# Snake-waving teen could face charges in publisher’s death



## elapid68 (Jun 2, 2007)

*Snake-waving teen could face charges in publisher’s death*


----------



## krissy78 (Jun 3, 2007)

hard 1 to call that... a kid trying to have some fun, causes a death... a serious punishment required i agree, but a murder charge, i feel that is a bit heavy for a joke gone wrong.


----------



## moosenoose (Jun 3, 2007)

Seems like the run-of-the-mill sort of thing when it comes to snakes doesn't it? Seems that yet again the fear of snakes proves more detrimental than anything else :lol:


----------



## Forensick (Jun 3, 2007)

my god....
he shouldn't be charged at all.
lets ruin a kids life (coz lets face it, any jail time will ruin it)
because he did something that really wasn't even dangerous, and it went really badly


----------



## Vincey (Jun 3, 2007)

They make the kid look horrible.
Talking up the 'victim' as if he was God's gift.

I believe a manslaughter charge would be over-the-top, although if 1 gets away- they all do. So I wonder what will happen. 

Kid already feels likes crap and realizes he did the wrong thing before he left the scene of the accident.


----------



## Forensick (Jun 3, 2007)

and to think of all the people that CHOOSE to drive drunk, kill somenoe, and get off....


----------



## nuthn2do (Jun 3, 2007)

He was obviously out to get someone to fall of a bike, it happened and someone died. He should be charged with manslaughter.


----------



## krusty (Jun 3, 2007)

he new what he was doing just didn't think he would kill any one.but thats his bad luck i think he should be charged.


----------



## Saz (Jun 3, 2007)

Poor kid, no way should he be charged with manslaughter, all he did was wave a rubber snake for crying out loud. Accidents happen.


----------



## Hoppa1874 (Jun 3, 2007)

I feel really sorry for that poor kid..something he thought would be a funny joke turned out really really bad..
If the bloke never fell off his bike.. it would have been funny too..
And why are americans allowed to ride wifout helmets.. if he had a helmet on.. chances are he woodnt have died...


----------



## krusty (Jun 3, 2007)

yes and if the kid was not a drop kick all this would not have happend.


----------



## IsK67 (Jun 3, 2007)

Be safe. Wear a helmet when bike riding.


----------



## eladidare (Jun 3, 2007)

it was just a stupid prank gone wrong... 58 years old, not as if he had long left anywayz....


----------



## Veredus (Jun 3, 2007)

I suppose we should look for someone else to blame when a person dies because they weren't wearing their seatbelt too aye?


----------



## MoreliaMatt (Jun 3, 2007)

lay off the poor kid, i dont see anything wrong, who didnt wave rubber snakes around when they were kids trying to scare people?!?!!! i bet 99% of us here did!


----------



## Vincey (Jun 3, 2007)

MoreliaMatt said:


> lay off the poor kid, i dont see anything wrong, who didnt wave rubber snakes around when they were kids trying to scare people?!?!!! i bet 99% of us here did!



Yeah..

There must be consequences to this, but NOT manslaughter charge. Wear an _effing_ helmet or get on your bike and _eff_ off


----------



## Moonfox (Jun 3, 2007)

Man, that's harsh. He was only joking around, accidents happen. How is anyone supposed to predict that?


----------



## nuthn2do (Jun 3, 2007)

And if the dead man was your father, brother or husband and some 17 yo idiot clowning around caused his death?


----------



## Veredus (Jun 3, 2007)

If the dead man was my father or brother he wouldn't be the dead man because my father and brother wear their helmets when they ride their bikes. It is common sense, if he had of been wearing it sure, charge the kid with manslaughter, but the brunt of the responsibility in this case comes down to the fool who didn't take the right precautions.


----------



## Oskorei (Jun 3, 2007)

smash his head in and see if he still thinks its a joke gone wrong.

his action caused death therefore he shoudl be punished acordingly.


----------



## Forensick (Jun 3, 2007)

if he was my father.

i would be sad, devestated and angry. at my father aswell as the kid
but i would be satisfied with only 1 life being destroyed.
the kids punishment is worse than anything the state can offer anyway.
even if he HAD been wearing a helemet.
the kid did with no intention of causing harm, and clearly not thinking that hard would come from it.... i did stuff like that to my sister all the time.....

most importantly, my father would hate me forever if i made a child pay with his life for a mistake that had no malice involved.


and punished accordingly, like throw a snake at him?
this is a country where being drunk is an excuse to GET OFF a murder/manslaughter charge in a car wreck....

let he who is without sin.....


----------



## Vincey (Jun 3, 2007)

I agree Forensick.


----------



## MoreliaMatt (Jun 3, 2007)

well said forensick


----------



## mrmikk (Jun 3, 2007)

krissy78 said:


> hard 1 to call that... a kid trying to have some fun, causes a death... a serious punishment required i agree, but a murder charge, i feel that is a bit heavy for a joke gone wrong.


 
You may have a different opinion if the victim was a member of your family. 

The kid thought it was a prank, he didn't adequately consider the repercussions, those repercussions were ultimately disastrous. 

