Anonymous
04/28/2016 11:14
Subject: Re:Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:accident
1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
We use the phrase "car accident" instead of "car crash" because it sounds gentler, milder. We already know that two people died in the car accident, and that there was a cause. We don't have to say "drunk-driving-car-collision-with-two-fatalities" when "car accident" conveys the same information in a less negative manner.
Anonymous
04/28/2016 11:13
Subject: Re:Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:accident
1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
So Saltzman was careless to allow those kids to drive. Ok.
Anonymous
04/28/2016 11:11
Subject: Re:Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
accident
1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
Anonymous
04/28/2016 11:07
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's say the driver went elsewhere to pick up his car and OTHER people are to blame for letting him drive. Would you still think Saltzman was responsible for letting him drive? Even if someone took the driver to his car at another location??
By positing a hypothetical with different facts, are you conceding that the Saltzmans seem to bear some direct responsibility for what happened -- negligence or involuntary manslaughter?
Exactly. But no response...?
Anonymous
04/28/2016 11:00
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Let's say the driver went elsewhere to pick up his car and OTHER people are to blame for letting him drive. Would you still think Saltzman was responsible for letting him drive? Even if someone took the driver to his car at another location??
By positing a hypothetical with different facts, are you conceding that the Saltzmans seem to bear some direct responsibility for what happened -- negligence or involuntary manslaughter?
Anonymous
04/28/2016 08:29
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Let's say the driver went elsewhere to pick up his car and OTHER people are to blame for letting him drive. Would you still think Saltzman was responsible for letting him drive? Even if someone took the driver to his car at another location??
Anonymous
04/27/2016 22:50
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Maybe not manslaughter, but criminal negligence? He made the kids leave, and did nothing to see that they left safely.
Anonymous
04/27/2016 22:47
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kenneth J. Saltzman is one of the worst criminals out there, if you ask me. Complete scum.
+1
"Get these kids out of here." He should've been charged with manslaughter.
Exactly. You let them booze it up and then tell your own liquored-up daughter to "get these kids out of here!"
Involuntary manslaughter
Very interested in how you and the other know-nothings could justify a manslaughter charge. Please do give us the elements of the time and how Saltzman met that criteria.
Anonymous
04/27/2016 22:05
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kenneth J. Saltzman is one of the worst criminals out there, if you ask me. Complete scum.
+1
"Get these kids out of here." He should've been charged with manslaughter.
Exactly. You let them booze it up and then tell your own liquored-up daughter to "get these kids out of here!"
Involuntary manslaughter
Anonymous
04/27/2016 21:54
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps they don't have the luxury of being able to pay for all the bills incurred by their kid when he was injured in the accident. And even if they can, why should they? The driver was the one at fault.
It wasn't an accident. It was a crash. We need to stop referring to car crashes and collisions as accidents. “Accident” implies that no one was at fault and that traffic injuries and deaths are just random, unpreventable occurrences. But they're not. They are preventable.
Exactly. It was a crash, NOT an accident.
All collisions/crashes are collisions/crashes, NOT accidents. There's nothing singular in that respect about this particular crash.
Anonymous
04/27/2016 21:42
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps they don't have the luxury of being able to pay for all the bills incurred by their kid when he was injured in the accident. And even if they can, why should they? The driver was the one at fault.
It wasn't an accident. It was a crash. We need to stop referring to car crashes and collisions as accidents. “Accident” implies that no one was at fault and that traffic injuries and deaths are just random, unpreventable occurrences. But they're not. They are preventable.
Exactly. It was a crash, NOT an accident.
Anonymous
04/27/2016 21:37
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps they don't have the luxury of being able to pay for all the bills incurred by their kid when he was injured in the accident. And even if they can, why should they? The driver was the one at fault.
It wasn't an accident. It was a crash. We need to stop referring to car crashes and collisions as accidents. “Accident” implies that no one was at fault and that traffic injuries and deaths are just random, unpreventable occurrences. But they're not. They are preventable.
Anonymous
04/27/2016 18:29
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No there were four kids in the car. Driver, two dead passengers, one surviving passenger.
The general American public really MUST stop calling teenagers "kids". They are no longer "kids".
In this situation, 3 of the 4 were 18 years old and adults! When you call them "kids", you are absolving them of responsibility and of knowing what is right and wrong, like a 5 year old.
As a research scientist, I profoundly disagree with you. All the research out there has shown that teenage brains are not yet fully mature in the higher executive functions of decision making, judging consequences and planning.
I completely agree they should be held accountable for their actions, but they are a category apart from mature adults and should not be judged by the same standards.
Totally agree. The only actual "adult" there was hosting lawyer dad who watched these HS students getting drunk, and then getting behind the wheel to drive.
Did the cops get his alcohol level? Maybe he was even more drunk than the kids.
Anonymous
04/27/2016 18:24
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kenneth J. Saltzman is one of the worst criminals out there, if you ask me. Complete scum.
+1
"Get these kids out of here." He should've been charged with manslaughter.
+1,000,000
Anonymous
04/27/2016 18:20
Subject: Wooton Accident- Civil Suit Filed
Anonymous wrote:Kenneth J. Saltzman is one of the worst criminals out there, if you ask me. Complete scum.
+1
"Get these kids out of here." He should've been charged with manslaughter.