People, do read this news item because I can’t even. Two teenagers stole a van. In the process of stealing it, one of the teenagers drove over the other one and killed him. Now the parents of the dead teenager want the prosecutor to charge. . . the owner of the stolen vehicle because his van tempted the carjackers to commit the crime, ultimately causing his death.
I will never get over how permissive the American culture is towards piss-poor parents. These horrid people raised a little criminal who ran around stealing vehicles. And they feel so self-righteous that they dare to blame their kid’s victim for his crime.
Clarissa's Blog 
It’s clickbait. No mention in the video or article of the parents wanting the car owner “charged”. No mention of a prosecutor. Even the headline is misleading. The dad says in the video he felt the owner was irresponsible – but the tone of it is closer to, “the keys were in the van, my kid stole it, now he’s gone”, in the same sense of leaving a gun safety off etc.
LikeLike
Comparing leaving car keys in the car with a gun is so extraordinarily ludicrous that it’s sad it needs to be explained. Why not just go ahead and compare it to giving the kids a nuclear bomb?
LikeLike
true – I’m not saying what the dad said is reasonable – but you said “Now the parents of the dead teenager want the prosecutor to charge”
and that’s not what he said
LikeLike
No concept of boundaries nor of propriety?
“Liberty”, “Rights”, and “Carte Blanche” are NOT one and the same.
In this day and age where one can be crucified for merely as much as SAYING something that (allegedly) “violates” another, one would think that rigid a concept would also extend to the physical realm.
LikeLike
My aunt and uncle had a vacation house, with a fence around it, and a locked gate. While they were not there, someone else’s kid climbed the fence, climbed a tree in their yard, fell out, and broke his arm. The parents successfully sued my aunt and uncle for damages. And that was more than thirty years ago.
Just because it’s obviously wrong, doesn’t mean it won’t succeed…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“parents successfully sued my aunt and uncle for damages”
The ‘attractive nuisance’ doctrine… But what were your aunt and uncle supposed to do, install some kind of anti-tree climbing device so some little moron wouldn’t try to climb?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The ‘attractive nuisance’ doctrine…”
In my experience, doctrines as ill defined as the one linked are masks for sheer tyranny.
LikeLike
Cut down all the trees?
As I understand it, these cases are never about who is actually at fault, but rather, who is perceived to have more money, and whether or not the judge/jury feels bad enough for the alleged victim to engage in some wealth redistribution on that alleged victim’s behalf. It’s the “something bad happened: someone should pay!” feelz doctrine. I’m assuming that in order for that to happen, the kid was either uninsured, or there was some wacky clause in the family’s insurance that said any accidents that happen on someone else’s property are the responsibility of the property owner (via his homeowners’ insurance). The way the court system sees it, it’s not penalizing the homeowner, it’s just milking that guy’s homeowner’s insurance company for whatever they can get. Because someone deserves a payout, or something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This kind of garbage logic is accepted and celebrated on talk shows like “The View” and others like Jerry Springer, Ricki Lake etc. Meanwhile, we know that a significant portion of the population is so mentally labile that they take on the ideas from television programs without thinking about them.
If the whole US was happy to accept and celebrate mental garbage like those talk shows being broadcast when it is known that many people will have their thinking and logic mangled as a result, then why should anyone be the least bit surprised when it actually happens.
LikeLiked by 1 person