[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46919183]I was, and I never did something that incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE]Well he did, it backfired hard and now his family is possibly going into tons of trouble and someone's life will be close to ruined.
definitely bad sprinkler design. fire code regulations say that it's got to have a small little tube of liquid protected by metal rods (2 is the minimum) and if that tube breaks, that's what activates the system. this sounds like they had either old sprinklers or already broken sprinklers that nobody cared about replacing and then this kid put a padlock around one, which shouldn't normally cause anything to happen because those things aren't exactly heavy, and it broke even more
[QUOTE=pentium;46918553]That's how modern sprinklers work. Once the static pipe pressure drops (a sprinkler activated somewhere), a pump turns on and the sharp rise in pressure causes all the sprinklers to activate in a zone, just in case the fire isn't just under the sprinkler that activated the system.[/QUOTE]
ah yes of course, all children know that
Orrrr they could make him help repair whatever damage was caused. If it's that extensive then it'll take quite a bit of time out of his life and, you know, teach him something.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;46919275]definitely bad sprinkler design. fire code regulations say that it's got to have a small little tube of liquid protected by metal rods (2 is the minimum) and if that tube breaks, that's what activates the system. this sounds like they had either old sprinklers or already broken sprinklers that nobody cared about replacing and then this kid put a padlock around one, which shouldn't normally cause anything to happen because those things aren't exactly heavy, and it broke even more[/QUOTE]
You know how they post signs in hotels telling you not to hang clothes on sprinklers?
Yeah, that's why.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;46919281]ah yes of course, all children know that[/QUOTE]
Yeah I never learned this until my first year in a college dorm. During the tour they told us to never throw a towel over or hang anything from the sprinkler in our room or else every one in the building will activate.
This kid did a pretty dumb thing, but a 48K fine is only going to fuck things up for both him and his parents for a long time.
[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;46919386]Orrrr they could make him help repair whatever damage was caused. If it's that extensive then it'll take quite a bit of time out of his life and, you know, teach him something.[/QUOTE]You can't really repair water damage on many things. Especially electronics and paper(it turns wrinkly)
[QUOTE=redBadger;46918491]Or, don't be a dumbass 14 year old and do a stupid prank.[/QUOTE]
Yes, let's all be the kind of kids who say "Mother, may I have a cookie? Pretty please? I am ever so famished."
That's a shitty sprinkler system alright. Since when does locking one in place activate all the others? Rofl
Well, you're not going to college.
The prank was literally him putting a lock on a sprinkler. He didn't fuck with the damn thing, the extra weight somehow caused it to activate. There's really no reason he can't play the victim card. :v:
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;46919281]ah yes of course, all children know that[/QUOTE]
They told me that in elementary school before we did our first fire evacuation drill.
Well maybe not that technical about it but they made it pretty clear that if you set one of em off you'd be drenching out the whole building and that fiddling with them in any capacity was likely to set them off.
[QUOTE=redBadger;46918491]Or, don't be a dumbass 14 year old and do a stupid prank.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but I'm 23 and before today I had no idea that simple physical contact with a ceiling sprinkler could set off all the sprinklers in a building. Surely if that were the case for all sprinkler systems, a kid in school who throws a ball down the corridor (etc) could set off the system.
In this electronic age, where the sprinklers in one room could cause a massive amount of damage to all devices within, that's super shitty sprinkler system design.
So if it was a good, working sprinkler system, it would have been perfectly okay to prank with?
For all we know, he yanked hard on the thing when he put the lock on it and that caused the whole thing to blow out.
It doesn't matter if it was faulty or not, he shouldn't have been fucking around with the thing and now he's going to pay an extremely heavy price for it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46919183]I was, and I never did something that incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't incredibly stupid though? Most children (or at least where I am from, most children) have no idea that fiddling with those things sets them off.
Whether or not it was stupid is subjective, and entirely reliant on whether or not he had knowledge of the effects of fiddling - given that hew as attaching a bike padlock and not actively trying to drench the school indicates that he wasn't.
He probably thought it was in the same boat as putting a padlock on the lever that controls a drinking fountain.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;46920049]I don't know about you, but I'm 23 and before today I had no idea that simple physical contact with a ceiling sprinkler could set off all the sprinklers in a building. Surely if that were the case for all sprinkler systems, a kid in school who throws a ball down the corridor (etc) could set off the system.
In this electronic age, where the sprinklers in one room could cause a massive amount of damage to all devices within, that's super shitty sprinkler system design.[/QUOTE]
The difference between throwing a ball down a hallway and specifically tampering with a fire sprinkler is like night and day. One results in a mistake, the other results in expected consequences.
