Decapitation at SFoG

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:08 AM
You read that too, JackWrather? On another coaster site there was a link to a story about SF, and in the story the writer joked about weather he should buy the Coke or buy 3 shares of SF. Off topic but very funny!

I get what you are saying in your sarcastic post. Family members of people who have got hurt have come on here in the past. Probably wouldn't happen tomorrow, but it could happen someday.

Most people here are being sensitive in the topic. Most of what I have said has been directed to the few who express excitement to hear that someone has died at a park.

I'll say it again, if the kid was mentally disabled or even suicidal, it would be much more difficult to make fun of his "stupidity".

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:28 AM
I was reading AOL's news and they had some info, but for no reason at all they brought up the Superman incident. They did mention the previous Batman accident, but why bring up Superman?
+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:35 AM
Simple. "Sensationalism", or the old "If it bleeds, it leads" axiom. I'm the furthest thing from a SF fan, but the mud they're going to be dragged through for this perceived slight is going to be pretty unwarranted.
+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:35 AM
And you all made fun of SFKK for putting barbed wire around their fences, heh? ;)

Anyway, I do feel sorry for everyone involved. But on the other hand, I'm VERY thankful that this was caused by a guest's stupidity, and not the park's fault. Six Flags doesn't need any more negative media; they have just started to turn the chain around!

I just can't imagine how others felt when they saw their friend's head fly off... :-/

Oh, and I'm sure that the family will get something out of this. If a kid at our school can get $120,000 for getting expelled after bringing beer to a dance, there's no doubt a death will bring these people millions...

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:24 AM
First to everyone who is arguing if this is "tragic" or not. Understand that your definition of "tragic" depends on your ability to feel emotions. From a professional psychological view point not all humans can perceive emotions equally. Example some people cry because a cat was hit by a car, others laugh. You are arguing semantics and wasting space (some of you are literally wasting space not just figuratively).

Second, this whole thing is bull #$%*. If someone intentionally puts themselves in harms way and is killed in doing so it is viewed as suicide. Getting hit by a train, jumping from a building or even putting a gun to your head, you understand the dangers as someone that is 17 years old. This is an absolute senseless, preventable event that needs to be reviewed publically, SF needs to speak with the family and media tactfully about this and reiterate there policies and proceedures and even offer counseling as a good faith move notwithstanding the legal battle. Unfortunately we see corporations as some faceless entity with bottomless pockets that needs to suffer so other corporations will see and not commit the same errors. When do we allow private suffering to back a corporation for doing something right and show the results of not following rules to the GP?

Do I feel empathy for the friends, family, staff and GP? Hell yeah I do. I have been witness to fatal vehicle accidents (Yes plural!). It will be carried by all associated for the rest of their lives. In mourning will the family look for comfort by having someone other than their child to blame? Yes, it's an acceptable part of greiving before the get to acceptance. It is up to the legal system to not allow this case (if one arises) to go to trial as long as due diligence is followed by SF and evidence is brought forth stating that all events occured due to something outside of the parks control.

And make sure that no one compares or relates this incident to the Kaitlyn Lassiter event eventhough every media outlet will do their best to correlate the events.

If anyone has an issue with my post I would be happy to take you on as a patient! Some on here appear to need some serious counseling. *** Edited 6/29/2008 7:30:47 AM UTC by ldiesman***

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:20 AM
I think Moosh said it the best....there is going to be a lawsuit regardless. It's the PARK'S fault that the boy was a dumbass, right?

We live in a time where people blame McD's for getting fat and Marlboro for getting lung cancer. Why not sue Six Flags for our kid's own stupidity? I don't mean to sound insensitive but ANYONE (especially a 17-year old) should realize that a "restricted area" is NOT the best place to be, especially if you are planning on doing something stupid like he did.

It could of been prevented. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family regardless. :(

-Tina

*** Edited 6/29/2008 8:37:12 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:38 AM

bunky666 said:...Yet the hot coffee lady from McDonalds got millions. This is the world we live in.

