'How Far Can You Bounce?' Shouts Push Suicidal Teen to Death Leap

[Chris_]

'How Far Can You Bounce?' Shouts Push Suicidal Teen to Death Leap

Jeering onlookers goaded a teenager in Britain to jump to his death, undermining police efforts to talk him down, and then took pictures of the body.

Tuesday as 17-year-old Shaun Dykes prepared to jump from the top of a multi-storey carpark in Derby, northern England, spectators allegedly shouted to him: "How far can you bounce?," the U.K.'s MailOnline reported.

As Dykes hesitated for three hours on the ledge while police unsuccessfully tried to reason him out of taking his life, teenagers who had gathered below shouted "Jump" and "Get on with it," according to police and witnesses.

Then after Dykes lay in a crumpled heap on the pavement the same hecklers rushed out from behind the police cordon to take photos of the body.

MORE

I have no doubt that this kind of cr*p will be defended at the DUmp.   

[Peter3_1]

Twilight in the Brit. Empire. 

[NHSparky]

If only they could be charged with murder or manslaughter.  If this isn't depraved indifference, I don't know what is.

[EastFacingNorth]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.

I mean, legally there may be a problem - I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not overly familiar with British law, so I don't know one way or the other whether such taunts might constitute a criminal offense - though I can say that if that were the case, that law needs to be changed IMO.

Certainly such taunting was in bad taste.  But nobody put that kid up on the bridge, and nobody kicked his legs out from under him.  I see two possibilities:

First, the kid intended to end his life.  In this case, the kid succeeded in his goal.  While we might find that goal reprehensible, even morally disgusting, the taunters committed no infraction against the kid in question - indeed, they offered encouragement.  Again, certainly they committed an infraction against decorum, possibly against the law, but certainly not against the kid himself.

Second, the kid got up there in order to draw attention to himself, not really intending to take his own life.  But then why did he jump?  Was he merely complying with the crowd's demands?  That seems ridiculous, to me at least.  No, if it were truly the case that the kid didn't intend to jump, then the only possibility that I can see as to why he actually did jump is that he saw death as a preferable alternative to the embarassment of getting down and facing that crowd.  While such a vain person doesn't deserve death, the crowd didn't force it upon him - he chose of his own volition to jump rather than face the music.

I suppose a third possibility is that rather than actually jumping, he slipped and fell to his death.  Again, in this case, I don't see how the crowd is at fault - the kid decided on his own to get up there in the first place.

[djones520]

The point isn't the kid who died.  It's the depravity thats infected society to the point where suicide is encouraged, and treated as nothing but a means of entertainment. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Exactly.  It's not an issue of legality, it's an issue of a bunch of people who need a serious beatdown and a couple of random executions as an exemplary lesson in the value of life, empathy, etc.

[Airwolf]

Well concidering how British laws are over verbal abuse I'd say there is a good chance they can charge all of them. It might not stick in court but its worth a try.

[Chris_]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.
...

You might if it was your kid.

[EastFacingNorth]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.
...

You might if it was your kid.

The problem from a parent's perspective is the kid's actions.  Not one person in that crowd forced that kid up there, or forced him to jump.  The kid did that of his own volition.

Now, the crowd's actions being a symptom of culturally rampant moral depravity, I understand.  The crowd's actions being salt in the wound of their son's death, I understand.  However, the suggestion that the crowd bears any responsibility whatsoever for this kid's death is ridiculous.

[rich_t]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.
...

You might if it was your kid.

The problem from a parent's perspective is the kid's actions.  Not one person in that crowd forced that kid up there, or forced him to jump.  The kid did that of his own volition.

Now, the crowd's actions being a symptom of culturally rampant moral depravity, I understand.  The crowd's actions being salt in the wound of their son's death, I understand.  However, the suggestion that the crowd bears any responsibility whatsoever for this kid's death is ridiculous.

I agree with your take on this.

[DarkHalo]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.

I mean, legally there may be a problem - I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not overly familiar with British law, so I don't know one way or the other whether such taunts might constitute a criminal offense - though I can say that if that were the case, that law needs to be changed IMO.

Certainly such taunting was in bad taste.  But nobody put that kid up on the bridge, and nobody kicked his legs out from under him.  I see two possibilities:

First, the kid intended to end his life.  In this case, the kid succeeded in his goal.  While we might find that goal reprehensible, even morally disgusting, the taunters committed no infraction against the kid in question - indeed, they offered encouragement.  Again, certainly they committed an infraction against decorum, possibly against the law, but certainly not against the kid himself.

Second, the kid got up there in order to draw attention to himself, not really intending to take his own life.  But then why did he jump?  Was he merely complying with the crowd's demands?  That seems ridiculous, to me at least.  No, if it were truly the case that the kid didn't intend to jump, then the only possibility that I can see as to why he actually did jump is that he saw death as a preferable alternative to the embarassment of getting down and facing that crowd.  While such a vain person doesn't deserve death, the crowd didn't force it upon him - he chose of his own volition to jump rather than face the music.

I suppose a third possibility is that rather than actually jumping, he slipped and fell to his death.  Again, in this case, I don't see how the crowd is at fault - the kid decided on his own to get up there in the first place.

You have no ****ing common sense. What that crowd did was morally reprehensible and disgusting. There is more to life that 'the law'. What are you like 14 or something and trying to sound like an adult?

[rich_t]

There ain't NO stopping a person truely commited to commiting suicide.

[rich_t]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.

I mean, legally there may be a problem - I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not overly familiar with British law, so I don't know one way or the other whether such taunts might constitute a criminal offense - though I can say that if that were the case, that law needs to be changed IMO.

Certainly such taunting was in bad taste.  But nobody put that kid up on the bridge, and nobody kicked his legs out from under him.  I see two possibilities:

First, the kid intended to end his life.  In this case, the kid succeeded in his goal.  While we might find that goal reprehensible, even morally disgusting, the taunters committed no infraction against the kid in question - indeed, they offered encouragement.  Again, certainly they committed an infraction against decorum, possibly against the law, but certainly not against the kid himself.

Second, the kid got up there in order to draw attention to himself, not really intending to take his own life.  But then why did he jump?  Was he merely complying with the crowd's demands?  That seems ridiculous, to me at least.  No, if it were truly the case that the kid didn't intend to jump, then the only possibility that I can see as to why he actually did jump is that he saw death as a preferable alternative to the embarassment of getting down and facing that crowd.  While such a vain person doesn't deserve death, the crowd didn't force it upon him - he chose of his own volition to jump rather than face the music.

I suppose a third possibility is that rather than actually jumping, he slipped and fell to his death.  Again, in this case, I don't see how the crowd is at fault - the kid decided on his own to get up there in the first place.

You have no ******* common sense. What that crowd did was morally reprehensible and disgusting. There is more to life that 'the law'. What are you like 14 or something and trying to sound like an adult?

How is it that you find such a juvenile personal attack against another poster acceptable?

[DarkHalo]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.

I mean, legally there may be a problem - I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not overly familiar with British law, so I don't know one way or the other whether such taunts might constitute a criminal offense - though I can say that if that were the case, that law needs to be changed IMO.

Certainly such taunting was in bad taste.  But nobody put that kid up on the bridge, and nobody kicked his legs out from under him.  I see two possibilities:

First, the kid intended to end his life.  In this case, the kid succeeded in his goal.  While we might find that goal reprehensible, even morally disgusting, the taunters committed no infraction against the kid in question - indeed, they offered encouragement.  Again, certainly they committed an infraction against decorum, possibly against the law, but certainly not against the kid himself.

Second, the kid got up there in order to draw attention to himself, not really intending to take his own life.  But then why did he jump?  Was he merely complying with the crowd's demands?  That seems ridiculous, to me at least.  No, if it were truly the case that the kid didn't intend to jump, then the only possibility that I can see as to why he actually did jump is that he saw death as a preferable alternative to the embarassment of getting down and facing that crowd.  While such a vain person doesn't deserve death, the crowd didn't force it upon him - he chose of his own volition to jump rather than face the music.

