Tree service owner indicted in death

[MikeD74T]

Gemini, Limiting the truth, what about the whole truth and nothing but the truth? That oath does not also apply to officers of the court?

I also have respect for good lawyers and arbitrators as long as they are advocating in good faith. Despite being on opposite sides it's possible that both are acting in good faith. However as secretary of our union local for 3 years I also saw my share of management's lawyers, not trial laywers, try to weasel out of contract language they insisted on only months before. For every page of contract we've got 3-4 pages of contract negotiation notes. I agree absolutely with your position on telling the truth because it's the easiest thing to remember. The problem comes when the realization hits that your truth, your conscious belief, turns out to be false.( i.e. the earth is not flat despite what you've known to be true all your life in say, Kansas) That only makes you a liar if you knew your "truth" to be false at the utterance. I'd hate to be one of the very few jurors that convicted someone that was ultimately legitimately proven innocent because the truth or fact they relied on wasn't either. I'd feel manipulated by the system.

I'd like to see the tree cutting credentials of the DA in the above case. If it was shown that he had no clue about standard tree cutting practice, and is intentionally remaining uninformed, would his indictment contain any truth? Note that the indictment doesn't say that everybody in the tree cutting business does business any differently just that alternate methods were not used and implying that they were never used by this crew.

I would think declaring and proving the company owner negligent would be easier than proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was willfully & forcefully keeping his workers in harm's way. To me that's the difference between simply trying to right a wrong and grandstanding. MikeD74T

 

[gemini5362]

Gemini, Limiting the truth, what about the whole truth and nothing but the truth? That oath does not also apply to officers of the court?

I also have respect for good lawyers and arbitrators as long as they are advocating in good faith. Despite being on opposite sides it's possible that both are acting in good faith. However as secretary of our union local for 3 years I also saw my share of management's lawyers, not trial laywers, try to weasel out of contract language they insisted on only months before. For every page of contract we've got 3-4 pages of contract negotiation notes. I agree absolutely with your position on telling the truth because it's the easiest thing to remember. The problem comes when the realization hits that your truth, your conscious belief, turns out to be false.( i.e. the earth is not flat despite what you've known to be true all your life in say, Kansas) That only makes you a liar if you knew your "truth" to be false at the utterance. I'd hate to be one of the very few jurors that convicted someone that was ultimately legitimately proven innocent because the truth or fact they relied on wasn't either. I'd feel manipulated by the system.

I'd like to see the tree cutting credentials of the DA in the above case. If it was shown that he had no clue about standard tree cutting practice, and is intentionally remaining uninformed, would his indictment contain any truth? Note that the indictment doesn't say that everybody in the tree cutting business does business any differently just that alternate methods were not used and implying that they were never used by this crew.

I would think declaring and proving the company owner negligent would be easier than proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was willfully & forcefully keeping his workers in harm's way. To me that's the difference between simply trying to right a wrong and grandstanding. MikeD74T

Mike you are absolutely right what I believe to be true may be totally false. I would not be lieing though if I was not aware that it was false. I would never want someone to tell everything they knew that was true sometimes that can shade the arbitrators view into thinking you are lieing. If someone had a problem with drinking and had managed to cure there problem but wa fired from work because a supervisor thought he had smelled alcohol on the workers breath. There is the possibility that someone else was near that had been drinking, there is the possibility that the manager imagined that. all kinds of excuses if the employee had actually not ben drinking but the manager said he had. If the employee had not been drinking alcohol at all I still would not want them to get up on the witness stand and say I know I wasnt drinking because I used to be a drunk but I stopped. If they were asked I would have them answer yes but sure would not want them to admit it up front. Of course that would all depend on if the other side knew they had a previous drinking problem. All the variables that get into play and all the while the employee is telling the truth just what truth gets told and when makes a world of difference.

 

[rox]

Same with these guys who did a good, fast, and cheap job of removing an old weeping willow tree for me in Oct. 2005.

Bird,
I ahve that same style pole saw. Basically a small chainsaw at the end of a long pole, mine is a Stihl. I really really like it. I feel safe using it and am already far away from the branch I am cutting via the long pole. i read on TBN where one poster said it was the most dangerous tool there is, but i think it is the safest. Mine een has an extra extension, I bet it ust go 20-25ft. long. Maybe that is to long but anyway a good long distance.

 

[patrick_g]

Limiting the truth, what about the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I would think declaring and proving the company owner negligent would be easier than proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was willfully & forcefully keeping his workers in harm's way. MikeD74T

Mike, Truth? OK lets examine some truth. Although "beyond a shadow of a doubt is an oft heard phrase it has no legal standing and causes much confusion among the laity.

In court, proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt is the criteria of interest (in criminal trials.) Confusing the two is not infrequent but sure causes problems for the self proclaimed legal "experts" and those with whom they deal.

In civil litigation a tort may carry with just the preponderance of evidence.

No, I am NOT a lawyer and haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn for at least 10 years BUT I watched a couple Perry Mason reruns fairly recently.

Pat

 

[patrick_g]

I ahve that same style pole saw. Basically a small chainsaw at the end of a long pole, mine is a Stihl. I really really like it. I feel safe using it and am already far away from the branch I am cutting via the long pole.

rox, I have the Remington electric telescoping pole chain saw. It is lighter than the gas chain saw on the pole (and way cheaper) but is super aggressive and cuts well. It is a handful when working overhead. Safety is good when working well to the side of the limbs falling path but I seem to end up under a branch standing on tiptoe and have to be ready to get out of the way when it falls. I guess there is a trade off between my light weight and the hassle that ensues if I drop a big limb on my extension cord. I power it from a generator in the truck bed and often stand in the bed to get more height. Your EXTRA extensions sound interesting.With something like that maybe I wouldn't have to be under limbs being cut quite so often.

Pat