Extreme Sports Journalist Dies... Should I Feel Sympathy?

[Shelton]

Three to four window washers die every year in this country. There are about 8,000 employed nationally. Those guys had it coming.

[shabba4detroit]

Man, I remember when the crocodile hunter died after getting stung by that fish. That guy had it coming. Same with those kids that were driving while texting.

I agree. But I think you were being sarcastic.

I consider these deaths to be life lessons for the rest of us. Safety first. Don't drive distracted. If you swim with the sting rays, you're gonna get stung. Mountain climbers fall, gravity kills. Frankly, at this point in my life, I save my real sympathy for those who die NOT due to their own general jackassery -- even if they're teenagers or cable tv stars.

[shabba4detroit]

Three to four window washers die every year in this country. There are about 8,000 employed nationally. Those guys had it coming.

It's a dangerous job and common sense should tell them that. If they die because they weren't taking proper safety precautions or not using proper safety equipment, then again, they died (something we'll all do) due to their own general jackassery.

[Oblong]

There's huge difference between being negligent/partially responsible/careless/etc. and 'deserving' something. A person that's not wearing their seatbelt that dies in a car accident, even if they didn't cause it, is at least partially at fault, if the seat belt would have saved their life. Does that mean they deserve it or had it coming? Absolutely not.

I think the guy from jackass dying is a good analogy to this.

[John_Brian_K]

I do not think anyone is or was saying anyone 'deserved it', it was a matter of sympathy. Do you sympathize a little less for someone who dies while pursing risky adventures? I do. I reserve EXTREME sympathy for those who, as shabba said, didn't die because of their own jackassery. Trying to compare mountain climbing with driving a car is foolish.

[lordstanley]

So is it jackassery to live in a city with a high crime rate?

[John_Brian_K]

So is it jackassery to live in a city with a high crime rate?

What is your definition of 'high'? It would all depend on the circumstances also. Everone on here was commenting on this specific case and other examples were thrown around. Every case deserves its own review.

Questions like these seem to be asked so the asker can say 'HA! You are a hypocrite then because of x,y and z!'

Give a specific example. Generally I will not correlate living in a high crime city with mountain climbing. One usually seems to be something that is semi forced (economic situation and not being able to afford to live in a better area) and the other is a chosen recreational activity for the purpose of seeking thrills.

[lordstanley]

What is your definition of 'high'? It would all depend on the circumstances also. Everone on here was commenting on this specific case and other examples were thrown around. Every case deserves its own review.

Questions like these seem to be asked so the asker can say 'HA! You are a hypocrite then because of x,y and z!'

Give a specific example. Generally I will not correlate living in a high crime city with mountain climbing. One usually seems to be something that is semi forced (economic situation and not being able to afford to live in a better area) and the other is a chosen recreational activity for the purpose of seeking thrills.

Nope, not a question designed so I can say Ha. I own a home in downtown Vancouver. Beautiful city - ocean 4 blocks away, mountains just across the inlet and accessible via a 20-minute drive away, wonderful Stanley Park 6 blocks away. Definitely a lifestyle choice, not economics, as a I would have a lot more living space for the same $ if I moved to the suburbs. However, Vancouver has one of the worst organized crime problems of any North American city. So lots of targeted hits, including one outside an upscale restaurant a block and a half away last month. Less often, the targeted hits go wrong and innocent bystanders are gunned down. Property crime (eg, car theft) is as bad as anywhere due to being a port city, although I'd say that's less worrisome than the violent crime. I love urban living - the choices, the buzz, the convenience - , but I do have a much higher chance of witnessing or being involved in a crime scene than I lived in a rural community or smaller city (I don't give much weight to misleading 'per capita' stats when one murder can skew a small city's crime rate dramatically). So while it's different than mountain climbing (I happen to spend a ton of time in the mountains and backcountry as well, but not climbing per se), how much different is it really? Do crime incidents just "come with the territory" of choosing to live in a dense urban setting?

[John_Brian_K]

Nope, not a question designed so I can say Ha. I own a home in downtown Vancouver. Beautiful city - ocean 4 blocks away, mountains just across the inlet and accessible via a 20-minute drive away, wonderful Stanley Park 6 blocks away. Definitely a lifestyle choice, not economics, as a I would have a lot more living space for the same $ if I moved to the suburbs. However, Vancouver has one of the worst organized crime problems of any North American city. So lots of targeted hits, including one outside an upscale restaurant a block and a half away last month. Less often, the targeted hits go wrong and innocent bystanders are gunned down. Property crime (eg, car theft) is as bad as anywhere due to being a port city, although I'd say that's less worrisome than the violent crime. I love urban living - the choices, the buzz, the convenience - , but I do have a much higher chance of witnessing or being involved in a crime scene than I lived in a rural community or smaller city (I don't give much weight to misleading 'per capita' stats when one murder can skew a small city's crime rate dramatically). So while it's different than mountain climbing (I happen to spend a ton of time in the mountains and backcountry as well, but not climbing per se), how much different is it really? Do crime incidents just "come with the territory" of choosing to live in a dense urban setting?

Generally I would say yes. You have a choice where to live as do I. I would hate to make this corelation with this specific topic though because I would almost always feel a good amount of sympathy for someone who was a victim of violent crime.

Just my opinion on it. Is living in a high crime area a calculated risk? To some extent, but again I see a crime as different than an accident....which is what I call an expert climber falling to his death.

I do not want my own opinions on this mixed with what others may be saying or thinking....the death is tragic either way and I am not saying he 'deserved it'...it is a matter of empathy/sympathy and not having as much for this person as ...say....like in your example a person walking down the street and getting shot and killed because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time....and even though that would be an 'accident' technically I still do not see it the same as I would a climber falling off a cliff. One has an external force at work (the shooter) the other was an accident.

[lordstanley]

I do not want my own opinions on this mixed with what others may be saying or thinking....the death is tragic either way and I am not saying he 'deserved it'...it is a matter of empathy/sympathy and not having as much for this person as ...say....like in your example a person walking down the street and getting shot and killed because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time....and even though that would be an 'accident' technically I still do not see it the same as I would a climber falling off a cliff. One has an external force at work (the shooter) the other was an accident.

I would agree with your post. As long as there's a difference between having sympathy or feeling that one deserved it.

I think there's also a difference between a mountain climber who pushes himself but who minimizes the risks as much as he can, keeps a sharp eye out for weather, is well-equipped, does his homework beforehand etc and someone who recklessly endangers his own life and those of rescuers by say wandering into the backcountry without any food and water or much clothing and without informing anyone beforehand. Even then, I've found rescue teams to be incredibly generous with their time and with a high capacity to forgive these mistakes - as long as the person rescued has learned his or her lesson and has a touch of humility. I've literally heard rescued thrill seekers trash-talking his rescuers as unneeded, while still on a stretcher! It's those cases I'd be tempted to drop back over the cliff.

[tiger337]

I have a certain amount of admiration for someone who engages in hobbies where he challenges himself. Why should I feel any less sympathy for this guy than someone who dies of a heart attack at an early age due to being overweight and not getting enough exercise?

[Shelton]

For an experienced "extreme sports" journalist, what is true level of risk that he undertook? No one was there. I doubt he got up that morning and thought to himself, I might die today but that's ok because I desire the recreational thrill of possibly dying.

The reason driving is considered low risk is because of the countless hours that we have spent learning to drive and building up the instincts for remaining safe. Yet people die every day doing it.

Just because rock climbing is high risk to you and me, doesn't mean it is for experienced climbers. This guy didn't start making these climbs without any training. He gained experience over time.

We don't hand the keys to a 15 year old and send them out onto the expressway. We don't tell a new skier to try out the double black diamond run.

Sure, if someone makes a conscious decision to do something blatantly stupid that has a good chance of resulting in death, then it becomes harder to feel bad, I guess. If a drunk driver kills himself without hurting anyone else, I wouldn't think much about it. If a criminal is shot dead during a robbery, so be it.

[John_Brian_K]

For an experienced "extreme sports" journalist, what is true level of risk that he undertook?

Good question. I could hazard a guess, but that helps nothing.

[Shelton]

Jbk, please clarify your distinction between accident and wrong place wrong time. Surely you don't think victims of accidental deaths deserve less sympathy.

What about a soldier that is killed because someone screwed up when handling a weapon in a non combat situation?

[John_Brian_K]

Jbk, please clarify your distinction between accident and wrong place wrong time. Surely you don't think victims of accidental deaths deserve less sympathy.

What about a soldier that is killed because someone screwed up when handling a weapon in a non combat situation?

I think I was pretty clear.

[Shelton]

"one is an external force at work, the other was an accident."

So that's where you draw the line?

[John_Brian_K]

"one is an external force at work, the other was an accident."

So that's where you draw the line?

There is no 'line'. Every case should be looked at, as objectively as possible. The world is far from black and white.

[shabba4detroit]

So is it jackassery to live in a city with a high crime rate?

