ExiledInIllinois Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Who needs common sense when you've got The State looking out for you? Seems there is no common sense even without the state looking out for you... See the above story... There is no law against what see did... And there still isn't. Good thing we are spending our tax paying resources for cops to jump out of their crusiers attempting to save teenage girls from getting their young bodies turned into blood-splatterd carcasses! Must of been a faulty crossing?... I am sure UP is getting sued?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Seems there is no common sense even without the state looking out for you... See the above story... There is no law against what see did... And there still isn't. Good thing we are spending our tax paying resources for cops to jump out of their crusiers attempting to save teenage girls from getting their young bodies turned into blood-splatterd carcasses! Must of been a faulty crossing?... I am sure UP is getting sued?... Are you making a point of some sort? What are you getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Are you making a point of some sort? What are you getting at? You just know for sure that Union Pacific is paying for this tragidy... Not that I agree with it... UP wasn't at fault. My point is that... Companies like UP gotta be pushing for legislation too... All fueled by the lawyers Bill. I do agree with you here Bill. The story I recited was purely a young girl getting killed and a cop, and several civilans trying to do something to prevent it.... Lesson? Kids out there... You are on your own, take notice... A girl got spattered in Steger because she was paying too much attention to her IPod and not life around her... The bad thing is she was a teenager... If she was older... I would have less remorse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Seems there is no common sense even without the state looking out for you... See the above story... There is no law against what see did... And there still isn't. And there shouldn't be. Again, common sense says DON'T RIDE YOUR BIKE HEADLONG INTO A MOVING FREIGHT TRAIN. Good thing we are spending our tax paying resources for cops to jump out of their crusiers attempting to save teenage girls from getting their young bodies turned into blood-splatterd carcasses! You think it's better to spend our tax paying resources for cops to confiscate IPods from everybody in public, just because one girl was TOO STUPID NOTICE A MOVING FREIGHT TRAIN IN FRONT OF HER? Must of been a faulty crossing?... I am sure UP is getting sued?... I'm sure UP is. And that's what there ought to be a law against...being hit by a train is one thing, but your estate should not be allowed to sue a freight train operator if YOU hit the train and get killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 The bad thing is she was a teenager... If she was older... I would have no less remorse... A teenager's plenty old enough to know better. The girl died because she was stupid. UP is paying because she was stupid. That's why, try as I might, I can't successfully file a frivolous lawsuit. I'm apparently not stupid enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 A teenager's plenty old enough to know better. The girl died because she was stupid. UP is paying because she was stupid. That's why, try as I might, I can't successfully file a frivolous lawsuit. I'm apparently not stupid enough. The funny thing is... I am agreeing with you guys here... It was Bill's first post that assumed I wouldn't... I just think he has me pegged into a certain group. Still not a "Slippery Slope" IMO. The story I recited was a tragic one none the less... But, people see this and jerk tears and legislation with regards to it... Another funny thing too Bill (and others) is that I bet a lot of law enforcement people actually WANT a ban on this stuff... It really is apples and oranges in regard to my stance on other issues... UP in this case took everything known possible to prevent this tragidy... What are they gonna do, put a fence along their whole right of way? Just as some slide to the conservative side of issues... IMO, I think I get painted a certain way because I will slide to the liberal side... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 The funny thing is... I am agreeing with you guys here... It was Bill's first post that assumed I wouldn't... I just think he has me pegged into a certain group. Still not a "Slippery Slope" IMO. The story I recited was a tragic one none the less... But, people see this and jerk tears and legislation with regards to it... Another funny thing too Bill (and others) is that I bet a lot of law enforcement people actually WANT a ban on this stuff... It really is apples and oranges in regard to my stance on other issues... UP in this case took everything known possible to prevent this tragidy... What are they gonna do, put a fence along their whole right of way? Just as some slide to the conservative side of issues... IMO, I think I get painted a certain way because I will slide to the liberal side... I didn't even read Bill's post; I just had no idea where you were going with the post. So I took a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I didn't even read Bill's post; I just had no idea where you were going with the post. So I took a guess. I probably shouldn't have led it on with the story... But, I do have the "Riddler" moniker to live up to... Another point of the story, like I said... People, companies, communities and law enforcement will actually PROMOTE legislation with regards to this crap... Because some stories can be so tragic. Stuff with kids and trains have been going on since the invention of the iron-horse in small towns all across America. There are already laws about operating with ear phones... Pedestrians? Seems they can only hurt themselves... Same reason why I oppose a helmet law on motorcycles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 The question I would like to ask everyone is... If that was your daughter getting run over by a train with an IPod jammed in her ear... How many would say: "Ah, she was just a dumbass, got what was coming to her for not being aware of her surroundings." How many of you would chase the "deep pocket" and find fault with something... Say the crossing? Gates for cars, but not bikes or peds? Or whatever? I betcha 9/10 of the people here in the thread would NOT man-up to their kids' dumbass choices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Another funny thing too Bill (and others) is that I bet a lot of law enforcement people actually WANT a ban on this stuff... Not true my friend. As a rule, cops don't want to be accosted on the street by lunatics telling them that a person is crossing a street and talking on a cell phone. They don't want to go into bars to confront drunken cigarette smokers. They don't want to pull over a car because a person is smoking a cigarette with a 16 year old passenger, even if the legislator from Maine DID call people who do this "murderers." You are sensitive, so understand that I am TOTALLY NOT being patronizing, but cops see things that the human eye wasn't made to see. It can take a serious toll if one is not careful. Expecting cops to get all worked up and/or sanctimonious about nonsensical things like this is a reach at best. I DO agree with you about the roll of insurance companies. They are huge campaign contributors, and love all of these bans. Also, the owner of the jests sells the nicotine patch. Do you think that he supports smoking bans? Extremists from the left are loving these bans, especially those that deny the rights of property owners. The "liberals" on the Supreme Court voted to seize peoples' homes and hand them to big businesses. At the same time, Pat Robertson is all for smoking bans. HE wants the money that people spend on cigarettes. As idiots are buying this nonsense, we are at war, taxes are choking us, and our borders are non-existant. Sad indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 A friend had the best satirical reply to this, which is: why don't we ban deaf and blind people also, because they are certainly subject to the same risks. Maybe the cars really are the problem: Blind Pedestrians Say Quiet Hybrids Pose Safety Threat By RAYMUND FLANDEZ February 13, 2007; Page B1 For blind people, crossing the street is becoming even more of a challenge. Michael Osborn, a blind marketing consultant from Laguna Beach, Calif., and his guide dog, Hastings, were in the middle of an intersection one morning last April when the yellow Lab stopped short. Mr. Osborn took the cue and halted -- just in time to feel the breeze from a car passing right in front of them. "Half an inch and it would have hit us ... it wasn't making any noise," says Mr. Osborn, 50, who has been blind for 12 years. Witnesses say the car was a Toyota Prius, a hybrid vehicle. WSJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts