[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.
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