Coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef dripping and butter, say US heart experts.
It is packed with saturated fat which can raise "bad" cholesterol, says the American Heart Association in updated advice.
I dont know Patrick, part of the reasoning for her conviction was her "failure to help"
With this conviction on the books it seems to me people can now point to case law to counter cops when they argue they have no duty to help people being victimized
Some Portland police officers, notably those who are members of the LGBTQ community, expressed outrage this week when they received a request from Pride Northwest to consider wearing something other than their police uniforms to march in the Pride Parade on Sunday.
Debra Porta, executive director of parade host Pride Northwest, said Friday the organizers made the request because some members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community "are not open to having conversations with people simply because that uniform is there.''
As the sun prepares to set on the West Coast, I searched back through my Twitter timeline for Saturday and found *zero* mentions of Cosby.
Kinda proud.
Crid
at June 17, 2017 6:04 PM
lujlp: I dont know Patrick, part of the reasoning for her conviction was her "failure to help"
There is no duty to help someone. He was not a minor, and she was not his mother. If you were walking down the beach and see an apparently unattended preschool child who looks like he's about to drown, the law does not require you to intervene. Not even if all you needed to do is wade into the ocean and pluck that child out of the water. You are perfectly within your rights to keep right on walking.
If it's a situation you brought about, even by accident, that's another issue. But she didn't engineer this incident. He did.
The judge, in a bit of a stretch, seems to think that by ordering him back into the truck after he exited it, she became responsible for the situation. That is doubtful, at least.
She wasn't physically present. She didn't force him back into the truck. He was perfectly capable of telling her to get fucked and stay out of the truck.
Don't get me wrong. She's sick and evil. But I suspect she'll win on appeal. We expect a lot from the law, but the law cannot possibly cover ever sick and evil thing that someone might do. So, unless you plan on punishing speech, I don't think there's anything to do in this case.
Patrick
at June 17, 2017 9:25 PM
There is no duty to help someone.
There is now apparently
and see an apparently unattended preschool child who looks like he's about to drown, the law does not require you to intervene.
I recall a case where a woman was sentenced because she failed to try to rescue her boyfriends kid who fell in a river, in Philly I think, but I cant find the link at the moment
I recall a case where a woman was sentenced because she failed to try to rescue her boyfriends kid who fell in a river, in Philly I think, but I cant find the link at the moment
Isab is really the person to answer this, but I believe if a person is in peril due to a situation you effected, whether by accident or design, you do have an obligation to rescue.
If the woman was the one who brought the child to the river in the first place, then yes, she has an obligation to rescue.
But if she were someone who just happened by while the child was drowning, then no, she doesn't.
Since it was her boyfriend's kid, then she probably had a hand in getting that child to the river in the first place.
In the case of Michelle Carter, the judge ruled that the boyfriend had exited the truck on his own, but Carter ordered him back into it. He seems to be implying that by ordering him back into the truck, she moved from innocent bystander to engineer. His reasoning is at least dubious, since she wasn't physically present and could not force him to do anything.
Though the judge has a point, in a way. In the past, when Conrad Roy III had attempted suicide, he was always talked out of it by family and friends. Since he exited the truck on his own, chances are he would have stayed out of the truck had she not been goading him back into it.
Patrick
at June 18, 2017 2:44 AM
"Isab is really the person to answer this, but I believe if a person is in peril due to a situation you effected, whether by accident or design, you do have an obligation to rescue."
Depends on the state. And it depends on whether we are talking about civil or criminal law.
As usual, some of the articles on convictions for these sorts of thing, are so poorly written, it is hard to know the whole story and also determine which statute was violated.
In general there is no legal duty to put your own life at risk to try and save someone else.
But when you have assumed a duty of care, say in a day care, hospital or bodyguard situation that general standard may change.
Encouraging a mentally unstable person to kill himself or to kill another, may be analogous to encouraging a child to run into traffic. You can't necessarily throw up your hands later, and say "the kid did it all on his own".
"In support of their argument Cardiologists Dr Aseem Malhotra, of Lister Hospital, Stevenage, Professor Rita Redberg of UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco (editor of JAMA Internal medicine) and Pascal Meier of University Hospital Geneva and University College London (editor of BMJ Open Heart) cite evidence reviews showing no association between consumption of saturated fat and heightened risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and death"
Lobster
at June 18, 2017 10:26 AM
To be clear, I meant the BBC one is bad, not the BMJ one.
Lobster
at June 18, 2017 10:27 AM
In the case I remember the father kid and new gf were out for a picinic or some such, the father likewise refused to jump in to save the tyke but was given a suspended sentence to testify against his gf
Debra Porta, executive director of parade host Pride Northwest, said Friday the organizers made the request because some members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community "are not open to having conversations with people simply because that uniform is there.''
I would have replied that as the members of the parade do not want cop in uniform there we will respect their decision and are therefore pulling the security detail from the parade
Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.
She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.
The little boy died.
Certainly, her defense attorney argued during her trial for endangering the welfare of a child, his client had a moral obligation to try to save the boy. But, he continued, she did not have a legal one.
The jurors judging Ms. Newkirk's case obviously disagreed when they convicted her in July. Last week, the Hollidaysburg woman was sentenced to up to 18 months in jail.
But legal experts disagree with the verdict.
Instead, they say Ms. Newkirk did not have a "duty of care" to the little boy because she had no special relationship with him.
Her public defender, David Beyer, has vowed to appeal her conviction, arguing that she was not the child's parent or baby sitter, and therefore had no duty to protect him.
On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms. Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his 2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer in Claysburg, Blair County.
While Mr. Reffner worked on the trailer, Ms. Newkirk walked along South Poplar Run Creek.
She told police that Hunter had been with her and almost fell in. At that point, Ms. Newkirk took the boy back to his father, telling Mr. Reffner that Hunter should not be by the water.
A short time later, the toddler rejoined Ms. Newkirk...
(snip)
And, in a 2011 Bratfree thread, I wrote:
Does ANYONE understand why (the court) could jail her for this but (maybe) couldn't jail her for not simply keeping a sharper eye on the kid beforehand? After all, a nearby non-swimming STRANGER who hadn't seen the kid until AFTER the kid fell in wouldn't be blamed for not jumping in, so what's the difference?
lenona
at June 19, 2017 1:30 PM
Here's the 2011 Bratfree thread, if anyone likes. It includes a comment by an EMT. (Lifeguards from more than one country were appalled by the case and wrote in to defend her. No good, sadly.)
paragon schnitzophonic: "I wouldn't be surprised if everything related was purged because this sets a dangerous precedent. Like someone said in the Joe Paterno thread, a kid dies due to its parents' negligence, now bystanders can be punished for not immediately risking their lives to save the brat and the 'parents' get off scot-free because 'they suffered enough?' It takes the 'village' concept to ridiculous levels.
"One thing I read about the Newkirk case is that the idiot father who let his kid die took a f------ plea deal by testifying against Newkirk so he could get out of charges of gross negligence leading to death.
"I wish I were there in that courtroom. Did they bring in emergency response personnel? As a former EMT, I can tell you that one of the first things we were taught is that your own ass comes first, everybody else second. If you see somebody fall in a swollen or raging body of water, YOU DO NOT GO IN. Wait for the Coast Guard. If you go in, all you do is add an extra corpse for them to haul out. Now, if EMTs are taught that, can we really hold a bystander who can't swim responsible? The only person who had a responsibility to risk his ass to save his kid was the father and he failed to do that, despite having already received a warning about his son was wandering too close.
"F---, that case pisses me off."
Nemo: "Per the docket and briefs appended to a table decision on Westlaw, her conviction for child endangerment was affirmed on September 5, 2006, after her defense team tried to argue that the trial court erred in allowing Daddy Dearest not to testify. Gets tricky searching for court docs from Pennsylvania: the Keystone State is less than forthcoming when it comes to first names (or even first initials) for many defendants...."
navi8orgirl NLI: "Well, she would have long since done her time. And I bet she will never, ever date a single duh again (since it was her bf's kid, and he threw her under the bus by copping a plea for reckless endangerment and turning against her to save his own hide.)"
And one New Zealand lifeguard said in 2005:
"Last summer at the beach I noticed a couple of young kids get close to a rip down the beach and mentioned to my wife that I hoped someone was
looking after them. When they got into serious trouble I got up and was going to sprint (albeit slowly) down the beach to help. But as my wife rightly reminded me, I was 63 and not exactly lifeguard material any more. She also reminded me that I've often said that it's stupid and dangerous for someone who isn't capable to attempt a rescue (especially in big surf like there was that day) because they can become another person to rescue. Fortunately, some younger guys who were capable did rescue the kids and return them to their irresponsible parents.
"Frankly, after reading that the father was allowed to plea bargain to a lesser charge, I have to wonder if the District Attorney who
prosecuted this case wasn’t more interested in headlines than justice."
He also said he wrote a letter to the DA once he heard about the case and verdict.
"Bing Crosby epidemiology": @GaryTaubes on veg oil, the American Heart Assoc, and their cherrypicking--to our detriment.
https://twitter.com/amyalkon/status/875947292561293312
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2017 11:24 PM
Everything is under control.
Crid at June 16, 2017 11:55 PM
Moar on the AHA tomfoolery:
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40300145
Sixclaws at June 17, 2017 9:00 AM
Michelle Carter, who, at the age of 17, encouraged her 18-year-old boyfriend Conrad Roy III, is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
This is a dangerous legal precedent. Yes, this girl is sick, cruel, even evil, but her actions were not criminal.
Patrick at June 17, 2017 11:58 AM
Trump Reports Income Of $594 Million, Net Worth Of At Least $1.1 Billion:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-17/trump-reports-income-594-million-net-worth-least-11-billion
Snoopy at June 17, 2017 12:47 PM
I dont know Patrick, part of the reasoning for her conviction was her "failure to help"
With this conviction on the books it seems to me people can now point to case law to counter cops when they argue they have no duty to help people being victimized
lujlp at June 17, 2017 2:01 PM
White House to unveil border wall finalists this summer
https://www.axios.com/white-house-to-announce-border-wall-design-finalists-this-summer-2442727719.html
Snoopy at June 17, 2017 3:39 PM
Debra Porta, executive director of parade host Pride Northwest, said Friday the organizers made the request because some members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community "are not open to having conversations with people simply because that uniform is there.''
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/06/pride_northwest_asks_police_to.html
Sixclaws at June 17, 2017 3:44 PM
As the sun prepares to set on the West Coast, I searched back through my Twitter timeline for Saturday and found *zero* mentions of Cosby.
Kinda proud.
Crid at June 17, 2017 6:04 PM
lujlp: I dont know Patrick, part of the reasoning for her conviction was her "failure to help"
There is no duty to help someone. He was not a minor, and she was not his mother. If you were walking down the beach and see an apparently unattended preschool child who looks like he's about to drown, the law does not require you to intervene. Not even if all you needed to do is wade into the ocean and pluck that child out of the water. You are perfectly within your rights to keep right on walking.
If it's a situation you brought about, even by accident, that's another issue. But she didn't engineer this incident. He did.
The judge, in a bit of a stretch, seems to think that by ordering him back into the truck after he exited it, she became responsible for the situation. That is doubtful, at least.
She wasn't physically present. She didn't force him back into the truck. He was perfectly capable of telling her to get fucked and stay out of the truck.
Don't get me wrong. She's sick and evil. But I suspect she'll win on appeal. We expect a lot from the law, but the law cannot possibly cover ever sick and evil thing that someone might do. So, unless you plan on punishing speech, I don't think there's anything to do in this case.
Patrick at June 17, 2017 9:25 PM
There is no duty to help someone.
There is now apparently
and see an apparently unattended preschool child who looks like he's about to drown, the law does not require you to intervene.
I recall a case where a woman was sentenced because she failed to try to rescue her boyfriends kid who fell in a river, in Philly I think, but I cant find the link at the moment
lujlp at June 17, 2017 11:02 PM
Isab is really the person to answer this, but I believe if a person is in peril due to a situation you effected, whether by accident or design, you do have an obligation to rescue.
If the woman was the one who brought the child to the river in the first place, then yes, she has an obligation to rescue.
But if she were someone who just happened by while the child was drowning, then no, she doesn't.
Since it was her boyfriend's kid, then she probably had a hand in getting that child to the river in the first place.
In the case of Michelle Carter, the judge ruled that the boyfriend had exited the truck on his own, but Carter ordered him back into it. He seems to be implying that by ordering him back into the truck, she moved from innocent bystander to engineer. His reasoning is at least dubious, since she wasn't physically present and could not force him to do anything.
Though the judge has a point, in a way. In the past, when Conrad Roy III had attempted suicide, he was always talked out of it by family and friends. Since he exited the truck on his own, chances are he would have stayed out of the truck had she not been goading him back into it.
Patrick at June 18, 2017 2:44 AM
"Isab is really the person to answer this, but I believe if a person is in peril due to a situation you effected, whether by accident or design, you do have an obligation to rescue."
Depends on the state. And it depends on whether we are talking about civil or criminal law.
As usual, some of the articles on convictions for these sorts of thing, are so poorly written, it is hard to know the whole story and also determine which statute was violated.
In general there is no legal duty to put your own life at risk to try and save someone else.
But when you have assumed a duty of care, say in a day care, hospital or bodyguard situation that general standard may change.
Encouraging a mentally unstable person to kill himself or to kill another, may be analogous to encouraging a child to run into traffic. You can't necessarily throw up your hands later, and say "the kid did it all on his own".
http://juneauempire.com/local/2011-07-16/rachelle-waterman-sentenced-three-years-prison-role-mothers-murder
For an egregious example see the Rachael Waterman case.
Isab at June 18, 2017 7:16 AM
Thanks, Isab.
Patrick at June 18, 2017 9:25 AM
@"Coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef dripping and butter, say US heart experts"
Wow, that article is so bad.
http://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/popular-belief-that-saturated-fats-clog-up-arteries-plain-wrong-say-experts/
"In support of their argument Cardiologists Dr Aseem Malhotra, of Lister Hospital, Stevenage, Professor Rita Redberg of UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco (editor of JAMA Internal medicine) and Pascal Meier of University Hospital Geneva and University College London (editor of BMJ Open Heart) cite evidence reviews showing no association between consumption of saturated fat and heightened risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and death"
Lobster at June 18, 2017 10:26 AM
To be clear, I meant the BBC one is bad, not the BMJ one.
Lobster at June 18, 2017 10:27 AM
In the case I remember the father kid and new gf were out for a picinic or some such, the father likewise refused to jump in to save the tyke but was given a suspended sentence to testify against his gf
lujlp at June 18, 2017 2:11 PM
To be clear, I meant the BBC one is bad
Racist
lujlp at June 18, 2017 2:13 PM
Debra Porta, executive director of parade host Pride Northwest, said Friday the organizers made the request because some members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community "are not open to having conversations with people simply because that uniform is there.''
I would have replied that as the members of the parade do not want cop in uniform there we will respect their decision and are therefore pulling the security detail from the parade
lujlp at June 18, 2017 2:23 PM
Luj, here you go.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm
First third:
Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.
She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.
The little boy died.
Certainly, her defense attorney argued during her trial for endangering the welfare of a child, his client had a moral obligation to try to save the boy. But, he continued, she did not have a legal one.
The jurors judging Ms. Newkirk's case obviously disagreed when they convicted her in July. Last week, the Hollidaysburg woman was sentenced to up to 18 months in jail.
But legal experts disagree with the verdict.
Instead, they say Ms. Newkirk did not have a "duty of care" to the little boy because she had no special relationship with him.
Her public defender, David Beyer, has vowed to appeal her conviction, arguing that she was not the child's parent or baby sitter, and therefore had no duty to protect him.
On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms. Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his 2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer in Claysburg, Blair County.
While Mr. Reffner worked on the trailer, Ms. Newkirk walked along South Poplar Run Creek.
She told police that Hunter had been with her and almost fell in. At that point, Ms. Newkirk took the boy back to his father, telling Mr. Reffner that Hunter should not be by the water.
A short time later, the toddler rejoined Ms. Newkirk...
(snip)
And, in a 2011 Bratfree thread, I wrote:
Does ANYONE understand why (the court) could jail her for this but (maybe) couldn't jail her for not simply keeping a sharper eye on the kid beforehand? After all, a nearby non-swimming STRANGER who hadn't seen the kid until AFTER the kid fell in wouldn't be blamed for not jumping in, so what's the difference?
lenona at June 19, 2017 1:30 PM
Here's the 2011 Bratfree thread, if anyone likes. It includes a comment by an EMT. (Lifeguards from more than one country were appalled by the case and wrote in to defend her. No good, sadly.)
"Does anyone know the final outcome of this criminal case?"
http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,159716
Comments:
paragon schnitzophonic: "I wouldn't be surprised if everything related was purged because this sets a dangerous precedent. Like someone said in the Joe Paterno thread, a kid dies due to its parents' negligence, now bystanders can be punished for not immediately risking their lives to save the brat and the 'parents' get off scot-free because 'they suffered enough?' It takes the 'village' concept to ridiculous levels.
"One thing I read about the Newkirk case is that the idiot father who let his kid die took a f------ plea deal by testifying against Newkirk so he could get out of charges of gross negligence leading to death.
"I wish I were there in that courtroom. Did they bring in emergency response personnel? As a former EMT, I can tell you that one of the first things we were taught is that your own ass comes first, everybody else second. If you see somebody fall in a swollen or raging body of water, YOU DO NOT GO IN. Wait for the Coast Guard. If you go in, all you do is add an extra corpse for them to haul out. Now, if EMTs are taught that, can we really hold a bystander who can't swim responsible? The only person who had a responsibility to risk his ass to save his kid was the father and he failed to do that, despite having already received a warning about his son was wandering too close.
"F---, that case pisses me off."
Nemo: "Per the docket and briefs appended to a table decision on Westlaw, her conviction for child endangerment was affirmed on September 5, 2006, after her defense team tried to argue that the trial court erred in allowing Daddy Dearest not to testify. Gets tricky searching for court docs from Pennsylvania: the Keystone State is less than forthcoming when it comes to first names (or even first initials) for many defendants...."
navi8orgirl NLI: "Well, she would have long since done her time. And I bet she will never, ever date a single duh again (since it was her bf's kid, and he threw her under the bus by copping a plea for reckless endangerment and turning against her to save his own hide.)"
And one New Zealand lifeguard said in 2005:
"Last summer at the beach I noticed a couple of young kids get close to a rip down the beach and mentioned to my wife that I hoped someone was
looking after them. When they got into serious trouble I got up and was going to sprint (albeit slowly) down the beach to help. But as my wife rightly reminded me, I was 63 and not exactly lifeguard material any more. She also reminded me that I've often said that it's stupid and dangerous for someone who isn't capable to attempt a rescue (especially in big surf like there was that day) because they can become another person to rescue. Fortunately, some younger guys who were capable did rescue the kids and return them to their irresponsible parents.
"Frankly, after reading that the father was allowed to plea bargain to a lesser charge, I have to wonder if the District Attorney who
prosecuted this case wasn’t more interested in headlines than justice."
He also said he wrote a letter to the DA once he heard about the case and verdict.
lenona at June 19, 2017 1:35 PM
Leave a comment