You know what else is super shitty sprinkler system design? The fact that they are triggered by localized heat, which may or may not be where the fire actually is. If you are planning a system in a server room then you are obviously not going to connect it to anywhere else, or even use a deluge system at all. Ruining a bunch of highschoolers' hair and iPhones is not really risky enough to compromise the safety of a system that, if not functioning properly, could let a tiny trash can fire turn into a huge structure fire.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;46920082]He probably thought it was in the same boat as putting a padlock on the lever that controls a drinking fountain.[/QUOTE]
If someone's too stupid to recognize the difference between a drinking fountain and a fire sprinkler, I have no remorse for them if they fuck around with it and get in trouble.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;46920082]It wasn't incredibly stupid though? Most children (or at least where I am from, most children) have no idea that fiddling with those things sets them off.
Whether or not it was stupid is subjective, and entirely reliant on whether or not he had knowledge of the effects of fiddling - given that hew as attaching a bike padlock and not actively trying to drench the school indicates that he wasn't.
He probably thought it was in the same boat as putting a padlock on the lever that controls a drinking fountain.[/QUOTE]
Was he at least aware that he was fiddling with equipment intended to save lives in actual emergencies? Seems like an unwise policy no matter how you spin it. It's like fucking with a fire extinguisher or a portable defibrillator for a prank. We already established that the kid didn't know what he was doing and that apparently the failsafe was poorly designed so for all the kid knew he could've somehow made the whole damn thing not function in an emergency situation.
Is the punishment steep? Yes. Is it too steep? Maybe. But fucking with equipment designed to save lives should absolutely be punishable in some form.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46920119]
If someone's too stupid to recognize the difference between a drinking fountain and a fire sprinkler, I have no remorse for them if they fuck around with it and get in trouble.[/QUOTE]
I think it's pretty clear my point was that many people would have assumed it was a static fixture until activated by smoke, and not that there's no inherent difference between the two.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;46920082]It wasn't incredibly stupid though? Most children (or at least where I am from, most children) have no idea that fiddling with those things sets them off.
Whether or not it was stupid is subjective, and entirely reliant on whether or not he had knowledge of the effects of fiddling - given that hew as attaching a bike padlock and not actively trying to drench the school indicates that he wasn't.
He probably thought it was in the same boat as putting a padlock on the lever that controls a drinking fountain.[/QUOTE]
So toying with something you know nothing about isn't considered stupid?
I don't know about you, but it is in my book.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;46920324]I think it's pretty clear my point was that many people would have assumed it was a static fixture until activated by smoke, and not that there's no inherent difference between the two.[/QUOTE]
Someone having a complete misunderstanding of how it works doesn't preclude them from being a complete idiot for fucking with it.
If you don't know it's safe to fuck with, maybe you shouldn't be fucking with it.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;46920049]I don't know about you, but I'm 23 and before today I had no idea that simple physical contact with a ceiling sprinkler could set off all the sprinklers in a building. Surely if that were the case for all sprinkler systems, a kid in school who throws a ball down the corridor (etc) could set off the system.
In this electronic age, where the sprinklers in one room could cause a massive amount of damage to all devices within, that's super shitty sprinkler system design.[/QUOTE]
thus why they tell you not to play ball inside. The kid has to learn a valuable lesson. In real life you are held accountable for your actions even if unintended. Lifes not fair.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;46920858]thus why they tell you not to play ball inside. The kid has to learn a valuable lesson. In real life you are held accountable for your actions even if unintended. Lifes not fair.[/QUOTE]
LMAO at "Lifes not fair."
You do realize this can be used to support any sort of stupid legal judgment or social inequality, even the ones commonly recognized to be wrong, yes?
Unarmed, nonthreatening people getting shot by cops? "Lifes not fair."
Homeless people getting unfairly thrown in jail? "Lifes not fair."
Bad education in inner-city schools? "Lifes not fair."
Student loans becoming absurd? "Lifes not fair."
Zero-tolerance school policy not making any sense? "Lifes not fair."
Just because "Lifes not fair" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it fair. Making some kid, or more realistically, his family, pay some huge financial toll is not the only way or even the best way to teach him some "valuable lesson".
[QUOTE=iFail;46920918]LMAO at "Lifes not fair."
You do realize this can be used to support any sort of stupid legal judgment or social inequality, even the ones commonly recognized to be wrong, yes?
Unarmed, nonthreatening people getting shot by cops? "Lifes not fair."
Homeless people getting unfairly thrown in jail? "Lifes not fair."
Bad education in inner-city schools? "Lifes not fair."
Student loans becoming absurd? "Lifes not fair."
