James Kim found Dead

[Arreat]

http://news.com.com/James+Kim+found+deceased/2100-1028_3-6141498.html?tag=cnetfd.ld1

 

 

That's so sad. I will always remember the advice he gave which lead to me buying a Zen Micro.

[Nerd_Annhilator]

Man...that seriously sucks. I read he was found, had no idea he was dead though..

 

RIP.

[IG-64]

Oh man. I think I heard about this guy on the news, I didn't know he was a CNet editor though, I don't really go to CNet alot.

 

R.I.P.

[BongoBob]

Man, I was hoping he would be found alive.

 

My condolences to his family, RIP.

[tk102]

I live right near there and I cannot wrap my mind around why oh why did they decide to take that road? Bear Camp Road (Siskiyou National Forest Road #23) is little more than a logging road. I mean the car got stuck on that road and wasn't found for 9 days -- that tells you how often the road is used this time of year.

 

It's really sad, but I'm kind of mad that the guy would endanger his family like that when he could have just stayed on the highway the whole time. Sorry to hear this.

 

Edit: Is this the same Swamp that barely shed a tear in this thread? The more I think about it, the angrier I am with this guy -- now his wife is a widow and his children are fatherless. *sigh* It's just sad.

[TiE23]

Such a dumb decision. I would have stayed with the car personally. But damn, I was wishing he'd be okay.

[BongoBob]

Is this the same Swamp that barely shed a tear in this thread? The more I think about it, the angrier I am with this guy -- now his wife is a widow and his children are fatherless. *sigh* It's just sad.

 

That's because (as dumb a reason as it was) that kid put his well being at risk for vandalism. This man risked his life for his family. Yes, it does suck to get killed over something so stupid, but it was still vandalism. Where as this man was trying to get help for his family.

 

Don't disgrace this thread by turning it into a "YOU GUYS HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS WTF" thread, because these are two completely different things.

[Nerd_Annhilator]

Theres a difference between caring for your family and an act of stupidity, kthx.

[Datheus]

Such a dumb decision. I would have stayed with the care personally. But damn, I was wishing he'd be okay.

 

I know, I know. If he had waited only one more day (hell, maybe even only a few hours by the sounds of the latests reports) to head out, they would have managed to find him alive.

 

But the fact of the matter is they had already been stranded for over a week. Their supplies were gone. He was probably certain they were going to die if he didn't try to get help.

[Spider AL]

You see, what people forget is that- though we're dominant as a species- we still live in little isolated pockets, islands of humanity. We understand the cities we live in, the villages, the towns. We understand the public transport, the always-open stores and the emergency services. These places and the constructs within them have become our world, our habitat.

 

But what we forget routinely as individuals and as a people, is that despite all our veneer of civilisation, despite all the barriers we've put up to shield ourselves against the world outside, we are still just animals. And an animal torn from its natural habitat and placed into a strange environment will have trouble surviving, because it won't understand what is necessary for it to survive in the new environment.

 

And when we forget this... we often die. As this poor fellow died. He forgot that the countryside isn't just some quaint little place to go on holiday in, it's a living, breathing environment with its own rules, and its own dangers. You're unlikely to get mugged in the wilderness... but you might starve. You may not be mown down by a drunk-driver... but you might die from the cold.

 

At the end of the day, this guy didn't prepare himself or his family for the ordeal that he risked putting them in by choosing the route he chose. He ignored basic rules of survival. He went into a strange place without educating himself on the subject of the place.

 

Don't disgrace this thread by turning it into a "YOU GUYS HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS WTF" thread, because these are two completely different things.

Actually TK wasn't that wrong. The two situations are comparable in ONE respect, because the poor dead guys put themselves at risk, and did so despite the fact that ANYONE could have told them that their actions were risky. Kim's actions weren't malicious, however, that's what makes his actions morally excusable where the kid's were not.

 

The kid threw eggs at random motorists, (act of malice) risking their lives... and as it turns out, risking his own too.

 

This fellow drove his family down a random road, (without malice) risking their lives... and as it turns out, risking his own too.

 

So TK was right... in a way.

 

I was out in Oregon last year. There's country out there that you don't want to be stranded in, even in GOOD weather. I didn't need anyone to tell me that. It was obvious just looking at the landscape. I don't know why Kim or his wife didn't see it.

 

The results of Kim's ignorance may be accidental... but nobody forced him to do what he did. It's his own fault. Tragic, pitiable... but still his own fault. It's nobody else's fault.

 

-

 

PS: Just read an article on Kim's death by one Michelle Quinn of Mercurynews.

 

She states: "Oh, there will be plenty of helpful tips from this tragedy, how to pack your car for trips, whether to invest in global positioning systems. More technology, we can't but help feel, is the answer."

 

What a moron this woman is. You don't need "more technology", you need to educate people on wilderness survival. Anyone can start a fire in the wilderness, anyone can build traps to catch food. You don't need a fricking GPS system to live, you need a knife and some basic knowledge. And frankly, if you aren't willing to learn these things... stay the hell out of the woods.

 

Reliance on technology was part of what CAUSED this death. And this idiot woman wants to exacerbate the problem? Ugh. Makes me quite ill.

[Datheus]

I have heard that he DID do some research. I heard that they had asked the day before on information on the area from a tourist booth.

 

Secondly, people who live in Southern Oregon have been saying this section of the highways is pretty much a trap. People traveling through the area miss a turn, look at the map, and say, "Oh, we can just follow this little road here". On some maps, it practically looks like an access road. Tourists don't understand it's just shy of being another logging road.

 

Also, he had multiple changes of clothing with him and two lighters. The fact that he trekked eight miles in those conditions I think says a lot. God only knows why he did it, but I'm sure there was a reason. He was not stupid.

 

By the way, knives, compasses, and matches are all technology. Hell, it was the cell phone he was carrying that led rescuers to his body.

[Mike Windu]

I'm very sorry to hear about his death. Didn't know him, never heard of him, but always sad to see someone go like that. Very honorable to go and find help for his family. There's no shame in this death and I respect the man a hell of a lot for doing that.

 

I don't know if he walked or if he ran, but I hope he ran because it would have kept him warm longer.

 

My sympathies for the family.

[HerbieZ]

I just read about this. Sad and shocking news. Although i swaer the article a few days ago said it was just his family that was missing.

[Sabretooth]

OMG, that's terrible. I was always thinking that he would end up alright. This is seriously sad.

 

RIP

[tk102]

So TK was right... in a way.

Well, I wasn't trying to be "right", but I appreciate the understanding. I was a little surprised that for all the critiques of stupidity that get posted here, I was alone in feeling the way I did. (FTR, the *how sad* comment in my edit was meant towards the Kim family, not towards the Swamp.)

 

But let me explain. I was venting a bit of emotion that had been building up since day 1 when my local news first announced they were missing. For most of the public, the first anyone heard of this story was when the family was found but the father was missing. Josephine County Sheriff Brian Anderson is a familiar face on the local news and to see him break down on camera like that hit home.

 

I think James Kim was a very brave man and was noble in trying to save his family. I just believe that as with many other heroes, he had hubris as his character flaw.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Datheus:

I have heard that he DID do some research. I heard that they had asked the day before on information on the area from a tourist booth.

They may well have done some research. But what's not up for debate, Dath, is that Kim didn't do enough research on the area to stop him making the incorrect choices that lead to his death. We know this for a fact... because the poor man IS dead.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Secondly, people who live in Southern Oregon have been saying this section of the highways is pretty much a trap. People traveling through the area miss a turn, look at the map, and say, "Oh, we can just follow this little road here". On some maps, it practically looks like an access road. Tourists don't understand it's just shy of being another logging road.

I've read something of this sort. But once again Dath, it was Kim's responsibility as a driver to assess the quality of the roads he was driving on. As soon as it became clear that the road was a low quality track... the car should have been turned around. I have no idea why someone would turn off a highway and drive along what's been described as a gravel track for miles into the wilderness in bad weather... But one thing's for sure. It was a poor decision.

 

Anyone can make a poor decision... and as I said before, it's a tragic, tragic death. But it was an avoidable one. At several stages during the events that lead to his death, Kim had to make choices. He made the wrong choices at three major points.

 

First, despite the fact that he was taking his family, (his most precious possession) into some pretty rugged terrain, he did NOT create a route-plan to stick to, and he did NOT leave said route-plan with a friend or relative with instructions to call in the cavalry if he failed to report in after a few days. That's a basic safeguard on ANY trip into terra incognita. Basic survival rule. Everyone knows it.

