From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

You'd think security would have been a LOT tighter...

But where was the dad?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/crime/france-baby-killed-boy-hospital-lille-b2790118.html


A criminal inquiry has been launched in France after a six-year-old boy
rCLleft to roam around a maternity unitrCY allegedly killed a newborn baby.

The horror unfolded at the Jeanne-de-Flandre ChildrenrCOs Hospital in the northern city of Lille.

It was there that a baby identified as Zayneb-Cassandra rCo who was born premature, at 7.5 months, to a 23-year-old woman, earlier this month rCo
was declared dead on Tuesday.

She suffered a traumatic brain injury last Friday after allegedly being
dropped on the floor by the boy rCLwho treated her like a doll,rCY said an investigating source.

Despite being reported as a rCLdisruptive presencerCY in the hospital, the
boy was found alone with the unconscious baby in a neonatal unit.

The baby was her motherrCOs first child, and she was delivered by cesarean section, said the investigating source.

rCLThe delivery went very well, but the little girl was premature, so she
was taken to a neonatatal unit, while her mother remained in a maternity ward.rCY

The rCydisruptive six-year-oldrCO rCo the son of another mother who was in a maternity ward rCo was meanwhile spotted wandering around the hospital unattended.

Zayneb-CassandrarCOs grandmother told the Voix du Nord newspaper: rCLThe boy would arrive at 7am and spend all day running up and down the hallways.

rCLAll the mothers were complaining, and a nurse even warned the childrCOs mother that there was a problem. He was entering the other rooms.

rCLHe also entered ZaynebrCOs room for the first time. He said she looked
like a doll, and my husband, who was there, took him out.rCY

Last Friday, ZaynebrCOs mother was signing discharge papers, when rCyall of
a sudden, the family received a call from a ward manager, saying they
needed to come right away rCo a little boy had been playing with the baby,
who had fallen.rCO

According to the family, who cite another mother in a neighbouring room,
rCLa loud bangrCY was heard when the babyrCOs head connected with the ground.

Zayneb was found unresponsive on the floor, next to the six-year-old,
who was on a chair.

rCLIt seems he tried to grab her by her nappy, and she fell on her head,rCY said ZaynebrCOs grandmother.

The baby was rushed to intensive care, but she was declared dead on
Tuesday, after suffering rCya serious a brain injury.rCO

An investigation has been opened by the juvenile unit of the Lille
Judicial Police Service, in conjunction with local prosecutors.

rCLInvestigations are currently underway in this case,rCY said a spokesman
for Lille prosecutors.

The hospital also announced the opening of rCLan internal administrative investigationrCY.

A spokesman said: rCLThis human tragedy has deeply affected the staff and
teams of Lille University ChildrenrCOs Hospital, as well as the other
families present.rCY
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

It sound like the kidlet was running wild for quite some time before the
baby's death occurred. Where were the NICU nurses all that time? I
thought that in light of recent cases of newborns being 'snatched',
maternity wards and nurseries were now more closely monitored.

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries


In the previous article, Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

You'd think security would have been a LOT tighter...

But where was the dad?

The first question is fair; I assume the second is not serious.

Don't know what remedies for this sort of thing are like in France,
but in the US, if I'm on the jury, I'm just adding a zero to whatever
the plaintiff is demanding. (That's in a suit against the hospital,
obviously. Against the parents of the kids ... well, maybe that, too.
But the main malfeasor is the hospital.)
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer ***~~~~---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

You'd think security would have been a LOT tighter...

But where was the dad?

The first question is fair; I assume the second is not serious.

Don't know what remedies for this sort of thing are like in France,
but in the US, if I'm on the jury, I'm just adding a zero to whatever
the plaintiff is demanding. (That's in a suit against the hospital, >obviously. Against the parents of the kids ... well, maybe that, too.
But the main malfeasor is the hospital.)

How exactly does that work? Take the other thread in which the boy died accidentally by crashibg his e-bike. Now, clearly the parents might have
been partially at fault, not teaching the boy the responsibility of
operating a motorized vehicle.

