What is "MY LOCAL MENUS" All About?? >> CLICK HERE

Jump to content
GoDuBois.com
LFG

Latest idiotic "challenge"

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Bon said:

:duh: why would he do that!!! I'm sure he saw it on the internet, so did he see the results of other dumb asses?!? That boy will be damn lucky if he survives!!

It's insane, and there are videos on YouTube of others doing the same thing. 

Look, we all know how much I like attention, but I've never felt the urge to light myself on fire.

By the way, Bon, you know how to post those full stories, too. Can you post that one here so people don't have to click the link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPARTANBURG, S.C. —

A 12-year-old boy was flown to Augusta Burn Center after he was burned during an internet challenge attempt, fire officials said.

Fire Marshall Brad Hall said 40 percent of the boy's body was burned in a fire that started when he was attempting to participate in a popular YouTube challenge.

 

The "alcohol challenge" involves putting rubbing alcohol on your body and lighting it on fire.

Hall said the Fire Department came to that conclusion after talking to the boy's friends.

Hall said the boy was home alone when it happened.

The fire started around noon in the bathroom area of a home on La Salle Court in Spartanburg, fire officials said.

WYFF-TV
Spartanburg City Fire

The fire damaged items in the bathroom, but did not damage the structure of the home.

WYFF-TV
Spartanburg City Fire

The boy ran out of the house to Cornerstone Baptist Church on South Converse Street.

He was airlifted by Greenville Health System to the Augusta Burn Center with severe burns over half of his body, fire officials said.

WYFF-TV
Spartanburg City Fire

His condition is unknown.


To achieve the title of old and wise, you must first be young and dumb :P

 

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, WMJ77 said:

SPARTANBURG, S.C. —

A 12-year-old boy was flown to Augusta Burn Center after he was burned during an internet challenge attempt, fire officials said.

Fire Marshall Brad Hall said 40 percent of the boy's body was burned in a fire that started when he was attempting to participate in a popular YouTube challenge.

 

The "alcohol challenge" involves putting rubbing alcohol on your body and lighting it on fire.

Hall said the Fire Department came to that conclusion after talking to the boy's friends.

Hall said the boy was home alone when it happened.

The fire started around noon in the bathroom area of a home on La Salle Court in Spartanburg, fire officials said.

WYFF-TV
Spartanburg City Fire

The fire damaged items in the bathroom, but did not damage the structure of the home.

WYFF-TV
Spartanburg City Fire

The boy ran out of the house to Cornerstone Baptist Church on South Converse Street.

He was airlifted by Greenville Health System to the Augusta Burn Center with severe burns over half of his body, fire officials said.

WYFF-TV
Spartanburg City Fire

His condition is unknown.

On the local news last night they said that when first responders entered the home, the freezer door was open and items from the freezer were in the bathtub. Apparently the kid tried to cool himself off before running outside for help. He ran two blocks to the church, neighbors said they could hear him screaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lupara said:

Trace the origin of this challenge and charge the criminals.

Most of these 'challenges' aren't really new.  Might have to chase this one back a few centuries.   Guys were doing the alcohol burn 30+ years ago when I was in high school and college...way before the internet.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, michael880 said:

He had a choice an aborted baby doesn't. So stupid

 I hope you never have a child that  does something stupid and catches on fire and you have to face your own hypocrisy.  Maybe you'll stick to your guns and let him burn, who knows? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Illiterate said:

Most of these 'challenges' aren't really new.  Might have to chase this one back a few centuries.   Guys were doing the alcohol burn 30+ years ago when I was in high school and college...way before the internet.   

You said it. The internet. Times have changed to where an unknown stranger can dare a minor into self destruction. You can't grandfather that in. They should be found and prosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lupara said:

You said it. The internet. Times have changed to where an unknown stranger can dare a minor into self destruction. You can't grandfather that in. They should be found and prosecuted.

Which law would you prosecute them under?  Accessory to stupidity?  As sad as it is there isn't a law against being stupid.  Yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, conservativeman633 said:

one bottom line here-------------the internet has great influence over a segment of the population, and this lends itself to manipulation. Sometimes only one person is affected,--sometimes millions.

Every media form falls under that concept....print, radio, music, tv....you name it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hipower said:

Which law would you prosecute them under?  Accessory to stupidity?  As sad as it is there isn't a law against being stupid.  Yet.

I don't believe that is a law if your question is serious. If your kidding, I'm not feeling the levity around what happened to this boy. I'm neither a District Attorney or Law Enforcement so I don't know how many charges could be levied. Reckless endangerment comes to mind.

From US Legal.com

Reckless Endangerment Law and Legal Definition

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse. State laws and penalties vary, so local laws should be consulted.

 

If criminal recourse isn't available then civil or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lupara said:

I don't believe that is a law if your question is serious. If your kidding, I'm not feeling the levity around what happened to this boy. I'm neither a District Attorney or Law Enforcement so I don't know how many charges could be levied. Reckless endangerment comes to mind.

From US Legal.com

Reckless Endangerment Law and Legal Definition

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse. State laws and penalties vary, so local laws should be consulted.

 

If criminal recourse isn't available then civil or both.

There was no kidding involved.  What crime we could charge someone is a valid question and may be addressed by reckless endangerment as you posted.   I wonder how much direct involvement must be proven to make that a valid charge?  It might prove to be a pretty difficult case to make legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, hipower said:

There was no kidding involved.  What crime we could charge someone is a valid question and may be addressed by reckless endangerment as you posted.   I wonder how much direct involvement must be proven to make that a valid charge?  It might prove to be a pretty difficult case to make legally.

 If the extent of direct involvement were a requisite, it would appear in the definition. In legalese, I believe this is called a slam dunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lupara said:

 

 If the extent of direct involvement were a requisite, it would appear in the definition. In legalese, I believe this is called a slam dunk.

Possibly, but a jury could see it differently.  Hard to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lupara said:

 

 If the extent of direct involvement were a requisite, it would appear in the definition. In legalese, I believe this is called a slam dunk.

Who do you charge? YouTube? The kid with the oldest video on YouTube? Anyone who posted or reacted to a video on YouTube? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LFG said:

Who do you charge? YouTube? The kid with the oldest video on YouTube? Anyone who posted or reacted to a video on YouTube? 

 

Whomever initiated "The alcohol challenge" on YouTube that this kid watched. That "challenge" puts them on the hook for reckless endangerment as well it should. No intent to do harm needed. Read the law again asking why it was written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lupara said:

Whomever initiated "The alcohol challenge" on YouTube that this kid watched. That "challenge" puts them on the hook for reckless endangerment as well it should. No intent to do harm needed. Read the law again asking why it was written. 

I understand that, and I would love to assign blame to someone so that they could be punished, but how do you find the person that initiated the challenge? That's why I asked if you charged the person with the oldest video. The first video posted could have been removed by the person who posted it, it could have started on FB, etc... No doubt there had to be a first, but how do you find it and prove it was first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LFG said:

I understand that, and I would love to assign blame to someone so that they could be punished, but how do you find the person that initiated the challenge? That's why I asked if you charged the person with the oldest video. The first video posted could have been removed by the person who posted it, it could have started on FB, etc... No doubt there had to be a first, but how do you find it and prove it was first?

First, it's not punishment per se. It's prevention as well .The boy. His computer perhaps. I suggested finding the originators . Whether they can, I don't know. Just the news of the investigation into actions taken by YouTubers may foster more caution in what these kids post up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×