Affidavit says pool president knew of safety law

hmmm wrote:

get the facts first... there is so much more to the story.... The Lionetti family are good people... and are always looking for ways to improve and help their customers.

Sharpshooter wrote:

<quoted text>
If the affidavit did not state the facts, what are the facts? I'm just copying and pasting from the article. I'm sure the family is upstanding but when I was brought up it was well know that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I'm sure any judge reviewing the case will consider that as well.

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not that black and white.
Manslaughter cases may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of:
1. Provocation.
2. Mutual combat.
3. Resistance to public officers, etc.
4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act.
5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
I will imagine either 4 or 5 will apply. But in case 4, the prosecution will have to prove "unlawful and wanton". In case 5, the prosecution will probably argue that the act was performed with lawful authority since the pool inspector signed off on it.
As more facts are revealed, the picture will become clearer. But if an affidavit from a chief competitor is the prosecutions only evidence, the case is not sounding too strong since the credibility and motive of the witness can always be questioned, thus casting a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury.

Judged:

1

greenwich resident wrote:

it's on the shoreline web site that CT state law requires the vacuum pump disabler. That appears to me to represent awareness of the law.

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not that black and white.
Manslaughter cases may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of:
1. Provocation.
2. Mutual combat.
3. Resistance to public officers, etc.
4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act.
5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
I will imagine either 4 or 5 will apply. But in case 4, the prosecution will have to prove "unlawful and wanton". In case 5, the prosecution will probably argue that the act was performed with lawful authority since the pool inspector signed off on it.
As more facts are revealed, the picture will become clearer. But if an affidavit from a chief competitor is the prosecutions only evidence, the case is not sounding too strong since the credibility and motive of the witness can always be questioned, thus casting a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury.

Judged:

1

1

chosen1 wrote:

drown him and call it even

Judged:

1

chosen1 wrote:

drown him and call it even

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Welcome to the 19th century. Perhaps some day you'd like to join us in the 21st century.

chosen1 wrote:

drown him and call it even

Sharpshooter wrote:

The affidavit quotes Lionetti's attorney as saying Shoreline Pools was not aware that a state law passed in 2003 and effective in 2004 required the device.
Since when did 'ignorance of the law' provide the basis of a not guilty plea?

Sharpshooter wrote:

<quoted text>
If the affidavit did not state the facts, what are the facts? I'm just copying and pasting from the article. I'm sure the family is upstanding but when I was brought up it was well know that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I'm sure any judge reviewing the case will consider that as well.

chosen1 wrote:

<quoted text>dont agree with the death penalty?maybe u should take care of those people.this guy knew of the situation and choose to look the other way ,pay back's a bitch

Proud Mamma wrote:

<quoted text>
I would consider having your entire business burn down to the ground and being arrested for Manslaughter, drowning.
Your statement is not even funny.

chosen1 wrote:

<quoted text>dont agree with the death penalty?maybe u should take care of those people.this guy knew of the situation and choose to look the other way ,pay back's a bitch