Sometimes I wish Donahue swallowed the snail and just got the fuck over it.ChaoticLegion said:
Poll: 4-Year Old is Cabable of Being Sued.
- Thread starter Madara XIII
- Start date
Recommended Videos
1) Most funerals now a days go over the $10,000 dollar range and this is just for the plot. That isn't factoring the Casket, the church, the hearse or a lot of things. They aren't cheap.Kimjira19 said:
2) A week in the Hospital cost's a minimum of $50,000 a week. If this one is correct and she stayed there for 3 months, then the price comes to $600,000. That's enough to send a family into a spiraling cycle of debt. This isn't a matter of "paying their bills." this is a matter of avoiding debt. They have lives to and if it was the other way around, then you can expect the same thing.
3) Last I checked, when I was 4 years old and wanted to ride my bike, I asked my parents to take me to the park or a parking lot or just rode around in my driveway. I didn't go barreling down a narrow sidewalk with the intention of going faster then someone near me and if I was driving the vehicle, I'm pretty sure I could see the woman long before the collision. This is just judging on how slow my grandparents move and they're roughly the same age as the old woman. She could have slowed down, she was aware of her actions. And chances are, this won't affect her. Chances are, she'll forget it even happened when she gets older.
I can accidentally steal someone's idea (George Harrison's famous song "My Lord" for Example), that doesn't mean I am completely off the hook. And I know that she is just a 4 year old. No one is saying "That kid needs to pay for this!" I am not saying that. I am saying that her parents should pay somewhat for what their child did. You call it general douche baggary to get paid for wanting to pay for things that wouldn't happen if this didn't happen? And even if she did start a fire at someone's house, you'd probably be like "This kid shouldn't be sued! She didn't know any better!!" Well, if I didn't know any better and I still set fire to someone's house, I would still be in a ton of trouble. And why should an Older woman watch where she was going? She wasn't bothering anyone. It's not like she was standing in the middle of the road and was like "I wanna piss off some people today."Kimjira19 said:
Really, it pisses me off that people think "If you don't know any better, then it's fine". Really, it's not. It's disgusting. No one should be let off the hook for a heinous thing they did. It's not Justice to let a Rapist go just because "He has Medical Issues" or "He was sleepwalking while he did it" or "He is a mental patient". And if this little Girl was like, oh say, a Ned Flanders type of Person, we'd all be booing him to death. Is that justice when a Little Girl can get away with hurting someone but a Grown Adult who actually feels things and tries to help her can't? No!
At the risk of sounding completely callous, if you're so physically frail and/or mentally confused that you're incapable of getting out of the way of a four year old girl on a bike with training wheels, maybe you shouldn't be out on the street without supervision.
A four year old barely has the first inklings of cause-and-effect. This was an incredibly foolish decision on the judge's part.
A four year old barely has the first inklings of cause-and-effect. This was an incredibly foolish decision on the judge's part.
Wow. Just wow. Two years ago. She accidentally hit a 87 year old when she was two years old! Poor kid, you've gotta feel sorry for what she has to go through now.
This sort of crap is exactly why I don't like America. In the distant past before I was born it may have been a better place, but it seems to becoming more and more like a containment cell for the mentally incompetent.
Here's the interesting part to me: What's the legal argument against letting 14 year old girls have sex or take pictures of themselves? Because they're just too young to understand what they're doing. Now this judge is saying that 4 year olds can be sued because they know exactly what they're doing. I find it hard to believe that killing someone somehow involves less responsibility than having sex. It's like saying they're old enough for calculus, but way too young to understand algebra.
The legal arguments in this case and in that one are mutually exclusive. If 14 year olds know exactly what they're doing, then there is no logical reason for telling them that they cannot exercise their right to get in bed with someone. This ruling basically draws the "line of understanding" somewhere around the end of a child's fourth year. I doubt anyone here would agree that that should be the new age of consent.
If we're going to have age of consent laws based on the idea that children are just too dumb to know what they're doing, then we can't turn around and say that they can be sued because they know exactly what they're doing. You can't have it both ways, here.
The legal arguments in this case and in that one are mutually exclusive. If 14 year olds know exactly what they're doing, then there is no logical reason for telling them that they cannot exercise their right to get in bed with someone. This ruling basically draws the "line of understanding" somewhere around the end of a child's fourth year. I doubt anyone here would agree that that should be the new age of consent.
