Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raeanna74
Their actions say they were willing to pay the woman's medical bills regardless of how responsible they may have felt for the bills. To me the situation should have been left there and never gone to court.
|
You weren't there when the girls dropped off the cookies. You weren't there to see the woman's reaction. You weren't there when the court was hearing the case.
You should feel free to have your opinions on this matter just as I do - as long as you aknowledge that they're irrelevant.
Quote:
|
The court should not have allowed this woman to railroad the girls and charge them for court costs when she just as well could have gotten the medical bills paid WITHOUT the court costs.
|
I'm not one for speculation but since the seems to be the name of the game, I'll play. Let's assume that these girls weren't the little sweet hearts they claimed to be. Judging by their actions (the delivering of cookies at a "late" hour and the "terrorizing" of an "elderly" woman) shouldn't we assume that these are the same sort of people who wouldn't pay the woman's medical bills? Who's to say the woman went to far? In regards to their character, what do we have to go on?
This is why I suggested we just go along with the decisions of the court.
Quote:
|
It reflects an unforgiving, spiteful, and possibly greedy attitude. Why else would she have taken the girls to court when they were willing to make things right in the first place?
|
I agree, it's certainly a nasty way to go about things but, realistically, the woman didn't do anything more than capitalize on an option the girls left open to her. Two wrongs don't make a right but this situation wouldn't exist were it not for the actions of those girls (and the evident negligence of their parents).
Quote:
|
And INTENTIONS play a large part in our courts. The question of whether harm was INTENDED to a person can mean more to a judgement than what specific harm was done.
|
What about the possibility that the woman was effected exactly in the manner that she claims to have been? It's pretty obvious that the woman has worked pretty hard to facilitate all of this but what if it all went as she said it did? Should she be forced to pay her own medical bills for a situation she did nothing to create?
These circumstances demonstrate the difference between what "feels right" and what is true. Justice doesn't always conincide with our feelings and it's not the job of our court system to decide a ruiling on how a case feels. In the face of the relentless veracity of justice, our opinions and what "feels right" are irrelevant.