Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:12pm
You don't know that, or anything about this situation. Jesus. Stop JUDGING her. Accidents happen and it's nobodies fault. Take your anger elsewhere, it's not wanted in this thread, clearly, as five respectable posters called you out.
Updated On: 7/9/20 at 09:12 PM
Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:17pm
CATSNYrevival said: "The level of snark is determined by the reader. I didn't write that with snark. I was angry.If this was an accident it was totally avoidable."
And if it wasn't an accident (unlikely, IMHO) it was unbelievably selfish.
I mean no disrespect. We should add that for all we know, she may have drowned while ensuring her son made it back into the boat. Or the child might have fallen into the water and his mother got in to rescue him, only to find she couldn't get back in the boat without tipping it over and throwing her son back into the water. I.e., she may have given her life for his.
And because I mean no disrespect I am not making jokes about curses.
As a native Floridian and lifelong swimmer, however, I can't imagine taking a virtual toddler out alone in a small boat, much less leaving the boat to swim with him (if that is indeed what transpired).
Updated On: 7/9/20 at 09:17 PM
Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:18pm
CATSNYrevival said: "The level of snark is determined by the reader. I didn't write that with snark. I was angry.If this was an accident it was totally avoidable."
I get that, I interpreted it in my own way that may have not been your intention. I empathize with the fact that this kind of thing can cause different reactions for different people, but in my opinion, it just feels like it's the wrong moment to direct anger at a person who's presumed dead and leaving behind a four-year-old child without a mother. If someone drowns, I don't traditionally blame them for getting in the water, especially if it's presumed by many to be safe to swim in, as was the case with this lake.
The fact that you called it "the saddest thing" about this whole situation is a touch messed-up in my book, as well.
Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:27pm
I don't speak for Sutton, but I think he meant "the saddest thing" as in "it is even more sad because her death was unnecessary." At least that's how I read it.
Just because someone makes a mistake that contributes to her demise (if that is what happened here) does NOT, in my view, make her death any less tragic. In fact, per Aristotle, it is only suffering caused by human error that is truly pitiable; undeserved suffering is just what insurance companies call "an Act of God" (or force majeure).
ETA Sorry, I'm trying to address the complicated issue of culpability in a short space. Obviously, NOTHING Rivera can have done was a capital crime. Nobody is saying she "deserved" to die. The point, per Aristotle, is that pity arises for those who unknowingly contribute to their own misfortune.
Updated On: 7/9/20 at 09:27 PM
Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:39pm
CATSNYrevival said: "The level of snark is determined by the reader. I didn't write that with snark. I was angry.If this was an accident it was totally avoidable."
Yet, you are assuming it was an accident and keep judging her based on your assumptions. How about you show some kindness and stfu.
Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:46pm
blaxx said: "CATSNYrevival said: "The level of snark is determined by the reader. I didn't write that with snark. I was angry.If this was an accident it was totally avoidable."
Yet, you are assuming it was an accident and keep judging her based on your assumptions. How about you show some kindness and stfu."
As it turns out, the reading comprehension problem was mine. I read the posts in order and thought Blaxx was addressing me. S/he was not, so my reply here was entirely unnecessary.
If you saw what I wrote, Blaxx, I apologize profusely. It wasn't anything profane, but it was stupid of me nonetheless.
Updated On: 7/9/20 at 09:46 PM
Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:55pm
Posted: 7/9/20 at 9:55pm
Posted: 7/9/20 at 10:03pm
How about you learn to read?
Um, Blaxx was clearly responding to CATSNYRevival's repugnant post. It had nothing to do with you.
Posted: 7/9/20 at 10:07pm
Sutton Ross said: "Um, Blaxx was clearly responding to CATSNYRevival's repugnant post. It had nothing to do with you."
I have amended my post, Sutton, but thanks for pointing that out.
Please picture me smacking my forehead and grunting, "Duh!"
Updated On: 7/9/20 at 10:07 PM
Posted: 7/9/20 at 10:16pm
dramamama611 said: "There should be no BLAME in this circumstance. She could have had a health complication for God's sake. Saying she shouldn't have gone swimming with her kid, is like saying it's our own fault if you get hit by a bus...well, if she just stayed on the side walk, the bus wouldnt have hit the her. Ahe should have known it was a possibility.
If I had to wait for another adult to be around, my kids would have sat in the house every day.
"
Mama, if you lived in CA, AZ or FL--the three states where drowning is in the top three causes of child mortality--you might see that child/water safety is EVERYBODY's concern. Now we don't know what happened in this case, but taking a 4-year-old out on a lake in a small boat is NOT the same as using the sidewalk, nor is it the same as wading in the water at the shore. (That the lake was so choked with vegetation that searching was difficult only makes it less wise to allow a small child to swim in water that can only be accessed by boat.)
I simply said it isn't something I would do, and I have been swimming for nearly 65 years, worked as a lifeguard, etc. and so forth.
But we will see. The reports of Miss Rivera's demise are VERY brief and preliminary. At worst, it seems, she made a mistake, something all humans are liable to do.
Updated On: 7/9/20 at 10:16 PM
Posted: 7/9/20 at 10:39pm
Posted: 7/9/20 at 11:01pm
I agree, Gorlois. With Rivera and Amber Riley, I always wondered why the Glee school just assumed that Lea Michele would play the lead in any book musical they did.
(Maybe that changed eventually. I sort of stopped watching after a couple of seasons.)
Posted: 7/9/20 at 11:35pm
I'm so sick of "that isn't appropriate right now" internet scoldings. Want to be a parent: have a kid, don't adopt your fellow internet users.
I say this as someone who adores (adored? I'm not ready to put this is the past tense yet) Naya Rivera.