 

Secondly, he turned off the main roads and stayed on the dirt-track into the middle of nowhere long enough for returning on foot to be impractical. As a driver you should ALWAYS be prepared and equipped for the possibility that your vehicle might become unusable.

 

Thirdly he left his vehicle (and family) to walk (somewhat aimlessly) into the wilderness. The first choice was risky, the second choice was dubious... But the third choice... just... why? Everyone is always taught to stay with the vehicle. It's possibly the most basic of all survival rules, you stay with the vehicle. It increases your chances of being found alive, tenfold.

 

If he had made the right choices at ANY ONE of these three points... he'd still be alive. His kids would still have their dad.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Also, he had multiple changes of clothing with him and two lighters. The fact that he trekked eight miles in those conditions I think says a lot. God only knows why he did it, but I'm sure there was a reason. He was not stupid.

 

By the way, knives, compasses, and matches are all technology. Hell, it was the cell phone he was carrying that led rescuers to his body.

Nobody's saying the man was stupid, just that he didn't know what he was getting into when he drove down that road. And I'm sure he did think that he had a reason to go wandering off... but that doesn't make the choice any less wrong.

 

Secondly I don't think you understood what I was saying regarding over-reliance on technology. I have no doubt that Kim (in common with the rest of modern society) was overly dependent on human technology as it stands today. But when it came down to it, knowledge of the wilderness and its dangers would have been more useful in keeping him alive, than his mobile phone was. We routinely replace personal skills and knowledge with more and more labour-saving tech. Calculators are used the world over, and mental arithmetic is atrophying as a skill. Most people have never personally killed any of the animals that they eat on a daily basis. And perhaps more pertinently, all the people in the western world who can consistently light a fire with items found in the wild can probably fit into a single pub.

 

My comment on carrying a knife was in response to that foolish journalist's call for "more technology". We don't need more technology, we need to teach people how to use existing, BASIC tools, in combination with extensive knowledge. Technology didn't save Kim, but knowledge would have.

 

As I said before, we live in such insular human communities that it's easy to forget that the wild places outside our cities are unforgiving places, that don't suffer ignorance gladly. IF you don't want to LEARN about the wild... STAY OUT OF IT.

 

I mean, I'm sorry that I'm not merely emoting here, but as WELL as expressing my sympathy for people like poor old Kim, I also want to try to learn something from tragedies like this. And what do we learn from this? Stay in the car. Leave a route-plan with friends. Don't go down strange little roads. Learn more about the places you intend to go. Or you may end up like Kim.

[Datheus]

Of course poor decisions were made. But how often do we all make poor decisions? Do you drive the posted speed limit in the rain? I know I do, and I often think about how dumb that is sometimes. What about when you're tired? I've left my apartment without a hat or gloves only to find I'd locked myself out. November is not a pleasant time to be out in the middle of the night waiting nearly an hour for a locksmith to show up. Hell, I was walking home from my girlfriend's house one day confident I was going to be able to beat the storm home. Well, after a few successive, loud rolls of thunder I finally decided to stop at the next house and use their phone. Not 5 minutes later, day turned into night and a few bolts of lightning hit around the neighborhood I was in. Granted, that's an example of a good decision, but it was almost purely luck. I was teetering which way I was going to go with my decision.

 

Would it have been any safer for Kim to have turned around and added another hour or two onto a trip that was already pushing into the night? Obviously, we'll never know.

 

Of course we all wish had done some things differently, but I can't hold it against him that he did everything that he thought was best for his family.

 

Secondly, indeed something can be learned, but *especially* in the modern world, you can't expect to know how to handle every last situation. Do you know how to survive a plane crash? What about a tornado? Heat stroke? Heart attack? Do you know how to preform CPR? Keep a car from spinning out? Earthquake? Fire? What about a shark attack? Do you know how to treat someone who's just been in a car accident? Do you know how to behave in a hostage situation? Have you ever been trapped in a sinking car? Can you start a fire without any outside supplies? Do you have an AWOL bag in the trunk of your car and by your door?

 

Do you have children? A job? A life? Hobbies? A spouse?

 

There are only so many hours in a day. :/ Yes, poor choices were made, but you can't point the finger about that. It doesn't make this any less awful or any less valid. Sometimes we just have to use intuition and best judgment. Unfortunately and tragically, these two things failed James Kim.

