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

[LineCrosser]

Michael Ybarra Dead: Extreme Sports Writer Falls To Death While Climbing In Yosemite (PHOTOS)

An extreme-sports journalist who faced danger head-on again and again tragically died on a rugged climb Sunday.

Michael J. Ybarra, an experienced mountaineer, was climbing alone in Yosemite's Sawtooth Ridge when he fell 150 to 200 feet to his death, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The area of the Sierra Nevadas was without trails and only traversed by veteran climbers. After Ybarra, 45, did not return a friend's calls, emails or texts Sunday night, the friend contacted search-and-rescue personnel Monday, the Wall Street Journal reports.

A multi-agency search team could not find the climber Monday so a National Guard crew assisted the search via a Blackhawk helicopter, KRNY reports. The helicopter crew located Ybarra's body on the steep western flank between Cleaver Peak and Matterhorn Peak, the tallest peak in the Sawtooth Ridge. Although the body was found Tuesday, a helicopter was not available to airlift it out until Wednesday, the Times reports.

I consider myself a very compassionate person. But when I see something like this, all I can think is... "well, what the hell did you expect?"

I understand that different people have different personalities, and likely brain chemicals present that make them danger-seekers... but if you seek danger, and find it, I say you got what you were looking for.

I feel bad for his family and friends, but not completely if they wholeheartedly supported his facing death for pleasure.

This sort of reminds me of the guy in the documentary "Grizzly Man" (although I think he was actually a bit insane). He thought he was the master/friend of fierce beasts. Then they ate him (and his novice girlfriend who was duped by the guy into believing his mastery of savage nature). If a bear finds its way into a populated area and attacks a human, I feel horror and revulsion. That guy, I feel, deserved his fate.

And is this how the National Guard should be spending their resources? Cleaning up a mess for a guy who sought thrills and got in way over his head?

Am I being too hard on the guy?

[RedRamage]

Am I being too hard on the guy?

I don't feel sympathy for him. This is how he choose to life and he understood the risks involved. Sorry, but that happens.

And is this how the National Guard should be spending their resources? Cleaning up a mess for a guy who sought thrills and got in way over his head?

I don't have a problem with this. This is part of their job and honesty probably ended up being a good training exercise.

[Oblong]

Michael Ybarra Dead: Extreme Sports Writer Falls To Death While Climbing In Yosemite (PHOTOS)



I consider myself a very compassionate person. But when I see something like this, all I can think is... "well, what the hell did you expect?"

I understand that different people have different personalities, and likely brain chemicals present that make them danger-seekers... but if you seek danger, and find it, I say you got what you were looking for.

I feel bad for his family and friends, but not completely if they wholeheartedly supported his facing death for pleasure.

This sort of reminds me of the guy in the documentary "Grizzly Man" (although I think he was actually a bit insane). He thought he was the master/friend of fierce beasts. Then they ate him (and his novice girlfriend who was duped by the guy into believing his mastery of savage nature). If a bear finds its way into a populated area and attacks a human, I feel horror and revulsion. That guy, I feel, deserved his fate.

And is this how the National Guard should be spending their resources? Cleaning up a mess for a guy who sought thrills and got in way over his head?

Am I being too hard on the guy?

That was my initial thought too. So now these national guard people have to risk their lives to go get this guy's body from a place that it's not supposed to be.

I feel as bad as I would if a guy stood next to a target for a sharpshooter in a game and the sharpshooter missed. He was playing chicken and he lost.

[Oblong]

I don't have a problem with this. This is part of their job and honesty probably ended up being a good training exercise.

The way I see it, it's similar to the people who go ice fishing in March when it's 50 degrees and we have to send people out there to get them. Another analogy would be a guy in a restaurant trying to balance a beverage on his nose and he fails, spilling the beverage and breaking the glass all over the floor. Yes it's the staff's job to clean it up but still something they shouldnt' have had to do in teh first place.

I'll save my sympathy for real tragedies. What happened to this guy wasn't a tragedy.

