Decapitation at SFoG

Is the park changing the name of the nearby Mindbender out of respect for the family?

The point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't assume that because the family has legal representation that the only reason must be because they plan on suing Six Flags. There have been many posts in this thread that suggest that.

I'm not saying that anyone has a problem with the family using a lawyer for reasons other than suing Six Flags. I just don't think anyone has discussed that point up until now, have they?

Actually, I said something in an earlier post that the families may have just hired a lawyer to make sure they receive all their rights and that they are legally PROTECTED from signing documents they shouldn't be signing, getting sued by other park patrons, etc. We don't know for sure. Or they may have just already had a lawyer for the family or something and they had him speak on their behalf...guess none of us will know until the sh** hits the fan or doesn't for Six Flags.

With his church group? Are you serious? I am willing to believe he was with his church group because he heard they were going to the park. However, this story reminds me of a scripture:

Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Paraphrase: Don't respect the law, you goin to hell.

Paraphrase: Don't quit, get hit.

This boy had it coming to him. Of course so did the other kids with him. Whats happened to them? I mean other than being traumatized.

This was silly and preventable, but maybe people will start following the rules due to this incident. Or maybe there will now be neat little signs around the park that says "violation of rules may result in DEATH."

I was thinking about this. I mean, maybe signs shouldn't be posted all over the park, but perhaps they could start posting signs up around rides like this that say something like a surgeon general warning: "No Tresspassing. Failure to heed warnings may result in injury or death." Then, even if kids jump in there and something happens, they were specifically warned about what could happen to them, the signs and the fences were there, and there can be no recourse for anyone else because the proper warnings and barriers were there.

I do not see much difference between a sign that says "No trespassing, Failure to hedd warnings blah blah blah." and "Danger Zone. Authorized personnel only."

^But "Danger zone, Authroized personnel only" is a pretty standard sign you see up around construction sites. So from a liability standpoint, wouldn't it be safe to say that by ignoring the sign you are knowingly putting yourself in "danger" thus assuming the risk of injury or death?

I don't believe the park needs any more signage. What kind of dumbass sees a fence, or 2, and thinks "oh this must be the way inside"?

I've read the kids MySpace page where he practically brags about being an asshole,church group member or not. I believe, until witnesses say otherwise that he was trying to grab riders' feet. How else do you get hit by a coaster as loud as Batman. There's no way it snuck up on him.

has it been stated anywhere as to exactly where under track he was hit ex: under 1st drop, 1st loop ect.

I do feel for his family and do wish that he could've lived to learn from his stupidity but as I said, " 2 fences never mean This way inside"!

Yeah. Those B&M's can be lund. at CP, you could her Mantis from nearly anywhere in the park.

---

Hopman said:
Yeah. Those B&M's can be lund. at CP, you could her Mantis from nearly anywhere in the park.

---

lund?

Firefox spell check for the win!

They just had a spirited debate on Headline News re: this incident, and even *I* was surprised to hear the majority of callers identify shortcomings in the park's security as a contributing factor.

Among the issues raised: 1) The park markets to teenagers, but doesn't apparently appreciate their willingness/desire to break rules. 2) Six-foot-high fences are easily climbable by said teenagers. 3) The lack of barbed-wire over the fences virtually invites people to climb over them to retrieve lost articles. 4) The parks should do more to prevent loose articles *and* retrieve lost articles for their guests when they ARE taken on rides. 5) Security guards should be stationed at every ride to prevent guests from climbing fences. 6) The signage warning the guests of the danger, and to keep out of the ride area, was insufficient.

Scare you? Does me. Because those callers *are* the GP. These people were suggesting a virtual prison, only with rides.

Sheesh.

No one is ever responsible for their own actions. Just count on every business, company, family to idiot proof their propertry, house, etc. If something bad happens, sue the crap out of them and even if you are dead the family can benefit.

So sad that so many folks don't see that scaling fences and screwing around in restricted areas isn't wrong and should make any legal action groundless.

Until these cases are laughed out of court and those that file them are hit with costs for filing frivolous stuff they will not stop. Not much chance of that as you can see froim above.

---

john13601 said:

has it been stated anywhere as to exactly where under track he was hit ex: under 1st drop, 1st loop ect.

I do feel for his family and do wish that he could've lived to learn from his stupidity but as I said, " 2 fences never mean This way inside"!

---

If you look at this vid, I am willing to guess that at 1:17 is where he most likely got hit. That turn into the valley before the last corkscrew is the lowest part of this design.

I agree to rollergator. Not only are they the greater population, but their thought process and individual behaviour is not up to snuff. They dont see warnings and automatic red flags like older more mature adults or young adults if you will.

There was a post on YouTube from someone who said that they were there that said that it happened at :35 of the video. That's at start of the third inversion.

But there's no proof...

---

rollergator said:

Scare you? Does me. Because those callers *are* the GP. These people were suggesting a virtual prison, only with rides.

---

That's very disturbing. But also keep in mind that people will essentially find any loophole to get on the air to argue some sort of point. So for every 25 or more people that call in to support the park and get through to the screener, there will be a handful that will call in just to argue a point out just to bring up issues with the park.

("My son lost his cell phone there and they wouldn't stop the ride to get it for him, blah blah blah...")

So screener will let them through to balance out the argument even if it isn't indicitive of the general volume that's calling in. So the opinions of people that get to make it on the air or get a comment in is skewed for the purpose or argument rather than based on general public opinion.

The more I hear, the more my sympathy wanes for this kid and his family. His MySpace page makes me ill. I'll chime in with the others who have said that his page does *NOT* project an image of a wholesome American *Christian* teenager. If someone is going to claim to be a Christian, they should at least attempt to walk the walk.

If he'd been a family member of mine, I know that a big part of me would have been angry at him for being so stupid. Sort of like how I'm angry at my aunt for not calling attention to symptoms of her cancer until it was too late, only probably worse. Also, if he was a member of my family, I'd be yanking that MySpace page ASAP and probably creating a (more appropriate) memorial page.

And no, at 17 smoking pot and getting laid were *NOT* a big priority for me. I've still never even been drunk, which shocks the folks at school. YMMV.

CatPurrson

I was drunk yesterday. It has nothing to do with being Christian or knowing that you will not win by challenging a high speed machine that weighs thousands of times more than you.

I talked to my boss who is a attorney about this today.His opinion on what happened is..

As soon as the kid crossed over the fence with the signs posted he would be considered trespassing and would be at fault.BUT..SF may settle out of court,even though they arent admiting they are at fault to avoid the cost of going to trial.

He did mention about the 3 different type guests(not just at parks,could be at home,business,ect.) you can have,and how liability affects each,wish I would have wrote it down it was quite interesting.

*** Edited 7/4/2008 3:26:34 AM UTC by X Ride Op*** *** Edited 7/4/2008 4:00:30 AM UTC by X Ride Op***