's a matter of that it's just tragic that he died for a lapse in judgment.[/QUOTE] I agree completely, but it was not just a "lapse in judgement". It seems like we just have two different ways of saying something.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37493298]Then stop saying that I somehow said "he deserved it". I say he did the wrong thing -> bad things happened. No tragic. Unfortunate, yes. A shame, of course.[/QUOTE] Or we can stop complaining about the definition of the word deserve. I've made it clear what my definition is. Instead of accepting that I am using a different word to say the same thing you are, we have now turned the entire last page into a clusterfuck of shit that doesn't matter. The point is, the kid fucked up. He made a bad decision. He's an idiot for sticking his head out of the bus in the first place. We all agree on that, yes? But what is so asinine about having some sympathy for the fact that the kid had some really bad luck when he stuck his head out of the bus? Kid just wanted to have some innocent fun, has his face shaved off by an overpass. It is unfortunate. It was traumatic to the kids on the bus who saw it happen. But using your definition of "deserve", then, I still think he didn't deserve it. His photo makes him look like a pretty happy, normal kid - certainly not the type of kid whose face you want to scrape off an overpass. Certainly, it is unsurprising, but that's not the point here.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37493318]Why would somebody tell you not to stick your head out of the roof hatch if not to keep you from smashing your face?[/QUOTE] Do you really think the kid was paying attention to [i]why[/i] he was told not to open it? All he knew was he wanted to open it and he was told not to by a security guard. Seriously, kid caught up in the excitement of going to a party, big group of friends, clearly wants to show off, told by security guard don't open the hatch, what do you think he's gonna do?