Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Exile Revan The mother suing myspace should be arrested for child endangerment. |
Hardly, since her actions didn't endager the child.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Exile Revan The guy who hurt the girl thrown in jail for whatever he did to her. |
Already has been (I won't open up the whole can of worms on jails and their effectiveness).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Exile Revan Myspace has no obligation to protect the users from their own stupidity, that is the users or the parents of the users responsibility. |
In actual fact they do, they may not solicit illegal practices etc., additionally they have a social responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Exile Revan No one has the right to force Myspace to protect children from themselves. |
I'm sure the relevant judicidial system would have a bone to pick with you there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Exile Revan Myspace is completely guiltless in this. The guy and the mother are completely guilty, the daughter just a big ****ing moron, who got what she deserved for being so damn dumb. |
Already well addressed by Dottie.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Exile Revan As for lawyers, any and all lawyers must serve the same sentence as those they represent. And if the case involves money, the government take 80% of the total and the lawyer is only allowed 3% of the winings after government taxes. Screw the people and they will stop suing. Screw the lawyers and they will stop representing. |
The point of a lawyer - to represent their client and seek justice.
Now, if someone has been charged with a crime, surely they deserve to have representation. Unless of course you work on the theory of "if she dies she's innocent, if she lives she's a witch". It is the same for civil cases, if someone feels poorly done by, then they have a right to seek damages, and the other group has a right to defend themselves.
And as for the taking of the money, well that makes absolutely no sense to have someone only receive 17% of their compensation. Then to make it fair you'd have to make the compensation much more, and that would then mean the person couldn't pay, and no one would win.