What is this world coming to?? Teens record man drowning and do nothing to help

[Mizzoufan]

Even if they had no service to call why tape it? Why mock the man? Heck I'd be bawling like a big ole baby. Heck I can't swim I'm not sure I wouldn't try to do my best to reach him even if I had to float on my back out there. There is no excuse for them to tape this video and mock him and do nothing to help him.

 

[Mizzoufan]

It isn't just teens, how many times have we seen things happening to other people not get involved?

Doesn't make it right no matter of the age.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Just because the kids had phones doesn't mean they could call for help. Maybe there was no service there. Maybe they don't have a cellular plan (wifi only). ETA: yes, they should have gone for help or notified someone. I'm not excusing their behavior, just pointing out that even though they had cell phones doesn't automatically mean they can call for help.

That being said, according to the article, the boys admitted "smoking weed", so why couldn't they be prosecuted for that? No, it doesn't mean much, but it's something.

I understand wanting a law against "doing nothing", but I think it would have to be carefully written.

All cell phones can call 911. Even if there is no cell signal, another provider will pick up the 911 call and it will go through. Cell phones that have no service can call 911. Many of these phone donations are handed out to people who can't afford service, but may need to call 911.

 

[sam_gordon]

All cell phones can call 911. Even if there is no cell signal, another provider will pick up the 911 call and it will go through. Cell phones that have no service can call 911. Many of these phone donations are handed out to people who can't afford service, but may need to call 911.

That makes no sense. If there is no cell signal, you can't make a call*. Period, end of story. I'm not referring to having Verizon and there being only ATT coverage. I'm talking about somewhere with no signal. And yes, they do exist.

*Unless your phone supports wifi calls and you're connected to a wifi signal.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Even if they had no service to call why tape it? Why mock the man? Heck I'd be bawling like a big ole baby...

Exactly! I can understand not feeling able to save him, but not the rest. It's just so awful!

...Heck I can't swim I'm not sure I wouldn't try to do my best to reach him even if I had to float on my back out there...

Saving someone from drowning isn't easy even for a strong swimmer! A non-swimmer would probably be pulled down as well - and since:

...according to the article, the boys admitted "smoking weed"...

I have no trouble believing they couldn't safely rescue him. But I still agree that they should have at least tried to call for help instead of videotaping! (I just see it as a moral thing rather than a legal one.)

 

[Mizzoufan]

That makes no sense. If there is no cell signal, you can't make a call*. Period, end of story. I'm not referring to having Verizon and there being only ATT coverage. I'm talking about somewhere with no signal. And yes, they do exist.

*Unless your phone supports wifi calls and you're connected to a wifi signal.

I guess they should have got in their cars or their bikes or ran to get help. I'm sorry it's almost like you are defending them

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm not referring to having Verizon and there being only ATT coverage. I'm talking about somewhere with no signal. And yes, they do exist.

Yes, they exist. But wouldn't you be running back toward civilization, trying to get a signal, instead of trying to turn a tragedy into a viral video?

 

[sam_gordon]

Yes, they exist. But wouldn't you be running back toward civilization, trying to get a signal, instead of trying to turn a tragedy into a viral video?

Yes, they should. I said in my original post I'm not excusing them.

I guess they should have got in their cars or their bikes or ran to get help. I'm sorry it's almost like you are defending them

sigh. That's because people read what they want to read. I'm simply trying to point out to those who said "they had phones, they should have called" that they may not have been able to. I apologize for trying to bring some (technical) facts to the surface. Also, go back and read my posts. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who suggested charging them with drug use (they admitted using marijuana).

 

[LilyWDW]

Heck I can't swim I'm not sure I wouldn't try to do my best to reach him even if I had to float on my back out there. .

And now we have two victims that have to be saved. Unless you are TRAINED, do NOT attempt this. Saving a drowning victim is difficult and dangerous even for those who are trained. There have been quite a few cases where the person trying to save another ends up drowning.