[Mike Windu]

Spider, much as I understand where you're coming from, it's kind of a Rahs Al Ghul notion you're taking here... as if was Kim was to blame for his own death.

 

"It was your father's fault. Your parents died because he was too weak."

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Mike Windu:

Spider, much as I understand where you're coming from, it's kind of a Rahs Al Ghul notion you're taking here... as if was Kim was to blame for his own death.

 

"It was your father's fault. Your parents died because he was too weak."

"Blame" is an emotive term that I don't like to use. But you're essentially correct. It was Kim's fault that he died, in that he DID make poor and ill-informed decisions that directly led to his family being put in danger, and eventually to his death. I mean, it was certainly nobody else's fault. Nobody can force you to leave home without telling anyone where you'll be, nobody can force you to drive your family down a dirt-track into nowhere, and finally, nobody can force you to break a basic rule of survival. (Stay with the vehicle.)

 

Does that sound cruel? It's not meant to be cruel. I'm criticising the man's choices, not the man's character. I've already shown great sympathy for him and his family. I don't think I need belabour the point.

 

People show sympathy a lot in our society. When something bad happens, everyone shows a lot of sympathy. What's REALLY tragic though, is that nobody seems to want to learn anything from the horrible things that happen to people. Nobody seems to want to absorb the lessons that these poor souls can teach us. Showing sympathy isn't enough. We have to objectively analyse, or these tragedies are doubly tragic, as their valuable lessons are wasted.

 

I mean, let's take the press associated with Kim's death as an example. In a bare FEW of the articles I've read on his death, it has been hinted that leaving the vehicle was a mistake. It should be the damn headline. None of the articles I've read have told the public that it'd be a good idea to leave a route-plan with a friend before you leave on such a trip. Do we want to save other people from Kim's fate, or do we want to sit around doing nothing but emoting?

 

I don't know about you guys, but I want to save other people. And the only way of doing this is to show people exactly where Kim went wrong.

 

And it's an interesting comparison that you've made with Ra's Al Ghul's somewhat militant stance on Thomas Wayne's choices. He was right, of course. In the story of Batman, Wayne decided to walk his wife and child through a dark and nefarious looking alleyway, at night. Nobody forced him to do this. So was what happened Wayne's fault? Yes, in part. It was the killer's fault of course, but Wayne does bear responsibility for taking his family into the circumstances that could easily have cost ALL their lives.

 

Ra's Al Ghul's an interesting Batman villain because unlike Batman's other enemies, Ra's actually makes sense quite a lot of the time. Both in the comics and in the film. He's not just another crazy nutter, he's someone whom Batman often agrees with in principle. It's just his violent revolutionary methods that Batman disagrees with. But I digress. You shouldn't mention Batman around me, I go off on one!

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

...

 

Not 5 minutes later, day turned into night and a few bolts of lightning hit around the neighborhood I was in. Granted, that's an example of a good decision, but it was almost purely luck. I was teetering which way I was going to go with my decision.

That was the right decision, Dath. And the way you describe it, it wasn't luck at all, it was your knowledge that staying outside would be dangerous that allowed you to make that right choice.

 

We've all had tough decisions to make. And we've all made many mistakes, though none of us here have made the kind of fatal errors that Kim did... because we're all still here.

 

But when we make mistakes... they're our mistakes. We own them. Nobody else made any mistakes for us, we made them. Our fault, our responsibility, our burden... ours.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Would it have been any safer for Kim to have turned around and added another hour or two onto a trip that was already pushing into the night? Obviously, we'll never know.

 

Of course we all wish had done some things differently, but I can't hold it against him that he did everything that he thought was best for his family.

First of all, of COURSE it would have been safer to turn back off that dirt-track into nowhere. There's no debate about that, as far as I'm aware. Turning off the highway was what put them in danger, it was also what made them tougher to find.

 

Secondly, who's "holding" anything against Kim? The man made mistakes. Does the fact that I'm criticising his judgements mean I'm insulting him as a person? Of course not. If we don't admit his mistakes and our own, how will we ever learn from these situations? How will we ever learn from our own mistakes?

