Ill Woman killed by Electric Company [Archive]

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 11:35 AM

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 12:16 PM

They have bills

Like their power bill?

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 12:22 PM

Couple of things:

1) If it had been as easy as just moving her from one house to another she wouldn't be dead. Unless you happen to think the family felt like making a point by watching their mother die when the could have just carried her to the neighbors house. Hell they could probably have run an extension cord if he was close enough, though there might have been something else preventing that. Further, either they called for an ambulance and it didn't get there in time or again she has the stupidest family in existence.

If it was that dire they should have had her on some form of mobile Battery Backup. What happens if the power gets blackouted? Shall they than sue God. The family's void of foresight is lackluster.

2) Its not her fault. Just because her family is working doesn't mean they have $122 laying around. They have bills to and people to feed. Its not hard to imagine that they may not have had the money to spare just yet. They probably also thought the power company wasn't going to take an action that would directly cause a person's death.

They had been recieving notices that this would happen for awhile. Their apathy in communicating prior is no excuse. It doesn't matter that they showed the guy the situation. What if he was in bad straights too? Why should he risk getting fired and not supporting a possible ailing family member because the family waited until the last day to fight to keep the power on?

3) The phone company should have investigated this instead of ignoring it. At they very least they should have delayed action until talking with a doctor and perhaps having their own doctor come in to verify. Then they should have worked out some sort of payment plan. It is wholly their fault for not covering their own asses. When someone says "I'll die if you cut my power because I need it to help me breath." you damn well check to see if they are telling the truth. Otherwise you get sued for several million dollars.

So the power company should have spent thousands of dollars on investigators and doctors? They have been getting hundreds of similar claims by phonies for years. They don't have manpoiwer enough to investigate each one thoroughly. People will tell horridly tear-jerking stories to get out of a 40.00 cell phone bill, believe me I used to have to make these people pay up. Liars exist in far greater supply than ones telling the truth. It's a sad state of affairs that the truthtellers get hurt by it but that's how it is. The power company can't shell out millions to investigate all the cases. Then they'd go out of business, causing hundreds of people to lose jobs and possibly get in even worse straits than the family who's mother died.

And once again for emphasis. The family took all steps possible to warn the power company and to reach some sort of accord with them. If moving her had been possible they would have done it after the power was off and before she died. Blame for this is completely and totally on the power company for being complete idiots and not consulting their legal department and then taking appropriate action to protect themselves from a lawsuit. I'd be surprised if the family didn't sue for wrongful death and even more surprised if they did and didn't get a judgment over $10 million.

Took all steps? The waited till the day of to show joe bob contractor the situation. If they really were concerned, they would have had a public attorney vye with the power company from DAY ONE to keep the power. The were lazy, and put it off. They assumed the power company wasn't going to to do it's job and shut off a non-payer and didn't deal with it immediately. And now the woman is dead.

Not the company's fault. They did business as usual. The family had the power to stop this before it got that far. They didn't. She died. Fault is theirs, responsibility is theirs. It's a cold hearted thing to say in their grieving state, but that's the heart of it.

If I sound like an ass, and what I say offends you, that's life. The family should've been fighting this battle a month ago. Lack of foresight and hoping for the best are no excuse, especially when a woman's life is on the line.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 12:23 PM

Like the bill for the oxygen pump. Like the bill for the hospital care. Like the bill for any medication. Like the bill for the nurses that had to come in to make sure nothing was malfunctioning. Like the bill for the doctor that probably had to come to check on her. Like the bill for the ambulance that had to take her to the hospital if the doctor wouldn't come to her. Like the bill for all the monitoring equipment that she needed to be hooked up to.

That $122 electric bill was the least of their worries money wise at that point. Hell they were probably willing to pay it over time. That's the most likely reason they tried to contact the company. You know to say, hey we can't pay this all at once right now but we will just don't kill our mom. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

edit:

If it was that dire they should have had her on some form of mobile Battery Backup. What happens if the power gets blackouted? Shall they than sue God. The family's void of foresight is lackluster.

Why do you think it took her two hours to die? Why do you think the paramedics had time to get there? What do you think the paramedics were carrying on their rig? It obviously wasn't enough to keep her alive. Either she was that sick or she needed 100% oxygen which you can't really get from a backup system very well.

They had been recieving notices that this would happen for awhile. Their apathy in communicating prior is no excuse. It doesn't matter that they showed the guy the situation. What if he was in bad straights too? Why should he risk getting fired and not supporting a possible ailing family member because the family waited until the last day to fight to keep the power on?

They informed the power company several times. There was absolutely no apathy on the part of the family it was all the power company. Read the article. The showing of the guy that came to shut the power off was a last ditch effort after contacting the company several other ways.

So the power company should have spent thousands of dollars on investigators and doctors? They have been getting hundreds of similar claims by phonies for years. They don't have manpoiwer enough to investigate each one thoroughly. People will tell horridly tear-jerking stories to get out of a 40.00 cell phone bill, believe me I used to have to make these people pay up. Liars exist in far greater supply than ones telling the truth. It's a sad state of affairs that the truthtellers get hurt by it but that's how it is. The power company can't shell out millions to investigate all the cases. Then they'd go out of business, causing hundreds of people to lose jobs and possibly get in even worse straits than the family who's mother died.

It doesn't take thousands of dollars to send out one paralegal to go look at someones house. It doesn't take thousands of dollars to get access to her medical records. Hell a phone call to the family would have gotten them released from the hospital. Its neither expensive nor hard to verify a claim like this. In fact now the power company is going to have to shell out millions to fight a lawsuit and probably millions more in a settlement or a payout. It makes no business sense to risk a wrongful death suit and bad publicity to save a few hundred dollars.

Took all steps? The waited till the day of to show joe bob contractor the situation. If they really were concerned, they would have had a public attorney vye with the power company from DAY ONE to keep the power. The were lazy, and put it off. They assumed the power company wasn't going to to do it's job and shut off a non-payer and didn't deal with it immediately. And now the woman is dead.

Couple of things:

1) They did in fact inform the power company long before the guy arrived to shut it off.

2) That still does not absolve the power company of responsibility. They were warned, much like the family, and they had just as much responsibility to investigate the warning as the family did. Double standards are very annoying. Plus there are legal means by which the electric company could force the woman into a hospital and then shut the power off. Shutting the power off was just stupid.

Not the company's fault. They did business as usual. The family had the power to stop this before it got that far. They didn't. She died. Fault is theirs, responsibility is theirs. It's a cold hearted thing to say in their grieving state, but that's the heart of it.

Except that it is, the company has the same responsibility to research costumer complaints as the consumer has to research any claims made against them by the company. It's not a one sided relationship where the power company can ignore its customers and royally screw them over for the hell of it. Even if it wasn't completely illegal it'd still be horrible PR. PR bad enough to destroy the company.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 12:26 PM

That $122 electric bill was the least of their worries money wise at that point.

Apparently it shouldn't have been.

All of that other stuff would've been handled through medical insurance she would've gotten as a teacher. And I'm sorry but if the power is so vital that disconnecting it would kill her within an hour or two, that should be the -first- thing you pay.

Beyond all that the fact remains that they had time and they squandered it.

-That-, Sithdarth, is what is inexcusable.

adamark

05-31-2007, 12:29 PM

2) Its not her fault. Just because her family is working doesn't mean they have $122 laying around. They have bills to and people to feed. Its not hard to imagine that they may not have had the money to spare just yet. They probably also thought the power company wasn't going to take an action that would directly cause a person's death.

3) The phone company should have investigated this instead of ignoring it. At they very least they should have delayed action until talking with a doctor and perhaps having their own doctor come in to verify. Then they should have worked out some sort of payment plan. It is wholly their fault for not covering their own asses.

I totally disagree. It's not the power company's job to go around like super sleuths investigating people who don't pay their bills. Do you have any idea how many hundreds if not thousands of people don't pay their bills? Enough to have a full-time staff of technicians whose job it is to cut their power.

Also, what about the power company workers? They have bills of their own. I know that electric companies can vary from making a lot of money to barely scraping by. As a capitalist institution, you can't survive by giving away free electricity. You are basically demanding that the power company be late on their bills in order to front other people in society who neglect their bill to the power company. This can't happen. When someone doesn't pay their bill for months, you have to cut them off, or they will just continue to leech.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 12:47 PM

Apparently it shouldn't have been.

All of that other stuff would've been handled through medical insurance she would've gotten as a teacher. And I'm sorry but if the power is so vital that disconnecting it would kill her within an hour or two, that should be the -first- thing you pay.

Beyond all that the fact remains that they had time and they squandered it.

-That-, Sithdarth, is what is inexcusable.

1) Most of those bills are just as if not more so important than the power bill. Further, the medical insurance, if she even had it, of a teacher in a poor neighborhood is probably going to have deductibles and paydowns in the thousands of dollars range, or may not cover this situation at all.

2) They squandered no time. They tried to contact the power company the company couldn't be bothered to listen. Their fault!

I totally disagree. It's not the power company's job to go around like super sleuths investigating people who don't pay their bills. Do you have any idea how many hundreds if not thousands of people don't pay their bills? Enough to have a full-time staff of technicians whose job it is to cut their power.

Also, what about the power company workers? They have bills of their own. I know that electric companies can vary from making a lot of money to barely scraping by. As a capitalist institution, you can't survive by giving away free electricity. You are basically demanding that the power company be late on their bills in order to front other people in society who neglect their bill to the power company. This can't happen. When someone doesn't pay their bill for months, you have to cut them off, or they will just continue to leech.

1) No put it is their job to investigate claims like "hey if you turn the power off my mother is going to die". It takes a few phone calls at best and saves you from a multimillion dollar lawsuit in the future.

2) Power companies are generally subsidized by the government to keep them from going belly up because the government can't afford to have people loosing power. That and there is generally little competition. Its not to freaking much to ask that utilities actually investigate claims such as this especially when it can be cleared up by a paralegal with a phone and a fax machine.

42PETUNIAS

05-31-2007, 12:49 PM

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 12:58 PM

1) it is their job to investigate claims like "hey if you turn the power off my mother is going to die". It takes a few phone calls at best and saves you from a multimillion dollar lawsuit in the future.

*laughs* Okay. So they're going to spend 20,000 to investigate a bill that would only pay tehm 144?

You aren't thinking in the broad scopes. If they investigate one, they set a precedent making them have to investigate them all.

Let's take Collection at Cingular Wireless. When I worked there, we had about 30-40 of us working at any given time. Now, we averaged 82 calls per person. So, that' roughly 2800 calls a day for our department. Multiply that with us being open 7 days a week, that means we were placing 19,000+ calls a week for bills not being paid

On average, about 1/4 of them had tear-jerking stories to get out of it, many involving dying relatives. So, about 5,000 a week were sad stories.

If we investigated to see if they were true or not, we'd spend about 20,000 minimal in investigative and legal fees. So that's 100,000,000 dollars for just one week of calls. Let's say on average 1/3rd of our monthly calls were the same people.

So we'd be spending 2.7 mil a month on unique claims that were not repeats. In a year that'd be up to 35 million dollars. And to get what? 2.6 million dollars back is they were found out false?

Sorry. But financially it's stupid for them to investigate when they get false claims on such a high level. From a policy standpoint, as a company you really have to go one way or another. They went the way of the doubtful. They shut it off.

Not their fault, kiddo. It's business. Yeah it sucks for her and the family, but it's business.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 01:02 PM

The power company is a large corporation, you can't just expect it to go out of its way to help someone who may or may not be fakeing it. They weren't obligated to go out of their way to check this out, so it stands to reason that they aren't going to go searching everytime someone brings in a claim like that. It might have ended badly, but that's how corporations like that work.

