 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2005Fireworks, Kids, and the Angry Driver
This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids. I've had fireworks shot at my car too but didn't chase down the kids. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ July 15, 2005 Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 4:12 p.m. ET SPANAWAY, Wash. (AP) -- A 12-year-old boy who was firing bottle rockets at cars was chased into traffic Friday by an angry driver and killed by another car, authorities said. The driver and his passenger, both 22, were arrested for investigation of manslaughter, the Washington State Patrol said. The death came soon after midnight in this small town south of Tacoma, where the preteen and a 12-year-old cousin had been hiding in bushes while shooting the bottle rockets, trooper Johnny R. Alexander said. A car stopped, and passenger Tyrone Sherrod got out, chased the cousin and started beating him, Alexander said. The driver, Mario N. Haley, chased the other boy, who ran onto the highway and was struck by a car driven by a 17-year-old girl. Both men fled, but police found them at homes. Investigators determined the girl was not at fault. Witnesses unsuccessfully tried to revive the boy struck by the car. His cousin was treated for injuries and released to his parents. Copyright 2005 The Assocoated Press. All Rights Reserved. Skip Elliott Bowman wrote: > This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first > time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids. > I've had fireworks shot at my car too but didn't chase down the kids. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > July 15, 2005 > Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver It's too bad such an incident wasn't caught on film. It would serve as a lesson to other kids who consider doing stupid sh.t like that. Skip Elliott Bowman wrote: > This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first > time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Copyright 2005 The Assocoated Press. All Rights Reserved. This story was written by an idiot. "The preteen and a 12-yo cousin". So the brats were cousins and were both 12 yo. Why not state that directly? You dont mess with brothers' vehicles ;) Skip Elliott Bowman wrote: > This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first > time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids. > I've had fireworks shot at my car too but didn't chase down the kids. You returned fire instead? >July 15, 2005 >Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Witnesses unsuccessfully tried to revive the boy struck by the car. His >cousin was treated for injuries and released to his parents. How unfortunate that the driver and passenger were blamed for the stupidity of the darwin award winners. >SPANAWAY, Wash. (AP) -- A 12-year-old boy who was firing bottle rockets at >cars was chased into traffic Friday by an angry driver and killed by another >car, authorities said. Congratulations on your Darwin Award, Wash. Boy! You genuinely deserved it. >The driver and his passenger, both 22, were arrested for investigation of >manslaughter, the Washington State Patrol said. Why isn't the surviving punk being investigated for attempted murder? If a bottle rocket flies into an open car window and explodes, the startled driver is likely to lose control and kill himself and/or someone else in the resulting crash. > "Skip Elliott Bowman"> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > startled driver is likely to lose control and kill himself and/or > someone else in the resulting crash. Scott, this is one of your most trollish postings. Get a grip, consider the motivations of the participants, and get your head out of your ... >>>The driver and his passenger, both 22, were arrested for investigation of >>>manslaughter, the Washington State Patrol said. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >consider the motivations of the participants, and get your >head out of your ... So if some punk fired a bottle rocket into your car and it exploded in your ear, deafening you for life and causing you to crash head-on into another innocent motorist, you'd just laugh it off and say "boys will be boys?" >>> SPANAWAY, Wash. (AP) -- A 12-year-old boy who was firing bottle >>> rockets at [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > consider the motivations of the participants, and get your > head out of your ... Actually he is right. What the two boys did was criminal. > fbloogyudsr wrote: >>> Why isn't the surviving punk being investigated for attempted murder? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Actually he is right. What the two boys did was criminal. Well, yes. And if you notice I never claimed they weren't. But death is not the penalty for malicious mischief, especially for juvies. Floyd >>>> Why isn't the surviving punk being investigated for attempted murder? >>>> If a bottle rocket flies into an open car window and explodes, the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, yes. And if you notice I never claimed they weren't. So why isnt the surviving a.shole charged? > But death is not the penalty for malicious mischief, especially > for juvies. 'Malicious mischief?' Try assault with a deadly weapon. And the guys in the car didnt intend to kill the punks. "223rem" <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote > And the guys in the car didnt intend to kill the punks. And that's why they're charged with manslaughter rather than murder. And you might notice that at least one of the "adults" is a punk, too. Floyd >> Actually he is right. What the two boys did was criminal. > >Well, yes. And if you notice I never claimed they weren't. >But death is not the penalty for malicious mischief, especially >for juvies. The victims of the bottlerocket attack did not kill him - his own stupidity did. Remember, he RAN out into traffic - he was not PUSHED out. >> fbloogyudsr wrote: >>>> Why isn't the surviving punk being investigated for attempted murder? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >But death is not the penalty for malicious mischief, especially >for juvies. Nor was death applied as a penalty. The death was accidental. It was a consequence of the boy running out to the road in response to being chased -- which itself was a consequence of him firing the bottle rockets.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote >>Well, yes. And if you notice I never claimed they weren't. >>But death is not the penalty for malicious mischief, especially [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > chased -- which itself was a consequence of him firing the bottle > rockets. And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie? Floyd > And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie? Well deserved! >> And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie? > > Well deserved! Shooting fireworks at cars is a dangerous act. The two boys used thier own judgment, and they chose to act in a way that led to one of them being struck by a car, while the other escaped with only a beating. I think the occupants of the car that got out and administered the beating were merely agents of karma, and should be let go. Bernard > >> And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bernard Same here but legally I can see the beater being charged with assault. I can't see the chaser being charged with manslaughter. Perhaps threatening bodily harm but... As for the surviving kid. Charge with attempted murder. Harry K >Same here but legally I can see the beater being charged with assault. >I can't see the chaser being charged with manslaughter. Perhaps >threatening bodily harm but... > >As for the surviving kid. Charge with attempted murder. Better watch out - somebody's going to call you a troll for saying that... ;) >>> And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bernard That would be vigilantism. Doug "DYM" <dymnews@verizon.net> wrote > "Bernard Farquart" <bernardfarquart@removehotmail.com> wrote >> "223rem" <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Doug See - I told you guys (starting with Scott) that it was a trollish posting! Floyd >>>> And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie? >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Doug No, the driver of the car was just minding his own business when someone shot explosives at him, he was not going aroung looking for something to take care of, it was a reaction to an extreme provocation. I sure would hope he will get off of the improper manslauhter charge, and I think no one but the jackass kids parents will be upset by it. Bernard >>>>> And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Bernard Bernard, First go look up the definition of vigilante. Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for that. When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the line and commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the law you are a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word. The occupants of the car are (at least as far as the facts reported here) guilty of assult. They can plead to extenuating circumstances, such as anger. The kids can only plead stuipity and that dones't get you anywhere. All parties are in the wrong in this one. Doug > First go look up the definition of vigilante. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > All parties are in the wrong in this one. To me it seems like self defense. Someone launches bottle rockets at another person, should not be surprised if that person fights back. Your post indicates to me that you believe that nobody should fight back but always flee. The same mentality that has laws in the UK that have sent homeowners to prison for defending themselves and their property against criminals who illegally entered the home. Your theory of always fleeing, running away, never fighting back only puts the power in the hands of those who do wrong. Because they can do wrong without fear. The cops are never everywhere. And they'll get there later, after the fact. Nothing keeps crime lower than the fear the victim will hurt the criminal. >> First go look up the definition of vigilante. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Nothing keeps crime lower than the fear the victim will hurt the > criminal. You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself. There is a big difference between defending yourself and taking revenge. If the two in the car intended to just detain the kids until the police arrived, they are with in their rights. You do not have the right to pursue and exact your own revenge. Do you think these kids thought they would be caught? Fear of being caught didn't deter their criminal behaviour. It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and choosing not to cross it. Doug > You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever > indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself. Which is all those persons did, defend themselves instead of running away. > There is a big difference between defending yourself and taking revenge. Someone fires explosives at your person. How is counter attacking taking revenge? Taking revenge is hunting them down a week later. > If the two in the car intended to just detain the kids until the police > arrived, they are with in their rights. You do not have the right to > pursue and exact your own revenge. What if detainment is fought? > Do you think these kids thought they would be caught? Fear of being > caught didn't deter their criminal behaviour. Fear of their victims beating the snot out