But the parents are suing the homeowner who erected the wire the boy got
caught on, a wire that was not blocking the pavement. And they are doing
it selflessly so no one else ever again erects a hazard in a place that
one is not allowed to drive.

The boy's estate has a claim against the parents. How do the parents,
in turn, get to represent and benefit from the estate, should it prevail
in court? Why the hell should they receive any monies, or should what
they receive be substantially reduced by the part of the injury that's
their failure?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries


In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Don't know what remedies for this sort of thing are like in France,
but in the US, if I'm on the jury, I'm just adding a zero to
whatever the plaintiff is demanding. (That's in a suit against the >hospital, obviously. Against the parents of the kids ... well,
maybe that, too. But the main malfeasor is the hospital.)

How exactly does that work?

In the U.S.? The tort claim against the parents is negligent
supervision -- if parents don't control a child and the child causes
mayhem, the parents are on the hook. In any U.S. jurisdiction I've
studied, this applies only to younger children who are obviously
supervisable and in need of supervision. It's not related to that
silly trend where the state tries to hold parents accountable
criminally if their 17-year-old sneaks out in the night and does
something stupid.

Against the hospital, there are a number of claims, but it boils down
to either negligence or even abandonment of their responsibility. If
this child was running wild over the course of multiple days and the
hospital did nothing about it, that's pretty damning. A maternity ward
has a pretty clear duty to protect the babies in its charge.

Take the other thread in which the boy died accidentally by crashibg
his e-bike. Now, clearly the parents might have been partially at
fault, not teaching the boy the responsibility of operating a
motorized vehicle.

But the parents are suing the homeowner who erected the wire the boy
got caught on, a wire that was not blocking the pavement. And they
are doing it selflessly so no one else ever again erects a hazard in
a place that one is not allowed to drive.

It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive here,
so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's not
actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or probably
anywhere).

The boy's estate has a claim against the parents. How do the
parents, in turn, get to represent and benefit from the estate,
should it prevail in court? Why the hell should they receive any
monies, or should what they receive be substantially reduced by the
part of the injury that's their failure?

Their claim is presumably wrongful death. Maybe it's colorable, maybe
it's not. But controlling a wild toddler is orders of magnitude
removed from controlling an older kid on a motorized bicycle. I doubt
the notion that the parents failed to teach responsible cycling is
going to gain any traction in an actual court.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer ***~~~~---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:28:28 +0000, J.D. Baldwin wrote:

In the previous article, Lenona wrote:

You'd think security would have been a LOT tighter...

But where was the dad?

The first question is fair; I assume the second is not serious.

Yes, I AM serious.

Obviously, the hospital should have ordered the family to remove the
6-year-old as soon as he started roaming the hospital - if only for HIS
safety.

But according to multiple sources, in France, a father is entitled to 25
days of paternity leave. So, assuming the father is involved at all, why
wasn't he supervising the kid, since the mother, as a hospital patient,
clearly couldn't?

And just a reminder to everyone. FWIW, a six-year-old is not a
"toddler." Even so, kids that age should not be trusted to behave
themselves when unsupervised.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

. . .

Take the other thread in which the boy died accidentally by crashibg
his e-bike. Now, clearly the parents might have been partially at
fault, not teaching the boy the responsibility of operating a
motorized vehicle.

But the parents are suing the homeowner who erected the wire the boy
got caught on, a wire that was not blocking the pavement. And they
are doing it selflessly so no one else ever again erects a hazard in
a place that one is not allowed to drive.

It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive here,
so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's not
actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or probably
anywhere).

Invariably, you make me regret asking a question or attempting to engage
you in conversation. You are condescending and treating me like a moron.

You just described a crime of intent that could have been charged as
depraved indifferent homicide, possibly first or second degree murder, depending on the state criminal code.

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

There were motor vehicles being parked illegally on the side of the
road, on the grass that local codes probably require the homeowner to
maintain. Both the bollard and fence post to which the wire was attached already existed. The bollard was probably in the public way but not on
the driving surface.