I suppose a third possibility is that rather than actually jumping, he slipped and fell to his death.  Again, in this case, I don't see how the crowd is at fault - the kid decided on his own to get up there in the first place.

You have no ******* common sense. What that crowd did was morally reprehensible and disgusting. There is more to life that 'the law'. What are you like 14 or something and trying to sound like an adult?

How is it that you find such a juvenile personal attack against another poster acceptable?

Because what he said was stupid. Take half a second to think of the horror that the family of that person that jumped is going thru. Feel free to bitch slap me all you want if it makes you feel better, lol. 

[rich_t]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.

I mean, legally there may be a problem - I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not overly familiar with British law, so I don't know one way or the other whether such taunts might constitute a criminal offense - though I can say that if that were the case, that law needs to be changed IMO.

Certainly such taunting was in bad taste.  But nobody put that kid up on the bridge, and nobody kicked his legs out from under him.  I see two possibilities:

First, the kid intended to end his life.  In this case, the kid succeeded in his goal.  While we might find that goal reprehensible, even morally disgusting, the taunters committed no infraction against the kid in question - indeed, they offered encouragement.  Again, certainly they committed an infraction against decorum, possibly against the law, but certainly not against the kid himself.

Second, the kid got up there in order to draw attention to himself, not really intending to take his own life.  But then why did he jump?  Was he merely complying with the crowd's demands?  That seems ridiculous, to me at least.  No, if it were truly the case that the kid didn't intend to jump, then the only possibility that I can see as to why he actually did jump is that he saw death as a preferable alternative to the embarassment of getting down and facing that crowd.  While such a vain person doesn't deserve death, the crowd didn't force it upon him - he chose of his own volition to jump rather than face the music.

I suppose a third possibility is that rather than actually jumping, he slipped and fell to his death.  Again, in this case, I don't see how the crowd is at fault - the kid decided on his own to get up there in the first place.

You have no ******* common sense. What that crowd did was morally reprehensible and disgusting. There is more to life that 'the law'. What are you like 14 or something and trying to sound like an adult?

How is it that you find such a juvenile personal attack against another poster acceptable?

Because what he said was stupid. Take half a second to think of the horror that the family of that person that jumped is going thru. Feel free to bitch slap me all you want if it makes you feel better, lol. 

Do you lack the ability to disagree with a person's post without resorting to juvenile insults?

[Chris_]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.
...

You might if it was your kid.

The problem from a parent's perspective is the kid's actions.  Not one person in that crowd forced that kid up there, or forced him to jump.  The kid did that of his own volition.

Now, the crowd's actions being a symptom of culturally rampant moral depravity, I understand.  The crowd's actions being salt in the wound of their son's death, I understand.  However, the suggestion that the crowd bears any responsibility whatsoever for this kid's death is ridiculous.

I agree with your take on this.

Figures. 

[Chris_]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.
...

You might if it was your kid.

The problem from a parent's perspective is the kid's actions.  Not one person in that crowd forced that kid up there, or forced him to jump.  The kid did that of his own volition.

Now, the crowd's actions being a symptom of culturally rampant moral depravity, I understand.  The crowd's actions being salt in the wound of their son's death, I understand.  However, the suggestion that the crowd bears any responsibility whatsoever for this kid's death is ridiculous.

Your assumtions are not sound.  There is no way to know if the kid would have jumped or not without the crowd of a$$holes egging him on.

[DumbAss Tanker]

There ain't NO stopping a person truely commited to commiting suicide.

True, but the vast majority of people trying to commit suicide aren't truly committed to it, and can be turned around and brought back from the edge.

[Ptarmigan]

This is no different from what sick losers Lori Drew and company did to Megan Meier if you think about it. Sick ****s those teens are. No wonder why Western Civlization is falling apart. It scum like them that makes me believe that we need eugenics and sterlization. All those people involved need to be lined up to the wall and shot. 