of them might. > It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and > choosing not to cross it. The only action you are offering the people in the car is fleeing and letting it go. >> You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever >> indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself. > > Which is all those persons did, defend themselves instead of running > away. Self defense is limited to when you (or someone else) are in immediate danger. Once the kids started to run, what immediate danger were the car guys in? > >> There is a big difference between defending yourself and taking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What if detainment is fought? Come on, you can detain a 12 year old boy with out beating the snot out of him. >> Do you think these kids thought they would be caught? Fear of being >> caught didn't deter their criminal behaviour. > > Fear of their victims beating the snot out of them might. It would never enter their heads. >> It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and >> choosing not to cross it. > > The only action you are offering the people in the car is fleeing and > letting it go. Again, where did I say anything about fleeing. I don't know where you get that idea. You are reading WAY too much between the lines. If I were to read between the lines of your post, I guess that you speak loudly can carry a big stick and want to bully everybody around. But there is no evidence to back that up so I won't say that. Doug >>> You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever >>> indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >danger. Once the kids started to run, what immediate danger were the car >guys in? No, it is not. Take for example the guy who holds a knife to your wife's throat. You believe it is OK to defend your wife until he takes it away from her throat, at which point you must stop defending her. That is not what the law says. In Illinois I have the right to defend myself from danger, and once I start that defense, there is nothing that says I have to stop. Reasonableness means that I should stop when I have the person under control, not when I can no longer catch him. > It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and > choosing not to cross it. Like not firing explosives at cars because you may reasonably expect to get your a.s whipped for it? >> It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and >> choosing not to cross it. >> > Like not firing explosives at cars because you may reasonably > expect to get your a.s whipped for it? Yes! Exactly. They made a very poor choice. Doug >Bernard, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the law you are >a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word. No. The law gives me the right to arrest someone who is threatening me with bodily harm. The kids were doing so, and the driver was simply attempting to hold them for the police. >Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for that. >When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the line and >commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the law you are >a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word. The difference is that vigilantism isn't a heat-of-the-moment thing, as this was. In any case, if the law actually provided justice, I'd be more upset about seeking justice outside it. But nowadays, the law doesn't give a sh.t about minor crimes against persons; there ain't no justice. >The occupants of the car are (at least as far as the facts reported here) >guilty of assult. Not necessarily, if they merely chased them (as the second article said). >>Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for >>that. When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not necessarily, if they merely chased them (as the second article > said). Yeah, I posted before I saw that second article. It paints a very different picture. Again, just going by what is printed there, I think the car guys will not be charged. Won't know until the investigation is complete. I'll go with what the police find. Earlier, there was talk of one of the kids getting beaten. If that were the case, that's where the line gets crossed. Now, going back to the definition of vigilantism, I don't know if "heat of the moment" really enteres into it. It is simply seeking justice outside of the legal system. Is it justice you want or revenge. Of course, for some on this group, justice is death to all you go slow. Doug >Yeah, I posted before I saw that second article. It paints a very >different picture. Again, just going by what is printed there, I think [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >of the moment" really enteres into it. It is simply seeking justice >outside of the legal system. The term vigilantism comes from vigilance committees, which were organizations of people who set themselves up to punish crimes. Chasing after someone who has just committed a crime against you is not at all like vigilantism. One is the victim (or intended victim) of a crime going off in the heat of the moment, the other is when people who may or may not be the victims chasing down and punishing criminals after the immediate situation is over. They're both a matter of seeking justice outside the law, but that doesn't make them both vigilantism. > That would be vigilantism. It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only when a third party does it. John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h$2 @blue.rahul.net: >> That would be vigilantism. > > It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only > when a third party does it. It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key is that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury. Bronson was a victim but that didn't