Child In Critical Condition After Friends Bury HIs Head In Sand

[Athena]

Full Story (http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_031008WAB_boy_buried_LJ.3e86c380.html?npc)

Everett boy still critical after being buried in sandbox

EVERETT, Wash. - A 10-year-old Everett boy remains in critical condition at Children's Hospital in Seattle after being buried in a sandbox by his playmates.

Cody Porter's family is bracing for the worst.

His half-brother, Joshua Quantrille, 30, said Cody was playing with his own three sons and several other children Saturday in the back yard of a home belonging to a family friend.

There was a sandbox in the back yard, and Quantrille said the TV cartoon "Narutu" gave Cody and his friends the idea of burying him head first in the sand.

"They watch a cartoon where they were like sand masters or something and they can manipulate sand or something like that. They came up with the idea that if he were to do this then he would be able to be one of them," he said.

Quantrille said Cody was buried roughly from his head to his chest. At some point, he began thrashing around, but the children apparently thought he was playing.

[TXChris]

Damn, the things kids do. Seriously, you KNOW there will be calls for government to take these types of cartoons off the air. But I want to know, where were the parents? Though it would've been nice to be around the children physically, what I am talking about is where were the parents in relation to the many children's upbringings?

I'm sure we all watched cartoons growing up, and if you're anywhere near my age, they were pretty violent. Tom and Jerry, the Flintstones, Loony Tunes...they all were packed with violence. That being said, I can honestly say I never did anything like this story to my friends. As a matter of fact, I can't remember a single friend doing anything such as this. It is obviously not the cartoons, or the video game violence, that makes kids do these stupid things. It is the lack of proper upbringing and parental involvement in their lives which leads to it. Face it, kids will do stupid things. They're kids. But the parent has to be fully responsible for making sure that the kids don't go to this extreme.

[Athena]

You know, while I am normally the first to point out parental responsibility, I find that to be a particularly draconian response in this situation.

The fact is, kids do stupid shit. The most brilliant parenting in the world can't protect against this 100%. I'll gladly use myself as an example.

My parents did a fine job. They were actively involved with my education; they instilled realistic and uncompromising values from a very early age; they provided a reasonable level of supervision. All that being said, I did all kinds of stupid shit around the age of 10...much of which *could* have wound up very badly for me.

I agree that the media should never be held responsible and that parents should certainly examine their own involvement before pointing fingers...but sometimes, nothing can account for what amounts to a tragic accident driven by poor, little kid judgment.

[Morbid]

I had a great childhood and we did some DUMB shit when we were kids...but Jesus, even at that age we wouldn't have done that. Not unless it was to intentionally hurt someone.

Like smacking someone upside the head with the old-school Tonka Truck. Heheh...

[TXChris]

As I said, Athena, kids will be kids. They will do stupid things. But, if the parent is actively involved in the child's life, from a young age, the odds of them burying another upside down in the sand, is a lot less likely to happen. In addition to that, since it was in the backyard of one of the parents' house, someone should have been checking on the kids from time to time.

All that aside, my main point really was to take a stab at the people who blame t.v. and games for the things that children do. Anytime something like this comes up in the news there's a lobbying group trying to get the government to intervene instead of putting the responsibility where it belongs, on the parents and, in this case, to a lesser extent (because they are young), the children.

[Athena]

As I said, Athena, kids will be kids. They will do stupid things. But, if the parent is actively involved in the child's life, from a young age, the odds of them burying another upside down in the sand, is a lot less likely to happen. In addition to that, since it was in the backyard of one of the parents' house, someone should have been checking on the kids from time to time.


How do you know the parents WEREN'T actively involved in the child's life? That child could have been the recipient of the most solid upbringing in history, for all we know. Furthermore, we also don't know that the parents who were present WEREN'T checking on the children intermittently. I'm sure you realise just how quickly something like this could transpire.

Your response, as it relates to parental involvement, is completely unfounded conjecture.

[TXChris]

I just don't buy it that if the children were all raised so stellar that this would have happened. Once again, this is personal opinion, as is your argument. As far as the parents checking on them goes, it's not fool-proof, of course, but rather just one element that should be used.

[Athena]

Well raised children do stupid little kid shit all the time! My god! Have you never been around little kids? Were you never a little kid yourself?

