Some questions on this ND tragedy

[Dom Heffner]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Take it private. You got an issue, bring it to me. No reason for this.

To say someone doesn't share partial responsibility for ignoring their own common sense is silly to me and I stand by that. As an 'employer', I wouldn't want to invite employees that are incapable of ignoring what they believe to be risks just as an employee I'd expect an employer to take steps to insure my safety for things beyond my control.

No problems with you, problems with your arguments.

And those are public, so pardon me if I take issue with them in public. It would make no sense for you to take such stands in public and then if I disagree with them, I somehow have to send you a private message. I can see your point I did say "person" where I should have made it specific to the argument.

And your arguments seem to blame the victim.

Sorry, they do.

And arguments from that standpoint are usually losers, and they uually come from those who just like to make a case for the sake of making a case.

Sportswriters, lawyers...somebody is always there to show you the side they think you're missing, when to the contrary, most of us have seen it and reject it. It isn't provocative, it doen't shed light on anything, it just tries to deflect responsibility from where the responsibility rests.

It's like you've determined that the kid is 15% percent to blame, and all of us should direct our focus to the smaller portion of the pie chart.

It's a little disconcerting to see so much time thrown into "Well I know the University shouldnt have asked this kid to go up there, but what about the kid? What role does he play?"

This kind of argument reminds me of my grandmother, who would watch the news and ask why the victim of a not at fault accident was doing on the street.

Sure, we get the point of how in a perfect world, this kid should have put his age, lack of life experience, and duty to his employer aside and come down from the tower.

But this point is maybe worth the 1 in a 99+1 equals 100 equation.

Thanks for pointing it out, we all appreciate it, and now back to reality where the responsibility for worker's safety rests with the employer.

We don't have to worry about towers falling over if somebody in an authoritative decision doesn't ask somebody to go up in it in a 50 mph windstorm.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

No problems with you, problems with your arguments.

And those are public, so pardon me if I take issue with them in public. It would make no sense for you to take such stands in public and then if I disagree with them, I somehow have to send you a private message. I can see your point I did say "person" where I should have made it specific to the argument.

And your arguments seem to blame the victim.

Sorry, they do.

And arguments from that standpoint are usually losers, and they uually come from those who just like to make a case for the sake of making a case.

Sportswriters, lawyers...somebody is always there to show you the side they think you're missing, when to the contrary, most of us have seen it and reject it. It isn't provocative, it doen't shed light on anything, it just tries to deflect responsibility from where the responsibility rests.

It's like you've determined that the kid is 15% percent to blame, and all of us should direct our focus to the smaller portion of the pie chart.

It's a little disconcerting to see so much time thrown into "Well I know the University shouldnt have asked this kid to go up there, but what about the kid? What role does he play?"

This kind of argument reminds me of my grandmother, who would watch the news and ask why the victim of a not at fault accident was doing on the street.

Sure, we get the point of how in a perfect world, this kid should have put his age, lack of life experience, and duty to his employer aside and come down from the tower.

But this point is maybe worth the 1 in a 99+1 equals 100 equation.

Thanks for pointing it out, we all appreciate it, and now back to reality where the responsibility for worker's safety rests with the employer.

We don't have to worry about towers falling over if somebody in an authoritative decision doesn't ask somebody to go up in it in a 50 mph windstorm.

If you think this argument is silly, fine... it's your opinion. But bringing the whole Mel Gibson thing into the discussion is doing more to provoke an argument than anything I've said. That made it more about me than it did about the argument you disagree with. This topic isn't about Mel Gibson and it certainly isn't about me.

My arguments aren't to blame the victim. They're just a different perspective for personal accountability, something our culture lacks now that it's always someone else's fault.

When kids become unruly, blame the parents. Employees go against their better judgement for a voluntary job and then get hurt, blame the employers. So many people do things they know they shouldn't be doing, exercising poor judgment, but when an accident inevitably happens, the media, the courts and others find a way to blame other involved parties.

