Lawsuit - immigrants families sue trailer co

hobbyfarm · Aug 4, 2005

( I heard a rumor that Texas is being annexed by Mexico just the same as some of the larger Texas cities annex smaller towns. I know that this must be true since half the Mexican population is already living in Texas..... The big fish eat the smaller fish ...... )

Junkman,
No, you've got that backwards! TEXAS is going to annex (read - support or subsidize) the rest of Mexico, then we're going to secede from the union!
After all, Mexico is trying to take back the state, but they can't afford it! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

(Mexico does have a BUNCH of petroleum!!)

hobbyfarm · Aug 4, 2005

( Hey, they're not second class citizens, THEY'RE NOT CITIZENS AT ALL! Now I am sure there are some US citizens, naturalized or native, who make their living working in the fields, but if you pull up behind a pick up full of Latinos in Florida and yell "Immigracion!" 9 out of 10 will hit the ground running. )

jeffinsgf,
You also need to get out more.
I've never heard so much stereotype BS in all my days.
The Border Patrol is no longer the jack-booted Nazis they used to be.
They are PC now. If they strike a foreign-exchange student now, they have to ask them if they want to file assault charges on them. Shoot, after they round up the F-E students now, they ride in Air-conditioned comfort to the holding area.

Yelling "la migra" now will no longer make them run; now they'll wait for their three squares in the A/C area of a holding facility, while waiting to be driven back just over the border.
No, the Mexicans don't fear the INS, but those from deeper south, Brazil, Columbia, etc. they will still run!

Junkman · Aug 4, 2005

Possibly a wall around our borders like the Israelis are building around there border to keep out the suicide bombers is the correct answer, although not the PC one......

hobbyfarm · Aug 4, 2005

The real problem here is we need the BP/Customs to quit wasting time in the drug war. The cartels are flooding us with so much contraband, that while BP is running off with a couple of tons of the wacky tobbaccy, the coyotes flood the area with their human cargo while there's a lull in the enforcement.
We are being so full of ourselves trying to get the druggies to quit smuggling.
We need to TAX the heck out of the stuff and use our resources for other things, like jeffinsgf is saying "lock our borders".
Legalization will take the profit out of the druggies pockets. After all, who are we to deny any reasonable form of capitalism.
The drug war these days seems to be more and more about how many law enforcement you can get to handle the job. That sounds suspiciously like an employment issue rather than actual "keeping the streets safe". It's all just numbers!
So quit giving drug control policy a blank check! There are other departments that need the blank check.

BTW, a wall did work for the Chinese also.
OMSBN

twinstackram · Aug 4, 2005

well couldn't some of this with Mexico be blamed on NAFTA?

Like I said earlier I work for Great Dane trailers,and use to be in fabrication,Great Danes are basicly custom made,what ever you want they'll build it,I'm sure they can come up with a immigrant trailer.

dmccarty · Aug 4, 2005

The problem with the McD's coffee was that the coffee was too hot. McD's know it was too hot. They had numerous complaints and lawsuits regarding hot coffee. At about the time the lawsuit took place I bought some coffee at a McD's just sipping the coffee burned my lips and tongue. I waited five minutes and it was still too hot to drink. I had to ask for a cup of ice to cool down the coffee.

I have had numerous coffee makers over the years. NONE of them would burn me like the McD coffee did.

So why did McD's ignore the complaints and previous lawsuits regarding the temperature of the coffee?

Because they had FREE refills. McDs did not want to spend the extra few cents when someone asked for a refill. They wanted to limit their expenses. Period. McDs advertised a "service" and then did what they could to limit its expense to the company even if it cause injury to McD's customers.

What was brought out in the trial is that McDs was trying to limit their expenses, they knew they had problem with the temperature of the coffee from other lawsuits as well as complaints but they left the temperature alone to lower their costs. The jury found the women at fault for opening the coffee the way she did. But they also found fault with McDs. I forgot the percentages of fault.

Later,
Dan

hobbyfarm · Aug 4, 2005

Poor NAFTA is a scapegoat.

Of course next, we'll balme everything on CAFTA!

As I stated before:
These refers are not to have human cargo. PERIOD! There need to be no interior latch for escape. (meats and vegetables do not try to escape)

If we build up the border so that everything HAS to go to a port of entry, and document everything that goes across the border, we will have succeded! Once all is on top of the table, those who are profiting off the selling of human cargo will have a serious dent in their income.
Thus, the tragedy like that that happened in Victoria,TX will quit happening.

Great Dane shouldn't have been the target of (this) lawsuit. I wonder how many lawsuits they get because the trailer let a load spoil (then it becomes Thermo King's problem)?

dos mas centavos mio.

jeffinsgf · Aug 4, 2005

( well couldn't some of this with Mexico be blamed on NAFTA?... )

How about the vast majority? That's an opinion not fact. Seems like "free trade" is only one way, though. It still costs me a fortune and a ton of paperwork to send a product to a customer in Canada -- so much so that I refuse to do business with them anymore. While we're ranting on this subject, does it bug anyone else that our consumer goods in our stores say nothing in three languages now? It used to be that you could read a product package and have a pretty good idea what it was and how it works. Now that they have to do everything in three languages, there's not enough room for a decent description. And the French??? What is the percentage of French Canadians and why does that country let that tiny group force themselves on the whole country --- and now us, too?

hobbyfarm · Aug 4, 2005

Funny,
All this talk of McD's coffee has NOTHING to do with this discussion of the families of victims who were left to die in an almost airtight box in hundred degree heat in TEXAS!!!!!!!!!!!

This tangent of coffee might as well be the discussion of the seasons on MARS!

Likewise the tangent of the illegal aliens. These were human lives that were lost.

PAY ATTENTION:
McD's - coffee b u r n s ! Treat it with Solarcaine and go on.
Air-tight GD trailer left abandonded - k i l l s ! Convict the jerks responsible and move on.

SEE? /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Bird · Aug 4, 2005

( It is illegal for someone under 18 to ride in the bed of a PU )

In some cases, it's legal to have children under 18 in the bed of the truck. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

( § 545.414. RIDING IN OPEN BEDS[0]; OFFENSE. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person operates an open-bed[0] pickup truck[0]
or an open flatbed truck[0] or draws an open flatbed trailer when a
child younger than 18 years of age is occupying the bed[0] of the truck[0]
or trailer.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the person was:
(1) operating or towing the vehicle in a parade or in
an emergency;
(2) operating the vehicle to transport farmworkers
from one field to another field on a farm-to-market road,
ranch-to-market road, or county road outside a municipality;
(3) operating the vehicle on a beach;
(4) operating a vehicle that is the only vehicle owned
or operated by the members of a household; or
(5) operating the vehicle in a hayride permitted by
the governing body of or a law enforcement agency of each county or
municipality in which the hayride will occur.
(d) Compliance or noncompliance with Subsection (a) is not
admissible evidence in a civil trial.
(e) In this section, "household" has the meaning assigned by
Section 71.005, Family Code.

)