“Circumstances,” like his father’s political clout, perhaps? And grief is a mitigating after-the-fact circumstance that excuses illegal activity? In a military court, the death of his companion would be an additional charge, not a reason to dismiss the original charge.
Not to be cynical, but I favor the memorial sign - topped by a great big DEAD smiley. Just don’t make it a bronze plaque. Some metal bandit would find it irresistable.
Chuck
Mark, Let me clear some things up for you. I wonder why you seem so re
And she made a decision that lead directly to her death - it’s hard to see how anyone else is responsible for that.
Mark.
What a great cop-out! Commit a crime and avoid the consequences, all by claiming to be “already in enough grief”. Brilliant!
And you wonder why I look at your legal system and lawyers with contempt…
Mark.
Oh dear. Someone in Australia holds our laws and our legal system in contempt. I doubt I’ll sleep tonight with such disappointment.
1.) The woman’s friend of which we speak hasn’t been convicted of anything as of yet, and the owners of that bridge, CN, have the right to press forward or not with a complaint of trespassing. Therefore, to-date, he’s not officially committed any crime - that is a legal clarification as we all know they were trespassing, but until he’s been charged, tried and found guilty he’s not committed a crime for which he’s to be punished.
2.) There has to be evidence of criminal negligence on his part that would’ve lead to her death in order to charge him accordingly. So far we’ve heard of none. Simply because he didn’t tackle her to prevent her walking that bridge or otherwise physically restraining her from doing so doesn’t constitute negligence. She was an adult and able to make her own choices, albeit with tragic consequences.
3.) A strange argument is yours: Usually the Europeans as well as the “Far-East Europeans” (a.k.a. Australians) raise the loudest howl over Americans persisting in our support of capitol punishment. This, even though in many, many cases, the convicted murderers stand a better chance of death by natural causes before the chair takes its’ toll, as the result of seemingly endless legal appeals. Yet here, you condemn our legal procedures for not convicting and punishing the grieving friend on charges that, at least so far, the railroad hasn’t opted to press and without supporting evidence for manslaughter.
Good job with those electrodes WIAR.[tup]
Yes, and I’m in good company too, judging by the number of Americans who have expressed similar views on these forums.
“Also know as” by who? Americans who know bugger all about geography, like yourself? Wherever you imagine the "Far East " to be, we aren’t part of it.
Now that’s a strange argument - capital punishment is relevant to this discussion how, exactly?
Like most Australians, I personally couldn’t give a toss how many of your own citizens you choose to execute. The more the better, I think.
You need to apply those electrodes to your own ignorant nipples. And while you’re at it, you ought to develop your comprehension skills. I was commenting specifically on this statement:
“They were considering charging the guy with trespass, but were leaning against it because he was already in enough grief, and they were reluctant to pile on more.”
I made no mention of manslaughter.
You can’t. You’re not capable of clarity, only obfuscation.
The “news” has been known to get it wrong, to misrepresent the facts, to lie. Hence my reluctance to unquestioningly accept this claim as true.
Relevance? None.
No, I wouldn’t agree. You opinion as a layman counts for nothing.
[quote]
And it would be much more likely to not see a hole in time to avoid stepping into it if it were nighttime, as opposed to broad daylight.
I don’t know whether the victim had her hand on the handrail at the time of the fall, but I do agree that if there were a hole in the walkway large enough to fall through, a person would be less likely to fall through it if they had their hand on the handrail. However, even with a hand on the handrail, there is no guarantee that a person could grip the rail sufficiently to keep themselves from going down once they stepped into the hole.
In addition to falling through a hole, one must plan on the possibility of breaking though the walkway because of a weakened condition at some point that is not visually apparent. For that reason, I would prefer to not walk near the guardrail where one must rely totally upon the single planks to hold him or her up. That would be like having all your eggs in one basket so to speak.
If I were wa
Let’s return to the topic…has anyone information to add that can be readily scrutinized and discussed? Conjecture at this point does not seem to be helping us to advance beyond exchanging barbs.
-Crandell
[quote user=“marknewton”]
You can’t. You’re not capable of clarity, only obfuscation.
The “news” has been known to get it wrong, to misrepresent the facts, to lie. Hence my reluctance to unquestioningly accept this claim as true.
Relevance? None.
No, I wouldn’t agree. You opinion as a layman counts for nothing.
[quote]
And it would be much more likely to not see a hole in time to avoid stepping into it if it were nighttime, as opposed to broad daylight.