It doesn't take life experience to know when you're in a life-threatening situation. This kid was no different. He recognized the risks, even made them public prior to going up there, and willingly let himself go into harm's way for the job.

He's not alone. A lot of people have done that. A lot of kids most certainly are impressionable and would have done just as he did for Notre Dame's football program. But does that justify a bad decision? I never once was taught it was OK to exercise bad judgment because it was a job or because it was for money. I know this is extreme, but military personnel have unfortunately been prosecuted criminally for just following orders, to which they are more intricately bound by their military commanders.

I do blame Notre Dame for not having better standards in place for letting the program operate that equipment. But it's time we stop saying, "he's a 20 year old kid that didn't want to upset a coach," and start saying, "he's legally an adult and can recognize whether any job is worth putting your life at risk for."

It's a narrow view of the world to shift absolutely all responsibility on an employer. After all, jobs are voluntary. If our life is in danger, WE have the ability to opt out of it. Even if it costs us our job it can save our life. If we are forced to make that choice, there will be a time and place to criticize the employer for having to make it, but it's absolutely ridiculous that we insinuate an employee can't make that decision for himself. A man does control his own destiny with the situations he involves himself with, the decisions he makes, the company he keeps and the consequences of his own actions. Safety isn't limited to just a manager or employer. It depends on the workers to abide by the standards and using discretion when necessary.

What we have here is a situation where the proper standards were not in place and a worker didn't use discretion.

Thanks for making this a black and white issue, which it's unfortunately not. Now back to the real world where we all have choices, we all are accountable for our own choices and when we ignore our common sense, sometimes bad things happen.

[Chip R]

It appears that ND potentially may be responsible for only a $7,500 death benefit and they could get that reduced.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/comme...=munson/101105

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Chip R

It appears that ND potentially may be responsible for only a $7,500 death benefit and they could get that reduced.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/comme...=munson/101105

Actually the interesting part of that article had nothing to do with this Notre Dame tragedy. Read on down and look at the case about the kid from Rice. He is seeking to revoke the NCAA rule which puts limits on athletic scholarships.

The market for football scholarships should be free and open, according to the argument, with schools permitted to offer as many scholarships as they want and free to offer scholarships guaranteed for four or five years.

Todd Graham recruited Agnew to Rice, but left to coach at Tulsa after Agnew's freshman year.Instead of a free and open market for scholarships, Agnew and his lawyers charge that the NCAA restrictions are designed to make sure that the income from football is devoted to huge salaries for NCAA officials, coaches and athletic directors. The rules limit investments of football revenue in scholarships for players (or, perish the thought, modest salaries for players), and protect the money for use in salaries for the grown-ups.

This has the potential to really affect the competitive balance of the NCAA. It'd be great for schools like Ohio State but a drag for schools like UC

[Reds4Life]

Originally Posted by Chip R

It appears that ND potentially may be responsible for only a $7,500 death benefit and they could get that reduced.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/comme...=munson/101105

Trust me, that kids family is going to get a lot more than $7,500. There is no chance ND is going to fight it, and try to pay off as little as possible, they don't want anymore negative press surrounding this story.

Somebody at ND is going to be in deep doo doo for this, the only question is who. Given the pull the boosters have up there in South Bend, if Kelly and/or Swarbrick is on their target list, I'd say it's not looking good for either one of them. They defacto run that program up there, and have for years. If they want you gone, you're gone. Just ask all the coaches who have been fired over the years.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Reds4Life

Trust me, that kids family is going to get a lot more than $7,500. There is no chance ND is going to fight it, and try to pay off as little as possible, they don't want anymore negative press surrounding this story.

Somebody at ND is going to be in deep doo doo for this, the only question is who. Given the pull the boosters have up there in South Bend, if Kelly and/or Swarbrick is on their target list, I'd say it's not looking good for either one of them. They defacto run that program up there, and have for years. If they want you gone, you're gone. Just ask all the coaches who have been fired over the years.

