Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right

[Lonestar_logic]

you better go reread the thread my dear, George, for example, was very clear . IF what the parents allowed her to do can be proven to be an IMMINENT threat of harm, then the parents are violating the law if they CHOOSE to let her do it anyway.

I really think this is just a case of you not being smart enough to decipher the law.

Again I will say it.

Sailing has inherent risk. Sailing solo around the world is not putting her in imminent danger.

George also talks about other sports having inherent risk. So again sailing and sports are equal on the idea of inherent risk.

You're beyond ******* stupid. I'm tired of attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is so ******* retarded they are trying to make the claim that sailing around the world so solo is no more dangerous than playing football.

I pray to God that you NEVER have children, you are without a doubt one of the most ignorant ******* persons I have ever come across and NO child deserves you as a mother. Please stay on some form of birth control.

Speaking of children, did your mother have any children that lived?

 

[George Costanza]

Yes I asked you the wrong question when I asked if you would prosecute. What I should have asked was could you make a case for prosecuting, because as you said, it's a judgment call, it's just one that I would error in favor of protecting children on..

Perfectly understandable. I think Jillian would be with you there.

An important thing to remember, however, is that not all children are equal. If the issue is, would sailing solo around the world be life-threatening dangerous for the average 16-year-old, the answer is yes, of course it would be. Ask most people if they would allow their 16-year-old daughter to make a solo sail around the world, and I'm sure they all would say no, of course not.

But if you toss in the fact that, in this particular case, the 16-year-old sailor probably had all of the skills and experience necessary to pull it off, that changes things.

I think that is what would make this a tough prosecution case.

 

[syrenn]

Perfectly understandable. I think Jillian would be with you there.

An important thing to remember, however, is that not all children are equal. If the issue is, would sailing solo around the world be life-threatening dangerous for the average 16-year-old, the answer is yes, of course it would be. Ask most people if they would allow their 16-year-old daughter to make a solo sail around the world, and I'm sure they all would say no, of course not.

But if you toss in the fact that, in this particular case, the 16-year-old sailor probably had all of the skills and experience necessary to pull it off, that changes things.

I think that is what would make this a tough prosecution case.

So what you are saying is individual parental decisions for their own children and no one else? For instance I may not judge for your children nor give your children consent that they may sail solo around the world?

 

[George Costanza]

Perfectly understandable. I think Jillian would be with you there.

An important thing to remember, however, is that not all children are equal. If the issue is, would sailing solo around the world be life-threatening dangerous for the average 16-year-old, the answer is yes, of course it would be. Ask most people if they would allow their 16-year-old daughter to make a solo sail around the world, and I'm sure they all would say no, of course not.

But if you toss in the fact that, in this particular case, the 16-year-old sailor probably had all of the skills and experience necessary to pull it off, that changes things.

I think that is what would make this a tough prosecution case.

So what you are saying is individual parental decisions for their own children and no one else? For instance I may not judge for your children nor give your children consent that they may sail solo around the world?

This is correctamundo. The only kids we can control (or try to control) are our own.

 

[ConHog]

Perfectly understandable. I think Jillian would be with you there.

An important thing to remember, however, is that not all children are equal. If the issue is, would sailing solo around the world be life-threatening dangerous for the average 16-year-old, the answer is yes, of course it would be. Ask most people if they would allow their 16-year-old daughter to make a solo sail around the world, and I'm sure they all would say no, of course not.

But if you toss in the fact that, in this particular case, the 16-year-old sailor probably had all of the skills and experience necessary to pull it off, that changes things.

I think that is what would make this a tough prosecution case.

So what you are saying is individual parental decisions for their own children and no one else? For instance I may not judge for your children nor give your children consent that they may sail solo around the world?

This is correctamundo. The only kids we can control (or try to control) are our own.

On the other hand , society can say "No you were neglectful in allowing your child to do what we as a society is too dangerous?"

 

[ConHog]

Yes I asked you the wrong question when I asked if you would prosecute. What I should have asked was could you make a case for prosecuting, because as you said, it's a judgment call, it's just one that I would error in favor of protecting children on..

Perfectly understandable. I think Jillian would be with you there.

An important thing to remember, however, is that not all children are equal. If the issue is, would sailing solo around the world be life-threatening dangerous for the average 16-year-old, the answer is yes, of course it would be. Ask most people if they would allow their 16-year-old daughter to make a solo sail around the world, and I'm sure they all would say no, of course not.

But if you toss in the fact that, in this particular case, the 16-year-old sailor probably had all of the skills and experience necessary to pull it off, that changes things.

I think that is what would make this a tough prosecution case.

But wouldn't the fact that an expert sailor is on record as saying that the sea she was in at that time of year was routinely so dangerous that no one had any business sailing in it solo at this time of year sway things into the more dangerous category?

 

[ConHog]

Syrenn, do you still contend that sailing is no more dangerous than baseball or football? Just wondiering

 

[syrenn]

Syrenn, do you still contend that sailing is no more dangerous than baseball or football? Just wondiering

Try again

You so love putting words in other peoples mouths.

I have always said and still maintain that all sports have inherent risks of injury and death.

