Nope, it was 2 AM on a sunday morning. The big hand was on the twelve, and the little hand was on the two. Disney is over when the big hand is on the twelve and the little hand is on the seven. See the difference?
If not, you shouldn’t be a parent.
The reason why operating a car under the influence of an intoxicating substance is the assumption that an accident will be caused, or I guess more accurately, the increased likelihood that an accident will occur, right?
The time has fuck-all to do with the asshole who killed them.
My son is getting his driver’s license this summer. He turns 17 in July. There is every possiblity that once he is legal to drive, he might be on the road at mid-night on a Saturday … as human beings with legal drivers licenses are wont to do. But if he gets creamed by a drunk driver that’s my fault?
You’re a fucking idiot. I’m done with you.
I don’t even like to drive late at night on the weekends when the roads are full of drunks. No way I’d ever let my kids do it. Those kids had no business even being out of the house.
What is the proof that the other driver was the only one at fault, by the way? What are we basing that on?
Do we know that the kids in the car were sober? Why should we take that for granted. They were on their way to a party, so even if they hadn’t been drinking yet (which is doubtful, since it was already after midnight), they were going to GET drunk, and then drive back home loaded in the same car.
There is definitely a lapse of parenting here. You don’t let toddlers play on the streets, and you don’t let stupid, inexperienced teenagers go driving off to parties on them after midnight on the weekends.
And the poor drunk drivers are the ones taking the brunt of all these poor parenting decisions.
WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE ALCOHOLICS!!
Who said the other driver should be let off the hook? I despise drunk drivers. I don’t the the penalties are near harsh enough. The fact that the roads on saturday nights are crawling with them is why it’s lackadaisical parenting to let stupid, inexperienced teenagers go driving off on “party trains” to other towns.
I’m not going to assume the other driver necessarily caused the crash all by himself, though. The kids could have been drunk too. They were at least on their WAY to get drunk, and the time was such that there’s a good chance they’d been drinking already.
You guys all sound like the jerks who automatically assume any teenager in a store is looking to shoplift shit. Jesus Christ.
It was midnight when the crash happened, not 2 AM. Not that it matters, because even if it had been 2:30 AM, which in my experience is when you tend to get maximum numbers of drunks on the roads (due to the bars closing at 2:00 AM) it’s still NOT THEIR FAULT just because they happened to be on the road.
If the car had contained five carpooling late-shift factory employees in their 30s instead of five teenagers, would you all still be tut-tutting that their risky behavior (so risky! Daring to drive a car at midnight! Nobody who values their life does this!) was partially at fault? No. It’s solely because they’re teenagers, and for some reason several people in this thread have the completely irrational and bizarre belief that teenagers should not be allowed to drive after… what, 10 PM? 9? Before what hour would we no longer assign blame to the driver of a car that was in an accident because another driver swerved into its lane?
Seriously, “Well, they were teenagers and they were going to a party so hell, they were probably drunk already, so you know, it’s partially their fault” is insane. There is no evidence to suggest they’d been drinking. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that another driver plowed into them because he was drunk and didn’t stay in his own lane. If that happened to me at noon on a Sunday, it wouldn’t be my fault. It happened to them at midnight; still not their fault. Of course the other driver caused the crash all by himself. He SWERVED INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
Of course not. Only the black ones wearing hoodies.
Why the fuck is that asshole smiling in his mug shot?
“You just killed four kids…smile for the camera!”
And I agree that the kids shouldn’t have been out that late headed to a party. A car packed full of teenagers after midnight on a weekend has it’s own set of statistical risks, just like drunk driving does. On the surface at least, it doesn’t appear that they were at fault in any way, though.
They were out past curfew, which is a violation of the law. Is it a silly law? Maybe- but it’s still the law.
Does that mean the drunk guy is any less at fault? Of course not.
I agree, but I also don’t think it’s a silly law at all. I have two young sons. When they are of driving age, there are going to be some very strict guidelines regarding driving, and one of those is going to be how late they are allowed to have a car out.
The curfews many states and municipalities have adopted are smart, because it’s been proven that time and again, teenagers will get themselves into trouble, get themselves hurt or killed at a staggeringly higher rate after a certain hour of night.
The laws that limit the number of kids that can ride in a car together without an adult present are smart for the very same reason.
This guy, if guilty of driving drunk and killing these kids, is scum, no doubt.
But the headline just as easily could have read “Five teenagers killed in car racing another car at high rate of speed” and if I was a parent, I would have felt just as bad about the whole situation because I allowed my child to put themself into a situation where they were out after curfew with a bunch of other kids when I would have known that allowing that behavior is almost certainly a recipe for trouble.
We don’t know who caused the crash or who swerved. I’m not saying the kids HAD to have been at faut, only that they MIGHT have been. We don’t know. I’d like to know if they were wasted too. It can’t be ruled out.
Nice, you’re not willing to assume the drunk guy driving on the wrong side of the road was at fault, but you’re willing to assume that these kids were either drunk driving or would be drunk driving shortly.
The assumption that they’d be drunk driving later is ridiculous - no possibility that they weren’t drinking, that they’d wait until they were unimpaired, or had a designated driver?
The news story states very clearly that the drunk guy was traveling in the wrong lane. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
I thought there were no witnesses. How do we know what side of the road he was on?
Accident investigators, at a guess.
Yeah, I’m sure they were going to that party just to drink Hi-C and read Bible verses.
They were already breaking the law just by breaking curfew. Of course they were going to get loaded, which is another crime even if they don’t drive, so obviously these were not responsible kids, and it’s not ridiculous to wonder if they were already under the influence, or might have shared some fault. I don’t know why everybody is so offended by it.
So those are the two choices? Bible verses or drunk driving?
Oh shit! They must’ve been planning to go on a gang rape spree too then. Break one law and…
You’re blaming the victim in an obnoxious, aggressive manor. You didn’t say “there’s a chance they were drunk too”, you’re saying “it’s guaranteed they were either drunk then or would be drunk shortly so they’re not innocent”
I went to lots of parties as a teenager. I drank at a lot of them. I didn’t drive drunk - or if someone else was driving - they didn’t drive drunk. Your presumption that because someone is a teen and going out that they’re definitely 100% sure gonna be drunk driving later is obnoxious.
I think the assumption that the guy driving on the wrong side of the road, who smelled of alcohol, who had a previous DUI, is fairly reasonable.
This thread is a virtual Who’s Who of douchery.
Cites: