Ray Jones Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I second that. How many of you would say stuff like this if this "stupid" kid was your sibling? Shooting at someone itself is bad enough, but because your car got err egged?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Again, he lost his life for egging a car. <_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I can't believe some of the comments posted here. People, he was a kid, kids do stupid things and anyone who says ''he did a stupid thing and got shot'' or ''sucks that he was shot but he was stupid to do that'' is more stupid than that poor kid. Only murderers deserve to be shot and even them only in self-defence. In my opinion, the idiot was the guy who shot the kid, not the kid himself, the kid was simply being a kid. QFE...some of the comments here almost give me the impression that human life has no value anymore... Egging a car is dumb but come on all kids do stupid things one day. Shooting is not only out of proportion but it's totally sick! Just think of the parents of that kid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Meh. I never egged a car, or anything for that matter. I never got shot. If he didn't egg a car he wouldn't have gotten shot. If you do something so retarded as egg a car, you are doing it at your own risk. Just as if I go and wander into the woods around where I live, I am at risk of being attacked by a dog, or being shot by a hunter, or by someone who's pissed that I'm trespassing on their property. So I don't go into the woods. Simple as that. When I was fourteen, I knew that doing something so stupid as egging a car was wrong - I knew that messing with the wrong people could get you beat up, or even killed. If this was a nine or ten year old, I would not be so hard on him. But fourteen? Come on. By that time, if you have no common sense, maybe you never will have any. It may sound brutal but the kid got what was coming to him - that's just how the world works. Do something stupid, something stupid happens to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 One must pity the kid for getting shot, (a punishment which was not proportionate to his crime,) but as several people including myself have pointed out, egging cars is REALLY stupid and dangerous. Egg a moving car (as was done in this case, presumably) and you risk killing the occupants of the car. And anyone who says "he was just being a kid" is incorrect. When I was a kid I respected people's safety and their property. This kid was an especially foolish kid. Dangerous too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 It's perfectly fair when little kids with their whole life ahead of them get shot to death for egging cars. If they've done anything at all, no matter how minor, it's not a tragedy and he should not be pitied when killed. It's the way the world works nowadays - if someone's stupid, it's OK that something bad happens to them. Now stop whining over him. And anyone who says "he was just being a kid" is incorrect. When I was a kid I respected people's safety and their property.He was just a kid. A 14-year old with his whole life ahead of him. His stupidity doesn't change that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 It's perfectly fair when little kids with their whole life ahead of them get shot to death for egging cars. If they've done anything at all, no matter how minor, it's not a tragedy and he should not be pitied when killed. It's the way the world works nowadays - if someone's stupid, it's OK that something bad happens to them. Now stop whining over him.You're the only one who's said anything this extreme, Eagle. I for instance have said that one MUST pity the kid. The punishment didn't fit the crime. But egging a car IS dangerous. it IS stupid. He didn't get what he deserved for it, but he definitely shouldn't have done it. As far as I'm concerned this is a news story about two criminals, one of whom (the far worse criminal) killed the other. He was just a kid. A 14-year old with his whole life ahead of him. His stupidity doesn't change that fact.I think you'll find I said he wasn't just "being" a kid. Some in this thread have suggested that egging moving vehicles is "natural kid behaviour", and it is simply not. It is serious, dangerous, irresponsible, criminal and unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Out of curiosity I start to wonder. Who knows? Maybe this isn't the first time he had egged someone's car. Perhaps he had done it in the past and got a "thrill" out of it. If this were the case than he'd definitely had to deal with PO'd drivers as well, so he should have learned from his past mistakes. Of course, it's quite possible this was his first time egging a car, but even so he would know that he would be a great annoyance to anyone he egged. Either way, I agree with Spider AL, egging a car is not just a "Kid being a kid" -it is a kid being a criminal, and while death is certainly an unjust punishment, he brought it upon himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I agree wholeheartedly with the last five or so posts. And for all those who are saying "he was shot for egging a car -__-", you make it seem like that was