Supreme Court rules in favor of Job Creators

[Engineer]

So are you arguing against statue of limitations? There is a reason we put them into pace. If your argument is that the limitations should be longer thats one thing, but you seem to be arguing against the idea of limitations.

Can you please clarify?

Ok, If I agree to that, should there also be the same limits on crimes committed by people? If I kill someone in NC, should I get the same 'get out of jail card' that this business gets (after the same time frame) because my crime is much harder to go to trial because of age, loss of evidence, etc?

If not, why not?

 

[Matt1970]

Ok, If I agree to that, should there also be the same limits on crimes committed by people? If I kill someone in NC, should I get the same 'get out of jail card' that this business gets (after the same time frame) because my crime is much harder to go to trial because of age, loss of evidence, etc?

If not, why not?

There are but murder is not one of them.

 

[Engineer]

There are but murder is not one of them.

Ok. If the 'crime' committed by the company causes someone to die, especially at an early age, after the statute of limitations, then what?

Oh, and why should murder be excluded? Shouldn't they all have the same limitations since, as brad stated, the evidence is older, possibly to the point of being wrong, and not as credible as it once was?

 

[Zaap]

Manufacturers can innovate and manufacture till they turn blue in the face, if it isn't something the consumers want, then it won't sell. Lord know late night TV is riddled with "innovations" that without never have any demand. Even with lightbulbs. If GE decided they only wanted to sell 500 watt bulbs, another manufacturer would come along offering what the people want and guess who's item would sell.

All of this is cart before horse stuff.

No one is making things for people who can't afford to buy anything. Guess what most people need before they can buy anything someone else makes? (Or are you going to pay for someone else's product/service/time with rainbows and unicorn farts?)

Claiming the desire to consume is the *starting* point of job creation is just the most simple-minded bullshit. Everyone on the planet wants to consume shit. People aren't sitting around with no jobs for the lack of wanting things... that's just an idiotic position that's so easily disproven its ridiculous.

Demand is the human norm. Every newborn infant demands to be fed and nurtured and consumes from minute one. If the desire to consume really was the catylist of job creation, hell, jobs would be raining from the skies everywhere and there'd be no such thing as poverty.

Clearly SUPPLY is a fuck of a lot harder than the demand side.

Anyway, mentioning TV is fiting. Only people sitting around in the relative luxury of the first world watching a string of useless shit being touted on latenight infomercials could possibly even imagine that wanting to consume shit is the catylist of job creation. Every other wretched human condition on the planet exposes that as the absolute spoiled horseshit that it is.

 

[Fern]

Ok, If I agree to that, should there also be the same limits on crimes committed by people? If I kill someone in NC, should I get the same 'get out of jail card' that this business gets (after the same time frame) because my crime is much harder to go to trial because of age, loss of evidence, etc?

If not, why not?

NC has no SOL for many crimes. Murder is obvious, but, e.g., rape also has no SOL.

I think the difference is that with serious crimes the states wants you to always be looking over your back. It's a deterrent factor knowing that you can always be caught and punished, no matter how much time has passed.

OTOH, damages caused to property may be accidental. I.e., the people responsible for them likely did not do it intentionally (unlike murder and rape).

A bank, an investor or otherwise a lender of sorts (supplier) will often demand proof that you have no outstanding claims before lending or otherwise entering into contractual obligations (this is a standard part of a financial audit). If there is no SOL for property damage etc then there can never be any assurances. In addition, many parties hurt by late filed claims had nothing to do with the original act. E.g., I buy a business from a guy who is retiring. 20 years later (after his death) I find out about some old claim and I'm forced to pay even though I had nothing to do with it.

Also there is the subject of remediation. If some problem is caught the damage could be remedied at significantly less cost than if allowed to fester for years and years. I suspect that the legislators believe the damaged party has at least some responsibility to discover the problem rather than through inaction/irresponsibility let it fester until the cost is enormous.

In this case it seems that the victims/damaged party could not have known. I.e., in this case the law is faulty, but I have never seen a perfect law.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Right, like I can't go anywhere in the world and find droves of people who want to consume things... and no jobs. And nothing to consume.

Keep.dreaming that just your desire to consume things automagically creates jobs... that's a real moron's pasttime.

Slave owners were job creators too.

Capitalism requires markets. Supply and demand. Given that all you do here is troll with clueless insults, it really doesn't surprise me that you don't know how this works.

 

[Vic]

What's the extent of the lawsuit? Considering it says "property owners," "damage to property," and, "property claims," I'm guessing this suit was only for property devaluation and that this isn't covering criminal liability or personal injury. If that's the extent, it's a pretty big yawn and explains why it's nowhere near a 5-4.

Fuck homeowners' property rights, don't you know you're standing in the way of jobs?

 

[brycejones]

That's bad legislation, not the fault of the SCOTUS, NC law is very clear that it's 10 years from the time of the incident, not when people find out about it. That needs to be fixed in the law.

Odds that is actually going to happen? What a draw for industry here. Cover up your crap long enough and you can skate.

 

[Zaap]

*something even dumber than the last post*

And right on cue, a real moron's moron spews more meaningless drivel.

 

[realibrad]

Ok, If I agree to that, should there also be the same limits on crimes committed by people? If I kill someone in NC, should I get the same 'get out of jail card' that this business gets (after the same time frame) because my crime is much harder to go to trial because of age, loss of evidence, etc?

If not, why not?

I would enjoy the debate on the cost vs benefit of limitation laws, but I first wanted the person to clarify. I could not tell if they did not like what happened in this case, or did not like limitation laws.

Things like murder are so egregious that there isint and in my opinion shouldnt be a limit. Things like theft should have limitations, but honestly, I'm not sure of the time frame. I'm sure I could come up with a baseline to start with, but I think I answered you direct question.

 

[Engineer]

I would enjoy the debate on the cost vs benefit of limitation laws, but I first wanted the person to clarify. I could not tell if they did not like what happened in this case, or did not like limitation laws.

Things like murder are so egregious that there isint and in my opinion shouldnt be a limit. Things like theft should have limitations, but honestly, I'm not sure of the time frame. I'm sure I could come up with a baseline to start with, but I think I answered you direct question.

If someone dies from what a company does and it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the company caused it AND, the statute of limitations has already passed, then what?

 

[realibrad]

If someone dies from what a company does and it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the company caused it AND, the statute of limitations has already passed, then what?

I personally don't feel in that scenario there should not be limitations. If there is evidence that is that concrete and its tied to someones death, then limitations if there, should be waved. If its tied to someones testimony I would say no. I think that if someone dies, through murder or manslaughter, then limitations should be waved, unless there is a reason I cant think of.

Now, if you are asking if this should be uniformly followed, I cant say. I'm old enough to know that scenarios come up where a hard line rule breaks down.

 

[Vic]

And right on cue, a real moron's moron spews more meaningless drivel.

How do you manage to post with your hands and lips perpetually wrapped around your masters' cocks?

 

[realibrad]

How do you manage to post with your hands and lips perpetually wrapped around your masters' cocks?

 

[Thebobo]

Well now