Not to stray from the topic, but I get defensive about this one. The "hot coffee lady from McDonald's" became the poster child for frivolous lawsuits but most people don't know the facts. Search on "Liebeck v McDonalds" and see what really happened - she was not driving the car, she suffered third degree burns and had numerous skin grafts, McDonald's knew their coffee was 40 degrees hotter than it needed to be and had caused hundreds of previous injuries, they repeatedly refused requests to pay the woman's medical bills which was all she initially asked for, and ultimately the punitive was reduced to $480,000 by the judge. She did not get "millions" and it was not frivolous.

I feel horrible for the kid, the family, the church, and I think mostly for the park. Stupid mistake or not, the park's name is still in the headlines next to the word "death". Unfortunately when there are that many parks with the same name, it's very easy for media to dredge up previous incidents regardless of their cause and similarity to what just happened.

And I feel really sorry for the losers who posted a picture of a Dark Knight car claiming it to be the same "Batman coaster at Six Flags in Jackson, NJ." I'm not sure if it was AP or AOL News. Yeah, someone jumped two fences and got kicked in the head by that. Idiots.

(excuse the edits - I misspelled "frivolous" twice)

*** Edited 6/29/2008 8:41:56 AM UTC by Seahawk & the Wave***

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:41 AM

coasterqueenTRN said:
and Marlboro for getting lung cancer.

In all fairness, there was a very long time where smoking was promoted and advertised as being a healthy hobby, and cigarette manufacturers actively targeted the youngest of children to get them hooked. I've never seen SF advertise the thrilling adventure of jumping under a roller coaster to 5 year olds. :)

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:55 AM
One of the fences at ground level.

http://www.rcdb.com/ig421.htm?picture=4

http://www.rcdb.com/ig421.htm?picture=5

http://www.rcdb.com/ig421.htm?picture=7 In this picture you can see 2 different fences. Chain Link bottom left and the black steel on the right. Could be possible they were taking a short cut.

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:16 AM
My local news station (WMUR ABC-9 out of manchester, NH) picked this story up this morning. The good news is that they didn't mention the SFKK incident or the one at SFNE in the same breath.

First of all I fell sorry for the family of the kid and the person who hit them.

Second, I agree the kid was stupid to go in there to retrieve a stinkin' hat!!! Agreed this qualifies for a Darwin '08. I wouldn't mind seeing mental health records on this kid.

As much as I think some people at SF are boneheads, they're not libable. The numbskull (or no-skull, as the case may be) violated the saftey rules and payed dearly. They had two fences and proper signage. The family would have ZERO case!

How many more black eyes can SF take? We don't see CF or any of the smaller parks with this kind of stuff on a regulat basis.

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:43 AM

Hopman said:...We don't see CF or any of the smaller parks with this kind of stuff on a regulat basis.

Accidents happen everywhere. Maybe there are more at SF parks, I don't think anyone with an objective viewpoint has actually sat down and counted them, and formed a point where accidents should "count" - only fatals, all fatal and disabling, all requiring medical attention?

In any case, this is one of the few things that makes it a big negative to having a brand name that is used at all properties. When an accident happens at a Six Flags park, it is easy for the media and critics to index other incidents at all Six Flags parks, and it's easy in the public's minds to link them together. The same happens with incidents at Disney parks, though Disney has been more skilled at keeping them quiet.

But when an accident happens at a CF park, there's no tearing apart of the chain's accident records because there is no common name used among those parks and it's not easy for people to associate Dorney Park with Kings Island, Worlds of Fun with Cedar Point, etc. After the Perilous Plunge accident at Knott's, there was no litany of other CF events in the media probably because they don't share a common brand name.

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:48 AM
I guess you're right. The only major accident I remember Disney having was the issue with Mission: Space.
+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:23 AM
The NBC affiliate in Chicago picked up the story this morning as well. There were no mentions of other incidents at Six Flags. They did mention that the kid was trying to retrieve a hat and jumped over two fences. No sensationalism here.
+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:38 AM

LostKause said:

I'll say it again, if the kid was mentally disabled or even suicidal, it would be much more difficult to make fun of his "stupidity".


