2 ms·
Your post pretty much exemplifies what I was talking about. It's the notion that if an adult decides to pull the trigger on the gun he stole, it is someone else
by skookumchuck 8y ago
Your post pretty much exemplifies what I was talking about. It's the notion that if an adult decides to pull the trigger on the gun he stole, it is someone else's fault.
Consider 1. This an overreaching and hopelessly vague statement. It could be interpreted to mean pretty much anything.
Consider 2. I bet your home is full of dangerous things. Have you taken steps to secure them all?
Consider 3. This is why ex-cons cannot get jobs. It's because there have been successful lawsuits against companies who hired ex-cons, and then some of them committed crimes. The idea is that the employer "should have known" the employee was an ex-con and shouldn't have hired him.
Consider 4. I know of cases where a painter set his ladder incorrectly, fell off, and successfully sued the homeowner.
Consider 5. Recently there was an HN discussion where doctors have been pressured to simply stop prescribing opioids, thus sending their chronic pain patients to hell.
- jackpeterfletch 8y agoI guess we're talking at different levels. Yeah some of these examples are extreme. But I think we can probably agree that there is a balance between accepting gross negligence, and having overzealous legislation.