Techno Destructo
Riding In Peace
Was there a law forcing them to use the law?Carlin said:
It Makes Me Sooooo Maaaaad!!!!!!
- Thread starter Techno Destructo
- Start date
Carlin
Likes Bikes and Dirt
No, but anyone has a right to use the law. If there is something unfair in the outcome of the case then there must be a problem with the legislation that allows this to happen not necessarily the individual who attempts to sue for whatever reasons.Techno Destructo said:
I suppose what I'm saying is blame the system not the individual.
and1
Likes Bikes and Dirt
So she should be aware of the dangers then, you dont go riding on a bike track on your bike and just expect everything to go smoothly and not have a crash. Thats why there is a bike track in the first place, to do jumps and ride on a less than flat terrain.johnny said:
By that logic if I go and drive a car on the road without being under the influence of alcohol or any drugs and then for some reason I crash into a tree I should be able to sue the council for having a tree by the side of the road because I was unaware of the risk. Ignorance is no excuse for stupidity
and1 said:
She was thirteen fucking years old mate. Last time I checked thirteen year olds don't drive cars or many other actions because kids aren't yet able to make many responsible decisions (not to mention the fact that to legally be able to drive a car you must have lessons from a liscenced driver, sit tests and gain a liscence which implicitly states that you ARE aware of the risks and that you are of a competent level to negotiate these risks. Your ignorance of this fact is no excuse for the stupidty of you comment
(jks) Anyway, ignorance is no excuse hey, then let's place a 13 year old in charge of some heavy machinery, they should be able to operate it, and don't tell me that their ignorance of mechanics is an excuse..........I know that's a stupid comparison, I'm just tryiong to say that you're expecting adult logic/responsibility FROM A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD, and I find that irrational and confounding.I can't believe the attitudes of people towards a little girl who fell off a bike!!??
Once again, keep it in perspective you nazis.
Last edited:
Once again, what's she supposed to do, starve?Techno Destructo said:
The law is there because there is no other adequete facility to cover these sorts of incidents, and therein lies the basis of this whole problem.
And to those who say bad luck she (being a 13 year old) has to live with the consequences, I sure hope either you or any of your dependents aren't placed in the same situation, for I think it would be a different story. Please don't come back saying " Oh I once stacked and broke my leg, but I didn't sue". She is sueing for income support because here injuries stop her from gaining employment for the rest of her life.
BTW, two weeks ago I stacked on some council approved jumps resulting in a severely dislocated shoulder. I didn't sue anyone either.
Disclaimer: At this point I would just like to say that I nor any of us here (assumedly) don't have all the facts. for all we know she could either be a vegetable that will degeneratively get worse, or she could just have a dodgy doctor and lawyer playing the money grab game.
well said. i dotnthink that this sort of shit should be tolerated in society. sueing has gone way to far, leaving people who have done nothing wrong responsible for the accident of the 13 year old girl. she is now a resposible adult, who should be smart enough to admit that as a 13 year old teenager she did something really stupid, and ended up with a disability. this is in no way the fault of the council nor the BMX park. its not the fault of her own either as she was to young to make such responsible decision
(although i disagree - she probably had every idea that what she was doing may put her in hospital, she just didnt consider it properly)
where im going with this is to say that it is NOBODY'S fault. just like the tsunami. SHIT HAPPENS bad luck bitch get over it and stop trying to ruin someone elses life
agreed. this is now the sad case for society. But if she had any moral decency she would not have accepted the grossly inflated payoutCarlin said:
Last edited:
Kids aren't allowed to dive cars, vote, operate heavy machinery, hold gun liscences, become emergency service employees, enlist in the army/navy/airforce, handle dangerous chemicals, direct traffic, design bridges, become teachers, give financial advice, drink alcahol, become JP's or district court judges, be power of attourneys, hold a security liscence, etc etc.
Why not?
Probably because they aren't old enough to understand what's involved. Yet it's apparently good enough to expect a 13 year old girl to consider the fact that she may not make a jump successfuly therefore impacting on her future employment prospects. Kids aren't aware of how badly they can injure themselves. How many crazy things did you do when you were a kid you wouldn't dream of doing now?
When I was 13 all I cared about was blowing bubblegum and looking cool.
How many of you "antis" rationally and responsibly thought through every decision you ever made at 13? Probably more so that you were lucky enough not to injure yourself as badly as this little girl did.