Again, I was a brilliant and well-raised little kid. I was also burning tooth brushes with friends in a neighbor's treehouse around this kid's age because I thought the fact that the melted plastic would continue to burn as it dropped was awesome. It even sounded cool on its way down.

Did you catch that? Burning plastic in a treehouse with other little kids. We all could have died. :p

In hundreds of cases every year, the quality of an upbringing has no influence whatsoever on the retardedness little kids display. These kids didn't rob a store or beat someone up or slaughter animals...They consentually emulated something cool they saw on a cartoon. The bad-parenting argument is weak, here.

[TXChris]

Athena, you know better than to state "In hundreds of cases every year, the quality of an upbringing has no influence whatsoever on the retardedness little kids display" without providing support for that claim. Shame on you.

To state that the quality of an upbringing has no influence is pretty weak, in itself. If that were the case then parents should just stop parenting and allow their kids to do whatever it is they want, as, per your argument, the way a parent raises their child has no control over the things that kids do.

[Unamused Cat]

I can't believe anyone would think it was a good idea to bury someone head first. What was the kid doing, holding his breath until they got him good and packed in? :confused:

[Athena]

Athena, you know better than to state "In hundreds of cases every year, the quality of an upbringing has no influence whatsoever on the retardedness little kids display" without providing support for that claim. Shame on you.

To state that the quality of an upbringing has no influence is pretty weak, in itself. If that were the case then parents should just stop parenting and allow their kids to do whatever it is they want, as, per your argument, the way a parent raises their child has no control over the things that kids do.

LMAO.

"Providing support for that claim"...Chris, there is such a thing as "common knowledge". When citing common knowledge, no support is required. You were a kid once; I'm sure you did some especially retarded things on occasion. I don't know a kid who hasn't. I could have stated that MILLIONS of cases every year, a child's retardedness is not a product of upbringing and it would still fall under the umbrella of common knowledge. If you want to deny the obvious, however, I could gladly cite study upon study that illustrates the FACT that a child's underdeveloped brain is practically incapable of grasping the concept of consequence, which is ruled by an area of the brain that does not fully develop until the brain is done growing circa the age of 25.

You want it? Just ask, darlin'...But I was kind of hoping you were familiar with that particular piece of rather common knowledge.

Furthermore, would you like to point out where I said that upbringing has no influence on child behavior? Because, reading back, I clearly qualify my position:


I agree that the media should never be held responsible and that parents should certainly examine their own involvement before pointing fingers...but sometimes, nothing can account for what amounts to a tragic accident driven by poor, little kid judgment.

Was that not clear enough? Not only did I state my current position in no uncertain terms, I juxtaposed it with the position I would normally hold.

Yes, more often than not, a parent's behavior can be linked to that of their children. But that is FAR from absolute. For you to look at this case and assume that it is somehow the parent's fault is simply irresponsible and totally unjustified. The circumstance simply isn't there to support it. Violence is typically learned behavior, as is theft or premature sexual activity or drug use. Tell be how a bunch of kids burying another kid head first in sand is learned behavior.

You're the one making the assertion. You're the one suggesting that this incident can be blamed on bad parenting. Paint the picture, darlin'...

How could these parents have reasonably avoided this tragedy?

[Jaded]

And how big was that sandbox anyway?

My mom never had to remind me not to do something like that. I got the usual warnings.....don't sit so close to the TV, don't cross your eyes like that, don't run with scissors....etc.

I did do some stupid shit as a child though.....I'm surprised I even made it through. :o

[TXChris]

LMAO.

"Providing support for that claim"...Chris, there is such a thing as "common knowledge". When citing common knowledge, no support is required. You were a kid once; I'm sure you did some especially retarded things on occasion. I don't know a kid who hasn't. I could have stated that MILLIONS of cases every year, a child's retardedness is not a product of upbringing and it would still fall under the umbrella of common knowledge. If you want to deny the obvious, however, I could gladly cite study upon study that illustrates the FACT that a child's underdeveloped brain is practically incapable of grasping the concept of consequence, which is ruled by an area of the brain that does not fully develop until the brain is done growing circa the age of 25.

You want it? Just ask, darlin'...But I was kind of hoping you were familiar with that particular piece of rather common knowledge.

Furthermore, would you like to point out where I said that upbringing has no influence on child behavior? Because, reading back, I clearly qualify my position:



Was that not clear enough? Not only did I state my current position in no uncertain terms, I juxtaposed it with the position I would normally hold.

