Bo Raxo wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:13 pm, "GeekBoy" > wrote:
>> "Adrian" > wrote in message
>>
>> . 245.131...
>>
>>> GeekBoy ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>> were saying :
>>
>>>>> Uhm, did anyone ask why the kids were riding a go-cart on West
>>>>> 96th Avenue?
>>
>>>> Yes, but the point of the story is the driver took off from the
>>>> scene of an accident.
>>
>>>> Had the driver only stayed it would have been no problem.
>>
>>> If he hadn't piled into them from behind...
>>
>> Does not matter...what is an unlicensed motor vehicle doing in the
>> street without proper safety equipment doing on the street zipping
>> in and out of traffic?
>
> Exactly. But do you think that the adult who gave them access to this
> go-kart (probably one or both parents) will face *any* sanction? Do
> you think child protective services will bother to even stop by and
> see if the parents have made any other stupendously dumb choices? Do
> you think they will even bother to find out if the parents gave them
> permission to be out in the street?
>
> Nope. It was an "accident" - ha. An accident is when, oh, your tire
> blows out and you skid in to a wall.
>
> You give kids an incredibly tempting item like a go-kart, you leave it
> where they can get to it, gassed up and ready to go, and they can
> sneak it out on to a public street, that isn't an accident: that's
> gross negligence leading to a homicide, which is the definition of
> involuntary manslaughter.
>
> They'll prosecute the guy who didn't see a go-kart in the middle of
> traffic (and they should, for leaving the scene),

Why? How does remaining at the scene of an accident alter the outcome?
Does it bring the law-breaking children back from the dead?

What the point?


> but they won't touch
> the jerks who set up the situation. It'll be a miracle if the older
> boy survives to adulthood.
>
>
> Bo Raxo