About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, it is much easier to catch victims, since they come to you.

Post 1

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is going to happen is that more and more people are going to take the law into their own hands.


Post 2

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 2:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris:

     Not those who are parents, especially of toddlers. Others couldn't care less since such laws aren't applicable to them.

     However, after DCYS (or whatever letters in which state) gets the kids, and the parent gets out of jail, hmmmm...

     If death or maiming results from carelessness, I sympathize with the KIDS AND CARS group (except for their political lobbying per se); but 'jail-time' helps neither the kids-merely-'risked' (according to the accuser of 'risk') nor the parents.

LLAP
J:D


Post 3

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John I don't think the misdemeanor charge in that particular law calls for jail time, at least not the first "offense" (as if being a victim of a crime can be considered an "offense"), I believe it is a citation but that does not make it any better. It's still a ridiculous law. I wonder if we should be worried now the state will pass laws fining you if you don't keep your doors locked and have the latest state of the art anti-theft system in your car, home, etc. Or even set up a regulatory commission with inspectors who inspect your home and car for theft proof devices. I can't believe the mindset by the Florida government, their first inclination to combat car theft and kidnapping is not to make harsher penalties for the criminal or increase law enforcement in these areas (sting operations for instance), but instead their first thought is to punish the victim?
(Edited by John Armaos on 7/30, 3:34pm)


Post 4

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 4:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Absolutely despicable misuse of government force. Disgusting, really.

That poor woman...  I hope she gets a judge with a brain.  And I hope letters to the editor are burning a hole through the governor's mansion.

Awful.



Post 5

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
      Clearly, nowadays non-criminals (leastways 'till a cop let's you know about the latest law [or its memo] this month by some 'nanny'-legislator...by the cop's interpretation of it) have to now 'Think Twice' about calling for 'authorities' to help them.

     'Sign of the Times', as they used to say, no?

     Time to get back into the dojo as well as start re-practicing with those...traditional boys'-toys; not to mention learning the very fine 'Art-of-not-getting-Caught.'

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 7/30, 7:37pm)


Post 6

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     I'd say that our 'Nanny-State', which started off protecting us from ourselves, is becoming a 'Grand-Nanny-State', protecting our kids from any/all ignorance/carelessness of...us...now, as parents; not for our useability as an end by the state, but, as a means for the useability of our kids as ends.

     ...sigh...the age-old problem: "Who will protect us from our 'protectors'?" Given the way we've voted for our 'law-makers', certainly not us. Yet, we're the only ones left to do it. ---  Are there enough of us...next election time?

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 7/30, 7:42pm)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 9:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I appreciate all the posts about the evils of the nanny state, but...

There was no actual safety increment to be obtained by leaving the child in the car. I suspect the convenience of not having to unbuckle and rebuckle a 2-year-old in the child seat was more an issue for her. Or maybe she wanted to leave him in a nice air conditioned car (hence the running engine) to save him from the discomfort of humidity.

And she did thereby expose him to the danger of car theft by presenting such an obvious target to bad guys.

I was born and raised on the Florida peninsula and - trust me on this one - nobody ever caught pneumonia in Orlando by getting a sprinkling from a little downpour.


Especially not in July.

-Bill

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 10:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So William, if I am to understand correctly, we now should hold people responsible for not making the best possible safety conscious decision one can make for their child? Had the mother forgotten to lock the house at night and they were victims of a home invasion, should we arrest the mother because she should've locked the house at night and not forgotten?

Should we mandate women with children when venturing outside of the home should carry mace, or a handgun, and have taken a martial arts class to be able to effectively combat against a criminal? What is your principle here exactly that you are talking about because I don't get it.

If the principle here is that we hold victims responsible for not taking every possible safety precaution one can take to prevent themselves from being victim, we have taken a serious step in the wrong direction on who we ought to place moral blame on. I could've easily done the same thing in this situation as I would've been concerned about my infant getting soaking wet (sorry but I don't care what state we're talking about, a soaking wet infant is not a happy infant nor is it reasonable to think a wet infant no matter how hot your state is would not be susceptible to disease, we are talking about infants, they don't have the same kind of strong immune system older children or adults have).

I don't regard myself as a criminal. I do everything I can to reasonably protect myself and my loved ones against crime. I am in the process of becoming a gun owner, I have anti-theft alarms in my house, I lock my doors, but for crying out loud if I mess up once is it me who's responsible for being a victim of a crime and not after all, the person who initiated force against me?


The infant would not have been in danger if a criminal didn't initiate force to begin with. This is a very dangerous path we're treading on and I would hate to see any Objectivist make an argument for holding victims criminally responsible for being a victim. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt William that you did not think this through thoroughly enough, and allow you to make a clarification of your position.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/01, 11:09am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Armchair Backseat Lawyers?

The only truly innocent party here is the baby.

Issues like this may amount to judgement calls, but I can't accept the argument that there is no possible prima facie case for a misdemeanor charge of negligence here. If one owns a swimming pool, one is usually required to fence it in and keep the gate locked. An absolutist libertarian can argue that any child who wanders into the pool and drowns shouldn't have been left unattended, but swimming pools are potentially dangerous property, not acts of God or facts of nature. Likewise, one can't leave a loaded gun on one's front lawn. And if one leaves one's car on the street with the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked this can be seen as abandonment and can be cause for civil charges if someone steals the car and gets in an accident - or leaves a baby unattended.

Of course the thief is guilty of theft and is entirely responsible for the result of his actions. But it is a long established principle of law that two or more parties can each be considered 100% liable for a criminal or negligent act. Both the mother and the thief can be culpable before the law. The law is not invalidated by the mere fact that non-lawyer libertarians object from their armchairs.

I don't find it at all hard to believe that the police may have overreacted in this case. I don't doubt child services and all agencies with jurisdiction will meddle to the full extent of their authority. But the principle itself is not faulty. We here do not have all the facts of the case - just a news story. Does any poster on this list live in that town? If this happened in Manhattan, I don't think anyone would have thought the mother blameless. The woman will have her day in court. The judge and the prosecutor have the discretion to drop or dismiss the charges. This case is newsworthy - but it's irresponsible simply to call for the charges to be dropped without a deeper understanding of the legal principles involved and a fuller comprehension of the facts of the case than were portrayed in the story which studiously avoided telling us anything about the mother's character or the crime rate in her neighborhood.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/01, 6:28pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 4:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm surprized by you, William the Third:

And she did thereby expose him to the danger of car theft by presenting such an obvious target to bad guys.

This is called "Blaming the Victim."  As if car theft is as natural to expect as rain, William?    The thief exposed that child to danger, not the mother.  


Post 11

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I note that William has not expressed approval for criminal charges against the mother.

He simply notes: “There was no actual safety increment to be obtained by leaving the child in the car.” I agree.

And: “And she did thereby expose him to the danger of car theft by presenting such an obvious target to bad guys.” And again, I agree.

John and Teresa might take a deep breath and consider that a person can criticize the mother’s laxity while placing all blame on the perp. Wanna bet a million dollars against that William would never entertain her laxity as a defense for the perp?

Take it from this at-home Dad…you just don’t DO what she did. You do it like I do: You turn off the car, put up the windows and lock the doors. And you don’t go back into the house without the cell phone. That way, even if you fall and break your hip inside the house, at least you can call 911 and tell them about the toddlers locked in a van outside your home.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John and Teresa might take a deep breath and consider that a person can criticize the mother’s laxity while placing all blame on the perp. Wanna bet a million dollars against that William would never entertain her laxity as a defense for the perp?
 
The point of such criticism would be what, if not to blame, or imply blame, against the mother for what the thief did?

Take it from this at-home Dad…you just don’t DO what she did. You do it like I do: You turn off the car, put up the windows and lock the doors. And you don’t go back into the house without the cell phone. That way, even if you fall and break your hip inside the house, at least you can call 911 and tell them about the toddlers locked in a van outside your home.

Jon, you're an amateur.  Groceries loaded? Check. Baby tucked into his safety seat? Check.  Passenger door locked? Check. Purse with keys in locked car with baby? Check.

I locked my oldest in the car, with the keys, when he was a baby. Twice. Once with the car running. Yeah, I freaked. I was never further than three feet from my baby both times.  No cell phones back then, either.   Police had to come both times to open the car up.  


Post 13

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

To clarify, I’ve never broken my hip. What I meant is that I have left the kids in the car, parked in front of the house, to go back into the house and get something I forgot (probably at least twenty times.) But I do it the way I described, and I am back outside in less than a minute. (If what I need to get will take longer than that, then I take them with me.)

I make sure my cell phone is on me because I am thinking of what can go wrong.

I think she can be criticized for not thinking enough about what can go wrong.

You asked, “The point of such criticism would be what, if not to blame, or imply blame, against the mother for what the thief did?”

The point is to criticize what SHE did. Do you seriously disagree?

You think she executed well?


Edit to add:

Your lock-up example was an accident, while this mother’s incident was a conscious and very poor choice to leave the car running.

Likewise, my run-backs to the house are choices. If one ever goes terribly wrong, then won’t the outcome prove that I made a poor choice?


(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/01, 8:55pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While ‘net-surfing tonight, I found this. Score one for John and Teresa:


“Texas Rep. Wayne Smith is tired of hearing about parents missing meetings with their children's teachers. His proposed solution is simple: Prosecute such parents as criminals. In Louisiana, state Sen. Derrick Shepherd is tired of seeing teenagers wearing popular low-rider pants that show their undergarments — so he would like to criminally charge future teenagers who are caught "riding low."

Across the USA, legislators are criminalizing everything from spitting on a school bus to speaking on a cellphone while driving. Criminalizing bad behavior has become the rage among politicians, who view such action as a type of legislative exclamation point demonstrating the seriousness of their cause. As a result, new crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate, and we risk becoming a nation of criminals where carelessness or even rudeness is enough to secure a criminal record.

There was a time when having a criminal record meant something. Indeed, it was the social stigma or shame of such charges that deterred many people from "a life of crime." In both England and the USA, there was once a sharp distinction between criminal and negligent conduct; the difference between the truly wicked and the merely stupid.

Legislators, however, discovered that criminalization was a wonderful way to outdo one's opponents on popular issues. Thus, when deadbeat dads became an issue, legislators rushed to make missing child payments a crime rather than rely on civil judgments. When cellphone drivers became a public nuisance, a new crime was born. Unnecessary horn honking, speaking loudly on a cellphone and driving without a seat belt are only a few of the new crimes. If you care enough about child support, littering, or abandoned pets, you are expected to care enough to make their abuse a crime.

HIGH CRIMES
Consider the budding criminal career of Kay Leibrand. The 61-year-old grandmother lived a deceptively quiet life in Palo Alto, Calif., until the prosecutors outed her as a habitual horticultural offender. It appears that she allowed her hedge bushes to grow more than 2 feet high — a crime in the city. Battling cancer, Leibrand had allowed her shrubbery to grow into a criminal enterprise. (After her arraignment and shortly before her jury trial, she was allowed to cut down her bushes and settle the case.)

Of course, it is better to be a criminal horticulturalist than a serial snacker. In 2000, on her way home from her junior high school in Washington, D.C., 12-year-old Ansche Hedgepeth grabbed some french fries and ate them as she went into the train station. In Washington, it is a crime to "consume food or drink" in a Metrorail facility. An undercover officer arrested her, searched her and confiscated her shoelaces.

Running out of adult targets, many state laws pursue the toddler and preteen criminal element. In Texas, children have been charged for chewing gum or, in one case, simply removing the lid from a fire alarm. Dozens of kids have been charged with everything from terrorism to criminal threats for playing with toy guns or drawing violent doodles in school.