stop him from despensing justice from his weaponry. So, are you for law and order as our President keeps boasting, or do you want chaos from every Tom, Dick & Dirty Harry deciding on their own what your punishment should be. Doug > John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h$2 > @blue.rahul.net: >>It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only >>when a third party does it. > It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key is > that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury. Tell that to the next woman who manages to fight off a would be rapist. She should just let him do it, from what you're advocating. >> John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in >> news:dbrp07$s0h$2 @blue.rahul.net: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rapist. > She should just let him do it, from what you're advocating. But, once she's fought him off and his is running away, she does not have the right to shoot him in the back and kill him. Doug > But, once she's fought him off and his is running away, she does not have > the right to shoot him in the back and kill him. Oh yes she does. She has no guarantee that he will not make another attempt. >> But, once she's fought him off and his is running away, she does not >> have the right to shoot him in the back and kill him. > > Oh yes she does. She has no guarantee that he will not make another > attempt. And there is no garantee that he will. When the imminent threat is gone, then it is no longer self defense. Doug >>> But, once she's fought him off and his is running away, she does not >>> have the right to shoot him in the back and kill him. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And there is no garantee that he will. When the imminent threat is gone, >then it is no longer self defense. No court in the country would convict a rape victim for killing her assailant. > >>> But, once she's fought him off and his is running away, she does not > >>> have the right to shoot him in the back and kill him. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No court in the country would convict a rape victim for killing her > assailant. Take a strain Scot, your replies are getting further away from reality each time. Harry K >> >And there is no garantee that he will. When the imminent threat is gone, >> >then it is no longer self defense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Take a strain Scot, your replies are getting further away from reality >each time. In that case, it should be trivial for you to Google up a case where a rape victim was convicted of murder for killing her rapist. Face it, we live in a world where OJ Simpson can be acquitted of murder. You think a poor, innocent little rape victim is going to have a problem beating the rap? >Face it, we live in a world where OJ Simpson can be acquitted of >murder. You think a poor, innocent little rape victim is going to have >a problem beating the rap? Of course. The system is screwed up in such a way as to increase the incidence of both types of errors -- failing to convict the guilty and convicting the innocent. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > > But, once she's fought him off and his is running away, she does not have > > the right to shoot him in the back and kill him. > > Oh yes she does. She has no guarantee that he will not make another attempt. Then she'd better wait until he turns and is coming back. If not she'll lose big time in court. Harry K >John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h$2 >@blue.rahul.net: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key is >that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury. So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? > >John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h$2 > >@blue.rahul.net: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? Self defense ends when the threat to ones person (or someone else's) ends. The threat in the scenario ended the second the kids ran. That's why you can claim, and usually win, on self defense for shooting someone in your home at 0 dark 30 but not if they are leaving when you shoot em in the back. Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is legal, beating them isn't. Harry K Harry K >> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? > >Self defense ends when the threat to ones person (or someone else's) >ends. The threat in the scenario ended the second the kids ran. I disagree. If those kids had been allowed to escape, there would have been nothing to stop them from firing more explosives at the victims. The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according to the report, what the victims were attempting to do. >Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is >legal, beating them isn't. According to the second report posted, no beating took place. > >> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I disagree. If those kids had been allowed to escape, there would have > been nothing to stop them from firing more explosives at the victims. Disagree all you want. You aren't going to find any support on the self-defense question in any court in the land. > The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the > youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according > to the report, what the victims were attempting to do. Which is why there will be a problem charging the adults with anything. I just hope the one survivor is charged with something serious. > >Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is > >legal, beating them isn't. > > According to the second report posted, no beating took place. Harry K >> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the >> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according >> to the report, what the victims were