By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - No charges in teen's Florida boot camp death

Mise on 18 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
,

1) I also disagree.  However I think your level of outrage is far out of place.

2) Agreed.

3) Sure it does.  They are trained proffesonals.  There was no risk of them actually beating him to death.  (outside of malice.)  You argued that it doesn't take a trained person to kill soemone with a blow... which is true... however if you are a trained person you can make sure you won't kill someone with a blow.

1) Fair enough. I don't really agree, but you're free to think so IMO.

3) There's always a risk in such things IMO - you could say that the risk in this case is minute, but it's there by external/unknown factors alone - hell, they didn't know that the kid had a fatal condition in the first place.

Thing is - my biggest problem isn't really that they could have killed him, the problem was that they were beating him in the first place. But that's a different discussion entirely.



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 18 April 2010
Mise said:
Kasz216 said:
,

1) I also disagree.  However I think your level of outrage is far out of place.

2) Agreed.

3) Sure it does.  They are trained proffesonals.  There was no risk of them actually beating him to death.  (outside of malice.)  You argued that it doesn't take a trained person to kill soemone with a blow... which is true... however if you are a trained person you can make sure you won't kill someone with a blow.

1) Fair enough. I don't really agree, but you're free to think so IMO.

3) There's always a risk in such things IMO - you could say that the risk in this case is minute, but it's there by external/unknown factors alone - hell, they didn't know that the kid had a fatal condition in the first place.

Thing is - my biggest problem isn't really that they could have killed him, the problem was that they were beating him in the first place. But that's a different discussion entirely.

1) definitly an agree to disagree situaton.

3) This kids fatal condition was in no way exaberrated by went on however.  If this boot camp didn't employ corporal puishment... the kid still would of died.  It was the running beforehand that activated his condition.  They thought he was faking... this wouldn't of changed if they weren't beating him.  In fact it probably would of took them LONGER to figure out he wasn't faking. 

Additionally a condition not being reported to them, is in no way there fault.  It's like saying driving is wrong because there is always the risk somebody could have narcelpsy and the person who does the drivers liscense test wouldn't know that.  Did what they do have risks?  Yes.  Were those risks large or even signficiant?  No.  There are much larger risks with plenty of stuff we allow.



Kantor on 18 April 2010
Kasz216 said:

Additionally a condition not being reported to them, is in no way there fault.  It's like saying driving is wrong because there is always the risk somebody could have narcelpsy and the person who does the drivers liscense test wouldn't know that.  Did what they do have risks?  Yes.  Were those risks large or even signficiant?  No.  There are much larger risks with plenty of stuff we allow.

This situation is closer to a driver having a heart attack, and your punching them repeatedly to get them to "stop faking".



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kasz216 on 18 April 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

Additionally a condition not being reported to them, is in no way there fault.  It's like saying driving is wrong because there is always the risk somebody could have narcelpsy and the person who does the drivers liscense test wouldn't know that.  Did what they do have risks?  Yes.  Were those risks large or even signficiant?  No.  There are much larger risks with plenty of stuff we allow.

This situation is closer to a driver having a heart attack, and your punching them repeatedly to get them to "stop faking".

If you checked their vitals first and there was no sign of a heart attack and if truck drivers have had a history of faking heart attacks.

Though, if you include all of those qualifers, sure.


Think about this situation if they don't use corporal punishment.

 

He collapses, they check his vitals, no signs of problems... they just yell at him to get up.  The whole thing plays out the same way, except it probably takes longer for them to realize something is wrong.



Kantor on 18 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

Additionally a condition not being reported to them, is in no way there fault.  It's like saying driving is wrong because there is always the risk somebody could have narcelpsy and the person who does the drivers liscense test wouldn't know that.  Did what they do have risks?  Yes.  Were those risks large or even signficiant?  No.  There are much larger risks with plenty of stuff we allow.

This situation is closer to a driver having a heart attack, and your punching them repeatedly to get them to "stop faking".

If you checked their vitals first and there was no sign of a heart attack and if truck drivers have had a history of faking heart attacks.