Again that's a horrible double standard. Further it doesn't matter legally. When someone makes a claim to you that an action you are about to take is going to result in death you investigate it. Plain and simple. There is no legal excuse for not doing. Especially since the research would have consisted of this:

1) Call family ask them to call hospital and release medical records.
1a) If they refuse you've got a scam on your hands.

2) Call hospital and ask them to fax medical records to you.
2a) You might have to drive there to pick them up.

3) Crisis resolved and you don't get sued for a millions in punitive damages. Oh and you spent about $25-$50.

edit:

*laughs* Okay. So they're going to spend 20,000 to investigate a bill that would only pay tehm 144?

You aren't thinking in the broad scopes. If they investigate one, they set a precedent making them have to investigate them all.

Let's take Collection at Cingular Wireless. When I worked there, we had about 30-40 of us working at any given time. Now, we averaged 82 calls per person. So, that' roughly 2800 calls a day for our department. Multiply that with us being open 7 days a week, that means we were placing 19,000+ calls a week for bills not being paid

On average, about 1/4 of them had tear-jerking stories to get out of it, many involving dying relatives. So, about 5,000 a week were sad stories.

If we investigated to see if they were true or not, we'd spend about 20,000 minimal in investigative and legal fees. So that's 100,000,000 dollars for just one week of calls. Let's say on average 1/3rd of our monthly calls were the same people.

So we'd be spending 2.7 mil a month on unique claims that were not repeats. In a year that'd be up to 35 million dollars. And to get what? 2.6 million dollars back is they were found out false?

Sorry. But financially it's stupid for them to investigate when they get false claims on such a high level. From a policy standpoint, as a company you really have to go one way or another. They went the way of the doubtful. They shut it off.

Not their fault, kiddo. It's business. Yeah it sucks for her and the family, but it's business.

You are missing one very large difference here and I hate to do this but I'm going to make this very large so no one misses it:

Turning off someone's cellular phone is not going to directly cause their death in a foreseeable and preventable way.

This is why its the job of the power company to investigate all claims that death will follow power being shut off.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 01:05 PM

Again that's a horrible double standard. Further it doesn't matter legally. When someone makes a claim to you that an action you are about to take is going to result in death you investigate it. Plain and simple. There is no legal excuse for not doing. Especially since the research would have consisted of this:

1) Call family ask them to call hospital and release medical records.
1a) If they refuse you've got a scam on your hands.

2) Call hospital and ask them to fax medical records to you.
2a) You might have to drive there to pick them up.

3) Crisis resolved and you don't get sued for a millions in punitive damages. Oh and you spent about $25-$50.

Again, that's alot of money to investigate something worth 144 dollars. And again, it sets a precedent.

There is a legal excuse for not doing it. Do you think the New Zealand courts can withstand the workload of a company bringing tens of thousands of fraud investigations across their desks? What if every company started doing that as people start to see saying "OMG I'm GONNA DIE!" gets you free power/phones/cable/sex/whatever? That legal system will be lockdowned faster than an elementary school when Michael Jackson's on tour.

You're thinking the path of the selfish, looking at the small group being affected. You need to realize that there is a chain reaction for doing anything.

If they left the power on for her, regardless of the reason, they would set a dangerous tone for others who can than be "you set it up for her".... than people would call in faking that they were dying or some other thing. By giving any leniancy they open the door for other people to use that to get what they want.

Yeah, what they did was seemingly dickish due to the circumstances. No arguing there. But it wasn't their fault. They were doing their jobs. Right down to the dirty end result.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 01:10 PM

Read above. Utility companies like electric and gas operate under different rules and with government subsidy for a reason. Further, you don't actually have to do anything legal. Its just a 30 second phone call to see if the people are willing to release their medical records to you. If they aren't its a scam that simple. If they are its another 20 second phone call to get he hospital to fax them over.

Also, if you spend $25-50 to get back almost $150 dollars that's called a net profit.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 01:16 PM

It was an example, so simmah down.

And actually, a lack of cell phone can cause a series of situations leading to a death. We shut off a phone that according to a woman, prevented her cousin from calling at the scene of an accident in time to get help and she bled to death.

And you seem to be missing a point.

Investigating that would SET A PRECEDENT All the other fakers would definitely see about it in their local news and start using that to fake out not getting -their- power shut off. Than the company would have to investigate those, because they already made a statement that they would by doing so in the first case.

Than they'd lose millions of dollars. That would cause (GASP!) prices to raise. More people would not pay and use that excuse, more money lost! OMG is that called logic?

It's nonsense for them to be at fault because they have the intelligence of foresight to see the outcome of such decisions.

Edit: Since you editer yer argument I'll remove part of mine that refers to the giganticizing.

A phone call from a company like that actually costs more than 25-30 dollars. Not to mention since they are requesting the medical release, they would actually have to pursue it through legal channels as medical history and records are legally binding documents that can not simply be obtained via a phone (ask anyone who does employment screening). Than there's the fees to have someone sit down and look at the situation and analyze the truth of it. Than they have to sum up their findings in a report and submit it up the chain for overall review and approval.

The manpower involved and the legal avenues required raise that to well above the 144 amount of the bill. That's not net profit. That's net loss.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 01:37 PM

Investigating that would SET A PRECEDENT All the other fakers would definitely see about it in their local news and start using that to fake out not getting -their- power shut off. Than the company would have to investigate those, because they already made a statement that they would by doing so in the first case.

Than they'd lose millions of dollars. That would cause (GASP!) prices to raise. More people would not pay and use that excuse, more money lost! OMG is that called logic?

It's nonsense for them to be at fault because they have the intelligence of foresight to see the outcome of such decisions.

Except not. The company themselves said in an online statement that there is a system in place to warn them if a disconnect will be life threatening and that in such a case a disconnect will not happen. So they do investigate and it does happen.

You know why it happens, because if you proceed with an action and the foreseeable outcome is the death of a person its criminally negligent homicide. The circumstances don't matter. You initiated a course of action that resulted in a foreseeable death and therefore broke the law.

A phone call from a company like that actually costs more than 25-30 dollars. Not to mention since they are requesting the medical release, they would actually have to pursue it through legal channels as medical history and records are legally binding documents that can not simply be obtained via a phone (ask anyone who does employment screening). Than there's the fees to have someone sit down and look at the situation and analyze the truth of it. Than they have to sum up their findings in a report and submit it up the chain for overall review and approval.

The manpower involved and the legal avenues required raise that to well above the 144 amount of the bill. That's not net profit. That's net loss.

Except not. It is completely and totally within the families power to release the medical records to any interested parties sans any intervention by lawyers. The only times you ever need to forcefully unseal medical records is in a case when the patient or family refuses to release them. Since in cases like this its in their best interest to release the records anyone one that doesn't is scamming you. And unless you are paying a paralegal more than like $200 an hour its not going to even cost you $50 for the whole process.

And actually, a lack of cell phone can cause a series of situations leading to a death. We shut off a phone that according to a woman, prevented her cousin from calling at the scene of an accident in time to get help and she bled to death.

And actually no it can't. It can lead to a situation where a person may have been saved had they payed their bill. It does not lead to a situation were the termination of service was the direct cause of death. There is a very big legal difference in that the cell phone could potentially save a life and the electricity was actively keeping the person alive.

Also, according to the CNN video I just watched the family didn't even get a disconnect notice before the guy showed up to cut the power.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 01:43 PM

Except not. The company themselves said in an online statement that there is a system in place to warn them if a disconnect will be life threatening and that in such a case a disconnect will not happen. So they do investigate and it does happen.

You know why it happens, because if you proceed with an action and the foreseeable outcome is the death of a person its criminally negligent homicide. The circumstances don't matter. You initiated a course of action that resulted in a foreseeable death and therefore broke the law.

Except not. It is completely and totally within the families power to release the medical records to any interested parties sans any intervention by lawyers. The only times you ever need to forcefully unseal medical records is in a case when the patient or family refuses to release them. Since in cases like this its in their best interest to release the records anyone one that doesn't is scamming you. And unless you are paying a paralegal more than like $200 an hour its not going to even cost you $50 for the whole process.

And actually no it can't. It can lead to a situation where a person may have been saved had they payed their bill. It does not lead to a situation were the termination of service was the direct cause of death. There is a very big legal difference in that the cell phone could potentially save a life and the electricity was actively keeping the person alive.

Also, according to the CNN video I just watched the family didn't even get a disconnect notice before the guy showed up to cut the power.

According to CNN space aliens might exist! According to CNN microwave safe plastic might actually cause cancer!

I believe news reports about as much as I believe people who call up and complain that they are going to collections for not paying.

Oh and that system that's in place? Yeah, the company has to be -notified- with full legal documentation that a certain address has devices that are sustaining someone's life and that they are mandated by law to provide continouous supply of power. Guess who's supposed to submit that information to the power company? The family! Or, the family's medical agency!

The power company is the easiest target for finger pointing, and it's bullshit that they're getting targeted for fault. Their system failed because the requirements were most likely never met.

And the whole "They said they never got a notice"... you obviously don't have any experience with collections. Or if you do, you seem to be absent-minded. That is the oldest, most used, least believed, and most worthless excuse in the world of bill collection and payments.

Make all the excuses for what the power company should do and all that you want. They're not psychics, they're not Gods. They made a judgement call, someone died. Life will go on... well... for everyone else, anyways.

adamark

05-31-2007, 01:52 PM

If I ever own a power company, I am NOT going to investigate my customers' medical files or personal lives in any way. I am not going to babysit or nanny them. If they want electicity, they will pay their bills to my company. If they die because they didn't pay their bills, I won't give a fuck, just like I don't give a fuck right now.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 01:56 PM

Make all the excuses for what the power company should do and all that you want. They're not psychics, they're not Gods. They made a judgement call, someone died. Life will go on... well... for everyone else, anyways.

Once again legally it doesn't matter. They were at the very least informed, even if informally, that loss of power might result in death. At that point it was a foreseeable consequence of cutting the power. Therefore, if they weren't receiving proper evidence it was their duty under law to make sure that death would not result from their actions.

For example, some choked out local crackhead runs up to your car while you are backing up. He says there is a kid laying in the parking lot behind you and if you keep going you'll kill him. Thinking that he just wants to rob you you continue backing up and run over the kid's head. You just committed criminally negligent homicide and you are going to be charged with it. Assuming you get off on that charge the family of said kid still as grounds to sue you for wrongful death. Its how the law works.

You don't have to be psychic you just have to have a shred of decency, some common sense, and a bit of legal knowledge.

The power company is the easiest target for finger pointing, and it's bullshit that they're getting targeted for fault. Their system failed because the requirements were most likely never met.

And the whole "They said they never got a notice"... you obviously don't have any experience with collections. Or if you do, you seem to be absent-minded. That is the oldest, most used, least believed, and most worthless excuse in the world of bill collection and payments.

Yes because all people are out to defraud the company of 100 some odd dollars by faking an illness and racking up thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills. That makes perfect sense they must be evil liars bent on taking down the perfectly benevolent power company. She totally smothered herself to death just to screw them over.

Edit: The absolute lack of knowledge of the legal system of industrialized nations on this forum is appalling.

Tendronai

05-31-2007, 02:05 PM

I don't think that the electric company did anything wrong, even after reading all of this. They were conducting business as usual. The fact that the family was trying to get $122 waived screams scam, because it's not like that can't be borrowed. It's fairly easy to cover.

Furthermore, I believe that the family was too sure that their sob story was going to get their bill waived. They took no precautions, such as having a backup source of power or even asking a neighbor if they could borrow a socket and an extension cord.

The chief problem here is that they seemed to think that they were somehow special, and that their story would be treated as true and get the respect it deserved while every other scam would be ignored as usual. They could have sent in the medical records with their notes. The company should not be criticized for doing everything for the family. I don't think that the company should be penalized in any way, and any suit should be dismissed offhand.

Hell, they got plenty of notice that their power was getting cut. Are they trying to claim that they couldn't have gotten her back to a hospital, or at least to another house which would have power?

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 02:09 PM

Once again legally it doesn't matter. They were at the very least informed, even if informally, that loss of power might result in death.

So wait, you're saying the company should be held legally culpable for not investigating but that the family shouldn't for not properly informing the company through required legal channels...

Wait.. what?

Edit: The absolute lack of knowledge of the legal system of industrialized nations on this forum is appalling.

I agree. Maybe you should look in the mirror judgemental judas before saying that it is -us- who lack knowledge.

Legal system of industrialized nations? I'm sorry to tell you this, there's no specific form of jurisprudence that a nation has to follow if they're industrialized. The legal system and the inherent laws and judiciary procedures are specific to individual countries. Britain, America, Canada, Germany, France. They are all industrialized countries, but their legal systems are vastly different.

The -only- laws that are adhered to and followed by all "industrialized" (I assume you actually been "civilized" as they like to call them selves) nations are the ones set at the Treaty of Versailles, the Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter. Why? Because those are the only laws that have the consignment of the nations.

Federal and local laws are handled by the internal governments and are not subject to approval on anything higher than a national level.

You're right. The ignorance of the legal system is appalling. But I can guarantee it's not coming from this side of the ring, brutha.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 02:16 PM

I don't think that the electric company did anything wrong, even after reading all of this. They were conducting business as usual.

Wrong. Once again the electric company broke the law or rather the guy that shut the power off did while acting in their name making them liable. Its either called Involuntary Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter) It makes them legally responsible and therefore able to be sued for wrongful death.

The fact that the family was trying to get $122 waived screams scam, because it's not like that can't be borrowed. It's fairly easy to cover.

Except that they were attempting to delay payment only not waive it completely. Besides who in the hell risks their life for $122.

Hell, they got plenty of notice that their power was getting cut. Are they trying to claim that they couldn't have gotten her back to a hospital, or at least to another house which would have power?
Except that we don't know that. Both sides are saying something different and we won't know until after the investigations.

Furthermore, I believe that the family was too sure that their sob story was going to get their bill waived. They took no precautions, such as having a backup source of power or even asking a neighbor if they could borrow a socket and an extension cord.

The chief problem here is that they seemed to think that they were somehow special, and that their story would be treated as true and get the respect it deserved while every other scam would be ignored as usual. They could have sent in the medical records with their notes. The company should not be criticized for doing everything for the family. I don't think that the company should be penalized in any way, and any suit should be dismissed offhand.

Hey guess what its not a scam if she was really going to die without it. *facepalm*

So wait, you're saying the company should be held legally culpable for not investigating but that the family shouldn't for not properly informing the company through required legal channels...

Wait.. what?

Yes because its, and this is a shocker, the law.

Legal system of industrialized nations? I'm sorry to tell you this, there's no specific form of jurisprudence that a nation has to follow if they're industrialized. The legal system and the inherent laws and judiciary procedures are specific to individual countries. Britain, America, Canada, Germany, France. They are all industrialized countries, but their legal systems are vastly different.

The -only- laws that are adhered to and followed by all "industrialized" (I assume you actually been "civilized" as they like to call them selves) nations are the ones set at the Treaty of Versailles, the Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter. Why? Because those are the only laws that have the consignment of the nations.

Federal and local laws are handled by the internal governments and are not subject to approval on anything higher than a national level.

You're right. The ignorance of the legal system is appalling. But I can guarantee it's not coming from this side of the ring, brutha.

I have yet to come upon a legal system in an industrialized nation that does not have an equivalent to involuntary manslaughter. Though maybe some of the dictator type countries don't though their laws seem to be in a state of flux anyway.

Further, aside from the fact that I have you know actual fact on my side, lets stop accusing each other of ignorance least we degenerate into flaming.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 02:25 PM

The fact that the family was trying to get $122 waived screams scam[...]

How does that scam work?

The authorities and the company (from the Associated Press info) itself seem to agree with Sithdarth's interpretation of the situation: if the company is aware of the life threatening situation, cutting power is against the law.

What the company is arguing is that they weren't informed. How would the family profit from not informing the company? Taking into account that it meant the woman's death. A month's worth of free power?

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 02:26 PM

Yes because its, and this is a shocker, the law.

Actually, it's not the law. Why? Because, it is the -law- that if they expect to have continuous, uninterrupted power from the power company, subsidized by the government due to it's use in medical aid, they have to submit necessary legal and medical documentation. Failure to do so can cause such effect as, but is not limited to, interruption of service due to default of payment.

Shortly, they didn't break the law. They followed the user agreement those people signed with the power company when they started their power service. The family failed to provide the documentation required to cause those failsafes to go into place.

And even if they didn't get those notices, that's no excuse. What? Did they think they magically weren't having to pay for power anymore? Laziness is still their crime for not proactively informing the power company that they wouldn't be able to pay it. Ignorance is no excuse.

The family is the one who failed to follow the legal procedures required. They killed that woman. The power company and the guy on the scene? They were doing their job. This isn't a touchy feely world. This is a world of business. And business was performed as per usual. A woman died due to laziness and carelesness of her family. She died because her family waited until it was too late to be proactive. If they had been as active as they are now, it never would've gotten this far. They're the murderers, they're the criminally negligent.

What the company is arguing is that they weren't informed. How would the family profit from not informing the company? Taking into account that it meant the woman's death. A month's worth of free power?

No. It was laziness. They probably felt like my sister did with her hospital bills that made them not willing to admit her daughter at one point due to 10k worth in unpaid bills. That if they ignore it it will either go away or resolve itself to their benefit. My sister's lack of taking care of her financial obligations could've killed her daughter. In this case, that family's lack of taking care of required procedures -did- kill the mother.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 02:32 PM

I agree with SithDarth, now that I've reread the arguments. Maybe nooooot killing a person is better than having 122 dollars, and if the family did all they said to alert the company, then I can't see where the electric company is coming from.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 02:34 PM

No. It was laziness.

If you didn't claim it was a scam, my response wasn't addressed to you.

Also, I'd like to remind you that neither your preferred version of events nor the family's have been proven in any sort of way approaching the conclusive. The point of who was informed of what is still in dispute (unless I missed something.)

Your certainty in this is out of place. As is your reference to a 'touchy feely world'. Man, that would go great in court.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 02:36 PM

Ok I'm going to say this very slowly so you can't misread it:

It doesn't matter at all what conditions eventually put the guy in the postion of shutting off the power and killing the woman. Simply the fact the he did in fact cut the power, warranted or not, and that it led to her death is enough to constitute Criminally Negligent Homicide. It does not matter that the family could have done more. It matter that right there at the moment the guy cutting the power had the power to not risk the woman's death. He chose not to do so and is therefore liable, since he was acting at the behest and with the authority of the power company they to are liable. That is all that matters, to go back to my earlier example, the kid you run over isn't liable for his death because he decided to sleep there, nor is the junkie liable for not being more convincing or pulling the kid to safety himself. You are the only one at fault because your action led directly to the death. It doesn't matter if other illegal acts put you in that position you are still liable.

Doing your job is no excuse either. If an Cop recklessly discharges his fire arm during an arrest and kills someone he's still going to get charged with involuntary manslaughter. Now he might get aquited or just a really minor slap on the wrist but that family of the dead person is still going to sue him and win. The same goes for doctors that's why they have malpractice insurance. Most claims against doctors stem from some sort of negligence of duty on their part not actual intent to do harm.

Edit:

No. It was laziness. They probably felt like my sister did with her hospital bills that made them not willing to admit her daughter at one point due to 10k worth in unpaid bills. That if they ignore it it will either go away or resolve itself to their benefit. My sister's lack of taking care of her financial obligations could've killed her daughter.

Actually had your sister died you would have had a very good case from wrongful death and probably could have got a huge settlement. Especially if she was clearly sick with something life threatening. This is why Emergency Rooms cannot and do not turn anyone with apparent serious injury away. They would both get charged with manslaughter and wrongful death.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 02:45 PM

Ok I'm going to say this very slowly so you can't misread it:

It doesn't matter at all what conditions eventually put the guy in the postion of shutting off the power and killing the woman. Simply the fact the he did in fact cut the power, warranted or not, and that it led to her death is enough to constitute Criminally Negligent Homicide.

Ah. So apparently you think that because I don't wholly agree with you that I'm not reading what you're saying. Here.. let -me- put this very slow for you.

Than by. Your own. Logic. The supervisor. That made him. Cut off. Her power. is also. responsible. because. he sent. that guy. out there. in the first place. In fact. Let's blame. The father of electricity. Because he caused. a need. for power companies. in the first place.

Was that better?

Guess what? The family is also criminally negligent for not submitting -beforehand- the necessary paperwork to prevent this from happening. In the end, no matter what scenario is the case, the -fact- is that the paperwork was not filed. Causing no catches or failsafes to activate. Causing them to shut off her power. Causing her to die.

Placing the blame on that guy because he decided to do HIS JOB is the biggest piece of legal bullshit I have seen. Give me a casefile or a legal precedent where this has been the findings of a court and I will cede my entire disbelief of your argument.

I stated in my first post there dozens of factors to blame. You can't point a finger at any one of them because there are just too many. But if you demand a solitary source be blamed than it is the family. Concerned neighbor or not, if I was her fucking son, husband, cousin, wtf ever, I would have ran a power cord over to their house and -demanded- to be allowed to use it. Failure to do that, by your course or logic, again places the family as "criminally negligent"....

Lord of Joshelplex

05-31-2007, 02:49 PM

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 02:54 PM

Actually had your sister died you would have had a very good case from wrongful death and probably could have got a huge settlement. Especially if she was clearly sick with something life threatening. This is why Emergency Rooms cannot and do not turn anyone with apparent serious injury away. They would both get charged with manslaughter and wrongful death.

And actually, if her daughter had died, we wouldn't have sued. We would grieve, but we wouldn't sue. How do I know, because the child almost did. And we had warned my sister that not paying those bills would affect her. Eventually, -we- paid for the child's medical care. And if that family was concerned about the mother, they could've paid to. They had a 20 yr old, and one not much younger, and the husband. Between them, their relatives, and their friends, 144 is not a large number to raise.

Does it sound cold my response in regards to my niece's near death? Maybe to you. But it's the truth. I have to be cold, because the truth is not warm, and fuzzy. It's the cold. hard. truth.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 02:56 PM

Than by. Your own. Logic. The supervisor. That made him. Cut off. Her power. is also. responsible. because. he sent. that guy. out there. in the first place. In fact. Let's blame. The father of electricity. Because he caused. a need. for power companies. in the first place.

You were actually right up until the point you extended it to the inventor of the electricity.

Guess what? The family is also criminally negligent for not submitting -beforehand- the necessary paperwork to prevent this from happening. In the end, no matter what scenario is the case, the -fact- is that the paperwork was not filed. Causing no catches or failsafes to activate. Causing them to shut off her power. Causing her to die.

Except that:

1) We don't know what was and was not submitted. That would be the purpose of the police investigation.

2) Well for one not submitting proper paperwork isn't illegal. Its a breach on contract. Which can cause legal action to be taken but is not in itself illegal.

