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.

1.webp
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.

2.webp
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
 
the truth is that you cannot reasonably expect a 10 year old to look after and keep a 7 year old safe, or make logical decisions, like insisting that they use the crosswalk.
the mom knew that her two very young children would have had to cross a 4-lane highway, and let them do it by themselves.

it is negligent, and now you've lost a child and given the other one ptsd, he literally watched his little brother get squashed by a jeep.

and the older brother screamed for him to stop, which means he probably saw the car coming straight for him and the driver had no time to stop. the driver's age has nothing to do with it, it's just senseless and tragic.
and the mom's fault 100%.
 
If the “four lane road” has a median in between it, like the picture from earlier in the thread shows, I crossed roads like that multiple times as a kid, in the 2000’s in the suburbs. The two weren’t crossing a four lane highway. You stop in the median, and wait for traffic to clear.

I can’t see the charges against the parents sticking.
 
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
It’s not the stopping you have to think of, it’s the extra time you get to swerve. ~6 inches or so could easily be the difference between hitting and missing a small kid.
 
It’s not the stopping you have to think of, it’s the extra time you get to swerve. ~6 inches or so could easily be the difference between hitting and missing a small kid.
Swerving is not a cheat code to avoid some retard who walks out in front of you past about 20 mph
 
Some of y'all are way too prone to boomer thinking that shit was better when four middle schoolers could have bailed for the weekend and hiked down some train tracks to see a dead kid while being in competition with a ten-cent dime-store hoodlum to get the reward.

You think there weren't kiddie diddlers in whatever fuckin' year, and that they weren't overwhelmingly people who knew the diddlee, and much more rarely strangers snatching a kid off the street?

Same for rapists, murderers, cousins who steal a hundred dollars out of your wallet, and other capital crimes.

It gives rise to a situation where fewer young people on the street gives rise to fewer eyes on the street, less awareness among motorists that there might be youngsters, and a questionably modest decline in stranger snatching.

Not to come off like an apologist for diddlers or coof truthers with this metaphor, but the closest thing that I can think of is that one might fairly argue is that the overall social damage from keeping kids out of school was greater than the risk that one in a thousand people in any given school would die.

We are descended from people who challenged the outdoors, germs, diddlers, and society for a million years.

The rewards outweigh the risks.
 
Screenshot 2025-06-07 at 11.29.22 PM.webp
Here's the area in question. I'm guessing the family lived in the low-income townhomes with the red roofs visible to the south. There is a small pedestrian crossing at Lyon Rd and West Hudson Blvd to the west, but that would have added considerable distance to the walk. It seems that the kids chose to make a beeline to the Food Lion, cutting across the Health Department parking lot and then crossing W. Hudson directly to the south of the Food Lion. That sliver of grassy median is where the accident occurred; they may have thought they could make it across using that.

While the distance is short, this is not a walkable area. There is no sidewalk on the south side of W. Hudson and only a small one on Lyon Rd. These kids had also apparently never walked alone. I still think charging the parents is overkill, unless it turns out there is some mitigating factor like one or both parents being drunk or high at the time of the accident and therefore of impaired judgment.
 
Ivey, the mother, told WSOC before her arrest that it was the first time had she let the children walk alone.
Interesting detail. Is this referring to both the 7-year-old and the 10-year-old? If the very first time you let either of them "walk alone", one of them jumps into traffic, that would suggest that they were not ready. But the average child would be expected to be able to safely cross the road by age 7.

Are the prosecutors going to argue that this is evidence that the children were particularly undereducated by their parents, and the parents should have been aware of this? I can't see a very strong case for "7-year-olds should never be allowed to walk alone" in general.
 
I'm sad the kid died.

I worked in an area that is 50% niggers. This is typical black behavior. It will be excused by "oh well you see the institution failed them because the racist government didn't make enough accessible crosswalks and life is just so hard crossing the street".

Good on the dA for charging these chimpstinkers and not the poor driver.

Though years ago, we're talking 20-40 years, kids used to go all over the place alone. The nebulous crime of child neglect now includes letting an 8 year old walk 2-3 blocks to a park alone. I don't know how I feel about it.
 
I still think charging the parents is overkill, unless it turns out there is some mitigating factor like one or both parents being drunk or high at the time of the accident and therefore of impaired judgment.
I don't get the logic of that; the decision they made was either bad or...tolerable, and if it was bad it was bad because it was not a responsible way to discharge their duties as parents. Being impaired would tell you why they made a bad decision, but it doesn't make the decision bad on its own. It could be an aggravating factor in charging, but shouldn't be a determining factor. I'm not an asshole lawyer though.
 
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.
Really need a link to the study to assess this. How large was the cohort? Why are there four sets of paired dots on exactly the same level and equal distance apart? Male and female? I don't know. I don't think assumptions should be built on that without knowing more. But taking it at face value, that's a 0.7 second difference between your highest mark and your mid-thirties. The zone was 45mph and IF he was going at that speed, that's an additional 20m of travel. That's not insignificant but total stopping distance at 40mph is 36m in UK law (118' for the Burgers). Here is the UK legal stopping distances you are quizzed on in your test:
1749377640086.webp

As you can see, the reaction time component rises slowly with speed, the total stopping distance rises much more quickly. At 40mph you travel three car lengths in the time you take to react. That 0.7 extra seconds would add another 4-5 car lengths. Again, it's not nothing but it's not huge either. Set against that you have to consider variance around that average. It could be far more than 0.7 seconds at any age due to a variety of factors. And there are other factors than reaction time such as ability to control the car, road awareness, etc. that it's not unreasonable to guess older people might be better at. If your driving examiner bangs their clipboard on the dashboard and you start to break, that's your reaction time. If you notice kids playing at the side of the road or a bicycle approaching up some side street, that's experience and practice.

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. 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.
Again, you can't really make such statements as "once you hit your Seventies..." without knowing the variance. And I know you'll reply it's an average but really without such information it could be extremely misleading. Men statistically have faster reaction times than women and, more significantly, less variable reaction times. Should women be banned from driving?

I find the divergence between per 100 million VMT and per licenced driver strange. And for non-fatal accidents it actually continues to decline with age. That suggests to me there's a factor increasing the chance of it being fatal. Could it be that they are simply physically weaker and less likely to survive the trip to hospital or following surgery.
 
Welp, I guess we won't colonize Jupiter in my lifetime since this obvious genius got run over by some boomer driving 10 under the speed limit.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Elim Garak
By age 76 your life i
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.
There is so much variability in 76 year olds. You have ones who are perfectly healthy and can think and react, and those with undetected mini-strokes who might be concealing serious deficits. Plenty drive. Plenty go to work.

I do see plenty of niggers and wetbacks weaving through traffic, driving drunk, drag racing. I wonder if you compare accidents by race how it would look...
 
Tragic. Whether it’s ok to let them walk by themselves would depend completely on the sort of urban environment. There are places where I would let mine walk from and places I wouldn’t. Back from the village shop? Sure. A four lane road I don’t think I’d be Ok with a seven year old, maybe a ten year old who was sensible but kids vary massively in how aware/dumb are.
We used to walk home a couple of miles from school by age 7 but it was a quiet sort of place and far fewer cars.
 
800,000 children are reported missing every year in the US. I’d say it’s good to be just a tad bit cautious, wouldn’t you?

I see your point, but it's a little disingenuous to imply that "reported missing" = "forcibly kidnapped and murdered by a strange pedophile". The vast majority of missing persons cases are resolved very quickly, especially when it's a child, because you've got custody disputes and reports made any time a kid/teen might briefly sneak off from what is usually more or less some constant degree of supervision.

Also, where the fuck are you getting your numbers? I've attached my sources for the sake of autistic accuracy, but I found some ballpark figures. According to the FBI there were 647,435 missing person reports made in the US in 2016, while 644,294 reports were purged from the database in the same period (i.e. the people were found). More recent stats from the NamUS 2025 biannual report puts the proportion of juveniles making up total missing persons cases at 18%. A bit of quick and dirty math with these numbers approximates maybe 116,538 kids reported missing yearly with a rough figure of 1,165 not resolved in a reasonable time frame. And while I can't find anything solid to go on, I'm gonna assume most of those are just teens who ran away, reached the age of majority, and didn't return to a shit situation. Like, in the worst case, the kind of foster homes so grim that they go off to get hooked on heroin and sex trafficked because it seems preferable. That or younger kids who were the subject of custody disputes having an immigrant parent take them and fuck off back out of the country. They weren't all getting the America's Most Wanted treatment at any rate, it just gets endless sensationalized media coverage when that does happen because journos are fucking vultures.


Never forget, 20% of this country said being locked in your home indefinitely as a COVID precaution was just fine.

To the point that not doing it meant you should be arrested.

I remain convinced that the vast majority of these faggots weren't the least bit afraid of fucking covid, they just really loved the state handing them a legitimate sounding excuse to not work, do nothing but bed-rot, doomscroll, and rapidly gain weight ordering Ubereats that other people are paying for, they could avoid their cognitive dissonance and guilt for living that way because (as far as they know) nobody else can go socialize/work/do any activities either, they were given carte blanche to live out their gay ass power tripping petty tyrant fantasies by loudly and often policing adherence to retarded security theater, and to top it off the state patted them on the ass and called them heroes for just being an entire piece of shit.

Anyway, even people low on self awareness should've gotten a clue about what too much screen time, no social outkets, zero opportunities to learn independence, and overreliance on a retarded nanny state that fucks people left and right in the name of false safety will do to your children after what happened to their mental health and educational attainment over the course of lockdown/remote schooling. I'm not sure how that wasn't a wake up call to chill on the helicoptering a bit, make sure your kid doesn't spend their life listening to the shit-flinging retards on the fucking internet, and recognize the importance of teaching your children how to exercise critical thinking and make good decisions on their own. Allowing them gradual opportunities for freedom and independence is a necessary part of this process, unless you want to feed and house them until they're 40 while they claim inability to function from muh depreshun&anxietee (aside from their reddit moderation duties, anyway). Sadly, the amount of parents foaming at the mouth screeching anytime a school tries to float a serious "no cell phones" policy because they think they need to communicate with and surveil their spawn at all times makes me sort of doubt it. Not that school always does a bang-up job either but if nothing else learning restraint and discipline is vital and kids can't do that if they can't concentrate on anything long enough to accomplish anything useful because they're so dependent on endless 30-second videos fed to them by the retard factory app.

What happened to this child is an unfortunate accident, but there is no guarantee a nearby parent could've prevented it and the constant communication didn't help him any. It may have even given the parent a false sense of security if anything, though I don't think they were negligent to let them go in the first place. Accidents happen but on a society-wide scale there is nothing good about denying your kid opportunities to learn independence and treat their ever-present devices as a substitute for learning to use logic, make good decisions, and generally function in life.

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.

There are plenty of olds who can drive fine, or at least no worse than any other retard you may run into behind the wheel of a car. Some people just have a brain that shits itself in an emergency and that translates to really fucking stupid reactions when something sudden and unexpected occurs. Sheer measurable reaction time on tests is one thing, intuiting what constitutes a good reaction in a real crisis situation is another. That's why people don't typically get charged for causing car accidents unless it can be proven they were already up to something egregiously retarded prior to whatever unforseen event/obstacle appeared that directly led to them wiping out their car.

I'd like to see what happens to spatial awareness with age. Kids seem to be neurologically incapable of watching where the fuck they're going below a certain age, is that why so many 75+ drivers start scraping everything with their cars and taking out the corner of their yards pulling in?

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.

Agreed, they know consequences and that they're supposed to be careful and why. However, they need frequent reminders because they don't seem too capable of impulse control. And as I said, they absolutely never watch where they're going.

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

Probably accurate. Most pedo incidents are because the parents entrust their children with someone they shouldn't. Or in current year, think they're keeping their kid safe by shoving an iPad at them and not letting them leave the house, and since they never bothered to ensure they learned any kind of social awareness, critical thinking, or common sense, the kid just rots their brain with bizarre pornography and gets groomed into trooning out by losers on Discord and reddit.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Back