[Walt]

You are also taking a calculated risk when you get into a car and drive down the road. If a drunk driver hits somebody head on and kills an entire family, should I feel sympathy? They knew their risks. Driving a car is dangerous, and they found danger.

If you don't agree with somebody's choices, that's fine. But it doesn't appear to me that he did anything negligent, with the exception of climbing alone. I feel more sympathy for this guy than my imaginary drunk driver above. Realistically, the guy is dead, so he doesn't need your sympathy. Mine goes to his family.

[LineCrosser]

You are also taking a calculated risk when you get into a car and drive down the road. If a drunk driver hits somebody head on and kills an entire family, should I feel sympathy? They knew their risks. Driving a car is dangerous, and they found danger.

I was wondering if someone was going to make this argument. It doesn't jibe with me. Driving a car is not inherently dangerous, and, overwhelmingly, those that do it aren't seeking thrills or attempting to defy death. They are simply trying to get places efficiently. And if everyone follows the rules (obeys traffic laws, doesn't alter their senses, etc.), then it's a very safe activity.

And before anyone goes there, neither is walking down the street where a bus might hit you.

[John_Brian_K]

Am I being too hard on the guy?

No you are not. I feel the same when I see tragedies involving stupid people (the story in the 4th of July thread about a guy blowing his fingers off is a good example). Darwin in effect with those. This guy may have been a smart guy, but just had that bug for thrills. Either way he made his bed.

[Walt]

I was wondering if someone was going to make this argument. It doesn't jibe with me. Driving a car is not inherently dangerous, and, overwhelmingly, those that do it aren't seeking thrills or attempting to defy death. They are simply trying to get places efficiently. And if everyone follows the rules (obeys traffic laws, doesn't alter their senses, etc.), then it's a very safe activity.

And before anyone goes there, neither is walking down the street where a bus might hit you.

You are taking your perception of things and claiming that they are facts. You can do everything right and get killed driving. Just because you do not feel in danger doesn't make an activity safe.

[LineCrosser]

You are taking your perception of things and claiming that they are facts. You can do everything right and get killed driving. Just because you do not feel in danger doesn't make an activity safe.

What did I say that wasn't a fact?

I never said you couldn't get killed while driving. You can get killed doing absolutely everything. That's not my point at all.

My point is that when you seek out completely unnecessary leisure activities that could very easily lead to death, then I don't feel sympathy for your getting what you so vociferously asked for.

[Walt]

What did I say that wasn't a fact?

I never said you couldn't get killed while driving. You can get killed doing absolutely everything. That's not my point at all.

My point is that when you seek out completely unnecessary leisure activities that could very easily lead to death, then I don't feel sympathy for your getting what you so vociferously asked for.

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.

[LineCrosser]

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.

I can agree that maybe I'm painting with a bit broader brush than perhaps I should. After all, I didn't know him personally.

But to also be fair, the article uses phrases like "extreme-sports journalist," "experienced mountaineer," and "only traversed by veteran climbers." So there's no reason to believe that this was an innocent hiker who ended up falling off a cliff.

And I'd like to suggest that maybe we get off the driving analogy, because I don't think it fits this situation at all.

[Walt]

I can agree that maybe I'm painting with a bit broader brush than perhaps I should. After all, I didn't know him personally.

But to also be fair, the article uses phrases like "extreme-sports journalist," "experienced mountaineer," and "only traversed by veteran climbers." So there's no reason to believe that this was an innocent hiker who ended up falling off a cliff.

And I'd like to suggest that maybe we get off the driving analogy, because I don't think it fits this situation at all.

I think that people in general have this idea that "Extreme Sports" folks all have a death wish. Some do. I think the vast majority do not. Climbing is a good way to exercise, and see nature. Participating in any activity above your skill level has the inherent risk of injury. This guy seemed quite skilled, as he was an "extreme-sports journalist" and an "experienced mountaineer."

