Decapitation at SFoG

---

well, part of me does, but another part tells me that they probably weren't the best parents in the world if the kid felt like he was entitled to climb two fences to return to the park.

---

Brief flashes of stupidity are possible given even the best possible parents. My folks were pretty darn competent (at least in comparison to my own efforts) but I certainly did my share of damn-fool things back in the day.

Agreed with Brian.

Did the kid make a mistake? Sure. Did he get what could reasonably be expected from his mistake? Yes. Did the kid deserve to die because of his mistake? I think not. We all make mistakes, especially in our teen years, many of which in retrospect could have had ultimate consequences. We just happen to be lucky where this young gentleman was not.

And since when do we all follow every rule the park has? Anyone ever put their hands up on a ride? Anyone not keep their head against the headrest on a rough woodie or SLC? I know it's different but it's not like "good" people are robots that automatically follow every rule. We all make judgement calls and the kid had bad judgement. Sadly, the rule that he judged he could break had worse consequences than the rules that we routinely judge we can break.

Double agreed with Brian.

You know how I always say I don't believe you can make someone do their job as an employer?

It's even more true for parents.

Thirded w/ Professor Noble.

I considar my parents to have done a damn good job with me. But I still do stupid stuff (like working at CP one summer) ocasionally.

We all make mistakes. Some just have bigger conisiquences.

I have got to weigh in here.

No, it's not nice to be happy or satisfied that the kid died. It's a human life. It was a valuable life.

However, this was a blatant disregard of rules. Even if the kid didn't see the signs, there were fences for a reason. Fences NEVER mean "Climb me!". They mean "Stay OUT!". He did not stay out.

The reality is that many parents don't allow their kids to suffer consequences these days. The goal is to protect them from their mistakes. If they don't do their homework, the parents are on the phone bargaining with the teachers. If they don't make a car payment, the parents pick up the slack. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the parents in this case are now looking to point fingers away from them and their child.

That the family is already thinking of ways to sue SF, when they should be GRIEVING, sickens me. I'll never understand why people who should be mourning look for ways to cash in. Does that remove the sting of death? Will piles of money really comfort them come his high school's graduation day in May of 2009?

I felt bad for the parents considering their loss until I heard that they were looking to profit from it.

That is all.

^Unless I missed something, the father actually said he didn't blame anyone, and that it was no ones fault. We haven't actually confirmed or denied a relationship between the lawyer and the family. There were 2 articles that said 2 different things.

Sorry about my typing error on page six.

Anyways though, I deeply believe there will be no law suit towards six flags. There is a direct law in place stating signs, fencing, and zoned off areas, along with proper code placement that will ensure batman the ride had been fully inpected for safety before this incident had happened. I can almost tell you what the judge will say in the ruling of this case. If the park has followed all government rules and conducts before the ride ever opened, then tell me were there is room for this case to win.

The law doesn't matter. Liability frequently has nothing to do with the law.

---

wahoo skipper said:
It should be enough for them to have a sign that says, "Dont' get out of the boat." Apparently it isn't enough though.

---

And the pirates are also nailed down and don't come rushing at you with several tons of steel on track. I see what you're getting at, I just don't know if it's a comparison I can agree with.

My first day working the Jungle Cruise at WDW. We are in training and really have no idea what we are doing. Our "lead" gets called that there is an emergency evacuation at Pirates and then need assistance. We go running over there and zig zag through this dark maze of a place.

Come to find out a woman jumped out of the boat b/c she was worried about going over the waterfall. Her husband, concerned about her safety, jumps out after her. She manages to climb on to some nearby scenery. He gets trapped between two boats that quickly become a whole line of boats and the pressure building up snaps both his legs.

I agree that there is no way to guess what a jury would decide if a case like this went to court. In all honesty, it probably wouldn't make it as it would be settled out of court.

I'm not advocating that a lawsuit take place. But, now that ride has had two pretty serious non-rider deaths...one coming from inside the fence and one coming from outside.

Anyone who thinks they won't do anything more to address this is on crack. Because, if by some twisted fate they have a third death then Six Flags stock won't be worth squat. Ok, maybe that wasn't a good analogy since it ain't really worth squat now...but you get the idea.

Actually, the very fact that you can point to other parks with a similar ride that has "safer" conditions is enough to expect a change to occur.

I'm surprised no one has yet posted this yet, but the dead headless kid had a MySpace page, and I must say what a fine, bright, upstanding citizen he appears to have been --- NOT!!!

"P*ssy, Weed, Money". Oh, how his parents must be proud of his MySpace page!

http://www.myspace.com/Shawnferg

Frankly, I really cannot feel sorry for this idiot! He's the winner of this year Darwin Award, and we can only be thankful there is one less idiot in the gene pool! I'm usually not this insensitive, but when someone makes a decision to act so recklessly, and so selfishly, how can anyone feel sorry for someone.

His MySpace page says a lot about him, and "Christian" is not anywhere close to the first impressions one would have on this guy. I can only hope the media gets a hold of this guy's page and exposes it. Or how about if people protested outside of a courthouse holding pictures of this idiot's MySpace page.

Fred of Las Vegas *** Edited 7/2/2008 1:23:23 AM UTC by FredofLasVegas*** *** Edited 7/2/2008 1:42:29 AM UTC by FredofLasVegas***

Well, you calling this kid an idiot is like Bush calling someone an idiot.

At least you know what you are talking about.

^ Ok, I agree it was his fault for not following directions, but you can not judge a book just by the covers. Just think on how you were when you were 18. I mean people change a ton when they go off to college. Young adults at this age want to impress others and they can do so by the means of myspace, facebook, ect. This myspace should not even be posted here because it really has no relevance to this topic. Point being; Yes he was wrong in doing this. Could this been prevented, yes. Young adults especially at this age make mistakes. Unfortunately it took his life. My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends.

I don't know if it should matter what kind of myspace page the kid had...

Batman to reopen Wednesday.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=118029&catid=3

I don't know how the myspace page relates to anything. I haven't been in to weed in about 15 years, but the other two things I'm pretty fond of.

How many of us, at 17, didn't spend most of our time thinking about getting laid, stoned, and rich?

Glass houses, etc. etc. etc.

Those recommendations for increased signage are a legal opening for a lawsuit. If the family does sue, they have more than a slight chance of winning, or at least bringing SF to the table to negotiate a settlement. Remember, the stupidity of the average citizenry is multiplied by twelve when they form a jury.

For those that thought 2 fences were enough...

From the article posted above,
"that additional fencing that proves a 'more effective barrier to their access' should be erected around the ride."
(The wrong grammar is from the article but you get the point.)

The Labor Department also suggests having security guards on duty until MORE signs stating "Extreme Danger" are placed around the ride. So no raptors or moats with piranhas (sorry guys), but security.

Even the Labor Department thinks SF could have done more (above the required law) to protect people from the ride...

Well, clearly SF could have done more, as all the fanciful suggestions from C'Buzzers attest. There is no end to the possible security measures they could take. They could have teargas canisters that automatically spray interlopers. They could have Dobermans strolling between the fences. They could have a blimp tethered overhead to permit 24 hour, total surveillance.

The question is, did SF do everything reasonably expected to keep prevent guests from trespassing into that ride's danger zone? The answer is an unqualified yes.

Well looking at his My Space page I can see he has the "done something illegal" question answered right. He tresspassed.

Now if he was still with us he could change his answer to "fell down in public" to Hell yes.