Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right

[syrenn]

By the way con

You can count till you eyes turn blue. I am not answering your yes or no question if it is a TWISTED question.

Poor baby trying your strong arm wanna be LEO tactics. Not ever gonna work.

Try again

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[ConHog]

By the way con

You can count till you eyes turn blue. I am not answering your yes or no question if it is a TWISTED question.

Poor baby trying your strong arm wanna be LEO tactics. Not ever gonna work.

Try again

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Twisted how you ignorant bitch? It's a simple yes or no question to clarify your position. The fact that you refuse to answer tells me you know exactly what the law says and that you are on the wrong side of it.

 

[syrenn]

By the way con

You can count till you eyes turn blue. I am not answering your yes or no question if it is a TWISTED question.

Poor baby trying your strong arm wanna be LEO tactics. Not ever gonna work.

Try again

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Twisted how you ignorant bitch? It's a simple yes or no question to clarify your position. The fact that you refuse to answer tells me you know exactly what the law says and that you are on the wrong side of it.

I did clarify my position. And you are just to dense to understand it.

So please keep counting because we are all laughing at you!

 

[ConHog]

By the way con

You can count till you eyes turn blue. I am not answering your yes or no question if it is a TWISTED question.

Poor baby trying your strong arm wanna be LEO tactics. Not ever gonna work.

Try again

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Twisted how you ignorant bitch? It's a simple yes or no question to clarify your position. The fact that you refuse to answer tells me you know exactly what the law says and that you are on the wrong side of it.

I did clarify my position. And you are just to dense to understand it.

So please keep counting because we are all laughing at you!

if by all you mean you and gslack who cares...........and no you didn't clarify because inherent risk plays NO part in the law, while IMMINENT does. perhaps a dictionary is in order?

 

[gslack]

Twisted how you ignorant bitch? It's a simple yes or no question to clarify your position. The fact that you refuse to answer tells me you know exactly what the law says and that you are on the wrong side of it.

I did clarify my position. And you are just to dense to understand it.

So please keep counting because we are all laughing at you!

if by all you mean you and gslack who cares...........and no you didn't clarify because inherent risk plays NO part in the law, while IMMINENT does. perhaps a dictionary is in order?

Imminent harm is not the case here.. She (the sailing girl) is recognized as an expert in the field, so the threat is not imminent death....

Unbelievable.... Look crackey, I growing weary of slapping you every time you are on a tweak.... You get steadily more ignorant in every one of your attempts to bullshit here..

 

[ConHog]

I did clarify my position. And you are just to dense to understand it.

So please keep counting because we are all laughing at you!

if by all you mean you and gslack who cares...........and no you didn't clarify because inherent risk plays NO part in the law, while IMMINENT does. perhaps a dictionary is in order?

Imminent harm is not the case here.. She (the sailing girl) is recognized as an expert in the field, so the threat is not imminent death....

Unbelievable.... Look crackey, I growing weary of slapping you every time you are on a tweak.... You get steadily more ignorant in every one of your attempts to bullshit here..

imminent harm isn't the issue of is allowing her to do go sailing solo around the wold at age 16 neglect?

 

[George Costanza]

Oh boy. I'm away from this mess for 12 hours, and look what's happened. OK, boys and girls. Ref steps in.

"Inherent" means risk is there, lurking somewhere in the background. Death or injury may or may not happen. They could, but they also could not.

"Imminent" means risk is about to happen. No lurking at all - the guy with the big hammer is just around the next corner, ready to slap you up the side of the head some time during the next two or three steps you take. "Likely" would be a good synonym in this context.

As I read ConHog's federal statute, it does not say anything about "inherent." It only talks about "imminent." So, as I read the statute, a parent could allow a child to participate in something that has inherent risk involved, and not be in violation of the statute. Baseball, football and sailing (in the usual and normal sense) would all be included.

An argument could be made that solo sailing around the world by anyone, and especially a 16-year-old girl, might well move sailing out of the "inherent" danger classification and into the "imminent" danger classification, because risk of harm is much more likely with a solo sail around the world than with a sail across the channel to Catalina (or whatever).

But that still doesn't answer it because, if you add in that the 16-year-old girl has much more experience and sailing ability than the average adult sailor, that would greatly reduce the risk of danger, perhaps moving things back into the "inherent" classification and out of the "imminent" category.

So what you birds are doing is parsing these two words and trying to get them to mean what you want them to mean in order to establish the point you want to make.

How many angels can we sit on the end of a pin?

 

[gslack]

Oh boy. I'm away from this mess for 12 hours, and look what's happened. OK, boys and girls. Ref steps in.

"Inherent" means risk is there, lurking somewhere in the background. Death or injury may or may not happen. They could, but they also could not.

"Imminent" means risk is about to happen. No lurking at all - the guy with the big hammer is just around the next corner, ready to slap you up the side of the head some time during the next two or three steps you take. "Likely" would be a good synonym in this context.

As I read ConHog's federal statute, it does not say anything about "inherent." It only talks about "imminent." So, as I read the statute, a parent could allow a child to participate in something that has inherent risk involved, and not be in violation of the statute. Baseball, football and sailing (in the usual and normal sense) would all be included.

An argument could be made that solo sailing around the world by anyone, and especially a 16-year-old girl, might well move sailing out of the "inherent" danger classification and into the "imminent" danger classification, because risk of harm is much more likely with a solo sail around the world than with a sail across the channel to Catalina (or whatever).

But that still doesn't answer it because, if you add in that the 16-year-old girl has much more experience and sailing ability than the average adult sailor, that would greatly reduce the risk of danger, perhaps moving things back into the "inherent" classification and out of the "imminent" category.

So what you birds are doing is parsing these two words and trying to get them to mean what you want them to mean in order to establish the point you want to make.

How many angels can we sit on the end of a pin?

I clarified the difference with imminent to him several times now... He is the one twisting things...He classified imminent and inherent the same, he also applied imminent to imply certain death. Which is why I used the same classification to make my point to him. Sure imminent can mean the likelihood of death but it doesn't mean an assured happening as he continues to pretend despite all evidence against it...

 

[George Costanza]

I clarified the difference with imminent to him several times now... He is the one twisting things...He classified imminent and inherent the same, he also applied imminent to imply certain death. Which is why I used the same classification to make my point to him. Sure imminent can mean the likelihood of death but it doesn't mean an assured happening as he continues to pretend despite all evidence against it...

Here are a couple of definitions of "immiment":

"About to occur; impending"

"Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; - said especially of misfortune or peril"

"likely to happen without delay"

Clearly, "imminent" means immediately. Let's see if we can give a few examples.
(1) Child is poised on the edge of a third story balcony, saying he thinks he can fly. Child announces his intention to show Dad that he can, in fact, fly. Dad says, "go ahead." (2) Child is standing on the diving board of the family swimming pool holding a radio that is connected to a plug in the bath house by an extension cord. The radio is on. The child says: "Hey, Dad - wanna see my 'radio cannon ball' dive?" Dad says, "sure."

I submit that, in both of these examples, Dad would be in violation of ConHog's federal statute because Dad would be allowing his child to do something where the danger or threat of serious injury or death was imminent.

Planning a solo, around the world voyage on a small sail boat takes a LONG time to accomplish. There is not only the planning, but the outfitting and supplying of the craft, working out time lines, etc. etc. I am sure that her parents gave her their permission to do this prior to any of the above taking place. Was a threat of serious injury or death "imminent" when initial permission was given? Obviously not - the girl was still on dry land.

All of the planning has been completed. The time has come to set sail. The parents are down at the dock to see their daughter off. Is there an "imminent" threat of death or serious injury? Of course not. The sun is shining and the water is calm as she takes off on her voyage.

Now - it is true that, in a voyage of this nature, there is significantly more threat of serious injury or death than in a routine sail around the bay on a Sunday afternoon. But that does not make that theat "imminent." It merely makes it more likely. I don't see "more likely" anywhere in the Federal statute.

The more I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that the parents in this case would NOT be in violation of ConHog's federal statute by allowing their daughter to go on this voyage.

Sorry, CH - but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

 

[syrenn]

ZIPPO con.

Go figure you are STILL WHINING ABOUT LOSING!

AGAIN

Now we are really rolling on the floor laughing our asses off AT YOU!

Try again.

 

[ConHog]

I clarified the difference with imminent to him several times now... He is the one twisting things...He classified imminent and inherent the same, he also applied imminent to imply certain death. Which is why I used the same classification to make my point to him. Sure imminent can mean the likelihood of death but it doesn't mean an assured happening as he continues to pretend despite all evidence against it...

Here are a couple of definitions of "immiment":

"About to occur; impending"

"Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; - said especially of misfortune or peril"

"likely to happen without delay"

Clearly, "imminent" means immediately. Let's see if we can give a few examples.
(1) Child is poised on the edge of a third story balcony, saying he thinks he can fly. Child announces his intention to show Dad that he can, in fact, fly. Dad says, "go ahead." (2) Child is standing on the diving board of the family swimming pool holding a radio that is connected to a plug in the bath house by an extension cord. The radio is on. The child says: "Hey, Dad - wanna see my 'radio cannon ball' dive?" Dad says, "sure."

I submit that, in both of these examples, Dad would be in violation of ConHog's federal statute because Dad would be allowing his child to do something where the danger or threat of serious injury or death was imminent.

Planning a solo, around the world voyage on a small sail boat takes a LONG time to accomplish. There is not only the planning, but the outfitting and supplying of the craft, working out time lines, etc. etc. I am sure that her parents gave her their permission to do this prior to any of the above taking place. Was a threat of serious injury or death "imminent" when initial permission was given? Obviously not - the girl was still on dry land.

All of the planning has been completed. The time has come to set sail. The parents are down at the dock to see their daughter off. Is there an "imminent" threat of death or serious injury? Of course not. The sun is shining and the water is calm as she takes off on her voyage.

Now - it is true that, in a voyage of this nature, there is significantly more threat of serious injury or death than in a routine sail around the bay on a Sunday afternoon. But that does not make that theat "imminent." It merely makes it more likely. I don't see "more likely" anywhere in the Federal statute.

The more I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that the parents in this case would NOT be in violation of ConHog's federal statute by allowing their daughter to go on this voyage.

Sorry, CH - but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

And I would submit that there are mitigating factors that turned this into a situation which violated the federal statute I cited.

1) Her boat had mechanical problems which the people who repaired it later admitted were fixed in a hurry to try to get her out to sea ahead of a coming storm prior to her actually being stranded at sea

2) Testimony from a world renowned sailor from that part of the world that at this time of year her boat was too small for and that no one should have been in that sea because of the known dangers of the season.

3) Eyewitness accounts from other family members that the father pressured the girl to continue her voyage after her initial mechanical problems when she wanted to call it quits.

I have presented all this evidence of these things through the various threads on this subject.

 

[syrenn]

He doesn't give up does he George? He is just obsessed.

Can you see him balling his little chubby fist and slamming it down on the table fuming "I AM RIGHT GOD DAMMIT I AM RRRIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT WHY INS'T ANYONE LISTENING TO MMMMMMEEEEEE! I CANT LOSE... I JUST CAN'T" *STAMPS FOOT*

 

[ConHog]

Oh I see. When YOU have an opinion and half ass defend it, it's an opinion, but when someone else has an opinion its them trying to control the world......

 

[George Costanza]

I clarified the difference with imminent to him several times now... He is the one twisting things...He classified imminent and inherent the same, he also applied imminent to imply certain death. Which is why I used the same classification to make my point to him. Sure imminent can mean the likelihood of death but it doesn't mean an assured happening as he continues to pretend despite all evidence against it...

Here are a couple of definitions of "immiment":

"About to occur; impending"

"Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; - said especially of misfortune or peril"

"likely to happen without delay"

Clearly, "imminent" means immediately. Let's see if we can give a few examples.
(1) Child is poised on the edge of a third story balcony, saying he thinks he can fly. Child announces his intention to show Dad that he can, in fact, fly. Dad says, "go ahead." (2) Child is standing on the diving board of the family swimming pool holding a radio that is connected to a plug in the bath house by an extension cord. The radio is on. The child says: "Hey, Dad - wanna see my 'radio cannon ball' dive?" Dad says, "sure."

I submit that, in both of these examples, Dad would be in violation of ConHog's federal statute because Dad would be allowing his child to do something where the danger or threat of serious injury or death was imminent.

