Saturday, September 5, 2009

Scapegoating Father Prevails with Biased Jury

Father wanted the apology to absolve his son of the responsibility for the suicide. Nothing will change the determination to die his son showed from childhood. If I were the gun owner, I would have countersued for the pain from having someone steal my gun and blast himself in my home. The suicider had no permission to take the gun. This verdict rewards a crime, theft.

"Following his son Brian’s suicide, Joseph Montes just wanted the boy’s stepfather to publish an apology as a warning to other people who keep guns in the house where they rear children.

While his request was clearly personal, the Baltimore scientist also viewed it as a public service that would “hit home.”

“That’s it,” Montes said last week, his face shaking. “That’s it.”

But Frank Eisler wouldn’t do it. He didn’t think the 16-year-old’s
death — from a 9mm shot to the head in the early morning of April 11, 2005 — was his fault.

So Montes sued. And after a year and a half of litigation, including a contentious three-day jury trial that ended Friday in Baltimore City Circuit Court, he won: $50,000 and a public assignment of blame to the man he believes could have done more to save his troubled son. "


The Truth said...

I am the person you so reckless refer in the blog as "scapegoating." I find your thinking offensive and your language devoid of any insightful underpinning. To what extent is a mentally ill child responsible for his actions? Don't civilized people have an obligation to protect children? You called me an offensive name. Can I call you one now? You are a knee-jerk fanatic. My main purpose in the law suit was to educate sociopaths and others without a conscience (could that be you?) about what could happen to them for their uncaring and calloused behavior and gun worship. You cannot appeal to these morons with reasoning or facts. They simply resort to the endless litany of cliche garbage, such as "Guns don't kill people, people do". Oh, yeah? Guns facilitate murder and suicide and anyone with any understanding of the issue knows that most people who commit suicide with a gun would not be likely to seek an alternative-- a gun makes it possible to transcend the human instincts to live. Let me rehabilitate the language: "Gun's don't kill people. They help people kill people." Got it? My son was only 16. I suppose we should let him vote and drink alcohol, right? There is a reason why we have laws preventing minors from voting in elections. Biologists and psychologists will tell you that they have not attained full adult functioning when still minors. Furthermore, my son was mentally ill, while his gun-toting stepfather hated him. Sounds like an invitation to psycho abuse and manipulation, doesn't it? All I wanted to do is impress upon this man that he had a responsibility, not only to my son, but me as a parent, and thus to set an example for others. Did you know that I repeatedly warned that household to secure guns since my child was only 7 years old? Are you so devoid of reasoning that you would say that it is acceptable for a stepfather to place his metallic testosterone killing tools at the disposal of a mentally ill child? If that is the case, I hope your kind of stupidity doesn't cost yet another person his or her life. Just because some lawyers abuse the law doesn't mean that everything with the word "suicide" should evoke from you a brainless knee-jerk reflex. I would wonder who you are working for. Another favorite defense is "I was only trying to protect my family." "Good job," I should thus praise the anti-intellectual Defendant in the case. But where is my son? The world lost a brilliant scientist and musician, while you, Mr. Defendant, are a good-for-nothing leech living off tax payers, while you claim a "physical diability" that is exaggerated beyond all decency, as your unfettered perambulations throughout the courthouse clearly demonstrated.

Suicide Malpractice said...

Truth: You make my point better than I did. You are angry and filled with the lust for vengeance. This verdict did not help anyone, not you, it seems, not your son, not a single future suicider.

Because this is the mental state of most plaintiffs, these lawsuits should be dismissed for their improper motive. The aim of tort litigation is to make the victim whole by money damages. It is not to carry the vengeful aims of the plaintiff. In this case, the favorable verdict achieved nothing other than plunder to enrich lawyers.