In the federal system, Congress has been in a virtual criminalization frenzy. There are more than 4,000 crimes and roughly 10,000 regulations with criminal penalties in the federal system alone. Just last year, Congress made it a crime to sell horse meat for human consumption — a common practice in Europe where it is considered a delicacy. Congress has also criminalized such things as disruptive conduct by animal activists and using the image of Smokey Bear or Woodsy Owl or the 4-H club insignia without authorization.

The ability to deter negligence with criminal charges has always been questioned by academics. Negligent people are, by definition, acting in a thoughtless, unpremeditated, or careless way. Nevertheless, prosecutors will often stretch laws to make a popular point — even when the perpetrators have suffered greatly and shown complete remorse.

In 2002, Kevin Kelly was charged criminally in Manassas, Va., when his daughter, less than 2 years old, was left in the family van and died of hyperthermia. With his wife in Ireland with another daughter, Kelly watched over their 12 other children. He relied on his teenage daughters to help unload the van and did not realize the mistake until it was too late.

The suggestion that people like Kelly need a criminal conviction to think about the safety of their children is absurd. Kelly was widely viewed as a loving father, who was devastated by the loss. The conviction only magnified the tragedy for this family. (Though the prosecutors sought jail time, Kelly was sentenced to seven years probation, with one day in jail a year to think about his daughter's death.)

THE COST TO ALL OF US
The criminalization of America might come as a boon for politicians, but it comes at considerable cost for citizens and society. For citizens, a criminal record can affect everything from employment to voting to child custody — not to mention ruinous legal costs.

Yet, it now takes only a fleeting mistake to cross the line into criminal conduct. In Virginia, when a child accused Dawn McCann of swearing at a bus stop, she was charged criminally — as have been other people accused of the crime of public profanity.

Our insatiable desire to turn everything into a crime is creating a Gulag America with 714 incarcerated persons per 100,000 — the highest rate in the world. Millions of people are charged each year with new criminal acts that can stretch from first-degree murder to failing to shovel their sidewalks.

We can find better ways to deal with runaway bushes, castaway pets, or even potty-mouth problems. Congress and the states should create independent commissions to review their laws in order to decriminalize negligent conduct, limiting criminal charges to true crimes and true criminals. In the end, a crime means nothing if anyone can be a criminal.”


By Jonathan Turley
From: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/turley.php3



(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/01, 10:14pm)


Post 15

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 10:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can't believe I'm hearing these pro-nanny government arguments.

Ted:

Armchair Backseat Lawyers?


Ted, please let me know if any and all discussions of morality must only be discussed by those who hold a law degree. And I will then ask to see yours and argue this entire website should be shut down since if you don't know everything there is to know about the law, you can't discuss issues of moral culpability.

f one owns a swimming pool, one is usually required to fence it in and keep the gate locked. An absolutist libertarian can argue that any child who wanders into the pool and drowns shouldn't have been left unattended, but swimming pools are potentially dangerous property, not acts of God or facts of nature.


Who's child? Who's swimming pool? And did a criminal push the child into the pool? Could you use a more terrible analogy that isn't at all similar to this case?

But it is a long established principle of law that two or more parties can each be considered 100% liable for a criminal or negligent act.


How is that possible? How can they both be 100% liable? If it's one act, only one person committed it (unless they conspired with another) and only one crime, and thus only one individual acted. The mother did not steal her own car, the car thief did, you cannot hold both responsible for that act. And I've never heard of that in law except for partial liability given to multiple parties in a civil suit. But hey I guess I'm not a lawyer and should just accept I could be held criminally responsible for being a victim. I should just shutup and get fucked in the ass by my over-bearing liberal nanny government because I don't hold a law degree.

Both the mother and the thief can be culpable before the law. The law is not invalidated by the mere fact that non-lawyer libertarians object from their armchairs.


Thank you for the insult. But you see, I'm not arguing what the law is, I'm arguing what the law ought to be (or in this case a law that ought not to exist)

But let's see, if the mother is morally culpable for her child being kidnapped by the car thief, the argument being if she didn't leave her child in her car momentarily in her driveway, the thief would not have stolen the car? Ulitimately we are saying the mother is responsible for a theif's act. And I find that morally repugnant.

Let's explore this what if scenarios that would've not jeopardized the child's safety:

1) If the mother did not own the car, the theif would not have stolen her car with the child in it. Therefore she should not have owned a car.

2) If it hadn't rained, the mother would not have gone in to fetch an umbrella, and the thief would not have the opportunity to steal the care. Therefore we should ban rain.

3) If the mother had a live-in nanny, she would've fetched the umbrella for her. Therefore it should be mandated by law all mothers should have live-in nannies.

4) If the mother didn't have the child. The mother would not have gone in to fetch an umbrella and thus be a victim of car theft and the non-existent child a victim of kidnapping. All mothers must not be permitted to have children.

5) If it not for the invention of umbrellas, the mother would not have left the car to fetch for one. And the thief would not have had the opportunity to steal the car. We should ban umbrellas.

Similarly, children have died playing sports. Any child who dies as a result of a sport injury should result in their parent's arrest, and all sports activities conducted by children should be banned.

And if one leaves one's car on the street with the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked this can be seen as abandonment and can be cause for civil charges if someone steals the car and gets in an accident - or leaves a baby unattended.


Except that's not what happened, read the article, some facts are known (contrary to your careless assertion we don't know enough to make a judgement), she left her car in her driveway. She didn't beat her child, she didn't leave the car abandoned in the street, she didn't leave her child in the car for an extended period of time, she didn't neglect the child. And if we are going to start holding mothers responsible up to an absurd standard of safety perfection, then let's set-up a government regulatory body that requires all mothers before having their child take a martial arts course and CPR training or else the child is taken away. And that all cars should have the latest anti-theft devices that can track a stolen car.

John Letendre:

I note that William has not expressed approval for criminal charges against the mother.


1) All misdemeanor charges are criminal charges. The mother was charged with a misdemeanor, hence there is no other way to hold a mother responsible here except criminally.
2) If there are civil damages to be sought, I'm sure the infant will not press any against her mother

He simply notes: “There was no actual safety increment to be obtained by leaving the child in the car.” I agree.


Well I disagree. And so did the mother, the only individual that is legally sanctioned to be the guardian of her child and to look out for the child's safety is the mother. NOT YOU OR ME.

It was raining, the mother went to fetch for an umbrella to keep her infant dry. The car was on her property, that is enough information to know the mother was acting on what she believed to be in her child's best interest.

Teresa:

I locked my oldest in the car, with the keys, when he was a baby. Twice. Once with the car running. Yeah, I freaked. I was never further than three feet from my baby both times. No cell phones back then, either. Police had to come both times to open the car up.


And Teresa for committing a mistake, i.e. unintentional act according to Ted et al, you are to be held responsible by your nanny government. Why didn't you carry with you a slimjim to get your child out? Or the jaws of life to pry open the car door? You are a criminal and should be charged with a misdemeanor [ / end sarcasm ]

If people want to sit there and play nanny for the child's sake, there is a Democratic Convention coming up I'd suggest you attend.


(Edited by John Armaos on 8/01, 10:51pm)


Post 16

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 10:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Letendre, thank you for posting that article.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Not by the Word of Rand Alone

John, outrage and an ignorance of the law does not constitute an argument on your behalf. Surely you are not implying that I am too qualified for this forum? Of course you and anyone else can have any emotional opinion he wishes. Since you admit you don't know, and presumably don't care to understand what the law is, just be honest and say "this is my uniformed gut feeling." I have dsone it myself. No skin off my back seat. You won't hear me opining about electronics, sports, or any of the myriad of subjects about which I am largely ignorant. You certainly won't see me going berserk over such topics.

If you do want to know the law, you can buy and read Law for Dummies. As a property owner, I'd think you'd at least want to know a little. The concept that two parties can each be 100% liable is called joint and several liability. Of course, not having tried to get out of jury duty, I learned that concept in a case I served.

But out of giving you the benefit of the doubt:

CARE:...A person has the duty to use care in dealing with others and the failure to do so is negligence...
PASSIVE NEGLIGENCE: Failure to do something (as to discover a dangerous condition on one's property) [e.g., pool, open well, unlocked car, abandoned refrigerator, loaded weapon, open car trunk, dangerous animal, -TK] that...in combination with another's act is a cause of injury.
NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT: The entrusting [allowance of use - keys in the ignition! -TK] of a dangerous article (such as a motor vehicle) [!!!]...
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY: joint liability that allows...enforcement of the entire [100%] judgement [penalty] against any one of the [miscreants]...

From Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law, 1996, $15.95, italic emphasis and bracketed comments or paraphrases mine.

No, John, you don't have to know any law to be naively outraged, know any biology to have a mere opinion on human nature, or know any physics to rage against the big bang. But merely having read Rand confers no magical powers of clairvoyance.

As for any analogies, the ones you fail to see are not ones that I attempted to make. (To make it clear, there was probable cause to believe the mother was negligent to some extent - and she'll have her day in court - whether the car was stolen or not. I haven't called for her child to be seized or for her to be imprisoned!) Each word I wrote was carefully chosen, and if you reread what I said calmly I'm sure you can find a reasonable interpretation of my argument. No ill will on my part, and no offense taken.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 11:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nanny state Defenders





Ted, it is one thing if you disagree with my position. But you have a knack of insulting people when you disagree with them. You called me:

1) Armchair Backseat Lawyer

2) non-lawyer libertarians objecting from his armchair

Yet we hear from you arguments for the law of which I assume you hold no law degree (still waiting to see it) and you see it fit to insult others and cry that I don't know enough to discuss issues of moral culpability? Well let's hear your justification for making legal arguments (or more accurately what ought or ought not be a crime)? Why are you not an armchair backseat lawyer? What other purpose was it Ted to call me an armchair backseat lawyer other than to flame-bait me? I think you are acting like an armchair backseat mother, arguing that you would be a better parent than this mother when you know absolutely nothing about her parenting.

As a property owner, I'd think you'd at least want to know a little. The concept that two parties can each be 100% liable is called joint and several liability.


First of all, Mr. Armchair Lawyer, you are incorrect in that characterization. Had you paid attention to my post rather than insult me, you would've read:

And I've never heard of that in law except for partial liability given to multiple parties in a civil suit.


I have never heard of joint liability as each party being 100% liable. I've always heard joint liability as being described as a percentage less than 100 for each party. As in, if two parties were held responsible for liability, each had 50 percent liability, or one had 75% liability and the other 25%. Hence the party say that is 75% liable in a civil suit, pays 75% of the damages. I've never heard of mulitiple parties each paying 100% of the damages totalling 200% payment in damages.

Perhaps you should read over again your "Law for Dummies" book before making incorrect legal characterizations and presuming I don't know how civil suits work (I am currently in two right now, one as the plaintiff and the other as a defendant) and have been sued and sued at least a dozen times over. I probably know a hell of a lot more than you do, unless of course you hold this law degree that I haven't seen yet? No need to have your condescending tone lecture me about civil liability.

And again, we are discussing issues of moral culpabilility and what laws ought to be. If you think this is only for the purview of lawyers, then let's stop discussing morality all together. If you have a better argument that says why a mother should be held (not can be held, should be held) criminally liable for leaving her child momentarily in a car in her driveway, please let's hear it. Otherwise knock off the derogatory and condescending remarks.



(Edited by John Armaos on 8/02, 12:15am)


Post 19

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 1:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, what a wonderfully frothing at the mouth picture you're painting of yourself as an Objectivist. Rand would be proud of that one. Wake me once you get back to making arguments. I still won't hold this silly lack of self control against you. And Angela Lansbury would have been a better choice.

Ted

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.