3) Again any illegal acts that lead up to an illegal act have no bearing on the last illegal act, except in rare occasions to make the punishment worse.

Placing the blame on that guy because he decided to do HIS JOB is the biggest piece of legal bullshit I have seen. Give me a casefile or a legal precedent where this has been the findings of a court and I will cede my entire disbelief of your argument.

I stated in my first post there dozens of factors to blame. You can't point a finger at any one of them because there are just too many. But if you demand a solitary source be blamed than it is the family. Concerned neighbor or not, if I was her fucking son, husband, cousin, wtf ever, I would have ran a power cord over to their house and -demanded- to be allowed to use it. Failure to do that, by your course or logic, again places the family as "criminally negligent"....

Actually according to English laws, which are basically mirrors of our own, we get things like cooperate manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter). Before you go off on how that might not be the case I point you to the judgments against tobacco companies, HMO's, insurance companies, and car companies over foreseeable oversights that led directly to deaths.

Lord of Joshelplex

05-31-2007, 02:57 PM

144 is not a large number to raise.

Not at all, I make minimum wage, and work 6 hours a week and make that much, 2 working people could easily scrounge that up from working a weekend.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 03:02 PM

2) Well for one not submitting proper paperwork isn't illegal. Its a breach on contract. Which can cause legal action to be taken but is not in itself illegal.

You're using circular logic and all you're doing is arguing against yourself.

You agreed that going up the ladder to find the company at fault is correct, but doing the same to find the family at fault is not.

Seriously, if you can't apply your own methodology and your own choplogic to your own arguments, than please feel free to refrain from doing so on ours.

And no matter what was and wasn't submitted, there are facts involved. If they had submitted paperwork, that would have been the first thing they would have used against the power company and there wouldn't even -be- an investigation. Because than yes the company was at fault.

Furthermore, beyond who was at fault for the whole shutting down of power, why were there no backup power supplies? If they really cared enough about that woman they would've had failsafes of their own.

This was brought up before by 2 other people and yet you refuse to explain how this doesn't have any bearing on the family being at fault or not.

You view things through a touchy feely lens, but the world is a cold and brutal reality.

Go work collections. Anywhere. Please. You will radically change. You will see how claims can be so varied and so intense that this will actually be just another day in the park for -anyone- dealing with people not paying their bills. You seem to completely ignore the fact that someone in New Zealand also already stated that they live in a well-known area for poor people that frequently don't pay bills. In a land where scams and liars are frequent, the truth tellers are drowned out. They become collateral damage to a corrupt society. IT sucks, but again. It's the cold, hard truth.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 03:05 PM

I personally agree with the notion that the family is at fault. They neglected to take precautionary measures, to send the appropriate documents etc..

The company needs to set a standard. If they make an exception once, they are obligated to do it again, and can result in millions of wasted dollars on frauds. I mean, if I was at work, and a guy comes in saying his kid will die if I dont give him free meat, Im not gonna walk over and check, Im gonna tell him ti pay. It's business, not charity.

Except that the law clearly states the action they took was illegal. There are no circumstances under said law which negate that liability.

And actually, if her daughter had died, we wouldn't have sued. We would grieve, but we wouldn't sue. How do I know, because the child almost did. And we had warned my sister that not paying those bills would affect her. Eventually, -we- paid for the child's medical care. And if that family was concerned about the mother, they could've paid to. They had a 20 yr old, and one not much younger, and the husband. Between them, their relatives, and their friends, 144 is not a large number to raise.

Does it sound cold my response in regards to my niece's near death? Maybe to you. But it's the truth. I have to be cold, because the truth is not warm, and fuzzy. It's the cold. hard. truth.

Just because you didn't doesn't mean you didn't have grounds to sue. Further it doesn't mean you wouldn't have won and gotten a huge settlement.

Not at all, I make minimum wage, and work 6 hours a week and make that much, 2 working people could easily scrounge that up from working a weekend.

Have you tried raising 2-3 kids on one minimum wage salary? While paying several hospital bills might I add. Not to mention the husband actually had to cut down his hours to help take care of her. So the only person potentially bringing in a full pay check was the 20 year old. I doubt they cleared $500 a week and that had to go to paying rent, paying for the machine, and supporting 5 people. Its not hard to see how they couldn't come up with it and they probably weren't to worried about borrowing it because common sense says that the electric company isn't going to risk a lawsuit over killing someone.

Lord of Joshelplex

05-31-2007, 03:08 PM

Have you tried raising 2-3 kids on one minimum wage salary? While paying several hospital bills might I add. Not to mention the husband actually had to cut down his hours to help take care of her. So the only person potentially bringing in a full pay check was the 20 year old. I doubt they cleared $500 a week and that had to go to paying rent, paying for the machine, and supporting 5 people. Its not hard to see how they couldn't come up with it and they probably weren't to worried about borrowing it because common sense says that the electric company isn't going to risk a lawsuit over killing someone.

My "common sense" would be sending them the documents and having a backup power source. Obviously this family is devoid of common sense.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 03:09 PM

My "common sense" would be sending them the documents and having a backup power source.

Your perception of the family's common sense matters even less than the family's possible lack of common sense. Neither is their inability to raise money for the month's bill and/or a secondary power source and the many possible causes of such an inability. They're not the ones who cut power.

You agreed that going up the ladder to find the company at fault is correct, but doing the same to find the family at fault is not.

I don't think that the family can, in any case, be legally held responsible for the power company causing a death by cutting the power. Not so for the power company causing a death by cutting power.

To find a contradiction there one has to do yoga logic. An actual contradiction looks like this:

And no matter what was and wasn't submitted, there are facts involved. If they had submitted paperwork, that would have been the first thing they would have used against the power company and there wouldn't even -be- an investigation. Because than yes the company was at fault.

It doesn't matter what was or wasn't submitted because the paperwork wasn't submitted? And no, I'm pretty sure the police needs to investigate to verify the paperwork in question.

I am cold and hard, like logic!

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 03:12 PM

Except that the law clearly states the action they took was illegal. There are no circumstances under said law which negate that liability.

Just because you didn't doesn't mean you didn't have grounds to sue. Further it doesn't mean you wouldn't have won and gotten a huge settlement.

Have you tried raising 2-3 kids on one minimum wage salary? While paying several hospital bills might I add. Not to mention the husband actually had to cut down his hours to help take care of her. So the only person potentially bringing in a full pay check was the 20 year old. I doubt they cleared $500 a week and that had to go to paying rent, paying for the machine, and supporting 5 people. Its not hard to see how they couldn't come up with it and they probably weren't to worried about borrowing it because common sense says that the electric company isn't going to risk a lawsuit over killing someone.

Actually, I've supported a full grown 29 year old, a new born, and a 5 yr old, -and- myself, paying for hospital bills for me, the mom, and the children, off of my one paycheck and the small pittance from my sister's ex-husband

And it was tough, but I made sure the necessary got paid. Sure, we didn't have water for awhile, and we had a single radio. But we had electricity, heat, and food. The hospital and I negotiated a payment plan and I was able to manage. So yeah, I have tried. And I found a way to make it work. Why? Because I actually gave 2 shits enough to do something in a proactive manor.

And by the way, before you even -think- about coming off as smart and shooting down my arguments by saying I use alot of presuppositions and all that, you shouldn't either. You have no idea how much they were paying. And as I stated earlier, they could've borrowed money from family, friends, etc.

Oh. And if you're going to keep showing that it -is- against the law, why don't you do me a favor and show me that statute. Show me the precedent set in stone about it.

lastly, nice quote of what I said, but apparently you are so bound up in twisting words you don't know how to read into them. I guess that's why you missed the examples I made earlier.

I am saying regardless of whether the notices were recieved, and whether or not the power company was notified, there was no paperwork submitted to them in regards to needing continued power. That is a fact. If they had been, there wouldn't be an investigation. Because right there the power company is immediately at fault for breaking an agreement that involved a life-threatening situation.

*laughs* This is fun!

Inbred Chocobo

05-31-2007, 03:15 PM

Dude? They didn't have the money for the electric bill, how are they suppose to have money for a generator? I know what its like to not have money for medical bills, shit I gone for half a year with an ingrown toenail, and I was close to loosing the toe. My dad and I both work, he pulls in at least $1000 dollars a week and I get $200 every other week. The proceder took me 6 months to finally get enough money to finally do.

Their situation is worse, however I do admit I don't know how much their dad makes, however the fact he was losing hours to help care for her. A 20 year old kid can pull in enough money in a week to supposedly pay for it, but when you take out gas, car insurance, and some eating money, that check ain't there anymore. The fact that his dad had to bring in money to pay for everyone else and the medical bills, I wouldn't be surprised that his electric bill is the only thing behind. It is real easy to see how bills can fall behind, so I am for the power company at fault here.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 03:21 PM

and whether or not the power company was notified, there was no paperwork submitted to them in regards to needing continued power.

I'm not twisting words, your wording was twisted. You didn't make the nuance you make now. You said: no matter what was submitted, X thing wasn't submitted.

That is a fact. If they had been, there wouldn't be an investigation. Because right there the power company is immediately at fault for breaking an agreement that involved a life-threatening situation.

There needs to be an investigation in any case. What do you think they're investigating, anyway, if you think that there are no legal grounds for legal action and that the lack of responsabilty is self-evident?

I am smooth and unyielding, like The Law!

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 03:24 PM

I am smooth and unyielding, like The Law!

Or diarrhea!

And I was reffering to Sithdarth, anyways.

Look. The thread is reaching it's limit. Both sides have stated their rationale and feelings. All that's happening now is emotion spilling into posts. I'm pulling out of this debate until someone shows me a mandata, a precedent, or an actual law proving that the power company is at fault.. also because of the fact I can say no more than what's already been said because my reasonings were simple and brief.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 03:26 PM

You're using circular logic and all you're doing is arguing against yourself.

You agreed that going up the ladder to find the company at fault is correct, but doing the same to find the family at fault is not.

Seriously, if you can't apply your own methodology and your own choplogic to your own arguments, than please feel free to refrain from doing so on ours.

The company is at fault because a representative of the company turned off the power. Even if the family did not pay or inform the company up to that point it is still illegal to turn the power off. The act of not informing the company to that point did not force them to turn the power off. It did not have any negative repercussions to the company anywhere near as bad as the death of the woman. It was completely and totally the decision of the guy that turned of the power which makes it his fault. It then becomes the fault of the company because they told him to take this action and he was acting as a representative of said company. This can't be extended to the family because their actions are both secondary and did not unequivocally force the action of the company.

And no matter what was and wasn't submitted, there are facts involved. If they had submitted paperwork, that would have been the first thing they would have used against the power company and there wouldn't even -be- an investigation. Because than yes the company was at fault.

They might not have saved a copy. I mean I probably wouldn't think far enough ahead to save a copy. I'd assume the power company wouldn't kill my parent.

Furthermore, beyond who was at fault for the whole shutting down of power, why were there no backup power supplies? If they really cared enough about that woman they would've had failsafes of their own.

This was brought up before by 2 other people and yet you refuse to explain how this doesn't have any bearing on the family being at fault or not.

I did in fact explain how its not the fault of the family. For one, we don't know if this is even the case. Secondly, these back up power supplies only last for so long. Thirdly, it is common sense that there is the possibility that the family may not be able to provide a substitute power supply and thus lead to the woman's death. This is all that is needed for it to be illegal.

