[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: See You in Court!


I sure understand your point, but I for one find your tone unwelcome here.
If you brought your ire down a notch, you might have a more receptive
audience.  Sarcasm isn't necessary to make a point unless all else has
failed. Try it. 

Jonathan Monetti

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Charles Schwartz wrote:

> Tom Haapanen wrote:
> >. . . There's a guy who makes his living running a gas station, and he may
> be doing the best damn job he >can.  And just maybe he was doing things
> right.  Just maybe the inspectors and manufacturers are >doing things by
> the book.  
> How do we determine that?  Throw the I-Ching?  Use a Ouija board?
> >Accidents happen.  Perfectly good planes fall out of the sky.  
> I don't think so.  That is why we investigate plane crashes.
> >Perfectly good  pieces of equipment fail on cars.  
> But imperfect parts fail much more frequently.
> >Products and systems are engineered to meet standards, but nature and
> materials aren't perfectly predictable -- for example, a flaw in the rubber
> could have caused the hose to burst.
> First of all the hose is not plain rubber, but a processed part made of
> compound materials.  Secondly, because of possible failure, the hose should
> have been inspected more carefully.
> >I am just decrying the tendency to publicly convict and crucify them
> automatically without any evidence, and to call in the lawyers.
> No one has convicted anyone. That is why we have courts and the legal
> process to decide these things in our country.  If no one is  liable, then
> there will be no damages.  Who would you rather have us call in?
> Advertising executives?  Spin Doctors?
> If there is a design flaw or a flaw in the way gas attendants are trained,
> then that will be determined by a trial.  No matter how imperfect, I
> treasure our jury system and would never want to trade it for a system
> where we must let a tribunal of politically selected judges decide our fate.  
> It appears to me that people who rant against lawyers and the courts would
> rather let big industrialists get away with murder than face the rule of law.
> Charles Schwartz