Boy stops train with van, takes pictures of emergency stop

[Anonymous]

That's unreal.

I wonder if the footage they got for their project was any good......
It's interesting to think what kind of a state of mind these guys were in to think that what they were doing wasn't wrong??

[pmsteamman]

The kids are lucky the train didnt derail, just throwing a train ( especially a very long one ) is not always a good thing to do. The slack could have run in and sent empty cars into the ditch. I understand why the engineer did it and would have done the same thing. I think they sould charge these kids with,1 tresspassing, 2 delaying a train, and then just plain knock them upside the head for being so dumb. Mind you this comes from someone who has hit 7 vechiles and sent two people to a early grave so I kinda am heated about this subject.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Aren't the parents really the ones at fault here? Dave Klepper

And I don't agree- The parents can not assume 100% of the blame, once again, we've taken the route of Blamming other people. The boy has to have a minimum age of 126 Granted or even 17 maybe 18, Most likely 18 because that type of project is somehting that is assighned in a senior year.

So were going to hold the parents responsible for somehting an 18 year old does?

I agree that f the kids are under 18 then the parents should know where their children are at all costs, but blamming the parents entirely? Thats grasping at straws, and if i was on a jury, that wouldn't fly with me.

Sure the child displayed Purile behavior, that was dangerous on almost every single level, i agree with that.

Kevin - in my state, the age of majority is 19. Yes, parents should be responsible until the child is 19. How they collect the $ from him is their decision.

Mook

I still disagree- if a 10 year old can be tried as an adult in cases like murder, then a 16-17 year old can sure as heck be tried as an adult in such a case.

[zardoz]

Those brats were lucky I was not at the controls of the train. I only set the brakes AFTER the impact. Why risk a derailment just to try and save someone who will do nothing but pollute the gene pool.


BTW-the dopes said to the cops they were taking pictures for a SAFETY project in health class? What was the subject/title of the project? How about:

The Stupidest Thing One Can Do With A Vehicle

An Example of Sheer Idiocy

Dumb and Dumber

Goodby Cruel World

Morons Are Us

#1 of the Top Ten Examples of Cerebrum Malfunction

Adventures of the Wit Brothers (Dim, Nit, & Half)

IQ? We Don't Need No Stinkin' IQ!

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Aren't the parents really the ones at fault here? Dave Klepper

And I don't agree- The parents can not assume 100% of the blame, once again, we've taken the route of Blamming other people. The boy has to have a minimum age of 126 Granted or even 17 maybe 18, Most likely 18 because that type of project is somehting that is assighned in a senior year.

So were going to hold the parents responsible for somehting an 18 year old does?

I agree that f the kids are under 18 then the parents should know where their children are at all costs, but blamming the parents entirely? Thats grasping at straws, and if i was on a jury, that wouldn't fly with me.

Sure the child displayed Purile behavior, that was dangerous on almost every single level, i agree with that.

Kevin - in my state, the age of majority is 19. Yes, parents should be responsible until the child is 19. How they collect the $ from him is their decision.

Mook

[rrnut282]

It does give proponents of a "parenting license" (you can have children only if you qualify) ammunition, doesn't it?
Anybody want to vote for 10 lashes on the public square for both kids and their parents?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Aren't the parents really the ones at fault here? Dave Klepper

And I don't agree- The parents can not assume 100% of the blame, once again, we've taken the route of Blamming other people. The boy has to have a minimum age of 126 Granted or even 17 maybe 18, Most likely 18 because that type of project is somehting that is assighned in a senior year.

So were going to hold the parents responsible for somehting an 18 year old does?

I agree that f the kids are under 18 then the parents should know where their children are at all costs, but blamming the parents entirely? Thats grasping at straws, and if i was on a jury, that wouldn't fly with me.

Sure the child displayed Purile behavior, that was dangerous on almost every single level, i agree with that.

[JoeKoh]

Parents should anty up the cash for the fines plus the cost of any delayed shipments.
stay safe
Joe

[Anonymous]

I agree also, if the parents where good parents you would think they wouldnt let these to boys go out and in dangered of getting killed!


Hi, I support Operation Lifesaver, you should to.[:)]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Aren't the parents really the ones at fault here? Dave Klepper

I agree - I think parents out to have to pony up the $ for damages on what their children do. Maybe there would be a little more parental guidence instead of just children furniture - you just move them from place to place.

Mook

Alas, if Mom or Dad give them a swat on the butt or a thorough reading of the riot act, some ninny will call the cops on them for physical or verbal abuse...[2c][soapbox][banghead]

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Aren't the parents really the ones at fault here? Dave Klepper

I agree - I think parents ought to have to pony up the $ for damages on what their children do. Maybe there would be a little more parental guidence instead of just children furniture - you just move them from place to place.

Mook

[daveklepper]

Aren't the parents really the ones at fault here? Dave Klepper

[Anonymous]

It's amazing how stupid some people can be! It's these kind of incidents that give a bad image of railfans to many in the public...let's hope these boys are taught a lesson!

[Anonymous]

I would of hated to be the boy left in the van, just to move it at the last second.

[dharmon]

Were either of the boys named Dougal or Doggy?[:)]

[Anonymous]

An Elk River boy is under investigation after stopping a vehicle on the railroad tracks and forcing a train to conduct an emergency stop.

The boy allegedly took pictures of the train while the engineer frantically worked to stop it, Beahen said.

The incident occurred at about 3:25 p.m. April 6, when the boy reportedly jumped out of a black van after parking it on the railroad tracks at Ogden Street.

The engineer on the train spotted the vehicle and sounded its horn before stopping the train after it became apparent the van wasn’t going to move.

Another person in the van moved it at the last minute, saving it from being hit by the train, which had been traveling eastbound at about 40 mph.

The train stopped just on the other side of the intersection in which the van had been stopped, Beahen said, and the engineer got the license plate number from the vehicle and confronted the boys.

The boys in the van were gone by the time officers arrived, and when officers went to the boy’s house, his little brother told them he was taking pictures as part of a safety project for a school health class.

Beahen said it is likely the boy will be charged with some crime in the incident.