Planning a solo, around the world voyage on a small sail boat takes a LONG time to accomplish. There is not only the planning, but the outfitting and supplying of the craft, working out time lines, etc. etc. I am sure that her parents gave her their permission to do this prior to any of the above taking place. Was a threat of serious injury or death "imminent" when initial permission was given? Obviously not - the girl was still on dry land.

All of the planning has been completed. The time has come to set sail. The parents are down at the dock to see their daughter off. Is there an "imminent" threat of death or serious injury? Of course not. The sun is shining and the water is calm as she takes off on her voyage.

Now - it is true that, in a voyage of this nature, there is significantly more threat of serious injury or death than in a routine sail around the bay on a Sunday afternoon. But that does not make that theat "imminent." It merely makes it more likely. I don't see "more likely" anywhere in the Federal statute.

The more I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that the parents in this case would NOT be in violation of ConHog's federal statute by allowing their daughter to go on this voyage.

Sorry, CH - but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

And I would submit that there are mitigating factors that turned this into a situation which violated the federal statute I cited.

1) Her boat had mechanical problems which the people who repaired it later admitted were fixed in a hurry to try to get her out to sea ahead of a coming storm prior to her actually being stranded at sea

2) Testimony from a world renowned sailor from that part of the world that at this time of year her boat was too small for and that no one should have been in that sea because of the known dangers of the season.

3) Eyewitness accounts from other family members that the father pressured the girl to continue her voyage after her initial mechanical problems when she wanted to call it quits.

I have presented all this evidence of these things through the various threads on this subject.

These factors might move the case closer to the "imminent" danger requirement - the question is, do they?

You state that the mechanical problems had been repaired. No harm, no foul there. Small boat plus dangerous time of year - not good. Increases the chances of imminent danger. Dad pushing daughter to go ahead anyway not relevant to the imminent danger requirement.

All in all, I don't see these "mitigating" (I think you mean aggravating) factors as being enough to indicate a violation of the Federal statute you cite.

 

[ConHog]

Here are a couple of definitions of "immiment":

"About to occur; impending"

"Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; - said especially of misfortune or peril"

"likely to happen without delay"

Clearly, "imminent" means immediately. Let's see if we can give a few examples.
(1) Child is poised on the edge of a third story balcony, saying he thinks he can fly. Child announces his intention to show Dad that he can, in fact, fly. Dad says, "go ahead." (2) Child is standing on the diving board of the family swimming pool holding a radio that is connected to a plug in the bath house by an extension cord. The radio is on. The child says: "Hey, Dad - wanna see my 'radio cannon ball' dive?" Dad says, "sure."

I submit that, in both of these examples, Dad would be in violation of ConHog's federal statute because Dad would be allowing his child to do something where the danger or threat of serious injury or death was imminent.

Planning a solo, around the world voyage on a small sail boat takes a LONG time to accomplish. There is not only the planning, but the outfitting and supplying of the craft, working out time lines, etc. etc. I am sure that her parents gave her their permission to do this prior to any of the above taking place. Was a threat of serious injury or death "imminent" when initial permission was given? Obviously not - the girl was still on dry land.

All of the planning has been completed. The time has come to set sail. The parents are down at the dock to see their daughter off. Is there an "imminent" threat of death or serious injury? Of course not. The sun is shining and the water is calm as she takes off on her voyage.

Now - it is true that, in a voyage of this nature, there is significantly more threat of serious injury or death than in a routine sail around the bay on a Sunday afternoon. But that does not make that theat "imminent." It merely makes it more likely. I don't see "more likely" anywhere in the Federal statute.

The more I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that the parents in this case would NOT be in violation of ConHog's federal statute by allowing their daughter to go on this voyage.

Sorry, CH - but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

And I would submit that there are mitigating factors that turned this into a situation which violated the federal statute I cited.

1) Her boat had mechanical problems which the people who repaired it later admitted were fixed in a hurry to try to get her out to sea ahead of a coming storm prior to her actually being stranded at sea

2) Testimony from a world renowned sailor from that part of the world that at this time of year her boat was too small for and that no one should have been in that sea because of the known dangers of the season.

3) Eyewitness accounts from other family members that the father pressured the girl to continue her voyage after her initial mechanical problems when she wanted to call it quits.

I have presented all this evidence of these things through the various threads on this subject.