Zero-tolerance school policy not making any sense? "Lifes not fair."
Just because "Lifes not fair" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it fair. Making some kid, or more realistically, his family, pay some huge financial toll is not the only way or even the best way to teach him some "valuable lesson".[/QUOTE] woah man your taking it way out of context. What im saying is yeah it sucks he didn't know he was going to fuck up the entire school but he did. So why should anyone but him and his family pay the bill. What if I came over to your house and accidentally broke abunch of shit. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be stuck paying for it.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;46920946]woah man your taking it way out of context. What im saying is yeah it sucks he didn't know he was going to fuck up the entire school but he did. So why should anyone but him and his family pay the bill. What if I came over to your house and accidentally broke abunch of shit. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be stuck paying for it.[/QUOTE]
Are you a 14 year-old? Because I probably wouldn't be able to make a child pay damages for breaking my shit at home, especially if they couldn't have reasonably predicted the outcomes of their actions.
Would I want to pay for broken shit out of pocket? No. Would it be a better alternative than trying to hold a minor responsible for the unintended consequences of a stupid action? Probably.
[QUOTE=iFail;46920966]Are you a 14 year-old? Because I probably wouldn't be able to make a child pay damages for breaking my shit at home, especially if they couldn't have reasonably predicted the outcomes of their actions.
Would I want to pay for broken shit out of pocket? No. Would it be a better alternative than trying to hold a minor responsible for the unintended consequences of a stupid action? Probably.[/QUOTE] No im not a 14 year old because I understand the concept of responsibility. His parents are the ones now who have to pay. Think hes going to pull some stuff like this again? Unlikely after this. Lesson learned.
[QUOTE=iFail;46920918]LMAO at "Lifes not fair."
You do realize this can be used to support any sort of stupid legal judgment or social inequality, even the ones commonly recognized to be wrong, yes?
Unarmed, nonthreatening people getting shot by cops? "Lifes not fair."
Homeless people getting unfairly thrown in jail? "Lifes not fair."
Bad education in inner-city schools? "Lifes not fair."
Student loans becoming absurd? "Lifes not fair."
Zero-tolerance school policy not making any sense? "Lifes not fair."
Just because "Life's not fair" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it fair. Making some kid, or more realistically, his family, pay some huge financial toll is not the only way or even the best way to teach him some "valuable lesson".[/QUOTE]
The financial toll isn't to teach him a valuable lesson, it's to pay for reparations of what he damaged though his actions.
You get into a car accident with another, you pay for their damage when it's your fault. They don't take "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" as payment.
Besides that, no life isn't fair, and you can do all you can to "make it fair" but in the end you pay for the consequences of your actions.
[editline]13th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=iFail;46920966]Are you a 14 year-old? Because I probably wouldn't be able to make a child pay damages for breaking my shit at home, especially if they couldn't have reasonably predicted the outcomes of their actions.
Would I want to pay for broken shit out of pocket? No. Would it be a better alternative than trying to hold a minor responsible for the unintended consequences of a stupid action? Probably.[/QUOTE]
You pay for the consequences of your actions regardless of your intentions. That's why we have such crimes as involuntary manslaughter. Your intention doesn't mean shit.
[QUOTE=pentium;46918390]No, sorry. Your son is a stupid crate of bricks and you look like equal idiots trying to play the blame game.[/QUOTE]
Can you honestly say you wouldn't try to beat it? 48,000? They probably didn't believe it, but they had to come up with SOMETHING to try to get out of paying 48k
[QUOTE=iFail;46920966]Are you a 14 year-old? Because I probably wouldn't be able to make a child pay damages for breaking my shit at home, especially if they couldn't have reasonably predicted the outcomes of their actions.
Would I want to pay for broken shit out of pocket? No. Would it be a better alternative than trying to hold a minor responsible for the unintended consequences of a stupid action? Probably.[/QUOTE]
You underestimate the mental capacities of 14 year olds. Most understand not to fuck with fire sprinklers, nor with fire alarms, plumbing, electric mains, etc. because fucking with things in ways that they aren't designed for carries a pretty strong possibility that you will break them.
"How could he have reasonably predicted that gravity would cause the vase to accelerate towards the ground and shatter on impact? He couldn't have possibly known that would have happened."
As awful as when the average joe gets hit with $500,000+ fine cause they pirated a few songs.
[QUOTE=Glue Factory;46924972]As awful as when the average joe gets hit with $500,000+ fine cause they pirated a few songs.[/QUOTE]
The state if not the local government should be able to bite most of the cost imo. They shouldn't completely let him off but, goddamn, 50k, that will ruin him.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