Go work collections. Anywhere. Please. You will radically change. You will see how claims can be so varied and so intense that this will actually be just another day in the park for -anyone- dealing with people not paying their bills. You seem to completely ignore the fact that someone in New Zealand also already stated that they live in a well-known area for poor people that frequently don't pay bills. In a land where scams and liars are frequent, the truth tellers are drowned out. They become collateral damage to a corrupt society. IT sucks, but again. It's the cold, hard truth.

Even if I did it doesn't change the law and it doesn't change the fact that the police or investigating the company.

Actually, I've supported a full grown 29 year old, a new born, and a 5 yr old, -and- myself, paying for hospital bills for me, the mom, and the children, off of my one paycheck and the small pittance from my sister's ex-husband

And it was tough, but I made sure the necessary got paid. Sure, we didn't have water for awhile, and we had a single radio. But we had electricity, heat, and food. The hospital and I negotiated a payment plan and I was able to manage. So yeah, I have tried. And I found a way to make it work. Why? Because I actually gave 2 shits enough to do something in a proactive manor.

And by the way, before you even -think- about coming off as smart and shooting down my arguments by saying I use alot of presuppositions and all that, you shouldn't either. You have no idea how much they were paying. And as I stated earlier, they could've borrowed money from family, friends, etc.

Neither do you. They could have hospital bills that make yours look like a pittance. Probably do in fact. The fact remains these people are at least claiming they were attempting to make a settlement with the company over the bill.

Oh. And if you're going to keep showing that it -is- against the law, why don't you do me a favor and show me that statute. Show me the precedent set in stone about it.

I did.

lastly, nice quote of what I said, but apparently you are so bound up in twisting words you don't know how to read into them. I guess that's why you missed the examples I made earlier.

I am saying regardless of whether the notices were recieved, and whether or not the power company was notified, there was no paperwork submitted to them in regards to needing continued power. That is a fact. If they had been, there wouldn't be an investigation. Because right there the power company is immediately at fault for breaking an agreement that involved a life-threatening situation.

1) Please respect me as I have respected you in my attempts to recognize that some of my responses could have been seen as flaming and have this toned it down.

2) So what people lie but power companies don't. That right there is inconsistent logic. How is it so obvious that the family was lieing, especially with the actual death, and the power company is a paragon of virtue?

Once again:

THE LAW! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter)

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 03:33 PM

I didn't say the family lied. I didn't say the power company didn't.

I'm taking this from the side that no one lied.

Let's say the power company -did- send out all those noticed. Let's say that the family -didn't- get them. Let's say the power company -didn't- get the required documents to get those failsafes set up. Let's say the family -did- show the shutoff guy the situation.

The family can't possibly be stupid enough to think they just magically don't have to pay their power bill and everything will be fine. They are negligent for not proactively warning the power company that they would be late. The dude that shutoff the power may be a jackass. But that's all he's guilty off. He had a work order to shut off their power. He did is job. He is not liable by any means.

And you never did show me the law. You showed me the description of manslaughter. I can show a copy of the word plausible deniability. Woot. Go both of us.

That's not the law. That's a definition. Give me the statute in New Zealand about how the company, or the employee, is possible legally culpable in a conspiracy to commit murder.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 03:40 PM

Let's say the power company -did- send out all those noticed. Let's say that the family -didn't- get them. Let's say the power company -didn't- get the required documents to get those failsafes set up.

If they didn't get the notices of power interruption, failure to fill out the paperwork to avoid said power interruption pretty much follows.

And you never did show me the law. You showed me the description of manslaughter. I can show a copy of the word plausible deniability. Woot. Go both of us.

The authorities are investigating something. That plus the fact that it might be a little bit tough to find the text of New Zealand's manslaughter laws and lists of legal precedents (in New Zealand, no less) on the internet makes your "plausible deniability" into "argument by incredulity".

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 03:46 PM

The family can't possibly be stupid enough to think they just magically don't have to pay their power bill and everything will be fine. They are negligent for not proactively warning the power company that they would be late. The dude that shutoff the power may be a jackass. But that's all he's guilty off. He had a work order to shut off their power. He did is job. He is not liable by any means

There negligence, should there truly be any, is negated by his. No matter how negligent the family was up to that point at that point they did everything legally in their power to demonstrate their situation. At the point ignoring it and turning off the power anyway became illegal. Nothing else before that point has any bearing on liability. The man was told before he shut off the power that it put a person at risk, he chose to ignore it and thus violated the law.

And seeing as its impossible to find actual scanned copies of laws on line you'll have to make do with this. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm)

That's not the law. That's a definition. Give me the statute in New Zealand about how the company, or the employee, is possible legally culpable in a conspiracy to commit murder.

Show me proof that somehow the government of New Zealand, which works under basically the same system of common law as the US, miraculously forgot to add a manslaughter law. Further explain why then the police of investigating.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 03:53 PM

If they didn't get the notices of power interruption, failure to fill out the paperwork to avoid said power interruption pretty much follows.

The authorities are investigating something. That plus the fact that it might be a little bit tough to find the text of New Zealand's manslaughter laws and lists of legal precedents (in New Zealandm, no less) on the internet makes your "plausible deniability" into "argument by incredulity".

O rly? :P

I'm not saying a filing of paperwork in -response- to the cancellation notices. Basically, this is how the procedure would work. (Unfortunately I have to know this being the medical go-to guy in matters of finance and all that for my sibling and her chillins.)

She gets setup by the hospital, the government, the HMO, whatever with an at-home life-support system. At that time, they would need to go through whatever insurance they have to get medical proof and legal documents by the insurance company so that the power company can file that. This will ensure that certain failsafes are installed that prevent anyone save the government from shutting off their power. It would also allow them to get a government provided (if the insurance didn't cover getting one) power generator to ensure that should the power fail for any length of time.

Basically put, there are methods in place with insurance companies that could prevent this kind of situation, but it requires that the person submit the information and process the necessary request.

Now, I will say this against my argument. I have no information if this is different in New Zealand. I know that here in the United States, that there are policies refusing a power company from cutting power to a house like that if certain proof was provided before hand.

I really feel bad for the family, but I can't help but also feel bad that they are trying to blame the power company, and sithdarth is trying to blame a guy that just did his job.

Lord of Joshelplex

05-31-2007, 04:01 PM

Regardless if it was moral;y wrong for what the guy did, realistically, this is not a moral world, it is a business world. And from a business standpoint, the guy did the right thing.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 04:02 PM

Sithdarth is trying to blame a guy that just did his job.

I'm fairly certain that 'doing one's job' doesn't excuses anyone for breaking the law or assisting in breaking the law, except in very special cases. So I don't understand the emphasis put on the fact that he was being paid to do what seems to have been an illegal act.

It keeps putting me in mind of the Nuremberg Defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defence)

I'm not saying a filing of paperwork in -response- to the cancellation notices.

If that's how it works, sure, that would have been negligent of the family. Still, that paperwork still seems to me more like an additional safeguard (to avoid that sort of situation) and wouldn't fundamentally override the power company's obligations.

This is not a moral world, it is a business world

The law is normally not devised in that optic. Hitmen aren't free to operate.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 04:03 PM

She gets setup by the hospital, the government, the HMO, whatever with an at-home life-support system. At that time, they would need to go through whatever insurance they have to get medical proof and legal documents by the insurance company so that the power company can file that. This will ensure that certain failsafes are installed that prevent anyone save the government from shutting off their power. It would also allow them to get a government provided (if the insurance didn't cover getting one) power generator to ensure that should the power fail for any length of time.

Basically put, there are methods in place with insurance companies that could prevent this kind of situation, but it requires that the person submit the information and process the necessary request.

That's assuming she actually had a half way decent insurance company. Plus this entire process could talk upwards of 3 months and that power bill was for one month at most. Its perfectly logical to assume the paper work was stuck in some government office waiting for a stamp of approval.

I really feel bad for the family, but I can't help but also feel bad that they are trying to blame the power company, and sithdarth is trying to blame a guy that just did his job.

Its not me that's blaming him its the law. Further, his liability is actually less than that of the company, its just that the company is liable through him. A fact that will probably get him fired. If charges are filed the guy that pulled the power has essentially zero chance of actually being convicted, and if he is then he'll get like community service. The company will get fined, probably not very substantially at that. The real punishment comes later when the family, rightly, sues the power company. They could sue the guy as well but as he doesn't have any money they have a better chance with the power company. (Besides it was more the fault of the power company for not properly equipping their employee to handle the situation.)

edit:
Regardless if it was moral;y wrong for what the guy did, realistically, this is not a moral world, it is a business world. And from a business standpoint, the guy did the right thing.

No this is a legal world wherein business abide the same laws as we do and as such the guy broke a law and through him the company.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 04:10 PM

You keep saying the law but you never show the proof. A description of manslaughter is not the law.

If it's hard to find, than how do you know it exists?

No.. I'm done.. I clean my hands of this conversation. I step out. I withdraw by reason of I'm at work and can't properly and sanely argue this while also arguing to a mommy about her son's DS.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 04:11 PM

If it's hard to find, than how do you know it exists?

What else is being investigated, if not the company's potential liability, which depends on such a law?

Not that Tyrazial's statement makes any sense unless it's conceived as a demonstration of a fallacy.

Sesshoumaru

05-31-2007, 04:15 PM

One things been bugging me about this thread: to go back to my earlier example, the kid you run over isn't liable for his death because he decided to sleep there, nor is the junkie liable for not being more convincing or pulling the kid to safety himself. You are the only one at fault because your action led directly to the death. It doesn't matter if other illegal acts put you in that position you are still liable.

That example is wrong. If you have a legitment reason for not getting out and confirming that there was indeed someone lying behind your car (in this case, a suspicious man who appers to be trying to lure you out of your car), and assuming that you didn't pull a hit and run. You are not criminally liable for the resulting injury. Sure, you'll probably get sued in civil court for wrongful death, and you might even lose (although if you have a good lawyer you probbaly won't). However, you still won't face criminal penelties.

As for the topic at hand, if it turns out that the family didn't go through the necessary legal channles to insure that the power wouldn't be cut off, I don't see how the company (or the technician) could possibly be criminally liable. Of course, if the civil laws in New Zealand are like the US (in which you can pretty much sue anyone for any reason) then a civil case is almost definitly going to happen, although it would probably be a toss-up to whether or not the family would win (although it would probably just get settled out of court). But like its previously been said, it really depends on the results of the investigation to find out what the company was aware of, and what they weren't aware of.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 04:15 PM

Are you actually doubting the existence of involuntary manslaughter laws? Because if that's the case then we can in no way hold rational discourse because you are rejecting to accept something that is actual real fact.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 04:25 PM

That example is wrong. If you have a legitment reason for not getting out and confirming that there was indeed someone lying behind your car (in this case, a suspicious man who appers to be trying to lure you out of your car), and assuming that you didn't pull a hit and run. You are not criminally liable for the resulting injury. Sure, you'll probably get sued in civil court for wrongful death, and you might even lose (although if you have a good lawyer you probbaly won't). However, you still won't face criminal penelties.

In the limits of the example, wouldn't you need a damn good reason to still drive in the same direction for it to be true, though?

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 04:26 PM

Archbio

05-31-2007, 04:27 PM

I was merely wondering where your proof was that such a circumstance is considered, by the law, as a case of involuntary manslaughter. You just assumed it was than attacked me for assuming they were faultless.

If there's no possibility that such a circumstance can be considered involuntary manslaughter, what is the police investigating?

It's a stretch to consider both assumptions equivalent, at the very least.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 04:31 PM

I was merely wondering where your proof was that such a circumstance is considered, by the law, as a case of involuntary manslaughter. You just assumed it was than attacked me for assuming they were faultless.

