Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yeah this blew me away:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news

She's desperate.

Shows how we suck as a species.

Thats just sucks, the judge should get slapped up the head too. The car could have caught fire and the man did good. That damn woman should STFU, ungrateful *****.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yeah this blew me away:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news

The reporting committed a non-sequitur logical fallacy.



The suing lady was in a wreck where injuries were sustained. They were not a trained professional and that person removed the injured lady probably caused the spinal cord permanent damage. The lady and daughter in the car were not in a wreck, they were washing away down a river. Removing the flood victims would not cause their broken back to sever their spinal cord.





It is pretty damn obvious that the car crash victim should have been left alone and the flood victim should have been rescued. There's nothing to report here.

Even if the rescuer thought the car would catch fire?

This is certainly...

V3y3QoFnqZc

haermm

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Even if the rescuer thought the car would catch fire?

Sounds like the "rescuer" has watched too many movies...which is probably why the "rescued" was so pissed. They were satisfying their own phobias through their Hollywood perspective.


The "reporters" never tell you that the car never caught fire. Hence why the case made it anywhere.



I'm not taking up for the whiny b*tch as she should not be taking it this far. However, it sounds as though the "rescuer" was panicked and threw the lady around very roughly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The reporting committed a non-sequitur logical fallacy.



The suing lady was in a wreck where injuries were sustained. They were not a trained professional and that person removed the injured lady probably caused the spinal cord permanent damage. The lady and daughter in the car were not in a wreck, they were washing away down a river. Removing the flood victims would not cause their broken back to sever their spinal cord.





It is pretty damn obvious that the car crash victim should have been left alone and the flood victim should have been rescued. There's nothing to report here.

The story was how "Good Samaritans" could be sued if they messed up when trying to help someone and how this fact could affect things in the future, possibly by making people think twice about interfering to help someone...

So really...you were wrong it was news worthy...

Also, your non-sequitur thing... why not just say that it didn't make sense (oh which it did) like everyone else?

No.. no he's right, about what he's talking about.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
No.. no he's right, about what he's talking about.

He said there was nothing to report here...there was.

People would be expected to remove someone from a carwreck, I personally would know to leave them because I've been told too but most people would try and help.

Those people would pull them out the car and just leave them by the road- this might not be the medically correct thing to do but it has long been considered the correct moral thing to do.

Fact is, this was newsworthy because it shows that people may now think twice about helping others in distress for fear of being sued...this applies to people in car wrecks, floods and any other form of emergency.

Imagine he dropped the women from the bridge- would she have sued?

this isnt the first time someone has bn sued. i remember someone sueing for being brought back to life because of CPR and having broken a rib.. as i recall if you are doing it right your supposed to break a rib.

It reminds me of that scenario in 'The Incredibles' where Mr. Incredible gets sued for ruining that guy's suicide...

****ing people, man.

also if you have any medical training dont let ppl find out, if they do and you did nothing you can be held accountable under the good sumeritan law.. depending in your city laws.

I can't watch the video, can someone fill me in what happened?

Did the "good samaritan" permanently paralyzed the person he wanted to "rescue"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can't watch the video, can someone fill me in what happened?

Did the "good samaritan" permanently paralyzed the person he wanted to "rescue"? Thats what the victim claims.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Thats what the victim claims. Is there any evidence either way, which would make you side with either claim?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is there any evidence either way, which would make you side with either claim? I would side with the rescuer, because he was going out of his way to help the victim. The rescuer did not intentionally hurt the victim, they thought the victims life was in danger and, in the rescuers mind, they laid their life on the line to save them.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I would side with the rescuer, because he was going out of his way to help the victim. The rescuer did not intentionally hurt the victim, they thought the victims life was in danger and, in the rescuers mind, they laid their life on the line to save them. No, I mean, is there any evidence that suggest that he did, or did not injure her in the process. Because, it's pretty evident that your intentions do not make the harm you cause alright.

As you said, in the rescuers mind the person's life was in danger, that might have been off, the damage they cause is more apparent though, and his intentions don't make the person's life now any easier, do they?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I mean, is there any evidence that suggest that he did, or did not injure her in the process. Because, it's pretty evident that your intentions do not make the harm you cause alright.

As you said, in the rescuers mind the person's life was in danger, that might have been off, the damage they cause is more apparent though, and his intentions don't make the person's life now any easier, do they? From what I gather, the human spine is to complex too tell IF the victim would/would not have neen paralyzed by his actions, or lack of.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
From what I gather, the human spine is to complex too tell IF the victim would/would not have neen paralyzed by his actions, or lack of. Well, that's what the trial would be for to determine, I figure.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's what the trial would be for to determine, I figure. I am no medical expert, but man, with all those nerves running inside the spine, how can they determine what really happened? And if the injury occured in the actual crash, NOT during the rescue, how the hell can they tell? Are there ways of determining that?

the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains".

Originally posted by GCG
the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains". Indeed, so I don't really see the problem.

I mean, does anyone think that someone's intentions excuses someone's misbehaviour?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed, so I don't really see the problem.

I mean, does anyone think that someone's intentions excuses someone's misbehaviour? If the rescuer genuinely believed that the car was gonna explode, and they believed that they were risking their life, then yes.

Good Samaritan Law be damned, I guess.

It's a hard call here, does the 'victim' have proof that she would have been better off sans being pulled-out by the man/did he actually cause extra injury? She very well could have been ****ed from the crash. Edit: Guess this is the court case in question.

What if the 'puller' had decided to not touch her and just wait for trained personnel to come, as is the common practice, but the car did catch fire and she burned to death, would he be held liable for not helping someone in need?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean, does anyone think that someone's intentions excuses someone's misbehaviour?

Yes. Intention is much more important than the action undertaken.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Intention is much more important than the action undertaken.

So you think if you kill someone that you thought needed help cause you are an idiot, you should not be held accountable?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you think if you kill someone that you thought needed help cause you are an idiot, you should not be held accountable?

You should be held accountable very differently from someone who killed for virtually any other reason.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You should be held accountable very differently from someone who killed for virtually any other reason. So, you do agree with what I said, but chose to disagree on the account of...just cause?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you think if you kill someone that you thought needed help cause you are an idiot, you should not be held accountable? Let's say, for arguments sake, that by pulling her from the car, he inadvertantly caused an internal injury that killed her. Well, then it would be the same as, say, being hit by another car and the other driver dying in the resulting crash. Dude didn't set out to kill her or injure her, so no, he shouldn't be held accountable, idiot or not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, you do agree with what I said, but chose to disagree on the account of...just cause?

No, I disagree because morality isn't black and white. He was trying to save her life, considering she's better off than a dead person he shouldn't get in trouble. There are plenty of cases where intention completely excuses actions, if someone rudely pushes someone else out of the way to prevent that person from being stabbed the rudeness is totally excuses. If someone, completely be accident, hurts someone while trying to save their life it isn't at all comparable to them causing the harm in a different context.

Haven't you claimed not to be an Objectivist before? Because I can't think of anyone else who would argue against the person trying to save a woman's life.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I disagree because morality isn't black and white. He was trying to save her life, considering she's better off than a dead person he shouldn't get in trouble. There are plenty of cases where intention completely excuses actions, if someone rudely pushes someone else out of the way to prevent that person from being stabbed the rudeness is totally excuses. If someone, completely be accident, hurts someone while trying to save their life it isn't at all comparable to them causing the harm in a different context.

Haven't you claimed not to be an Objectivist before? Because I can't think of anyone else who would argue against the person trying to save a woman's life. But that is not a misbehaviour. If he actuallz saves someone, yes, if he just thinks he does, but does a lot of harm, no, then he is accountable. Not equal to what would be had he intentionally hurt the person, because that is an entirely different situation, but still accountable. Which is the point of determining whether he made things worse.

You totally disregard whether they actually helped, which is important, the intention, less so.

And I think you see objectionists wrongly, you are probably thinking about utilitarians.

American Law: fighting common sense for over 200 years

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's what the trial would be for to determine, I figure.

Indeed, but even with the barest medical training I have (I used to lifeguard) we know not to mess with people who have been in potential spinal accidents, unless the person is like face down in the water or what have you, and then, there are specific CPR and movement tricks for spinal victims as well.

I don't know if it is fair to say that any reasonable person should know this, but it is true that unless there was a really good reason to think the car was about to burst into flame, the person was acting highly irrationally.