Updated On: 7/10/20 at 11:35 PM
Posted: 7/10/20 at 12:20am
EDIT: I said something snarky, which is pretty hypocritical of me to do, considering what I said above. After some thought, I decided to change my post to not add further to the confrontation on this page, as this thread is ultimately about the presumed death of an artist who, as said above, brought a lot of joy for many people. I'm sorry for my rude comment to those who read it. It's not appropriate for me to get b*tchy when the discussion being had is about something this heavy and tragic. I'm going to leave this thread with my prayers for her family and friends and anyone else hurting due to this news.
Updated On: 7/10/20 at 12:20 AM
Posted: 7/10/20 at 12:51am
GavestonPS said: "I mean no disrespect. We should add that for all we know, she may have drowned while ensuring her son made it back into the boat. Or the child might have fallen into the water and his mother got in to rescue him, only to find she couldn't get back in the boat without tipping it over and throwing her son back into the water. I.e., she may have given her life for his."
Having seen photos of the boat there was no chance of anybody tipping it over. This wasn't a row boat ... it was on the order of a good sized pontoon boat.
Posted: 7/10/20 at 6:35am
First, this boat is called a pontoon boat and it is impossible to tip. It can seat like 10 people AND they can all stand and dance if they wanted to without affecting the boat in any way. This wasn't a canoe or a row boat.
Also, this was a large lake, not the open ocean. There are lots of shrubs and trees under the surface so it is quite dangerous in areas so even the best Olympic swimmer can get entangled, which is why the search has been ongoing. Authorities have already concluded that if this was the case (getting entangled), any search can go on forever, which they will not do.
If you're interested in following all of this, please refer to local California news as they will provide you with accurate details.
Posted: 7/10/20 at 8:43am
" Also, this was a large lake, not the open ocean. There are lots of shrubs and trees under the surface so it is quite dangerous in areas so even the best Olympic swimmer can get entangled, which is why the search has been ongoing. Authorities have already concluded that if this was the case (getting entangled), any search can go on forever, which they will not do. "
The question then to me is why she was not wearing life jacket if it was considered dangerous. Thankfully the boy had his on. Very sad !!
Posted: 7/10/20 at 10:08am
JGPR2 said: "" Also, this was a large lake, not the open ocean. There are lots of shrubs and trees under the surface so it is quite dangerous in areas so even the best Olympic swimmer can get entangled, which is why the search has been ongoing. Authorities have already concluded that if this was the case (getting entangled), any search can go on forever, which they will not do. "
The question then to me is why she was not wearing life jacket if it was considered dangerous. Thankfully the boy had his on. Very sad !!
"
I'm not trying to debate rights and wrongs, but when is the last time you were aware of the terrain of the bottom of the body of water you were on/in? I grew up on the lake. I've boated/fished//jetskied/swum in it countless times. I have no real idea what's on the bottom of the lake. Do I know there are trees? Yes, because my fishing line's been snagged. I also don't wear a lifejacket on the boat or in the water, because I'm an adult who considers herself to be a strong swimmer and have no need and it's not required by [state] law. The freak chance of my foot getting entangled in a tree is not something that would ever, ever cross my mind or be cause for me to stop and put on a lifejacket before going swimming in it. Something like riding a jet ski, tubing, etc., where it's fast and can cause trauma if you were to wreck, then of course a lifejacket is worn (and may be required by law, I'm not sure, it's just standard protocol). But not an adult swimming in a calm lake in a seemingly nonthreatening environment.
Putting a lifejacket on your 4-year-old child while on a boat is required by law regardless of the perception of imminent danger, and any parent would have their kid in one if they were going to swim in a lake.
Posted: 7/10/20 at 10:43am
Posted: 7/10/20 at 11:18am
" I also don't wear a lifejacket on the boat or in the water, because I'm an adult who considers herself to be a strong swimmer and have no need and it's not required by [state] law. The freak chance of my foot getting entangled in a tree is not something that would ever, ever cross my mind or be cause for me to stop and put on a lifejacket before going swimming in it. "
The difference in this case IMO was she was alone with only a 4 yr old boy. If she got a cramp in the water or some other issue, the young boy can't help her. Wearing a life jacket would keep her afloat if she got in trouble. This is awful, young life was lost and 4 yr old boy lost his mother.
Posted: 7/10/20 at 1:12pm
No one knows specifics. Stop judging her or thinking you know the story. A child lost his Mother.
Posted: 7/10/20 at 2:36pm
I'm inclined not to judge. Despite the seemingly high death toll, that lake is a popular recreational spot, and witnesses who saw Rivera with her son earlier that day say there were other pontoons out on the water and even a jetskiier. Another example is Lake Havasu in AZ, at which 13 people have died, but remains an extremely popular recreational spot.
Any number of things might have happened. Even young, seemingly healthy people can have seizures, heart attacks, heat strokes (it has regularly been over 100 degrees F and full sun at Lake Piru within the last week or so), or other health emergencies with no warning. We all need to be safe, especially when we have children to look out for, but hundreds of parents go fishing, boating, swimming, etc. with their children at lakes like this during the summer.
Updated On: 7/10/20 at 02:36 PM
Posted: 7/10/20 at 3:58pm
This thread reminds me of how we can't discuss gun control after a mass shooting because "it's disrespectful to the victims"; but then nobody is interested in the subject when there has NOT been a mass shooting.
I'll have to consult the Oracle at Delphi for the exact moment when we can use this tragedy as a reason to discuss water safety.
Obviously, Miss Rivera cared enough about her child to make sure HE was in a life jacket. At worst, she made an unfortunate error in judgment; nobody is accusing her of gross negligence.
