EBSB52

The threat will always be there, but blanket lawsuits are bullshit. There needs to be a determination of the accident before you can just throw a lawsuit out to everyone that even looked at the jet. My company still had to pay to defend themselves for over 4 years over what is a frivolous lawsuit. We never touched anything on that jet that could have been related to that crash in anyone's wildest imagination. That is not the way to go about keeping people honest. That's what allows people to be dishonest and take advantage of businesses. No company has a bottomless bank account (ok maybe microsoft) especially in aviation. They operate off a very narrow profit margin and often suffer from several bankruptcies and reformations throughout time just to continue production. These type lawsuits do not help the economy or the safety of aviation period. I hear ya, but if we dissuade lawsuit filings for fear of financial repraisal we could go the other eway - there is a balance.

Lawsuits against corporations leads people to fail to render aid how? Thses kinds of lawsuits, product liability leading to wrongfull death, lead to hold accountable corporations that act irresponsible and send a message to those that might consider cutting corners. I real frivolous cases the judge can and will issue a judgment against the plaintiffs for costs for the defense. Where did I write corporations? You wrote that it was best to list anyone and everyone on the initial complaint, because it might be difficult to add them later. So in a jump accident, anyone that ever touched the gear, student, or nearby land in some form is tasked with defending themselves from a million dollar lawsuit. There's nothing wrong with product liability suits against corporations. But that's not the topic at hand here. In the diving world, this has resulting in a lot of litigation fearful divers. Divemaster rated customers at a diveboat will submit their OW cert card, and might refuse to answer any gear question lest something bad happen on the dive and they get blamed for it. The notion of a buddy waiver is no longer just a pathetic joke. I won't dive with strangers myself, though it's more about the lack of value to me than a fear of them in court. Thankfully the skydiving world doesn't seem so afraid - it's obvious that this sport is dangerous, so it's much harder for litigation to go anywhere. Scuba is perhaps half as dangerous on a per dive basis, but is seen as very safe for the entire family. The diving world's insurers also have a bad habit of settling out of court, enticing even more suits. Go mountaineering in the Sierra and see what sort of information you get from park rangers. They have been conditioned to treat everyone as urban idiots for similar reasons. Where did I write corporations? Usually simple folk don't get sued like corps do, but the same applies to deterrence and the common person. You wrote that it was best to list anyone and everyone on the initial complaint, because it might be difficult to add them later. So in a jump accident, anyone that ever touched the gear, student, or nearby land in some form is tasked with defending themselves from a million dollar lawsuit. Yes. Also, the doctrine of Respondent Superior makes managers responsible for their worker's actions in many cases. Either way, it is typical to list any and all potentially responsible parties, and then dismiss thema s it goes. There's nothing wrong with product liability suits against corporations. But that's not the topic at hand here. HUH, then what is it? It was wrongfull death via product liability. In the diving world, this has resulting in a lot of litigation fearful divers. Divemaster rated customers at a diveboat will submit their OW cert card, and might refuse to answer any gear question lest something bad happen on the dive and they get blamed for it. The notion of a buddy waiver is no longer just a pathetic joke. I won't dive with strangers myself, though it's more about the lack of value to me than a fear of them in court. It's a tough balance between too much litigation and not enough civil liability. Thankfully the skydiving world doesn't seem so afraid - it's obvious that this sport is dangerous, so it's much harder for litigation to go anywhere. Scuba is perhaps half as dangerous on a per dive basis, but is seen as very safe for the entire family. The diving world's insurers also have a bad habit of settling out of court, enticing even more suits. Generally only DZ's that are actually liable will settle out. Either way, people must have a right to sue or businesses/corps/etc would just say fuck it and run amuck.

All this proves is that a rich white guy can get away with anything.

Remember, double jeopardy has one element that people often forget - THE SAME JURISDICTION. IOW's, if you rob a bank the state can try you as well as the feds, and the time can run consecutive. Try robbing an Indian casino or military base..... triple jeopardy that's not really tripple Standards of Proof: Reasonable suspicion Probable cause Preponderance Beyond Reasonable doubt

Not necessarily, the state can sue people and corps too. But a citizen cannot criminally try a person. HOWEVER, if a criminal conviction preceded the civil case, it will help sway the civil case. Which is why people might plead No Contest in a criminal case - the record cannot be used with any value in the civil case.

Really, you'd think he would RSVP JK.... he shpuld be in jail tonight.

It's not the jury, it's the system. Pardon all rich people, celebrities and corporations for evil deeds. Irony is that it's the same people bitching about celebrity immunity that comprise juries.....

A round of Jesus Juice for everyone.... on Michael

Sure, works out great for you, but meanwhile you've force numerous innocent parties to retain their own protection at their expense. It's the fear of these sorts of nuisance suits (at least for including them) that leads many people to provide as little assistance as possible in various endeavors so they won't be targetted so. Sure, works out great for you, but meanwhile you've force numerous innocent parties to retain their own protection at their expense. Works out great for all litigants and potential litigants. The other option is to scare people away from civil litigation which will allow corps and others to run amuck. It's the fear of these sorts of nuisance suits (at least for including them) that leads many people to provide as little assistance as possible in various endeavors so they won't be targetted so. Lawsuits against corporations leads people to fail to render aid how? Thses kinds of lawsuits, product liability leading to wrongfull death, lead to hold accountable corporations that act irresponsible and send a message to those that might consider cutting corners. I real frivolous cases the judge can and will issue a judgment against the plaintiffs for costs for the defense. Here is a frivolous case that was file to suppress testimony, I think the plaintiff, ex-cop will just drop the case. If he pushes it he will certainly be paying for his defendant's costs.... This suit was filed by the fired cop 1 or 2 days before his first citizen's review board hearing..... I am 95% sure he has no intention to further pursue it - it was filed to scare people, other cops, away from testifying. http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2004-092518

TRue to a degree, but as filing statues go, it is wise to include any and all potentially liable parties. True, you can include a statement about how you will include newly discovered liable parties later, but if the judge disallows then you may be screwed. It's best to immediatley file and then start interoggatories, file disclosure statements as soon as the interogs come in. If you need to excuse defendants you can easily do that, but it can be difficult to later include them.

Civilly speaking, comparative negligence.

Oh really? I bet you subscibe to criminal deterrence, don't you? So to deter a criminal with the fear of jail is valid, but to deter a corporation by assessing costs against them won't inact deterrence..... bullshit. In fact, the later does deter corps, whereas criminal prison time has yet to be established as a deterrent. The truth is that corps don't listen to laws unless there is a big penalty attached to it... Um, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you that corporations don't want to incur huge costs. What I was saying about an incorrect premise is the idea that aircraft manufacturers intentionally use poor quality parts to save money, knowing that those parts will cause planes to crash, and that they don't care about the dead passengers thereof. That theory is bunk. No one want's dead passengers. There have been a few cases of parts suppliers recycling old parts and falsely certifying them as new, and they have been deservedly put in jail. The fact is, no matter how high-quality your parts are, and how good your maintenance is, failures are always going to occur anyway. Just because "accidents happen", doesn't mean that someone was criminally negligent or intentionally jeopardized safety to save a few pennies. OK. I wonder if the parts that failed, possibly a P&D valve I'm guessing, were made by vendors? If so, then acft manufacturers use whatever is FAA PMA Certified, or whatever is TSO'd and is the cheapest. They won't knowingly use substandard parts or parts that are illegal, but they will use the cheapest ones. That is not negligent or illegal and what little I know of the suit it sounds as of the jury did get it right. Besides, Lear's are junk . I prolly pissed off someone! I don't really know corp jets that well, but they have a reputation of being high maint and a pain in the ass to work on. Was one ofthe parts an altitude pressure switch? We do Oxygen mask blowndown checks pretty often that are triggered by the O2 pressure switch. Seems like there could be a duplicate system or even a mechanical system as well that dignoses a rapid decompression and drops teh masks - rather have several false positives than 1 of these events. There have been a few cases of parts suppliers recycling old parts and falsely certifying them as new, and they have been deservedly put in jail. These guys aren't acft manufacturers but suppliers to repair stations and they DO cut corners. Just look at the Valujet disaster and you'll see what I'm talking about. The fact is, no matter how high-quality your parts are, and how good your maintenance is, failures are always going to occur anyway. Just because "accidents happen", doesn't mean that someone was criminally negligent or intentionally jeopardized safety to save a few pennies. Certainly. Actually they were just charged with gross negligence, right? When corporations even intentionally kill people it almost always reverts to a civil fine - kinda cute how that works. Legally speaking, a corporation is a person, but it seems they are immune from a murder charge. How do you jail a corporation? I think far more emphasis should be place on corp CEO's that take advantage of corporate severance and immunity.