 

[BrianL]

All cell phones can call 911. Even if there is no cell signal, another provider will pick up the 911 call and it will go through. Cell phones that have no service can call 911. Many of these phone donations are handed out to people who can't afford service, but may need to call 911.

While it is true that cell phones can call 911 even if they are not activated with a cell provider, that does not enable them to work if there is no cell signal at all. At least one provider would have to have some signal covering the area or there would be no way for the call to connect at all.

 

[sam_gordon]

While it is true that cell phones can call 911 even if they are not activated with a cell provider, that does not enable them to work if there is no cell signal at all. At least one provider would have to have some signal covering the area or there would be no way for the call to connect at all.

Be careful. Some may think you're defending the kids.

 

[Westcoastwild]

I think it's horrible they didn't report it.

Worth noting though that I think several states don't have some kind of Good Samaritan law- you can be held liable if you try to save someone and injure them doing so. Those laws vary by state, they're not universal.

I think they should be penalized for not reporting. For one thing, they had vital information that could have probably saved the police money had they notified the authorities. But I also think that it gets tricky. Most places I go swimming don't have reception and while I'd probably go in after a kid, trying to rescue an adult would get us both killed. I'm just not a strong enough swimmer. My whole family can swim, and we're pretty comfortable in lakes and rivers, but there are relatively few who could probably rescue someone safely. So someone would be hoofing or to the nearest landline, and that means the nearest ambulance or life flight is 30-60 minutes away. Several drownings every summer around where I grew up for that reason- people get drunk, do stupid things, fail to understand the very real danger in terms of currents and rocks.

I guess...yes, they did something horrible. But say they had gone for help- the result would have likely been the same. And if one of them had been stupid enough to try to rescue the guy, his family would also have a funeral to plan. Ultimately it's the drowning victim's fault- you always run that risk when you swim somewhere that has no lifeguard, and I cannot figure out from reading that how in earth he ended up in that pond in the first place. Any idea? He left his house after an altercation with his mother and then all of a sudden he's in a pond. Weird.

 

[Magpie]

Personally I think it's social media. People say the meanest, nastiest things online and it's becoming normal. That behavior is spilling into the real world and this is what you get.

I'm not sure... there have always been horrible people around who would do this. I remember tales out of the seventies about people standing under a suicidal man on a building ledge, taunting him and telling him to just go ahead and kill himself. Heck, I remember being a kid and folks would say the meanest, nastiest things right to my face, and then smugly deny they'd ever said anything at all. It's been pretty darn normal, my entire life, for certain people to be horrible excuses for human beings.

What's different about these days is that people can share their nasty little actions and opinions with the whole world, and be exposed for exactly what they are. In 1950, this exact same scenario could have played out the exact same way. And these young people would then take themselves off home laughing, and never face any consequences for their actions whatsoever.

Today, they're known far and wide. Their identities are out there. Would you hire one of these people? Would you accept them into your college or university? Would you rent an apartment to them? Maybe you might send them death threats or vandalize their home (as folks are sometimes inclined to do these days when they're feeling outraged about something they read online).

Personally, I don't think they need to be charged. I think they're already facing a world of hurt, and there's no need to create new laws just to cover this.

 

[BrianL]

Be careful. Some may think you're defending the kids.

Haha, no. I've already stated my opinion on that. I was just clarifying that a cell phone cannot work with no signal, even for 911. I think those kids are terrible and have no problem with good samaritan laws requiring action. Isn't that why the gang from Seinfeld went to jail?

 

[ELSA711]

I have not read the article nor watched the video but the debate being raised has me perplexed.

IMO it's not even about them trying to save the man or going for help it is about 3 teenagers video taping and laughing at a man dying. Plain and simple.
We could all argue, I would have tried to help myself or called 911, but I don't think there is one of us that would do what they did. At least I hope not.

 

[Mizzoufan]

nevermind

 

[Westcoastwild]

I have not read the article nor watched the video but the debate being raised has me perplexed.

IMO it's not even about them trying to save the man or going for help it is about 3 teenagers video taping and laughing at a man dying. Plain and simple.
We could all argue, I would have tried to help myself or called 911, but I don't think there is one of us that would do what they did. At least I hope not.

