Discussion:
"ER" sets Alex Kingston return date
(too old to reply)
David
2008-12-29 23:47:06 UTC
Permalink
from tv guide

Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich

The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.

Over the holidays, an airdate was set for Alex Kingston's return to ER
as Dr. Mark Greene's widow.

Kingston, whose original ER run spanned seven seasons (from 1997 to
2004), will resurface in the Jan. 15 episode, when Neela goes in for
an attending interview and is surprised to run into Dr. Corday.

"I've been gone five years but it seems like yesterday," Kingston said
in an interview when her return first was announced. "It'll be great
to see everyone again."

Kingston's is the latest encore confirmed for ER's final season. Most
recently, Anthony Edwards appeared as Mark (albeit in cleverly
reconstructed flashbacks revolving around Angela Basset's Dr. Cate
Banfield). Also expected back during the long-running medical drama's
final months are Noah Wyle and Eriq La Salle (though only as a
director).

ER's series finale is set for March 12.
RichA
2008-12-30 00:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
Ken from Chicago
2008-12-31 10:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?

-- Ken from Chicago
Rob Jensen
2008-12-31 16:06:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)

-- Rob
Alison Dubois
2008-12-31 17:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
Rob Jensen
2008-12-31 21:34:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:27:38 -0500, Alison Dubois
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
Well, Greene's younger child is also a girl.

-- Rob
Hunter
2009-01-03 23:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
--
----->Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-04 04:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.

If the drugs weren't around the baby would not have consumed them.

Corday was right to be peeved.

If it were my child that left drugs around and a baby consumed them
i'd want the child charged with manslaughter/attempted manslaughter.

Accident isn't the way i'd describe it.
Barry Margolin
2009-01-04 07:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens". While
that's true of many accidents (it's definition #2 in my dictionary),
many accidents are the result of someone making a mistake -- consider
that many car accidents are due to people driving too fast, talking on
their cellphones, not checking their blind spot, etc.
Post by G***@NBA.com
If the drugs weren't around the baby would not have consumed them.
Corday was right to be peeved.
If it were my child that left drugs around and a baby consumed them
i'd want the child charged with manslaughter/attempted manslaughter.
IANAL, but my guess would be reckless endangerment. Manslaughter
requires intent to harm, although not the level of malice required for
murder.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Accident isn't the way i'd describe it.
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Ken from Chicago
2009-01-04 08:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens". While
that's true of many accidents (it's definition #2 in my dictionary),
many accidents are the result of someone making a mistake -- consider
that many car accidents are due to people driving too fast, talking on
their cellphones, not checking their blind spot, etc.
Post by G***@NBA.com
If the drugs weren't around the baby would not have consumed them.
Corday was right to be peeved.
If it were my child that left drugs around and a baby consumed them
i'd want the child charged with manslaughter/attempted manslaughter.
IANAL, but my guess would be reckless endangerment. Manslaughter
requires intent to harm, although not the level of malice required for
murder.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Accident isn't the way i'd describe it.
--
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
It was an accident. However there are cases of negligence, leaving a pile of
bricks on the edge of a roof with no safety rail or even a sign to
pedestrians passing below on the front sidewalk. It was an accident but a
foreseeable one.

A mitigating factor is that she was a teen and teens are not always the best
of looking at the long-term view.

However an aggravating factor is that the drug in question was an illegal
drug, ecstasy, which the teen wasn't suppose to have in the first place,
much less around a baby. Then again the teen had been in extended fights
with Corday so she hadn't built up a well of sympathy.

-- Ken from Chicago
Hunter
2009-01-05 00:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens". While
that's true of many accidents (it's definition #2 in my dictionary),
many accidents are the result of someone making a mistake -- consider
that many car accidents are due to people driving too fast, talking on
their cellphones, not checking their blind spot, etc.
Post by G***@NBA.com
If the drugs weren't around the baby would not have consumed them.
Corday was right to be peeved.
If it were my child that left drugs around and a baby consumed them
i'd want the child charged with manslaughter/attempted manslaughter.
IANAL, but my guess would be reckless endangerment. Manslaughter
requires intent to harm, although not the level of malice required for
murder.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Accident isn't the way i'd describe it.
--
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
It was an accident. However there are cases of negligence, leaving a pile of
bricks on the edge of a roof with no safety rail or even a sign to
pedestrians passing below on the front sidewalk. It was an accident but a
foreseeable one.
---
Totally agree. Another one is drunk driving. No intent was there but
he/she was still responsible at a greater level than normal than if
he/she fell asleep at the wheel after a hard day's work.
Post by Ken from Chicago
A mitigating factor is that she was a teen and teens are not always the best
of looking at the long-term view.
---
True, which is why we not only don't grant them the rights of full
adults (at least the ones 17 and younger) we don't punish them as if
they are full adults.
Post by Ken from Chicago
However an aggravating factor is that the drug in question was an illegal
drug, ecstasy, which the teen wasn't suppose to have in the first place,
much less around a baby. Then again the teen had been in extended fights
with Corday so she hadn't built up a well of sympathy.
-- Ken from Chicago
----
I agree that Corday had a right to be pissed. It was a stupid thing
she did. I had some sympathy for Greene's older daughter since that
would be a heavy responsibility for her to be responsible for but
Corday was right. In away it was just like drunk driving. Shewas told
not to do it but did it anyway. It was an accident with no malice
or intent but borne out of something she shouldn't had been doing in
the first place.
--
----->Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Ken from Chicago
2009-01-05 09:44:22 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Hunter
Post by Ken from Chicago
It was an accident. However there are cases of negligence, leaving a pile of
bricks on the edge of a roof with no safety rail or even a sign to
pedestrians passing below on the front sidewalk. It was an accident but a
foreseeable one.
---
Totally agree. Another one is drunk driving. No intent was there but
he/she was still responsible at a greater level than normal than if
he/she fell asleep at the wheel after a hard day's work.
Post by Ken from Chicago
A mitigating factor is that she was a teen and teens are not always the best
of looking at the long-term view.
---
True, which is why we not only don't grant them the rights of full
adults (at least the ones 17 and younger) we don't punish them as if
they are full adults.
Post by Ken from Chicago
However an aggravating factor is that the drug in question was an illegal
drug, ecstasy, which the teen wasn't suppose to have in the first place,
much less around a baby. Then again the teen had been in extended fights
with Corday so she hadn't built up a well of sympathy.
-- Ken from Chicago
----
I agree that Corday had a right to be pissed. It was a stupid thing
she did. I had some sympathy for Greene's older daughter since that
would be a heavy responsibility for her to be responsible for but
Corday was right. In away it was just like drunk driving. Shewas told
not to do it but did it anyway. It was an accident with no malice
or intent but borne out of something she shouldn't had been doing in
the first place.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Last night's 60 MINUTES had prosecutor charging drunk drivers with murder or
depraved indifference because so many people keep getting behind the wheel
drunk and killing people. Again, it's an accident in that the drunk driver
didn't mean to cause a crash, much less kill anyone, but they are still
being blamed.

-- Ken from Chicago
Hunter
2009-01-05 12:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken from Chicago
<snip>
Post by Hunter
Post by Ken from Chicago
It was an accident. However there are cases of negligence, leaving a pile of
bricks on the edge of a roof with no safety rail or even a sign to
pedestrians passing below on the front sidewalk. It was an accident but a
foreseeable one.
---
Totally agree. Another one is drunk driving. No intent was there but
he/she was still responsible at a greater level than normal than if
he/she fell asleep at the wheel after a hard day's work.
Post by Ken from Chicago
A mitigating factor is that she was a teen and teens are not always the best
of looking at the long-term view.
---
True, which is why we not only don't grant them the rights of full
adults (at least the ones 17 and younger) we don't punish them as if
they are full adults.
Post by Ken from Chicago
However an aggravating factor is that the drug in question was an illegal
drug, ecstasy, which the teen wasn't suppose to have in the first place,
much less around a baby. Then again the teen had been in extended fights
with Corday so she hadn't built up a well of sympathy.
-- Ken from Chicago
----
I agree that Corday had a right to be pissed. It was a stupid thing
she did. I had some sympathy for Greene's older daughter since that
would be a heavy responsibility for her to be responsible for but
Corday was right. In away it was just like drunk driving. Shewas told
not to do it but did it anyway. It was an accident with no malice
or intent but borne out of something she shouldn't had been doing in
the first place.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Last night's 60 MINUTES had prosecutor charging drunk drivers with murder or
depraved indifference because so many people keep getting behind the wheel
drunk and killing people. Again, it's an accident in that the drunk driver
didn't mean to cause a crash, much less kill anyone, but they are still
being blamed.
-- Ken from Chicago
---
And I tend to agree with that.
--
----->Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-04 14:50:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:19:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens".
An accident is when you're driving down the street and a car
broadsides you. Ingesting drugs a daughter stupidly put near
a child is not an accident.



I'm glad you'd give Greene's daughter an award for
being a great baybysitter. I on the other hand
would not.
Ken from Chicago
2009-01-04 15:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:19:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens".
An accident is when you're driving down the street and a car
broadsides you. Ingesting drugs a daughter stupidly put near
a child is not an accident.
Shirley you're not blaming the baby for ingesting the drugs? While the
daughter is certainly guilty of reckless endangerment or reckless
negligence, clearly the baby's innocent.
Post by G***@NBA.com
I'm glad you'd give Greene's daughter an award for
being a great baybysitter. I on the other hand
would not.
Okay, that we agree on. Clearly the daughter has ... issues.