I have never understood the mentality of the "serves him right, he got what he was asking for" crowd. We all value experiences differently. Just because one cannot understand someone else's formulation of the mental risk-reward calculation doesn't immediately make it invalid. I have participated in some very risky activities, and have been greatly rewarded for them, and even been injured. I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything however.

[Melody]

Got a family member who has been in a nursing home for over seven years now. I guess there are worse ways to leave this world than the one this guy took. Probably cheaper when its all said and done as well.

Like Walt, my sympathies are for his family who, I'm certain, loved and miss him very much.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I read the book 'Between a Rock and a Hard Place', which the movie 127 Hours was based on.

Something not covered in the movie is Aron Ralston (the main character) was quite an accomplished mountaineer and have several brushes with death before his accident in the canyon where he was trapped, and despite being what most would consider intelligent / well educated, he admits in retrospect he was a thrill seeker who had a death wish (his words). He would often climb alone despite knowing the risks (and climbing difficult peaks alone is quite risky). I wonder if this fellow is in the same boat.

[DTroppens]

He did what he wanted to and knew the risks and rewards. That's how it goes.

I pretty much tell everyone if I die doing something stupid, you have the right say, "And what the (blankety blank) was he thinking. He deserved to die" and just have a good laugh about it.

[Walt]

He did what he wanted to and knew the risks and rewards. That's how it goes.

I pretty much tell everyone if I die doing something stupid, you have the right say, "And what the (blankety blank) was he thinking. He deserved to die" and just have a good laugh about it.

Unless the person was doing something despicable (murder, torture, molesting children) I find it difficult to decide that somebody "deserved to die" by living their life as they saw fit. No offense to anyone here, but I find it rather ignorant to deem somebody worthy of death.

[John_Brian_K]

Got a family member who has been in a nursing home for over seven years now. I guess there are worse ways to leave this world than the one this guy took. Probably cheaper when its all said and done as well.

Like Walt, my sympathies are for his family who, I'm certain, loved and miss him very much.

I think linecrosser said he felt bad for the family as well..., but that he is leaving his full sympathies for tragedies taht were not sought out.

[ewsieg]

He did what he wanted to and knew the risks and rewards. That's how it goes.

This is how I feel as well. I mean some people are just idiots. Rock climbing? Seriously? He's right up there with kids that enlist in the army or people that actually want to chase bad guys for a living. They die, oh well, they knew it could happen.

[Oblong]

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.

Your driving analogy only works if the hiker was pushed off by another hiker. Driving serves a purpose. To get you from point A to point B.

[Walt]

Your driving analogy only works if the hiker was pushed off by another hiker. Driving serves a purpose. To get you from point A to point B.

The analogy doesn't imply the cause of any danger, you are the one putting it there. As far as a purpose being served, why isn't entertaining oneself a purpose?

[RedRamage]

You are also taking a calculated risk when you get into a car and drive down the road. If a drunk driver hits somebody head on and kills an entire family, should I feel sympathy? They knew their risks. Driving a car is dangerous, and they found danger.

I think the key is what you wrote that I bolded. There is a risk in just about everything we do. Heck, this morning I got in the shower while the rest of my family was sleeping. I could have dropped the bar soap, slipped on it, cracked my head open and bled to death while they slept just a few feet away. To be safe I should have at least woken up my wife so she could "spot me" and make sure I didn't have an accident like this. But of course the possibility of this is extremely remote at best. When you think of the millions of showers that are taken every day across just the state, how many result in a death? Could it happen? Sure... but a shower is, generally speaking, a pretty darn safe thing. I'm more than willing to accept the very slight risk of taking a shower alone to get the benefit of not having to wake up my wife (who would be grumby with me to say the least) or go to work smelling bad.

Driving is of course dangerous. People can, and do, die. But again, the benefit of driving vastly outweighs the relatively minor risk involved.

