sgtbean1 wrote: Well, compare it to other civilized legal systems in the world. You apparently suggest that there's either the US system, or the one that's controlled by the state. Forget that very quickly please, and you'll find that for instance the Dutch system - although I'm certainly NOT claiming it's perfect! - is fundamentally not very different from the US system.
Well, compare it to other civilized legal systems in the world. You apparently suggest that there's either the US system, or the one that's controlled by the state. Forget that very quickly please, and you'll find that for instance the Dutch system - although I'm certainly NOT claiming it's perfect! - is fundamentally not very different from the US system.
Well, I am Dutch, and have some historical familiarity with the system. Our Anglo concept of "Trial by Jury" came from Holland, courtesy of King William if I am recalling correctly. It just goes to show that not all invasions are bad. In the U.S., we continue to honor the heritage with the Dollar ("Thaler"), a red, white, a blue flag, and the "United Provinces" were obviously the direct inspiration for the "United States".
Certainly, small homogeneous nations such as Holland and Japan have different views on compensation for injury. I think the U.S. system tries its best to match injury with compensation. Yes, for someone losing their earning capacity for life, in the United States, the numbers add up pretty quickly. U.S. courts do compensate people for future medical care because there is no nationalized alternative, and these can be substantial components of awards that wouldn't be seen in some other countries.
And, these are generally egregious cases -- 97% of filed injury complaints settle out of court. And they are often egregious because of corporate litigation conduct coupled, often times, with completely misguided and often illegal corporate behavior.
steam_marc wrote:I'm amazed that they didn't die. Every now and then, you hear of someone touching the wire and dying instantly. These guys got really lucky.
They didn't actually touch the wire. The voltage was sufficient to arc across to one of them. I suspect that the jury devoted particular attention to that factor.
Angus99 wrote: So he is an attorney then, eh? And you too, apparently? And that has absolutely no influence on your criticisms of the discussion here regarding insane jury awards? Your profession, and how your income is derived, has no bearing on it? He, and you, should have started by announcing your own interests.
So he is an attorney then, eh? And you too, apparently? And that has absolutely no influence on your criticisms of the discussion here regarding insane jury awards? Your profession, and how your income is derived, has no bearing on it? He, and you, should have started by announcing your own interests.
Thank-you for playing along with me. It now point out to you that your conclusion, based on what you surmised from my post, couldn't me more wrong. I am a professor of psychology at a Canadian University. I also retired after 30 years as an Army Officer. Does that help to make my earlier point clear to you? When you are uninformed, you make conclusions at your peril.
QED.
P.S. - my last statment, above, inadvertently speaks to the whole point that Michael is making...without sufficient information, some people get into trouble. If there is fault to be apportioned, a jury would be expected to wade through the information and make a decision based upon law...not justice. I feel these people couldn't all be dolts, so they did what seemed best to them. Who are we to know otherwise? I wasn't on that jury...were you?
Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: Yes, I do agree. There are times when common sense needs to kick in and tell one not to climb on top of a freight car located underneath wires. And in the case of McDonalds, the spills were accidental and not necessarily the result of someone's lack of judgement. Hot coffee served at drive thru fast food restaurants is an open invitation for such an accident. However, it's one thing to accidently spill coffee and another to deliberatly tresspass and climb on top of a freight car. So my McD analagy may not be appropriate here. I am in no way justifying this award, and generally object when people are rewarded for their stupidity. We recently had a situation at our Zoo in San Francisco where 2 idiots were taunting and harassing a female tiger. The tiger got very angry and somehow managed to escape from her enclosure, strolled by people who were not involved with the taunting, and actually hunted those 2 guys down. She killed one and injured the other. Unfortunately, the police had no choice but to kill the tiger before she harmed anyone else. Now in this case I actually felt sorry for the tiger, as she was just doing what tigers do. But the families involved hired a well known lawyer, Mark Geragos, and they will probably become millionares. As far as I'm concerned, the city should just pay for the burial and medical expenses and nothing else. I don't know what the answer is, sometimes the large awards might be justified and other times they are just absolutely ridiculous. Wayne I am not sure what it takes to taunt a tiger, but tigers should not be able to get out of their cage no matter how they feel.
sfcouple wrote: Yes, I do agree. There are times when common sense needs to kick in and tell one not to climb on top of a freight car located underneath wires. And in the case of McDonalds, the spills were accidental and not necessarily the result of someone's lack of judgement. Hot coffee served at drive thru fast food restaurants is an open invitation for such an accident. However, it's one thing to accidently spill coffee and another to deliberatly tresspass and climb on top of a freight car. So my McD analagy may not be appropriate here. I am in no way justifying this award, and generally object when people are rewarded for their stupidity. We recently had a situation at our Zoo in San Francisco where 2 idiots were taunting and harassing a female tiger. The tiger got very angry and somehow managed to escape from her enclosure, strolled by people who were not involved with the taunting, and actually hunted those 2 guys down. She killed one and injured the other. Unfortunately, the police had no choice but to kill the tiger before she harmed anyone else. Now in this case I actually felt sorry for the tiger, as she was just doing what tigers do. But the families involved hired a well known lawyer, Mark Geragos, and they will probably become millionares. As far as I'm concerned, the city should just pay for the burial and medical expenses and nothing else. I don't know what the answer is, sometimes the large awards might be justified and other times they are just absolutely ridiculous. Wayne
Yes, I do agree. There are times when common sense needs to kick in and tell one not to climb on top of a freight car located underneath wires. And in the case of McDonalds, the spills were accidental and not necessarily the result of someone's lack of judgement. Hot coffee served at drive thru fast food restaurants is an open invitation for such an accident. However, it's one thing to accidently spill coffee and another to deliberatly tresspass and climb on top of a freight car. So my McD analagy may not be appropriate here.
I am in no way justifying this award, and generally object when people are rewarded for their stupidity. We recently had a situation at our Zoo in San Francisco where 2 idiots were taunting and harassing a female tiger. The tiger got very angry and somehow managed to escape from her enclosure, strolled by people who were not involved with the taunting, and actually hunted those 2 guys down. She killed one and injured the other. Unfortunately, the police had no choice but to kill the tiger before she harmed anyone else. Now in this case I actually felt sorry for the tiger, as she was just doing what tigers do. But the families involved hired a well known lawyer, Mark Geragos, and they will probably become millionares. As far as I'm concerned, the city should just pay for the burial and medical expenses and nothing else.
I don't know what the answer is, sometimes the large awards might be justified and other times they are just absolutely ridiculous.
Wayne
I am not sure what it takes to taunt a tiger, but tigers should not be able to get out of their cage no matter how they feel.
Unfortunatly there were design issues with the enclosure that will regretably work in favor of the knucklheads defense. Personally I think these drunken idiots should have been tossed back to the tigers. All I can hope is that the case was so well known and the lost tiger was so well loved that no local jury would award them anything ridiculous, or just rest in the knowledge that with screw offs like this, any awarded money they get would quickly be blown partying and they would be right back on their stupid drunken butts without a penny in no time. Afterall, Mike Tyson blew 30 million in only a few years, no brain, no gain!
Anyway enough of Tiger Times, back to topic...
Have fun with your trains
sgtbean1 wrote: I can also tell you, aside from going into laws that would or would not make it possible, that this would be a very clear cut case in the Dutch system. NO WAY would they EVER get awarded 24M; they'd get their fair day in court (yes, if they can't afford legal representation, they are offered legal assistance by a special government department - very similar to the US system) and be told to take this as a lesson and requested to leave.
I can also tell you, aside from going into laws that would or would not make it possible, that this would be a very clear cut case in the Dutch system. NO WAY would they EVER get awarded 24M; they'd get their fair day in court (yes, if they can't afford legal representation, they are offered legal assistance by a special government department - very similar to the US system) and be told to take this as a lesson and requested to leave.
The U.S. system is generally one of comparative negligence. The system takes no pleasure in telling profoundly injured people "too bad, roll your wheelchair back out onto the street". Comparative negligence recognizes that there is a real world in which each party can be, in some fashion, negligent. In a perfect world, the boys would have been born smart and know all about electricity from the day they could walk. In a perfect world, the railroad would have camera monitors everywhere to protect their property and to be able to intercept trespassers, including kids, cows, horses ....
It's not a perfect world and the system of comparative negligence recognizes that.
As to the $24 million, which seems to be the issue, you did not understand my description of how the system works. A "verdict" as to damages is just the start. And my complaint with the newspaper article, and newspaper articles like it, is that no doubt the writer, having just come from covering a dog show, and on her way to sit through a city council meeting, was advised that the jury had rendered a verdict for $24 million. Well, I know the system pretty well, and I can tell you I don't know what that means. Ordinarily, these judgments are then adjusted for present value, and for comparative negligence. And by the time the Court has made those adjustments, the actual dollar figure looks considerably different. And because of the way these judgments are typically funded, the actual cost to the corporation can well be of an order of magnitude lower than the "verdict amount".
rsovitzky wrote:I may have missed it, but Michael, did you ever express your opinion on this case?
I have read a newspaper article on the matter. My faith in newspaper articles is not high enough to waste the energy to make an opinion based on it. I do think enough information was missing from the article to make the judgment amount misleading; from there, I do not know whether or not the reporter accurately summarized the facts of the case since she no doubt did not sit through the trial.
MichaelSol wrote:Legal systems are the way of avoiding personal notions of "justice" -- duels and sabotage and honor killings and genocide and such -- and if people don't get their day in court over perceived wrongs, what's their alternative?
MichaelSol wrote: In socialist countries where the all-powerful state cannot be sued for its own negligence, the alternative usually results in broken lives, or passive sabotage, or outright revolution. Compared to those alternatives, the term "overly litigious" sounds almost delicately civilized. And that is always a good question: compared to what? Our legal system does, in fact, protect the small and powerless and, since there happens to be a lot of them in any society, this society does have a special burden because of the special acess it gives to the poor and the injured by virtue of equal access laws and the contingency fee system. And that doesn't mean every poor or injured person has a valid complaint, but that can only be determined after the system is accessed, not by closing the door to the mere raising of the allegation.
MichaelSol wrote:The "real" hardball litigation that people read about tends to be when a big corporation, sticking out its hairy chest, declares "we never settle." Well, that's when judges and juries can find no sympathy on damages for them, or when punitive damages are granted. And it's those same big companies, with highly paid public relations departments, who whine and cry that the system is unfair even as their CEO's take home 10,000 times the salary of the guy on the assembly line and as they publicly proclaim their highest rate of return in history.
MichaelSol wrote:The injured person, even if he wins the case, has no such public relations department to call the newspaper or otherwise tell you about why it was fair that he won his case. So, at the outset, the public knowledge of these cases is skewed, intentionally so, by very wealthy interests which can not only well afford to compensate those they injure, but can usually well afford to undertake safety measures that often their own safety departments urge that they would be well advised to do.And the fact that otherwise intelligent people allow the public information well to be poisoned without careful attention to the underlying facts results in the kind of world as posted above, if the uncritical and brainwashed 17 year olds were in charge: wishing upon other young people their ultimate deaths, because of a day's lark and misunderstanding about high voltage electrification.
And the fact that otherwise intelligent people allow the public information well to be poisoned without careful attention to the underlying facts results in the kind of world as posted above, if the uncritical and brainwashed 17 year olds were in charge: wishing upon other young people their ultimate deaths, because of a day's lark and misunderstanding about high voltage electrification.
Michael Sol wrote:On that, I do have a strong opinon: it is pathological to feel that way and when adult railfans can look to the fruits of their own uninformed attitudes and see "what is happening to the country" they can look squarely in the mirror as far as I am concerned and see exactly where the blame lies.
Dan
MichaelSol wrote:The U.S. system is generally one of comparative negligence. The system takes no pleasure in telling profoundly injured people "too bad, roll your wheelchair back out onto the street". Comparative negligence recognizes that there is a real world in which each party can be, in some fashion, negligent. In a perfect world, the boys would have been born smart and know all about electricity from the day they could walk. In a perfect world, the railroad would have camera monitors everywhere to protect their property and to be able to intercept trespassers, including kids, cows, horses ....It's not a perfect world and the system of comparative negligence recognizes that.
rsovitzky wrote: The system of comparative negligence does NOT recognize it's not a perfect world! On the contrary, it ignores the real world and tries to pretend it is perfect. So that something done in blatant error causing damage to self, needs to somehow be compensated for by some party with money. If there were no money, there'd be no case.
Your complaint, then, is that there may be money to compensate injured persons and that, ultimately, it is unfair that any injured person be compensated because that must mean that someone else has money to compensate them with.
It is an interesting view.
Your lecture on it doesn't inform me of much about the system, as much as it does about your understanding of it.
I deal with this every day, and I will reiterate my offer earlier: if you have any questions about how comparative negligence systems work, I would be glad to answer them.
rsovitzky wrote:I know comparative negligence theories quite well, actually.
Your posts don't show it. You need to ask somebody about it and then you can return with an informed opinion, rather than perpetuating completely misleading perceptions of this case and of how the law actually works.
As I stated earlier, in reprinting a bar association comment: "Generally, a defendant-landowner owes no duty of care to a trespassing adult except to refrain from willfully and wantonly harming him or her, unless the defendant-landowner's premises constitute a "place of danger"."
There are a long line of swimming pool cases to this effect, and we aren't going to accomplish anything here by rearguing 150 years of well-established law that railroads have been long considered a "place of danger" by their nature and do, in fact, as a matter of law, owe "a" duty of care to trespassers. If you have a swimming pool in your backyard, you have the identical duty and so, no, this isn't some weird bias you think somebody just dreamed up just to stick it to railroads.
rsovitzky wrote:The difference between you and me, then, is that you believe the law is right. I believe it is wrong.My opinion is already 'informed'.
The two trespassers disagreed with the law as well; and presumably felt their opinions "informed" enough to take the risk. That's the probem with the way kids think, and you are thinking every much like them.
And, you plainly blame "the law" for the discretionary decision of the jury regarding "the facts", thoroughly confusing one with the other, and eager to substitute your own opinion in the place of the people who actually heard the case and were charged with the responsibility for weighing the actual facts. That's not "informed". It's the opposite.
And this is the full circle to my original contention: people bring the most uninformed of opinions to these discussions, arguing with a supreme if equally misunderstood irony about their strongly held views of the "ignorance" of two railfans who got zapped while demonstrating, in the process, exactly the same kind of generic, uninformed ignorance they roundly condemn.
MichaelSol wrote:strongly held views of the "ignorance" of two railfans who got zapped
I'm unclear about why they would be considered "railfans". They were skateboarding at night and decided to climb on top of the car to look at the surrounding area from an elevated location.
JayPotter wrote: MichaelSol wrote:strongly held views of the "ignorance" of two railfans who got zappedI'm unclear about why they would be considered "railfans".
I'm unclear about why they would be considered "railfans".
I am intentionally referring to the quality equivalency of the thought processes of the two young men as they have resembled those appearing on this thread. Other than the relative lack of quality of their understanding and their utter lack of respect for the law, which is in fact equivalent exactly to statements uttered on this page, I have no idea what their feelings about railroads were, one way or the other.
steam_marc wrote: zugmann wrote:http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/219163I really don't know what to say. Except it is a sad day in america. What the heck. These two should have been sued for $24 million. I'm 17, and it would have to take a large amount of mental handicap to actually get me to be stupid enough to trespass onto a high-speed corridor, with security as it is, climb on top of a freight car after tagging it, and touching the high-voltage cable that has "Death!" written all over it. I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die. What great candidates for the Darwin Awards. Fortunately, there's always runners up...
zugmann wrote:http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/219163I really don't know what to say. Except it is a sad day in america.
What the heck. These two should have been sued for $24 million. I'm 17, and it would have to take a large amount of mental handicap to actually get me to be stupid enough to trespass onto a high-speed corridor, with security as it is, climb on top of a freight car after tagging it, and touching the high-voltage cable that has "Death!" written all over it. I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die. What great candidates for the Darwin Awards. Fortunately, there's always runners up...
Do these people lack common sense??? As stated (I don't know how many times) in this thread and in other threads about this story on other forums, they trespassed on railroad property, climbed on private property (the railcar) and got electrocuted. If that wire (the catenary) can power a train, would it not make sense that it could instantly terminate your existance? Granted, they should have probably gotten something to pay for their medical bills if they were extreme, but in the below article it is my understanding it is stated (second-to-last paragraph) that they're pretty much getting the equivalent of $155 grand a year for life. I may be wrong, correct me if this is the case.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/560608.html
Hey Judge Larry, UH, WHAT?
starwardude wrote: I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die. If that wire (the catenary) can power a train, would it not make sense that it could instantly terminate your existance?
I'm suprised and upset that these two didn't die.
If that wire (the catenary) can power a train, would it not make sense that it could instantly terminate your existance?
That is what makes this an instance, under the law, of property that is "a place of danger". That places some burden on the property owner, not much, but some -- a minimum duty to protect or warn. The law presumes, based purely on common sense, that there are 17 year olds out there who don't necessarily have the wisdom of the ages yet, and, just like the poster earlier who doesn't like the law, don't like the law, including that of trespass.
And your description does beg the question that, of all the entities involved that had absolute knowledge that the situation was dangerous, wouldn't it have been the railroad/Amtrak?
If the article accurately recites the Judge's review of the jury verdict, he was asking why Amtrak in essence planted a ladder leading up to the catenary near a busy intersection for four days, left the catenary energized, had no warning signs posted as to the hazard, and didn't expect that teenagers under those circumstances will do what teenagers do under those circumstances.
People have tossed the phrase "common sense" around on this thread, but I think the Judge, and no doubt the Jury, were looking for even the most minimal compliance with the duty to warn, and found exactly none by the very entities that created the hazard and certainly, if anyone did, knew exactly what the hazards were.
It wouldn't have taken much for Amtrak to meet the duty to warn: a simple sign. It wasn't there. And that goes to the positive force of Negligence Law: saving a few nickels here or there under some budget goal is not worth a human life, and this case provides, if Amtrak or the railroad needs any further incentive during their safety meetings, a reminder that safety is, indeed, first, and should be.
MichaelSol wrote:That is what makes this an instance, under the law, of property that is "a place of danger". That places some burden on the property owner, not much, but some -- a minimum duty to protect or warn. The law presumes, based purely on common sense, that there are 17 year olds out there who don't necessarily have the wisdom of the ages yet, and, just like the poster earlier who doesn't like the law, don't like the law, including that of trespass. And your description does beg the question that, of all the entities involved that had absolute knowledge that the situation was dangerous, wouldn't it have been the railroad/Amtrak?
As usual Michael you have put your finger on the right spot. You also explained it better than everybody with his opinion. I admit I had this common opinion too, based on next to no facts. Still feel they may get a better deal than they deserve, they were trespassing after all.
A couple of questions then.
If the railroad(s) had put up the relevant warning signs as required of property owners by relevant law, by what factor, if any, could the $24m be reduced?
Would the admitting of trespassing have any influence on the $24m?
greetings,
Marc Immeker
P.S. Love to hear about your Dutch ties.
Hypothetical:
A 17 y/o sees a boat at a dock with an outboard motor. It's tied to a dock and the motor is idling. So he climbs aboard, unties the rope and makes the boat move by applying throttle. At some point he decides he has had enough and jump overboard without adjusting the throttle and the propeller deeply lacerates his thigh as the boat continues past. As a result of this injury and the his lack of swimming ability he drowns. There were PFDs in the boat.
Should the owner have to post signs in his boat saying "PFD use is required", "Don't exit the boat at speed" and "Warning: Spinning propeller is dangerous"?
Again, not trying to be a jerk. I'm just curious.
I understand your point I believe. I would start with why an idling outboard motor was left unattended and go from there. It couldn't be much more irresponsible, according to police and insurance companies, than leaving the keys in the ignition of one's parked car, engine idling, while one tends to even hurried and minor business in a nearby mall.
I am all for a person accepting the consequences of one's actions. However, all overt behaviour, speaking as a psychologist, is contextual. We don't exist in a vacuum. We respond minute-by-minute to obstacles, threats, opportunities, windfalls, and even out of idle curiosity. My training Warrant Officer told me years ago that my troops would follow me only for the last reason. I don't remember if he winked. Also, just as we are discussing here about our various interpretations of custom, convention, and the Law, youth have their own version of what is right and wrong. They are curious, they'll push the envelope, they're programmed for discovery. If an entity leaves a potentially dangerous opportunity for them to discover, some of the blame should go to that entity...maybe...depending on how the jury or judge views the evidence. And, as a psychologist, let me assure you that if you deign to pee off the jury, woe to the person represented by you. Juries aren't above teaching lessons.
I have a distate for warning signs.
I was going to remain silent and read on this thread... but the Boat Scenario; well I have to call it theft boat, willful abandonment and probably a hazard to navigation along whatever else one can fit onto the charges at the 17 year old boat thief.
Back to my distate for signs... some of the cars I have driven are so overly decalled with bright orange or yellow warnings and "Do-nots" in US, Spanish and French languages and sometimes even other languages. Roll over risk, etc. Just being inside one of these vehicles is disturbing. Just being inside a car or airplane, ship or rowboat in a harbor means that you are going on a journey and sometimes you dont live to complete that journey... either because you made a mistake or several factors combine to have a incident or death/maim situation.
Railroads are dangerous. Always have been and always will be.
Bottom line, those two teens have no business being on railroad property and sadly they got what they deserved for putting themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they had to learn about electricity and how it can arc or jump many feet from one conductive object to a GROUND Object... sometimes that ground is YOU.
Wished they learned that fact in school, such as our education system is and apparent failing nuclear familial bonds that keep children out of harms way long enough to reach 18 years of old.
If the Law was properly applied to these young people they know not to go near railroad, know not to get near wires hanging in the sky and find another alternative places to get a better view.
I dont see these kids climbing a tree on the street corner next to a pole with wires and transformers hanging off it. No, they had to do it from a railcar that so happens to have electrical power above it.
You think these kids who may have lived or were raised in that area long enough to understand that there is danger on those tracks. Certianly ive been near the corridor as a child and you learn very quickly how fast and silent those trains are, when they are upon you is not the time to be regreeting not using that bridge or crosswalk nearby... those are usually shielded and festooned with signs showing cartoon people frying in wires and sparks indicating high voltage.
With that in mind, is it fair to lay neglect of a few missing signs on a railroad doorstep when such a railroad has thousands of miles of responsibility? The Union Pacific recently put up 12 NO TRESPASSING signs about 40 feet apart in my town on both sides of the double track main. Apparently there are people "Jay tracking" instead of using the carefully constructed sidewalks laid just for them on both of the crossings.
The article talks about how one had to endure the horror of watching someone's clothes be on fire. Ive been there and done that, the first problem is to put out the fire and then summon help... however the trucker in me says this:
Dummy! You should NEVER have allowed that wire to light you up on fire.
The best risk management is not to be placing yourself into that sitaution in the first place. Apparently at that age that is the last thing on the mind.
Tomes of Law in writing can never compenstate for acts brought on by ignorance or stupidity.
Falls Valley RR wrote: Bottom line, those two teens have no business being on railroad property and sadly they got what they deserved for putting themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Bottom line, those two teens have no business being on railroad property and sadly they got what they deserved for putting themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Do you really think that because they trespassed, they deserved what they got? Does that punishment fit the crime?
Falls Valley RR wrote: With that in mind, is it fair to lay neglect of a few missing signs on a railroad doorstep when such a railroad has thousands of miles of responsibility?
With that in mind, is it fair to lay neglect of a few missing signs on a railroad doorstep when such a railroad has thousands of miles of responsibility?
Of those thousands of miles of "responsibility" can the railroad then be "irresponsible" when and where it chooses? It would be an interesting argument in court: "sorry this guy got killed but we have a lot of warning signs up in the next state, so its not our fault."
The continuing arguments in favor of intermittent "neglect" or negligence being justified for experienced corporate enterprise, but not for 17 year olds, continues to confirm my contention that there is little substantive difference in the attitudes between the 17 year olds in the case and their critics ...
Let's say they deserved to be punished for thier trespassing. Was such punishment administered?
Never mind the suit for the money or the 24 clams. The law does not say that one should recieve such a great reward when injured during the course of trespassing or other crime.
That is why I say they got what they deserved. If a home invader brekas into my house at night and goes after family and I shoot this person dead... well he or she got what they deserved. One or more of us will not live to see sunrise because a crime of home invasion is being committed. Hopefully it's the perp.
If I dont get him square in the sights, most certainly the courts will. If the perp says to the court that I ought to be made to pay him a reward of 24 clams for being injured due to my bad markmanship why I should be thinking how broken our justice system would be.
If they dont remember the punishment for trespassing, then they will be reminded by thier own injuries and the memories. That will be a great deterrent against future violation of the trespassing rule.
If they still trespass in the future and climb onto another railcar to get a view of the mountain of money they recieved and fried... well hopefully such dimwits will be removed from our breeding pool.
No. What is done, is done. Let the Courts sort it out. That is why we have them in our great Nation.
Annnddddd......BACK to the action. Sorry, for being so sparse in responding. Have to put in another honest day's work, like most of you! <wink>.
So, just catching up - pretty much everybody on this thread but the attorney and the professor think this award was insane, then? And the fact that it also represented a major payday for the legal profession and the apparatus that props it up is irrelevant? And that it sets a precedent that will benefit same in future?
Your honor I object!
Overruled! <slams gavel>
Ah, well.
Falls Valley RR wrote: That is why I say they got what they deserved. If a home invader brekas into my house at night and goes after family and I shoot this person dead... well he or she got what they deserved. One or more of us will not live to see sunrise because a crime of home invasion is being committed. Hopefully it's the perp.
There is no point in suggesting that there is a substantive difference between a misdemeanor crime against property and a felony assault against people, and compelling reasons for that difference.
But, the posts on this thread aren't about "reason" or "common sense" -- it's about railfans thinking and talking exactly like the 17 year old kids they criticize -- offering up a bunch of juvenile baloney that ultimately has nothing to do with the law or its application, facts or their relevancy, or common sense and the fact that it has been taken hostage.
This idea, repeated on this thread, that somehow these two kids "deserved" to be killed, or fried, or scarred for life, is simply beyond my comprehension. This crap isn't just repugnant. There is something psychologically wrong with people with these attitudes. Those two boys didn't climb up on that car to hurt anybody, to want someone dead, to wish evil to anyone, or to "perpetrate" anything, but the comments on this thread point to people who do wish those things on people, and I think it is disgusting. There is a point at which the reflexive, uninformed, obsessive "need" by railfans to defend the poor railroad company morphs into something far more illuminating, and horrifying, than merely critiquing a jury doing its job.
Get a life. Wishing death on two kids isn't it.
Angus99 wrote: So, just catching up - pretty much everybody on this thread but the attorney and the professor think this award was insane, then? And the fact that it also represented a major payday for the legal profession and the apparatus that props it up is irrelevant? And that it sets a precedent that will benefit same in future?
Let's say that the 12 people on the jury were just like you.
That would explain it, wouldn't it?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.