It fits the definition to a T. I just don't see how any amount of legal mumbo jumbo is going to change that. Who cares what happened before it doesn't mitigate the fact that the guy was told, while in a position to verify it, that cutting the power would put someone at risk. The fact that he both did not avail himself of that opportunity and continued with the task is what makes this illegal. Had the man had the sense to stop and think he would have called a supervisor and insisted someone review the claim. As that this apparently didn't happen, because the woman is dead, he is guilty. Could the family have done more? Sure. Does that make them legally liable? No.

And yeah it wasn't the best example. Just imagine that there was another way out without leaving the car other then continuing to back up.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 04:32 PM

Why did they investigate it when a woman sued the mall because she got injured from tripping over her own son?

A formal police investigation is required whenever the situation is questionable to determine the truth behind both sides' statements.

And it fits -your- view of it to a T. But that's personal opinion, there's no legal backing behind it. You basically are stating what -your- belief on manslaughter means as I did mine. But that doesn't make it the law anymore than me saying it should be a crime to charge tax on candy because it's still food by my count, makes the government doing so a crime.

You could say "I feel it should be against the law" not "It is against the law" as that is.... No! I left this argument. I'm staying out.

I almost read my response to a lady, thank God she barely heard me... I just hope this reaches the post limit soon so it can be ended.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 04:34 PM

A formal police investigation is required whenever the situation is questionable to determine the truth behind both sides' statements.

There needs to be potential wrongdoing. Not 'business as usual'. If the family's version didn't imply some form of responsability, then there would be no need to dispute it and investigate the matter to clarify the facts. I suppose this is mostly a response to the posters who've portrayed the event as an essentially casual, evidently justified business decision.

In any case, the text of the majority of New Zealand's legal provisions isn't available on the internet.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 04:41 PM

And it fits -your- view of it to a T. But that's personal opinion, there's no legal backing behind it. You basically are stating what -your- belief on manslaughter means as I did mine. But that doesn't make it the law anymore than me saying it should be a crime to charge tax on candy because it's still food by my count, makes the government doing so a crime.

You could say "I feel it should be against the law" not "It is against the law" as that is.... No! I left this argument. I'm staying out.

I almost read my response to a lady, thank God she barely heard me... I just hope this reaches the post limit soon so it can be ended.

This is not interpretation this is as clear cut as it gets. He was told "Hey moron cutting the power will kill someone." He then promptly ignored the warning and proceeded with his task. Someone then died because of it. That's the exact situation this law was meant to handle. There is no legal precedent required. If every application of a law required that there be a previous case to demonstrate how to apply it all laws would be meaningless.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 04:45 PM

And it fits -your- view of it to a T. But that's personal opinion, there's no legal backing behind it. You basically are stating what -your- belief on manslaughter means as I did mine. But that doesn't make it the law anymore than me saying it should be a crime to charge tax on candy because it's still food by my count, makes the government doing so a crime.

You could say "I feel it should be against the law" not "It is against the law" as that is.... No! I left this argument. I'm staying out.

I almost read my response to a lady, thank God she barely heard me... I just hope this reaches the post limit soon so it can be ended.

There is PLENTY of legal backing behind it. There's, for one, the LAW. Manslaughter isn't like bestest color, where everyone's beliefs are valid. It's an actual real thing that has a definition. You can't say "That is your interpretation" of a FACT.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 05:38 PM

I_Like_Swordchucks

05-31-2007, 05:51 PM

Alright I'm on a break.

You guys are hilarious.

Yes. Involuntary manslaughter is against the law. Duh. What I have been saying is that you have nothing to say that what the company did, or what that dude did, is involuntary manslaughter.

The example of Involuntary Manslaughter you are using from Wikipedia to defend your case is:

Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill, consequently a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfuly disregarded it.

Guess what? That same logic can apply to the family. Who didn't get the bill paid. Now, they didn't -intend- to make the power company come shut off their power and therefor kill that woman. But it happened.

Your argument is trying to go up the chain of responsibility and pin blame on the company. Problem is you're stopping one step short of the top level, which is the family, not paying the bills. See. Here's how it works

1. Family does not pay bills.
2. Company gets involved, possibly by shutting off power.
3. Person comes to house to shut off power.
4. He shuts off power.
5. She dies.

We can go up the ladder even farther using your brand of logic. It can go in an indefinite loop all chicken-and-the-egg style.. You're trying to play the pass the buck game, but it just goes in circle. Everyone here, including the family, is at fault of contributing to it.

I think the case should be dismissed and the family should stop pissing over the woman's grave by draggin her corpse across the media in hopes of profiting of her demise.

I like how you say you're on a break, and then go on to rant some more. Thats not a break. Thats an attempt at getting the last word.

But the thing is, we have to look at who had a choice. The family may not have had the money to pay the bill, and therefore did not have choice in their action.

The company did have a choice.

And that technician is the biggest idiot of them all. You don't do something that you KNOW will kill somebody, and then say "I was just doing my job." That fits that manslaughter definition quite well. I would say that the closer we get to that woman's death, the more responsibility the person at that stage has, because the more the choice affected the outcome.

I would say, in responsibility, it goes Technician > Company > Family. Notice how the further you get down your ladder, the more responsibility they had? Out of everybody involved, the families choices were only indirectly responsible. It was the DIRECT decision of that technician to cut the power, and it was his decision that resulted in her death.

Incidentally you're right. Responsibility isn't supposed to be pinned the next step higher on the chain. And ironically, that makes you wrong. The family wasn't at fault, the technician was, with a moderate amount of fault going to the company.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 06:10 PM

The family had a choice to let the company know beforehand. And you have no idea exactly what was discussed or the reasons behind his judgement.

And actually, I didn't say responsibility isn't pinned at the top. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I said if you're going to go up the ladder, let's go all the way. I said everyone involved is responsible. Don't tell me what I've spoken using words I didn't speak. You only make yourself appear as less worth my attention.

You want to sit here and argue the hithertos and the whyfores go ahead.

There are a dozen things the family could've done long before the event happened. You guys will, as so far have, ignore that and continue to limit your beliefs based on the event itself.

I'd love to see how you rationalize your little stepladder of responsibility. At least I gave a brief explanation of my process.

And I said I was pulling out due to being on a phone. I was not on the phones anymore so I stepped back again.

This is actually quite entertaining how heated you guys get while all I get out of this is a laugh. In truth I'm with Adamark, I don't give a fuck. But since no one else here seems to be willing to go toe to toe with you guys, why not a guy with nothing to lose.

Lastly, I would do something I knew would get someone killed if they have had 6-7 weeks to prevent it from happening. Don't like that, tough. The world won't stop cause you're incapable of moving out of it's way.

So. *hits the ball* Your turn ^.^

Azisien

05-31-2007, 06:10 PM

I just wanted to throw in something small here...

I've read most of the entire thread and there's a lot of emphasis on legal, moral, business, whatever...

I'm surprised Archbio didn't mention it, being so cold and hard. Moral and legal are not synonymous. Laws might follow from morals.

So what is being argued here is, separately, who is legally at fault? Who is morally at fault? Those could be too completely different things, or they could be the same thing, but they might be different in magnitude.

I don't know enough about the situation and the intricate details so bear with me, but...The company looks like they're at legal fault here. However, I might not award them full moral fault. If indeed the family didn't do everything in their power, and I stress here I don't know the details of whether they did or didn't, Sith says they did, others say they didn't, clearly you guys don't know either, but in that case I wouldn't put the company at total fault. Morally, however, under most normative theories anyway the technician should have refrained from cutting the power and investigated, himself if necessary.

That was one mighty fine Dickens sentence if I do say so myself.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 06:24 PM

Indeed the length of it is titanic. However it does raise a good point. And I think that is one reason why Sith and I got so heated at one point with each other.

Morally I will concede the technician was at fault. But I will also argue morally so was the family by waiting to the last minute (If it's proven they didn't I happily concede this as well).

Legally, the company and the technician did exactly as they were bound to by the usage agreements (again if medical paperwork was previously provided that should've safeguarded the woman, than I will concede. As there is a lack of such evidence currently, than I stand by it).

So I will happily concede that the company and technician are at fault if certain things can be proven. However, I don't believe in "good faith". They have to prove they did the right steps. Otherwise, I don't fault the company or the technician on a legal side.

Preturbed

05-31-2007, 07:48 PM

Just over $100 dollars. Thats all it would have taken to keep this woman alive. Her family seems to have put forth NO EFFORT to actually raise that money. Whether or not they tried to get the company to keep her power on for free doesn't matter. Between them and everyone they know, they couldn't raise $122.

Yeah right. What really happened? The family was cheap, tried to take advantage of the system, and their dear old granny paid for it. The old lady didn't deserve it but her family sure as fuck does.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 07:51 PM

Prove that the family didn't try to get the money. It's more logical to assume that humans want to help their mother/wife than it is to assume they're apathetic and like watching her asphyxiate.

Preturbed

05-31-2007, 07:54 PM

I didn't say they liked watching her asphyxiate. I said they didn't bother to raise the money. I know this for a fact because if my grandmother needed $122 to live (and I couldn't earn it in UNDER A FUCKING WEEK) I would find it for her, even if it meant begging in the street. Proof that they didn't try is that they failed.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 07:58 PM

Bullshit. Proof that they failed is that they failed. Proof that they didn't try is nothing at this point. The father, as has previously been mentioned, had to take off some work to take care of his ailing wife. And I don't think that because YOU can raise money, THEY can raise money. You are not they. Simple fact.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 08:03 PM

To Preturbed I will agree.

Again, supposing they didn't get the notices, they can not honestly expect us to accept that they just "forgot" to pay the bill, or that they couldn't. 122 dollars... I just made 122 dollars today at work.... even poor people should be able to scrap that much together. And if not, bank loans mebbe? they could pawn shop their goods. If they truly did care to the full extent of their abilities, she'd be alive.

As far as I'm concerned, they are just greedy and trying to latch onto a sue-happy trend that I hope gets shut down so fast they fee the door swing on their way out.

And to RDM I will also agree. HE is not THEY. THEY. More. Than. One.

Now you're giving them copouts and excuses. That's all bullshit as bullshit gets.

Let's say they find 4 people able to help them. That's 30 bucks a pop. 30 dollars I could make in ten minutes selling crap at a local pawn shop.

You want to call bullshit, sniff your own pile.

Preturbed

05-31-2007, 08:08 PM

Look, its $122. It can be earned in 3 days digging ditches. At the beginning of this year I was so broke I couldn't buy gas to get back to my apartment. You don't get much poorer than that. But you know what? I bit the fucking bullet and worked a little. Maybe if the husband had done that she would have lived. If he REALLY couldn't get out of his house long enough to work, he could have gotten a loan from a friend, or a credit card. If you have no friends and are so far in debt that you can't get anything at all out of the bank, I as a taxpayer should not have to support your sorry ass.

Go to a pawn shop.
Sell an organ
Sell your body
sell your wife's body
eBay some crap.
Go to your local church, I'm sure once the paster/preacher/whatever get a good look at your granny they'll pay her power out of the offering plate for a while.

Point is, $122 isn't hard to raise no matter who you are.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 08:10 PM

Oh don't even start. Calling his argument bullshit and veiling insults through poinant words is as inflammatory as what he said. Seriously. If you want to go gradeschool, you really have lost all meat to your argument.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 08:14 PM

If you have no friends and are so far in debt that you can't get anything at all out of the bank, I as a taxpayer should not have to support your sorry ass.

Go to your local church, I'm sure once the paster/preacher/whatever get a good look at your granny they'll pay her power out of the offering plate for a while.

Do you pay taxes to New Zealand? If not, then your first statement is invalid. If so, I apologize.

