Man struck and killed by Raptor at Cedar Point after entering restricted area

OhioStater said:

What if you go out in some baffling stupid way? It could happen. Is that how you think you should be defined?

1. I probably most certainly will.

2. Whatever. It's really not important. The dead tend not to worry about how they're perceived.

2a. If I were worried about it, I suspect it's self-correcting. People that knew me would know that I was more than that moment, people who didn't would call me a dumbass.

What if I make an idiotic choice that leads to my death (my wife may find this easier to believe)? Is that now my legacy? Did my death trump all, or is how I lived my life more important?

Depends on what's important to you. But I can asure you after you're gone, most people will know you as the guy that did that stupid thing.

I mean, what if you do something stupid that leads to the death of others - like shoot up a theatre or bomb a marathon. Should we not define you by that very moment that makes you newsworthy.

Aren't we essentially asking, "What about all the good things Hitler did?" (and, just for the record, I win the internets for invoking Godwin's Law in a discussion about a roller coaster accident)

I think what GoBucks89 nails it, actually. If you did care (and I don't know why you would) about him or if he was your brother or son or father or whatever, you would be singing a completely different tune.

Or, maybe not?

No. I pretty much tell the people that mean something to me that they're dumbasses when they're being dumbasses...and often when they're not.

Not so subtle point being, maybe we should leave the defining and labeling of a person up to those who knew him/her best.

I think we pretty much were. I'm not sure where exactly it became about the guy. It's about the event.

"Man" could be anyone.

"struck and killed by Raptor at Cedar Point after entering restricted area" was the point of interest in the context of these forums.

#idontthinktekwardoismeaninfactilikehishat

Tek is a jerk.

OhioStater said:

if you believe that how a person goes out defines that person's existence, well, I'm not sure how much grey there is between our viewpoints.

To me, how this person went out absolutely defines his existence. To those who knew him, probably not.

If you did care (and I don't know why you would) about him or if he was your brother or son or father or whatever, you would be singing a completely different tune.

Right. And I would expect if I was the subject of the title of this thread, I'd be offered the same courtesy: my family and friends and others who knew me well would certainly care and not define my existence by my fatal lack of judgment. And those who'd never heard of me before reading this headline would likely perceive just the opposite: that I was an idiot.

The stupid effing douche who cut me off in traffic last week is a complete loser asshole who doesn't know how to drive his stupid Mercedes SUV....to me. That's all I know of this man; he exists in my world as only that. But then, if I ponder for a moment and create an image in my head that this guy has a loving wife and kids, nice family life, nice house, I can suggest to myself that maybe he's a really decent guy who's well loved and has offered something to society I may not be aware of, and I shouldn't rush to judgment on his character based on his one split-second poor decision which I happened to be witness to and negatively affected by in the brief flash of a moment he and I crossed paths in this world.

Or maybe he really is an asshole. Who the hell knows?

LostKause said:

It is enforceable. II personally dealt with Morey's Piers policy for their Vekoma Hang and Bang coaster. The guy at the entrance actually had a wand and directs all riders to the free lockers. You can only get on the ride wearing clothes, and that's it. It's happening at Universal Orlando as well.

So, there is literally zero possibility that you could have anything on your person (and thus anything to lose and become a target for retrieval) while on rides at either of those places? That would be surprising.

Attempting to enforce a policy is not the same as effectively and comprehensively enforcing it, to the extent that there are literally no loose articles on a ride. And if someone is willing to go to lengths to sneak something beyond the guy with the magic wand, the odds are greater that they'd be willing to take a risk to retrieve it.

It wasn't just 1 dumb decision that cost him his life it was a series of dumb decisions.
1. Not securing his loose articles
2. Jumping the fence
3. Not knowing where the train was
4. Not hearing the train coming
5. Not getting out of the way
6. Getting hit by the train.

#3 through 6 aren't 'decisions', per se.

