That's why I said pot calling the kettle black. Same for him. Even more so now that post # 378 said , she wanted to get married and he didn't.Uh? Your view is that it's immoral to have children unless you're married? And you're aware that he was involved too, right?
Yeah. I can't argue with you there. I have had guns which don't end up cocked if a round is chambered while the safety is on - but I haven't personally handled the type of gun from this case so that may or may not apply. Regardless, as others have stated earlier in this thread, I think there were about a hundred points in time where someone should have stopped and said, "wait, it really a good idea to do this?"
Yeah. I imagine she's fired a few rounds for fun and had a pic taken (by her partner who later gave it to the media?). I really doubt she knew how to use it. Anyway, it's a different kind of weapon altogether. He was giving her very basic instruction, if you can cal it that.
(*See the Murdaugh thread on the front page of this subforum.)No, the corollary would be a police officer physically picking someone too drunk to consent up and putting them behind the wheel of a car. In that case, the officer would be criminally culpable and the person would have committed no offence.
OR you last name is (allegedly) Murdaugh and you live in South Carolina.
When the alleged suspect has money or is adjacent to money, as Ms. Hartin is, laws can get really sketchy and blurry. It's maddening, imo.
IMO the legal status of their union is very relevant. A) because it affects how much money Jemmott's family can get by suing her for wrongful death: Can they make a claim on her partner, the hotels, or even the billionaire father-in-law? B) In the ultimate luxury hotel business, any suggestion of drunken shootings of policemen and late-night shenanigans by drug taking 'lifestyle directors' cause potential clients to flee. IMO, the investors in the new hotel are likely livid and assembling their own legal teams to get their money back plus all the profits that have have vanished with this death.
I have to add this one I just read about today, this woman shot her pastor husband 5 times, she was a pretty good shot, she fired 7 times, 2 and then a pause before firing 5 more, he was at their their back screen door, she thought he was a burglar or something. No charges.OR you last name is (allegedly) Murdaugh and you live in South Carolina.
When the alleged suspect has money or is adjacent to money, as Ms. Hartin is, laws can get really sketchy and blurry. It's maddening, imo.
I'm very aware (!) of WS rules on victim-blaming, so I'll be careful how I phrase this post. I'll stick to the facts. Here, the victim is generally taken to be Jemmott. But who is he the victim of? Virtually all, or actually all, of the culpability lies with Jemmott and the Belizean Police Department. That's how compensation should be played out, and likely will I think. Jemmot was drunk and possibly high, and, according to what appear to be undisputed reports, gave his weapon to a drunk and high person to muck about with. I am not sure if we know about toxicology reports, but if he had cocaine in this blood, and, even worse, if it turns out he supplied it (we don't know either yet), then he committed astonishingly grave crimes which, for serving police officer, would have led to potentially life imprisonment in most jurisdictions. He put a member of the public, regardless of her status as a friend, at enormous risk. The police department, meanwhile, was aware that he was off work for, reportedly, the psychological effects of his break-up with his wife, and that he had been stopped by cops for being very drunk in charge of a vehicle earlier that day. They were also aware of the extremely dubious company kept in the form of the friend who'd shared his suite (reportedly). He was rather obviously a crisis waiting to explode into a meta-crisis. Yet they felt it appropriate that he should remain armed. This, too, seems extraordinarily dysfunctional and certainly makes them culpable too. Meanwhile, Hartin may (again, we don't know yet) have been too drunk or high to consent to anything. In which case, the corollary is that of a drunk/high US cop handing his weapon to a woman unable to consent and encouraging her to muck about with it. The scale of his and the PD's culpability is so enormous, and a woman's ability to consent such an important legal principle, that it is quite possible she has committed no offence at all. In which case, Hartin is the victim. She's certainly the victim of the post-match coverage; it all looks misogynistic in the extreme. Hartin is either the innocent victim, or at the very most is the unfortunate foil who happened to be there when the bomb exploded.
Yeah. A useful way to see it is if she'd accidentally shot herself in the face. Who would we blame for that? Imagine it happening in the US? Imagine it being your daughter, drunk and incapable of giving consent, handed a weapon, and possibly supplied with cocaine to get her in the state she was in, by a drunk and high 300lb cop? Imagine the NYPD knew he was drunk and depressed, and hanging around with people who'd killed their neighbours, and decided administratively Jemmott was good to go with his weapon? Although we don't yet know, this could very well be the scenario. No, the BPD is going to have to fork out a large amount in compensation to the family, but guess what? It'll be reduced by half or more because (assuming a scenario like above) Jemmott will be considered largely culpable himself. Hartin's lawyers should definitely be stressing now drunk she was, suggesting the cop supplied the cocaine, how she was unable to consent and encouraging her to plead Not Guilty. That way, by the way, there'll be a full trial which brings all of this out. Otherwise, it'll be covered up. The whole BPD needs sacked at the top (why in God's name is Jemmott's police-officer sister allowed to put out statements against Hartin when it's sub-judice?) the whole force needs fixed from top to bottom. Media's all about a young blonde, a capable billionaire and his useless son, when it should be about the gross culpability of the Belizean Police Department.
I don't think that's how the law actually operates, though, ie an abstract system of perfect fairness and equity, regardless of circumstance. I think the individual circumstances of the actual incident make a huge difference, because it's fairness in terms of who is harmed that people care about.
V interesting, Satchie. Thanks: v much food for thought.
Well stated!