And most churches won't GO to see the granny. Like it or not, thems the brakes. My mother works at a church, the priest/preacher/whatever isn't the onewho hands out money. Most churches are hesitant to pay bills for fear of scam. Sorry. That's how it works.

veiling insults through poinant words
Where? Where are the veiled insults.

As to the unquoted rest of your posts, you're spot on and I apologize.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 08:17 PM

Are you talking to me? I missed something here, yours comes right after mine but as far as can tell I didn't do anything like that.

Tyrazail told me to sniff my own pile for bullshit, I think was the gist, and I called that inflammatory, regretted it, and deleted the post because I realized I was wrong.

EDIT: This didn't used to be a double post, I don't think. Perturbed deleted one of his posts.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 08:18 PM

Are you talking to me? I missed something here, yours comes right after mine but as far as can tell I didn't do anything like that.

No no no no. I was talking to Roy.

And I'm not about to quote 8 pages just to prove my point, Roy. The fact you called my argument bullshit and than tried to rag on Preturbed for using the term "your sorry ass" in reference to the father is a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

And I'm pretty sure the whole taxpayer thing refers to that if someone does get free government subsidized power, the taxpayers are the ones who get the bill. So as a New Zealand citizen, if he were one, he shouldn't have to pay penny one towards someone else's laziness.

(edited because I'm sleepy and am typing things from wrong point of view)

Preturbed

05-31-2007, 08:22 PM

Do you pay taxes to New Zealand? If not, then your first statement is invalid. If so, I apologize.
I do not. What I meant to imply was that, were I a New Zealander or were this situation moved to the US, I shouldn't have to support people who put themselves into a position like this.

And most churches won't GO to see the granny. Like it or not, thems the brakes. My mother works at a church, the priest/preacher/whatever isn't the onewho hands out money. Most churches are hesitant to pay bills for fear of scam. Sorry. That's how it works.
Every church I've ever been to pays house calls regardless of whether or not you're sick, and if you are a sick old lady you get double along with all the food you care to eat. I'm sure paying $122 would be well within reach and reason if they attended a church like that. Of course, they probably don't go at all; I know I don't. I retract this one in light of the fact that not every church does this.

Roy_D_Mylote

05-31-2007, 08:22 PM

And I'm not about to quote 8 pages just to prove my point, Roy. The fact you called my argument bullshit and than tried to rag on Preturbed for using the term "your sorry ass" in reference to the father is a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

1. It's not. Your arguments are wrong. The father is not necessarily a sorry ass.
2. I don't veil insults. I outright call you a fucking retard, if you're a fucking retard, and I don't think that you are.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 08:27 PM

1.He -is- a sorry ass if he didn't do everything in his power to save his wife. I sure hope if you are/get married and your wife/husband/significant other, that you do alot more than "take time off" to help her/him/them. And let's leave the father out of this. How bout the 20 year old son?

I was 19 when I quit my perfectly comfy job, and college, to stay at my parents' house and help my mom post-histerectomy so my dad could keep working. I haven't gone back to college because I havent had the time, but I'm not ashamed of that choice. The 20 yr old could've either helped provide that money, or helped the family so the dad could.

So your right. The dad's not a sorry ass. They're all sorry asses. Especially now that they're trying to dredge this all over the six o' clock news.

2. And I'm sorry if that is the case. I apologize for attacking you unwarranted than.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 09:18 PM

Ok, and bear with me here because it might be a strange concept, legal liability attaches only to those who directly cause a death. The only people here that directly contributed to that womans death was the technician and the company he works for. This is why cooperations are formed. Right in their charters or whatever it is agreed that any illegal act perpetrated by an employee in the furtherance of the goals of the company, by order of the management, is the responsibility of the company and all share holders. Cooperations are set up like this to protect the founders of the company from loosing their shirts should something go wrong. Therefore, liability attaches to the directly to the technician and through his employment to the company. Something I've stated 3-4 times already and that has been blissfully ignored.

Yes. Involuntary manslaughter is against the law. Duh. What I have been saying is that you have nothing to say that what the company did, or what that dude did, is involuntary manslaughter.

The example of Involuntary Manslaughter you are using from Wikipedia to defend your case is:

Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill, consequently a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfuly disregarded it.

Guess what? That same logic can apply to the family. Who didn't get the bill paid. Now, they didn't -intend- to make the power company come shut off their power and therefor kill that woman. But it happened.

Your argument is trying to go up the chain of responsibility and pin blame on the company. Problem is you're stopping one step short of the top level, which is the family, not paying the bills. See. Here's how it works

1. Family does not pay bills.
2. Company gets involved, possibly by shutting off power.
3. Person comes to house to shut off power.
4. He shuts off power.
5. She dies.

Again this stretches the law to far. Its like saying the guy that brought the brick to the top of the bridge to throw it off and then decided not to is legally liable because someone else walked by and completed the act. Or rather, If I was carelessly waving a gun around and it went off and accidentally nicked my friend in the foot I'd be guilty of criminal negligence. If that friend then went to the hospital were a callous doctor accidentally pumped him full of a medication he was allergic to and caused his death then the doctor is guilty of criminally negligent homicide but I am not.

The key in this case is that:

1) We have no proof the family wasn't trying to make an arrangement with the company and frankly one month over due is a little quick to cut off service. I know people that have racked up 3-5 month over due bills.

2) It is reasonable for the family to assume that they would be able to convince the company not to shut of power there by saving their mother. Not the best decision but not an unreasonable one.

However, the technician:

1) Was informed of the possibility of it happening. Once this happens you do not have the option to legally ignore the possibility. This is were willful ignorance comes in, its different from what the family did because the family had a reasonable expectation of a non-killing their family member outcome.

2) Was the direct cause of the death making him the liable party.

Edit:
Legally, the company and the technician did exactly as they were bound to by the usage agreements (again if medical paperwork was previously provided that should've safeguarded the woman, than I will concede. As there is a lack of such evidence currently, than I stand by it).

No contract ever supersedes actual law.

Archbio

05-31-2007, 10:15 PM

I'm surprised Archbio didn't mention it, being so cold and hard.

Like logic!

Moral and legal are not synonymous.

I think at the point from which I've been arguing both moral and legal pretty much intersect, that might be why I haven't thought of pointing it out. Also, I might just be a little disorganized.

I think that's a small confusion, however, compared to others who can't seem to stop injecting their own peculiar philosophy of the world at every point of this long enough to realize that maybe New Zealand's system doesn't conform to that philosophy fully, and maybe the people who have been personally affected by this are more familiar with the system they live in (or at least its norm) than grandiose pronouncements (there are too many to count) about How The World Is.

Since those pronouncements have been punctuated with belated 'I don't give a fuck's and 'this is just entertainement for me's, I don't feel like there's any use trying to sort out that particular confusion. Assuming these are sincere, then playing along with someone out of deliberately provoke is not only dreadfully irritating but it's also not responsible toward the forum.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 10:37 PM

Just to make it absolutely clear there are two legal processes going on here:

1) The direct legal liability of the technician for shutting off the power without even making an attempt to verify the claims of the residents. This is either depraved indifference or willful ignorance, that's up to a jury to decide.

2) Liability then takes one step up that chain to the company because the technician was working on behest of said company. Common Wealth law, and yes New Zealand uses common wealth law, holds cooperations criminally responsible for the actions of their employees when those actions are a direct result of either orders from management, the management is liable too, or "doing there job" when doing said job becomes illegal and the employee isn't trained/smart enough not to break the law.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 10:40 PM

If any of you actually watch the interview back to front, they also bring a very clear set of points:

1. The hospital stated that it should have been to help her, not to keep her alive.

2. The mother told the son not to call an ambulance.

Okay that right there indicates that something else was going on. It sounds to me like the family for whatever reason was not notifying the hospital that the situation was worsening and that the mom didn't want an ambulance coming.

Sorry, but now from that standpoint alone I am riding that the family was probably having to hide something. That or if they're are that negligent to their own well-being, than she deserved the end her choices brought her.

They themselves prevented the use of possible tools that could have saved her life.

For all you know the technician could've seen something that they didn't want known, or god only knows what, and made a judgement call. Now that I've heard the actual report itself I am even more adamantly on the whole family liable.

Don't call the ambulance? WTF? Alright, the stupid bitch don't want them saving her life, than death is her choice. That's like signing a DNR at a hospital and than having your family sue the doctors for not trying to save her life.

It's too shady.... They tell him that it's saving her life and so concerned for her health, than tell the son not to call an Ambulance. The health official even said it was unusual how quick she deteriorated.

Oh but let's ignore these little hints at foul play of some sort! It's easy to just blame someone! Ignorant finger pointing wins out!!!

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 10:51 PM

If any of you actually watch the interview back to front, they also bring a very clear set of points:

1. The hospital stated that it should have been to help her, not to keep her alive.

Which seems to indicate some degree of negligence on the part of the hospital. It still does not absolve the technician because he was still warned and still ignored his opportunity to check out said story and he action directly caused her death.

2. The mother told the son not to call an ambulance.

Okay that right there indicates that something else was going on. It sounds to me like the family for whatever reason was not notifying the hospital that the situation was worsening and that the mom didn't want an ambulance coming.

Except that paramedics where called and did work on the mom which means as soon as it became apparent she was dieing the family called. Just because the mom didn't want to be a further burden does not automatically mean there was something illicit to hide. This is what we call a Non sequitur.

Sorry, but now from that standpoint alone I am riding that the family was probably having to hide something. That or if they're are that negligent to their own well-being, than she deserved the end her choices brought her.

They themselves prevented the use of possible tools that could have saved her life.
Again your logic does not follow. There are various other much more logically reason the mother would initially refuse treatment and then treatment would be provided, which is the case here.

Further, they didn't hold a gun to the technicians head and force him to cut the power. They informed him of the potential consequences and he made the decision on his own. This decision and the subsequent act DIRECTLY caused her death making him liable and the company liable through his employment.

For all you know the technician could've seen something that they didn't want known, or god only knows what, and made a judgement call. Now that I've heard the actual report itself I am even more adamantly on the whole family liable.

Don't call the ambulance? WTF? Alright, the stupid bitch don't want them saving her life, than death is her choice. That's like signing a DNR at a hospital and than having your family sue the doctors for not trying to save her life.

It's too shady.... They tell him that it's saving her life and so concerned for her health, than tell the son not to call an Ambulance. The health official even said it was unusual how quick she deteriorated.

Oh but let's ignore these little hints at foul play of some sort! It's easy to just blame someone! Ignorant finger pointing wins out!!!

Again an ambulance was eventually called though we don't know exactly when and again its not unusual for terminally ill, or just very ill patients, to not want to further burden their family. Just because she said she didn't want an ambulance doesn't mean on wasn't called, and we know one was because the article mentions it, and it definitely doesn't mean she was doing something shady.

Tendronai

05-31-2007, 11:08 PM

Except that paramedics where called and did work on the mom which means as soon as it became apparent she was dieing the family called. Just because the mom didn't want to be a further burden does not automatically mean there was something illicit to hide.

That doesn't really make sense to me, since they all told the technician that she would die if the power was cut. She knew that when the power was cut, she was in trouble. So why wouldn't she want an ambulance called immediately?

I really don't think that the company should be held responsible in any way. They weren't doing anything that unique given the way day to day operations have to be conducted in order to ensure that business could continue. They shouldn't have to do anything unique to ensure they can do their jobs. How many people have tried to claim that "if you cut the power, this person will die" to the tech before? It seems like that would be one of the many excuses a potential scammer would try to pull. There was nothing wrong with what he did, and neither he nor the company should be held culpable.