It's kind of interesting that the conversation would turn toward questions about how and where death matters in life. I tend to agree that death trumps all. It's a very final end that every single one of us can not escape. Some may argue that religion has some impact on that, and that's fine if you believe that, but death still influences a number of behaviors that I engage in:

• I avoid hazardous situations that result in a high likelihood of death.
• I do my best to keep perspective that most things in life do not in fact put me at risk for death (most risks do not have a high price).
• I will, eventually, die. I don't get a make-good for the things that I didn't have time to do.

At the very least, the first point should make it pretty obvious that scaling a six-foot fence with warning signs about death and injury is a pretty bad idea. It's difficult for me not to pass judgment.

I think pretty much everyone does the same analysis (at least subconsciously). But where lines are drawn in the first two is subjective. Particularly at the margins. Someone who does something you would not do may just have drawn the lines at a different place rather than have ignoring the maxims in total.

http://fox8.com/2015/08/18/police-images-and-witnesses-place-man-in...-accident/

“Cedar Point personnel provided reporting officer still pictures of the people riding the Raptor during the accident,” the report states. “In viewing these pictures, it clearly shows Young in the restricted area and Young’s head being struck by the metal support bar, under the Raptor train.”

So... They're looking for proof that the poor chap was in the restricted area? I'd venture to say it's not like the ride reached out and got him. Maybe they're trying to determine that he didn't fall out.
His friends' recount of what happened before is different than what's been reported here and there. Just goes to show ya.
Anyway, clearly, it sounds like a set of souvenir photos that no one would ever want.

The article wasn't opening for me but if it's the same one I read earlier I foud it interesting that they didn't find his phone. I'm wondering if he lost it on another ride and only just then noticed. That would make the entire incident that much more pointless.

What never really struck me before reading this (for some reason) was just how much time he may have actually spent in the restricted zone. Not that it changes anything, but yikes.

Cannot fathom being in the front row of that train.

The investigation may sound silly (I mean, are we really questioning what lead to his death?); however, I would imagine Cedar Point wants this to be 1) thorough and 2) detailed as possible, as it would not surprise me at all if the family has gotten calls from lawyers wanting to mount a lawsuit for some reason which we would all deem asinine. But would it really surprise you if an attempt was made? Not me.

Lord Gonchar said:

Aren't we essentially asking, "What about all the good things Hitler did?" (and, just for the record, I win the internets for invoking Godwin's Law in a discussion about a roller coaster accident)

http://www.constantinereport.com/nazi-party-gave-start-to-billion-d...inesses-3/

I think the police are driving the investigation, not Cedar Point out of fear of a lawsuit. The police are being thorough because this is after all a criminal investigation. The fence jumper violated a section of the Ohio Revised Code by jumping the fence and the resulting fatality certainly warrants a thorough investigation by the police.

OhioStater said:

What never really struck me...

*rimshot*

I miss your witty banter on the FB, Neuski. :)

This is Cedar Point's fault.

You've got to be kidding. After 21 years of no one else jumping the fence in front of a train, the park could build taller fences and make nastier signs? Says the ambulance-chasing consultant? I agree with Speigel, there comes a point where personal responsibility is the most critical human factor.

What an astronomical load of bull****.

Added Nemire, "It's on the amusement park to design their facilities to discourage that foreseeable behavior and protect their guests from hazards at the park."

And they did. And continue to do. Every damn day. This mindset that it's not the individual's responsibility for their own well being (not just talking about amusement park safety here) is far too commonplace.

ApolloAndy said:

Maybe he just underestimated the clearance of the train. On an invert, the track is a long way up when the clearance envelope is 6' off the ground.

The article said:

Even park guests who just got off the ride – as Young did -- may not realize that an oncoming train, hanging 5 or 6 feet below the track, could easily hit a person standing below.

Damn, I should be an ambulance chaser...I mean, consultant.

If only the park hadn't posted all those signs saying, "This is a fun area! Make sure to come on back while the ride is in operation! There's no danger back here, no sirree!" Or if perhaps they'd only put up some kind of, I dunno, restrictive fencing or something...

Unbelievable.