nonpareil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,108
- Reaction score
- 743
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I actually pretty much agree with your second paragraph. The firs...well...it isnt for ANY of us to to say what is good for the child. That question is irrelevant and was made irrelevant by the actions of the father which resulted in him getting his meth addicted 3 knive carrying self shot. Opinions on the outcome? That we got plenty of.
It was in response to emotional appeal like the claim that he molested his daughter without showing evidence that he did. Or your use of "meth addicted 3 knives carrying". Was the knives even in his hands when he was shot?
The question of what is good for the girl is relevant for the jury. And since most of us are not privy to what the jury know, I don't see anyone here qualified to say whether the award of damages is correct or not.
I agree...he shouldnt have been charged with murder. I have said that were it me (and knowing only the limited info that we do) I wouldnt have shot. The civil suit sounds OK though I think them claiming as much as they did for loss of income and companionship is a helluva stretch. This one particular meth addict is out of society. They got him out of society before he happened upon his next victim with his three knives and something bad happened. Im not seeing too many tragic downsides, and what downside their is can be laid at the feet of meth daddy.
So what if you don't see "too many tragic downsides"? That is irrelevant. And you just said it is not for you to say anyway. This is about whether laws were broken, or if the Law should be on the book in the first place.