Enough with the "what ifs" already. If the kid was mentally disabled, he would have had an adult chaperone at all times. If suicidal, there would have been other warning signs. You are needlessly grasping at straws here.

Nobody is happy or excited to see this happen, nobody. The people who are lashing out and calling the kid stupid are angry that this will bring yet another black eye to the hobby we all enjoy.

For the record... "Stupid is as stupid does." -Forrest Gump

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:55 AM
Those external fences are the kind that are really hard to climb because of the lack of horizontal points you can get your feet on. The kids really had to work at it to get over those. I think the best fences (and honestly, we're talking about fences intended to ward off stupid people), are those that Cedar Fair seems to use everywhere... the black fences like these. There's no climbing over those.

Some of the posts here are in very poor taste. That said, I consider tragedy to be something horrible that happens to you for reasons outside of your control. In that respect, I don't think it's a tragedy as far as the kid is concerned. For the parents, sure.

Some kid recently died trying to cross one of the interstates here in Cleveland. Eight lanes, concrete barrier in the middle. To me, this seems a lot like that.

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:53 AM
Soggy, you are misinterpreting my point. Maybe I am being more sensitive about this because I understand that teens do stupid thing sometimes, putting their life in danger. I read recently that scientific studies have found that teens lack a certain fear that prevents them from putting their life in danger.

That's why I feel sorry for the kid. He made a stupid decision, a few really, that resulted in his death.

Even though it IS his fault (and maybe some of the blame can go to his friend also), I still feel very sorry for him.

I guess I feel sorry for "Stupid people".

EDIT - Those fences look WAY too low! I wonder if it is a well known short cut? Not the park's fault, but they could still do more to prevent it from happening again.

Also, working at a few parks in my past, I have seen people enter the low zones on rides before, the most interesting being at IOA on JP River Adventure. The guy was retrieving his hat in the plash pool at the end of the ride. He actually crossed the track to get it. Why can't some people figure out that jumping into the low zone is very dangerous. *** Edited 6/29/2008 4:02:40 PM UTC by LostKause***

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:35 PM
This picture is enough to prove there will be a lawsuit, and the family will probably win.

http://www.rcdb.com/ig421.htm?picture=4

If you don't think so, think about this. You've seen people with a crazy (ie overly large) fence and warning signs saying "private property" and "do not enter." Now say the owner leaves the gate open, I go in and cut my leg on a lawn ornament (for the lack of a better example), I can sue the property owner for damages because he didn't do enough to protect the public from something dangerous on his property.

Or think of this, someone leaves their garage door open (say while they mow their lawn), a burglar sneaks in to steal whatever, and cuts himself on a power tool, he can sue, and will win, because the owner didn't give enough care to protecting the general public from dangerous things within his garage.

Although this seems outrageous to some, this is how our courts work. And when looking at that picture, I see no warning signs and it is by no means a very tall fence, thus the argument the prosecution will bring with some success I would think.

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:18 PM
According to fox news video the 2 teens left the park early in the day and tried to return with out using the front enterence. Looks like they though they could cut through the ride and save some time.

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:23 PM
^ Well, that pic was taken in 2002. There could be more signs now, but I don't know for sure. Also, I don't see a gate of any kind, open or closed. Besides, the presence of a fence, of any height, says "stay out." If they hopped a fence or several, they knew they were in a place where they were not supposed to be.

LostKause, if your so-called science (and I'd love to see a link) proves that a 17 year old has no fear, then why do we licence drivers at 16? We all made it out of our teenage years with our heads intact because we all apparently had more common sence than a can of baked beans, or the deceased in this case.

Also for the record, I DO feel bad for the family, it's a horrible loss for them to suffer. But I may change my tune if they go out and have a lawyer by 10:00 am Monday morning.

+0
Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:34 PM
SF should sue the family for loss of business and damage control.
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...