How does this compare with climbing a alone? Well, the calculated risk, in my opinion, isn't worth the benefit. The danger is just too high. Now, I'm saying don't do it. Everyone values different things differently. But if you do it and die, I'm not going to say it's a tragedy or anything. You knew the risks... for you, it was worth it... okay. That's fine. Most of us disagree.

[Walt]

I think the key is what you wrote that I bolded. There is a risk in just about everything we do. Heck, this morning I got in the shower while the rest of my family was sleeping. I could have dropped the bar soap, slipped on it, cracked my head open and bled to death while they slept just a few feet away. To be safe I should have at least woken up my wife so she could "spot me" and make sure I didn't have an accident like this. But of course the possibility of this is extremely remote at best. When you think of the millions of showers that are taken every day across just the state, how many result in a death? Could it happen? Sure... but a shower is, generally speaking, a pretty darn safe thing. I'm more than willing to accept the very slight risk of taking a shower alone to get the benefit of not having to wake up my wife (who would be grumby with me to say the least) or go to work smelling bad.

Driving is of course dangerous. People can, and do, die. But again, the benefit of driving vastly outweighs the relatively minor risk involved.

How does this compare with climbing a alone? Well, the calculated risk, in my opinion, isn't worth the benefit. The danger is just too high. Now, I'm saying don't do it. Everyone values different things differently. But if you do it and die, I'm not going to say it's a tragedy or anything. You knew the risks... for you, it was worth it... okay. That's fine. Most of us disagree.

Well, we agree on a couple things here. The first is don't drop the soap. I also agree with the majority of the last paragraph. I think most people exaggerate how dangerous some of these activities are when forming an opinion on them. The guy died doing what he apparently enjoyed doing. As I said before, unless he was doing something monstrous, I find it hard to proclaim that he deserved to die.

Edit: I am not saying that LC posted this to say the chap deserved to die either.

[DTroppens]

Unless the person was doing something despicable (murder, torture, molesting children) I find it difficult to decide that somebody "deserved to die" by living their life as they saw fit. No offense to anyone here, but I find it rather ignorant to deem somebody worthy of death.

Cool, this has to be my favorite response I've seen about one of my comments in a long time.


But if I think you asked the guy before his death (and I'm sure it came up at one time) that he knew the risks of what he was doing. He understood these were risks he was taking above and beyond regular life and was willing to do it to enjoy life. If he died doing that, great for him. We're all going to die. He died doing something he wanted to do. It's too bad he died. But I don't feel bad for him because, yeah, he did what he wanted to do. Once again, great for him.

And the silly part is, I think I said the "deserve to die" about my own self. I've been known to do some silly things are plain dumb to do. And I do these things without really any knowledge or training. I'll just be there and say "Hey, there's supposed to be a tornado in Fenton, let's go look for it." Believe me, if I'm on my death bed and you come up to me and say, "Dave, I'm sorry to see you like this, but that was one stupid (quote filled with those words we can't say here) thing you did. Gosh you are stupid." I'd probably just laugh and say "Yeah, you are right." After hearing family stories, my wife is convinced I had three other brothers and sisters but they just died in the process of being a Troppens.

[lordstanley]

I am almost certain that Michael J. Ybarra would have never asked for your sympathy.

[John_Brian_K]

I think the key is what you wrote that I bolded. There is a risk in just about everything we do. Heck, this morning I got in the shower while the rest of my family was sleeping. I could have dropped the bar soap, slipped on it, cracked my head open and bled to death while they slept just a few feet away. To be safe I should have at least woken up my wife so she could "spot me" and make sure I didn't have an accident like this. But of course the possibility of this is extremely remote at best. When you think of the millions of showers that are taken every day across just the state, how many result in a death? Could it happen? Sure... but a shower is, generally speaking, a pretty darn safe thing. I'm more than willing to accept the very slight risk of taking a shower alone to get the benefit of not having to wake up my wife (who would be grumby with me to say the least) or go to work smelling bad.

Driving is of course dangerous. People can, and do, die. But again, the benefit of driving vastly outweighs the relatively minor risk involved.