These factors might move the case closer to the "imminent" danger requirement - the question is, do they?

You state that the mechanical problems had been repaired. No harm, no foul there. Small boat plus dangerous time of year - not good. Increases the chances of imminent danger. Dad pushing daughter to go ahead anyway not relevant to the imminent danger requirement.

All in all, I don't see these "mitigating" (I think you mean aggravating) factors as being enough to indicate a violation of the Federal statute you cite.

As admitted, I am no lawyer and don't know the lingo. But I DO know that in my opinion this dad made bad decisions and put his own wants over his daughter's safety. Is that enough to prosecute? Maybe not, but we both know that doesn't mean a law wasn't broken.

 

[syrenn]

Oh I see. When YOU have an opinion and half ass defend it, it's an opinion, but when someone else has an opinion its them trying to control the world......

It would seem as if I defended my opinion it better then you did now doesn't it. I have always said you have the right to your opinion, but will never back down when you have your little tantrums of:

I AM RIGHT GOD DAMMIT AND WILL BROOK NO OTHER OPINIONS BUT MINE!!!!

Or don't you remember the part where I said it was great fun poking your arrogance?

And sweet cheeks YOU were the one who came to the lawyers whining, sssyyyrrreeeennnn sssaaaiiidddd.

"Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right"

You asked and they told you

So take the bitch slap and shut up already, 3 ZIP you lost. Deal with it.

 

[syrenn]

These factors might move the case closer to the "imminent" danger requirement - the question is, do they?

You state that the mechanical problems had been repaired. No harm, no foul there. Small boat plus dangerous time of year - not good. Increases the chances of imminent danger. Dad pushing daughter to go ahead anyway not relevant to the imminent danger requirement.

All in all, I don't see these "mitigating" (I think you mean aggravating) factors as being enough to indicate a violation of the Federal statute you cite.

He's still stamping his little feet and fists George. He just cant bear to lose. Bless his little frustrated heart.

 

[syrenn]

As admitted, I am no lawyer and don't know the lingo. But I DO know that in my opinion this dad made bad decisions and put his own wants over his daughter's safety. Is that enough to prosecute? Maybe not, but we both know that doesn't mean a law wasn't broken.

And finally you learn.

 

[George Costanza]

BUT - consider THIS:

CH's federal statute sets forth a crime when parents allow a child to engage in something that involves imminent danger of injury or death. We have seen that "imminent" means "immediate" or "just about to happen."

I had commented that there is no "imminent" danger when a presumably competent sailor sets out to sail solo around the world. There is danger that might come up along the way, but there is nothing "imminent" and, in fact, the sailor may make it safely around the world with no problems at all.

But what if the parental consent is for something that most certainly will result in serious injury or death - but at a later time, i.e., the danger is not "imminent" when the parental consent is given? Take this sailing example. There is certainly a great risk involved in what this young girl attempted to do. The parental consent was given at the start of the trip, when nothing was "imminent." But does the fact that the real danger won't come up until the girl is well into the actual voyage, remove the parents from the purview of this statute?

If life-threatening danger is a given, then what difference does it make when the parental consent is given relative to the time when the life-threatening danger occurs? Isn't parental consent for an activity that will be life-threatening for the child a violation of the statute, regardless of when the danger arises - just so long as it is foreseeable that it could arise?

Child wants to walk to the zoo, jump into the lion cage and feed the lions by hand. Parents give the child consent. It could be argued that it takes two hours to walk to the zoo and, therefore, the danger is not "imminent" when the consent is given. Think that would pass muster for avoiding prosecution under the statute? I don't.

If something terrible had in fact happened to the 16-year-old sailor in this case, I think the parents could have been prosecuted under the first part of the federal statute, which criminalizes serious injury or death when it has actually happened. ("Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation.")

The act also criminalizes parental consent where such consent might result in harm to the child. ("An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm")

Since no actual harm occurred, then the only possible proscution would be under the second part of the statute. I guess what I am very long windedly saying here is, that I don't think analyzing this type of situation on the basis of "imminence" of the potential harm is proper. Rather, I think it should be analyzed on the basis of degree of risk.

Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

 

[syrenn]

Please don't forget that this is the "man" who trashed mouthed said 16 year old girl skank for having more balls then he does.