Blame Culture 47

[ScottyUK]

zdas04 rightly suggested that this belonged in a separate thread to where it was initially posted.

"I personally don't like some of the culture developing in the UK where everything is someone else's fault. No-one accepts responsibility for their own actions any more, however stupid those actions are. It is leading to increasingly restrictive legislation and in some instances corporate and state 'nannying', and an ever-growing level of paperwork designed to keep the ambulance-chaser lawyers at bay. How is it in the rest of the world?"

So - is it just the UK afflicted with this blame culture? Is it right? Or should Darwin's Theory of Evolution be allowed to take effect and reduce the number of stupid people in the world?



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[SacreBleu]

Another thought...if the dog-owner, sleazeball as he is, is required by the Court(s) of our fine country to pay $45k, he could be motivated to commit a crime to obtain money. IMHO, a time in jail would be a better deterrent. After all, even shoplifters are jailed.

 

[ewh]

UcfSE,
I have to disagree with you regarding not being punished for something you didn't do. There is a case going on right now here in San Antonio regarding a grandmother who ignored the fact that her grandchild was being starved to death. She was aware of what was going on, but chose not to do anything. The child died in her custody on Christmas day. Dollars to donuts she gets time for what she "didn't do".
I do agree that no cat is worth a $45,000 punishment, though I am a cat lover, and my cats are priceless to me. He should be punished though, for what he "didn't do". It can be turned around to "what he did" which is chose to ignore the problem, which was an obvious danger to the public.

 

[IRstuff]

Law is not about tit for tat, otherwise, "eye for an eye" would be sufficient. The obvious logical conclusion would be to allow the lady to personally, or by proxy, stomp the dog to death. My OPINION is that would have been a much more satisfying outcome AND would provide a permanent deterrence, at least for that particular canine.

As the others ahve already stated, the value of the cat is irrelevant, the issues at hand is the negligence of the owner and callous disregard. Had the victim been a child, the owner would have been prosecuted for those two specific crimes, since he is not technically liable for manslaughter. For negligence and callous disregard, I think the fine was insufficient and likewise, I think he should have gotten jailtime.

TTFN

 

[UcfSE]

This is funny. What I meant was for typical cases where punishing someone for what he or she didn't doesn't really make sense. For instance, I don't deserve jail time for speeding because someone could have died had they run out in front of me. I shouldn't get punished for a child's death though my dog only stomped a cat. I get punished for speeding or for negligence, animal cruelty or whatever. Punishing someone for not taking care of a child on the other hand, something they didn't do, makes sense in some cases. You also get punished for not doing your homework, even though it's something you didn't do.

If you read the article, the guy served jail time, house arrest and an outrageous fine. Total and complete BS. IMHO

 

[SacreBleu]

UcfSE,
Yes, he suffered all those indignities, but sum total was far less then killing a human. The original dissent centered around the $45k fine, which most of us agree is excessive.

 

[PSE]

I blame our culture for creating a culture of blame.

Regards,

 

[debodine]

Who can we sue for that? I need to contact a lawyer...

 

[ghghghgh]

I guess you could sue the BAR association, but you might have a hard time finding counsel.

 

[SacreBleu]

SolderingGunslinger,

When you used this phrase,

"...some of the most unsavory characters..."

by that, I assume you are referring to the lawyers?

 

[SolderingGunslinger]

In some cases, both the lawyers and their clientelle seemed rather unsavory.

One of the attorneys reminded me of the "Rumpole of the Bailey" charecter...yet another was a rather sad man, never saw him smile. He specialized in the Capital Murder cases. I understand he had something to do with the Charlie Starkweather trial in the late '50s. For nearly thirty years, Mr. Starkweather was the "Last Person to die" in Nebraska's electric chair. When you have so many clients serving life or sitting on death row, I guess you have the right to seem sad all of the time...Never met a Perry Mason type, but I had lunch with one of their investigators once...he reminded me of Archy from the Nero Wolfe novels. Nice guy. He picked up the tab for some first class grub at a Prime steak house. All I needed to do was explain a little RF theory to him. Never did find out why he needed it. Maybe he was working on his HAM license ;-D

I remain,
The Old Soldering Gunslinger

 

[RalphChristie]

Just a question,

If the victim was a child, what would the total award have been if:
the child was from a poor (very poor) family?
the child was from a rich (very rich) family?

the same can be asked about the owner of the cat.

Maybe a little irrelevant, but one rule is to treat others as you want to be treated yourself. In my own life I've changed that rule to treat others as how they would liked to be treated.

Regards
Ralph

 

[techmaximus]

UcfSE (Structural) wrote, “You don't ruin someone's life with a $45k fine over a damn cat. You get another cat, do your time and move on with life.” Look, this guy was fined $45K for repeatedly and negligently failing to properly contain a known vicious dog. The culmination of dog owner’s negligent behavior was the death of a beloved cat. You really need to look at the totality of the situation, the big picture. Besides, this guy probably had homeowners insurance that paid to defend the claim and then paid the claim. The only thing ruined, hopefully, is this idiot’s ability to obtain homeowners insurance.

Techmaximus

 

[UcfSE]

It's still just a damn cat.

 

[techmaximus]

Being the owner of 5 dogs I can certainly empathize with you; however, it’s not just a “damn cat”. This case was about the totality of this particular dog owner’s negligent actions and inactions that led to the damn cat being brutality killed and the subsequent fine. This dog owner was a menace to his neighbors and he got lucky a cat and not a kid was killed.

Techmaximus

 

[UcfSE]

I definitely agree that it was a horrible thing to happen. I was extremely upset when I came home one day to find my own cat dying because he had been shot. I had to put him down myself because he could no longer walk and was dying too slow. I had found him a couple days after the fact. I know what it feels like to lose my friend like that.

$45,000 nevertheless is outrageous and absurd and won't help anyone nor will it bring the cat back. That's no better than being awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars for spilling coffee in your lao in a drive-thru.

 

[IRstuff]

And if you found out that whoever shot your cat was simply randomly firing rounds into the air or into the neighborhood with no regard for what he hit?

And the next time he shot his gun someone gets hurt or killed? Or he then winds up killing your child or your wife? And you didn't think it was worth your while to prosecute him for the first action so he continued unabated?

Would you still think it was just a damned cat?



TTFN

 

[SolderingGunslinger]

Part of the problem is that many people treat each pet differently.

1) Yes, the dog needed to be restrained, however, I have experience with Bull terriers, Stafforsdhire Bull terriers and American Pit Bul Terriers and I can with certainty say that a properly trained dog of any breed can be dangerous, likewise, dog breeds with a "reputation" usually get that rep because of poor ownership.

2) Why is it that, in many municipalities, there are leash laws for Dogs, but not for cats? Why was this poor feline out unattended? In my part of the world, hawks and great horned owls take many "Beloved" pets, as do coyotes, foxes and javelina. Feral or semi domestic cats kill wildlife and often become infected with rabies (hydrophobia...I think it is still called that in some parts of the world). In many parts of the world, a house cat in the great outdoors is a meal waiting to happen for some local carnivor.

3) Yes, the owner of the dog should be fined, and $45-Grand may not be enough. The dog should be taken to animal control and put down in as humane a way as possible. the dogs owner needs some jail time as well and a court order needs to be placed against him prohibiting him from living in a household with any dog breed larger than an 18-inch standard Beagle.

There is blame on both sides of the cat vs dog altercation, however the largest portion of blame falls upon the canine's owner for failure to control a vicious dog.

I remain, a dog lover and dog owner (who's allergic to cats),
The Old Soldering Gunslinger

 

[UcfSE]

Yes, IR, in that light $45k is still absurd. You don't punish people for a crime they didn't commit. There was no way for me to know who or what happened in my case. I only know what it appeared like. If the dog is a danger you take the dog away, not fine the guy some ludicrous sum of money. That does nothing but further the "blame culture" frame of mind.

This is a perfect example of why the blame culture that was the original subject of the thread thrives as it does in this country. Some people have views that mean people need to be severely punished in a civil court rather than letting the law take care of the problem. It seems this dog owner needs to be lynched for not killing a human. I can only imagine the punishment these same people would have in store for a person brought in for DUI, a much more dangerous crime imho. Let's just do one better: all crimes are now punishable by death. That would stop everything right in its tracks. All fines are now a minimum of $100k. That will make those dangerous parking violations go away. I wouldn't want a car parked in front of a fire hydrant to block the hose and cause countless deaths and destruction of property. Those people should have their car seized. Rather than the fine, jail time, which he had also, and seizure of the dangerous animal that the law stipulates this idiot has to pay a fine that is more than many people make in a year, and to what end? It does nothing to solve the problem at hand except to bloat the courts and feed lawyers. As long as you have someone to blame and make an example of, however, it seems that many people will be much happier.

 

[IRstuff]

It's that specific attitude that allows people license to misbehave. Once people get the message, and they used to, 100 yrs ago, that misbehavior is not tolerated, they don't misbehave, as often, it nothing else.

We have more policemen per capita than every before. The difference was that communities, rightly or wrongly, would self-police and punish wrongdoers with shunning, banishment, wearing of scarlet letters, etc.

While I'm not necessarily advocating returning to the Victorian or Puritan Ages, misbehavior was simply not tolerated back then. I believe that the lack of social controls allow for the situation I personally witnessed on the road yesterday with two cars behind me duking it with finger flips and feints with 3000 lb vehicles over real or perceived torts. These people and the dog owner are never going to get the message that THEIR behavior is completely unacceptable. Getting rid of the dog will simply mean that the that owner will get a new one, identical to the old dog in every respect. Where's the deterrence? With a $45,000 fine, which will most likely be appealed and lowered anyway, the owner a) can't afford a new dog, and b) will certainly think harded about getting another one of the same ilk.

TTFN

 

[UcfSE]

I agree with you to a point. It's not my attitude that allows people license to do bad things but rather it is the freedom of choice we fight for exercise that allows both good and bad decisions to be made by the citizens of our country. I don't believe stiffer punishments really help all that much as you seem to imply. Having murder punishable by death has not prevented murders from happening.

The deterrence needs to be in the law itself and imo should not be in frivolous law suits. If we cut off the hands of thieves would that prevent theft? What if the fine for everything was increased by two orders of magnitude? You sure as hell won't run a red light or flick people off if it costs you your house . If we charge a dog owner $45k for an attack on a non-human that happened while he was out of town, what does that really do? It doesn't make every chow owner say "Hey I better get rid of this danger to soicety." Hey kid, you can't go to college because your daddy owned a chow that killed a cat. While that may deter misbehavior, I for one am not willing to give up my freedom of choice to live in such a locked down cage of a country. At any rate we don't agreee about the extremity of the fine for the dog owner but that's ok. It takes all kinds to make up the world.

Looking at something more important than the death of a poor defenseless kitty kat, if the family of the rape victim could rape the rapist, I think that would be much more of a deterrent than just a couple years of jail time. Just imagine what child molesters would get...