 

Without a serious assessment of what he did wrong... poor Kim's death will be meaningless. But if- in addition to showing sympathy- we make the effort to really learn the lessons his mistakes are trying to teach us, he will not have died in vain.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Secondly, indeed something can be learned, but *especially* in the modern world, you can't expect to know how to handle every last situation. Do you know how to survive a plane crash? What about a tornado? Heat stroke? Heart attack? Do you know how to preform CPR? Keep a car from spinning out? Earthquake? Fire? What about a shark attack? Do you know how to treat someone who's just been in a car accident? Do you know how to behave in a hostage situation? Have you ever been trapped in a sinking car? Can you start a fire without any outside supplies? Do you have an AWOL bag in the trunk of your car and by your door?

Well I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet when I say "yes" to most of those questions.

 

Yes, I have taken the time to learn first aid, including CPR. And this training wasn't provided by my company or employer, I had to pay for this myself. The reason I made this effort? Because I believe what I've been saying. That we own our mistakes, we own our lack of knowledge. If I ever had the opportunity to save someone's life... perhaps someone close to me... but lacked the basic skills (like CPR) to save them? Well that'd be my fault. That waste... would be my fault. I believe all people should make the effort to learn first aid.

 

Yes, I try my best to learn and maintain advanced driving techniques. Once I passed my basic driving test, I decided that it was my responsibility to be the best driver I can be. How would I feel if I got into an accident and someone died, and I hadn't done all I could to avoid the accident? That includes learning advanced driving techniques. People pass their test and think "right, I can go and drive anywhere now". Selfish, selfish, selfish. ALL people have the responsibility to make themselves as safe as they can be on the road.

 

Yes, I've learned basic survival skills for many situations, and I've focussed quite a bit on bushcraft and self-defence. Why? Because I've travelled in some dubious places. I knew the risks as well as they could be known, I accepted the risks and armed myself as best I could to FACE those risks. If I hadn't been willing to take the time to learn these survival skills... I wouldn't have gone travelling! End of story!

 

If you don't want to learn to drive as well as you can, You have a moral obligation not to drive. If you don't want to learn to survive if you're stranded in the wilderness, don't go into the wilderness. You'll live longer, other people will live longer, everybody's happy.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Yes, poor choices were made, but you can't point the finger about that. It doesn't make this any less awful or any less valid. Sometimes we just have to use intuition and best judgment. Unfortunately and tragically, these two things failed James Kim.

Sorry to contradict you, but yes you can point the finger. Yes you must point the finger. Because if you don't admit clearly and unequivocally that the man made serious, fatal mistakes, you cannot learn from them and his death will have been in vain.

 

And it was Kim's judgement that failed Kim. Nobody else's. Awful and tragic, but also not up for debate.

[Datheus]

If I ever had the opportunity to save someone's life... perhaps someone close to me... but lacked the basic skills (like CPR) to save them? Well that'd be my fault. That waste... would be my fault. I believe all people should make the effort to learn first aid.

 

That's interesting. According to you, it's their own fault they died. They put themselves in the position of their breath stopping or their heart stopping. Whether they were playing some foolish game under water, driving their boat too fast, throwing eggs at cars and getting shot, or eating deep fried foods and red meat for a life time, etc etc. So why should you need to know CPR? It's their fault that they died.

 

I realize his death was his own fault, but in a way, that is what makes it more tragic. If it had been a complete, 100% accident--what else is there to say? They happen. However, we all know he could have made better choices, but he didn't because he was worried about his family. To me, that almost seems more sad.

 

I'm having trouble with your explanation because you really seem to be trying to sterilize the subject.

[Spider AL]

No offence Dath, but you're making a whole LOAD of quite incomprehensible leaps in this post. Let me qualify:

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

That's interesting. According to you, it's their own fault they died. They put themselves in the position of their breath stopping or their heart stopping. Whether they were playing some foolish game under water, driving their boat too fast, throwing eggs at cars and getting shot, or eating deep fried foods and red meat for a life time, etc etc. So why should you need to know CPR? It's their fault that they died.

Here you seem to be saying that if it's someone's FAULT that they've stopped breathing (as it often can be) that means you shouldn't bother to revive them. Because it was their fault... Which is pretty wierd. I mean... I've never said that just because someone gets themselves into something that they should be LEFT in that situation. I really don't know where you'd get such a strange idea.

 

If you find someone who has tried to hang themselves... you revive them! You have a moral obligation to do it. If you find someone in the wilderness who decided to leave their vehicle... you help them! You have a moral obligation to.

