Yesterday, I read Greg Hagen's most recent digression. I disagree with what he has to say. Here is my response.

Greg said, "Clearly, the people who removed the stop sign are not directly responsible for their deaths." My response to that is:

Well, pretty darn close to directly. That's like saying that if someone was walking around a mall with a chainsaw and they accidently cut down a tree which feel on a bunch of people and killed them that the person with the chainsaw is not directly responsible. What are you gonna say, that the people who got hit by the tree should have been more careful? No way. Just cuz their being extra careful might have saved their lives, it's still the chainsaw guy's fault. The people who died might have been stupid not to keep their eyes open, but that's besides the point.

There is no good excuse for stealing a stop sign. If a stop sign is stolen, it could lead to a death. Presumably, the intent of the people stealing the sign was not to kill, but they did kill. That's murder. It was a very irresponsible prank. (I think I meant involuntary manslaughter, not murder)

Greg said, "Assuming that the people in the car live in the area, surely they've been to that intersection before. And if they have never been to the intersection before, then that's all the more reason to at least slow down and move cautiously through the intersection." To which I reply:

Well, maybe they thought the stop sign that the perpendicular direction had and figured the perpendicular traffic would stop. I mean, if you are driving and you come to an intersection that you don't have a stop sign at, honestly, do you really slow down most of the time? If you think it's an uncontrolled intersection, you might, but usually if you come to an intersection where the other direction has a stop sign and you don't, then you assume that the other direction will yield to you.

Greg said, "In the story, it was mentioned that there was a building on the corner blocking visibility. That's even more reason for the people in the car to slow down as if there was a yield sign.", to which I reply:

Yes, but this is besides the point. The people who stole the stop sign are wrong and it's totally their fault. Surely they had no intentions to kill, but neither does a drunk driver. It's still murder. (Again, I think I meant involuntary manslaughter)

Greg said, "Regardless of these factors, I think that it is a general rule in most drivers' education books that at an uncontrolled intersection you at least slow down and only proceed when it is safe to do so.", to which I reply:

Well, like I said, maybe the driver thought he had the right of way.

Greg said, " I don't think it's the fault of the people who were playing the prank." To which I say:

How can you logically say this? How can it not be their fault? If they didn't steal the stop sign, the car would have stopped. To say that it's not their fault is to assume that the car would have ignored the stop sign and crashed anyway.

Greg says, "Sure, they should be punished, but 15 to 30 years is ridiculous." To which I say:

Maybe, but they should have thought of the consequences when they stole the stop sign. Maybe I'm being idealistic here, but they got what they deserve. They took a stupid chance by playing this prank and they screwed up their lives. Too bad for them. Hopefully other people will learn from their mistakes. Your logic seems to suggest that it's not such a bad thing if innocent people die because people play stupid irresponsible pranks. Which is worse, someone killing 5 people on purpose, or 10 people by accident because someone is doing something incredibly irresponsible. You seem to think that 5 is much worse than 10 in this case.

After reading my response, we had a loud debate in the computer lab. 4 or 5 of us were taking various sides of this argument. It was pretty funny. We should have thought to record it and put it on the internet for all to listen to.