his accrued punishment for his actions, as if it had been handed down by some body of law. As if to say, "yup, you egged a car, you gonna get shot, end of story." The world doesn't really work like that with respect to actual jurisprudence, but absent that, like in this case, it is quite applicable. People get shot and killed everyday for stupid minor things. People are shot for looking at someone the wrong way, not breathing right, not having food on the table and a whole host of other wholly inane things. Does that make it fair? No, because they are punished for doing nothing wrong. I'm not saying that this kid being killed by that wacko in the SUV was fair. It was just a case of disproportionate punishment, as AL pointed out. He deserved punishment, he just got a little more than he bargained for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I think you'll find I said he wasn't just "being" a kid. Some in this thread have suggested that egging moving vehicles is "natural kid behaviour", and it is simply not. It is serious, dangerous, irresponsible, criminal and unacceptable. I think you misinterpreted what some people have been saying - we're not saying that egging moving vehicles is natural kid behaviour, but rather that it's natural for kids to do stupid things. Heck, when I was a kid, me and my friends loved to ocasionally throw snowballs at the side of moving cars. It was stupid and beneath-childish, but we did it. On the other hand, our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did, so my statement still stands - the kid was simply being a kid and the guy who shot him was an idiot and I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Heck, when I was a kid, me and my friends loved to ocasionally throw snowballs at the side of moving cars. Snowballs don't typically **** up a car's paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I think that's beside the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I think you misinterpreted what some people have been saying - we're not saying that egging moving vehicles is natural kid behaviour, but rather that it's natural for kids to do stupid things. Heck, when I was a kid, me and my friends loved to ocasionally throw snowballs at the side of moving cars. It was stupid and beneath-childish, but we did it. On the other hand, our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did, so my statement still stands - the kid was simply being a kid and the guy who shot him was an idiot and I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail.I didn't "misinterpret" anything Igy. You said it again in this post: "the kid was simply being a kid" No he wasn't. He was being a criminal kid. He was being a dangerous kid. He was risking the lives of the drivers, their passengers... and his own life! And frankly, throwing snowballs at the side of moving cars is also pretty dangerous. And just because YOU did it and got away with it, doesn't make it "natural" or acceptable. Frankly I think you should have been punished by the law for doing something that could distract a driver and cause him to lose control of the vehicle. As this kid should have been. And of course the guy who shot the kid should be locked up for life, he shot someone to death. I don't think that's up for debate. You're merely stating the obvious. - TK: Igy's right about the paintwork. Petty financial concerns are an irrelevance when it comes to this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 TK: Igy's right about the paintwork. Petty financial concerns are an irrelevance when it comes to this issue. True, but I don't know if throwing snowballs would anger someone to the point of murdering a kid over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Ah, you're absolutely right. I see what you were saying now. Egging was only slightly more dangerous to the DRIVER than snowballing would be, but it was a damn sight more dangerous for the kid himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narfblat Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 True, but I don't know if throwing snowballs would anger someone to the point of murdering a kid over it. I don't know, people are getting pretty crazy these days. I just hope the kids get less crazy fast enough to counter the adults getting more crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Utterly unbelievable. I've heard of people being snuffed for some stupid things, but this... A 14 year-old gets wasted for egging cars. If this isn't an argument for gun control, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 If this isn't an argument for gun control, I don't know what is. That's what we'd call a knee-jerk reaction. A kid gets shot, so let's take away all guns. First of all, chances are, this gun was illegal to begin with. So even IF there was gun control, the kid still would have been shot. But anyway, this is not the topic for that debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I didn't "misinterpret" anything Igy. You said it again in this post: "the kid was simply being a kid" No he wasn't. He was being a criminal kid. He was being a dangerous kid. He was risking the lives of the drivers, their passengers... and his own life! While