attempting to do. > >Which is why there will be a problem charging the adults with anything. > I just hope the one survivor is charged with something serious. On that point we agree. I guess we're both "trolls" now. ;) "Scott en Aztlán" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> >>> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > According to the second report posted, no beating took place. I think you'd better re-read it: "The passenger left the car and chased the boys, who ran in separate directions. The man tackled Winterhawk and beat him up. He has swelling and bruises on his face and cuts on his arm, Alexander said. " Floyd >>> So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > According to the second report posted, no beating took place. And this whole debate started before that. When the second article what published reporting no beating taking place, I said that the car guys were probably right then. The point of crossing the line was the beating. Doug >> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the >> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >published reporting no beating taking place, I said that the car guys >were probably right then. The point of crossing the line was the beating. And my point was simply that, even if a beating took place, and even though one of the perps died, this does not erase the fact that the two punks committed a dangerous crime. Whether or not the victims are charged with any crimes, the surviving perp DEFINITELY should be. >>> The best way to end the threat would have been to apprehend the >>> youngsters and turn them over to the authorities. Which is, according [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > two punks committed a dangerous crime. Whether or not the victims are > charged with any crimes, the surviving perp DEFINITELY should be. Absolutely! Doug >>John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in >>news:dbrp07$s0h$2 @blue.rahul.net: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? Self-defense is, as I said before, when you or someone else is in imminent danger of life or limb. Doug "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote >> That would be vigilantism. > > It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only > when a third party does it. Except that, at the time that the attackers were assaulted, they had abandoned their attack. The attackees were justified in holding the attackers for the police, but not in beating them. That's probably the reason the PA and police are trying to figure out what to charge the attackees with: motive/intent is not clear. Floyd > Shooting fireworks at cars is a dangerous act. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > out and administered the beating were merely agents > of karma, and should be let go. I agree. Until the UK's Home Office abandons its stupid and unjust practice of prosecuting victims who defend themselves, one can only hope that the jury will refuse to convict him. I certainly would. >> "Skip Elliott Bowman"> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > consider the motivations of the participants, and get your > head out of your ... Huh!? Think of what the initiating event was. >> If a bottle rocket flies into an open car window and explodes, the >> startled driver is likely to lose control and kill himself and/or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consider the motivations of the participants, and get your > head out of your ... Firing bottle rockets at cars is just a wee bit less severe than firing a small caliber gun at cars. > >SPANAWAY, Wash. (AP) -- A 12-year-old boy who was firing bottle rockets at > >cars was chased into traffic Friday by an angry driver and killed by another [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > startled driver is likely to lose control and kill himself and/or > someone else in the resulting crash. Good question but then we live in a nation where our first lady once murdered her bf and the law did nothing to her and the media has blacked out the story. It's a nation of criminal coddlers. >Good question but then we live in a nation where our first lady once >murdered her bf and the law did nothing to her and the media has >blacked out the story. It's a nation of criminal coddlers. Please, tell us more of this "first lady once murdering her boyfriend." I'd really like to hear more. >>Good question but then we live in a nation where our first lady once >>murdered her bf and the law did nothing to her and the media has >>blacked out the story. It's a nation of criminal coddlers. > > Please, tell us more of this "first lady once murdering her > boyfriend." I'd really like to hear more. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp "Skip Elliott Bowman" <skipster@teleport.com> wrote > Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver ... A more complete article. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5025988p-4585288c.html Floyd >"Skip Elliott Bowman" <skipster@teleport.com> wrote >> Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver ... > >A more complete article. > >http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5025988p-4585288c.html >Kids will be kids, and what they did were not condoning, Trooper Johnny >Alexander said of the two boys. However, when you get adult males physically >assaulting two 12-year-olds, thats way overboard. Let's change the scenario slightly: let's suppose that, instead of beating the sh.t out of this punk, the guys in the car merely intended to DETAIN the young cretins and hand them over to police. If, while attempting to avoid arrest, one of the kids runs out into traffic and gets killed by a car, is that still manslaughter on the part of the victims of the bottlerocket attack? Shifting back to the original scenario, does the