Convicted Killer Sues Victims Family

[david3 0]

Quote

Only a Liberal Judge will allow this assclown his day in court!

Although...it will lead to an easy counter suit....this kids poor family has suffered enough....I can;t imagin the pain of losing my son!

His suit is already a countersiut to their suit. Can you counter a countersuit?

.

[Andy9o8 3]

Your rottie is a communist.
Ha ha; dig that.

[AndyBoyd 0]

I'll avoid the political issues here, and just point out that this is a handwritten "pro se" suit. In other words, the guy filed the suit himself, without an attorney.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20022802-504083.html

Carry on.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

How can you be so sure (unless you know the details of the accident, and exactly how he was struck and by what)? A friend of mine had an accident at that speed and his life was saved by his helmet.

A bicycle helmet? Lucky bastard.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 385]

OK, since you (and Turtle) apparently consider highlight/copy/paste to be providing a meaningful representation of YOUR thoughts on the subject, could you 1) indicate which of the following points you posted as defining a liberal apply to the "lawyer" in question (the one that doesn't actually exist), and more interestingly 2) let us know which points you find so repugnant about "liberals".

From your "answer":

Quote

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Are you sure you are against political reform? I'm surprised you are so happy with the government as it currently exists.

Quote

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

How can you find this objectionable?

Quote

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Seriously, who could be against freedom of action with respect to personal belief? Do you honestly want to force everyone to be just like you?

Quote

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Can't have any of that evil "representative democracy", can we now.

Quote

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

I can see where you guys would have a problem with this one. Is this why you hate liberals so much?

Quote

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Again, would you really want everyone to be forced to conform to "traditional or conventional ideas"? Nothing but classical music on the radio, can't allow any of that new-fangled rock 'n roll. If it was good enough for your great-great-great grandfather, it's good enough for you right?

Quote

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

Is there a problem here?

Quote

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

Same as above.

Quote

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

Maybe this is why you hate liberals? But of course this is exactly what you advocate when it concerns a rule you happen to not like (such as gun control laws).

Quote

14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

circular definition.

Quote

15. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Not relevant to US posters.

Again, since you posted these points as your concept of a "liberal", which points do you personally find so repugnant? Personally, I prefer to live in a representative democracy with maximum freedom to follow my personal beliefs, and give generously to support causes I believe in. How, exactly, does that make me evil?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wmw999 2,603]

Frankly, it sounds like the word "liberal" is kind of a generic term for "does something I don't like."

Your thoughts don't define conservatism, and the reverse of your thoughts doesn't define liberalism.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skyrider 0]

Quote

You quoted from the dictionary a bunch of definitions of "liberal". Which one were you applying to the noun "lawyer" in the OP?

What the Fuck does it Matter??

What is the answer you are so hard searching for?

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Only a Liberal Judge will allow this assclown his day in court!

Although...it will lead to an easy counter suit....this kids poor family has suffered enough....I can;t imagin the pain of losing my son!

His suit is already a countersiut to their suit. Can you counter a countersuit?

.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have been arrested many times, and spent more than one night at a Holiday Inn, My answer id YES, it is called a Harrassment suit!

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

You quoted from the dictionary a bunch of definitions of "liberal". Which one were you applying to the noun "lawyer" in the OP?

What the Fuck does it Matter??

What is the answer you are so hard searching for?

The answer he is searching for is YOUR answer to the question "What does the word 'liberal' mean to YOU?"

You use if often as a fairly harsh insult.

You were asked the question and responded with a copy/paste definition of the word.
That is the dictionary definition of the word. And it was a bunch of definitions.

You didn't identify which one was closest to your definition, nor did you give the reason why you hate "liberalism" (however you define it) so much.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

At 83mph, the helmet would not have change the outcome one bit.

How can you be so sure (unless you know the details of the accident, and exactly how he was struck and by what)? A friend of mine had an accident at that speed and his life was saved by his helmet.

Oh. I survived a crash at 65, and the helmet still appeared viable afterward. However, it was a miles long straightaway and I basically fell off after hitting road debris. Effectively I fell 4 or 5 feet to the ground and then just bounced along until I came to a stop. If I struck anything with my head, the speed at which the helmet is likely to save me is in the 20s.

In this case, the kid on the bicycle got hit by someone going 83. Figure the kid was probably going between 10 and 30 mph, depending upon the slope. So at best, it's equal to him hitting (being hit by) an object at 50mph. No motorcycle helmet, nor bicycle helmet, is going to do a thing for this.

[GQ_jumper 4]

I'm gonna go ahead and wade through the usual mindless SC retard dribble and get back to the main point of the thread.

As much as that guy deserves to rot in prison for what he did we wouldn't be hearing about stories like this if people would let justice be served by the authorities instead of profiting off everything. If the parents weren't trying to make a quick buck off their kid getting run over they wouldn't be subject to the counter-suit. The asshole is doing his time, let him rot, what does raking in a couple grand do? Will money really make you forget about your lost family member, because if so you're a pretty sorry excuse for a human being. There is no benefit to the parents to sue, justice has been served, all these frivolous lawsuits based on criminal proceedings only serve to clog up the legal system. I feel truly sorry for their loss but I'm dissappointed in them for their decision to sue.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

There is no benefit to the parents to sue, justice has been served, all these frivolous lawsuits based on criminal proceedings only serve to clog up the legal system. I feel truly sorry for their loss but I'm dissappointed in them for their decision to sue.

I suspect $15,000 would just cover the cost of the funeral these days. If they were really suing for punitive reasons I'd expect the amount would be a lot higher. $15,000 is a lot of money to be out of pocket for someone else's criminal act; if the at-fault party has been tried and convicted, why shouldn't he be made to pay?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[DanG 1]

I agree that the US is retardedly sue happy, but in this case it may actually be the insurance company suing on their behalf.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,133]

>If the parents weren't trying to make a quick buck off their kid getting
>run over they wouldn't be subject to the counter-suit.

True, sadly. These two statements don't really go together:

"unbelievable. . . . It drags the pain on. It's a constant reminder. Enough is enough. Can you just leave us alone and serve your time?"
---------
Last year, Matthew's parents, Stephen and Joanne Kenney, sued 48-year-old Weaving for $15,000 for negligence in their son's death.

[DARK 0]

alright i know that this is going to come off as very insensitive but whatever

if he was going at the speed limit whos fault would the accident have been?

in ireland if your dog or cat or cow is on the road and someone crashes into it at any speed it is the animal owners fault not the drivers and the owners have to pay damages to the driver

in ireland if you are on a road and speeding and someone pulls out in front of you and there is an accident it is still the person who puleld out in front of you's fault and they still have to pay you damages. if the police want to prosectue you for speeding fair enough but it dosnt cahnge the fact that the person pulling out in front of you caused the accident

now im not saying this guy is innocent and shouldnt be in prison and im not saying that he should get any money form the parents BUT if the parents were doing their job the kid would not have been cycling in a busy road without a helmet(not that the helmet would have made a difference but it shows the further negligence of the parents) they share at around 50% of the blame imo and ten years is a ridicolously long sentence for what is still essentially an accident, unless of course he is a habitual offender and has been done for dangerous driving and speeding in the past

[Andy9o8 3]

The factual reporting in the article is deficient, as is often the result when reporters who are "whuffos" to the subject matter of the article don't adequately educate themselves about their subject.

The parents and Weaving didn't sue for $15,000; each sued for not less than $15,000. It's a Connecticut complaint-drafting rule that determines whether the initial trial will be an arbitration hearing (less than 15K) or a jury/judge trial (not less than 15k). In fact, the civil court rules of most states, as well as the federal courts, have much the same procedure, with the only difference being what dollar-threshold is contained in the particular jurisdiction's civil rules.

=====================

As for all the pontificating about the parents' ethics for filing a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver, I'm going to follow my usual policy of just not getting sucked in.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Not everyone is out to get you.

I think they are.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[DanG 1]

Oh, they're out to get YOU. They're not out to get skyrider.

- Dan G

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

How can you be so sure (unless you know the details of the accident, and exactly how he was struck and by what)? A friend of mine had an accident at that speed and his life was saved by his helmet.

A bicycle helmet? Lucky bastard.

Very possible. An impact to the head with no protection, leading to death (if it was an impact to the head that caused death), could quite possibly been turned into a non-deadly impact to the head by having a helmet. Depends on the details. Was the deadly contact directly with the 83 mph auto bumper, or from striking the pavement after the initial contact.

As an aside; I got hit, while riding a bicycle, by a motorcycle traveling at a minimum 90 mph. Landed on my feet, 2 sprained ankles. If my body rotation had been different and I had landed on my head, might have killed me. With a helmet, probably not.

Yeah, that's a lot of maybes and ifs, but my point is depending on the exact details, it's possible.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Oh, they're out to get YOU. They're not out to get skyrider.

If so, they will be disappointed when they find me.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[davjohns 1]

"in ireland if your dog or cat or cow is on the road and someone crashes into it at any speed it is the animal owners fault not the drivers and the owners have to pay damages to the driver
"

This varies from place to place. There are states in the US that are 'free range' by law. That means you are responsible for any cattle, sheep, etc. that you hit. You are on notice that they have right of way and you must drive accordingly. Not true everywhere.

In the instant case, I am sure the counter-suit is pro se because no attorney would take it. Most states require that you enter a case with 'clean hands'. This guy has been convicted at the level of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. He has unclean hands and is unable to recover in many states. It is likely that the family is or was desperate to get something more than a few years from this guy for the life of their child. Preying on that, some attorney talked them into a suit. It is also possible that the driver had insurance that refused to pay and this was the only way to make them pay. Not likely given the pro se counter, but possible.

The presence of absence of a helmet would be of varying degrees of import in the case depending on state law. Was a helmet required? Is the state one that recognizes contributory negligence (you contributed to the injury, so you can't blame another) or comparative negligence (you contributed to the injury, so you can only sue for the part you aren't responsible for)?

There are lost of legal, ethical and moral questions. However, the facts should be submitted to a jury to debate. We don't have all the facts or even the relevant laws.

While I agree that we sue quite freely, the alternatives have been stripped from us. We can not take someone out back and whip his / her ass anymore. And people have so little shame that letting everyone know what a useless lout they are doesn't have much effect. Most states no longer recognize that some people just need to have their tail kicked or even need to be killed. Lawsuits and money are sometimes all our modern society will allow.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

You use if often as a fairly harsh insult.

Hmm - There can only be a correlation to insult if you feel that the word "liberal" is somehow derogatory.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Coreece 190]

Quote

it dosnt cahnge the fact that the person pulling out in front of you caused the accident

Well, it could also be argued that if they had not been speeding, they wouldn't have made it in time for their date with diaster.
Most of the time speeding is not an accident, but pulling out in front of a speeding car is almost always an accident.

The best way to avoid problems is to just follow the rules.

Quote

not that the helmet would have made a difference but it shows the further negligence of the parents

Not according to Connecticut law:

§ 14-286d:

"Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action."
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/helmet/helm_ct.htm

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Oh, they're out to get YOU. They're not out to get skyrider.

Please keep in mind, those were your childish words, I never said or implied anyone is out to get me!

I'm not sure how this thread even twisted to that post/point!

[DanG 1]

Quote

Please keep in mind, those were your childish words, I never said or implied anyone is out to get me!

You just assumed that my question was an attack andraised up your hackles in defense. If anyone is behaving childishly, it is you. Man up and answer the questions.

- Dan G