Yes, more often than not, a parent's behavior can be linked to that of their children. But that is FAR from absolute. For you to look at this case and assume that it is somehow the parent's fault is simply irresponsible and totally unjustified. The circumstance simply isn't there to support it. Violence is typically learned behavior, as is theft or premature sexual activity or drug use. Tell be how a bunch of kids burying another kid head first in sand is learned behavior.

You're the one making the assertion. You're the one suggesting that this incident can be blamed on bad parenting. Paint the picture, darlin'...

How could these parents have reasonably avoided this tragedy?

Actually, I quoted your exact statement in which you said (and I will quote it here again):
In hundreds of cases every year, the quality of an upbringing has no influence whatsoever on the retardedness little kids display.

As you can see, you did, in fact, state that. :)

As far as a child being unable to grasp the concept of consequence, I find that very hard to believe, so you will definitely have to point me to the multiple studies on this. If that is, indeed, true then I was a hell of a prodigy. Sure, me and my friends did things that could be considered less than intelligent, but it was never anything to the extent of burying one another head first in the sand. In fact, we were always pretty aware of the potential consequence of what we were doing, but weighed it against the "want" to pursue the activity.

Common knowledge is another thing. What is common knowledge? It is anything that is generally known to everyone, correct? Things that would easily fall under this category would be the knowledge that fire burns, ice freezes, and water is wet. If it were common knowledge that children could not sort out a consequence for an activity they pursued then our legal system would not be able to punish them for crimes committed, and, according to your argument, that would continue until the age of 25.


Tell be how a bunch of kids burying another kid head first in sand is learned behavior.

I never once said that it was a learned behavior, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

What it comes down to is, if you are correct in stating that children cannot understand the consequence of an action, and that it is common knowledge, then you are supporting my position that what happened is, in fact, the fault of the parents. Parents are responsible for their children and for making sure that their children are taken care of. They must, therefore, have been negligent, according to your argument, for the children to do what they did.

[Unamused Cat]

He has died.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080310/NEWS01/329399982&news01ad=1

[CPL CHUD]

Parenting has less influence than the actual genes the parents pass to their children. Often very definative heritable traits are shown to underline the personality of ones offspring more than what nurturing a child can account for. The actual act of parenting is meant to provide a healthy enviroment and I see no reason to assume they weren't based on what was shown in the article.

[Athena]

Actually, I quoted your exact statement in which you said (and I will quote it here again):

As you can see, you did, in fact, state that. :)

Of COURSE I stated that! Now, let me ask you - Can you tell the difference between these statements:

1.) A child's behavior is not ALWAYS a direct result of their upbringing, and
2.) A child's upbring as NO bearing on their behavior.

Please, take a moment to think about it. I've stated #1, but you somehow accuse my of #2. I'd like you to note that there is, in fact, a vast difference between the statments. I don't like words being placed in my mouth.


As far as a child being unable to grasp the concept of consequence, I find that very hard to believe, so you will definitely have to point me to the multiple studies on this.

Um...that's why the juvenile justice system is entirely separate from the adult justice system. It's why a kid can be convicted of heinous crimes only to be released at 21. It's why kids aren't allowed to drive until 16, vote until 18 and drink until 21. It's why parents are required. But hey, if you don't realise that kids are less capable intellectually than the rest of us, then, apparently, the rules of common knowledge are subjective. Because I know that fire burns, ice freezes and that water is wet. I also know that kids need parents for a reason. It's because they're not fully capable, yet.

Here's a whole list of sources (http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-351&p=Juvenile+brain+%2B+consequences&SpellState=n-3886614245_q-MZViWdHFZ4q%2F9ULwsGqMPwAAAA%40%40&fr2=sp-top)


If that is, indeed, true then I was a hell of a prodigy. Sure, me and my friends did things that could be considered less than intelligent, but it was never anything to the extent of burying one another head first in the sand. In fact, we were always pretty aware of the potential consequence of what we were doing, but weighed it against the "want" to pursue the activity.

Let me guess...You managed to stay out of jail and get good grades, too, right? That's because you're more intelligent than MOST kids. Are you telling me that your personal perspective should be applied to everyone else, even though not everyone else is as capable as you?


