OldPoleBurner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But first off, this should never have been a civil
> action. It should have been heard in a federal
> criminal court; because a very serious federal
> crime was committed - and it wasn't the trespass.
> The trespassing was a mere misdemeanor. I'm
> referring to the very serious felony of deliberate
> and willful negligence, with a wanton disregard
> for public safety which results in injury or
> death. That is different from simple negligence,
> in that it was caused by a deliberate or wilful
> act - not just an oversight or an error in
> judgement. And if there ever was a more obvious
> case of wilful and deliberate than this one.....

NEWS FLASH: A Civil suit can always be filed, outside of any criminal case. Entirely different avenues of law. And there was a criminal case filed, although I do not know by what jurisdiction. If you believe a federal criminal case should have been filed, you are welcome to contact the appropriate agency to ask them about that.

> Second: The skewing of legal common sense that we
> typically see in court is not only because of
> "Hand-Picked juries and judges, but even more so
> because in court, the lenses of reality are
> typically restricted to a very narrow view, of any
> given set facts and circumstances, as you amply
> described. In other words, while we like to say
> that "justice is blind", meaning that justice is
> applied equally to all and is no respecter of
> persons; It has in reality become too blind - not
> always taking into consideration the whole truth
> and all its surrounding circumstance.

You are preaching to the choir.

> Indeed, as a professional who was occasionally
> assigned as a forensic accident investigator, I
> would be called to the witness stand. After
> taking an oath to tell not only the truth, but
> the "Whole Truth"; I would then be forbidden by
> the judge to tell all - allowed only to answer
> within the very narrow scope of a question. So
> much for considering the whole truth - they never
> even heard it!

Well, like you said, some one has to be looking at the big picture. That person will most likely not be a expert witness who is testifying to technicalities rather than as a first person witness to whatever it is that is being alleged.

> Thirdly - you would think that after a few hundred
> years of American Jurisprudence and statute
> lawmaking, that any damage, injury, or death that
> is the result of a felony criminal act such as
> this one, would be judged to be the sole
> responsibility of the felon.

NO, and that is the point. Back to my example of the red light runner. Yes, that person is criminally responsible for the accident. BUT and here is the key, you could have done something, by waiting for him to go through the red light, to prevent the accident.

> The fact is that in
> this case, and most other criminal negligence
> cases as well, if the perp had not committed the
> deliberate wilful act in the first place; then any
> other simple oversight or error by anyone else,
> would have contributed nothing - as there would
> be nothing to contribute to.

True.

> Moreover, as it is,
> this accident would have been just as certain and
> just as severe, no matter what else anyone else
> did or didn't do, or failed at.

NO, and therein lies the problem. Had anyone on that crew refused to go onto the track or bridge, there is a overwhelming chance the resulting accident would have been different or not even occurred. IF the crews of the 2 preceding trains had called the dispatcher and said hey there is a bunch of people and what looks like a film crew near the tracks and bridge, there is a overwhelming chance the resulting accident may have been prevented.


> No alleged omission of any CSX employee could
> possibly have contributed anything whatsoever to
> this accident, neither to its probability nor to
> its severity. Of that I am certain.

Well obviously, the jury felt that the law clearly states you are wrong.

> Hopefully,
> the appeals court, or the US Supreme Court will
> overturn this one - on its face. Not only that,
> but all the plaintiff lawyers and lower court
> judges involved should be censured!

Your assentation that the plaintiff lawyers should be censured is laughable at best. It also shows your lack of understanding of the legal system, since a lawyer is legally bound to represent the best interests of the client. Otherwise by your thinking there would never be a lawyer able to represent a murder defendant where there is clear evidence he pulled the trigger of a gun that struck and killed a person.