Crime Parents are charged after their son, 7, is struck dead in a car accident - The 76-year-old driver will not face any charges.

The Gastonia Police Department in Gastonia, N.C.
Gastonia Police Department

The grieving parents of a 7-year-old child who died hours after being hit by a car were charged with involuntary manslaughter after allowing him and his brother, 10, to walk home unaccompanied by an adult from a nearby grocery store.

Jessica Ivey and Samuele Jenkins were charged two days after their son Legend died from injuries caused by being struck by a Jeep on May 27 in Gastonia, a rural town in North Carolina. The 76-year-old driver will not face any charges.


Legend Jenkins
via Facebook

The Food Lion store is two blocks away from their home. The parents said the children were with their mother when they asked to meet their father at the store, and she allowed them to leave, according to The Gaston Gazette. The brothers had to cross the busy, four-lane road, but attempted to go between crosswalks.

Witnesses told WSOC-TV of Charlotte that Legend stepped into traffic as his older brother attempted to hold him back.

Jenkins said he was on the phone with his elder son when the younger child was hit.

“I heard my oldest son yell, ‘Legend, no!’ so I hung up and ran. I just ran to find them,” he told the local television station.

Two days later, Gastonia police arrested the parents, who are being held on $1.5 million bond.

“In such cases, adults must be held accountable for their responsibilities to ensure a safe environment for their children,” police said in a statement.

Gastonia police declined to comment to NBC News, but said in a statement that “there is no evidence of speeding or wrongdoing on the part of the driver, therefore no charges have been filed. The driver continues to be cooperative and the incident remains under active investigation by the Gastonia Police Department’s Traffic Division.”

The parents’ public defenders did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Ivey, the mother, told WSOC before her arrest that it was the first time had she let the children walk alone.

“It was just devastating, I’m still in shock, I’m in shock,” she said. “It’s hard, I haven’t stopped crying; my husband hasn’t stopped crying. Honestly, I want justice for my baby.”

Summer Williams was in her car and witnessed the event. She told WSOC that Legend, apparently unaware of oncoming traffic, jumped into the street to the surprise of his brother, who tried to stop him. Williams said she comforted the child until paramedics arrived.

“Even at night, I still see his face,” she said. “Just letting him know that somebody was there and he wasn’t alone. ‘Stay with us, sweetheart. You’re going to be all right. Stay with us,’” Williams said she told the child.

Article Link

Archive

 

[mold]

the mom should make a tiktok calling the dad a bad word so they can raise some funds to pay that bail

 

[Ibanez RG 350EX]

This will sound harsh, but I don’t think most 76 year olds have the reaction time to drive at the speeds that they’re driving

Is this a study with eleven data points? That doesn't even have anybody over the age of 70 in it? And suggests (assuming it remains linear) maybe 1/10th of a second slower reaction times from age 15 to 75?

 

[Daily Happenings]

Is this a study with eleven data points? That doesn't even have anybody over the age of 70 in it? And suggests (assuming it remains linear) maybe 1/10th of a second slower reaction times from age 15 to 75?

Yeah, my takeaway here was that if the difference is just a tenth of a second, oldies can drive. I'm more interested in seeing the super old statistics, how about 80-85? There has to be some exponential growth at some point as your brain is just dying at that age.

 

[YouGuysAren'tThatSmart]

Now you're talking about two different things. The question at hand is: "Should a parent be prosecuted for letting kids walk two blocks to the store?".

No, normally shit like this people ask that question or any kind of negligence of a child. Then questions follow afterwards. Cause and effect dumbass.

That's a really surface level, honestly laughable understanding of developmental psychology. A non-neurodivergent seven year old doesn't think like that.

You really thinking kids don't think on a surface level is laughable too. You know the "How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast" question literally proves at a certain IQ level a grown adult will think at a surface level. Tell me how profound you think this kids thoughts were. Think he was thinking like Carl Jung or Sigmund Freud? Numerous examples of kids accidentally killing kids and I'll bet they were thinking on a surface level that what they were doing wouldn't end another person's life. You think this kid was profoundly thinking that cars take a substantial amount of time and distance to come to a complete halt going 45 mph?

Again, missing the point. There should never have been charges put forward in the first place.

No I'm not. The charges were dropped instantly and the kid isn't dead. Ever heard of being scared straight? Ever thought they were just trying to make a point to look after your kid better? Maybe that wasn't the first time that happened. Hell the parent was more embarrassed that her kid had to go through that more than anything else

You're putting forward a stance that means parents can't win. If they don't let their kids develop independence, they're helicoptering and stunting their kid's growth as people. But if they do, then they're negligent and it's entirely their fault if something terrible happens to them. Do you have kids yourself? Got any parenting tips for us?

