In my limited potential juror experience, lawyers are always wary of people who know a lot about the actual experiences related to the case because that may not "work" with the legal issues. One should not confuse intelligence and practical involvement with the law.
The goal of the legal system is not to establish the truth. It is an adversarial system to identify winners and losers, so each side tries to tilt the system in their favor. "Truth" is a step-child in this system, and not really a major concern for the system. Maybe it's the best we can do.
Maybe take the humans out of the loop? Have a specialized AI, trained on all available and known laws and facts concerning the case combine the plaintiff, defendent, counsels, jury and judge function! Input the data, wait five seconds, get the decision! Easy peasy! Fair, untainted by reversible errors, as truth-seeking as one could want! If we just must insist on human involvement, we could have a human judge (we have to give them something to do with their idle time) review the criminal and civil suit ones and impose appropriate penalties! In this 'bot new world of Justice poor schmo's like me wouldnt have to be jurors anymore and get back to our jobs or happy retirements! Yay for robots! Further, given the historic Supreme Court replace them too!!
Also, the suit may not have been an open and shut cake-walk for the defendents. Plaintiff's counsel might have argued that the tree service should have had an effective method in place of alerting chainsaw wielding limb cutters that people had entered the work zone and to immediately cease operations until the situation was resolved. Generally the Law is vectored toward protection of the stupid (as well as the innocent.) If a pedestrian strays into your front yard ignoring a 'Keep Out!' sign and steps on a clearly visible upturned rake and bruises or cuts himself, then at suit, the court of jurisdiction may hold the homeowner liable for damages! God and the law watch over idiots....
I have to confess that I sometimes just skim your more scientific articles, but I really enjoyed this one and especially enjoyed the previous one with your turkey oak drawings.
Friends are asking how the case was settled. Any idea?
Nope. No idea.
In my limited potential juror experience, lawyers are always wary of people who know a lot about the actual experiences related to the case because that may not "work" with the legal issues. One should not confuse intelligence and practical involvement with the law.
The goal of the legal system is not to establish the truth. It is an adversarial system to identify winners and losers, so each side tries to tilt the system in their favor. "Truth" is a step-child in this system, and not really a major concern for the system. Maybe it's the best we can do.
Maybe take the humans out of the loop? Have a specialized AI, trained on all available and known laws and facts concerning the case combine the plaintiff, defendent, counsels, jury and judge function! Input the data, wait five seconds, get the decision! Easy peasy! Fair, untainted by reversible errors, as truth-seeking as one could want! If we just must insist on human involvement, we could have a human judge (we have to give them something to do with their idle time) review the criminal and civil suit ones and impose appropriate penalties! In this 'bot new world of Justice poor schmo's like me wouldnt have to be jurors anymore and get back to our jobs or happy retirements! Yay for robots! Further, given the historic Supreme Court replace them too!!
JUST JOKING!
Also, the suit may not have been an open and shut cake-walk for the defendents. Plaintiff's counsel might have argued that the tree service should have had an effective method in place of alerting chainsaw wielding limb cutters that people had entered the work zone and to immediately cease operations until the situation was resolved. Generally the Law is vectored toward protection of the stupid (as well as the innocent.) If a pedestrian strays into your front yard ignoring a 'Keep Out!' sign and steps on a clearly visible upturned rake and bruises or cuts himself, then at suit, the court of jurisdiction may hold the homeowner liable for damages! God and the law watch over idiots....
The suit could have been settled with a Darwin Award.
Nice!
I have to confess that I sometimes just skim your more scientific articles, but I really enjoyed this one and especially enjoyed the previous one with your turkey oak drawings.
Something for everyone, that's the deal!
Unlike your fireplace, justice was not served, but I'm grateful that you shared this great woodcutting memory.