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

[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?

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.

SCORE and H5 for honesty! 

[EastFacingNorth]

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?

I'm saying that, whether or not they influenced the boy's decision to jump (which is of course at this point unknowable) they cannot be held morally responsible for his decision to do so, at least according to my moral framework (which boils down pretty clearly to Kantian deontology, if you're wondering).