a 4 year old crimin...
 
Notifications
Clear all

a 4 year old criminal?

15 Posts
10 Users
0 Reactions
1 Views
(@daryl-moistner)
Posts: 870
Registered
Topic starter
 

Don't take your kids to Disneyland...they might get excited and injure somebody then you could lose your house or car.

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 7:37 am
(@mike-falk)
Posts: 303
Registered
 

He also wrote that the Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence as to the child's lack of intelligence or maturity, nor that "a child of similar age and capacity" would not have understood the danger of riding a bicycle into an old woman.

Sounds Like a poor attorney.

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 8:16 am
(@texaz2step)
Posts: 32
Registered
 

Wow, only in America? I can't believe some of the stuff people get sued for. Very sad state of affairs.

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 8:21 am
(@deleted-user)
Posts: 8349
Registered
 

Daryl,

Simply another example of the nonsense that plagues the judicial system. The woman was 87, jumping jesus it’s not unusual for someone that age to fracture a hip albeit caused by two four olds “racing”:-O . If she were paying attention to her surroundings she could have evaded the collision. Lots of hungry vultures, er Lawyers, out there.

Have a great weekend!

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 8:34 am
(@mike-falk)
Posts: 303
Registered
 

Unfortunately, the cause of the woman's death and the children's share of the cause can only be argued in court by suing the children.

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 8:56 am
(@dave-karoly)
Posts: 12001
 

I disagree, they killed the poor lady.

And no part of the case designates the 4 year old a criminal. This is a civil matter.

The Attorney should have tried harder to remove the child but the parents would still be liable.

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 9:00 am
(@mike-falk)
Posts: 303
Registered
 

Dave

The children struck Ms Menagh, knocking her to the ground. She underwent surgery for a fractured hip and died three months later.

Many other things could have happened in those three months that may have contributed to her death. Say another 3 months older for an 87 year old?

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 9:04 am
(@dave-karoly)
Posts: 12001
 

Dave

Mike I can see that. Hopefully the Defense Attorney brought that up in trial.

Loss of mobility kills a lot of elderly people.

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 9:07 am
 jud
(@jud)
Posts: 1920
Registered
 

Dave

The parents are responsible and should be held accountable. Where did the kids get the bikes, who was supervising them or who was not? Four years old is old enough to have been taught some sense of right or wrong and discipline, that is the parents obligation. Parents who do not teach the things that are required to be responsible along with the things required to get along in our society leave their kids wondering all their lives why people avoid them or why they are in trouble all the time. That is child abuse which effects them as long as they live. A well earned spanking or other rewards for behavior, done consistently and fairly might be uncomfortable at the time but that discomfort will pass, unlike the results of not teaching them the tools of life.
jud

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 10:27 am
(@dave-karoly)
Posts: 12001
 

Dave

I never intentionally hit my children and they turned out OK, they certainly aren't axe murderers or anything like that.

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 2:43 pm
(@daryl-moistner)
Posts: 870
Registered
Topic starter
 

Dave

4 year old's are 4 year old's....their like little chimpanzees...aggressively riding their bikes in a state of glee in their neighborhood as they have probably done many times before....I doubt though they specifically aimed for the middle of the center mass of the old lady with intent and malice...and 87 is getting up there...their was all kind of factors involved for two human time lines to intersect like that... its just a tragic accident...and now their suing a 4 year old? ...I wonder what the 4 year old thinks about that...
...It's just life...things happen...good and bad...but people just cant take responsibility anymore and I think their grief justifies their greed and suits are just avenues to a settlement to enrich themselves...

 
Posted : October 30, 2010 9:08 pm
(@merlin)
Posts: 416
Registered
 

I disagree.

There may be a problem with the words used here. I only skimmed the article, but no where did I see the words "criminal" used. I readily agree that a four year old can not be liable, but I have read cases where the parents, who were supposed to be supervising the child, are liable.

 
Posted : October 31, 2010 6:53 am
(@plparsons)
Posts: 752
 

Dave

Don't forget Shylock whispering in their ear.

 
Posted : October 31, 2010 7:25 am
(@paul-in-pa)
Posts: 6044
Registered
 

WOW, This Is Amazing ?

All these arguments that a 4 year old child should be held responsible in the death of an 87 year old woman but the adult coach of the Notre Dame football team cannot be held responsible for the death of a Notre Dame student working for said coach under hazardous conditions under the coaches directions.

The 4 year child was not intoxicated nor under the influence of drugs and was operating the bike on the only surface where he legally could. All in all it was an accident and the parents share some responsibility, but the city shares some responsibility because the child was breaking no laws. In addition the New York Public School system is responsible for not providing bicycle safety classes to pre-school children.

In looking at the reported facts the lawyer of the dead lady made no case to show that the child did in fact have a responsible understanding of the hazards of having fun. I believe the judge had the burden of proof wrong. The 87 year old lady should have been carrying uninsured motorists coverage and has a burdensome share of the expenses.

Then there is the matter of an untrained student operating equipment under conditions forbidden to trained operators at the direction of a supervisor well aware of said unusual conditions. That is not an accident it is "negligent disregard" for safety.

Paul in PA

 
Posted : October 31, 2010 3:33 pm
(@eapls2708)
Posts: 1862
Registered
 

Dave

While he [Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten] noted that the law presumes children under age four are incapable of negligence, "for infants above the age of four, there is no bright line rule", he wrote in the decision

It seems that one must be a little brighter than Justice Wooten to realize that a 4 year old, by any measure, lacks maturity and judgement. This poor kid is less than 2 years out of diapers!

Parents negligent for not having proper control of their kids? Yes, most likely. But anyone arguing that the kids themselves were negligent lacks the judgement expected of a reasonable adult.

 
Posted : November 1, 2010 8:15 am