I don’t know whether the victim had her hand on the handrail at the time of the fall, but I do agree that if there were a hole in the walkway large enough to fall through, a person would be less likely to fall through it if they had their hand on the handrail. However, even with a hand on the handrail, there is no guarantee that a person could grip the rail sufficiently to keep themselves from going down once they stepped into the hole.
In addition to falling through a hole, one must plan on the possibility of breaking though the walkway because of a weakened condition at some point that is not visually apparent. For that reason, I would prefer to not walk near the guardrail where one must rely totally upon the single planks to hold him or her up. That would be like having all your eggs in one b
Crandell, I thought this was all entirely on topic. It is not my intent to exchange barbs, but there is a considerable difference of opinion here, and I am trying to debate it in a responsible, non-flaming manner.
Debating? You reckon that’s what you’re doing?
Debaters usually respond to the points put to them - you don’t.
I don’t give a toss whether there was a hole or not. The bridge is a dangerous place to trespass on at 1.00am, hole or no hole. Only an ignorant layman would think otherwise. And as an ignorant layman, you’ve tried awfully hard to make the alleged hole the issue, when it isn’t.
CN were responsible for the woman and her friend venturing out onto the bridge at 1.00am, did they? Forcibly marched her out there to die, eh?
Now who’s being deliberately obtuse?
Absolutely. Tata!
It was the railroad’s property that was trespassed-upon, and therefore the railroad can choose to pursue a complaint of trespassing, if they feel it necessary. The county could prosecute independently, but in such cases, if the property owner doesn’t opt to prosecute, neither will the county.
The only other possible charge, in any imagination, beyond trespassing, would be involuntary manslaughter against the woman’s friend. No other charge even remotely fits the circumstances. There’s simply no evidence to support any prosecution beyond trespassing.
The attitude of your countrymen (all 39 of them) towards American capitol punishment is steeped in suspicion that the legal proceedings here are unfair, corrupt and bigoted. According to most Europeans and you Far East Europeans (east of Europe, you see), we Americans are far too draconian in our sentencing. Yet in this case, you harshly demand the friend be charged and prosecuted under any and every possible law in order to punish his stupidity no matter what (shall we send him to Botany Bay?). Once Australia reaches a population level where overloading the courts with needless prosecutions and prison over-crowding begins to matter, you may think otherwise about wasting a prosecutor’s time and tax-payer money to crucify this individual.
If the Canadian railroad opts not to pursue a formal trespassing complaint, that’s it, he WON’T be prosecuted.
Ya reckon? What part of your anatomy did you pull that nonsense out of?
You don’t even know where we are on the globe, let alone what our attitudes are.
I’ve spoken to the other 38, and we all agree - we don’t care how you sentence your crims. You’re dreaming if you think anyone else gives a toss what you do.
Now you’re telling lies. I made no such demand.
Nah, Minnesota seems to be the right place for people like you and him. Botany Bay’s a nice place - it would be a shame to fill it up with American crims…
If you’re not demanding the friend be prosecuted by your own words above, then what are you complaining about? Let’s get this thread back on the subject.
Like what “SELECTOR” said, why don’t we stop argueing. I would drive the 6 miles up to the bridge myself and inspect if if it were not for that I would get a tresspassing ticket. I have no idea why someone would doubt the plank missing in the bridge when it has been reported widely in the media. This is not something the police or media would make up. Its now been 7 days since this accident and I would think that they would have fixed it by now.
You know, fellas. I work around attorney-wannabees all week. To see that going on in this forum (WAY off topic, IMHO) is wearisome. Debate and insult about American law, Austrailian law, Pygmy law all you want, but I’m off this thread…not to return.
Either you really CAN’T read for comprehension, or English isn’t your first language. There is no demand for prosecution in that paragraph.
The thread is on topic, as far as I can see. When did you get made up to be moderator?
Well Mark, I think the issue is the intent or meaning of what you said, and not what the exact words were. When you said this: “What a great cop-out! Commit a crime and avoid the consequences, all by claiming to be “already in enough grief”. Brilliant!” I interpreted it to mean that you disapproved of the guy not being charged. And then it would follow that you wanted him to be charged. It’s true that you did not use the word “demand,” but your tone of disgust over the fact that he was not charged, sounded demanding that he be charged. Or are you just disgusted that he was not charged, but have no opinion as to whether or not he should have been charged?