Anime Girl Desperation Official Forum

A judge has ruled that a 4 year old girl can be sued for crashing her bike into an old lady.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376

Wow... i remember if something like this happened in the past (1980's and before) the child would be forced to attend the funeral and ask forgiveness of the family members, but the court system would not be involved in her punishment.

Yes the woman died of her injuries, and yes the girl needs to learn that she did a bad thing. What i find shocking is that the judge thinks 4 year olds are mature enough to stand trial. What's next, sue a pigeon for taking a crap on your car?

Can't help to feel sorry for the poor lady but...
...I see that even over there judges like to advertise themselves.  :S
I'd understand suing their parents for not guarding the kids properly, but this sounds pretty ridiculous...

Once again, the frivolous U.S. Justice system proves their idiocy. Instead of keeping major drug dealers behind bars or keeping murders locked up until the end of their natural lives, we get THIS shit.  -_-;

I don't know about anyone else, but a four year, regardless of "evidence" is NOT EVER gonna be mature enough to realize the consequences of their actions. They have not even been to fucking SCHOOL yet; so how the HELL could they have learned any such thing?

And worse, the goddamn son of the woman actually bringing lawsuit against a little four year old child? I mean, I understand his grief over the loss of his mother, but fucking hell.... YOU DO NOT SUE A LITTLE CHILD FOR MAKING A MISTAKE PARTICULARLY WHEN SAID CHILD IS ONLY FOUR YEARS OLD!

That Judge needs to be strung up in the streets and shot. Where's a good Italian mob (not the criminal mob, mind you, the mobs of Italian people that hung up Mussolini in the streets) when you really need one?  *rant

the most insulting part of this is what the judge uses to defend himself on the decision:

QuoteHe also wrote that the Juliet's lawyer had presented no evidence as to the child's lack of intelligence or maturity

Now most of you are smart and figure out he should be asking them to prove a 4 year old isnt capable of understanding the concequences of her actions.  But thanks to how he's saying it, he's litterally telling the parents and their lawyer that if they want thier child to not be sued, they have to admit and prove their child is stupid and immature.

(hint: either way its stupid because it rests on the prosecution to prove she is capable and guilty, not the defense be forced to prove innocence)

Hooray for our justice system!

My favorite lines:

QuoteThe judge ruled the four-year-old girl was old enough to be held negligent under law

QuoteWhile he noted that the law presumes children under age four are incapable of negligence, "for infants above the age of four, there is no bright line rule", he wrote in the decision.

Toddlers murdering old people, cats and dogs living together, MASS HYSTERIA!

hey if a 3 year old kill someone no biggie, but a 4 year old who isnt even in kindergarden yet? THATS WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE!

At any rate, the guy sueing probably won't be able to find a jury that would convict a 4 year old anywhere in the country. His jury will be out for maybe 2 seconds before they return a not guilty verdict.

Quote from: zeroin001 on November 01, 2010, 09:34:12 AM
What's next? Sueing people because they bumped into your too hard while in a bumper car ride?

If someone complains about that you should call the waaaambulance for him. :lol:

Quote from: Falcio on October 31, 2010, 02:54:21 PMI'd understand suing their parents for not guarding the kids properly

Yes, if what the news said was true (that the mother allowed her daughter to race in the busy streets of New York) then not only would she risk hitting pedestrians, that little girl very easily could have been hit by a car. The mother may have been negligent, but not the daughter.

Quote from: FallenStar on October 31, 2010, 03:38:40 PM
Once again, the frivolous U.S. Justice system proves their idiocy. Instead of keeping major drug dealers behind bars or keeping murders locked up until the end of their natural lives, we get THIS shit.  -_-;

I don't know about anyone else, but a four year, regardless of "evidence" is NOT EVER gonna be mature enough to realize the consequences of their actions. They have not even been to fucking SCHOOL yet; so how the HELL could they have learned any such thing?

And worse, the goddamn son of the woman actually bringing lawsuit against a little four year old child? I mean, I understand his grief over the loss of his mother, but fucking hell.... YOU DO NOT SUE A LITTLE CHILD FOR MAKING A MISTAKE PARTICULARLY WHEN SAID CHILD IS ONLY FOUR YEARS OLD!

That Judge needs to be strung up in the streets and shot. Where's a good Italian mob (not the criminal mob, mind you, the mobs of Italian people that hung up Mussolini in the streets) when you really need one?  *rant

I agree with you on most points, but I believe the united states anti-drug laws, with their mandatory sentencing, are far too harsh, and that's most of the reason why they have 1.5% of their population in prison.