[thundley4]

This is no different from what sick losers Lori Drew and company did to Megan Meier if you think about it. Sick ****s those teens are. No wonder why Western Civlization is falling apart. It scum like them that makes me believe that we need eugenics and sterlization. All those people involved need to be lined up to the wall and shot. 

Now, tell us how you really feel about them. 

[DarkHalo]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.

I mean, legally there may be a problem - I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not overly familiar with British law, so I don't know one way or the other whether such taunts might constitute a criminal offense - though I can say that if that were the case, that law needs to be changed IMO.

Certainly such taunting was in bad taste.  But nobody put that kid up on the bridge, and nobody kicked his legs out from under him.  I see two possibilities:

First, the kid intended to end his life.  In this case, the kid succeeded in his goal.  While we might find that goal reprehensible, even morally disgusting, the taunters committed no infraction against the kid in question - indeed, they offered encouragement.  Again, certainly they committed an infraction against decorum, possibly against the law, but certainly not against the kid himself.

Second, the kid got up there in order to draw attention to himself, not really intending to take his own life.  But then why did he jump?  Was he merely complying with the crowd's demands?  That seems ridiculous, to me at least.  No, if it were truly the case that the kid didn't intend to jump, then the only possibility that I can see as to why he actually did jump is that he saw death as a preferable alternative to the embarassment of getting down and facing that crowd.  While such a vain person doesn't deserve death, the crowd didn't force it upon him - he chose of his own volition to jump rather than face the music.

I suppose a third possibility is that rather than actually jumping, he slipped and fell to his death.  Again, in this case, I don't see how the crowd is at fault - the kid decided on his own to get up there in the first place.

You have no ******* common sense. What that crowd did was morally reprehensible and disgusting. There is more to life that 'the law'. What are you like 14 or something and trying to sound like an adult?

How is it that you find such a juvenile personal attack against another poster acceptable?

Because what he said was stupid. Take half a second to think of the horror that the family of that person that jumped is going thru. Feel free to bitch slap me all you want if it makes you feel better, lol. 

Do you lack the ability to disagree with a person's post without resorting to juvenile insults?

No, not at all. I could easily offer a reasoned and logical explanation as to why he was incorrect. But it is just more fun to respond with insults in a juvenile manner.

[EastFacingNorth]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.

I mean, legally there may be a problem - I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not overly familiar with British law, so I don't know one way or the other whether such taunts might constitute a criminal offense - though I can say that if that were the case, that law needs to be changed IMO.

Certainly such taunting was in bad taste.  But nobody put that kid up on the bridge, and nobody kicked his legs out from under him.  I see two possibilities:

First, the kid intended to end his life.  In this case, the kid succeeded in his goal.  While we might find that goal reprehensible, even morally disgusting, the taunters committed no infraction against the kid in question - indeed, they offered encouragement.  Again, certainly they committed an infraction against decorum, possibly against the law, but certainly not against the kid himself.

Second, the kid got up there in order to draw attention to himself, not really intending to take his own life.  But then why did he jump?  Was he merely complying with the crowd's demands?  That seems ridiculous, to me at least.  No, if it were truly the case that the kid didn't intend to jump, then the only possibility that I can see as to why he actually did jump is that he saw death as a preferable alternative to the embarassment of getting down and facing that crowd.  While such a vain person doesn't deserve death, the crowd didn't force it upon him - he chose of his own volition to jump rather than face the music.

I suppose a third possibility is that rather than actually jumping, he slipped and fell to his death.  Again, in this case, I don't see how the crowd is at fault - the kid decided on his own to get up there in the first place.

You have no ******* common sense. What that crowd did was morally reprehensible and disgusting. There is more to life that 'the law'. What are you like 14 or something and trying to sound like an adult?

I never said that the crowd's actions weren't morally reprehensible and disgusting - in fact, if you'd bothered to read my posts you'd have seen that I used precisely those words.