If we're going to have age of consent laws based on the idea that children are just too dumb to know what they're doing, then we can't turn around and say that they can be sued because they know exactly what they're doing. You can't have it both ways, here.
i thought most normal countries had a legal concept that people under 10 cant commit a crime because they dont have the metal abilities to know whats right and wrong or something.
Doli incapax refers to a presumption that a child is "incapable of crime" under legislation or common law. In NSW this is for people under 10. How can a 4 year old know anything. they probably still eat clag and bugs.
Sue the parents if anything.
Doli incapax refers to a presumption that a child is "incapable of crime" under legislation or common law. In NSW this is for people under 10. How can a 4 year old know anything. they probably still eat clag and bugs.
Sue the parents if anything.
at what point do you become to frail to be hit by a bike? 4 year olds can move pretty fast when they are "racing" and people are actually all quite easy to break.
what if the little girl went around a corner and hit her? would a fit person with their back turned react in time?
What if when you fell you hit your head on concrete or something elevated and broke your neck?
im not even going to say this is likely, but by your logic shouldn't we all be shut ins?
also people don't seem to understand, she isn't standing trial for murder or anything, because she cant... she is in a civil suit by a family trying to find her and her guardians financially responsible for the damage she caused.
what if the little girl went around a corner and hit her? would a fit person with their back turned react in time?
What if when you fell you hit your head on concrete or something elevated and broke your neck?
im not even going to say this is likely, but by your logic shouldn't we all be shut ins?
also people don't seem to understand, she isn't standing trial for murder or anything, because she cant... she is in a civil suit by a family trying to find her and her guardians financially responsible for the damage she caused.
this.Zombus said:
fucking old ladies.
they are the ones who should be sued! they can't drive for fucking shit!
I read the article... From what i could understood the child didn't get sued.(prove me wrong if i am)
but that doesnt matter, NO a child should not be sued, The woman died of completly unrelated reason from the accident so if they were trying to sue them for that then they wouldn't have won. Besides shes a child, she may be aware of her surrounding but not of the consequences, we all have done stupid shit as a child, BUT WE DIDNT GET SUED for it.
This is my own belief but sueing is the cowards way out. Insurance will cover most of the injuries ive heard people sue for, and a person should be put in jail if they molest or rape someone, taking there money is going to do anything.
but that doesnt matter, NO a child should not be sued, The woman died of completly unrelated reason from the accident so if they were trying to sue them for that then they wouldn't have won. Besides shes a child, she may be aware of her surrounding but not of the consequences, we all have done stupid shit as a child, BUT WE DIDNT GET SUED for it.
This is my own belief but sueing is the cowards way out. Insurance will cover most of the injuries ive heard people sue for, and a person should be put in jail if they molest or rape someone, taking there money is going to do anything.
No one is above the law. I don't care how much money you have, your age, your sex, gender, or nationality you are not above the law. That being said I dont understand how this is possible because I doubt she had the mens rea for it. But then again I can't see the evidence that was presented before the judge.
On the bright side; based on OP's link's legal logic you can demand that they lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 4 as long as a parent is arround! */facepalm ad infinitum*
On the serious side; a 4 year old might understand the difference between right and wrong and the primary consequences of an action, yet having to grow up as a child knowing that you indirectly killed someone in an accident and without being able to grasp the financial sh*t you'll enter once you become an adult because of the lawsuit, will not only ruin your childhood but also leave some form of psychological damage resulting in a disfunctional and depressed member of society. With such nincompoopery you'll only have 2 "deaths" at your hands for the 1 that happened.
On the abstract side; I'm gonna file a lawsuit against the earth, for lack of resources and thus lack of responsibility for its "spouse". Earth, you bad parent you!
On the serious side; a 4 year old might understand the difference between right and wrong and the primary consequences of an action, yet having to grow up as a child knowing that you indirectly killed someone in an accident and without being able to grasp the financial sh*t you'll enter once you become an adult because of the lawsuit, will not only ruin your childhood but also leave some form of psychological damage resulting in a disfunctional and depressed member of society. With such nincompoopery you'll only have 2 "deaths" at your hands for the 1 that happened.
On the abstract side; I'm gonna file a lawsuit against the earth, for lack of resources and thus lack of responsibility for its "spouse". Earth, you bad parent you!