Whether or not the damage was caused by the accident or the removal, imho, is secondary, considering the nature of spinal injuries and especially considering this person was not (and knew they were not) trained in proper removal of injured people from vehicles. I think it hinges more on whether or not it is reasonable to assume that a person should know not to move an injured body unless there is immediate danger, and what constitutes immediate danger.

However, I agree with you in general that we don't know enough and I'd love the court transcripts (as if I'd read them)

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Let's say, for arguments sake, that by pulling her from the car, he inadvertantly caused an internal injury that killed her. Well, then it would be the same as, say, being hit by another car and the other driver dying in the resulting crash. Dude didn't set out to kill her or injure her, so no, he shouldn't be held accountable, idiot or not.

however, how reasonable is it to expect people to know that they shouldn't move someone who has a spinal injury?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Haven't you claimed not to be an Objectivist before? Because I can't think of anyone else who would argue against the person trying to save a woman's life.

to be honest, we don't know (and it really doesn't appear so anyways) that this woman's life was in danger, only that the person making the rescue thought it was.

That judgement is key imho

EDIT: I own the triple post

Originally posted by inimalist
however, how reasonable is it to expect people to know that they shouldn't move someone who has a spinal injury? Saving someones life kinda negates logical thinking. All he was thinking was "Get her the **** out."

But him thinking that doesn't excuse paralyzing her...if he did.

Doesn't excuse it, but also it doesn't condemn him.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Saving someones life kinda negates logical thinking. All he was thinking was "Get her the **** out."
True.

But there are many angles to this situation. His intent was to get her out because he feared that the car would explode, correct? Did he know that the car was going to explode or did he just think it might? How close were the paramedics/police/firefighters to the scene?

I don't think he should have moved her but I don't fault the guy for doing what probably anyone else would have done.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Doesn't excuse it, but also it doesn't condemn him. No, the thinking it, doesn't....the paralyzing her, does.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
In the heat of the moment he probably went on instinct. Guess it'll all come to light in the trial.
I agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, the thinking it, doesn't....the paralyzing her, does. No, man, it doesn't. He didn't act in order to cause her bodily harm. He, in his mind, risked his own life in order to save hers.

Originally posted by inimalist
to be honest, we don't know (and it really doesn't appear so anyways) that this woman's life was in danger, only that the person making the rescue thought it was.

That judgement is key imho

EDIT: I own the triple post

Exactly, he thought she was going to die. If he stood their and watched her die someone else would have sued him for a lot more. He made the logical, moral and economically sensible decision. There's no reason that should come around to bite him in the ass.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Exactly, he thought she was going to die. If he stood their and watched her die someone else would have sued him for a lot more. He made the logical, moral and economically sensible decision. There's no reason that should come around to bite him in the ass. Very well said. He shouldn't be punished for doing what we think is the right thing, in this case, saving the woman's life. He placed a strangers safety and welfare over his own, therefore he is a hero, IMO.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But him thinking that doesn't excuse paralyzing her...if he did.

An accident in the attempt to save her life....

He should be let off...

What a c*nt.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The story was how "Good Samaritans" could be sued if they messed up when trying to help someone and how this fact could affect things in the future, possibly by making people think twice about interfering to help someone...

They made supporting arguments by supplying a non-sequitur example of two completely unrelated car rescuing circumstances.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So really...you were wrong it was news worthy...

Thank you for missing the point and instead, focusing on one tiny sentence intended as cynical hyperbole. (Be honest with yourself, you're arguing about nothing.)


But since you're not arguing very much at all about anything I said, I don't think this warrants discussion.

If it helps, delete that last sentence from that post and then argue with the whole reason I posted.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Also, your non-sequitur thing... why not just say that it didn't make sense (oh which it did) like everyone else?

Because logical fallacies have names. We are not 8 years old. If I commit a logical fallacy, I want a specific example of what I did, and the type of fallacy. Since these are professionals and they literally get paid to write persuasive stories, the should know better than to commit logical fallacies.


Oh, and it makes perfect sense to someone who stops and thinks about the "examples" being given. If they fail to illustrate their logic properly, than I have every right to call their "news worthy" asses on it.


Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What a c*nt.


WHAT UP! Long time no see. Where have you been these days?

