Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Your Honor, May I Pro...secute?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #21
    Originally posted by gevo
    like the lady who ordered hot coffe from McDonalds then spilled it on her, and found that it says nowhere on the cup that the contents are hot and then sued the company for millions and won?? I dont think ill ever get over the stupidty of the court on this one!! the jury must have hated McDonalds or something.. LOL
    Not quite buddy. If there is a state statute that dictates for such cups to be marked as hot, then the restaurant can be accused of negligence and made to pay a fine. However, I would argue that it was foreseeable that the "hot coffee" the lady ordered was hot and that there was contributory negligence on her part. Now whether or not the court agrees will be based on precedent at best. And once again, I have very little trust in the present court system.

    Comment

    • #22
      Another thaught, in such a case ( i may be straying form the hypothetical presented) where the trolly operatr has absolutely no other way out, I would think the respnsibility should be held by the institution that is in charge of the trolly system, this way someone will be held respnsible, yet not one specific person can be charged with murder or anything.. and, the family (if any) should get the compensation. SO, i do believe there is a very large problem here, but i do not think it is at all the operators problem, even though in such a case he did infact willfully decide he will runover the hobo...
      How do you hurt a masochist?
      -By leaving him alone.Forever.

      Comment

      • #23
        Originally posted by thedebutante
        Not quite buddy. If there is a state statute that dictates for such cups to be marked as hot, then the restaurant can be accused of negligence and made to pay a fine. However, I would argue that it was foreseeable that the "hot coffee" the lady ordered was hot and that there was contributory negligence on her part. Now whether or not the court agrees will be based on precedent at best. And once again, I have very little trust in the present court system.
        I understand, and agree.. yet CMON!!!! YOU CANT POSSIBLY SAY THAT, THAT WASNT A REDICULOUS COMPENSATION!!!!!
        How do you hurt a masochist?
        -By leaving him alone.Forever.

        Comment

        • #24
          Originally posted by gevo
          Another thaught, in such a case ( i may be straying form the hypothetical presented) where the trolly operatr has absolutely no other way out, I would think the respnsibility should be held by the institution that is in charge of the trolly system, this way someone will be held respnsible, yet not one specific person can be charged with murder or anything.. and, the family (if any) should get the compensation. SO, i do believe there is a very large problem here, but i do not think it is at all the operators problem, even though in such a case he did infact willfully decide he will runover the hobo...
          Hey, awesome point. But yup, you're going against my little note in the beginning and altering the hypothetical. That's a no no.

          Comment

          • #25
            Originally posted by gevo
            I understand, and agree.. yet CMON!!!! YOU CANT POSSIBLY SAY THAT, THAT WASNT A REDICULOUS COMPENSATION!!!!!
            Hahaha, why not? You can say anything. In case you haven't picked up on this, this is exactly why I would like to be an attorney one day. Not to make ridiculous claims, but rather to be able to beat my way around the system because it has so many flaws and inconsistencies.

            Comment

            • #26
              Originally posted by thedebutante
              The drivers may not be prosecuted for murder, but I'd need lots of proof to believe that they wouldn't be guilty of manslaughter. However, whether or not they'd be prosecuted for this somewhat lesser charge is clearly similar to the question we have at hand.
              The driver of this hypothetical trolley of yours would never be charged with murder. Even in the case of second degree murder, aforethought malice or willful disregard for human life must be proven. Given that he had no choice, how would you prove that? You'd argue as a prosecutor that his intention was to kill the hobo, his attorney would argue that his intent was to not kill the children. What jury would honestly accept your assessment of his intent?

              Comment

              • #27
                By the way, any DA would need to know what extenuating circumstances were in existence at the time, and you haven't given them to us. A decision to prosecute would never be made on this evidence alone.

                Comment

                • #28
                  Originally posted by loseyourname
                  By the way, any DA would need to know what extenuating circumstances were in existence at the time, and you haven't given them to us. A decision to prosecute would never be made on this evidence alone.
                  In case I didn't make this clear in the beginning, which may very well be the case, these aren't real cases. There is no list of stipulations, etc. This all the information I was given.

                  Comment

                  • #29
                    Originally posted by thedebutante
                    In case I didn't make this clear in the beginning, which may very well be the case, these aren't real cases. There is no list of stipulations, etc. This all the information I was given.
                    You were given???? ... what for>>>/? and whats the point.. cause you say its not that easy to decide, but in both of your cases i feel there is an exact line,, right/wrong is evident.. and seems that most people even on here agreed... I dont know if you read my second (long) post on here, but honestly there isnt much debate on this issue.. unless im missing something...
                    How do you hurt a masochist?
                    -By leaving him alone.Forever.

                    Comment

                    • #30
                      The point is legality. There are extenuating circumstances in both cases that would allow one to either prosecute or not prosecute the suspects. If this is all we're going to be given, then we must say no. There is certainly enough to prosecute the doctor, for murder. His crime was not one of passion or of self-defense. He might claim temporary insanity due to the pressure he was under, but that's for the jury to decide.

                      In the case of the trolley-driver, unless there were circumstances unbeknownst to us, he did not will the death of the hobo. There was no action he could have taken that would not have resulted in the death of an innocent human being. A particularly zealous DA might be able to get him on manslaughter, but I highly doubt any jury would convict, and the DA would be risking a great deal of humiliation from such a case and would almost certainly not be re-elected.

                      Comment

                      Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                      Working...
                      X