Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, Jammer wrote: > >Wem Remley was at risk by being in the water, but totally without fault > >for being hit in the head by a running propeller. > > > Are you saying that they aren't equal? Are you saying that somehow, he is > less dead because he's "not at fault"? They are not equal. The rest of the statement is a non sequitur. > > The only way to be 100% certain to avoid this accident would have been to > stay out of the water. > This is true. Or the boat could have been out of the water. Or he could have been scooped up by a fire fighting airplane and avoided the propeller. You are talking about risk not fault. > By entering the water, he accepted that possibility that he would be > eaten, beaten, or killed by any manner of circumstances that no one had > any control over. Or that a Great White had complete control over. Or > that the Captain of his boat made a concious decision for. > He took the risk, but it was not his fault. > The final court has ruled. > You been eating too many mushrooms. You mean Rem was condemned to death in a court somewhere for taking the risk of being in the water. You mean that it was inevitable that it was going to happen to Rem because he got in the water. Is this like the adage, "you always find what you are looking for in the last place you look". > These "appeals", or any other man-made litigation, is so much noise. Man-made litigation as opposed to what? > > If you believe that the captain who hit him is at fault, why haven't you > beaten him to death? Why haven't you sued him? > Vigilante justice is out of vogue, hereabouts, pardner. As for why I haven't sued him, what would be a logical reason for me not to have done that? > Or do you just watch, as long as it isn't YOUR ass? > I have thought about getting a SWAT team together and taking him out but we are still trying to identify Jack the Ripper and all our resources are tied up with that effort. Of the twelve people we have terminated so far all having proven later to have not been him. I guess they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. No harm, no foul. > Verdicts could be rendered, damages assesed, lives ruined, other people > enriched, lawyers paid, and the man would still be dead. > That theory is still being tested, but so far the evidence tends to support what you say. This is a point that I will forward to the judiciary. > Because he entered the water. > No, he is dead because a propeller struck his head several blows in succession in a short period of time. Gasoline has been implicated because it caused the propeller to spin round and round. Spark, too, because it got the gasoline so fired up. So far our SWAT team has killed gasoline and spark, but I guess we have to kill propeller, too. > Don't you see that? > "huh?" -Rod, 1996 > Condolences to any who suffered loss. > > --------- > "huh?" > -Jammer, 1992 > --------- > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. > Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. >
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]