I say hung on the molestation charge, acquittal on the others. The state will not refile and Jackson will be free to play again..... classism sucks

Generally, you have to establish the other party filed the suit/counterclaim in frivolity to get reimbursed expenses. I think people should be able to file suit, if not, corps would run amuck.

and by suing a company and taking all their money they would accomplish this how? The theory is that the airplane manufacturers are intentionally building aircraft with substandard parts to save money. And if they know they will be sued for doing this, costing them a lot of money, then they will use higher quality parts which won't fail and cause accidents. And everyone will fly happily ever after. Of course, the premise is incorrect, so everything which follows from that is irrelevant. Of course, the premise is incorrect, so everything which follows from that is irrelevant. Oh really? I bet you subscibe to criminal deterrence, don't you? So to deter a criminal with the fear of jail is valid, but to deter a corporation by assessing costs against them won't inact deterrence..... bullshit. In fact, the later does deter corps, whereas criminal prison time has yet to be established as a deterrent. The truth is that corps don't listen to laws unless there is a big penalty attached to it. See, it's alla about the bottom line and if operating a given way costs money then they will change operating protocol.

So you want to make that judgment w/o listening as to why they are symbolically burning flags? Maybe that's one reason they burn the flags, the facade of liberty and freedom, due process, etc masked by blind patriotism. WHat they do is a symbol of discord and dissent withthe agnda of waking people up or at least getting the attention of all - mission accomplished unless you ignore them. I was in the military too, but to state that only people who have served deserve an opinion is a gross Ad Hominem. Point is, if there 2 people in front of you, one served and wanted the dissent of burning a flag, the other didn't serve and adamantly disagreed with the notion of flag burning, you would selectively give license for opinion to the guy that parallels your opinion. So actually serving has little to do with it. Can you understnd the concept of having the right to have an opinion, based upon the spirit of the American doctrine, yet it being stripped becuase of overzealous so-called patriots? See the contradiction? The flag/US Const/most doctrine point to general unabridged right to be who you want and say what you want, yet there is a huge contengency of people that would like to revoke that in the name of patriotism. So what is it, free speech/expression as long as it doesn't offend?

In order for slavery reparations to be warranted, it would need to be proven that whitey money earned on the backs of black slaves was exclusively or generally passed down and there is some inherited white monetary advantage. I must give it to the African-Americans tho, they were less damaged than the American Indian, yet they have built an empire of benefits that surpass the latter.

More or less, yes... you need to be a qualified 97E (or WO equivalent, Army), or the other services' equivalent to conduct a military interrogation... there is another group allowed to perform what is called "combat questioning" but that is very limited in its scope... What all of the folks on your list have in common is that they were not conducting interrogations, and in the case of AbuG, specifically, they were not doing it to gather information, they were doing it for kicks... I wouldn't even give them the benifit of having a noble purpose of gathering information. J Ok, and the pages were likely ripped and flushed for kicks - that's our/my contention. There is no need for clinical disection of intent, you did see the photos, right?

A trained interrogator with half a brain would know that it would not produce usable information. It goes to understanding your subject... with this target group, it would likely elicit an emotional response initially, and then strengthen the resolve of the subject... not a very effective technique... Emotional comments like "Allah will strike you down" or "OBL is a righteous man" do not a AQ operative make in the face desecrating what they see as God's words, though the act might turn him in to one when he gets out. J You saw the pics, is it so hard to think this so-called interogation was just fun?