Why not?
Probably because they aren't old enough to understand what's involved. Yet it's apparently good enough to expect a 13 year old girl to consider the fact that she may not make a jump successfuly therefore impacting on her future employment prospects. Kids aren't aware of how badly they can injure themselves. How many crazy things did you do when you were a kid you wouldn't dream of doing now?
When I was 13 all I cared about was blowing bubblegum and looking cool.
How many of you "antis" rationally and responsibly thought through every decision you ever made at 13? Probably more so that you were lucky enough not to injure yourself as badly as this little girl did.
olly1oo6 said:
And now that her injuries stop her from being employed, she should just starve to death eh?
Dude, look at what she's sueing for, loss of income not compensation for mental trauma or something trivial.
SHE'S SUEING BECAUSE SHE NEEDS HELP TO GET BY, DUE TO A LACK OF JUDGEMENT WHEN SHE WAS A KID. I can find it in me to have a few cents taxed from me to help somebody out in a bad situation. It'd be nice to know that, that kind of support structure is available if
to me one day.
thats all fine and good. but where does the money come from? hell if there was a surplus 1.4m im sure she'd need it. im just illustrating the point that i hate people who sue because of a decision they made.
it would be great to see someone sue the park for the price of a new fence, so that others climb over the fence before screwing themselves over, and then atleast the park owner can say "not my fault".
and if her injuries stop her being employed she should start to consider how stupid she really was to do that. it IS unlucky, and i DO have sympathy for her (although it certainly doesnt seem like it).
put it this way. if the park did something wrong in constructing the park, the council should not have allowed the park to be built in the first place. but this seems to me a case of "well my lifes fucked. now yours is too. i feel happy now"
and obviously most of us werent stupid enough to try something which landed us all in comas, because were not disabled (at least i dont think so ) she represents the pinnacle of stupidity at 13. and i am making a judgement based on how smart she was.
also, if the poor girl was THAT disabled, she wouldnt have a child.
)
i simply dont think she deserves 1.4m. like many of us, she is going to have to live with her decision. she was 13, but that doesnt mean the law should compensate her for that fact. iv heard a story of someone very close to her age killing both his parents, and then copping 35 years in jail (AT 13!!)
so why is the law going one way one minute, and another the next. cant make decisions my arse, i did some stupid things when i was 13 and i have to live with them, and i take full responsibility for them
there is a bit of an issue here which society will soon (hopefully) work out. sueing in some ways is innapropriate, and in others, not. IMO this is inappropriate. others may have a different opinion, thats fine by me. maybe 50 years down the track someone will have a fair and just answer to all of this. and thats all i can hope for.
it would be great to see someone sue the park for the price of a new fence, so that others climb over the fence before screwing themselves over, and then atleast the park owner can say "not my fault".
and if her injuries stop her being employed she should start to consider how stupid she really was to do that. it IS unlucky, and i DO have sympathy for her (although it certainly doesnt seem like it).
put it this way. if the park did something wrong in constructing the park, the council should not have allowed the park to be built in the first place. but this seems to me a case of "well my lifes fucked. now yours is too. i feel happy now"
and obviously most of us werent stupid enough to try something which landed us all in comas, because were not disabled (at least i dont think so
) she represents the pinnacle of stupidity at 13. and i am making a judgement based on how smart she was.also, if the poor girl was THAT disabled, she wouldnt have a child.
yes, but who SHOULD pay for it and why? IMO the park did nothing wrong (except for existing, which in some cases is percieved as wrong
)i simply dont think she deserves 1.4m. like many of us, she is going to have to live with her decision. she was 13, but that doesnt mean the law should compensate her for that fact. iv heard a story of someone very close to her age killing both his parents, and then copping 35 years in jail (AT 13!!)
so why is the law going one way one minute, and another the next. cant make decisions my arse, i did some stupid things when i was 13 and i have to live with them, and i take full responsibility for them
there is a bit of an issue here which society will soon (hopefully) work out. sueing in some ways is innapropriate, and in others, not. IMO this is inappropriate. others may have a different opinion, thats fine by me. maybe 50 years down the track someone will have a fair and just answer to all of this. and thats all i can hope for.
wombat
Lives in a hole
Johnny, I understand what you're saying, but thre reason that I challenged the point of age is that at this moment I am currently chatting to a girl who is of the same age, and I honestly struggle to pick any maturity difference between her and myself. Now whilst that is quite possibly just an indication of my own maturity level, and I do know that not all 13 year olds are going to be even close to alike, I won't completely accept that ignorance is a valid excuse for a voluntary action like this.johnny said:
I don't want to get judgemental of the girl, we all make mistakes, but I still don't like the situation, and I do believe that a certain amount of responsibility lies with the individual. Yes, society and the system definately play their part, but IMO there's more to it than that.
