Reply #18: RE: Also, the daughter was 8

[mindwalker_i]

You're absolutely right that the article says she was 8. I had read in a paper or two (It's on the front pages of the papers at the quik mart), that she was 7 and it stuck in my mind.

About the 6 life guards, I suspect there were actually 6. I think 2 were in the pool and four outside. Regardless, the pool was really crowded as wave pools tend to be - I went to one that had been open for a while, and it was still crowded - and it's really going to be hard to see some 4-year-old in the middle of that. Plus, some people had inner-tubes, which likely further blocked the view.

The mother says that he was in the 2-foot part of the pool and asks how could someone drown in that. Let's just assume she's right and that the boy didn't sneak out of the shallow area as I would have at that age :) You can drown in a puddle if somebody a lot bigger squashes your face into it, so it's not real hard to imagine a 4-foot boy drowning in 2 feet of water (like, what if he fell over?). In addition to the two feet of standing water, there are these big-ass waves (what, 4 feet?) coming down the pike. That adds up to 6, which is greater than 4 (the boy was 4-feet tall, as I remember reading). In the care of, let's say, an 8-year-old? Does it really make that much of a difference between 7 and 8?

My first inclination is to say this is evolution but this woman's probably going to get a lot of money from the park, proving this to be a worthwhile venture. I fell sorry for her other kids.

-mwalker