Bored with politics. I come back every so often to laugh at the fail or be a b*tch.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Exactly, he thought she was going to die. If he stood their and watched her die someone else would have sued him for a lot more. He made the logical, moral and economically sensible decision. There's no reason that should come around to bite him in the ass. Actually yes, if it was not the correct decision, he should be held accountable, believing to do the right thing does not make it right to screw up royally, and if, indeed, he permanently paralyzed her for an incorrect assessment of the situation, there's no reason why he shouldn't be punished or required to pay reparations to the woman he caused harm. His best intentions don't make her walk.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually yes, if it was not the correct decision, he should be held accountable, believing to do the right thing does not make it right to screw up royally, and if, indeed, he permanently paralyzed her for an incorrect assessment of the situation, there's no reason why he shouldn't be punished or required to pay reparations to the woman he caused harm. His best intentions don't make her walk.

There are all manner of reasons why he shouldn't be punished for trying to do the best with what he knew, you just seem determine to ignore them. The law also should not be built on the assumption that people can foresee every possible eventuality and act according to that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are all manner of reasons why he shouldn't be punished for trying to do the best with what he knew, you just seem determine to ignore them. The law also should not be built on the assumption that people can foresee every possible eventuality and act according to that. No, there actually aren't. If he screwed her life, it doesn't matter that he wanted to safe it.

Is everyone here gone mad, seriously, a "good samaritan" should freaking think twice before "helping", and if their "help" doesn't help at all but actually severely damages someone they should be held accountable. Their superhero fantasies, really shouldn't be the problem of the people they hurt.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is everyone here gone mad, seriously, a "good samaritan" should freaking think twice before "helping", and if their "help" doesn't help at all but actually severely damages someone they should be held accountable. Their superhero fantasies, really shouldn't be the problem of the people they hurt.

It's not a "superhero fantasy" it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to thinking someone else is going to die. I'm sure in your version of rationality leaving someone to die is the right course of action but to the rest of us that's a wee bit disturbing.

reasons why it pays to get licensed, if the rescuer was 1st aid/cpr, or emt, or wolfe certified, the suit would have probably been thrown out.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
reasons why it pays to get licensed, if the rescuer was 1st aid/cpr, or emt, or wolfe certified, the suit would have probably been thrown out.

Nah, she'd have gone higher.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually yes, if it was not the correct decision, he should be held accountable, believing to do the right thing does not make it right to screw up royally, and if, indeed, he permanently paralyzed her for an incorrect assessment of the situation, there's no reason why he shouldn't be punished or required to pay reparations to the woman he caused harm. His best intentions don't make her walk. Sure, so next time he will go "Hey **** them".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not a "superhero fantasy" it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to thinking someone else is going to die. I'm sure in your version of rationality leaving someone to die is the right course of action but to the rest of us that's a wee bit disturbing. That's the point though. If he actually did safe her life, fair enough, if he just deluded himself into thinking he'd "help" her, while actually making things a lot worse, she has every right to demand reparations

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the point though. If he actually did safe her life, fair enough, if he just deluded himself into thinking he'd "help" her, while actually making things a lot worse, she has every right to demand reparations He didnt "delude" himself, he acted on instinct. He thought her life was in danger and acted as if he gives a shit about his fellow man.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
He didnt "delude" himself, he acted on instinct. He thought her life was in danger and acted as if he gives a shit about his fellow man. And now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions...as it should be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions...as it should be. Bullshit.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Bullshit.

I don't see why not.

And at least the laws of your country seem to agree.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yeah this blew me away:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news

That reminds me of the Vietnam scene in Forest Gump when Gump rescued Lt. Dan from the air-strike, and because he lost both legs he was ungrateful that he was saved. I can't understand that mentality; do they honestly expect the person to let them lay there and die. They're alive, be thankful.

Anyways, that would not have happened in AZ because we have the Good Samaritan Law that states that any passersby that witness an automobile accident have to "offer any assistance possible". Every other state should adopt this.

In the scene in Forrest Gump, Forrest actually did safe the Lieutenant's life, though, at the insistence of not doing so, which is obviously questionable. He came around thanking him for it in the end, still it's not necessarily that black and white.

Regardless, the question here is even whether he did help at all and not just added to the already bad situation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In the scene in Forrest Gump, Forrest actually did safe the Lieutanent's life, though, at the insistence of not doing so, which is obviously questionable. He came around thanking him for it in the end, still it's not necessarily that black and white.