The debate is being raised because some people think the kids should be charged.specifically in the article- The family wants them charged. The police are saying there's unfortunately nothing they can charge them for.

Because it's not actually illegal to be a terrible human being. I don't think anyone is defending the kids' actions. But I also don't think those kids could have saved that man, so the family would still not have the guy back. To me that's the core of the issue. Charging someone for failing to save another's life when it's pretty unlikely they could do so doesn't sit well with me. As someone up thread mentioned- life saving attempts often result in both parties dying. No one should feel pressured to go out in dangerous conditions.

 

[ELSA711]

The debate is being raised because some people think the kids should be charged.specifically in the article- The family wants them charged. The police are saying there's unfortunately nothing they can charge them for.

Because it's not actually illegal to be a terrible human being. I don't think anyone is defending the kids' actions. But I also don't think those kids could have saved that man, so the family would still not have the guy back. To me that's the core of the issue. Charging someone for failing to save another's life when it's pretty unlikely they could do so doesn't sit well with me. As someone up thread mentioned- life saving attempts often result in both parties dying. No one should feel pressured to go out in dangerous conditions.

Well obviously I don't work in law enforcement but the minute the teens went back to their daily life, and had cell service (if they didn't at the time) not notifying someone when the person was being searched for 3 days does seem criminal to me (and yes I know it's not) Inhuman yes, criminal no. I mean I guess it was an accident and they didn't necessarily watch a 'crime' per se but it's just sad all around.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I'm not sure... there have always been horrible people around who would do this. I remember tales out of the seventies about people standing under a suicidal man on a building ledge, taunting him and telling him to just go ahead and kill himself. Heck, I remember being a kid and folks would say the meanest, nastiest things right to my face, and then smugly deny they'd ever said anything at all. It's been pretty darn normal, my entire life, for certain people to be horrible excuses for human beings.

What's different about these days is that people can share their nasty little actions and opinions with the whole world, and be exposed for exactly what they are. In 1950, this exact same scenario could have played out the exact same way. And these young people would then take themselves off home laughing, and never face any consequences for their actions whatsoever.

Today, they're known far and wide. Their identities are out there. Would you hire one of these people? Would you accept them into your college or university? Would you rent an apartment to them? Maybe you might send them death threats or vandalize their home (as folks are sometimes inclined to do these days when they're feeling outraged about something they read online).

Personally, I don't think they need to be charged. I think they're already facing a world of hurt, and there's no need to create new laws just to cover this.

I don't think people are really exposed for who they are and it matters though. Yeah sometimes there will be backlash but not usually. Look at the comments section on any number of stories and you'll see people just saying the most nasty things. If they are called out, there will be a bunch of people defending it by attacking the person who did the calling out.
A few weeks ago there was a drowning here. The first info from our local be paper was not very detailed, just a boy drown at a local pond. The comments were filled with "his parents are at fault for not watching him." "Charge the parents"..just really mean comments going after the parents.
More info came out, turns out the boy was 17. The comments then changed to "well he's an idiot who couldn't swim".
These were local people, posting this stuff on a local fb news on page. They had no shame in doing that. That's what we are becoming.

 

[Magpie]

I don't think people are really exposed for who they are and it matters though. Yeah sometimes there will be backlash but not usually. Look at the comments section on any number of stories and you'll see people just saying the most nasty things. If they are called out, there will be a bunch of people defending it by attacking the person who did the calling out.
A few weeks ago there was a drowning here. The first info from our local be paper was not very detailed, just a boy drown at a local pond. The comments were filled with "his parents are at fault for not watching him." "Charge the parents"..just really mean comments going after the parents.
More info came out, turns out the boy was 17. The comments then changed to "well he's an idiot who couldn't swim".
These were local people, posting this stuff on a local fb news on page. They had no shame in doing that. That's what we are becoming.

I simply believe this is what we are and always have been. And I take some small consolation from the fact that it's finally coming to light.