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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.