Ever here of a healthy medium you tard? I don't have kids.

 

[Beautiful Border]

No, normally shit like this people ask that question or any kind of negligence of a child. Then questions follow afterwards. Cause and effect dumbass.

Either letting your kids walk alone two blocks to the store and back isn't negligence, in which case there is no need to investigate these parents for it, or it is, in which case the implication is that any kind of "hands-off" approach to parenting is in fact negligence and should be punished.

You really thinking kids don't think on a surface level is laughable too. You know the "How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast" question literally proves at a certain IQ level a grown adult will think at a surface level. Tell me how profound you think this kids thoughts were. Think he was thinking like Carl Jung or Sigmund Freud? Numerous examples of kids accidentally killing kids and I'll bet they were thinking on a surface level that what they were doing wouldn't end another person's life. You think this kid was profoundly thinking that cars take a substantial amount of time and distance to come to a complete halt going 45 mph?

This is obvious bad faith. No, I'm not saying seven year olds are thinking about Jung or Freud. But they are thinking, "if that car hits me, it will really hurt or I might die". They understand what death is and what can cause it. What they are bad at, however, is assessing risk, and that running into a road unexpectedly is a risky endeavor. In other words, he likely didn't think the car would hit him, not that nothing bad would happen if the car did hit him.

By the way, his older brother tried to stop him, but unfortunately could not grab him in time. If his mother were there, the same thing could very well have happened and the child would still be dead regardless. The only way it would be guaranteed the child lived would be if the mother were there and he were on some kind of leash. Does this mean any parent who doesn't leash their children should be prosecuted? If so, what age should children be required to be leashed up to? You clearly haven't thought any of this through.

No I'm not. The charges were dropped instantly and the kid isn't dead. Ever heard of being scared straight? Ever thought they were just trying to make a point to look after your kid better? Maybe that wasn't the first time that happened. Hell the parent was more embarrassed that her kid had to go through that more than anything else

The mother did nothing wrong to be "scared straight over", that's the whole point. Allowing your 10 year old to walk a mile away from your home is not something objectionable, not something that should be punished, and not a sign that she isn't looking after her kid properly. It may not be a parenting decision that everyone would make, but it's not objectively neglectful or reckless. Look up free-range parenting. The Wikipedia article I linked notes that laws recently introduced in the US and Canada around the required supervision of children are extremely vaguely and broadly worded, and the potential for their misuse (as I believe the article I linked to you is a perfectly valid example of) is rife.

Ever here of a healthy medium you tard? I don't have kids.

You clearly don't, because you appear to have put no thought into how to raise children whatsoever. Nothing you have implied parents should do is practical or even coherent.

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

This is exactly the type of shit I was pointing out in another thread a month or so ago

It have been bad enough parents were having the cops called on them for letting their kids play on their front lawns unsupervised in the late 00s. At the time most people didn't hear about it because as you already said the internet wasn't ubiquitous everywhere and people had to use the PC for it.

 

[teriyakiburns]

When I was a kid, I used to walk two miles to school every day, along a very busy road, for three years. This was between the ages of 8 and 11. I suppose my parents should have been executed for this.

 

[Zoot]

I've seen enough. Guilty.

 

[Kari Kamiya]

This will sound harsh, but I don’t think most 76 year olds have the reaction time to drive at the speeds that they’re driving
View attachment 7467501

We recently had to take away my Nana's keys (she's 85 and living in a 55+ apartment complex) because of the understandable concern she was going to get in an accident. She didn't fight us over it since she's been used to Dad and my aunt running errands for her, though she is more depressed now that she has lost that autonomy.

Now Papa and Grandma I think would've tried arguing with us about it had they not died when they did. It doesn't matter how careful you've conditioned yourself for decades on the road, eventually your age catches up to you, and I trust Papa at least would've been well aware of that, and yet he wanted to do everything while he was still able. Grandma was the stubborn one, though she was also a polio survivor and was just on a shit-ton of meds so she was definitely going to be a risk. It's sad to say, but their deaths was rather merciful in that regard.

The driver here may not be charged, but he's definitely going to get his keys taken from him by the family soon. Imagine being this late in life and now you have this guilt of killing a child weighing on your mind, it sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[WhatInTheActualFuck]

Yeah, my takeaway here was that if the difference is just a tenth of a second, oldies can drive. I'm more interested in seeing the super old statistics, how about 80-85? There has to be some exponential growth at some point as your brain is just dying at that age.

If helps, here's an (admittedly somewhat older) set of charts from a study on accidents by age group that I found on a Connecticut government website:



Basically, once you hit your 70s or so, you're about as dangerous as freshly licensed kids and it only gets worse as you get older. Age was also found to be a pretty significant factor in unintended acceleration (hit the gas instead of the brake) incidents, but those charts are tougher to find.