No. It's jackassery to hijack a thread with ridiculous questions.

[Antrat]

That's a clown question, bro.

[Motor City Sonics]

I think the Croc Hunter guy was such a freak accident. Even though he was quite phony, I don't think he was super reckless - he knew what he was doing. The Sting Ray could have stung him in just about any other place on his body (including just about anywhere else on his chest) and he would have lived (would have hurt like hell) but it just got him directly in the right spot of the heart - it was so unbelievably freakish. You could have a Sting Ray hit him 1,000,000 times and not have the same result. I never saw him as much as a daredevil, but like a guy that tried to show a different side of animals.


Now daredevils on the other hand, I have no sympathy for. Yeah, you can call it death-defying, but you know what - death ALWAYS wins. Always (except for Fidel Castro).

[Shelton]

It's a dangerous job and common sense should tell them that. If they die because they weren't taking proper safety precautions or not using proper safety equipment, then again, they died (something we'll all do) due to their own general jackassery.

Yes, perhaps it is a dangerous job. Other dangerous jobs include police officers, fire fighters, fighter pilots, soldiers, etc. Should we withhold sympathy for every death related to those jobs?

The assumption appears to be that this climber's death was due to negligence on his part, or that the window washers' deaths were due to their own "jackassery." I don't think that's a very safe assumption.

Accidents happen all the time. They happen during things that are viewed as safe as well as things are viewed as dangerous, but that doesn't change the fact that but for the accident the person would still be alive. I don't see why victims of accidents should be afforded any less sympathy, but that appears to be the case here with this climber.

What about the Apollo 1 astronauts that died? What about the Challenger astronauts? What if the Apollo 13 astronauts died. Should we just shrug our shoulders?

[pfife]

I get what you are saying here, I just don't agree with it. Mostly because we do not have enough information about what he was doing. You say that driving is not dangerous if you follow the rules and use some sense, but is not if you are an idiot. An analogous statement could be made about climbing. Not everybody climbing (or participating in any other activity you deem unnecessary) is vociferously seeking death. The guy could have been doing little more than hiking, and fell off a cliff for all we know. He could also have been being stupid, but we do not know that. Painting people with so broad a brush is quite silly in my opinion.

Actually, there are many here that argued in the speed limit thread that it is driving on the freeway is dangerous if you don't go the speed of traffic, even if that speed is violating the rules.

[Greenwit]

One the one hand you have a death that occurred in pursuit of a dangerous recreational activity, one among many he engaged in. On the other hand you have deaths that occurred in the service of others. I have sympathy for the latter group who tried to make life better for others. Ybarra's death is one mourned by those he left behind in pursuit of a selfish pleasures. The difference is pretty stark.

[Shelton]

So it's the recreational aspect that makes it ok to withhold sympathy?

21 college football players have died during conditioning since 2000. Did they have it coming?

[pfife]

I have a certain amount of admiration for someone who engages in hobbies where he challenges himself. Why should I feel any less sympathy for this guy than someone who dies of a heart attack at an early age due to being overweight and not getting enough exercise?

or a smoker who dies from a smoking related disease?

[pfife]

One the one hand you have a death that occurred in pursuit of a dangerous recreational activity, one among many he engaged in. On the other hand you have deaths that occurred in the service of others. I have sympathy for the latter group who tried to make life better for others. Ybarra's death is one mourned by those he left behind in pursuit of a selfish pleasures. The difference is pretty stark.

I fully agree with this distinction - if it fits. I didn't read the article, but it says in the thread title he was a journalist? Presumably there was enough of a market for his services to which he could make a living? Is it therefore accurate to suggest he was not serving others? I don't know, just wondering

[Greenwit]

So it's the recreational aspect that makes it ok to withhold sympathy?

21 college football players have died during conditioning since 2000. Did they have it coming?

Give all the sympathy you want Shelton. I didn't know Ybarra or any of the football players you speak of. And neither do you.We have no connection to them. Just because Ybarra gets his name in the paper somehow draws you to be sympathetic? The public service aspect of the deaths of the others given as case in points here make their deaths different.

[Shelton]

I didn't start the thread making arguments about how this particular person had it coming so to speak. I'm not sure why anyone would read this and think that "hey, this guy doesn't deserve my sympathy; I'm going to start a thread to see who agrees with me."

I don't know, when I hear that someone has died, whether through an article like this or word of mouth, I think it sucks. I'm not usually looking for reasons to downplay that.

But you are right, you and I don't know these people. I'm not asking anyone to proactively feel sympathy. Just seems a bit callous to outright withhold it.