4 ms·

>Lucas’s son-in-law, Chris King, told the Lake and McHenry County Scanner that news of the video made his family “hold our loss tighter to our hearts”. >“We …

>Lucas’s son-in-law, Chris King, told the Lake and McHenry County Scanner that news of the video made his family “hold our loss tighter to our hearts”. >“We … will continue to pray for what the driver must be going through,” King reportedly said. “We are trying to find our ways to live, without someone we cherished so much.” Damn, I wouldn't be saying anything like praying for the driver after something like that.

DontchaKnowit 11mo ago
Thats the christian ethos
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- jugganaut 11mo ago
  [dead]
- wutwutwat 11mo ago
  or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life
  - darth_avocado 11mo ago
    or, sometimes, you just don’t want to make harsh public statements after a loss of a loved one.
    - wutwutwat 11mo ago
      or, just, generally being a good human, esp when it matters, in times like these, instead of only when things are going well, then dropping that whenever something bad happens when it's more impactful and important to stay a good human.
      - ghuffed 11mo ago
        [flagged]
  - Ferret7446 11mo ago
    I'd wager that the driver isn't feeling much guilt or PTSD. A lot of these kinds of blatant bad actors seem wholly disconnected from the concept of self accountability. Otherwise, they tend to get knocked down a few pegs before such a serious incident.
    - wutwutwat 11mo ago
      You have no idea what they are feeling. Regardless of if they feel anything now, things like taking a life have a habit of sneaking up on you later down the line, often when you least expect it.
- ls612 11mo ago
  In this case quite literally suicidal empathy.
  - praptak 11mo ago
    Literally suicidal? Does that mean that other reckless drivers will find out about the empathy and will thus start hitting them on purpose?
  - ImJamal 11mo ago
    Praying for somebody doesn't mean you have to let them continue their action? You can throw them in jail.
- neom 11mo ago
  As a Christian turn Buddhist, agree + Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada
- HarryHirsch 11mo ago
  Truth, but we need to consider road safety. Lock the lady up, and lock all other texters up. Motorcyclists all over the nation would agree.
chongli 11mo ago
Forgiveness only counts when you believe the crime to be unforgivable, yet forgive the criminal anyway. "Forgiveable crimes" are just crimes you merely tolerate. “There is a limit to human charity," said Lady Outram, trembling all over. "There is," said Father Brown dryly, "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness today; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.” ― G.K. Chesterton, The Complete Father Brown
- MangoToupe 11mo ago
  Surely there must be some conception of forgiveness outside those of sin and charity. I'm not even sure what it really means for forgiveness to "count".
  - cindyllm 11mo ago
    [dead]
  - chongli 11mo ago
    I think you’re reading too literally into the words sin and charity. Sin in this case just means a transgression or wrong to you or your community. Charity here is used in the philosophical sense, meaning an openness to tolerating transgressions. For forgiveness to mean anything at all you need to forgive an actual injury. “Forgiving” someone for doing what you don’t mind them doing anyway is not forgiveness, it’s tolerance.
    - MangoToupe 11mo ago
      So what, then, is an unforgivable crime? You have no choice; you must tolerate everything or go insane.
olalonde 11mo ago
We don't know the full circumstances of the accident. She may have been distracted, but it's also possible the pedestrian crossed unexpectedly right in front of the car. Hopefully the facts come out and justice is served fairly.
- tmnvix 11mo ago
  > She may have been distracted It seems clear that one fact we know is that she was paying attention to her phone at the time. Frankly unforgivable in my opinion.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- lm28469 11mo ago
  Have you opened the article? > the person driving while on TikTok “wasn’t paying attention to the road because she was reading comments and grinning at her phone”.
  - olalonde 11mo ago
    One doesn't exclude the other. The fact that she was distracted doesn't necessarily mean the accident happened because she was distracted.
    - bdangubic 11mo ago
      if there is proof that she wasn’t looking at the road at the time of the accident, do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking? with great representation - probably? this will be an interesting trial…
      - walletdrainer 11mo ago
        On the video you can see her look down briefly before the sound of impact, but right before and at the time of the impact she appears to be looking forwards. She probably would not have had enough time to stop, given how recently she’d been looking at her phone. https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246622 https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246... > do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking Presumably entirely depends on how egregious the hypothetical jaywalking was and whether or not she can prove it. i.e. if it would’ve been impossible to avoid the accident regardless of her phone use, the phone use is probably irrelevant.
ghuffed 11mo ago
[flagged]

