2 dead & 6 injured as teens take after hours sled ride down Winsport bobsleigh track

[Buck Murdock]

I have no legal background, but it seems logical that COP can/should be sued. Having a fence and some signs around a multi million dollar death trap doesn't seem sufficient, and the unfortunate scenario that took place is not inconceivable, I'm sure its been discussed before. Not having a more effective method for keeping people out seems like it would be negligent on their part IMO.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I don't think it would be a matter of COP trying to "press charges". Isn't that a US versus Canada thing. Doesn't the crown make the determination on their own?

You are right, I'm just thinking that for something like trespassing you'd need a land owner to file a complaint. Or at the very least co-operate with the charges. If the landowner doesn't show up in court to testify that the trespasser didn't have permission to be there, the case would be dismissed.

[Ashasx]

I fail to see how a 7 foot fence, multiple warning signs, and 24/7 security is not sufficient.

[burn_this_city]

Businesses aren't obligated to save people from themselves.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

Having a fence and some signs around a multi million dollar death trap doesn't seem sufficient

Overly dramatic much?

[FlamesAddiction]

A 7' fence doesn't seem that high really considering the potential danger on the other side. I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be a lawsuit, but it's not much of an obstacle.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A 7' fence doesn't seem that high really considering the potential danger on the other side. I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be a lawsuit, but it's not much of an obstacle.

Whether it was a 5, 7, or 9 foot fence, if these kids wanted in, it wasn't going to stop them.

It seems that some people want a non-profit organization to create an impenetrable fortress around their facilities. That is not reasonable.

[Swarly]

Lets just get mexico to pay for the fence

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by chemgear

If anything, the fact that they were not charged would only increase the chance they try to sue perhaps? Not saying that they would or want to, but everything else being equal . . .

CPS's phrasing makes it abundantly clear that these kids were not charged only because of what they went through, not because they didn't do anything wrong. I don't see how what amounts to little more than compassionate amnesty by the Crown changes the odds of a lawsuit.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A 7' fence doesn't seem that high really considering the potential danger on the other side. I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be a lawsuit, but it's not much of an obstacle.

I think though that it is (or should be) the thought that counts. The thought being "we put a pretty big obstacle in front of you and clearly we don't want you in here, so stay out". How tall can the fence be?

The fact that a couple of them had actually worked there, maybe it didn't matter what kind of fence they had around the place. They probably knew full well the easiest place to get in.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

I have no legal background, but it seems logical that COP can/should be sued. Having a fence and some signs around a multi million dollar death trap doesn't seem sufficient, and the unfortunate scenario that took place is not inconceivable, I'm sure its been discussed before. Not having a more effective method for keeping people out seems like it would be negligent on their part IMO.

As soon as they have the labeling or signs and fence it is pretty much sufficient, there's a barrier and a warning.

You are never going to be able to completely secure an area from someone that wants to break in, unless you call in German security experts, install non lethal minefields and have it patrolled 24 hours a day by guards with 200 pound steroid enraged German Shepard.

I tend to think that if the COP got sued for this and lost it would set an incredibly dangerous precident that if you commit a criminal act such as b+E that the home or property owner is responsible for the criminal.

Therefore instead of stealing stuff, I would merely have to break in, do a quick health and safety inspection and then intentionally break a leg or an arm. I could literally sue for hundreds of thousands or millions if I'm smart which is probably easier then stealing the equivalent value is computers, TV's or other personal property.

[rain_e]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A 7' fence doesn't seem that high really considering the potential danger on the other side.

At what height do you feel a fence proves its purpose?

[Weitz]

I think if the familys sue they will lose any public support they have right now. They might also take that into consideration.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I think if the familys sue they will lose any public support they have right now. They might also take that into consideration.

What? Why?

What is public support giving them? Sorrow?

People won't feel sympathy for them if they sue?

I hope they don't have a case, but I really don't understand why the public support is needed. The familiars aren't the teachers union trying to get a new contract.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by takinghits

I can't fathom how any parent can claim COP was negligent. The suing business should remain an american thing.

Don't kid yourself.

Canada, and Alberta are very litigious.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Whether it was a 5, 7, or 9 foot fence, if these kids wanted in, it wasn't going to stop them.

It seems that some people want a non-profit organization to create an impenetrable fortress around their facilities. That is not reasonable.

Is it a non-profit organization?

I honestly don't know.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Whether it was a 5, 7, or 9 foot fence, if these kids wanted in, it wasn't going to stop them.

It seems that some people want a non-profit organization to create an impenetrable fortress around their facilities. That is not reasonable.

You might be surprised to learn how much some employees of non-profit organizations actually make.

I have no opinion on whether 7' high is "high enough" to create a realistic obstacle to keep people out. It's certainly high enough to prevent people from wandering on to the property. But it's low enough that it still seems kind of half-assed to me.

Maybe a barrier wall like you see residential neighbourhoods put up when they are adjacent to the highway would be better. It's not like the technology isn't there.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A 7' fence doesn't seem that high really considering the potential danger on the other side. I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be a lawsuit, but it's not much of an obstacle.

So what do you want? A 5 meter fence that generates lawsuits when people fall off it?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Im surprised there are no charges. I see the sympathetic or compassionate angle but people often get injured or killed when committing crimes.
White kids from middle class families? This could be a different outcome if it was colored kids from the north east.

Did we just time travel fifty years into the past?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe a barrier wall like you see residential neighbourhoods put up when they are adjacent to the highway would be better. It's not like the technology isn't there.

What is the cost of such a wall compared to chain link? It has to be way more.