I hope none of you end up in a situation like this. For if you lot set the standards, anyone injured would FUCKING STARVE TO DEATH you bunch of miserable pricksolly1oo6 said:thats all fine and good. but where does the money come from? hell if there was a surplus 1.4m im sure she'd need it. im just illustrating the point that i hate people who sue because of a decision they made.
it would be great to see someone sue the park for the price of a new fence, so that others climb over the fence before screwing themselves over, and then atleast the park owner can say "not my fault".
and if her injuries stop her being employed she should start to consider how stupid she really was to do that. She was 13 years old mate, not exaclty at the most responsible age in life.......
put it this way. if the park did something wrong in constructing the park, the council should not have allowed the park to be built in the first place. but this seems to me a case of "well my lifes fucked. now yours is too. i feel happy now" Do you really think she's sueing out of vengence? That's a wild assumption which straight away assumes her the worst possible character trait, very cynical of you.
and obviously most of us werent stupid enough to try something which landed us all in comas, because were not disabled Dude slipping in the shower can land you in a coma FFS, What's she supposed to do if she wants to learn how to DJ or race BMX, never try anything that challenges her ALL SHE DID WAS HIT A JUMP!! Olly, I've seen you hit jumps before, are you stupid? (at least i dont think so
also, if the poor girl was THAT disabled, she wouldnt have a child.
yes, but who SHOULD pay for it and why? IMO the park did nothing wrong (except for existing, which in some cases is percieved as wrong
i simply dont think she deserves 1.4m. like many of us, she is going to have to live with her decision you don't seem to understand the basics here, she is sueing for money because she cannot earn her own. Therefore in absence of a provided fund for instances like this she HAS to sue some one to afford to live. She is not doing it because she thinks she deserves compensation, she's doing it because she has no other choice. she was 13, but that doesnt mean the law should compensate her for that fact. iv heard a story of someone very close to her age killing both his parents, and then copping 35 years in jail (AT 13!!)
so why is the law going one way one minute, and another the next. cant make decisions my arse, i did some stupid things when i was 13 and i have to live with them, and i take full responsibility for them Oh how noble and galant of you
I'm not going to defend the inadequecies of our legal system. It's witless to say, well the law said something else at some other stage, therefore she must be treated harshly.
there is a bit of an issue here which society will soon (hopefully) work out. sueing in some ways is innapropriate, and in others, not. IMO this is inappropriate. others may have a different opinion, thats fine by me. maybe 50 years down the track someone will have a fair and just answer to all of this. and thats all i can hope for.
God dammit, I get worked up over this shit, huh? Sorry bout that
wombat
Lives in a hole
Call me cynical, but since we're talking about assumptions, isn't that one? I've read both articles and didn't pick that up anywhere. I know it's not likely, but it's still a possibility that her family are able to support her, and it is greed which has motivated the action.
If you've read something that does give more details (hopefully surrounding the accident too) please fill us in, I'd really like to know more, as the two articles posted say bugger all.
Shane, everytime I ride with you I still can't believe how young you actually are. Does that mean because you are mature for your age, I can therefore judge everybody else at your standard?wombat said:
Of course not, due to a little thing called individual variance
I can't credibly argue this point any further without scientific enquiry............so I'll do it without any credibility at all.
Your fucking kidding me??!! 13 years old FFS! Barely into highscool ( I was in yr7 at 13) and you're expecting a kid to think "hey, this could be fun, but I might get hurt to the point of brain damage" BULLSHIT! Kids stop from doing risky things because of FEAR, NOT RATIONAL DECISION MAKING PROCESSES. Humans are born with very little inherent fears (this was "proven" by Bandura in the "Little Albert" experiments circa 1955), other than that, the majority of fear is learnt through socialisation. this is all but beyond doubt (in other words cannot be disproven). Therefore the girl who is of an age where rational decision making is not yet optomised, and can only gain knowledge of danger through some kind of experience.