 

The fact that people make mistakes doesn't mean we should leave them to reap the often bitter harvest they've sown. But we should always RECOGNISE and analyse their errors, so we can learn from them. Just sitting around saying "aww, isn't that sad" is perfectly natural... but if that's ALL you do, it's not very constructive. And it's something of a disservice to those who have died, frankly.

 

If I were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't want people to just stand around going "Isn't that sad." I'd want them to learn from my mistakes. Otherwise my death really WOULD be meaningless. And in order to learn from the mistakes of the dead, we have to talk about them. In detail. Dispassionately.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

I realize his death was his own fault, but in a way, that is what makes it more tragic. If it had been a complete, 100% accident--what else is there to say? They happen. However, we all know he could have made better choices, but he didn't because he was worried about his family. To me, that almost seems more sad.

Really? I don't know why. I'd find the death of someone who had made all the logical choices but STILL died to be equally tragic. And that happens as well. Sometimes we simply CANNOT WIN. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our very best to do the correct, logical and moral thing in all situations.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

I'm having trouble with your explanation because you really seem to be trying to sterilize the subject.

I'm trying in my own small way to add something to the worldwide discussion of Kim's death that it lacks in large measure. Everyone (including myself) has (rightly) expressed sympathy for the poor man and his family... but very few people are talking about the clear mistakes he made that PUT him and his family in that life or death situation.

 

Whether out of a misguided sense of propriety, respect for the dead, whatever... nobody's (by nobody I mean very few people) noting that turning on to the road and STAYING on the road were genuinely poor decisions. Nobody's noting that not leaving a route-plan with friends was a genuinely poor decision. Nobody's noting that leaving the vehicle was a genuinely poor decision.

 

And if we want Kim's tragic death to have any meaning at all, we have to make these facts crystal clear... so that others won't drive down strange old roads. So that others will stay with their vehicles. So that others will leave route-plans with friends.

 

If you want to call that "sterilising the subject" I guess you can. But I consider it to be both an incorrect and a derogatory description.

[Datheus]

Here you seem to be saying that if it's someone's FAULT that they've stopped breathing (as it often can be) that means you shouldn't bother to revive them.

 

I'm just trying to figure out whose fault it is. First you said it was the victim's fault. Then you said it would be your fault for not knowing CPR.

 

Let's take a drowning victim. Let's say he was recording a silly video for YouTube that involved driving a car into a lake. You are the cameraman. The car sinks. Because the victim is not clear on how to exit a sinking car, he does manage to escape, but not before the drowning process beings. You dive in and drag him onto the shore, but cannot properly preform CPR. You have three choices:

 

* Your fault

- If it is your fault, than the victim cannot be blamed for drowning. You should have been able to save his life with CPR.

 

* Victim's fault

- If it was the victim's poor choices that led to his demise, you cannot be accountable for not knowing CPR. He should have known how to exit a sinking vehicle. This does not imply that you should not save him should you know CPR. I would say, however, most people do not clearly understand CPR.

 

* Both at fault

- Both of you were stupid for recording a dangerous video without being properly prepared. This is pretty tricky, but I'll get into it below.

 

I think this is important because if you're going to distribute "fault", isn't it the map makers partial fault for not clearly labeling dangerous roads? Perhaps those roads should only be on specialty maps such as summer driving maps or whitewater rafting maps. And what about the partial fault of the state? A gate can be placed in front of the road. (The subject of placing a gate in front of some of these dangerous winter roads has come up before.) There are plenty of things that could have been done preemptively to "save" James Kim. Since I was a child I've known the saying, "A stitch in time saves nine."

 

If I were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't want people to just stand around going "Isn't that sad." I'd want them to learn from my mistakes. Otherwise my death really WOULD be meaningless.

Absolutely. People should learn from this story. However, I would like to point out that they had been stranded in the car for 8 or 9 days when James Kim left. He brought a map, extra clothing (in fact, I'd say clothing he brought intentionally as markers), and two lighters. His family had run out of food. He thought a town down river was only four miles away. In fact, it was closer to 15. Four miles! Hell, I'm surprised he didn't leave the day after they became stuck. He only left after options were limited and he was rather sure that his family would perish if he did not do something. In light of all of this, authorities are not even claiming he did much wrong. Aside, of course, from continuing down the road despite the weather conditions.