The homeowner was trying to solve a problem, damage to grass he was
required to maintain. He needed something solid to discourage illegal
parking. Neither road cones nor a snow fence would have discouraged the behavior. Granted, more solid fencing that wasn't just a wire would have
been a better choice, or slats or flags hanging from the wire to make it
a lot more visible.

That's not "setting a trap to kill or maim". The homeowner was
attempting to prevent harm caused by trucks and vans being parked off
road at that location. He sure as hell was not trying to harm an e-bike motorist, who were obviously not the culprits who had caused past damage.

The rest deleted unread. Whether you attempted to answer the question I
asked has become irrelevant.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:

It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive here,
so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's not
actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or probably >anywhere).

Invariably, you make me regret asking a question or attempting to engage
you in conversation. You are condescending and treating me like a moron.

You just described a crime of intent that could have been charged as
depraved indifferent homicide, possibly first or second degree murder, depending on the state criminal code.

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

Whether the cable was a mantrap or not would be for a court to
decide. In the absence of surveyor's tape or the like to make the
presence of the cable clear, it sounds like a mantrap to me. And
setting mantraps is very much a crime pretty much anywhere.
--
Mark Shaw moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm ========================================================================
"Anyway, we delivered the bomb."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:

It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive here,
so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's not >>>actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or probably >>>anywhere).

Invariably, you make me regret asking a question or attempting to engage >>you in conversation. You are condescending and treating me like a moron.

You just described a crime of intent that could have been charged as >>depraved indifferent homicide, possibly first or second degree murder, >>depending on the state criminal code.

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

Whether the cable was a mantrap or not would be for a court to decide.

Wow. You're just not listening. In order for it to have been a trap
intended to harm a motorist on an e-bike or a bicycle rider, and not
just intended to keep trucks and vans from being parked illegally on the
grass, there must be actual evidence of intent. There is no such
evidence, so there is nothing to present in court, let alone arrest and
charge the homeowner.

In the absence of surveyor's tape or the like to make the
presence of the cable clear, it sounds like a mantrap to me. And
setting mantraps is very much a crime pretty much anywhere.

. . . Except when its erection was not intended to injure a motorist on
an e-bank.

My comment that the presence of the cable might have been made more
clear was part of what I saw as the homeowner's duty. With regard to the accident, I see no scenario in which something making the presence of
the cable more obvious or if another type of fence or barrier not
intended to be readily knocked over had been there.

The mere presence of the fence DID NOT cause the motorist to lose
control of his e-bike and wouldn't have prevented the resulting
accidental collision. Would a different kind of fencing have prevented
the death? Possibly, but the kid still would have been injured, possibly seriously.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

Whether the cable was a mantrap or not would be for a court to decide.

Wow. You're just not listening. In order for it to have been a trap
intended to harm a motorist on an e-bike or a bicycle rider, and not
just intended to keep trucks and vans from being parked illegally on the grass, there must be actual evidence of intent.

That would be for a court to decide.
--
Mark Shaw moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm ========================================================================
"Anyway, we delivered the bomb."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

In article <105e545$8ui$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

Whether the cable was a mantrap or not would be for a court to decide.

Wow. You're just not listening. In order for it to have been a trap
intended to harm a motorist on an e-bike or a bicycle rider, and not
just intended to keep trucks and vans from being parked illegally on the
grass, there must be actual evidence of intent.

That would be for a court to decide.

Well, yes, obviously, but what do you hope to accomplish by pointing out
the obvious?

(I'm serious about that. I'm sure everyone here understands that
ultimately what matters is what the various branches of whatever judicial system(s) is/are involved end up deciding, but again, who benefits from
having that pointed out for the umpteenth time?)
--
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget
what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.

- Maya Angelou -
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> wrote:

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

Whether the cable was a mantrap or not would be for a court to decide.

Wow. You're just not listening. In order for it to have been a trap >>intended to harm a motorist on an e-bike or a bicycle rider, and not
just intended to keep trucks and vans from being parked illegally on the >>grass, there must be actual evidence of intent.

