Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Fox26: Pickup truck runs over 6 cyclists in Waller County, 4 people hospitalized

China

By China
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

China

China

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Larry said:

Should the parents be held liable in some way?  I mean, they handed an F-250, which had been intentionally modified so that it could be used as a - weapon? To a 16 year old.  

 

And, as we know, cops view vehicles as weapons:

 

 

So @tshile is correct that the cops she be fired as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Larry said:

Should the parents be held liable in some way?  I mean, they handed an F-250, which had been intentionally modified so that it could be used as a - weapon? To a 16 year old.  

If you can show they somehow encouraged or actively engaged in it (like dad shows him how to do it to people or something), sure. 
 

otherwise you’re suggesting parents should be liable for anything a child does when borrowing their vehicle. Or anyone they let borrow their vehicle. Or anything you can say “could be used as a weapon”. Seems silly. 

6 hours ago, China said:

So @tshile is correct that the cops she be fired as well.

Well I was thinking specifically for not doing their job. 
 

it’s been a complaint along cyclists for a while that the numbers are all jacked up because often times the incident isn’t reported nor investigated as a crash. No charges come from it. So it doesn’t exist in the database. 
 

here’s an incident. That sent multiple people to the hospital. That seems to be caused by someone trying to pester them. 
 

and they didn’t even investigate?

 

and state police showed up and specifically said you need to run your decision to not investigate by your DA, and they still didn’t?

 

this is failure or basic responsibility. Doesn’t even matter why. They deserve to be terminated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, tshile said:

otherwise you’re suggesting parents should be liable for anything a child does when borrowing their vehicle. Or anyone they let borrow their vehicle. Or anything you can say “could be used as a weapon”. Seems silly. 

 

I'm saying nothing of the kind.  

 

I'm saying that giving a weapon which they have intentionally modified, to make it into a better weapon, to a child, should carry liability.  

 

Just as if they had handed him a firearm which they had modified to full auto, if you want to draw an analogy the other way.  

 

Yes, I can easily see the problems with holding one person responsible for another person's actions.  

 

But I think it's not completely out of the question.  In rare, extreme, circumstances.  

 

And I'm asking whether this circumstance is extreme enough.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RansomthePasserby

RansomthePasserby

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm saying nothing of the kind.  

 

I'm saying that giving a weapon which they have intentionally modified, to make it into a better weapon, to a child, should carry liability.  

 

Just as if they had handed him a firearm which they had modified to full auto, if you want to draw an analogy the other way.  

 

Yes, I can easily see the problems with holding one person responsible for another person's actions.  

 

But I think it's not completely out of the question.  In rare, extreme, circumstances.  

 

And I'm asking whether this circumstance is extreme enough.  

 


Not following how the parents gave the kid a weapon or how they modified the vehicle to make it a better weapon. Giving someone an object and them using that object as a weapon does not mean you gave someone a weapon.

 

However, if they somehow proved the kid learned how to intimidate bicyclists from his parents, then they should definitely be held responsible to some extent. On the other hand, he could have learned it from a friend, from the Internet, or just come up with the idea on his own because kids do stupid things. 

Edited by RansomthePasserby
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said:

Not following how the parents gave the kid a weapon or how they modified the vehicle to make it a better weapon. Giving someone an object and them using that object as a weapon does not mean you gave someone a weapon.

 

At least the early articles claimed that the vehicle had been modified, so that the driver could intentionally create clouds of smoke.  

 

Which yes, I recognize, is only kind of a weapon.  Why I put a question mark after the word, the first time I used it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm saying that giving a weapon which they have intentionally modified, to make it into a better weapon, to a child, should carry liability.  

Right. I understand what you’re saying. 
 

and it’s silly. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RansomthePasserby

RansomthePasserby

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

At least the early articles claimed that the vehicle had been modified, so that the driver could intentionally create clouds of smoke.  

 

Which yes, I recognize, is only kind of a weapon.  Why I put a question mark after the word, the first time I used it.  

Right. Which gets to another point: given we’re trying to curb our impact on the environment, should private vehicles which blow clouds of diesel smoke be legal to begin with? I say no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

Yeah this sounds like a case of the apple not falling far from the tree.  My understanding is that the F-250 was the father's vehicle and also that it had been modified in order to be able to "roll coal."  So either the father is the one who had it modified in the first place and the son was emulating his father's behavior.......or..........the son somehow managed to get his father's truck modified without his knowledge?  Which ones seems to make more sense here?

 

Why is a 16 year old kid driving around in an F-250 in the first place?  This wasn't some kind of rural farm town was it? Teenagers are inexperienced and sometimes reckless enough in 4-cylinder sedans, what is the reasoning for them to be driving around diesel engine trucks?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ok. First there’s nothing about modifying your truck to roll coal that makes it a weapon. There’s nothing wrong with that outside of the environmental aspect. 
 

(I think it’s dumb, I think the people that do it are dumb, but you guys are going way over the edge with the idea that it’s a modification to make it a weapon)

 

second - is there some rule that says you have to be in a rural area to drive a 3/4 ton pickup? Or that 16 year olds can only drive a 4 cylinder. That’s just complete and utter nonsense. I mean who the **** are you to tell other people what they can and can’t drive? 
 

btw if you want to do any real, frequent towing then you need at least a 3/4 ton pickup. The 1/2 tons don’t do much safely when it comes to frequent towing. Boat, camper, trailer, etc. you don’t have to be a farmer to have a need for 

 

yeah you can find tons of people towing with a 1/2 ton beyond its towing capacity but it’s not safe at all. 
 

the kid should go to jail. Or whatever you do with a 16 year old that’s behavior almost caused a mass casualty event and on purpose. 
 

but you guys are being quite silly. 

Edited by tshile
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

Has it been determined if the F-250 was the father's truck or the son's?  If it was the father's truck and the son was just using it that day for whatever reason, then I highly doubt the father was not aware of it being modified.  Hell, even if it was the son's truck, it still seems a little suspect that the parents had zero idea it had been modified.  I am not a car person in general so I have no idea what the purpose of "rolling coal" is when not being used to intimidate and/or harass other people on the road. Sort of like all the people who modify the exhaust on their honda civics to make it sound like a cross between an airhorn & tuba, serving no real purpose for the vehicle. 

 

If the father was aware of the truck being modified for the sole purpose of being able to "roll coal" then at the least he was complicit in his son's actions unless there is, as I stated above, legitimate reasons to modify your vehicle like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...