Common knowledge is another thing. What is common knowledge? It is anything that is generally known to everyone, correct? Things that would easily fall under this category would be the knowledge that fire burns, ice freezes, and water is wet. If it were common knowledge that children could not sort out a consequence for an activity they pursued then our legal system would not be able to punish them for crimes committed, and, according to your argument, that would continue until the age of 25.

WOW. Seriously? Our justice system is applied completely differently to those under the age of 18. Sentencing is often based solely on the fact that kids don't grasp consequence. Here. This might benefit your understanding of the logic behind juvenile court. (http://www.answers.com/topic/juvenile-law?cat=biz-fin)

As for something not continuing until the age of 25, surely you can comprehend the inconsistancy within the law. In many states, a 16 year old cannot choose to have sex with an adult or own a gun, but can operate a multi-ton piece of machinery. An 18 year old cannot legally own a handgun, but can be shipped across the world to engage in war.

Technically, a brain is not done developing until roughly the age of 25. However, the bulk of the growth is done around the age of 18, which we, as a society, has determined to be "the age of reason". Here's some more info on that. (http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol21N3/uneven.html)



I never once said that it was a learned behavior, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Lemme spell it out for you: You suggested that the kids' behavior could be tied to their upbringing. That's an unfounded statement UNLESS the behavior is obviously learned behavior, like violence or drug use or sexual activity. Even then, there is the occasional rogue case where a parent did everything right and still had a fucked up kid.


What it comes down to is, if you are correct in stating that children cannot understand the consequence of an action, and that it is common knowledge, then you are supporting my position that what happened is, in fact, the fault of the parents. Parents are responsible for their children and for making sure that their children are taken care of. They must, therefore, have been negligent, according to your argument, for the children to do what they did.

Valient effort, darling, but you are patently incorrect, WHILE avoiding my very clear question.

I asked: "How could these parents have reasonably avoided this tragedy?"

Your assertion, above, is that two things are mutually exclusive. Either a child is totally dependent and requires constant supervision, OR a child is completely independent and requires no supervision at all.

The fact is, only someone who has never been directly involved in the upbringing of a child could POSSIBLY hold this position. Either that, or, this someone is being intellectually dishonest.

Because, the rest of us realise that there is a line to walk. The truth lies, as usual, somewhere in the middle. A parent must do their best to supervise their child while still allowing them freedoms that pose danger, but allow them to exercise judgment.

Occasionally, you lose one to that judgment. You can't blame parenting, in these cases; the parents were vigilant and responsible, but simply could not protect their child from what amounted to the poor judgment of a group of kids.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

What an absurd fucking tragedy.

Either way, I dont buy at all, that parents should be held accountable for this kind of shit. My parents raised me well....I was a smart kid, I made As and Bs, I was bright as fuck, raised right, but none of that shit prevented me from doing what I did, because I have free choice, and when I wanted to do something stupid, I did, because bottom line is, kids just dont grasp consequence like adults can. They think they're invincible.

I didnt avoid jail. I didnt avoid prison. Was it because I was raised wrong? Fuck no. It was because I chose to involve myself in bullshit and associated myself with a bad crowd, and made poor choices. I KNEW the consequences were bad, but I made those choices thinking I could avoid the repercussions. Ive said it before, my parents are the reason I was able to come back from that shit, and so many of my friends are still in prison or dead.

I just, overall, hate it when parents shoulder the blame for things. To me? Its a cop out. Its an easy way to point a finger, to blame, because bad things happen that hurt us to watch or hear about. Blame? The kids. They did stupid things. THey didnt think anyone would fucking die. And they did. And no parent, IMO, is at fault.

Ive got a brilliant little six year old....and I tell her not to do shit, and she does anyway. I cant watch her 24/7, its not healthy to. Shes got to learn from her mistakes, and all I can do is hope she doesnt get herself killed doing something as horse shit stupid as what these kids did. But she does know, that if her head is buried in the sand, that she will die. She also knows that leaping off a flight of stairs could wind her up with broken bones. Doesnt stop the little tyke from routinely doing it, drawing my extreme fury when I hear that goddamn THUD.

[TXChris]

Of COURSE I stated that! Now, let me ask you - Can you tell the difference between these statements:

1.) A child's behavior is not ALWAYS a direct result of their upbringing, and
2.) A child's upbring as NO bearing on their behavior.

