Posted on 02/05/2005 10:24:01 AM PST by Pikamax
Good for you.
What the heck is wrong with these people?
From a purely legal analysis, I can't even suggest why the judge made this decision. There's no legal theory to support it.
Nonetheless, we have several Freepers who totally agree with the judge, and some who think it would be okay if the girls were shot and killed.
I had no idea this story would be so divisive.
Some people aren't used to being disagreed with.
There's the problem right there. Lawyers were involved all along, and prevented a meeting that could have kept this thing from going to court.
From the article this incident happened on July 31 of last year.
The actual data
July 31, 2004 Sun Rise Sun Set
Actual Time 6:15 AM MDT 8:18 PM MDT
Just so the facts are documented when certain assertions are made.
I'm with you.
I have a feeling that the sheriff didn't "advise" her to leave her house that night; they may have said "If you're not comfortable here, is there somewhere else you can go?"
I want to know where mother and her 19 year old daughter were during all this commotion? Did they not open the door and look around?
And after the families offered to pay for anything above what her health insurance didn't pay, why did she continue on with this?
Even if what they girls did was ill-advised, after she heard what it was they meant to convey, what kind of person would continue on with this?
As a side note: we have no way of knowing what those discussions concerning the offers to pay her bill went like; now, judging from the fact that the husband, despite a judgement, continues to make harassing phone calls, I'll speculate they didn't go "well," if you get my drift.
I'm thinking that the families sought legal advice about their best road to getting this behind them and the attorney, after hearing all the facts, might have "mentioned" that the lady AND her husband sounded like a whack job and that they needed to consider whether this could go on until the end of time, thus the "we'll pay if you say no more claims" letter.
To me -- and I am a court reporter -- it sounds like that wasn't enough for the woman and her husband; perhaps they were going to milk it for all they could get. After all, if circumstances are all as reported, the trip to the hospital for "anxiety" -- and the apology and offer to pay -- should have been the end of it.
;)
LOL!
could it be that this judge was respecting property ownership? i don't know. but that is good in my book if so. i DON'T think it should have been brought to court in the first place from what i have read of it. but i always like it when judges side with property owners... ya know?
What goes around comes around!
Knocking on someones door is a reason to shoot them?
I deposed one lady who actually said she couldn't work because she was involved in SO many lawsuits; she nicked and dimed everybody that ever thought about opening a business.
And all she got was chump changes every time; but, of course, it was tax free.
From loud knocking on the door.
And before you go any further, the part about "pounding" and "shadows" and "Who's there?" is HER side of the story. Needless to say, there's nobody to back her up.
I haven't seen any posts that kind of agree with the judge let alone "totally".
And you'll please note the "spillover" argument was caused by a poster pinging me over here in some strange attempt to force me to recant my heresy.
LOL
Well, since you don't like ediotrializing, how about citing the Colorad code that allows anybody who lives in Colorado to kill anybody that comes to their door.
Whoops, I just said I hadn't seen anyone agree with the judge even kind of but there you are.
I stand corrected.
Not really. Unless you have a No Trespassing sign up, nobody is on notice that it's wrong to knock on your front door and that it might cost them hundreds of dollars if you do.
There you go; and as in most of these cases, the "fish" gets "longer" with the telling.
What is that suppose to mean?
Oh, never mind; I see; you're implying that somebody who disagreed with cyncooper was banned.
And your proof of that is what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.