DontchaKnowit 11mo ago

Thats the christian ethos

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
jugganaut 11mo ago
[dead]
wutwutwat 11mo ago
or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life
- darth_avocado 11mo ago
  or, sometimes, you just don’t want to make harsh public statements after a loss of a loved one.
  - wutwutwat 11mo ago
    or, just, generally being a good human, esp when it matters, in times like these, instead of only when things are going well, then dropping that whenever something bad happens when it's more impactful and important to stay a good human.
    - ghuffed 11mo ago
      [flagged]
- Ferret7446 11mo ago
  I'd wager that the driver isn't feeling much guilt or PTSD. A lot of these kinds of blatant bad actors seem wholly disconnected from the concept of self accountability. Otherwise, they tend to get knocked down a few pegs before such a serious incident.
  - wutwutwat 11mo ago
    You have no idea what they are feeling. Regardless of if they feel anything now, things like taking a life have a habit of sneaking up on you later down the line, often when you least expect it.
ls612 11mo ago
In this case quite literally suicidal empathy.
- praptak 11mo ago
  Literally suicidal? Does that mean that other reckless drivers will find out about the empathy and will thus start hitting them on purpose?
- ImJamal 11mo ago
  Praying for somebody doesn't mean you have to let them continue their action? You can throw them in jail.
neom 11mo ago
As a Christian turn Buddhist, agree + Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada
HarryHirsch 11mo ago
Truth, but we need to consider road safety. Lock the lady up, and lock all other texters up. Motorcyclists all over the nation would agree.

chongli 11mo ago

Forgiveness only counts when you believe the crime to be unforgivable, yet forgive the criminal anyway. "Forgiveable crimes" are just crimes you merely tolerate. “There is a limit to human charity," said Lady Outram, trembling all over. "There is," said Father Brown dryly, "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness today; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.” ― G.K. Chesterton, The Complete Father Brown

MangoToupe 11mo ago
Surely there must be some conception of forgiveness outside those of sin and charity. I'm not even sure what it really means for forgiveness to "count".
- cindyllm 11mo ago
  [dead]
- chongli 11mo ago
  I think you’re reading too literally into the words sin and charity. Sin in this case just means a transgression or wrong to you or your community. Charity here is used in the philosophical sense, meaning an openness to tolerating transgressions. For forgiveness to mean anything at all you need to forgive an actual injury. “Forgiving” someone for doing what you don’t mind them doing anyway is not forgiveness, it’s tolerance.
  - MangoToupe 11mo ago
    So what, then, is an unforgivable crime? You have no choice; you must tolerate everything or go insane.

olalonde 11mo ago

We don't know the full circumstances of the accident. She may have been distracted, but it's also possible the pedestrian crossed unexpectedly right in front of the car. Hopefully the facts come out and justice is served fairly.

tmnvix 11mo ago
> She may have been distracted It seems clear that one fact we know is that she was paying attention to her phone at the time. Frankly unforgivable in my opinion.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
lm28469 11mo ago
Have you opened the article? > the person driving while on TikTok “wasn’t paying attention to the road because she was reading comments and grinning at her phone”.
- olalonde 11mo ago
  One doesn't exclude the other. The fact that she was distracted doesn't necessarily mean the accident happened because she was distracted.
  - bdangubic 11mo ago
    if there is proof that she wasn’t looking at the road at the time of the accident, do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking? with great representation - probably? this will be an interesting trial…
    - walletdrainer 11mo ago
      On the video you can see her look down briefly before the sound of impact, but right before and at the time of the impact she appears to be looking forwards. She probably would not have had enough time to stop, given how recently she’d been looking at her phone. https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246622 https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246... > do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking Presumably entirely depends on how egregious the hypothetical jaywalking was and whether or not she can prove it. i.e. if it would’ve been impossible to avoid the accident regardless of her phone use, the phone use is probably irrelevant.

ghuffed 11mo ago

[flagged]