Please, take a moment to think about it. I've stated #1, but you somehow accuse my of #2. I'd like you to note that there is, in fact, a vast difference between the statments. I don't like words being placed in my mouth.

Yeah, my bad. Insomnia and all. I kept missing the first part of your sentence and just saw the end of it where it said "....the quality of an upbringing has no influence whatsoever on the retardedness little kids display." That being said, I submit that it is quite possible that the parental influence kept the kids from doing worse than that which they did end up doing, rather than just saying that the parental influence had no effect, in those cases.




Um...that's why the juvenile justice system is entirely separate from the adult justice system. It's why a kid can be convicted of heinous crimes only to be released at 21. It's why kids aren't allowed to drive until 16, vote until 18 and drink until 21. It's why parents are required. But hey, if you don't realise that kids are less capable intellectually than the rest of us, then, apparently, the rules of common knowledge are subjective. Because I know that fire burns, ice freezes and that water is wet. I also know that kids need parents for a reason. It's because they're not fully capable, yet.

Here's a whole list of sources (http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-351&p=Juvenile+brain+%2B+consequences&SpellState=n-3886614245_q-MZViWdHFZ4q%2F9ULwsGqMPwAAAA%40%40&fr2=sp-top)

But, according to your logic, they don't understand the consequence of what they are doing, so why should they be held responsible at all? I mean, obviously, if they don't understand why they're being held responsible then putting them in jail does nothing to curb that which they are prone to do except to keep them out of society...locked up like animals. As far as the laws putting age floors on things like drinking and voting, that is purely a result of lobbying.




Let me guess...You managed to stay out of jail and get good grades, too, right? That's because you're more intelligent than MOST kids. Are you telling me that your personal perspective should be applied to everyone else, even though not everyone else is as capable as you?


Actually, the reason I have never gone to jail is because I have made decisions based on the consequences of my actions. I have done things that could be considered less than intelligent, as a child, but not because I didn't realize the consequences. I did them because I felt the "want" to do them outweighed the extent of whatever consequence might arise. You call it intelligence; I call it common sense.





WOW. Seriously? Our justice system is applied completely differently to those under the age of 18. Sentencing is often based solely on the fact that kids don't grasp consequence. Here. This might benefit your understanding of the logic behind juvenile court. (http://www.answers.com/topic/juvenile-law?cat=biz-fin)

As for something not continuing until the age of 25, surely you can comprehend the inconsistancy within the law. In many states, a 16 year old cannot choose to have sex with an adult or own a gun, but can operate a multi-ton piece of machinery. An 18 year old cannot legally own a handgun, but can be shipped across the world to engage in war.

Technically, a brain is not done developing until roughly the age of 25. However, the bulk of the growth is done around the age of 18, which we, as a society, has determined to be "the age of reason". Here's some more info on that. (http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol21N3/uneven.html)


OK, so now you admit that a person is, in fact, able to comprehend consequence by, at least, 18? That's a far cry from the 25 you mentioned in your earlier post.



Valient effort, darling, but you are patently incorrect, WHILE avoiding my very clear question.

I asked: "How could these parents have reasonably avoided this tragedy?"

Your assertion, above, is that two things are mutually exclusive. Either a child is totally dependent and requires constant supervision, OR a child is completely independent and requires no supervision at all.

The fact is, only someone who has never been directly involved in the upbringing of a child could POSSIBLY hold this position. Either that, or, this someone is being intellectually dishonest.

Because, the rest of us realise that there is a line to walk. The truth lies, as usual, somewhere in the middle. A parent must do their best to supervise their child while still allowing them freedoms that pose danger, but allow them to exercise judgment.

Occasionally, you lose one to that judgment. You can't blame parenting, in these cases; the parents were vigilant and responsible, but simply could not protect their child from what amounted to the poor judgment of a group of kids.


The thing is, you haven't talked about any line until this point. You stated, in no uncertain terms, that a child, up to the age of 25, cannot determine consequences of an action prior to performing the action. It is because of YOUR logic that I am talking about mutual exclusivity; to show you how absurd that is. Parents are responsible for their children, which means they have to take some responsibility in a child's actions. Obviously, the older the child becomes the less responsibility the parent has to take. But, according to what you have said and inferred, a child at age 10 does not realize the consequences of actions performed. If that is the case then the parent is fully responsible for the outcomes of that child's actions. Therefore, the parent is at fault.

