• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Widow of IRS (Austin) attack sues widow of pilot

dud said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/24/texas.plane.crash.suit/index.html?hpt=Sbin


Revenge or whatever ... this just seems so wrong. One widow suing another because she should have known her husband was going to fly his plane into a building?

Only the lawyers are going to win ...
Click to expand...

And that widow should have know that being in the IRS the chance of being targeted for stuff like this is higher. And the surviving widow should have told them not to have been standing there.
 
The real terrorists love this.




You know... the lawyers. <rimshot>

<Cheap jokes made at the expense of others. It's The American Way. (tm)
 
Not sure why anyone thinks this is wrong. If a drunk driver hits you and dies, you sue his family.
 
Onita said:
Not sure why anyone thinks this is wrong. If a drunk driver hits you and dies, you sue his family.
Click to expand...

Don't you actually sue his estate?

She is sueing the wife saying the wife should have protected the general public from her husband. Seems a little far fetched to me.
 
Onita said:
Not sure why anyone thinks this is wrong. If a drunk driver hits you and dies, you sue his family.
Click to expand...

You typically sue his estate. Or his insurance company.

This will go nowhere imo. Lawyers imo should not be paid on the complaint side for even bothering to bring such a frivilous suit.
 
dsity said:
so if your wife said she wanted to fly a plane into a building...you would take her seriously? and turn her in?
Click to expand...

I was referring to being an accomplice to a crime. I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure there are laws in place for exactly that.

If I knew my wife was serious about it and had definite plans, I would try to stop her by myself first. But if I cannot, I would turn her in rather than let her murder people.

Isn't that how they catch terrorists? People find out about the plans and turn them in.

If you knew about some terrorists making bombs but did nothing, you would be a criminal by helping them indirectly.
 
why she is sueing i disagree with. unless info comes out saying the wife knew and helped plan it.

BUT its not uncommon or wrong for a victims family to sue the estate of the person who did wrong. Why should the victims family have to pay the hospital bills, funeral bills etc over it?
 
waggy said:
why she is sueing i disagree with. unless info comes out saying the wife knew and helped plan it.

BUT its not uncommon or wrong for a victims family to sue the estate of the person who did wrong. Why should the victims family have to pay the hospital bills, funeral bills etc over it?
Click to expand...

Estate yes, family no. Unless they are somehow directly involved and negligent of course.
 
Lotheron said:
Estate yes, family no. Unless they are somehow directly involved and negligent of course.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this. Just because the Wife left the guy alone the day before doesn't mean she had any idea that he was going to do what he did. It wouldn't be the first time a Wife took the children away from a Father, so that's not an indication that the dude was going to go out and kill some random person the next day.
 
waggy said:
why she is sueing i disagree with. unless info comes out saying the wife knew and helped plan it.

BUT its not uncommon or wrong for a victims family to sue the estate of the person who did wrong. Why should the victims family have to pay the hospital bills, funeral bills etc over it?
Click to expand...

Right. If the guy wasn't married, then this woman would probably be suing his estate. But communal property wouldn't be part of the estate, so she can't get the guy's money by suing the estate, which is why they came up with this stretch of the imagination to sue the widow.

The widow of the victim should be compensated, but the other widow is a victim too and shouldn't be paying for this. Unfortunately the two halves of that sentence can't be reconciled with each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top