Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
Jeez, I hope no one hits you on the way home today or swindles money from your business. You'd have to go to court! Goodness!
|
Hrm.. I have been hit by people who had no money or insurance which resulted in my car being a total loss with all of the costs absorbed by me. One time the guy was nice enough to say "My Bad" before he drove off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
Your argument is completely a red herring. The point here is that you don't let your employees LIE to people to get them to sign a contract.
|
How can a employer know that the employee lies? If we fired every single person that was even accused of doing such a thing, no one would have a job. We can't sit there and baby sit each employee, if we had that time we wouldn't have the need to hire people as we could just do everything ourselves. So we hire someone, and someone SAYS that they lied so we get sued?
You think employers are out there hiring people for the purpose if lying?
The idea is that the employer can put the terms into a simple to understand piece of paper, and as long as people are reading it there should be no problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
In your model, commerce would grind to a complete halt. Think it through.
|
Would it be so bad for people to take responsibility for themselves? Business would ZOOM along if we didn't have to be terrified of being sued all the time.
First thing I saw when I got home today..
Glued To His Seat - June 13, 2008
Great, so what is next? Good thing we already declared our bathrooms as private(better to offer people nothing than face liability).
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
..until you need one, then you'll want the best damn one you can afford and you'll be begging the court to make things right.
|
Well, the day that a lawyer makes something right I will remember this thread, come back to it, and post how right you were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
Chances are, your brother lost the kid for doing somehting AT LEAST a little suspect.
|
Or maybe his ex-wife was upset that he was awarded soul custody of the child..
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
It's not impossible, but it's certianly highly improbable that DHS just wanders around snatching children out of loving, nuturing hosueholds.
|
Actually, DHS never investigated the household the child was removed from. No one from DHS or the police has even been inside that household to see what it looked like or interviewed any of the people that lived in it. No one from DHS or the police talked to anyone at the child's private school. The person accused of doing the abuse could have simply left the home while an investigation took place, but that is moot because the entire state of Oklahoma spent less than 1.5 man hours looking into it.
DHS is under no legal obligation to consider the harm that might come from removing a child from a home. Because of lawyers they have to take a "whatever it takes" approach to solving problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
We (ostensibly) protect children here in America.
|
Right, we should because hurting a child is a crime. In the good days we would hold a trial and send people to prison that hurt children. If my brother really hurt her, I would be more than happy to see him rot.
Now we have a court system that gives huge power to people who are on the losing end of a custody dispute and want to get ahead. The person who makes the accusation is presumed to be telling the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
Once you go over the line with a kid, it's hard to prove you're innocent, and there's a good reason for that, because children as obviously very helpless.
|
What does going over the line mean? Does it mean committing a crime? Who decides who went over the line? Do we just leave it up to one social worker who spends 1.5 hours on the case and only heard the mother's side? I'm not making this up, I pray to God that you never find yourself in this situation because you will be stuck in it for years if the intake worker doesn't like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
And you don't have any sort of mandated right to see your niece. Sorry, that's just not how it works.
|
I did, before the courts took it away. Her grandparents, her friends, and the rest of the family she knew was able to see her before our wonderful system stepped in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
The system works (most of the time). You think you have some sort of righteous anger now, you have no IDEA how the court system protects you on a daily basis.
|
I'm not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but our courts need to stop being so freaking naive and get with the program. The system works great when it works, but it can really hurt people when it does not work and it seems that people who really know how to take advantage of the system win in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
But you just go on enjoying that freedom from harm and theft and turn your nose up just the same like an unappreciative child.
|
I have no problem with the system protecting us from criminals. The day that I get robbed and something stolen from me is returned in a condition besides worthless, I will also return to this thread.
But I throughly despise the courts getting involved in he said/she said situations or discussing things that can not even be proved without talking to a jury about it.