fact that one of the victims assaulted one of the boys absolve that boy of any responsibility for attacking passing cars with explosives? By all means, prosecute that adult for assault, but just because he got a well-deseved ass-kicking doesn't absolve him of guilt for the crimes HE committed. > "Skip Elliott Bowman" <skipster@teleport.com> wrote > > Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver ... > > A more complete article. > > http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5025988p-4585288c.html Okay, so change "bottle rockets" to "bullets." Either one being fired at a car can scare the piss out of an unexpecting driver, since they're not something you're supposed to be shooting at strangers at random. If both these kids had been killed, I'd still have no pity for them. The only person in the whole thing that I'm sympathetic to is the poor 17 year old girl who for the rest of her life will have to live with the fact she ran over someone. At the age of 12 any human should know better than to be shooting explosives at people and they should know better than to run into traffic. Dave "fbloogyudsr" <fbloogyudsr@nwlink.com> wrote > "Skip Elliott Bowman" <skipster@teleport.com> wrote >> Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver ... > > A more complete article. > > http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5025988p-4585288c.html Youse guys might be interested in knowing that the police have released (temporarily) the Angry Driver and his passenger while they figure out what they can charge them with... http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5032649p-4590658c.html Floyd > This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first > time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Copyright 2005 The Assocoated Press. All Rights Reserved. Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food???? > > This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first > > time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is > has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food???? Nah, he's a fairly regular poster here. Harry K >> Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is >> has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food???? > >Nah, he's a fairly regular poster here. So is Aunt Judy. :) >>> Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is >>> has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food???? >> >>Nah, he's a fairly regular poster here. > > So is Aunt Judy. :) You criminal coddler, Scott ;) > This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first > time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids. > I've had fireworks shot at my car too but didn't chase down the kids. Oddly similar: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4764313/detail.html?subid=22100444&qs=1;bp=t INDIANAPOLIS -- A prank may have cost a boy his life on Indianapolis' west side. As many as seven teenagers were throwing eggs at cars in the 7400 block of Rockville Road about 11 p.m. Sunday, according to police. Marion County sheriff's deputies said that after the juveniles hit one motorist in the face, the man drove off before returning with a gun, shooting one 15-year-old boy in the leg and another 17-year-old boy in the stomach. "The victim that was shot with the non-life-threatening injuries, he actually went to a residence and called us -- called the sheriff's department," Marion County sheriff's Sgt. Michael DeHart said. DeHart said two other teens "regrouped at some location, became worried about (another teen) they had not heard from, and returned back to the site of the shooting and found him in the bushes." Brandon Dunson, 15, was dead when his friends found him. The other victim, Michael Dyer, 17, was treated and released. Investigators are still looking for the shooter. He was described as a white male in his 30s, about 6 feet tall. He was driving a maroon or red late 80s Ford full size pickup truck. James Patterson was one of the boys involved in the egg-throwing incident. "I think they should find him (the shooter). I don't know where he is right now, but I hope he regrets what he did because he just shot a minor over some eggs," Patterson said. "He didn't have to take it to the extreme. He could've just called the cops. He didn't have to go home, get a gun and come back and shoot us." > James Patterson was one of the boys involved in the egg-throwing > incident. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the extreme. He could've just called the cops. He didn't have to go > home, get a gun and come back and shoot us." Would the kid be less dead if he was shot by a cop rather than the driver? Any kid who refers to himself and his peers as minors is trying to take advantage of his age to avoid punishment. SignatureCheers, Bev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "My life outside of USENET is so full of love and kindness that I have to come here to find the venom and bile that I crave." --R. Damiani > > James Patterson was one of the boys involved in the egg-throwing > > incident. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Any kid who refers to himself and his peers as minors is trying to take > advantage of his age to avoid punishment. You'd think that parents might teach kids that if you go out f.cking with people on the level of hitting them with fireworks or eggs while driving, people are going to f.ck with you back sometimes. Yeah, these kids would have been lucky if he'd just called the cops, but unfortunately too many kids don't seem to realize there's just enough people who aren't going take it just cause they're kids. Nobody can tell me a 17 year old doesn't know any better, he's old enough to drive a car almost anywhere in the US. Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.