None of that changes the fact that the boy's death was caused by no one but himself, and that no one's actions in this episode were anywhere near as morally reprehensible as his.

The legality comments were directed more-or-less at NHSparky's prior comment.

Your age, assuming you're older than me (difficult to ascertain given that it isn't listed in your profile, but no skin off my back either way) doesn't make you special, nor does it make you inherently wiser than anyone younger than you, or better at anything in any way.  All it means is that you're likely to die before me.

My age is displayed for all to see.  If you have any substantial evidence which leads you to conclude that I've given a falsity, please present it.  However, given that any admin could confirm for you that my IP address is originating at a state university, it's incredibly unlikely that I'm fourteen, and if I were I would think that such would indicate, if nothing else, extraordinary intelligence for someone so young.  If only such were the case.

[EastFacingNorth]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.
...

You might if it was your kid.

The problem from a parent's perspective is the kid's actions.  Not one person in that crowd forced that kid up there, or forced him to jump.  The kid did that of his own volition.

Now, the crowd's actions being a symptom of culturally rampant moral depravity, I understand.  The crowd's actions being salt in the wound of their son's death, I understand.  However, the suggestion that the crowd bears any responsibility whatsoever for this kid's death is ridiculous.

Your assumtions are not sound.  There is no way to know if the kid would have jumped or not without the crowd of a$$holes egging him on.

Is or is not a man responsible for his actions?  There is no middle ground.

Vibrations in the larynxes of the crowd did not cause the young man to plummet to his death.  Regardless of what anyone said to him, the boy made a decision to commit a certain action, and then did so.

Responsibility can only exist in correlation with power.  Assuming that no member of the crowd was a psychic that could literally force the boy to leap to his death (a valid asumption I think, and in any case if such an assumption turns out not to be valid it is irrelevant to my point as I would agree that such a hypothetical person would in fact bear responsibility for the boy's death), no member of the crowd had the power to cause the boy to take his own life.  Therefore, no member of the crowd could in any rational way be said to be responsible for said outcome.

The moral depravity of the crowd's actions stems not from any responsibility they bear to the outcome, but only from the crowd's delight and pleasure in the possibility of witnessing death.

[Chris_]

Honestly, I don't see a problem here.
...

You might if it was your kid.

The problem from a parent's perspective is the kid's actions.  Not one person in that crowd forced that kid up there, or forced him to jump.  The kid did that of his own volition.

Now, the crowd's actions being a symptom of culturally rampant moral depravity, I understand.  The crowd's actions being salt in the wound of their son's death, I understand.  However, the suggestion that the crowd bears any responsibility whatsoever for this kid's death is ridiculous.

Your assumtions are not sound.  There is no way to know if the kid would have jumped or not without the crowd of a$$holes egging him on.

Is or is not a man responsible for his actions?  There is no middle ground.

Vibrations in the larynxes of the crowd did not cause the young man to plummet to his death.  Regardless of what anyone said to him, the boy made a decision to commit a certain action, and then did so.

Responsibility can only exist in correlation with power.  Assuming that no member of the crowd was a psychic that could literally force the boy to leap to his death (a valid asumption I think, and in any case if such an assumption turns out not to be valid it is irrelevant to my point as I would agree that such a hypothetical person would in fact bear responsibility for the boy's death), no member of the crowd had the power to cause the boy to take his own life.  Therefore, no member of the crowd could in any rational way be said to be responsible for said outcome.

The moral depravity of the crowd's actions stems not from any responsibility they bear to the outcome, but only from the crowd's delight and pleasure in the possibility of witnessing death.

You trying to say that the crowd had no part in the young man jumping to his death?

[Wineslob]

This is no different from what sick losers Lori Drew and company did to Megan Meier if you think about it. Sick ****s those teens are. No wonder why Western Civlization is falling apart. It scum like them that makes me believe that we need eugenics and sterlization. All those people involved need to be lined up to the wall and shot. 

Na, the Brits are just sick of "emo's".