You have attempted to saddle me with the position that parents are completely responsible for the things a child does at all times. I clearly stated, in my first post, "Face it, kids will do stupid things. They're kids. But the parent has to be fully responsible for making sure that the kids don't go to this extreme." See? I did not take the position that parents are always responsible for every action their child takes. I even mentioned that children do stupid things because they are kids. What I stated was that when it gets to this point, the death of another person, parents need to be held responsible to some extent.

As for your question about how the parents could have reasonably avoided this tragedy. It all depends on your definition of reasonably, as it is quite subjective. For all intensive purposes, they could've checked on the kids every 5, 15, or 30 minutes, depending on the nature of the children in the backyard. We don't know, personally, how well-behaved any of these kids were, nor do we know how often, if at all, the parents really checked in on them.

The funny thing is, this whole thing you're getting so worked up over wasn't even the point of my post. The point was the assertion by "children's advocates" that t.v. and video games cause children to be violent and do stupid things. I happen to believe that parents have a hell of a lot to do with the stupidity that children do, or do not, attempt.

[CPL CHUD]

I happen to believe that parents have a hell of a lot to do with the stupidity that children do, or do not, attempt.I think you are probably right, but not from the viewpoint of correlation. I think it has more to do with the predispositions that genes impose on behavior rather than the aspect of a nuturing enviroment. Of course, extremities aside, the best way to gauge what I'm refering to is to look at studies done with adoptive children. Peers also seem to be more influential to children's behavior in the long term, thus further debunking any nuture assumption put on the parent's shoulders.

[Killroy]

He's dead
http://www.kirotv.com/news/15559193/detail.html

[Athena]

Actually, the reason I have never gone to jail is because I have made decisions based on the consequences of my actions. I have done things that could be considered less than intelligent, as a child, but not because I didn't realize the consequences. I did them because I felt the "want" to do them outweighed the extent of whatever consequence might arise. You call it intelligence; I call it common sense.

And not everyone is graced with common sense. Hell, I'd argue that common sense is not so common at all. But that's beside the point, really.


OK, so now you admit that a person is, in fact, able to comprehend consequence by, at least, 18? That's a far cry from the 25 you mentioned in your earlier post.

The thing is, you haven't talked about any line until this point. You stated, in no uncertain terms, that a child, up to the age of 25, cannot determine consequences of an action prior to performing the action. It is because of YOUR logic that I am talking about mutual exclusivity; to show you how absurd that is. Parents are responsible for their children, which means they have to take some responsibility in a child's actions. Obviously, the older the child becomes the less responsibility the parent has to take. But, according to what you have said and inferred, a child at age 10 does not realize the consequences of actions performed. If that is the case then the parent is fully responsible for the outcomes of that child's actions. Therefore, the parent is at fault.

Nuh-uh. You can't draw my argument out to the extreme in an attempt to somehow "prove" it's ridiculousness. Arguments are contextual. My statements are very accurate given the context in which they were placed.

But, because you're talking ages and lines and all sorts of things I really thought I had stated pretty clearly, I'll quote my exact statement for you:


[i]...a child's underdeveloped brain is practically incapable of grasping the concept of consequence, which is ruled by an area of the brain that does not fully develop until the brain is done growing circa the age of 25.

Child - The legal definition of "child" is an individual who is pre-pubescent. I chose that word specifically, as that is the age group I was referring to. Had I meant everyone under the age of 25, or even 18, I would have used a term more like "minor". A child's prefrontal cortex is much less developed than even a teenager's, which is less developed than a young adult's.

Practically - A qualifier. Using the word "practically" signals the reader that the following statement is not absolute.

Fully - Another qualifier. It is true that the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until roughly ones mid-20s. However, it does consistently develop prior to this point. It is exactly why teens rely on parents less than little kids, who rely less than toddlers.

What I'm trying to illustrate, here, is that you accuse me of taking a position I didn't take. "You stated, in no uncertain terms, that a child, up to the age of 25, cannot determine consequences of an action prior to performing the action." Actually, no, I did not.


You have attempted to saddle me with the position that parents are completely responsible for the things a child does at all times. I clearly stated, in my first post, "Face it, kids will do stupid things. They're kids. But the parent has to be fully responsible for making sure that the kids don't go to this extreme." See? I did not take the position that parents are always responsible for every action their child takes. I even mentioned that children do stupid things because they are kids. What I stated was that when it gets to this point, the death of another person, parents need to be held responsible to some extent.