Oh boy, more fascists! Your willingness to believe this cockamamie story is telling. Just think about it for a minute. First of all, a book won't fit down a commode - it's physically impossible to flush one. The opening is too small, even for a paperback. So the only way to do it would be to tear the pages out, ball them up, and flush them just a few at a time. And that process would require literally hundreds of flushes. So if it takes the toilet tank a minute to refill after each flush, that method would require several hours to accomplish the feat. The whole idea is ludicrous from the physical impossibility of it. And yet you are so willing to buy into it, because you love to believe in the evilness of "fascist" Americans... What a joke, you can't even keep it on topic, can you? First of all, a book won't fit down a commode Pages, Einstein, pages. So if it takes the toilet tank a minute to refill after each flush, that method would require several hours to accomplish the feat. Assuming: They ripped and flushed every page They didn't have a power shitter They had a limited amount of time The whole idea is ludicrous from the physical impossibility of it. You pherensic rendition is laughable on a good day. So they ripped a few pages and flushed them, that would suffice to anger the prisoners. And yet you are so willing to buy into it, because you love to believe in the evilness of "fascist" Americans... It is very plausible. Also, did you or do you buy into the WMD bullshit that teh White had debunked? The whole war is a lie then, right? Went there against virtually all the world's wishes based on a premise that was bullshit from the start, yet you bought into it. And we now have an issue that includes the knowledge of gross torture and publication printing other forms of torture and you find it incomprehensible? Okee-dokee.

If you're refering to me, I was in basic when I was 17. I did 1 term. So your broad generalization is just that, broad. Kind of funny how the people that are angry about the alleged irresponsible reporting are doing the same with broad generalizations. Furthermore, I've worked in manufacturing military toys for another 7 + years. For those of you that bash our "One Nation Under GOD" .... I don't recognize that, my country has a constitution that dissallows a state sponsored religion, so there is no God in the US. There are a lot of brave soldiers, marines and sailors that provide the blanket of freedom you sleep under.... Is this a Jack Nocholson line from A Few Good Men? Oh, uh ... 1. It is generally never about the troops, it's about the maggots like Bush that send then to their deaths for ideology and corp profit. 2. No one is attacking us. A radical group used our own resource against us, but no other country is attacking us or has plans of it. This nbotion that someone is attacking us is paranoia. and will protect you and your right to whine about politics you really don't understand. And protect your right to whine about people actually having the right to express themselves w/o fear of recourse. Don't understand, please kid, I think I do. What, your military experience makes you an expert? SSGT, probably under 30, no college..... please. I still get that warm fuzzy feeling and the hair stands up on the back of my neck when I see the American Flag and here the national anthem. Maybe whne you get out you will get deprogramed as I did - good luck.

See hear is the thing...you have no PROOF that it has happened. The news outlet also had no PROOF. Do you want the media to report things thay think might have happend? Is that responsible journalism? Add in that the report, that they now say was incorrect, has led to death and injury...Do you still think that without PROOF they should have reported it? Also a bunch of the "other shit" was from one location that incase you didn't know, some of those people have been put in jail for it. They made up a plausible story and then recanted it. The story caused riots and killed people. Then they admitted they didn't have the proof. Bad reporting IMO to report "facts" that you can't prove. OMG, Ollie North new millinium.

Seriously. The troops walked around with these guys on leashes, made em srtip naked, and reportedly even made them perform sex; is it so unbelievable that we would rip pages and flush them? The rub from the right is not whether we committed these atrocities or not, but that the media dare talk about it. And the same group would watch The Dear Hunter and be angered by the vents there.

Go burn a fucking flag if it makes you feel better. Than stop at the nearest store and get extra large tampons for yourself. I really, really, really want to run with this, but then I end up looking like the bad guy, so I must let the greenies handle this one.

Not in my opinion. Newsweek became half tabloid a long time ago. When they started implying personal opinion in news stories, it is not news reporting. When they run cover stories about cigar smoking during campaign scandals, they are headed towards entertainment - not news. They are owned by the Washington Post, who leans to the left on almost every new event, so again, what makes NW any different? When NW started running tabloid type articles and covers, I lost interest in their focus or lack of focus on the news. Why think they are any more "credible" then any other news rag? Right, Rush Limbaugh radio far more credible. So which do yiou consider credible?