Should it be written off as a joke gone wrong? No. The perpetrator should be held accountable for his actions. Murder? Of course not, you can't prove intent, and to suggest a murder charge is ridiculous. Manslaughter? Absolutely!

If you are prepared to write this off as a prank gone wrong, and leave it at that, where do you draw the line on these things? You are setting a dangerous precedent and further weakening our already comical judicial system.


----------



## mrmikk (Jun 3, 2007)

Forensick said:


> if he was my father.
> 
> i would be sad, devestated and angry. at my father aswell as the kid
> but i would be satisfied with only 1 life being destroyed.
> ...


 
How do you know the kid had no intention of causing harm? That is simply your view.

Just because you think "this is a country where being drunk is an excuse to GET OFF a murder/manslaughter charge in a car wreck..." is irrelevant. Firstly being 'drunk' is not a defense at law, per se. Secondly, even if it is, what has it got to do with the situation being discussed here, no where does it suggest the kid was drunk.

As for "let he who is without sin...", If we all followed that doctrine, no one would be punished for anything, so take off your rose coloured glasses and see the real world where people like this need to be held accountable for their actions. Man, someone DIED as a result of this 'prank', no where do you mention or allude to that!


----------



## freddy (Jun 3, 2007)

nuthn2do said:


> He was obviously out to get someone to fall of a bike, it happened and someone died. He should be charged with manslaughter.


agree 100%, he was trying to make someone fall off their bike, he caused the guy to fall off and die he should do the time for it.


----------



## Midol (Jun 3, 2007)

So if I place a rubber snake on the ground at the end of my driveway with the intent to scare someone and they fall off a bike or have a heart attack you guys are claiming I should be charged with manslaughter for it?

mrmikk, our country has a comical legal situation mainly because of things like this (I know it is in America). We charge people and punish people for things that shouldn't be happening. This mainly goes on in our civil department but the criminal side is as much of a joke as the civil.


----------



## mrmikk (Jun 3, 2007)

Midol said:


> So if I place a rubber snake on the ground at the end of my driveway with the intent to scare someone and they fall off a bike or have a heart attack you guys are claiming I should be charged with manslaughter for it?
> 
> mrmikk, our country has a comical legal situation mainly because of things like this (I know it is in America). We charge people and punish people for things that shouldn't be happening. This mainly goes on in our civil department but the criminal side is as much of a joke as the civil.


 
What would be your intention for putting a rubber snake at the end of your driveway in the first place? You answer that, 'to scare someone'! Well, as a responsible citizen, consider the result of 'scaring' someone first, what could the result be?? I don't need to labour this point, I think you already know the answer here.

The judicial situation is not comical becuase of incidents like this, it is comical in the way it deals with them. Civil law and criminal law are two completely different legal arenas, let's not muddy this thread by comparing the criminal process with the cvil process, either here or anywhere else.


----------



## Midol (Jun 3, 2007)

It is comical if a kid who tried to scare someone with a snake spends the prime of his life behind bars.


----------



## mrmikk (Jun 4, 2007)

Midol said:


> It is comical if a kid who tried to scare someone with a snake spends the prime of his life behind bars.


 
It is comical that the person responsible for the death of an innocent person is not at all held accountable for their actions.

Civil libertarians get so focused on the perpetrator and whether they are dealt with 'fairly' and as a result lose sight of the bigger picture, namely the victim and their family.

Wake up, someone died here, this guy doesn't have an option as to where he spends the rest of his life, it was decided for him by some clown who pulled a stunt that directly resulted in his death. Oooops, sorry about that!


----------



## mrmikk (Jun 4, 2007)

wardy said:


> you dont even know the full story so stop acting as if you do...oh what the news paper said it so its true? when have the media ever been right... the kid was prolly ****ing playing with the ruber snake flinging it around like iv seen many people do some old guy riding a bike seen him they say he swerved* maybe the kid was just on the path way playing with the snake and didnt relize bikes were coming. anyway the point of the matter is dont judge anyone unless you know the full story of both sides and not just what the media is feeding you.


 
No one is judging, rather simply comenting on the information that is available. 
You are absolutely right, the media do serve up %$#&, but we can only hold a discussion based on the information given. It could all be completely false for all we know.


----------



## wardy (Jun 4, 2007)

mrmikk said:


> No one is judging, rather simply comenting on the information that is available.
> You are absolutely right, the media do serve up %$#&, but we can only hold a discussion based on the information given. It could all be completely false for all we know.



then what more is there to discuss?


----------



## mrmikk (Jun 4, 2007)

wardy said:


> then what more is there to discuss?


 
Nothing, on that basis, but if everyone took this approach, not much would warrant discussion would it?? So people discuss things based on the info available, knowing that it maybe false or incomplete. Take the Dutch reality show that was touted last week, got a lot of people talking and was a load of &^%$, so what.