It is good to see your still obsessed.

 

[ConHog]

Syrenn, do you still contend that sailing is no more dangerous than baseball or football? Just wondiering

Try again

You so love putting words in other peoples mouths.

I have always said and still maintain that all sports have inherent risks of injury and death.

It is good to see your still obsessed.

Obsessed? it's calling debating the thread you silly turd. And we weren't and aren't talking about inherited risks. We're talking about IMMINENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM DEATH. I quoted the law and you said "sailing solo is no more dangerous than baseball or football" that's not twisting your words, that's quoting you.

So don't evade. Did you or do you claim that baseball or football presents the same imminent risk of harm or death as sailing solo around the world? Just a yes or no answer please.

 

[gslack]

So what you are saying is individual parental decisions for their own children and no one else? For instance I may not judge for your children nor give your children consent that they may sail solo around the world?

This is correctamundo. The only kids we can control (or try to control) are our own.

On the other hand , society can say "No you were neglectful in allowing your child to do what we as a society is too dangerous?"

Society maybe with the courts agreement. But YOU are not society but a small part of that society, so you alone do not get to decide this.. .So get over yourself already..

 

[gslack]

Syrenn, do you still contend that sailing is no more dangerous than baseball or football? Just wondiering

None made that contention liar.... The football and baseball reference was my own and it was to show the fact all of them contain some element of risk even of death at times, and despite this risk they are deemed acceptable especially when the child is prepared and trained for it...

kind of like a child who trained to sail around the world solo...

you can stop lying anytime now....

 

[syrenn]

Syrenn, do you still contend that sailing is no more dangerous than baseball or football? Just wondiering

Try again

You so love putting words in other peoples mouths.

I have always said and still maintain that all sports have inherent risks of injury and death.

It is good to see your still obsessed.

Obsessed? it's calling debating the thread you silly turd. And we weren't and aren't talking about inherited risks. We're talking about IMMINENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM DEATH. I quoted the law and you said "sailing solo is no more dangerous than baseball or football" that's not twisting your words, that's quoting you.

So don't evade. Did you or do you claim that baseball or football presents the same imminent risk of harm or death as sailing solo around the world? Just a yes or no answer please.

All three are dangerous. All carry risks of harm and death.

SO sailing solo is no more dangerous then baseball or football. If one is abuse then ALL of them are abuse. Try keeping to one thread at a time.

 

[ConHog]

Try again

You so love putting words in other peoples mouths.

I have always said and still maintain that all sports have inherent risks of injury and death.

It is good to see your still obsessed.

Obsessed? it's calling debating the thread you silly turd. And we weren't and aren't talking about inherited risks. We're talking about IMMINENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM DEATH. I quoted the law and you said "sailing solo is no more dangerous than baseball or football" that's not twisting your words, that's quoting you.

So don't evade. Did you or do you claim that baseball or football presents the same imminent risk of harm or death as sailing solo around the world? Just a yes or no answer please.

All three are dangerous. All carry risks of harm and death.

SO sailing solo is no more dangerous then baseball or football. If one is abuse then ALL of them are abuse. Try keeping to one thread at a time.

To be clear you think the IMMINENT RISK of playing football is as great as the IMMINENT RISK of sailing around the world solo?

Yes or no? Can you answer a question. YES OR NO?

 

[ConHog]

This is correctamundo. The only kids we can control (or try to control) are our own.

On the other hand , society can say "No you were neglectful in allowing your child to do what we as a society is too dangerous?"

Society maybe with the courts agreement. But YOU are not society but a small part of that society, so you alone do not get to decide this.. .So get over yourself already..

We aren't talking about me, we're talking about the law.

 

[syrenn]

Obsessed? it's calling debating the thread you silly turd. And we weren't and aren't talking about inherited risks. We're talking about IMMINENT RISK OF SERIOUS HARM DEATH. I quoted the law and you said "sailing solo is no more dangerous than baseball or football" that's not twisting your words, that's quoting you.

So don't evade. Did you or do you claim that baseball or football presents the same imminent risk of harm or death as sailing solo around the world? Just a yes or no answer please.

All three are dangerous. All carry risks of harm and death.

SO sailing solo is no more dangerous then baseball or football. If one is abuse then ALL of them are abuse. Try keeping to one thread at a time.

To be clear you think the IMMINENT RISK of playing football is as great as the IMMINENT RISK of sailing around the world solo?

Yes or no? Can you answer a question. YES OR NO?

Try again. Learn to read.

They all have inherent risk.

 

[gslack]

On the other hand , society can say "No you were neglectful in allowing your child to do what we as a society is too dangerous?"

Society maybe with the courts agreement. But YOU are not society but a small part of that society, so you alone do not get to decide this.. .So get over yourself already..

We aren't talking about me, we're talking about the law.

Dude all you do is talk about how it concerns you... I talked about the law and you cried about how it didn't support you in this case... Well its not supposed to be just for you, its for all as fairly as possible to all.

Again stop trying to twist this around and lie...

 

[ConHog]

Society maybe with the courts agreement. But YOU are not society but a small part of that society, so you alone do not get to decide this.. .So get over yourself already..

We aren't talking about me, we're talking about the law.

Dude all you do is talk about how it concerns you... I talked about the law and you cried about how it didn't support you in this case... Well its not supposed to be just for you, its for all as fairly as possible to all.

Again stop trying to twist this around and lie...

What are you babbling about? It is YOU and your gf who are avoiding the law. The law is CLEARLY on my side here.

 

[ConHog]

All three are dangerous. All carry risks of harm and death.

SO sailing solo is no more dangerous then baseball or football. If one is abuse then ALL of them are abuse. Try keeping to one thread at a time.

To be clear you think the IMMINENT RISK of playing football is as great as the IMMINENT RISK of sailing around the world solo?

Yes or no? Can you answer a question. YES OR NO?

Try again. Learn to read.

They all have inherent risk.

3


Shut up about inherit risk you dumb *****, that has nothing to do with the law. Do you feel that they both pose the same IMMINENT RISK of harm or death? Yes or ******* no?

 

[syrenn]

We aren't talking about me, we're talking about the law.

Dude all you do is talk about how it concerns you... I talked about the law and you cried about how it didn't support you in this case... Well its not supposed to be just for you, its for all as fairly as possible to all.

Again stop trying to twist this around and lie...

What are you babbling about? It is YOU and your gf who are avoiding the law. The law is CLEARLY on my side here.

I cant wait for George to see all of this.

 

[gslack]

If this is the operative law, then allowing a child to do something which presents an imminent risk of harm would be a violation of that law. The action that would violate the law would be the failure of the parent to to prevent the child from doing the dangerous act.

Of course, each case turns on its facts, and no prosecutor is going to file if they think they don't have a reasonable chance to get a conviction. Much depends on the age of the child, the experience of the child and the risk of the particular activity.

Understood that of course each case is different. But given some facts that we know

A) Experts sailors from that part of the world are on record saying that NO sailor should have been sailing that ocean solo this time of year

B) Family members are telling people that her boat was inadequately repaired from a mechanical problem earlier in the journey

C) The world organization that keeps track of sailing records has dropped their youngest category due to the danger

D) Family members are testifying that the father urged maybe to the point of coercion this girl continue when she wanted to stop after her boat broke down the first time

E) It turns out that the father had made a deal with a reality TV show contingent on her completing the trip before she left


Now given those facts to begin with would you as a prosecutor file charges?

This is the very last time i bother giving a legitimate and thoughtful response to you conhog.... Don't make me regret it again....

A) What experts? Who said they were experts, what makes them experts? All of those things are required BEFORE assessing a legal case or causality for anything even resembling child abuse by wealthy and otherwise responsible parents... Just taking whats on the news and going with it is not a legal process, nor is it evidence...

B) What family members? how well do they know the child and the family? How are they related? How often have they been in close contact? What are the family particulars which could prove negative to their testimony? And are they sailing or boating/sailboat experts? Are they qualified to judge who is and who is not able to take such a risk in particular the point of sailing open seas?... And again simply taking the media at its word on this is not evidence nor is it legal precedence.. Any such charges regarding the potential removal of a child from a family or charges of abuse or neglect, require the utmost care and careful consideration of ALL the actual facts and particulars... The legal system and courts know this all too well, and no one wants to be labeled a home wrecker....

C) The world organization on sailing sets their age limits by their own system and guidelines using their own reasoning. They are not a legal Representative or represent in any fashion the legal system, the government, or the health and human services agencies. And further, they did not set their guidelines to the standard of qualifications this girl has, but rather the qualifications of general competitors or members... Most people do not have her expertise, and I dare say few adult sailors would as well...

D) Again I refer you to my previous points raised in section B) above.... All those questions raised apply here as well as the following.... Do you have hard and real evidence of this other than from the news or media? If not, are the media you cite or reference and/or the claimed "witnesses" ready to testify to this in court and under oath? Also we have the problem of proving "coercion" which in its own right is a daunting task to prove with merely the claims of people who have shown a desire to appear in the media or give their voice inappropriately and out of turn to a source given to dramatization and exaggeration.

E) Did HE make the deal alone and or without her consent? Or was it an attempt to capitalize on the trip and make the most of her journey? I understand, despite the claims of some media the deal was made while she was home and BEFORE the trip, in fact I believe they went together and worked the deal.. if that IS the case, than one cannot very well establish a solo attempt to elicit funds for selfish gain at her expense and without her knowledge.. And most importantly this does not establish anything legally.... It does not establish abuse at all, in fact it would lend to the belief he was trying to get as much money for her as he could which would appear the opposite of abuse. In fact when we realize the very risks she is undertaking even in your own posting here, we can very easily see how any funds she can get are well deserved baring some illegal actions...

Now, all the legalese aside..... You need to take a nap... you have just made an ass of yourself in two threads now... Enough is enough, you are wrong.. Wrong from a legal standpoint, wrong from a common sense standpoint, and wrong in the fact YOU do not get to be the boss of the rest of the world... And YOU do not have the right to tell anyone else how to raise their child simply because you don't like it......

Re-post because conho is lying again....