How does this compare with climbing a alone? Well, the calculated risk, in my opinion, isn't worth the benefit. The danger is just too high. Now, I'm saying don't do it. Everyone values different things differently. But if you do it and die, I'm not going to say it's a tragedy or anything. You knew the risks... for you, it was worth it... okay. That's fine. Most of us disagree.

This is a perfect response IMO.

[DTroppens]

This is how I feel as well. I mean some people are just idiots. Rock climbing? Seriously? He's right up there with kids that enlist in the army or people that actually want to chase bad guys for a living. They die, oh well, they knew it could happen.

First off, I have a great friend that's in harm's way frequently right now. He just posted on his facebook page for us to honor one of his killed brothers. Of course, I did. And whenever anyone on his facebook page says they are going back on active duty, I always tell them to be safe and that we are proud of them.

But if you think someone climbing rocks and someone that must deal with combat for a living is the same, then this isn't even worthy of discussion. We just aren't going to reach a middle ground to even create a worthy discussion.

[Walt]

This is a perfect response IMO.

JBK knows about not dropping the soap too.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

But if you think someone climbing rocks and someone that must deal with combat for a living is the same, then this isn't even worthy of discussion. We just aren't going to reach a middle ground to even create a worthy discussion.

I read it to mean that both activities are clearly dangerous, so if one is lambasted solely for doing something dangerous then some of the same criticism might be applied to soldiers, even if their motivation is patriotism rather than entertainment.

[chasfh]

Michael Ybarra Dead: Extreme Sports Writer Falls To Death While Climbing In Yosemite (PHOTOS)



I consider myself a very compassionate person. But when I see something like this, all I can think is... "well, what the hell did you expect?"

I understand that different people have different personalities, and likely brain chemicals present that make them danger-seekers... but if you seek danger, and find it, I say you got what you were looking for.

I feel bad for his family and friends, but not completely if they wholeheartedly supported his facing death for pleasure.

This sort of reminds me of the guy in the documentary "Grizzly Man" (although I think he was actually a bit insane). He thought he was the master/friend of fierce beasts. Then they ate him (and his novice girlfriend who was duped by the guy into believing his mastery of savage nature). If a bear finds its way into a populated area and attacks a human, I feel horror and revulsion. That guy, I feel, deserved his fate.

And is this how the National Guard should be spending their resources? Cleaning up a mess for a guy who sought thrills and got in way over his head?

Am I being too hard on the guy?

If you are withholding all compassion for him for his death because it occuirred during this activity, and to the degree you are equating mountain climbing with consorting face to face with fierce wild beasts, then I would say yes, you are being a bit harsh -- especially since we have no details about exactly how his death occurred.

Mountain climbing is not a risk-free activity by any means, but it has evolved to become a legitimate and safe activity when done with proper preparation and undertaken with appropriate precautions. Some people throughout history mountain climbed for decades without dying as a result. But as with any activity you may have properly prepared for, any number of things could go horribly wrong, perhaps related to human error, perhaps not. Because we have no details on his death as of yet, we don't know that he did not take every single precaution and prepatation step needed to have a successful climb.

Think about it this way: I play baseball, hardball, on the weekends. If during an at bat a pitcher threw one up and in that catches me in the face, breaks my jaw, knocks out several teeth, necessitates multiple surgeries to repair it, and leads to my going on a liquid diet of mush for months, would I have gotten what I deserved? After all, this is a known risk of playing hardball, yet I seek this thrilling experience despite the potential danger involved. If you believe Ybarra got what he deserved, would you not have to conclude I would have gotten what I deserve as well?

I see Grizzly Man as being a different case because he undertook his activity without any proper training or precautions, acting instead only on faith that he had some magic ability to tame wild beasts. In that case, I think one could be forgiven for believing Grizzly Man got what he deserved, although what he probably really deserved was hospitalization in a mental health or head trauma facility.