In regards to suing a 4 year old, what the plaintiffs were really doing is double dipping. They sue the child (and obviously the parents pay out), then they sue the parents for negligent supervision and get payed out again. I could understand if the old woman was alive and needed expensive medical treatment, then at least they wouldn't just be greedy, but seeing as she's dead - the plaintiffs are just vampires taking money from decent hard working people. For Christ sake your grandma is dead, I'm sure she wouldn't want you ruining some poor kid's life for revenge.

Quote from: zeroin001 on November 06, 2010, 03:55:17 AM
Lastly, on a more cheery note, I think that the overall conclusion should be that the old woman died of natural causes. At that age, you always die of natural causes. Even if you get run down by bicycle or truck or whatever, it is natural cause. Because if you were younger, you would have gotten out of the way.

I see you enjoy listening to (and plagerising :lol:) Chris Rock.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock)

QuoteWhen you die at 72, no matter what you die of, it's natural causes. Even if you get hit by a truck, it's natural causes. 'Cause if you was younger, you'd have got out the way!

QuoteBut the judge has to be the biggest joke of all. No proof as to the girl is not mature?! The girl can't even pronounce the word 'responsibility'. This might pretty soon throw the entire concept of 'presumptio innocentiae' out the friggin window.

I would think it's mostly the fact that this is in the news and the judge's name will be known (It's even in the news now and we all know him after reading this  :icon_twisted:). Doing ridiculous things is usually a judge's favourite way of becoming well known in his panorama, a way of gaining some power and, ultimately, advancements. I don't really know the internal regulations of the US, but judges are often greedy people world-wide.

Quote from: zeroin001 on November 06, 2010, 05:22:27 PM

Quote from: Archane Variant on November 06, 2010, 07:17:20 AM

Quote from: zeroin001 on November 06, 2010, 03:55:17 AM
Lastly, on a more cheery note, I think that the overall conclusion should be that the old woman died of natural causes. At that age, you always die of natural causes. Even if you get run down by bicycle or truck or whatever, it is natural cause. Because if you were younger, you would have gotten out of the way.

I see you enjoy listening to (and plagerising :lol:) Chris Rock.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock)

QuoteWhen you die at 72, no matter what you die of, it's natural causes. Even if you get hit by a truck, it's natural causes. 'Cause if you was younger, you'd have got out the way!

I was going to mention Chris Rock saying that, but I was curious as to know who would get that reference :lol:

So there's something else you know about me now.  :detective:

Yeah, I'm just about sick of this country and our idiocy. I'm seriously considering moving out of here if I get a chance, escape to Canadianland or somewhere.

Quote from: FallenStar on October 31, 2010, 03:38:40 PM
Once again, the frivolous U.S. Justice system proves their idiocy. Instead of keeping major drug dealers behind bars or keeping murders locked up until the end of their natural lives, we get THIS shit.  -_-;

I don't know about anyone else, but a four year, regardless of "evidence" is NOT EVER gonna be mature enough to realize the consequences of their actions. They have not even been to fucking SCHOOL yet; so how the HELL could they have learned any such thing?

And worse, the goddamn son of the woman actually bringing lawsuit against a little four year old child? I mean, I understand his grief over the loss of his mother, but fucking hell.... YOU DO NOT SUE A LITTLE CHILD FOR MAKING A MISTAKE PARTICULARLY WHEN SAID CHILD IS ONLY FOUR YEARS OLD!

That Judge needs to be strung up in the streets and shot. Where's a good Italian mob (not the criminal mob, mind you, the mobs of Italian people that hung up Mussolini in the streets) when you really need one?  *rant

I agree with not suing a child under the age of 12, but... It's just sad, I want to punch her, but at the same time I want to help her because it was- god I think my brain just went into a blue-screen of death. x_x, Anyways,  Can't explain, feel sorry for both parties.  If it truly was an accident, then sure- I don't know i'm going to go jump off another cliff. Too confusing. Epic. Too many conflicting thought to agree upon. IQ FAILING- ERROR.

WTH? The girls was four, a four-year-old can't be that cruel to... bleh, Was a freaking accident! Ans the woman was 87... and died three months later ok? it could be natural perfectly... O.o
I don't get anything about this new

Parents are responsible for the actions of a child. I am not in any way comparing the child to a dog, but when someone is bitten by a dog, they sue the owners, not the dog. This is because the dog does not have any legal understand if its actions, just the same way that the child does not understand their actions and consequences of them. Parents were negligent, but that is it. The only lawsuit should be against the supervising parent for negligence. P.S. The judge is an idiot.