Replies

pharisee?

i'm not reading anything that isn't implicit in the article. the kids were hiding in eht leaves. that means that there had to be enough leaves for them to hide in. and since there were two kids about 10, this means that the leaf pile had to be significant - otherwise he would have seen them. I'm talking at least a foot high and five to seven feet around.

a significant size pile of leaves would not all be compressed by the truck (only the wheels), and it is not a stretch to think that some of those leaves would have contacted the catalytic converter (which gets very hot) and or other hot parts of the truck and catch fire.

a significant pile of leaves can hide more than a child,. it can hide rocks, objects and/or other things that might damage the vehicle. for these two reasons alone parking in a pile of leaves isn't the brightest thing the guy could have done.

then he ran the kids over. didn't he feel a bump? a ten year old child might not be huge, but running one over would certainly cause the truck to react. didn't he stop to think that he might have done something wrong? He only knew something was wrong when the child cried "I can't breathe".

this is clear from the article and does not require any leap of faith regarding fences, driveways, etc. the guy was negligent.

you don't drive through mudpuddles because you can't tell if there is a pothole beneath the surface of the water. you don't drive through piles of leaves because there might be aorkc (or children) beneath them.

that said, can we agree to give it a rest?

i'm not reading anything that isn't implicit in the article

This statement stands on its own. You should be an activist judge; you'll find LOTS of new things in the Constitution.

this means that the leaf pile had to be significant - otherwise he would have seen them. I'm talking at least a foot high and five to seven feet around.

That's a pretty small pile. During this time of year in my yard, a week of no raking will result in vast expanses that you wade through. I'm not advocating tear-assing around the yard without some knowledge of what you might be running over - but you have absolutely no idea what his yard is like, or whether he proceeded with wanton ignorance or merely faulty knowledge. There IS a difference. If he had been told the kids were in the house, for example, and if he had no expectation of anyone else being in the yard, it may have been perfectly reasonable to drive into the yard.

But, you're only willing to consider unprinted "facts" that agree with YOUR assumptions. I guess the fact he's not being charged with negligence is SOLELY a move of compassion by law enforcement, and has nothing to do with the possibility that he might not be guilty of anything. How wonderful of you to be able to read everyone's minds.

then he ran the kids over. didn't he feel a bump?

Not everybody has a glass-smooth yard like you. Mine has more the consistency of a potters field.

this is clear from the article and does not require any leap of faith regarding fences, driveways, etc. the guy was negligent.

Just as clear as the right to abortion or the separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

that said, can we agree to give it a rest?

No. Because if I'm ever the victim of assumptions based on the thinnest veneer of information, I'd want somebody to hold the wolves at bay until the full story came out. But that's just me, I guess.