Posted on 04/09/2002 11:30:44 AM PDT by FresnoDA
SHould have read
But a judge would say..the only thing illegal is the pot smoking. Sorry, but true.
Now, getting to vacrn's comments, and my exchanges with her... What would a reasonable person do? Ya gots to look at laws, and society's tolerance of their behaviour....laws and restrictions show how much their behaviour is tolerated. Sometimes, proof of neglect is subjective.. I still say what do the counselors think? The investigators, teachers, friends, family and principals all have a role in proving neglect.
If the defendant is guilty, and the defense exploits the parents chosen lifestyle...going to the bars,dancing with each other, and possibly having threesomes/foursomes that society tolerates remember...it could backfire.
Yes, you do love them...you have a bleeding heart mentality because their daughter was allegedly abducted and found dead. Keeping in mind, Danielle was the real victim, I have no sympathy for her negligent parents, except to say, I am sorry the poor little girl is dead. The environment she was raised in was a cess-pool. She never had a chance. There weren't any sober, responsible parents around to take care of her. I wouldn't let these people baby-sit a dog..
~Kim~ do you know what "child endangerment" is? From everything I can put together that happened that evening, they put their children's lives at risk. Want proof? One of them is dead.
Contributory negligence, ~Kimmie~...keep saying that to yourself, it might register after awhile.
sw
Distinction Between Assumption of Risk and Contributory Negligence
http://www.execpc.com/~berrestr/boyle6g.html
Whether a person who voluntarily proceeds into an obviously unsafe situation has merely assumed the risk, or has been guilty of contributory negligence in so proceeding, is often a close question.
At this point,the parents felt safe bringing their friends home. They have not been proven to be strangers.
, "if the risk of harm involved is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards as the utility of the act or the manner in which it is done. [63] In other words, if assuming the risk was reasonable under all the circumstances, it is no defense under the safe-place law; if unreasonable, it is contributory negligence.
What is "reasonable" is measured by what ordinary and prudent men do under similar circumstances. [65]
Unless the defendant can show that the likelihood of injury outweighed the practical usefulness, or utility, of proceeding as plaintiff did under the circumstances, plaintiff cannot be charged
It's not unreasonable to bring friends home from a bar.
Is it unreasonable to not check the doors and windows? maybe..but they did. Is it unreasonable to not check on kids afterwards...obviously that is debateable..Living in a neighborhood with low crime rates..a reasonable person might continue to feel safe. I don't know. I know I wouldn't.
You can't be serious.
BTW, how ever is the jury going to deal with David Westerfields background? You don't think that because the man has patents on inventions that have made a positive difference in the quality of thousands of lives, it might just play a tiny bit in his favor?
Here we have a man who wants to "invent" things to help handicapped people? People who can't bend their fingers properly, have a new lease on life. People who need assistance to help them out of bed?
He has a really "evil and perverted" mind to invent things to help others? Oh, God forbid, ~Kim~ you might be in the need and be offered a Westerfield invention to make your life more comfortable or pain free. You'd refuse it, right? Not!
An evil, sicko, person doesn't want to help people...he did.
Now, you tell me something positive about the van Dams. Your turn.
sw
Amen.
sw
contributory negligence in law, behaviour that contributes to one's own injury or loss and fails to meet the standard of prudence that one should observe for one's own good. Contributory negligence of the plaintiff is frequently pleaded in defense to a charge of negligence. Historically the doctrine grew out of distrust of juries, ... http://www.britannica.com/seo/c/contributory-negligence/
http://www.nils.com/rupps/contributory-negligence.htm
An injured person's failure to exercise due care, which along with another person's (the defendant's) negligence, contributed to the injury. A common law defense, originating in England, that one who negligently harms another cannot be found liable if the injured person himself was negligent in the slightest degree.
But that's another case, isn't it?
Forget about it, Kim, and buckle up. You aren't gonna be a happy camper when the trial gets underway...giggle, giggle.
sw
A federal lawsuit filed by a Holocaust survivor claims the German pharmaceutical giant paid Nazi doctors to perform experiments on Jews at Auschwitz. A lawsuit filed in US District Court in Indianapolis says Bayer supervised experiments in which prisoners were injected with germs to test the effectiveness of the company's drugs. Eva Kor of Terre Haute, Indiana, says her twin sister died from experiments she was subjected to as a child. Bayer has denied any involvement in the tests
Enough, Kim. I've got a ton of house-work to do today...just can't get any good hired help these days (wink, wink).
sw
In a summary of a letter from a doctor working for the huge German pharmaceutical company Bayer, she read about Bayer experimental drugs to be tested on Auschwitz prisoners. If true, it means that Kor and others were essentially used as laboratory animals.
Bayer is one of the best known and largest pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the world. But what’s turning up in these long-forgotten archives puts the company in a much different light.
For example: One of the SS doctors at Auschwitz, Dr. Helmut Vetter, a longtime Bayer employee, was involved in the testing of Bayer experimental vaccines and medicines on inmates. He was later executed for giving inmates fatal injections.
The guy can do no right! LOL! sw
He has a really "evil and perverted" mind to invent things to help others? Oh, God forbid, ~Kim~ you might be in the need and be offered a Westerfield invention to make your life more comfortable or pain free. You'd refuse it, right? Not!
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.