Regardless, the question here is even whether he did help at all and not just added to the already bad situation. Well what if Dan had sustained a neck injury? And Forrest, despite his good intentions, ended up paralyzing Dan while humping him out? What then? Hmm? Is Forrest then a villian, and is Dan righteous in suing him?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well what if Dan had sustained a neck injury? And Forrest, despite his good intentions, ended up paralyzing Dan while humping him out? What then? Hmm? Is Forrest then a villian, and is Dan righteous in suing him?

As I said, Dan told Forrest very straightforward that he didn't want to get rescued...so, yes, kinda. But it is still a different situation to the one we are looking at here.

Forrest on the other hand would have a hard time being a villain as that does impliy intention.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As I said, Dan told Forrest very straightforward that he didn't want to get rescued...so, yes, kinda. But it is still a different situation to the one we are looking at here.No, it is the same. Two people, both in trouble, both with rescuers who thought that they were risking their lives to save them.

"Intention." Lets think about that for a second. Do you think the man in the article had any intention of causing the victim bodily harm?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the point though. If he actually did safe her life, fair enough, if he just deluded himself into thinking he'd "help" her, while actually making things a lot worse, she has every right to demand reparations

But of course since it's impossible to know what would have happen otherwise the man deserves the benefit of the doubt. He acted to save (not safe) her life and succeeded. Being human he couldn't see the future and had no certainty that a) she was a ***** and probably deserved to be left in the car to die and b) his actions might harm her to a greater extent than doing nothing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In the scene in Forrest Gump, Forrest actually did safe the Lieutanent's life, though, at the insistence of not doing so, which is obviously questionable. He came around thanking him for it in the end, still it's not necessarily that black and white.


Was it still an easy decision? I still would've saved him. This guy lost a lot of blood so he isn't thinking straight, and maybe wants to die "a hero's death", but I can still save him. So I don't think I can leave him in good conscious. That was Gump's dilemma.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Regardless, the question here is even whether he did help at all and not just added to the already bad situation.

She just wants money. I guess some people just can't be pleased.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But of course since it's impossible to know what would have happen otherwise the man deserves the benefit of the doubt. He acted to save (not safe) her life and succeeded. Being human he couldn't see the future and had no certainty that a) she was a ***** and probably deserved to be left in the car to die and b) his actions might harm her to a greater extent than doing nothing.

He deserves the benefit of doubt, yes. Not because he can't see the future, though. Generally him having the "good" intention, doesn't excuse his actions if they are dangerous and rationally unjustified. Which is what the court is out to determine, I'd presume.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No, it is the same. Two people, both in trouble, both with rescuers who thought that they were risking their lives to save them.

"Intention." Lets think about that for a second. Do you think the man in the article had any intention of causing the victim bodily harm?

No, there are a few difference, which make it very different situations, even though some issues are the same.

Also, I never implied that the guy is in any way the villain, so, lets not think about it too long, as you are obviously going off on an unrelated tangent.Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Was it still an easy decision? I still would've saved him. This guy lost a lot of blood so he isn't thinking straight, and maybe wants to die "a hero's death", but I can still save him. So I don't think I can leave him in good conscious. That was Gump's dilemma.



She just wants money. I guess some people just can't be pleased.

I agree it's a thing worthy to think about, I just don't find it implies or clarifies anything for this situation.

And, to be fair, she just might want to walk again...or at least be able to deal with the consequences of his "rescue"...

Originally posted by Bardock42
He deserves the benefit of doubt, yes. Not because he can't see the future, though. Generally him having the "good" intention, doesn't excuse his actions if they are dangerous and rationally unjustified. Which is what the court is out to determine, I'd presume.

People looking at a crisis situation can't be expected to make the best possible decisions on a moment's notice. He did what seemed to be the best course of action with every intention of helping her. There was no way to know the proper risk assessment of the situation at that moment as he lacked the aid of statisticians, a computer and about three hours.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People looking at a crisis situation can't be expected to make the best possible decisions on a moment's notice. He did what seemed to be the best course of action with every intention of helping her. There was no way to know the proper risk assessment of the situation at that moment as he lacked the aid of statisticians, a computer and about three hours.

Again, it doesn't and shouldn't give them a total absolution from all their behaviour in the situation. Just because it might, or might not be a crisis, does not negate the consequences of their actions, that they and others will have to live with. As such they can be expected to behave up to certain standards. Whether the person in question has done that or not, I have no idea (and unless you all read up more and continued to pursue the case, I figure you don't either, as the video just really doesn't tell us anything much at all), so, blindly siding with him, as many seem to do, feels knee-jerky to me, though.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yeah this blew me away:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11183630&ch=4226713&src=news

Los Angeles...why am I not surprise?