That would be for a court to decide.

The court does not rule that the handwaiving beliefs and nonsensical accusations by Mark Shaw are evidence of a crime.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

In <105e3qp$pkm$1@reader1.panix.com> Mark Shaw <mshaw@panix.com> writes:

[snip]

Whether the cable was a mantrap or not would be for a court to
decide. In the absence of surveyor's tape or the like to make the
presence of the cable clear, it sounds like a mantrap to me. And
setting mantraps is very much a crime pretty much anywhere.

paging Jeanne Bal (died 1996)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Trap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Bal
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries


In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote,
quoting me:

But the parents are suing the homeowner who erected the wire the
boy got caught on, a wire that was not blocking the pavement. And
they are doing it selflessly so no one else ever again erects a
hazard in a place that one is not allowed to drive.

It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive
here, so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's
not actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or
probably anywhere).

[...]

You just described a crime of intent that could have been charged as
depraved indifferent homicide, possibly first or second degree
murder, depending on the state criminal code.

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

I said it was *more complicated* than the formulation I posed. I'm not condescending to you, or at least not intentionally; I was giving my
opinion of the situation. My professional opinion, if that makes a
difference. (But I'm hedging, as I don't know all of the facts.)

The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably not
rising to the level of homicide -- depending on circumstances that I
don't know. But you can't just go around setting "man-traps."

[snip description of circumstances]

The totality of the circumstances here isn't especially illuminated by
the additional facts you adduced. Not that it matters. I'd have to
study the actual record of facts before coming to a real, final
conclusion about the legality of that situation. Intent matters, but
it also isn't the final word, either for criminality or civil
liability.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer ***~~~~---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries


In the previous article, Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

You'd think security would have been a LOT tighter...

But where was the dad?

The first question is fair; I assume the second is not serious.

Yes, I AM serious.

Obviously, the hospital should have ordered the family to remove the 6-year-old as soon as he started roaming the hospital - if only for
HIS safety.

File that under "D" for "Duh."

But according to multiple sources, in France, a father is entitled
to 25 days of paternity leave. So, assuming the father is involved
at all, why wasn't he supervising the kid, since the mother, as a
hospital patient, clearly couldn't?

See that clause about what you're "assuming" there. Out-of-control kid
-- or at least *that* far out of control over the course of several
days -- says to me "No dad in the picture." Is that not also an
"assum[ption]"? Well, yes -- though I might characterize it more as
Bayesian inference.

And just a reminder to everyone. FWIW, a six-year-old is not a
"toddler." Even so, kids that age should not be trusted to behave
themselves when unsupervised.

Yeah, that was a bit sloppy of me.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer ***~~~~---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote, quoting me:

But the parents are suing the homeowner who erected the wire the
boy got caught on, a wire that was not blocking the pavement. And
they are doing it selflessly so no one else ever again erects a
hazard in a place that one is not allowed to drive.

It's a little more complicated than "You aren't allowed to drive
here, so I can set a trap to kill or maim anyone who tries." That's
not actually a thing that's allowed, legally, in the U.S. (or
probably anywhere).

[...]

You just described a crime of intent that could have been charged as >>depraved indifferent homicide, possibly first or second degree
murder, depending on the state criminal code.

THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

I said it was *more complicated* than the formulation I posed. I'm not >condescending to you, or at least not intentionally; I was giving my
opinion of the situation. My professional opinion, if that makes a >difference. (But I'm hedging, as I don't know all of the facts.)

A cable wire was strung between a fence post and a bollard. You are
acting like I'm too stupid to understand the difference between a
hazard, which it could be argued that the wire was, and a trap that was
set to kill or maim.

The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably not
rising to the level of homicide -- depending on circumstances that I
don't know. But you can't just go around setting "man-traps."

And you said it again.

[snip description of circumstances]

The totality of the circumstances here isn't especially illuminated by
the additional facts you adduced. Not that it matters.

It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't
matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent to the homeowner.

I'd have to study the actual record of facts before coming to a real, final >conclusion about the legality of that situation.