Again, this all assumes that Ybarra took all the same necessary precautions that all mountain climbers before they take off. If we learn he willfully disregarded critical preparation steps or appropriate precautions, that's something a bit different. In that case I think you could be justifiably harsh in your judgment.

[Greenwit]

I am almost certain that Michael J. Ybarra would have never asked for your sympathy.

Agreed. Driving a car isn't considered 'risky behavior.' Climbing Yosemite is. As are all the other extreme sports this person participated in. No sympathy. But one can say he lived a full life which isn't a bad thing.

When Death Is Merely a Paddle Stroke Away | By Michael J. Ybarra - WSJ.com

[LineCrosser]

If you are withholding all compassion for him for his death because it occuirred during this activity, and to the degree you are equating mountain climbing with consorting face to face with fierce wild beasts, then I would say yes, you are being a bit harsh -- especially since we have no details about exactly how his death occurred.

Mountain climbing is not a risk-free activity by any means, but it has evolved to become a legitimate and safe activity when done with proper preparation and undertaken with appropriate precautions. Some people throughout history mountain climbed for decades without dying as a result. But as with any activity you may have properly prepared for, any number of things could go horribly wrong, perhaps related to human error, perhaps not. Because we have no details on his death as of yet, we don't know that he did not take every single precaution and prepatation step needed to have a successful climb.

Think about it this way: I play baseball, hardball, on the weekends. If during an at bat a pitcher threw one up and in that catches me in the face, breaks my jaw, knocks out several teeth, necessitates multiple surgeries to repair it, and leads to my going on a liquid diet of mush for months, would I have gotten what I deserved? After all, this is a known risk of playing hardball, yet I seek this thrilling experience despite the potential danger involved. If you believe Ybarra got what he deserved, would you not have to conclude I would have gotten what I deserve as well?

I see Grizzly Man as being a different case because he undertook his activity without any proper training or precautions, acting instead only on faith that he had some magic ability to tame wild beasts. In that case, I think one could be forgiven for believing Grizzly Man got what he deserved, although what he probably really deserved was hospitalization in a mental health or head trauma facility.

Again, this all assumes that Ybarra took all the same necessary precautions that all mountain climbers before they take off. If we learn he willfully disregarded critical preparation steps or appropriate precautions, that's something a bit different. In that case I think you could be justifiably harsh in your judgment.

While I did say that the Grizzly Man got what he deserved, I really didn't use that language regarding Ybarra. I contend there's a difference between feeling he could reasonably expect that this could happen, versus actually deserving that it should happen.

I'm certainly not experienced in climbing, but if this was an area that was dangerous enough to only be "traversed by veteran climbers," then I have a hard time believing that climbing such rugged terrain alone was "done with proper preparation and undertaken with appropriate precautions." If there are expert climbers out there who can tell me otherwise, then I guess I'll take their word for it. As nerdiness is my only tool in this arena, a cursory Googling of mountain climbing advice seems to indicate that one of the first and most important rules of mountain climbing is to never ever go alone.

Regardless, he's described as an "extreme-sports journalist who faced danger head-on again and again." If that description is apt, then even if he's taking some precaution, he's willfully engaging in activities that are dangerous, and obviously potentially deadly.. likely because they're dangerous and potentially deadly. This doesn't sound like "rock climbing," which is probably more likely to be described as a legitimate and safer activity than what he was doing. He did, after all, fall 150 to 200 feet. Granted, the story doesn't indicate whether he was using proper harnesses, pitons, carabiners, etc., and if so, whether his equipment failed. But he was engaging in something he had to well aware could quite easily claim his life.

As for the baseball analogy, while I feel it's a more legitimate comparison than normal driving, I don't consider a true analogy. The purpose of hitting in baseball is to hit safely and score runs (take that Ryan Raburn!), not to seek dangerous thrills and tempt death, as these extreme sports are often used to do. Perhaps if your league's rules involved you standing in front of a target at home plate while the pitcher intentionally tries to bean you at 90 mph, and the goal is to stand there as long as you can while ducking away from the pitch at the last moment, in the hopes that your adrenaline rush will only demand that the next one comes at your head at 95... then maybe the analogy might be truer.

[DTroppens]

I read it to mean that both activities are clearly dangerous, so if one is lambasted solely for doing something dangerous then some of the same criticism might be applied to soldiers, even if their motivation is patriotism rather than entertainment.

Then again, rereading it, maybe he was supporting my initial post but threw some sarcasim in there while doing it for others. I'll have to wait to see what ewsieg says I guess. If I missed his mark, I apologize for the post, albeit not a mean post - just saying we were two different sides of the argument.

Either way I would never equate a thrill-seeker's death doing his thrill-seeking ventures equal with a solider doing what he feels is his responsibility and duty.

[John_Brian_K]

Either way I would never equate a thrill-seeker's death doing his thrill-seeking ventures equal with a solider doing what he feels is his responsibility and duty.

Me neither and I am surprised this is being debated, honestly.

[Walt]

Then again, rereading it, maybe he was supporting my initial post but threw some sarcasim in there while doing it for others. I'll have to wait to see what ewsieg says I guess. If I missed his mark, I apologize for the post, albeit not a mean post - just saying we were two different sides of the argument.

Either way I would never equate a thrill-seeker's death doing his thrill-seeking ventures equal with a solider doing what he feels is his responsibility and duty.

When I was in the Marine Corps, a common question that I was asked was: What if we went to war? My response was that I had decided before joining that the risk was acceptable, and if it came to that, I would have no trouble going to combat. From the point of somebody accepting the inherent danger to do something, they are analogous. I don't believe anyone in this thread is equating the motivation of recreation versus duty.

This begs the question then of does somebody deserve your sympathy based on their acceptance of danger, or their motivation for the danger? I wouldn't fault anybody for not having sympathy for somebody that died in such a fashion, but some of proclamations of somebody deserving to die are over the top IMO.

[Walt]

Me neither and I am surprised this is being debated, honestly.

It is not being debated. Folks are talking about people taking on additional risk, not their motivation for doing so.

[chasfh]

While I did say that the Grizzly Man got what he deserved, I really didn't use that language regarding Ybarra. I contend there's a difference between feeling he could reasonably expect that this could happen, versus actually deserving that it should happen.

Then feel free to replace "got what he deserved" with "got what he was looking for". As though that were any more circumspect, or closer to the truth.

I'm certainly not experienced in climbing, but if this was an area that was dangerous enough to only be "traversed by veteran climbers," then I have a hard time believing that climbing such rugged terrain alone was "done with proper preparation and undertaken with appropriate precautions." If there are expert climbers out there who can tell me otherwise, then I guess I'll take their word for it. As nerdiness is my only tool in this arena, a cursory Googling of mountain climbing advice seems to indicate that one of the first and most important rules of mountain climbing is to never ever go alone.

That may very well be. I'm not sure I would agree that, other things being equal (i.e., proper preparation and precautions implemented), having one other person with you should by itself mean the difference between "this was a tragic and terrible loss" and "he got what he was looking for".

Regardless, he's described as an "[/COLOR]extreme-sports journalist who faced danger head-on again and again." If that description is apt, then even if he's taking some precaution, he's willfully engaging in activities that are dangerous, and obviously potentially deadly.. likely because they're dangerous and potentially deadly. This doesn't sound like "rock climbing," which is probably more likely to be described as a legitimate and safer activity than what he was doing. He did, after all, fall 150 to 200 feet. Granted, the story doesn't indicate whether he was using proper harnesses, pitons, carabiners, etc., and if so, whether his equipment failed. But he was engaging in something he had to well aware could quite easily claim his life.

Although I don't agree with the basis of Walt's earlier argument, to his point, drivers engage in a potentially deadly activity as well. But the vast majority of them have proper training and take proper precautions when engaging in it. Is mountain climbing that different, that much more potentially deadly, when undertaking all the approproiate training and precautions, that we can easily dismiss their deaths as "getting what they're looking for"? Because really, I don't think participants in either one of these activities is looking for death.