what you're saying about risking lives may be true, you're still missing the point. When I say that he was simply being a kid, by that I mean that kids tend to do stupid and irresponsible things. And frankly, throwing snowballs at the side of moving cars is also pretty dangerous. And just because YOU did it and got away with it, doesn't make it "natural" or acceptable. Frankly I think you should have been punished by the law for doing something that could distract a driver and cause him to lose control of the vehicle. As this kid should have been. I was simply using this as an example which proves that kids do stupid and irresponsible things. Of course it's not acceptable, but it is natural for a kid to do. Again, I'm not talking about snowballing, or egging a moving car specifically, but rather about stupid and irresponsible things in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 While what you're saying about risking lives may be true, you're still missing the point. When I say that he was simply being a kid, by that I mean that kids tend to do stupid and irresponsible things.No, you're missing the point. Throwing things at moving cars isn't merely "stupid and irresponsible", it's criminal, and potentially fatal to the drivers and passengers. When I was a kid, I didn't do criminal and dangerous things to anyone. I didn't personally know any kid who DID. Such behaviour isn't "natural kid behaviour", no matter how often you assert that it is. It's antisocial, it's potentially fatal, it's unequivocally criminal. End of story. I was simply using this as an example which proves that kids do stupid and irresponsible things. Of course it's not acceptable, but it is natural for a kid to do. Again, I'm not talking about snowballing, or egging a moving car specifically, but rather about stupid and irresponsible things in general.Your example merely "proved" that you did criminally dangerous things when you were a kid. It didn't prove that such behaviour is "natural" to kids. That's what we'd call a knee-jerk reaction. A kid gets shot, so let's take away all guns. First of all, chances are, this gun was illegal to begin with. So even IF there was gun control, the kid still would have been shot. But anyway, this is not the topic for that debate. Mmm, yeah. TK is, in my opinion, entirely correct on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 No, you're missing the point. Throwing things at moving cars isn't merely "stupid and irresponsible", it's criminal, and potentially fatal to the drivers and passengers. I didn't miss that one, read what I posted once again and you'll see. When I was a kid, I didn't do criminal and dangerous things to anyone. I didn't personally know any kid who DID. Such behaviour isn't "natural kid behaviour", no matter how often you assert that it is. It's antisocial, it's potentially fatal, it's unequivocally criminal. End of story. It's very commendable that you didn't do things like that, but just because you didn't know any kids who did, doesn't mean that the vast majority of kids doesn't do something similar at least once in their life. Again with that criminal insistance. If those kids who did (or do) those kinds of things (including me when I was a kid) do it because they want to cause a traffic accident and hurt the person(s) in the vehicle, then I would agree that their behaviour is criminal, but they don't have that intention when they do it. When they do stuff like that the only thought in their head is: ''This is gonna be fun! That driver is gonna be so pissed.'', which is why their behaviour is simply stupid and irresponsible, because they aren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions. And why aren't they thinking of all the consequences? Because they're kids, they aren't mature adult people, they have years of learning and maturing to do before that. If they are caught, they should be held accountable, not by law, but by their parents. Your example merely "proved" that you did criminally dangerous things when you were a kid. It didn't prove that such behaviour is "natural" to kids. It proved that I did stupid and irresponsible things when I was a kid and so did most of my friends. Again, read more carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Originally Posted by igyman: I didn't miss that one, read what I posted once again and you'll see. Well not to put too fine a point on it, you missed it again in this very post. And seemingly, deliberately. You're not only refusing to admit that throwing things at moving cars is not "kids just being kids", you're also refusing to admit the danger these acts pose to other people and their property. Let me go deeper into it: Originally Posted by igyman: It's very commendable that you didn't do things like that, but just because you didn't know any kids who did, doesn't mean that the vast majority of kids doesn't do something similar at least once in their life. Well you're putting your personal childhood experience of throwing snowballs at passing cars with your friends forward as if it proves something. If your childhood recklessness "proves" something, so does my lack of recklessness (and the similar lack of recklessness among my peers). You can't have it