Jump to content

Spirit Airways Pilot and Wife, dead of suspected drug overdose


Guest

Recommended Posts

I am always leery of those who use their own personal moral high ground as a reason to end any debate.

I work in the US quite a bit and it's much more prevalent there than in Canada but Canadians are certainly not immune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:50 AM, Malcolm said:

Not sure where you are going with that quote but here is more on the subject of infant mortality. The US is shown with a rate of 6 and we are shown with a rate of 5, but the UAE which has universal health care is at a dreadfull 11. So I guess it is not universal health care that should be used as a criteria but rather the quality of care. 

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=29

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare
Country Start Date of Universal Health Care System Type
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer

 

 

You can argue the minutia, however, it was an example that overall, countries with universal health care generally tend to have healthier populations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, deicer said:

You can argue the minutia, however, it was an example that overall, countries with universal health care generally tend to have healthier populations.

 

Deicer, you are the one who quoted on the subject of infant mortality so I am somewhat confused with your rapid backing away from the subject. Is it perhaps because your source was not entirely accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not backing away, still holding by the fact that countries with universal health care tend to be healthier.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#61a3fdd2576f

It's fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn't support that view.

Perhaps the biggest single takeaway was this one:

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund "Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Upperdeck, the only difference I care about is one in which a lawyer continues to represent a client who has told the lawyer that they are guilty of the crime and then the lawyer continues to defend them as being not guilty. Black and white in my eyes. I do not believe being drunk etc is justification for a lawyer to continue to plead his client as being not guilty but rather that the lawyer should have the client plead guilty and then work to have any penalty reduced. 

Sorry but you don't get it. A person who stabs another who dies as a result may be charged with a capital offence. By reason of diminished capacity resulting from intoxication, they may be not guilty of the offence charged but guilty of the lesser included offence of manslaughter. How foolish to suggest that a lawyer should counsel the client to plead guilty to a capital offense when the charge is defensible.

One...you apparently know very little about the law and have no interest in being informed and....two.....fortunately, your "beliefs" are irrelevant to the administration of justice in our country.

Perhaps more importantly....none of that is going to affect my enjoyment of life today one iota!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge of the law, perhaps not. A strong sense of right vs wrong instead.  And none of what you say will affect my enjoyment of the life I lead today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Malcolm

The US is shown with a rate of 6 and we are shown with a rate of 5, but the UAE which has universal health care is at a dreadfull 11. So I guess it is not universal health care that should be used as a criteria but rather the quality of care.

As far as I know, the UAE has an excellent health care system. The high rate of infant mortality there is mostly due to cultural, environmental and other factors, but not the quality of care available.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"only if the rescue put the EMS at risk.  Same applies to those who leave a safe area to go off into restricted ski areas. Rescue should be only attempted for those folk if the rescuer is not placed into risk by attempting the rescue."

I presume you meant to say; only if the rescue 'doesn't' put the EMS at risk.

Anyway, I fully appreciate the sentiment you've expressed in the restricted ski area example and generally agree, but a 'caring society' does after all have some obligation to protect the idiots too, no?

Should we deny the EMS the option to risk life & limb to rescue the dog that fell through the ice, or just abandon the critter and leave it to fate? What about the climber that falls into a crevice; do we allow a daring helicopter rescue to be undertaken? And on and on we could go ...

Like I said, I don't know if we can reasonably expect to get more in the way of a pound of flesh from the offender for his idiotic behaviour than time in jail and fines for misbehaving?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Zan Vetter

I have always felt the US health care system represented the very best available anywhere in the world and at any price. Being the program was designed, & implemented decades ago, it was in desperate need of a major modernization effort, but not complete replacement.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Knowledge of the law, perhaps not. A strong sense of right vs wrong instead.  And none of what you say will affect my enjoyment of the life I lead today.

Hum, Malcolm,

Who decides what is right and what is wrong?  Or more to the point, what is wrong and what is even more wrong?  The scale of righteousness, on top of being a slippery bugger, is far from being a binary issue.  There is so much more than being right or wrong, and extenuating circumstances must be considered.

A man beats another man in a bar and the man dies: is he guilty?

The dead man turns out to have,  looked cross at the other man's girlfriend / pushed him / provoked the first man / started the fight / been with a gang of equally unfriendly member..

Please circle the correct answer.

Here, you pretending that you have a strong sense of right and wrong only means that you KNOW what is right and KNOW what is wrong and everybody should abide by that.  Maybe you should apply to be a Supreme Court Judge....  ;)

Felix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Say Again, Over! said:

Hum, Malcolm,

Who decides what is right and what is wrong?  Or more to the point, what is wrong and what is even more wrong?  The scale of righteousness, on top of being a slippery bugger, is far from being a binary issue.  There is so much more than being right or wrong, and extenuating circumstances must be considered.

A man beats another man in a bar and the man dies: is he guilty?

The dead man turns out to have,  looked cross at the other man's girlfriend / pushed him / provoked the first man / started the fight / been with a gang of equally unfriendly member..

Please circle the correct answer.

Here, you pretending that you have a strong sense of right and wrong only means that you KNOW what is right and KNOW what is wrong and everybody should abide by that.  Maybe you should apply to be a Supreme Court Judge....  ;)

Felix

Felix, never was a lawyer so not qualified. But you are questioning my vision of right vs wrong but at the same time I guess accepting that put forth by Upperdeck. You attack me by saying

Quote

Here, you pretending that you have a strong sense of right and wrong only means that you KNOW what is right and KNOW what is wrong and everybody should abide by that. 

I know what I think is right and wrong ( not pretending at all) but no where do I say that everyone should abide by my version.  To clarify, if a person does something that is wrong the fact is that he / she committed a "wrong" and that is not changed by any mitigating factors that might allow the courts to moderate any punishment, the "wrong is still a WRONG":head:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malcolm, if you're ever looking to get out of a jury duty assignment, then I recommend you reiterate your very narrow views during the jury voir dire process. You're guaranteed to be excluded by both the defense and the prosecutor, both of whom understand the concept of a proper defense for all who are accused of a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.O. said:

Malcolm, if you're ever looking to get out of a jury duty assignment, then I recommend you reiterate your very narrow views during the jury voir dire process. You're guaranteed to be excluded by both the defense and the prosecutor, both of whom understand the concept of a proper defense for all who are accused of a crime.

J.O. this all started our by my statement that a Lawyer if told by his client that they are guilty, should either so inform the courts and then attempt to moderate the sentence. I do not believe they should continue to plead their client as being not guilty and if their client insists that the plea should continue to be not guilty, despite telling the lawyer that they are indeed guilty, then the lawyer should step away from the case.  

Here is a quote from an article on the subject: When the Lawyer Knows the Client is Guilty: Legal Ethics, and Popular Culture 
 
Michael Asimow  March  2006 
 
 The question of what a criminal defense lawyer should do when the lawyer knows for certain that the client is guilty of the crime has bedeviled legal ethics for as long as that subject has existed.  This talk is a shorter version of a paper Richard Weisberg will publish on the subject. 
 
 

Quote

i. Perjury: The problem of what the lawyer should do when the client insists on committing perjury in direct testimony rarely comes up in practice because criminal defense lawyers take care not to elicit a client’s confession, so they don’t know for sure the client will be lying..  
 
 Withdrawal from representation does not solve the problem. The Canadian rule, for example, states that “if the client persists in such a course, the lawyer should ... withdraw or seek leave of the court to do so.” [Ch IX, comm. 11; Ch. XII comm. 4 treats this situation as obligatory withdrawal]  If the lawyer is a public defender or other appointed counsel, as is true in the vast majority of cases, he or she will probably not be allowed to withdraw. A judge may refuse to allow withdrawal during the trial. Even if the lawyer withdraws, the client will now be wised up and will lie to the new lawyer, so little is accomplished except for salving the conscience of the withdrawing lawyer. Alternatively, the client can delay matters indefinitely by forcing sequential withdrawals of lawyer after lawyer.  
 

Source: www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf

And lastly a quote from: http://www.advocates.ca/    http://www.advocates.ca/assets/files/pdf/bibliography/Duty_to_Court.pdf

perjury.jpg.314f65001a6617e14fd4be164245f386.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Everything said in this thread simply confirms that Canada does not have a "Justice" system, but a "Legal" system.

Sad but true.

Sharia Law is a 'Justice System'.  I would prefer a legal system, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be the basis for a plea bargain.  The prosecution will try to convict on the first charge.  It is up to the defence lawyer to say Ok we will plead guilty to a lesser charge thus reducing the penalty for his client.  This is NOT pleading not guilty to the first charge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn! I was going to call it quits but......

Malcolm......if you go back in my statements, you will find reference to my comment in the case where a client tells his lawyer ; "I killed John but I want to take the stand and testify that I was somewhere else at the time of his death." In that situation, the lawyer should withdraw BUT......you don't usually get advance notice and the Court will not allow you to withdraw at the court house steps on the eve of trial. If you put the accused client on the stand and question him so as to elicit the testimony you know to be false, you are yourself committing an offence. And so....if your accused client insists on testifying, you call the client to the stand and invite him to give his evidence. You do NOT question the witness. Now then....if you do that, everyone and his brother will know why; they will know the accused is lying. When I was confronted with this situation ( one time), I explained this process to the client. He changed his mind about testifying.

 

That is an entirely different situation than one where a client describes an event that has resulted in charges and the lawyer embarks on an a legal and factual analysis to determine whether the charges are well-founded; evidence properly obtained; other relevant factors considered...etc etc.It is NOT the function of a lawyer to act as judge and jury!

Consider briefly the Ghomishi case. He was charged with sexual assault. Assume he told his lawyer that he had in fact choked the alleged victim. The lawyer did not respond "Well, then. You're guilty and if that is not how you intend to plead, I won't represent you." The lawyer inquired into the facts and learned that the accused believed he had consent to that physical contact. Ultimately, a thorough and vigorous defence established at least a possibility that the alleged victim was in fact using the process to punish the accused for failing to reciprocate her affections. He was acquitted.

I am reasonably confident that the Taliban and members of ISIL and other fundamentalists are certain in their "opinion" of right and wrong. They are essentially "absolutists" unwilling to accept as viable the opinions of other sects of the same faith.

I'm not sure there is ever only one "right" way ( or "wrong" ). There are guide posts....a general direction.....which is perhaps why we speak of a " moral compass" or lament how one may have " lost his way". We are on a journey; following an ill-defined pathway and you and I will hopefully both arrive at the same destination one or both of us bearing the scars left by the obstacles we encountered as we occasionally took the " road less travelled".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2017 at 2:30 PM, johnny dangerous said:

You may not have any sympathy for the person here who was likely in the grip of an illness, but there must be something powerful at work if the company he worked for had a policy that a positive random drug test was cause for dismissal yet the person still chose to use.

 

Addiction results in a physically altered brain. Just as in the case of mental illness, addiction is not a morality issue. It is a medical issue and should be treated as such.

And if the person goes to jail they quit using drugs cold turkey, no methadone, no sympathy. I am all for treating addiction, but not encouraging it with low barrier shelters, safe injection sites etc. Would you give a loaded pistol to somebody to play Russian roulette, that is about the same thing. Incarcerate, involuntarily if needed, and get them off the drug/substance that is ruining their lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...