----------



## Midol (Jun 4, 2007)

mrmikk said:


> It is comical that the person responsible for the death of an innocent person is not at all held accountable for their actions.
> 
> Civil libertarians get so focused on the perpetrator and whether they are dealt with 'fairly' and as a result lose sight of the bigger picture, namely the victim and their family.
> 
> Wake up, someone died here, this guy doesn't have an option as to where he spends the rest of his life, it was decided for him by some clown who pulled a stunt that directly resulted in his death. Oooops, sorry about that!



Accountable, yes. But not his prime years in Jail.

If I was killed in this way I'd be appalled that someone could face Jail for having a bit of fun.


Wardy: And I agree with mrmikk - we are discussing it based upon what we know. There is nothing wrong with that. We rarely know everything on a subject - you have probably discussed reptiles in the past and I highly doubt you know everything about them.


----------



## Chris1 (Jun 4, 2007)

geez, poor kid. imagine how bad he'd feel.
if it was a 10 year old kid waving a rubber snake around would people be more lenient?

maybe community service would be a better punishment than throwing him in jail,..!?


----------



## wardy (Jun 4, 2007)

Midol said:


> Accountable, yes. But not his prime years in Jail.
> 
> If I was killed in this way I'd be appalled that someone could face Jail for having a bit of fun.
> 
> ...



uh me discussing reptiles has nothing to do with this? and iv only ask questions..... i suggest you delet that part of your post because that was worthless.


----------



## IsK67 (Jun 4, 2007)

Midol said:


> If I was killed in this way I'd be appalled that someone could face Jail for having a bit of fun.




Actually, if you were killed that way, or any way for that matter, you'd be dead.

Just a thought.


----------



## Midol (Jun 4, 2007)

wardy said:


> uh me discussing reptiles has nothing to do with this? and iv only ask questions..... i suggest you delet that part of your post because that was worthless.



Its an analogy - need a dictionary to find out what that means?

We don't know everything about this.
You don't know everything about reptiles.

Exactly the same, different scenarios. 

IsK67: Unless I am god...


----------



## Forensick (Jun 4, 2007)

mrmikk said:


> It is comical that the person responsible for the death of an innocent person is not at all held accountable for their actions.
> 
> Civil libertarians get so focused on the perpetrator and whether they are dealt with 'fairly' and as a result lose sight of the bigger picture, namely the victim and their family.
> 
> Wake up, someone died here, this guy doesn't have an option as to where he spends the rest of his life, it was decided for him by some clown who pulled a stunt that directly resulted in his death. Oooops, sorry about that!



see i thought the bigger picture of prisons and the judicial system is to remove dangerous people from siciety and to REHABILITATE them to get them back.
i fail to see how he can be rehabilitated has there is nothing to rehabilitate.
and he is hardly a dangerous person.

punishment is more than acceptable.
jail for a kid of that age, is a life sentance, his life won't recover from it.
punishment like that isn't "justice" its vengance... 
the kid will be punished every day, and he will do it himself.
anything more than a suspended sentance + good behaviour bond is a total farce.

and don't sit here and say "if it was your family...." i already told you what my father would think of it.... and last time i spoke to him, his sister still died when she was 19 because of an accident caused by a kid who wasn't trying to hurt anyone


----------



## mrmikk (Jun 4, 2007)

Hot topic isn't it? Everyone has pretty strong views on this, anyway, I said my piece. All the best.


----------



## wardy (Jun 4, 2007)

Midol said:


> Its an analogy - need a dictionary to find out what that means?
> 
> We don't know everything about this.
> You don't know everything about reptiles.
> ...



so whats with the personal attacks? i dont remember attacking you?
why have such strong opinions on something when you dont know the full story?


----------



## stencorp69 (Jun 4, 2007)

The bloke who died was at fault through his own misadventure, fancy being afraid of a rubber snake. His estate should be sued for his actions putting that young man through such trauma. 

This opinion is just as idiotic as all the others in this thread so don't flame me for the collective stupidity of this thread


----------



## Forensick (Jun 4, 2007)

idiotic....
not half wrong tho....
if he had obeyed the law (assuming it is there!) and worn a helmet, he might not have died...
so the old man is at fault for the kid having to think he killed someone


----------



## nuthn2do (Jun 4, 2007)

Forensick said:


> idiotic....
> not half wrong tho....
> if he had obeyed the law (assuming it is there!) and worn a helmet, he might not have died...
> so the old man is at fault for the kid having to think he killed someone


Don't assume, most US states only have helmet laws for under 18s


----------



## salebrosus (Jun 4, 2007)

I think it would be tragic if he used a real snake.

Simone.


----------



## moosenoose (Jun 4, 2007)

He could always claim that the snake was meant to be an eel. And all he was trying to do was suggest the cyclist was a "slippery customer"


----------



## Khagan (Jun 4, 2007)

nuthn2do said:


> Don't assume, most US states only have helmet laws for under 18s



Yeah but you should follow safety precautions whether its the law or not because you never know if your gonna have an accident or not, if you dont then end up getting injured how can you blame someone else? Imo both are guilty of not thinking ahead properly, and this story goes to show people should fear idiots more than snakes .


----------