Of course they will but this $7500 fact is interesting and will play to ND's favor. Now when they do pay the family they can say that they were doing it out of goodwill and not because they had to

[Boston Red]

Late to the argument, but I think in the end it's hard not to argue that the kid took full personal responsibility for being up there. He is the one dead after all.

Legally, it's 100% on Notre Dame, though.

[Razor Shines]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

If you think this argument is silly, fine... it's your opinion. But bringing the whole Mel Gibson thing into the discussion is doing more to provoke an argument than anything I've said. That made it more about me than it did about the argument you disagree with. This topic isn't about Mel Gibson and it certainly isn't about me.

My arguments aren't to blame the victim. They're just a different perspective for personal accountability, something our culture lacks now that it's always someone else's fault.

When kids become unruly, blame the parents. Employees go against their better judgement for a voluntary job and then get hurt, blame the employers. So many people do things they know they shouldn't be doing, exercising poor judgment, but when an accident inevitably happens, the media, the courts and others find a way to blame other involved parties.

It doesn't take life experience to know when you're in a life-threatening situation. This kid was no different. He recognized the risks, even made them public prior to going up there, and willingly let himself go into harm's way for the job.

He's not alone. A lot of people have done that. A lot of kids most certainly are impressionable and would have done just as he did for Notre Dame's football program. But does that justify a bad decision? I never once was taught it was OK to exercise bad judgment because it was a job or because it was for money. I know this is extreme, but military personnel have unfortunately been prosecuted criminally for just following orders, to which they are more intricately bound by their military commanders.

I do blame Notre Dame for not having better standards in place for letting the program operate that equipment. But it's time we stop saying, "he's a 20 year old kid that didn't want to upset a coach," and start saying, "he's legally an adult and can recognize whether any job is worth putting your life at risk for."

It's a narrow view of the world to shift absolutely all responsibility on an employer. After all, jobs are voluntary. If our life is in danger, WE have the ability to opt out of it. Even if it costs us our job it can save our life. If we are forced to make that choice, there will be a time and place to criticize the employer for having to make it, but it's absolutely ridiculous that we insinuate an employee can't make that decision for himself. A man does control his own destiny with the situations he involves himself with, the decisions he makes, the company he keeps and the consequences of his own actions. Safety isn't limited to just a manager or employer. It depends on the workers to abide by the standards and using discretion when necessary.

What we have here is a situation where the proper standards were not in place and a worker didn't use discretion.

Thanks for making this a black and white issue, which it's unfortunately not. Now back to the real world where we all have choices, we all are accountable for our own choices and when we ignore our common sense, sometimes bad things happen.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I don't think it has to be all one way or the other.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

I do blame Notre Dame for not having better standards in place for letting the program operate that equipment. But it's time we stop saying, "he's a 20 year old kid that didn't want to upset a coach," and start saying, "he's legally an adult and can recognize whether any job is worth putting your life at risk for."

Well, therein lies the problem for me. I've seen several studies showing that the neurons in the decision-making portion of people's brain don't fully fuse until around age 25, and that this explains what most of us know from experience about young people's behavior. Maybe it's time to up the age legal accountability.

If you think about it, the traditional age of 18 or 21 as adulthood comes from the industrial revolution, when the development of your body was more important than the development of your brain. That's not really the case in the information age.

I wonder what people would think about this situation if the guy was a 28 year-old grown man? I bet people would be a lot more open to the idea that he should have recognized and responded to the danger on his own.

[Chip R]

Notre Dame fined $77,500 by the Indiana Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...urn=ncaaf-wp81

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Notre Dame fined $77,500 by the Indiana Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...urn=ncaaf-wp81

That's a mere pittance compared to what the University will likely eventually pay to the family in a quiet, out of court settlement

[Chip R]

The fine has been lowered to $42,000

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6729161