[BC] KDND Verdict

[Jeff Carter]

Once again, I'm not judging, and I freely admit again that I am the
one out of step with the times.  I've been in court more than once
with someone who was trying to steal from me under color of
jurisprudence, so I am keenly aware of the issues.  I can only hope
that justice is eventually served here through the appellate process.

Yes, just as you posit, ignorance of the medico-physiological issues
is no excuse.  The jocks weren't signing the waiver, the contestant
was.  The onus was on the contestant, who could just as easily done
the research you're suggesting.

To say that in the age of Google and other simple information searches
that a free person could not avail herself of the data is nonsensical,
largely because that is likely the source that the jocks would have
consulted had the onus been on them.

The issue you raise is competence.  If the decedent was not competent
to sign that waiver as a free citizen, then neither are you, and
neither am I.  I can't concede that point and if you think about it,
neither can you.

I demand the right to decide for myself what I will and will not risk,
and for what I will and will not accept liability.  I will not be
second-guessed by anybody, not a Superior Court judge and not the
President of the United States.  If I am wrong, and I accepted
liability, and it's literally my ass, then so be it.

The contestant acted as a free citizen, and made bad choices.  We can
not get into the business of cleaning up bad choices, it's the bailout
mentality at work on a finer and finer scale.  How far should we go in
protecting people?  Where is the line where the obligation to protect
them interferes with their freedom of choice?  Are we going to bail
out everybody?  If so, how?

This court decision said in effect that a free citizen is not
competent to accept liability, and that the government will make that
determination after the fact from now on.  It's bad law and
antithetical to the concept of freedom of choice and action.  I'm
sorry the contestant is dead, but I respect the contestant's right to
choose as I would have felt her to be bound to accept my choices once
she'd seen my signature on the waiver.

It really is that simple.  Personal responsibility means personal
responsibility, and you're a true believer or you are not.  That, too,
is a choice.  We have to decide for ourselves if it's a valid concept
even when it goes against what we'd like, and that is the true test in
whether or not you truly believe in something.

Jeff/KD4RBG

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Jerry Mathis <thebeaver32 at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I tend to hop onto the Personal Responsiblilty bandwagon, I would also
> point out that not everybody might know that drinking too much water at one
> time could be hazardous to your life. While the law generally says that
> "ignorance of the law is no excuse", is ignorance of medical/physiological
> facts?
>
> I think the jocks (and the station) in this case ARE liable, on two counts:
> First, they should have RESEARCHED in advance the effects of drinking too
> much water; and second, they WERE warned. Someone said that the warning came
> from someone who was not PROVEN to be a nurse, but consider: The person
> calling had NOTHING to gain by warning them. They should have listened.
>
> --
> Jerry Mathis
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Jeff Carter
> <broadcast at hidden-valley.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm missing something here.
>>
>> Were the contestants somehow restrained?  While the idea is stupid,
>> just like everything else on the radio for the last twenty years, I'm
>> not seeing how the station kept her from walking away and as a result
>> how they're culpable.
>>
>> On the surface, this looks like another blow to the concept of
>> personal responsibility.
>>
>> Jeff/KD4RBG
>>
>
>