|
|
|
|
|
by tantalor
304 days ago
|
|
> they were in some sense negligent considering the environment in which they live Criminal negligence involves a "gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation". Given the 7-year-old was escorted by a 10-year-old, I think that alone demonstrates a reasonable level of care was taken to protect the younger child. If the streets are too dangerous for a 10-year-old to cross safely, then you need to look a lot deeper for the true source of the risk. |
|
> West Hudson Boulevard is a high-speed arterial road with narrow sidewalks, a tiny median, and no truly safe crossings. Even a healthy, alert adult is taking their life in their hands by walking to that store. For a child, it’s playing the worst kind of roulette.
The fact that it did have a sidewalk, even a narrow one means that it's meant for walking. If it's unsafe then the existence of the sidewalk is only asking for trouble. It either has a sidewalk and is safe, or it isn't safe and shouldn't have a sidewalk. Having a sidewalk and being unsafe is the fault of the city/construction not the user.
Claiming a child was playing with roulette amounts to it also implying that lethal roulette games for kids is something that should be legal.