|
On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits.
I can agree with that because it will not send a statement, even though it really should. As long as we are in agreement that he should be compensated beyondr his medical bills. Mainly because he was abused mentally in one of the worst possible way. We don't even do this to our enemies.
|
On May 06 2012 05:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits. I can agree with that because it will not send a statement, even though it really should. As long as we are in agreement that he should be compensated beyondr his medical bills. Mainly because he was abused mentally in one of the worst possible way. We don't even do this to our enemies.
Woa now, let's not forget Omar Khadr. The US does do this to their enemies, even when they're underage Canadians who may or may not have committed "war crimes".
|
On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant.
I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't.
It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now.
|
If it really played out the way it looks like it did.... throw this kid as much money as he wants.
|
As such I`m a huge opponent of using taxpayers money as any sort of compensation for "moral suffering".
Paying medical bills? Definitely. Maybe even year or two after the incident.
Paying for the psychological "assistants" bills? Yes.
That will take care of the victim.
Paying him tenth of millions? NO.
These money are earned by other hard working people. These money should be resounable distributed etween people that need help. He is not the only one there.
Suffering doesn`t make you ellighable for getting rich for other`s people money.
There is a tonne of places where the state could use money. The fact that is, the amound of help a person recives should be reasonable.
Needless to say, the entire money-side of affair make me loose any sympathy I would otherwise have to the "victim".
Because the "victim" is just a greedy bastard who uses his suffering as "front" to get his hands on taxpayers money.
The entire idea that you put a price tag on tragedy, turning a it into the a money grab, is disgusting,
and I wish him loose the case, despite his suffering. While i do not have any sympathy for people that locked him down,
the fact that his unreasonably huge compensation will deny help to other people in need, make the "victim" far worse man in my viev.
|
On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now.
I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it.
|
On May 06 2012 06:55 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now. I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it.
Some people think government business should be handled according to their gut feeling!
|
But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't.
Which is why I think he should not demand money, at all, other than to pay for treatment.
Because money doesn`t change any of what a person went through, but situation is used to press money of state, using others people empathy to fill pockets of himself and of course his lawyer who will get a hefty cut of compensation, and probably is the reason why so much money was demanded in the first place.
|
Financially independent in exchange for the 5 worst days of ur life.
I think I would also take that deal >.>
|
On May 06 2012 07:36 Jakkerr wrote:
Financially independent in exchange for the 5 worst days of ur life.
I think I would also take that deal >.>
you would risk very high odds of dying for some cash? it's a really bad bet that you would likely lose.
|
On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits.
Your all or nothing views are startlingly naive. Never did I say that you could sue the problem into extinction. Does any amount of policing completely get rid of crime? No, of course not. But it sure as hell reduces it. Are there limits? Of course there is, there is definitely a middle ground between punishing an institution to a destructive point and ineffectual punishment. 20 million is enough to force the department to change its policies without driving it into the ground with debt. Until i see data that shows otherwise, 20 million seems like a perfectly legitimate sum.
|
On May 06 2012 07:39 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 07:36 Jakkerr wrote:
Financially independent in exchange for the 5 worst days of ur life.
I think I would also take that deal >.> you would risk very high odds of dying for some cash? it's a really bad bet that you would likely lose.
That's not really the point tho.
This dude would probably have sued for the same amount if they found him after 3 days.
And yeh... I don't have to give you the examples of the tons of idiotic lawsuits that happened in America over the last 10 years where people became financially independent for being unlucky (or lucky).
This guy went through hell I'm sure, but should he get a ton of money for that? hell no
Everything that's needed to get his life back on track should be paid and maybe a small 'we're sorry sum'.
But you can't give me a single logical argument why any1 would deserve such amounts of money for being unlucky (or lucky).Not only for this case, but pretty much all the sue cases in the USA.
|
On May 06 2012 06:55 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now. I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it.
..So then what? The DEA does an internal investigation to find their officers acted in accordance, or one irrelevant officer is suspended/fired, and nothing changes. A large sum of money, i.e. a fine, is one way to send a message, and it just so happens this victim will be the recipient of it.
Theres a difference between a DUI driver and a law enforcement agency. One of them is responsible for upholding the law, not breaking it -- and it's certainly not the DUI driver.
|
On May 06 2012 05:04 Telcontar wrote:
Are people really complaining about how much he's suing for? Come on. What would you do in his shoes? Sue for the morally appropriate amount? lol
Are people really complain about politician tacking kickbacks? Come on. What would you do in his shoes? Say no to to a pile of easy money? Lol!
|
On May 06 2012 07:42 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 05:27 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. As if that ever worked. Do you seriously mean to suggest that if people are just fined enough for any wrongdoing that all wrongdoing will go away? No, what will happen is that you will drain either the public treasury or ruin individual people's lives (as is sometimes the case in the US from what I understand). 100k is probably too small of a sum, especially concidering that he has medical bills that are already at that amount from what I understand, but 20 million is over the top instead. And for whoever suggested that it was wrong to ask him for a morally justifiable amount to sue for, I don't see why? He's entitled to compensation, sure, but there are limits. Your all or nothing views are startlingly naive. Never did I say that you could sue the problem into extinction. Does any amount of policing completely get rid of crime? No, of course not. But it sure as hell reduces it. Are there limits? Of course there is, there is definitely a middle ground between punishing an institution to a destructive point and ineffectual punishment. 20 million is enough to force the department to change its policies without driving it into the ground with debt. Until i see data that shows otherwise, 20 million seems like a perfectly legitimate sum.
Look, throwing money at the problem, or robbing them of it, wont change anything. I've stated previously in this thread + Show Spoiler +On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time. On May 03 2012 04:09 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:27 Utinni wrote:On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time. Yes, it is a simple concept but that's their job... they were not doing it right in both instances. A few more days and their negligence to do their routine responsibilities might have killed a student. Shitty buzz  It's not a problem with the individuals (at least not usually) but with the routines which allow for the misunderstanding to happen in the first place. There are multiple ways to solve it (for example, appoint someone to be responsible for frisking anyone arriving at the police station, irregardless if it has or hasn't already been done and give this person (can rotate on shifts, etc) the reponsibility, or in the topic this thread is about, have someone be responsible for checking the holding cells, say, once a day. Have a schedule with checkboxes). It's not so much "they" as the system they operate in that almost made a fatal error.
On May 06 2012 07:48 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 06:55 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 06 2012 06:10 Perseverance wrote:On May 06 2012 04:53 Velocirapture wrote:
People in this thread are too focused on the individual getting the money when their focus should be on the crime that happened. The point of justice is not to get revenge on the people responsible, its to take care of the victim and prevent this from ever happening again. 20 million dollars sends a message that 100k does not. The victims background is completely irrelevant. I agree completely. I can't imagine what this guy went through, and the individual(s) who messed up all should lose their jobs as well. 20 million after taxes, to me at least, seems appropriate for what happened to the poor guy. Will he think it was all worth it 2-5 years from now? Sure. But on the other side of the coin...do you think he feels like ANY amount of money was worth what he just went through? I'm betting he probably doesn't. It's all about perspective, and fortunately none of us here have ever gone through something like this...so we don't really know what this poor guy is feeling right now. I fail to see how he feels right now should have any bearing on what kind of compensation is deemed appropriate. If someone screams that a DUI driver should be killed for killing one of their family, then they should be entitled to that aswell? I mean it's just a nonsense argument. Shit happens, that doesn't mean you're entitled to outrageous amounts of money, nor should it. ..So then what? The DEA does an internal investigation to find their officers acted in accordance, or one irrelevant officer is suspended/fired, and nothing changes. A large sum of money, i.e. a fine, is one way to send a message, and it just so happens this victim will be the recipient of it. Theres a difference between a DUI driver and a law enforcement agency. One of them is responsible for upholding the law, not breaking it -- and it's certainly not the DUI driver.
They most probably did act accordingly, or made a very slight error. The solution is to put in place routines to avoid it happening again. That it happened once is bad enough, but we (and well functioning instutions) learn from our mistakes and try to make sure that they wont happen again. Naturally they might say that they did nothing wrong, and that it was a freak occurance, and that might be right. If you still have a problem with it after that, then you take it up with the politicians.