Added to this "fact" is that females are not as spacially aware (competant.....ooooh that's gonna get me in the shit
) as males. Feel free to argue this point if you want me to post the mountains of scientific eveidence (much of it gleaned by female researchers) that lend credibility to this claim. therefore it is much easier for a boy of 13 to look at a jump and think "Not sure if I'll make that" than a girl (conversely it's much harder for a boy of 13 to read at the level of a 13 year old girl along with understanding emotional content and better emotional control).I guess you lot just never did anything overly risky as a kid. I know I used to jump big rock gaps (on foot) down the bush, poke funnel webs with sticks, play in drains and train lines, play with petrol and matches, have firecracker fights, make copper bombs, go stupidly fast down hills on skateboards, play with knives, throw rocks at wasp nests, play with air rifles, do crazy shit on bikes, sneak out at night and roam the streets, and other stuff that I know is stupid now.
Was I an abnormal kid, or were you just all childhood pussies?
PS, I didn't come from a non-caring family or any of the sort. My parents are good people and they tried very hard to keep me safe and make sure I knew right from wrong.
wombat said:
I am assuming that it's because of lost income. Usually the article would state that it was for mental trauma or pain and suffering.news article said:
So yes, as my earlier disclaimer stated, we don't actually know if this is a trumped up law suit or not. But going on what I know about frontal lobe damage (it's one of the most important areas of the brain, it makes the vast majority of executive decision making funtions) and my knowledge of how much patient care costs, I'd say here family would have to be quite rich to support her for the rest of their lives, that's assuming her parents are even still alive.
The one big question mark as I've earlier conceded is the fact that she bore a child. But once again, if she had frontal lobe damage, she probably made a bad decision to have the child due to her lowered mental abilities. But then as Toodles said, this brings up other custody issues and so on.
wombat
Lives in a hole
Actually, I loved jumping the rocks around here, eventually though that got too boring so we started jumping off my roof, but that's another story.johnny said:
Was it stupid? Hell yeah! Could I have ended up brain dead? Damn straight (some would still argue I have), but if I had I know I (and my parents) would have handled things differently. I've actually spoken to my olds about the litigation situation, and we are in agreeance that sueing is not the answer. My family has never been grovelling poor, but at the same time we've been in the lower income bracket. However, I know that if I had done myself some damage through my own stupidity my parents would not have sued, as it is something that goes utterly against our beliefs. They would do anything in their power to take care of me, but both they and I don't believe that anyone owes it to me to pay for my mistakes.
Having said that though, desperate people do desperate things, which is why I don't want to judge the situation (and we basically have no details).
Daver
Kung Fu Panda
I've been interested in this topic for a while, and it seems there are a few sources to blame:
1. The "Friend"- the nature of a dare is to achieve something that is hard and challenging.
2. The BMX track- not fencing the start, not providing ample warning.
3. The girl herself- she did the action.
However, the loss of lifestyle incurred as a result of the accident is the dominant factor, and i'm sure that most providers would be unwilling to support the girl. Accordingly, it makes sense that the girl sued (IMO it's crystal clear).The money may seem like an aweful lot, bu in reality she is still worse off than when she started.
If this was me and i had damaged myself in the same manner i can tell you that i'd be sueing in an instant. Why? Because the damage that i had incurred was substantial enough to ruin my future life. A lot of you guys seem to jump on the bandwagon and flare up at these (stupid) people, but when you do this please consider the whole situation.
Just my $0.02.
1. The "Friend"- the nature of a dare is to achieve something that is hard and challenging.
2. The BMX track- not fencing the start, not providing ample warning.
3. The girl herself- she did the action.
However, the loss of lifestyle incurred as a result of the accident is the dominant factor, and i'm sure that most providers would be unwilling to support the girl. Accordingly, it makes sense that the girl sued (IMO it's crystal clear).The money may seem like an aweful lot, bu in reality she is still worse off than when she started.
If this was me and i had damaged myself in the same manner i can tell you that i'd be sueing in an instant. Why? Because the damage that i had incurred was substantial enough to ruin my future life. A lot of you guys seem to jump on the bandwagon and flare up at these (stupid) people, but when you do this please consider the whole situation.
Just my $0.02.
at the drive in
Likes Dirt
any one else besides myself thinking that the parents were the ones pushing the lawsuit as she wa 13 when she did it