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!!!

Which seems to indicate some degree of negligence on the part of the hospital. It still does not absolve the technician because he was still warned and still ignored his opportunity to check out said story and he action directly caused her death.

Except that paramedics where called and did work on the mom which means as soon as it became apparent she was dieing the family called. Just because the mom didn't want to be a further burden does not automatically mean there was something illicit to hide. This is what we call a Non sequitur.

Again your logic does not follow. There are various other much more logically reason the mother would initially refuse treatment and then treatment would be provided, which is the case here.

Further, they didn't hold a gun to the technicians head and force him to cut the power. They informed him of the potential consequences and he made the decision on his own. This decision and the subsequent act DIRECTLY caused her death making him liable and the company liable through his employment.

Again an ambulance was eventually called though we don't know exactly when and again its not unusual for terminally ill, or just very ill patients, to not want to further burden their family. Just because she said she didn't want an ambulance doesn't mean on wasn't called, and we know one was because the article mentions it, and it definitely doesn't mean she was doing something shady.

That doesn't really make sense to me, since they all told the technician that she would die if the power was cut. She knew that when the power was cut, she was in trouble. So why wouldn't she want an ambulance called immediately?

I really don't think that the company should be held responsible in any way. They weren't doing anything that unique given the way day to day operations have to be conducted in order to ensure that business could continue. They shouldn't have to do anything unique to ensure they can do their jobs. How many people have tried to claim that "if you cut the power, this person will die" to the tech before? It seems like that would be one of the many excuses a potential scammer would try to pull. There was nothing wrong with what he did, and neither he nor the company should be held culpable.

*laughs* Oh wait wait wait...

Now the -hospital- is negligent.....

I'm sorry.. you're whole argument just lost it's power with me. You have just chicken-shit blamed one too many people for things beyond their control...

You of course didn't even -think- to put together:

a: She was sent home in better condition than she was in at the time of the murder.
b: She somehow magically survived the trip home. And so as far as the hospital knew she should've been able to survive a trip to the hospital.
c. The fact that the hospital didn't know the situation had worsened, if that's what actually happened, is a clear point that, again, the family was incompetent when it came to updating people on their situation.
d. It has not yet been proven what was or wasn't said to the technician. And while you oh -so- enjoy lambasting me for assuming they didn't file paperwork, you hang your wang out making them yourself.
e. The family waited until after she was too far gone to be helped to call the paramedics. It states quite fucking clearly that she was getting dizzy almost right away. They should've called regardless of what the crazy old witch was rambling.


so in rebuttal : If you still think they are even remotely innocent of this after all that has been stated than I wash my hands of even trying to explain to your fuzzy little brain what I have stated here.


Sorry kiddo. I am so happy that you think you're infallible and un-needing to follow you're own argument requirements. I love how you jump to point the finger here, and there, and everywhere, except on the family who was truly responsible.

Tell ya what. Go home and squeeze your teddy bear and tell yourself that the world runs smoothly and that whenever something goes wrong it's never your fault. And when you do something stupid and suffer for it, keep telling yourself that as your laughed out of the court for having no real basis in law, logic, or reality.

I on the other hand will teach my children not to be wet-backed noodle-loving hippies that always blame the institution for all their woes. Thanks for the enlightening conversation today. I go to sleep soundly knowing I wasn't raised in a family of soft-hearts, but in people who realize the cold truth of this world.




And honestly I'm surprised our little argument hasn't made this thread locked already. I thought threads got locked on like page 8 or something..

*shrugs*

toodles.

Read the post above again. Its not unusual for a very ill person to wish to refuse treatment. It happens all the time in fact. The fact that paramedics did respond shows that the family did in fact care enough about her life to override her wishes.

Doesn't matter what you think, the law is the law is the law.

Further, all those times would have resulted in an illegal act as well had someone literally died and the technician had not done everything in his power to make sure someone really wasn't going to die. Any potential to be a scam is out weighed by the fact that it wasn't and as such a few steps into house would have confirmed that, and maybe a phone call or to. Hell at the very least he could have cut the power and hung out for an hour just to be sure they were telling the truth.

Except for the fact that the family are not medical professionals. They would not know for example a slight drop in the oxygen in her blood meant she was getting worse. In fact the probably wouldn't even know how to read what ever monitoring instruments she had if any. Further this small change would not reflect in any obviously visible way.

Further, the fact that they called the ambulance and the fact that the technician isn't disputing their claim of telling him assures us that in fact the family did warn the technician as they claimed.

Additionally, we don't know when exactly the ambulance was called. They could have called immediately. But again they are not medical professionals. Simply I'm dizzy doesn't generally suggest life threatening sickness to people. Maybe they thought "Hey she doesn't seem so bad maybe we won't have to spend a few more 10s of thousands of dollars we don't have." By the time it was obviously life threatening to a laymen it was probably also to late.

I am following my own logic. I've outlined it several times. You don't seem to be following any logic at all.

Also, I do realize that earlier I was indeed toeing the line toward flaming. I noticed this and attempted to pull it back a little. You however have gradually increased it to the point of a bonfire. I take serious offense to this and seriously doubt your claim of not being heated over this thread. I am in fact seriously insulted at this point and yet still hold out hope some sort of rational argument will finally be heeded.

Thats like the quadzilionth time you've said that without offering any convincing argument that your take on the matter is true or not. And before you start saying something like "I don't have to explain it, its THE LAW," I already know what the law says. However, you have said very little, if anything, to convince me that this situation is indeed covered under that law (every time someone asks you to explain it, you say "its the law" which really doesn't explain anything at all).

I have in fact said several time exactly why it is the law but I suppose once more can't hurt:

Basically the law says that if there is any, and that means any at all regardless of believability, reason to suspect a course of action will put the life of another human at risk you are obligated to either not take that action or take steps to ensure that risk of life does not occur.

So in short since someone did indeed die and the technician was in fact informed of possible risk he is liable for the result. He alone is liable because it was his decision that led directly to the death. That is precisely what the law says there is no interpretation happening.

Guy knew of possible risk.
Guy ignored possible risk.
Someone died because of it.
Thus, he is criminally liable.

Further, because the guy was in the employ of the power company and because he was preforming a task set by the power company the power company is also liable. This is why for example tobacco companies, HMOs, and companies, like airlines, can be criminally prosecuted for the dishonest practices of employees at all levels. This is how the law works and now I've said it for the 5th, or 6th, time.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight there is where it became flaming. For, y'know, future reference.

Oh and I did find a bit of case law here, the most pertinent part I've found so far being:

Which means that the Technician is responsible, and therefor his employer, because he reduced the chance of survival by more than 37.5%. I mean the defense could argue that he didn't but it isn't going to get them very far. Especially since the cause and effect is pretty straight forward.

Also:
Which means that again the technician is at fault. Even if you tried to make the case that the family was equally responsible it would simply switch from this test:

To this test:
Which clearly places the fault on the technician because his act contributed more than any other to the death.

Okay, Tyr? This is definitely not the tone we'd like to see in Discussion, or anywhere at that. If you can't counter an argument without getting personal, or getting snippy, or getting to do anything but basically having the better arguments and voicing them, you might want to step down from the thread for the time being. Consider yourself warned.

Roy, you too, because calling an argument "bullshit" is pretty much in the same vein. Plus, let's keep the definition of where flaming begins to us, okay; you were right, but still, it's not your call.

Closing for length; looking at what a shitstorm this has become I think we can do without a continuation.