You know this is why Batman keeps his identity a secret. Can you imagine how many ungrateful jerks or bitches out there would sue Batman the minute they knew it was Rich Millionare Wayne?

Gawd! Some people!

Case in point...


Weird word twister

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, there are a few difference, which make it very different situations, even though some issues are the same.

Also, I never implied that the guy is in any way the villain, so, lets not think about it too long, as you are obviously going off on an unrelated tangent.

Villian, scapegoat, whatever. you seem to think his heroic actions should go unnoticed. As Mota said, the ***** just wants money.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Villian, scapegoat, whatever. you seem to think his heroic actions should go unnoticed. As Mota said, the ***** just wants money.

You base that assessment on nothing but a cynical belief in the inherent greed or "badness" of people.

And words have meanings, when I use them, I use them to convey meaning as well as I can. So, no, not "villain, scapegoat, whatever"...all very different things, with their own unique meanings.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You base that assessment on nothing but a cynical belief in the inherent greed or "badness" of people.

And words have meanings, when I use them, I use them to convey meaning as well as I can. So, no, not "villain, scapegoat, whatever"...all very different things, with their own unique meanings. People suck, plain and simple. People sue others for anything and everything. Not that hard to believe this ***** is doing it for the green.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
People suck, plain and simple. People sue others for anything and everything. Not that hard to believe this ***** is doing it for the green.

I am not saying that it is hard to believe, I am saying that to state it so convinced, without any sort of evidence, just on blind faith, is mind boggling to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not saying that it is hard to believe, I am saying that to state it so convinced, without any sort of evidence, just on blind faith, is mind boggling to me. Not to me. There's a way things ought to be, and then there's the way things are.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Not to me. There's a way things ought to be, and then there's the way things are. Well, fair enough, I reserve judgement for when there is more evidence.

edit haermm

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
On a final note, look at the masturbation thread. I stopped posting there months ago, because I thought it was silly thread. But do I question others who post there everyday?

I have no idea how that is related to anything in this thread, or even the other...but dare I say...I assume the answer is "no"?

oops?

Okay.

Oh shit, wrong thread crylaugh

edit part two crylaugh

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
edit part two crylaugh

Now my "okay" is like all alone there...I can't stand for that:

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
My point is that I found myself thinking the thread was a joke, that it was too silly for even me, but I never wnt public and said it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay.

This is how it's supposed to be.

Thats what I get for posting and working at the same time.

It can be assumed that if her lower vertebrae were broken, certainly removing her violently like described would have definitely finished the job of paralysis if the spinal cord wasn't damaged enough. That portion can be proven in court.

I'm sure the angle of impact and the subsequent path and position the car took could show how she describes her position and were her spinal cord received the damage and how her vertebrae were broken can adequately prove, though complexly, if removing her caused post-crash spinal damage. In fact, if the car didn't move much at all, it may be possible to prove undoubtedly that his removal caused the damage.





However, I think the lady is a very very mean b*tch for doing a lawsuit.


I also think that dude is an over-reactive "I watch too many movies" moron. Unlike inimalist, I think it's common knowledge not to move a person who has been in an accident...even if you are a professional. The douche probably smelled gasoline and watched one too many episodes of McGuyver.

Muslims should get the Hell out of Europe, but interesting thing about Muslim Hell is that there's a special place in it for women who are ungrateful to men who did good deeds for them. I would honestly have to say that women are the most selfish and ungrateful people I've ever met. The only unselfish woman I can definitely recall is my mother.

stuff like this sux....been through it more than once but one still haunts me...I was trained by volunteer fire department...so I knew not to try and move the guy...I just disconnected the battery and tried to see if he would respond...just moans...told him several times help was on the way....30 MINUTES later the paramedics showed up and declared him doa...after of course trying to bring him back...he died right before they got there..............if I would have gotten him out and saved his life would I have been sued??? YES more than likely...sux but these procedures save more than they hurt and sometimes you run across a situation like that...tried but until I get alzheimer's probably never forget his face....poor dude ...question is though if her car had blown up would she still be trying to sue since he got her out of it...second question is could she win?