I agree with Emii and nerd, Hopefully something will go through another court and they will be able to use the reasoning of the case to bring the law closer to Australia's in that matter.
Children under ten do not have the mental capacity to understand the implications and/or consequences of their own actions.
I don't really agree with that. My sister and cousins know when they do things that are very wrong. I'd say someone younger than 5 won't really know the difference, and even that is debatable.
Words
Words
That
That
Kill
Kill
Disclaimer: Personal Opinions ARE endorsed by Filetrekker.
I don't really agree with that. My sister and cousins know when they do things that are very wrong. I'd say someone younger than 5 won't really know the difference, and even that is debatable.
I was speaking in general. The law for minors in Australia is that children under ten do not have the mental capacity, thus trying to sue them or charge them is virtually impossible in Australia. I didn't say that all children under ten don't understand what they're doing when they're doing something wrong. I didn't say that they didn't understand the consequences and implications. But the majority of children under ten cannot understand that. Plus, it all depends on their life experience. If they've been taught from an incredibly young age what is right, what is wrong and what could happen if they do certain things, that's different. But in the eyes of the law, children under ten cannot be criminally responsible for their own actions, therefore any lawsuits against a minor must be against the minor's parents instead.
"Death by irony is always painful." ~ Lady Lara Croft, Tomb Raider
WHen I heard about it I tohught it had to be some stunt or a joke, it's simply pathetic. (young) kids can't quite graph/forsee all the consequences of their actions or behaviour. Hence why in many countries they can't be held responsible (=trialed) below a certain age (say 10-12 years), and/or to a limited amount aslong as they aren't considered adults yet. In these cases the parents of the child would be "resposible" and would have to pay for damages caused etc. Although unless the parents told the kid to go and cross the street in the manner that she did, the parent's can't be held responsible for the accident either. It was an unfortunate accident and it's as simple as that... not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisissuit3
I can see it now...
"Where were you on the night of the 15th at exactly 2:34 PM?"
"Goo ga gee WHEEEEE HEEHEEHEE!"
"A likely story, You mean to tell me that you never struck this women with a bicycle?"
It wasn't a rhetorical question. I drew no conclusion from your statement, I simply inquired about something to get a clearer image of what the hell you're talking about. I misunderstood your post when I read it initially, which I perceived as you stating that all elderlies should be confined to a nursing home, not just this woman.
Of course not. I never said ALL elderly people should be put in nursing homes. Just her. Let's also consider the fact that she died of unrelated causes 3 months later. Obviously she wasn't in the prime of health.
"You can kill my body, but you can't kill my soul. My soul will live forever!"
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
General Yib-Yab (Off Topic) 
Re: 4-year-olds can be sued 
Linear Mode