 

Anyway, my point being, is there a reason we can't do both? You seem to presenting some concepts, while not 100% wrong, in a somewhat cold, callous manner (though not rude).

 

Really? I don't know why. I'd find the death of someone who had made all the logical choices but STILL died to be equally tragic. And that happens as well. Sometimes we simply CANNOT WIN. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our very best to do the correct, logical and moral thing in all situations.

Colloquially, yes perhaps it is more "tragic". But literally, tragedy implies a character flaw that leads to the hero's downfall.

 

Whether out of a misguided sense of propriety, respect for the dead, whatever... nobody's (by nobody I mean very few people) noting that turning on to the road and STAYING on the road were genuinely poor decisions. Nobody's noting that not leaving a route-plan with friends was a genuinely poor decision. Nobody's noting that leaving the vehicle was a genuinely poor decision.

What I've read somewhat implies that by the time both he and his wife realized there was a problem, it wasn't as simple as just turning around. Though, I do agree. They should have turned around. It kills me to know that this all could have been avoided if that had simply happened. The thing that gets me though, is you tried to make the point that it was his own fault. Well, looking around the internet, few people seem to be trying to blame anyone else. All anyone is saying is, "Man, if he had only waited another day or two." I even said that in my first post. Everyone understands it was his own choice. So, your point of it being his own "fault" seem redundant and obvious. I think perhaps that is what is leaving me with a feeling of an undertoned coldness in your argument.

 

One thing that did just strike me as I considered that last quote. What if James himself DID consider turning around? Maybe his wife insisted that they push forward. Certainly they came to consensus about the subject. She was an adult--riding shotgun no less.

 

Anyway, my point is just that to me, "fault" just seems to imply maliciousness or gross negligence. Perhaps carelessness. None of which I think James Kim was guilty of. I agree that better choices could have been made, but hindsight is 20/20. Anyone who knows James Kim--hell, anyone who knows someone that knows James Kim--firmly believes that if he had for a heartbeat believed his family was in danger while turning onto that road, he would have done anything to get out of there.

 

Much as he was doing when he died.

[Datheus]

Oh my god.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/08/missing.family.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Apparently there IS a gate that keeps that road shut in the winter. The gate was opened by vandals.

 

I have no idea if this is true or not. Maybe the state is just saying that to cover their own asses, but wow. If it really was vandals... wow.. just wow.

[BongoBob]

That's just terrible

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Datheus:

I'm just trying to figure out whose fault it is. First you said it was the victim's fault. Then you said it would be your fault for not knowing CPR.

Hmm. You seem to be inhabiting a somewhat black-and-white world, if you really think that most situations in the real world are all entirely due to one person's fault, Dath.

 

Say someone's just breathed water after fooling around in the river, and I've dragged them onto shore. The fact that they fooled around makes their current situation a direct result of their error. But if I don't have the knowledge to revive them when they could still be saved, I have to accept some small responsibility for their demise. Because with a little knowledge, a little effort earlier in my life, I could have saved this person. So we share "the fault" in some discreet proportions (dependent on specific circumstances). In this case, my level of responsibility would be smaller than that of the person who fooled around under the water, because my inability to save the person due to a lack of first-aid knowledge was in many ways a less active participation in the unfolding of the event.

 

Furthermore there's a moral concern. If I am the drowning man who fooled around underwater... I cannot in moral terms expect others to possess the knowledge necessary to save me. I must take full responsibility for my fate, as a responsible moral man. But if I am the rescuer, I must take MORE responsibility for my failure to revive the drownee than others are allowed to place on my shoulders.

 

But this concept warrants a separate discussion, it's about holding oneself to the highest moral standard one can, etc.

 

So to answer your question, yes, Kim's death could have been avoided in theory if the road was better marked on maps or better signposted... So somewhere, some mapmaker SHOULD by rights take some amount of responsibility for this death. But we must each accept total responsibility for OUR OWN ACTIONS. And Kim acted (or failed to act) on several occasions during this situation, as described above. The VAST bulk of responsibility rests on the adults in that car. Gates and fences are often down. We cannot rely on the state to prevent us from venturing into hazardous places! We must take responsibility for our own passage through the world.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Absolutely. People should learn from this story. However, I would like to point out that they had been stranded in the car for 8 or 9 days when James Kim left. He brought a map, extra clothing (in fact, I'd say clothing he brought intentionally as markers), and two lighters. His family had run out of food. He thought a town down river was only four miles away. In fact, it was closer to 15. Four miles! Hell, I'm surprised he didn't leave the day after they became stuck. He only left after options were limited and he was rather sure that his family would perish if he did not do something. In light of all of this, authorities are not even claiming he did much wrong. Aside, of course, from continuing down the road despite the weather conditions.