Though, if you include all of those qualifers, sure.

Only if the acceptable "treatment" for a truck driver faking a heart attack is beating them up.

Which I doubt.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 18 April 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

Additionally a condition not being reported to them, is in no way there fault.  It's like saying driving is wrong because there is always the risk somebody could have narcelpsy and the person who does the drivers liscense test wouldn't know that.  Did what they do have risks?  Yes.  Were those risks large or even signficiant?  No.  There are much larger risks with plenty of stuff we allow.

This situation is closer to a driver having a heart attack, and your punching them repeatedly to get them to "stop faking".

If you checked their vitals first and there was no sign of a heart attack and if truck drivers have had a history of faking heart attacks.

Though, if you include all of those qualifers, sure.

Only if the acceptable "treatment" for a truck driver faking a heart attack is beating them up.

Which I doubt.

Which is irrelevent.  Since he was referring to this as "An unknown health risk that could of lead to his death by punching."

Which it wasn't.

His death was in no way caused by said corporal punishment... like, at all.  In an odd way it probably led to a better chance of saving his life.

 

The death, and corporal punishment used against minors is two COMPLETLY different arguements.  Which is all that I am saying.  You need to seperate the two. 

Well that and said corporal punishment isn't risky.  Disagreements with corporal punishment against minors needs to be levied on something other then a worry of health arguement... since that isn't a substantial risk.

A better reason would be say "It's just wrong to hit anybody who's a prisoner unless they are activly fighting back against their guard."


Which is why I think said corproral punishment is wrong.  However it's important to treat this for what it really was.  Two completly unrelated cases.



Kasz216 on 18 April 2010

It may help to know my personal motto on why I'm arguing the point.

"The only thing worse then someone who is wrong in an argument is someone who is right... but for the wrong reason."



Signalstar on 18 April 2010

Why the hell would you send a child with sickle cell to boot camp?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Kantor on 19 April 2010
Kasz216 said:

Which is irrelevent.  Since he was referring to this as "An unknown health risk that could of lead to his death by punching."

Which it wasn't.

His death was in no way caused by said corporal punishment... like, at all.  In an odd way it probably led to a better chance of saving his life.

 

The death, and corporal punishment used against minors is two COMPLETLY different arguements.  Which is all that I am saying.  You need to seperate the two. 

Well that and said corporal punishment isn't risky.  Disagreements with corporal punishment against minors needs to be levied on something other then a worry of health arguement... since that isn't a substantial risk.

A better reason would be say "It's just wrong to hit anybody who's a prisoner unless they are activly fighting back against their guard."


Which is why I think said corproral punishment is wrong.  However it's important to treat this for what it really was.  Two completly unrelated cases.

Oh, I know they're different. I'm not saying that they're responsible for his death.

I just don't think it's right to beat up a defenceless child, juvenile or not.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kasz216 on 19 April 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

Which is irrelevent.  Since he was referring to this as "An unknown health risk that could of lead to his death by punching."

Which it wasn't.

His death was in no way caused by said corporal punishment... like, at all.  In an odd way it probably led to a better chance of saving his life.

 

The death, and corporal punishment used against minors is two COMPLETLY different arguements.  Which is all that I am saying.  You need to seperate the two. 

Well that and said corporal punishment isn't risky.  Disagreements with corporal punishment against minors needs to be levied on something other then a worry of health arguement... since that isn't a substantial risk.

A better reason would be say "It's just wrong to hit anybody who's a prisoner unless they are activly fighting back against their guard."


Which is why I think said corproral punishment is wrong.  However it's important to treat this for what it really was.  Two completly unrelated cases.

Oh, I know they're different. I'm not saying that they're responsible for his death.

I just don't think it's right to beat up a defenceless child, juvenile or not.

I agree with that 100%.

I'm just saying they weren't particularly irresponsible when they did it.

It was safe.  It just wasn't something they shouldn't be doing, if that makes sense.

It's wrong but not because it's dangerous.

It's just wrong because it's a dick move to beat really... ANYBODY, not even just a child, unless they are activly fighting back.