both ways. In MY experience, the majority of children don't do illegal things that endanger the lives, property and general wellbeing of other people. Therefore, it is NOT natural behaviour for kids to act in a criminal and genuinely dangerous manner. If you wish to assert that it IS natural for kids to act in a criminally dangerous manner, then you really should provide evidence beyond a personal anecdote about you and some other kids acting in a criminally dangerous manner. Originally Posted by igyman: Again with that criminal insistance. If those kids who did (or do) those kinds of things (including me when I was a kid) do it because they want to cause a traffic accident and hurt the person(s) in the vehicle, then I would agree that their behaviour is criminal, but they don't have that intention when they do it. When they do stuff like that the only thought in their head is: ''This is gonna be fun! That driver is gonna be so pissed.'', which is why their behaviour is simply stupid and irresponsible, because they aren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions. Totally fallacious argument. You're saying that because some kids who endanger the lives and property of others "don't mean to do any harm", that means that what they did wasn't criminally dangerous. Of course it was. Their intent doesn't alter the implications of their actions. Their intent is not relevant to the question of whether their acts endangered others. You said earlier that "our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did", but of course they were. Throwing things at moving vehicles endangers drivers, passengers and pedestrians, not to mention property. This isn't really up for debate, it's just common sense. You seem to want to describe your actions when you were a kid in a very flattering, revisionist way. That's not right, morally speaking. You should admit that what you did when you were a kid put people's health and property at risk, and move on from there. Do you think it's legal to throw things at random people or their property? Do you think it's not dangerous to distract the driver of a moving vehicle? (and in the case of eggs, to also damage his property, even if you didn't succeed in distracting him.) If you DO think this, you're deluded. Originally Posted by igyman: And why aren't they thinking of all the consequences? Because they're kids, they aren't mature adult people, they have years of learning and maturing to do before that. If they are caught, they should be held accountable, not by law, but by their parents. The parents can deal with everyday kid problems. But when a child breaks the law, they should be held accountable under the law. There are already provisions in law for children to be treated and punished differently than adults if they've committed crimes. But they are accountable in their own way for their own crimes. The fact that you're a kid doesn't mean you're incapable of committing a crime. Originally Posted by igyman: It proved that I did stupid and irresponsible things when I was a kid and so did most of my friends. Again, read more carefully. As I pointed out before, it's not relevant whether it was just you, or you and three friends, or you and your entire community... that doesn't make the behaviour any less illegal or dangerous, and it doesn't mean that it's "natural" for kids to engage in such behaviour. A lot of kids beat other kids up. Doesn't mean they're "just being kids" when they knock someone's teeth out. They're being dangerously VIOLENT kids. A lot of kids enjoy playing with fire. Doesn't mean they're "just being kids" when they burn down a building. They're being little ARSONISTS. Yes, they're kids. Which means they get punished less severely than adults. Doesn't alter the fact that they've committed crimes and endangered others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Basically, what you're saying is that they should be sentenced to a juvenal home because they weren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions. I disagree, I think it's a matter that their parents should solve. That's all that I'm arguing about here. Our opinions differ, so let's leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Basically, what you're saying is that they should be sentenced to a juvenal home because they weren't thinking of all the consequences of their actions.Ugh, I consider this comment to be extremely foolish. I have never even mentioned the question of how kids who commit certain criminal acts should be sentenced. So who said anything about "juvenile homes"? Where did you get this from? I have merely pointed out that those who commit crimes that endanger others or the property of others should be dealt with under the law, by the law. It's a very simple point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Well, you've insisted that they be held accountable by law, which lead me to believe that you considered some kind of sentence as an appropriate punishment (community service, juvenile home, etc.). If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I would like to ask that you clarify what you meant by ''dealt with under the law, by the law.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.