 

[downloads]

If helps, here's an (admittedly somewhat older) set of charts from a study on accidents by age group that I found on a Connecticut government website:

View attachment 7468662View attachment 7468663

Basically, once you hit your 70s or so, you're about as dangerous as freshly licensed kids and it only gets worse as you get older.

I feel like I must be missing something, but neither of those charts says that, do they? Isn't the 70s group closer to the 30s in terms of accidents?

 

[WhatInTheActualFuck]

I feel like I must be missing something, but neither of those charts says that, do they? Isn't the 70s group closer to the 30s in terms of accidents?

By 75, they're about as bad as the 20-24 (still learning and pretty awful) group for fatal accidents. Nobody compares to the 16-20 group in terms of sheer accident volume, true. On both charts, there's definitely an inflection point in the 70s where shit starts deteriorating pretty rapidly, though.

 

[Rootless Cosmopolitan]

By 75, they're about as bad as the 20-24 (still learning and pretty awful) group for fatal accidents. Nobody compares to the 16-20 group in terms of sheer accident volume, true. On both charts, there's definitely an inflection point in the 70s where shit starts deteriorating pretty rapidly, though.

The real argument for public transit is that having it makes it easier for the elderly to gracefully stop driving while still enjoying a social life and independence.

Unfortunately, places that have public transit often let it deteriorate into a mobile asylum for crackheads and schizos, so this doesn’t always work out anyway.

 

[KiwiFuzz2]

By 75, they're about as bad as the 20-24 (still learning and pretty awful) group for fatal accidents. Nobody compares to the 16-20 group in terms of sheer accident volume, true. On both charts, there's definitely an inflection point in the 70s where shit starts deteriorating pretty rapidly, though.

Eh, I might posit that it's not just that people in their early 20s are "still learning," it's that they're dumb partiers with no responsibility and a propensity to drive around shitfaced with 8 friends in the car.

Interesting that VMT and per capita split like that.

 

[Baggywrinkle_v2]

Especially after the boomer parents got indoctrinated to fear every stranger their kids come across is possibly a kidnapping pedo.

Yeah, now kids are more likely to run into a pedo at school or the library than a stranger on the street.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Can't chalk it for anything but natural selection.

 

[Archie_Kimkicker]

I see nothing wrong with enabling degenerates likes this to allow their mongrel children to get hit by cars. Selective pressure applied to undesirables is good.

 

[draggs]

This will sound harsh, but I don’t think most 76 year olds have the reaction time to drive at the speeds that they’re driving
View attachment 7467501

This “age is just a number!” attitude plus fast cars is a recipe for disaster. Did the 76 year old do something ILLEGAL by hitting the child who jumped into the street? No… but there’s a good chance the driver would not have hit the kid if s/he were 10 years younger. And now a kid is dead.

The y-axis is seconds, right? A difference of 0.09 seconds in reaction time between a 15 year old and a 70 year old. Less than 1/10 of a second. Without knowing how close the pickaninny was to the car when he decided to step out into the street, talking about reaction times is pointless. If the old fart was going the speed limit, 45 mph = 66 feet per second. Inside a certain distance there's no way to stop the car before hitting the pickaninny regardless of if the reaction time is 0.43 seconds or 0.52 seconds

 

[EepEep]

What was the mother so busy with that she couldn't stop and walk with her kids two blocks to the store?

I also survived walking a couple miles home at that age, but I also had school friends around this kid's age who were also hit and killed jaywalking. So, I'm not a fan of letting the little idiots run off unattended.

The charges should be dropped, though. Their son is dead, and usually that's punishment enough.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Everybody saying that we used to walk alone at that age needs to remember that twenty years ago, we lived in a very different world. In my case, there was this big building complex full of green and places to hang out and we used to spend hours there during the weekends and our parents didn't mind because they knew we were safe and we kinda were. That was in the late 90s (for me, this was during a post-terrorism time, FYI).

Now, cities are overcrowded and that means more cars and more idiots driving. There are also more strangers in the streets lurking for kids to hurt.

Saying that this is the parents' fault is, imo, stupid. My kids were coming back from school at twelve and they had to cross a big avenue. We taught them well (and told them to call us in case something wasn't right). Yes, I could have picked them myself, but they wanted their independence and they needed to learn at some point as well. I live in a still kinda "suburban" area and I see kids who are around ten or younger going to the store on their own as well. We aren't in the wrong for teaching kids to do this alone and we're not neglectful parents either. But society now makes it harder than it was for our parents one or two decades ago.