No shit, Sherlock. Feel free to make a comment on the record as opposed
to a comment in which you've contributed bullshit.

Intent matters, but it also isn't the final word, either for criminality
or civil liability.

And yet you felt free to impugn the homeowner's motive so bad that you
accused the homeowner of a criminal act using lots of weasel words so
you can't be accused of libel.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:11:52 -0000 (UTC),
INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:

I'm not
condescending to you, or at least not intentionally; I was giving my
opinion of the situation.

That went over about as I expected it would.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:

Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:11:52 -0000 (UTC), (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:

I'm not
condescending to you, or at least not intentionally; I was giving my >>opinion of the situation.

That went over about as I expected it would.

Giving one's opinion shouldn't include turning the erection of a hazard
into an accusation of a crime of intent without evidence, pretending
that one's opponent in debate wasn't going to notice that the criminal accusation got slipped in.

That's my expectation but it's unreasonable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries


In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't
matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent to
the homeowner.

I didn't do that. Just on the subject of facts, you know, *mattering*
and stuff.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer ***~~~~---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't
matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent to
the homeowner.

I didn't do that. Just on the subject of facts, you know, *mattering*
and stuff.

You did it multiple times. Here is the second time you accused the
homeowner of having committed a crime of intent, that is, intentionally
setting a trap so that the e-bike motorist would be injured or killed.

The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably not
rising to the level of homicide -- depending on circumstances that
I don't know. But you can't just go around setting "man-traps."

There was no reason to make that assumption. It was not a rational
conclusion from the news reports.

You wrote it with weasel language so it's just short of libel.

Quote editing doesn't get you out of what you did.

The homeowner had a conflict with small trucks and vans parking off road
and so erected the cable to discourage it. The driver would not have
been injured from the cable, although the truck or van would have been
damaged if the driver didn't notice it.

The homeowner had no conflict with e-bike motorists who for some reason
could have lost control of their motor vehicle right at the spot that
they could have been injured or killed by accidentally crashing into the
cable. There's no logical way to conclude that the homeowner set a trap,
nor that the homeowner committed a crime.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries


In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't >>matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent
to the homeowner.

I didn't do that. Just on the subject of facts, you know,
*mattering* and stuff.

You did it multiple times. Here is the second time you accused the
homeowner of having committed a crime of intent, that is,
intentionally setting a trap so that the e-bike motorist would be
injured or killed.

The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably
not rising to the level of homicide -- depending on
circumstances that I don't know. But you can't just go around
setting "man-traps."

I raised a hypothetical possibility based on my knowledge of the law
and some assumptions you seemed to be making about how a desire to
prevent cars from going somewhere justified erecting a hazard. (I
assume you don't dispute that it was, in fact, a hazard.)

You wrote it with weasel language so it's just short of libel.

I can promise you that I have forgotten more about libel law than you
could probably learn with a month of intensive study. And that
sentence is fatuously silly.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer ***~~~~---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.obituaries

J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't >>>>matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent
to the homeowner.

I didn't do that. Just on the subject of facts, you know,
*mattering* and stuff.

You did it multiple times. Here is the second time you accused the >>homeowner of having committed a crime of intent, that is,
intentionally setting a trap so that the e-bike motorist would be
injured or killed.

The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably
not rising to the level of homicide -- depending on
circumstances that I don't know. But you can't just go around
setting "man-traps."

I raised a hypothetical possibility based on my knowledge of the law
and some assumptions you seemed to be making about how a desire to
prevent cars from going somewhere justified erecting a hazard. (I
assume you don't dispute that it was, in fact, a hazard.)

Nice backpedal. But you aren't getting away with changing the topic. In multiple posts, you accused the homeowner of setting a trap, which would
have been a crime of intent.

Here, you accuse me of having JUSTIFIED the homeowner's action. I did no
such thing. The REASON the homeowner did it, according to news reports,
was not a crime of intent which setting a trap would have been.

You dug yourself into a hole and keep digging it deeper and deeper.

Crapsnip

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2