I read this, and I see a conflicting statement. "No, a parent is not responsible for their child's every action, unless that action involves their death or the death of another." That strikes me as arbitrary when the death is an accident and cannot reasonably be linked to the parents' behavior. You are asserting that parents take responsibility for an accident that they may have had no chance to prevent.


As for your question about how the parents could have reasonably avoided this tragedy. It all depends on your definition of reasonably, as it is quite subjective. For all intensive purposes, they could've checked on the kids every 5, 15, or 30 minutes, depending on the nature of the children in the backyard. We don't know, personally, how well-behaved any of these kids were, nor do we know how often, if at all, the parents really checked in on them.

Exactly. We DON'T know. Which is exactly why I didn't understand why you'd come flying out of the gate bringing the childrens' upbringing into question.


The funny thing is, this whole thing you're getting so worked up over wasn't even the point of my post. The point was the assertion by "children's advocates" that t.v. and video games cause children to be violent and do stupid things. I happen to believe that parents have a hell of a lot to do with the stupidity that children do, or do not, attempt.

Worked up? ;)

[Aena]

I know this is an old thread, but I was really sorry to hear the little guy died. Kids are stupid, even the smartest ones. Stupid to the ways of life that is, you can be extremely intelligent as a child (book smart) and have no idea how the outside world really works (street smart). My mom is always telling me I am too intelligent for my own good, but I have no common sense most of the time. She is probably right.

I used to do some really dumb shit as a kid, I knew better, I even got that feeling in the pit of my stomach, you know the feeling that you are doing something wrong. I did it anyway, because NOTHING was ever going to happen to me. I hitchhiked 150 miles to a concert when I was 12 (told my mom I was spending the night at friends) I didn't even have a ticket! I did get in though cause the guy who picked me and my friend up bought my ticket for me, he could have been a creepy perv, I got lucky. We picked up hitchhikers and one tried to stab me, another lucky break. When I was 9 or so my dad built this awesome playhouse for us, so me and my friends sat on the roof of it to suntan, like 7 of us. Roof collapsed, so we used to put a stick to hold it up and when my brother was inside we would run by and say TORNADO, kick the stick and let the roof collapse on him and his friends. I never thought anything would happen to him or his friends.

Kids do not use common sense. They use the fun factor. They weigh how much trouble they will get in with how fun whatever it is they are thinking about doing is. They do not think about danger, at all.

My son and his friends 8-12 years old were playing on my pool ladder, I repeatedly told them to knock it off. (I had drained the pool because I was buying a new liner) I even put the ladder in the shed and the little heathens grabbed it back out. They thought it was fun TO PUSH EACH OTHER OFF THE LADDER! Well I went in the house and in the appx 5-10 minutes I was gone, they grabbed the ladder out and pushed the neighbor kid off. He ended up having to go to the hospital, he had a bruised kidney! When I told the boys this, they didn't believe me because it was only a game! Had to wait till the kid came home so he could tell them it was true. They still barely believed him because no one gets hurt playing games LOL damn kids....

[Jerri Blank]

When I was about 8 I tried to talk the neighbor kids into jumping off the 2 story house roof. No one was game so I did it. I thought I could jump down to the clothes line and shimmy down to the ground. I instead went through it and smashed into the bushes below which probably kept me from breaking my neck. I honestly don't remember ever being aloud to have friends 'hang out' after that.

The boy in this story was a cute kid, this is sad.

http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q578/oldcrow40/June%202012/25192716_120524899051.jpg
Codey A. Porter

[Krystal]

I'm not really sure if I can place much blame anywhere, everyone must be heart broken. My boys watch shows with a lot of crazy ideas, they love "World's Dumbest" and things like that but I think that they's know that burying one's head in the sand was a really bad idea. I've done nothing special but when my boys say that someone on tv has done something I explain to them why it's a stupid idea and between my husband and I we usually have the gory childhood or EMS story to back it up. But boys will be boys, kids will be kids. I want to blame someone, a lot because a chid is dead but it seems like a whole lots of childhood hijinx going on, 10 yo boys do crazy stuff, most of us are very lucky to get our boys and girls through it.