Do you pay taxes to New Zealand? If not, then your first statement is invalid. If so, I apologize.

And most churches won't GO to see the granny. Like it or not, thems the brakes. My mother works at a church, the priest/preacher/whatever isn't the onewho hands out money. Most churches are hesitant to pay bills for fear of scam. Sorry. That's how it works.

Where? Where are the veiled insults.

As to the unquoted rest of your posts, you're spot on and I apologize.

Tyrazail told me to sniff my own pile for bullshit, I think was the gist, and I called that inflammatory, regretted it, and deleted the post because I realized I was wrong.

EDIT: This didn't used to be a double post, I don't think. Perturbed deleted one of his posts.

No no no no. I was talking to Roy.

And I'm not about to quote 8 pages just to prove my point, Roy. The fact you called my argument bullshit and than tried to rag on Preturbed for using the term "your sorry ass" in reference to the father is a bit hypocritical in my opinion.

And I'm pretty sure the whole taxpayer thing refers to that if someone does get free government subsidized power, the taxpayers are the ones who get the bill. So as a New Zealand citizen, if he were one, he shouldn't have to pay penny one towards someone else's laziness.

(edited because I'm sleepy and am typing things from wrong point of view)

I do not. What I meant to imply was that, were I a New Zealander or were this situation moved to the US, I shouldn't have to support people who put themselves into a position like this.

Every church I've ever been to pays house calls regardless of whether or not you're sick, and if you are a sick old lady you get double along with all the food you care to eat. I'm sure paying $122 would be well within reach and reason if they attended a church like that. Of course, they probably don't go at all; I know I don't. I retract this one in light of the fact that not every church does this.

1. It's not. Your arguments are wrong. The father is not necessarily a sorry ass.
2. I don't veil insults. I outright call you a fucking retard, if you're a fucking retard, and I don't think that you are.

1.He -is- a sorry ass if he didn't do everything in his power to save his wife. I sure hope if you are/get married and your wife/husband/significant other, that you do alot more than "take time off" to help her/him/them. And let's leave the father out of this. How bout the 20 year old son?

I was 19 when I quit my perfectly comfy job, and college, to stay at my parents' house and help my mom post-histerectomy so my dad could keep working. I haven't gone back to college because I havent had the time, but I'm not ashamed of that choice. The 20 yr old could've either helped provide that money, or helped the family so the dad could.

So your right. The dad's not a sorry ass. They're all sorry asses. Especially now that they're trying to dredge this all over the six o' clock news.

2. And I'm sorry if that is the case. I apologize for attacking you unwarranted than.

Ok, and bear with me here because it might be a strange concept, legal liability attaches only to those who directly cause a death. The only people here that directly contributed to that womans death was the technician and the company he works for. This is why cooperations are formed. Right in their charters or whatever it is agreed that any illegal act perpetrated by an employee in the furtherance of the goals of the company, by order of the management, is the responsibility of the company and all share holders. Cooperations are set up like this to protect the founders of the company from loosing their shirts should something go wrong. Therefore, liability attaches to the directly to the technician and through his employment to the company. Something I've stated 3-4 times already and that has been blissfully ignored.

Again this stretches the law to far. Its like saying the guy that brought the brick to the top of the bridge to throw it off and then decided not to is legally liable because someone else walked by and completed the act. Or rather, If I was carelessly waving a gun around and it went off and accidentally nicked my friend in the foot I'd be guilty of criminal negligence. If that friend then went to the hospital were a callous doctor accidentally pumped him full of a medication he was allergic to and caused his death then the doctor is guilty of criminally negligent homicide but I am not.

The key in this case is that:

1) We have no proof the family wasn't trying to make an arrangement with the company and frankly one month over due is a little quick to cut off service. I know people that have racked up 3-5 month over due bills.

2) It is reasonable for the family to assume that they would be able to convince the company not to shut of power there by saving their mother. Not the best decision but not an unreasonable one.

However, the technician:

1) Was informed of the possibility of it happening. Once this happens you do not have the option to legally ignore the possibility. This is were willful ignorance comes in, its different from what the family did because the family had a reasonable expectation of a non-killing their family member outcome.

2) Was the direct cause of the death making him the liable party.

Edit:
No contract ever supersedes actual law.

Like logic!

I think at the point from which I've been arguing both moral and legal pretty much intersect, that might be why I haven't thought of pointing it out. Also, I might just be a little disorganized.

I think that's a small confusion, however, compared to others who can't seem to stop injecting their own peculiar philosophy of the world at every point of this long enough to realize that maybe New Zealand's system doesn't conform to that philosophy fully, and maybe the people who have been personally affected by this are more familiar with the system they live in (or at least its norm) than grandiose pronouncements (there are too many to count) about How The World Is.

Since those pronouncements have been punctuated with belated 'I don't give a fuck's and 'this is just entertainement for me's, I don't feel like there's any use trying to sort out that particular confusion. Assuming these are sincere, then playing along with someone out of deliberately provoke is not only dreadfully irritating but it's also not responsible toward the forum.

Just to make it absolutely clear there are two legal processes going on here:

1) The direct legal liability of the technician for shutting off the power without even making an attempt to verify the claims of the residents. This is either depraved indifference or willful ignorance, that's up to a jury to decide.

2) Liability then takes one step up that chain to the company because the technician was working on behest of said company. Common Wealth law, and yes New Zealand uses common wealth law, holds cooperations criminally responsible for the actions of their employees when those actions are a direct result of either orders from management, the management is liable too, or "doing there job" when doing said job becomes illegal and the employee isn't trained/smart enough not to break the law.

If any of you actually watch the interview back to front, they also bring a very clear set of points:

1. The hospital stated that it should have been to help her, not to keep her alive.

2. The mother told the son not to call an ambulance.

Okay that right there indicates that something else was going on. It sounds to me like the family for whatever reason was not notifying the hospital that the situation was worsening and that the mom didn't want an ambulance coming.

Sorry, but now from that standpoint alone I am riding that the family was probably having to hide something. That or if they're are that negligent to their own well-being, than she deserved the end her choices brought her.

They themselves prevented the use of possible tools that could have saved her life.


For all you know the technician could've seen something that they didn't want known, or god only knows what, and made a judgement call. Now that I've heard the actual report itself I am even more adamantly on the whole family liable.

Don't call the ambulance? WTF? Alright, the stupid bitch don't want them saving her life, than death is her choice. That's like signing a DNR at a hospital and than having your family sue the doctors for not trying to save her life.

It's too shady.... They tell him that it's saving her life and so concerned for her health, than tell the son not to call an Ambulance. The health official even said it was unusual how quick she deteriorated.

Oh but let's ignore these little hints at foul play of some sort! It's easy to just blame someone! Ignorant finger pointing wins out!!!