Am confused. Nobody's disputing that he took clothing, lighters etcetera. But none of these things were enough to save him, because the errors he made were simply too grave. So I don't know why you keep mentioning his provisioning for his ill-advised trek. It doesn't alter his mistake in leaving the car.

 

Yes, emotions ran high, so his poor decision is perfectly human, perfectly understandable. But it's still a WRONG DECISION. And the public should be made aware of this and of the other poor decisions in a MUCH more efficient manner than they are currently.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Anyway, my point being, is there a reason we can't do both? You seem to presenting some concepts, while not 100% wrong, in a somewhat cold, callous manner (though not rude).

Well Dath, I have literally stated at least twice that we should both express sympathy, and ALSO objectively review any mistakes made by the participants. I have myself expressed GREAT sympathy in EVERY post so far.

 

I'll do it again. I have GREAT sympathy for Kim and his family. I don't want his death to be in vain, which is why I think less newsprint should be spent on mindless emoting, and more of it spent on educating the public so that they don't repeat Kim's mistakes.

 

So... you know... please read my posts in their entirety, because I don't think you currently are.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Colloquially, yes perhaps it is more "tragic". But literally, tragedy implies a character flaw that leads to the hero's downfall.

No, actually the "literal" meanings of the word tragedy also include the modern meanings. I find it quite odd that you'd refer to ancient Greek dramatic concepts at this point... Plus, you'll see at dictionary.com that the dramatic concept also includes heroes battling against insurmountable obstacles.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tragedy

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

What I've read somewhat implies that by the time both he and his wife realized there was a problem, it wasn't as simple as just turning around. Though, I do agree. They should have turned around. It kills me to know that this all could have been avoided if that had simply happened. The thing that gets me though, is you tried to make the point that it was his own fault. Well, looking around the internet, few people seem to be trying to blame anyone else. All anyone is saying is, "Man, if he had only waited another day or two." I even said that in my first post. Everyone understands it was his own choice. So, your point of it being his own "fault" seem redundant and obvious. I think perhaps that is what is leaving me with a feeling of an undertoned coldness in your argument.

On the contrary, I think a great deal of effort has been expended both here and in the media to try to gloss over the fact that Kim's poor decisions directly caused his terrible demise. This happens EVERY TIME there's a tragedy like this, and great opportunities to educate the public are lost in the process.

 

As I said in my previous post, almost no news reports have even hinted that leaving the vehicle was a violation of a very basic survival rule. That kind of info would be helpful in avoiding future tragedies. Plus the route-plan-left-with-friends concept has simply not been explored to my knowledge. It should be.

 

I'm afraid that only formless sympathy is allowed in the mainstream media in cases like this.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

One thing that did just strike me as I considered that last quote. What if James himself DID consider turning around? Maybe his wife insisted that they push forward. Certainly they came to consensus about the subject. She was an adult--riding shotgun no less.

Well yes, but the driver takes responsibility for the passage of the car. That's presuming Kim was driving. Secondly, Kim's errors didn't cease with the continued passage down the road, more's the pity.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus:

Anyway, my point is just that to me, "fault" just seems to imply maliciousness or gross negligence. Perhaps carelessness. None of which I think James Kim was guilty of. I agree that better choices could have been made, but hindsight is 20/20. Anyone who knows James Kim--hell, anyone who knows someone that knows James Kim--firmly believes that if he had for a heartbeat believed his family was in danger while turning onto that road, he would have done anything to get out of there.

 

Much as he was doing when he died.

Fault is merely a word meaning "error", "defect" or "responsibility for a wrong action". The fact that you've ascribed such negative connotations to it are neither here nor there. It's not the fault of the word, nor my fault that you think of the word the way you do. And you keep bringing up Kim's exemplary character and love for his family... which are not in dispute. Who's disputing these things? Are you disputing them? I certainly never have.

 

If it makes you feel more comfortable, I can continue using the word "error" instead of "fault". It won't alter my arguments.