Again, I repeat: setting aside the fact that he went alone, if he willfully disregarded any critical steps in preparation, then I'm on board with you. I'm just not willing to jump on that bandwagon yet because I simply don't have sufficient information regarding the details of his death.

As for the baseball analogy, while I feel it's a more legitimate comparison than normal driving, I don't consider a true analogy. The purpose of hitting in baseball is to hit safely and score runs (take that Ryan Raburn!), not to seek dangerous thrills and tempt death, as these extreme sports are often used to do. Perhaps if your league's rules involved you standing in front of a target at home plate while the pitcher intentionally tries to bean you at 90 mph, and the goal is to stand there as long as you can while ducking away from the pitch at the last moment, in the hopes that your adrenaline rush will only demand that the next one comes at your head at 95... then maybe the analogy might be truer.

I bring up the baseball analogy only to the degree that it, like mountain climbing, is a thrilling activity that entails risks that could involve serious injury or even death. There may be some types of mountain climbing that actually involve stupid risks, the kind where even if you do everything you're supposed to correctly, it could still end up in injury or death. We don't know that Ybarra was involved in that kind of expedition this time around. It may have been a "rugged climb" that an "experienced mountaineer" such as himself should be able to take as easily as a morning jog, and that something just went unexpectedly wrong rather than it being, for example, a death-flirting suicide climb. We simply don't know. That's why I think you were being prematurely hard with your judgment. You -- we-- just don't know enough details.

[Motor City Sonics]

I have no sympathy for the wing-walker that fell to his death in Michigan last year. In fact I think he was a selfish bastard who didn't think about his kids. Jerk.

Plus the Jackass community wanted sympathy for Ryan Bingham - a guy who crashed cars all the time driving like a maniac and was drunk and driving 120 mph? No thanks - I am just thankful he didn't take out any innocent person (his passenger was voluntarily riding with him).

[ewsieg]

First off, I have a great friend that's in harm's way frequently right now. He just posted on his facebook page for us to honor one of his killed brothers. Of course, I did. And whenever anyone on his facebook page says they are going back on active duty, I always tell them to be safe and that we are proud of them.

But if you think someone climbing rocks and someone that must deal with combat for a living is the same, then this isn't even worthy of discussion. We just aren't going to reach a middle ground to even create a worthy discussion.

Well, I wish you would have seen the sarcasm, I only have about 8000 posts with sarcasm.

That being said, there was a hint of truth to my posts (see definition for sarcasm). And to be quite truthful (and quite a dick) I could say that your friends brother "did what he wanted to and knew the risks and rewards".

Now I also have had friends and family overseas. They most definitely knew the risks, much more than I ever could. I pray for them and wish them the best as well. They did choose this though. Same as my cop friends. They choose to put their lives at risk. In return, they get to enjoy some power, and trust me, they do enjoy power. They are good guys and good cops, I'm not saying they are cops you'll see on a video some day leading to riots, but they still enjoy the power they have.

In the end, rather my friend or family member dies in the line of duty, service of their country, or because they choose to be in a risky position, like rock climbing or giving birth to a child, I will mourn for them equally.

Note:
The British government, comparing the risks of various activities, assembled these statistics:

* Maternal death in pregnancy 1 in 8,200 maternities
* Surgical anesthesia 1 in 185,000 operations
* Hang-gliding 1 in 116,000 flights
* Scuba Diving 1 in 200,000 dives
* Rock climbing 1 in 320,000 climbs
* Canoeing 1 in 750,000 outings
* Fairground rides 1 in 834,000,000 rides
* Rail travel accidents 1 in 43,000,000 passenger journeys
* Aircraft accidents 1 in 125,000,000 passenger journeys

Data on Climbing Accidents and Fatalities

[Shelton]

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.

[John_Brian_K]

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.

Is that really how you read these posts?