[PRCo] Re: Responsibility

[Jim Holland]

Great Thinking and Writing here by you two brings the following to 
mind:::::::
.
.
.
There are two sides to every coin With.....
.
.....A Very Thin Line in between the two!!!!!!!
.
.
.
And two thoughts come to mind as well:::::::
.
.
01.>--The Golden Gate Bridge here is a Suicide Magnet and there is much 
talk about building barriers to prevent the same.
.
02.>--PBS special shot in Europe, of all places, showing people  
"Choosing"  to  "Illegally"  cross multiple RR tracks and getting killed 
by trains.       A pedestrian bridge was built over these RR tracks but 
still the  "Choice"  was to be illegal and cross the tracks and still be 
killed!!
.
03.>--Even a Third Thought  --  Laws are made for __OUR__ Protection and 
Many times those laws are to Protect  "Ourselves"  from  "Ourselves!!!"
.
.
The  PBS  special is certainly an example of what Joshua said about the 
Community being responsible to put up a Stop Sign after several 
deaths    ----    yet our InHumanity gets in the way and  'we'  continue 
our old ways voiding the good intentions of the Community.
.
That Thin Edge between the two sides of a coin apparently shifts with 
time and if I were to  'guess'  where we are currently and where we are 
headed in the future, I would say we have swung about as far left as is 
possible and that the pendulum should swing back to one of more 
responsibility.       I have seen examples of this recently but can't 
remember them offhand.       That's assuming that we are not at the end 
of this Age and there should be another 100 or more years down the road!!
.
.
.
You guys have provided some Excellent Food For Thought!!       
Interesting, too as Joshua has pointed out, how everyOne is a Judge and 
Jury after watching a 60-second clip about any particular legal 
case!!       I Am Guilty as charged and have been thinking about this as 
well  --  need to make some changes going forward!!
.
.
.
ASIDE:::___ Jury Duty.       Several years back I was on a personal 
injury case.       A priest was one of the jurors and this priest had 
said he personally had filed 3-lawsuits against his own parish!       
The trial finished late in the day and we went out to deliberate with 
the judge specifically telling us not to arbitrarily // randomly choose 
a figure for compensation.       The first thing that was done was to 
send a note to the judge and ask if we could stay late into the evening 
since it might take some time.       The answer came back  "No"  since 
the space was rented and we had to vacate on time.       At that point 
it was decided that the case would be decided now and we would get out 
of there.       Total Lack of order in people talking without 
accomplishing a thing.       I specifically asked that we reconstruct 
the evidence in chronological order to determine merit and was 
essentially ignored.       Another man spoke up, arbitrarily chose a 
figure, and then quoted the judge but said:    ""How is she going to 
know we did this?""       The case was settled.       When the attorney 
in the case asked the priest for an explanation of the decision by the 
jury, the priest said he had other business and walked out.       I-F  
AnyOne  should have taken time to give an explanation, it was the 
priest.       I mentioned this to the bailiff and don't know what 
happened after that.       Pure Travesty of Justice!
.
In a case in Illinois about 1970 a young man had stolen and forged and 
cashed checks at a Catholic Convent.       When we met to deliberate one 
juror said:       ""I don't give good dod dam but dat guy Guilty As 
Sin!!""       In spite of this, we  DID  comb through the evidence, 
threw out that which conflicted, and were left with enough to come back 
with a Guilty verdict.       The Defense Atty. Himself points a finger 
at each and every juror in turn and asked:       ""Was and Is This Your 
Verdict of Guilty??""       Theatrics and Intimidation to get us to 
change our mind;  No  One  Did!!       Defense attorney later admitted 
that he was Guilty As Sin!!!
.
.
.
Jim___Holland
.
.
PS:   Joshua  --  are you an atty.?        Obviously not required to 
answer that!!!
.
.
.
trams2 at comcast.net wrote:
.

> I'm not sure that I'm quite as liberal as Joshua in the concept of 
> "someone has to pay."       If I am responsible and the damages exceed 
> my assets, why should someone else have to cough up?       That's 
> income redistribution, not justice!
> Ed



>> Ed Lybarger wrote:
>>
>>> It has been my experience that lawyers, like all other 
>>> professionals, have both good actors and bad actors. What bothers me 
>>> more than the relative worthiness of any profession is the concept 
>>> that American people don't have to be responsible for their own 
>>> actions, choosing instead to blame everything on others.
>>

From: Joshua Dunfield <joshuad at cs.cmu.edu>

>> If a pedestrian is run down in a Braddock Avenue crosswalk in the 
>> same place as two previous crashes, should the people who decide not 
>> to put in a stop sign have *no* responsibility? Sure, the driver who 
>> failed to yield deserves most of the blame, but after two previous 
>> incidents it should be incumbent on the people who control the street 
>> to address the situation. In principle, the Wabash Tunnel is no 
>> different from Braddock Avenue; in practice, I don't think there's a 
>> genuine problem with the Wabash Tunnel...unlike Braddock Avenue.
>>
>>> If it's our own fault that we kill ourselves, why should others pay?
>>>
>>> Ed 
>>

>> They shouldn't.   But juries in personal injury cases routinely find 
>> that blame is shared.   Sometimes the party most at blame can't pay, 
>> which means that they get off and a third party (say, PAT) ends up 
>> paying out of proportion to its responsibility.   It's not ideal, but 
>> do you have a better way?   *Someone* needs to pay, if at all 
>> possible, or a party that's really not at fault gets nothing.
>>
>> Seems to me that an awful lot of public concern about people "not 
>> taking responsibility" is based on sensationalist accounts of 
>> "runaway juries".       People watch a 60 second news clip and think 
>> they know more about the case than the jury, who sat through hours of 
>> actual evidence.
>>
>> Best,
>> -j.
>