Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: curiosity; BykrBayb
The very fact that she couldn't avoid him means she was skiing to fast. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the skier's responsibility code.

Wrong. If she was watching the person in front of her to avoid them and the kid came from behind or off to the side, she may have never even seen him. We don't know that he didn't ski into HER path.

And if she was falling, as some beginner is likely to do when trying to avoid someone, she would have no control over that either. People can't levitate or teleport last I knew.

Neither one of them was hurt in the collision, which the father would have done well to find out first.

Who knows, she might have even apologized, but there's no way of knowing because it sounds like he never gave her the chance.

You can justify bullying and coming down hard on the girl all you want, but it is not warranted without a lot of assumptions made that cannot be substantiated.

192 posted on 03/09/2011 1:47:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
You can justify bullying and coming down hard on the girl all you want,

For the 100th time, I'm not justifying his bullying. I agree he needed to be punished, just as he was.

but it is not warranted without a lot of assumptions made that cannot be substantiated.

I can't say for certain that my view of the events is correct. But The judge, who had access to all the facts and did not need to make assumptions, appears to have agreed with my assessment of the situation.

I'm not going to second guess a judge unless I have good reason to.

199 posted on 03/09/2011 1:57:47 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson