Ducati Monster Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
yeah, he and his pr*ck lawyers argued that he was
on official congressional business while he was drunk
and murdered an innocent rider. its time we
took this country back from the rat bag politicians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,755 Posts
This is BS!

In the military, when you're involved in an "incident," they perform a "line of duty determination." It's a thorough investigation of the circumstances in which they assess whether you were acting "in the line of duty" when the incident occurred. Things like taking off without proper leave would invalidate line of duty status. So would blatantly and deliberately breaking a law that contributed to the incident.

I don't see why it's any different for a Congressman. Yes, he was "on duty" in that he was commuting home from an event at which he was acting in an official capacity. BUT, he was willfully breaking the law at the time. Seems to be lawyers/politicians taking care of their own rather than a real iron-clad immunity.

A court challange to this ruling could reverse the decision. Let's hope.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
>he was on official congressional business<

So what? he was drunk while in charge and killed another person. Unless of course there is one rule for them and another for the rest of us like they used to have in Russia.

"All citizens are equal but some are more equal than others"
 
G

·
Not to defend the guy... but I don't believe alchohol was involved in his fatal crash. He claimed to been impaired by diabetes and said he hadn't eaten for like 18 hours contradicting statements made at the scene.
What is even worse than this many States, cities ,and municipalities claim sovereign immunity and have no liability at all for their employees. If a City of Atlanta dump truck runs over you don't expect any compensation. They won't even pay for the damage.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
551 Posts
just an update - scotts family is going to have to sue the gov't now. No money out of janklows pocket - the federal judge did indead rule that he was acting as a congressman when he killed scott.

"A federal judge ruled that Janklow was working as a congressman when he sped past a stop sign in a Cadillac at a rural South Dakota intersection and killed Scott, of Hardwick, Minnesota, in August 2003. The lawyer representing the Scott family in a wrongful death lawsuit against Janklow said recently that he won't challenge the ruling.

That means federal taxpayers would pay any monetary award the Scott family might get. The Scott family had wanted the case tried in state court so they could seek punitive damages as well as an award for wrongful death, but now will withdraw the suit against Janklow and file a claim against the federal government.

Janklow is protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which shields federal workers from negligence claims for actions that happen while they are working. "

full link
http://www.amadirectlink.com/news/2004/janklowdamages.asp
 
G

·
and I still say poo poo to all the Harley F*** heads that went to Sturgis this year... :-\
A complete boycott might not have been fair to some but it would have sent a message
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
seriously..even the police have to slow down at stops signs and lights when they have their lights and sirens going. do they do it because they are not immune to traffic laws at that time? no, they do it because they don't want to kill anyone or themselves. and if they do hit someone, they get in trouble. nevermind they were trying to get somewhere to protect someone else or stop a crime....they still get in trouble. and now this jackarse is getting off without having to pay for his stupidity? did he have a lightbar flashing or a police escort? i don't think he did or would even qualify for one. another example of people trying to shirk responsibility for their own actions.
who's up for taking a ride to his house and protesting by engine roar? :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
514 Posts
KnightofNi said:
seriously..even the police have to slow down at stops signs and lights when they have their lights and sirens going. do they do it because they are not immune to traffic laws at that time?

and if they do hit someone, they get in trouble. nevermind they were trying to get somewhere to protect someone else or stop a crime....they still get in trouble. and now this jackarse is getting off without having to pay for his stupidity?
You're not going to find me defending this asshat, but, while the outcome seems unfair (to me as well), a bit of perspective is needed from the posts I've read in this thread.

1.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top