+ Show Spoiler [and again] +On May 03 2012 04:09 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:27 Utinni wrote:On May 03 2012 03:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On May 03 2012 03:12 HaXXspetten wrote:
Whaddya mean "forgot" to let him out, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Sickening to say the least. Most probably one guy thought another guy would do it. The other guy thought the first guy would do it. Since they both assumed it had been done, it had been done. It's not a complicated concept. It's something that should be worked in to routine to be avoided. The same thing happened with the guy who shot himself inbetween questioning by the police with a pistol he had on him the entire time. The police officers all assumed he had already been frisked by someone else, at pretty much all points in time up to him shooting himself. Both situations (this one and the guy with the gun) are of course entirely unacceptable but unless you put in to the work routine ways to avoid it, it will happen from time to time. Yes, it is a simple concept but that's their job... they were not doing it right in both instances. A few more days and their negligence to do their routine responsibilities might have killed a student. Shitty buzz It's not a problem with the individuals (at least not usually) but with the routines which allow for the misunderstanding to happen in the first place. There are multiple ways to solve it (for example, appoint someone to be responsible for frisking anyone arriving at the police station, irregardless if it has or hasn't already been done and give this person (can rotate on shifts, etc) the reponsibility, or in the topic this thread is about, have someone be responsible for checking the holding cells, say, once a day. Have a schedule with checkboxes). It's not so much "they" as the system they operate in that almost made a fatal error.
|
On May 06 2012 07:48 Tyrant0 wrote:
..So then what? The DEA does an internal investigation to find their officers acted in accordance, or one irrelevant officer is suspended/fired, and nothing changes. A large sum of money, i.e. a fine, is one way to send a message, and it just so happens this victim will be the recipient of it.
Theres a difference between a DUI driver and a law enforcement agency. One of them is responsible for upholding the law, not breaking it -- and it's certainly not the DUI driver.
How does granting a "victim" a pile of money DEA didn`t earn, has anything to do with DEA repeating same situation?
To make DEA more responsible, one need to fine/imprison the directly responsible for that, fine/ deny any "premiums" to their boses, ex, ex ,i.e. Punish the persons directly&indirectly responsible, will send a good message to DEA personel.
Punishment is the component that insures that crime will have less probability to happen again.
"A large sum of money" will only sent the message: Hey, taxpayers, we screwed up, but you will foot the punishment.
|
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology.
|
On May 06 2012 08:05 RogerX wrote:
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology.
How so?
You have same content within your body before you piss, and after you drink.
Generally speaking dehydratation is only caused by skin evaporation and breath when you do not eat and drink.
You also do not need to piss at all if you don`t drink/eat, which kinda means the story is borderline close to BS since imprisoned would only piss once anyway.
|
On May 06 2012 08:12 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 08:05 RogerX wrote:
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology. How so? You have same content within your body before you piss, and after you drink. Generally speaking dehydratation is only caused by skin evaporation and breath when you do not eat and drink. You also do not need to piss at all if you don`t drink/eat, which kinda means the story is borderline close to BS since imprisoned would only piss once anyway.
for the love of god please tell me you are not being serious.
|
On May 06 2012 08:27 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 08:12 naastyOne wrote:On May 06 2012 08:05 RogerX wrote:
Doesn't urine cause poisoning and further dehydration because of the salt content?
I can't remember my high school biology. How so? You have same content within your body before you piss, and after you drink. Generally speaking dehydratation is only caused by skin evaporation and breath when you do not eat and drink. You also do not need to piss at all if you don`t drink/eat, which kinda means the story is borderline close to BS since imprisoned would only piss once anyway. for the love of god please tell me you are not being serious.
I am 100%. I know, learning Biology is hard, but, i think it is worth it.
If you do not know, urine is filtered directly from blood, so other than (i guess) unplesant taste it doesn`t hurt you anyhow.
Not to mention that in hot places, like border of Mexico, human sweats way more water in one day than the "grand total" of ~0.7liter you will be able to piss, which means it is irrelevant if you drink it or not.
And Human can live without water more than a week, ultimately depending on your body, your activity, and room temperature.
Again, something a person with school education is supposed to know, at least in my country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