Tyrazial

05-31-2007, 11:09 PM

*laughs* Oh wait wait wait...

Now the -hospital- is negligent.....

I'm sorry.. you're whole argument just lost it's power with me. You have just chicken-shit blamed one too many people for things beyond their control...

You of course didn't even -think- to put together:

a: She was sent home in better condition than she was in at the time of the murder.
b: She somehow magically survived the trip home. And so as far as the hospital knew she should've been able to survive a trip to the hospital.
c. The fact that the hospital didn't know the situation had worsened, if that's what actually happened, is a clear point that, again, the family was incompetent when it came to updating people on their situation.
d. It has not yet been proven what was or wasn't said to the technician. And while you oh -so- enjoy lambasting me for assuming they didn't file paperwork, you hang your wang out making them yourself.
e. The family waited until after she was too far gone to be helped to call the paramedics. It states quite fucking clearly that she was getting dizzy almost right away. They should've called regardless of what the crazy old witch was rambling.

so in rebuttal : If you still think they are even remotely innocent of this after all that has been stated than I wash my hands of even trying to explain to your fuzzy little brain what I have stated here.

Sorry kiddo. I am so happy that you think you're infallible and un-needing to follow you're own argument requirements. I love how you jump to point the finger here, and there, and everywhere, except on the family who was truly responsible.

Tell ya what. Go home and squeeze your teddy bear and tell yourself that the world runs smoothly and that whenever something goes wrong it's never your fault. And when you do something stupid and suffer for it, keep telling yourself that as your laughed out of the court for having no real basis in law, logic, or reality.

I on the other hand will teach my children not to be wet-backed noodle-loving hippies that always blame the institution for all their woes. Thanks for the enlightening conversation today. I go to sleep soundly knowing I wasn't raised in a family of soft-hearts, but in people who realize the cold truth of this world.

And honestly I'm surprised our little argument hasn't made this thread locked already. I thought threads got locked on like page 8 or something..

*shrugs*

toodles.

Sithdarth

05-31-2007, 11:26 PM

That doesn't really make sense to me, since they all told the technician that she would die if the power was cut. She knew that when the power was cut, she was in trouble. So why wouldn't she want an ambulance called immediately?

Read the post above again. Its not unusual for a very ill person to wish to refuse treatment. It happens all the time in fact. The fact that paramedics did respond shows that the family did in fact care enough about her life to override her wishes.

I really don't think that the company should be held responsible in any way. They weren't doing anything that unique given the way day to day operations have to be conducted in order to ensure that business could continue. They shouldn't have to do anything unique to ensure they can do their jobs. How many people have tried to claim that "if you cut the power, this person will die" to the tech before? It seems like that would be one of the many excuses a potential scammer would try to pull. There was nothing wrong with what he did, and neither he nor the company should be held culpable.

Doesn't matter what you think, the law is the law is the law.

Further, all those times would have resulted in an illegal act as well had someone literally died and the technician had not done everything in his power to make sure someone really wasn't going to die. Any potential to be a scam is out weighed by the fact that it wasn't and as such a few steps into house would have confirmed that, and maybe a phone call or to. Hell at the very least he could have cut the power and hung out for an hour just to be sure they were telling the truth.

*laughs* Oh wait wait wait...

Now the -hospital- is negligent.....

I'm sorry.. you're whole argument just lost it's power with me. You have just chicken-shit blamed one too many people for things beyond their control...

You of course didn't even -think- to put together:

a: She was sent home in better condition than she was in at the time of the murder.
b: She somehow magically survived the trip home. And so as far as the hospital knew she should've been able to survive a trip to the hospital.
c. The fact that the hospital didn't know the situation had worsened, if that's what actually happened, is a clear point that, again, the family was incompetent when it came to updating people on their situation.
d. It has not yet been proven what was or wasn't said to the technician. And while you oh -so- enjoy lambasting me for assuming they didn't file paperwork, you hang your wang out making them yourself.
e. The family waited until after she was too far gone to be helped to call the paramedics. It states quite fucking clearly that she was getting dizzy almost right away. They should've called regardless of what the crazy old witch was rambling.

so in rebuttal : If you still think they are even remotely innocent of this after all that has been stated than I wash my hands of even trying to explain to your fuzzy little brain what I have stated here.

Except for the fact that the family are not medical professionals. They would not know for example a slight drop in the oxygen in her blood meant she was getting worse. In fact the probably wouldn't even know how to read what ever monitoring instruments she had if any. Further this small change would not reflect in any obviously visible way.

Further, the fact that they called the ambulance and the fact that the technician isn't disputing their claim of telling him assures us that in fact the family did warn the technician as they claimed.

Additionally, we don't know when exactly the ambulance was called. They could have called immediately. But again they are not medical professionals. Simply I'm dizzy doesn't generally suggest life threatening sickness to people. Maybe they thought "Hey she doesn't seem so bad maybe we won't have to spend a few more 10s of thousands of dollars we don't have." By the time it was obviously life threatening to a laymen it was probably also to late.

Sorry kiddo. I am so happy that you think you're infallible and un-needing to follow you're own argument requirements. I love how you jump to point the finger here, and there, and everywhere, except on the family who was truly responsible.

Tell ya what. Go home and squeeze your teddy bear and tell yourself that the world runs smoothly and that whenever something goes wrong it's never your fault. And when you do something stupid and suffer for it, keep telling yourself that as your laughed out of the court for having no real basis in law, logic, or reality.

I on the other hand will teach my children not to be wet-backed noodle-loving hippies that always blame the institution for all their woes. Thanks for the enlightening conversation today. I go to sleep soundly knowing I wasn't raised in a family of soft-hearts, but in people who realize the cold truth of this world.

And honestly I'm surprised our little argument hasn't made this thread locked already. I thought threads got locked on like page 8 or something..

*shrugs*

toodles.

I am following my own logic. I've outlined it several times. You don't seem to be following any logic at all.

Also, I do realize that earlier I was indeed toeing the line toward flaming. I noticed this and attempted to pull it back a little. You however have gradually increased it to the point of a bonfire. I take serious offense to this and seriously doubt your claim of not being heated over this thread. I am in fact seriously insulted at this point and yet still hold out hope some sort of rational argument will finally be heeded.

Sesshoumaru

06-01-2007, 12:35 AM

Doesn't matter what you think, the law is the law is the law.

Thats like the quadzilionth time you've said that without offering any convincing argument that your take on the matter is true or not. And before you start saying something like "I don't have to explain it, its THE LAW," I already know what the law says. However, you have said very little, if anything, to convince me that this situation is indeed covered under that law (every time someone asks you to explain it, you say "its the law" which really doesn't explain anything at all).

Sithdarth

06-01-2007, 12:46 AM

Thats like the quadzilionth time you've said that without offering any convincing argument that your take on the matter is true or not. And before you start saying something like "I don't have to explain it, its THE LAW," I already know what the law says. However, you have said very little, if anything, to convince me that this situation is indeed covered under that law (every time someone asks you to explain it, you say "its the law" which really doesn't explain anything at all).

I have in fact said several time exactly why it is the law but I suppose once more can't hurt:

Basically the law says that if there is any, and that means any at all regardless of believability, reason to suspect a course of action will put the life of another human at risk you are obligated to either not take that action or take steps to ensure that risk of life does not occur.

So in short since someone did indeed die and the technician was in fact informed of possible risk he is liable for the result. He alone is liable because it was his decision that led directly to the death. That is precisely what the law says there is no interpretation happening.

Guy knew of possible risk.
Guy ignored possible risk.
Someone died because of it.
Thus, he is criminally liable.

Further, because the guy was in the employ of the power company and because he was preforming a task set by the power company the power company is also liable. This is why for example tobacco companies, HMOs, and companies, like airlines, can be criminally prosecuted for the dishonest practices of employees at all levels. This is how the law works and now I've said it for the 5th, or 6th, time.

Roy_D_Mylote

06-01-2007, 01:05 AM

e wet-backed noodle-loving hippies that always blame the institution for all their woes.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight there is where it became flaming. For, y'know, future reference.

Sithdarth

06-01-2007, 01:22 AM

Oh and I did find a bit of case law here (http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/uploads/media/TORTS_-_Vandall.doc), the most pertinent part I've found so far being:

1. lost chance theory
a) under the lost chance theory, P can recover if he establishes that D’s negligence “more probably than not” reduced his opportunity of avoiding harm. The damages are awarded in the probability
(1) Falcon v. Memorial Hospital (court found that the loss of 37.5% chance of survival constituted the loss of a substantial opportunity of avoiding physical harm/survival.
• D argues that cause-in-fact should be defined as 50% or more.
• Court rejects the 50% concept and says some courts accept recovery where the loss was substantial, although less than 50%
• Court defines standard as “more probably than not.” In tight cases, courts may ask jury to decide whether defendant’s actions more probably than not the cause the injury
• How does court calculate damages? They look at person’s occupation, age, to calculate the value of life. Court multiplies 37.5% times value of the life
• Value of life is important when dealing with international lawsuits—value of life in India is different than value of life in US
(2) Vandall thinks that P must prove D took away a more probable than not chance of survival, and that 37.5% itself qualifies as more probable than not chance—more probable than not does not mean >50%

Which means that the Technician is responsible, and therefor his employer, because he reduced the chance of survival by more than 37.5%. I mean the defense could argue that he didn't but it isn't going to get them very far. Especially since the cause and effect is pretty straight forward.

Also:
B. CONCURRENT CAUSES
1. Reynolds: fat woman—where D’s negligence increases likelihood of accident and possibility that it might have happened w/o negligence does not break chain of cause and effect
2. Where D’s conduct combines with another factor before causing injury to P, D is still liable as cause in fact under the substantial factor test if its conduct alone would have also caused the injury to Π Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul Railway (RR liable for starting fire even though its fire combined with another fire of natural cause before injuring Π’s property). P must show that D’s fire was a material element (you must show cause was material).
a) this decision overruled the decision of Cook v. Minneapolis (which was decided at a time when the courts sought to protect the railroad’s liability by saying if one fire is of unknown origin, there is no liability)
3. under the “but for” test, the wrongdoers causing two situations that together injure Π could claim that, but for the other, injury wouldn’t result—each could pass the buck forever—so switched to substantial factor test.

Which means that again the technician is at fault. Even if you tried to make the case that the family was equally responsible it would simply switch from this test:

a) “but for” test: Π must show that injury would not have happened but for the conduct of the defendant.

To this test:
b) substantial factor (more D’s will be brought under this test)—whether conduct was a substantial factor in producing the injury

Which clearly places the fault on the technician because his act contributed more than any other to the death.

Meister

06-01-2007, 02:12 AM

Tell ya what. Go home and squeeze your teddy bear and tell yourself that the world runs smoothly and that whenever something goes wrong it's never your fault. And when you do something stupid and suffer for it, keep telling yourself that as your laughed out of the court for having no real basis in law, logic, or reality.

I on the other hand will teach my children not to be wet-backed noodle-loving hippies that always blame the institution for all their woes. Thanks for the enlightening conversation today.
Okay, Tyr? This is definitely not the tone we'd like to see in Discussion, or anywhere at that. If you can't counter an argument without getting personal, or getting snippy, or getting to do anything but basically having the better arguments and voicing them, you might want to step down from the thread for the time being. Consider yourself warned.

Roy, you too, because calling an argument "bullshit" is pretty much in the same vein. Plus, let's keep the definition of where flaming begins to us, okay; you were right, but still, it's not your call.

Closing for length; looking at what a shitstorm this has become I think we can do without a continuation.