-- Ken from Chicago
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-04 18:31:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:18:14 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:19:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens".
An accident is when you're driving down the street and a car
broadsides you. Ingesting drugs a daughter stupidly put near
a child is not an accident.
Shirley you're not blaming the baby for ingesting the drugs?
No i'm blaming Greene's daughter for bring them into the house
making it possible for the baby to get at them.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Ken from Chicago
2009-01-04 20:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:18:14 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
<snip>
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Ken from Chicago
Shirley you're not blaming the baby for ingesting the drugs?
No i'm blaming Greene's daughter for bring them into the house
making it possible for the baby to get at them.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
No one's disagreeing about that.

It's just that fact is not mutually exclusive with it being an "accident"
that the baby injested the drugs. The daughter didn't intend for that to
happen--if for no other reason she wanted the drugs for herself. However
she's still liable because if she hadn't brought them in the house the baby
wouldn't have overdosed on them.

You seem to be arguing that calling it an "accident" means no one's at
fault. No, that's not the case, not legally or morally. It's just it's a
mitigating factor in the level of punishment.

Put it this way: Would she be more guilty if she mixed the drugs in the
baby's food and fed it to the baby? No, guilt is a yes or no deal.

However the PUNISHMENT would be far far faaaar greater.

-- Ken from Chicago
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-05 15:36:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:41:04 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
It's just that fact is not mutually exclusive with it being an "accident"
that the baby injested the drugs. The daughter didn't intend for that to
happen--if for no other reason she wanted the drugs for herself.
But she was old enough to foresee the danger and should
have kept the drugs out of the house.


Personally if I was Jack McCoy i'd have charged Rachel with first
degree murder with depraved indifference.

I don't buy that it was an accident. It wes careless, she should
foreseen it.
Barry Margolin
2009-01-05 21:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:41:04 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
It's just that fact is not mutually exclusive with it being an "accident"
that the baby injested the drugs. The daughter didn't intend for that to
happen--if for no other reason she wanted the drugs for herself.
But she was old enough to foresee the danger and should
have kept the drugs out of the house.
Personally if I was Jack McCoy i'd have charged Rachel with first
degree murder with depraved indifference.
Well, Jack McCoy has been known to use convoluted logic and push the
boundaries when trying to find a way to charge someone with murder. If
that's where you learned law from, I can see why you've reached this
conclusion.
Post by G***@NBA.com
I don't buy that it was an accident. It wes careless, she should
foreseen it.
And people living in New Orleans should have foreseen that there could
eventually be a devastating hurricane, and moved somewhere safer. Just
because something is foreseeable doesn't make it expected. Most
accidents are foreseeable. For instance, I predict that I'll eventually
get in a highway accident. I guess i should stop driving, since the
accident is foreseeable.
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-06 00:07:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:02 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
I don't buy that it was an accident. It wes careless, she should
foreseen it.
And people living in New Orleans should have foreseen that there could
eventually be a devastating hurricane, and moved somewhere safer.
And now you're comparing apples and oranges. One has nothing to do
with the other.

Not to mention that not everyone in New Orleans had an SUV in the
garage they cop hop into to get out of the city.


Oh and not to mention not everyone had a few thousand dollars laying
around to use to stay at a hotel once they got out of New Orleans.

But don't let that get in the way of slamming the people in New
Orleans.
Post by Barry Margolin
because something is foreseeable doesn't make it expected. Most
accidents are foreseeable. For instance, I predict that I'll eventually
get in a highway accident. I guess i should stop driving, since the
accident is foreseeable.
Now you're just getting ridiculous. What Greene's daughter did
was not an accident.............it wsa sloppy/careless babysitting.

I've seen enough children over my long lifetime to know that if you
have a baby everything the kid can grab will end up in the kids mouth.

That is an indisputable fact, escecially if the kid is teething.
Mason Barge
2009-01-05 21:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:41:04 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
It's just that fact is not mutually exclusive with it being an "accident"
that the baby injested the drugs. The daughter didn't intend for that to
happen--if for no other reason she wanted the drugs for herself.
But she was old enough to foresee the danger and should
have kept the drugs out of the house.
Personally if I was Jack McCoy i'd have charged Rachel with first
degree murder with depraved indifference.
In the first place, it would be second degree murder in New York. First
degree murder there is reserved for special classes of murder for which the
death penalty applies.

Leaving drugs in a house with a baby is way short of "depraved indifference"
as the term is used at law. In New York, she could possibly escape a murder
conviction even if she gave the baby the drugs, depending on how certain it
was that the drugs would cause death.

Check this out:

https://www.nycourts.gov/cji/2-PenalLaw/120/120-10(3).pdf
Rob Jensen
2009-01-05 22:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
Personally if I was Jack McCoy i'd have charged Rachel with first
degree murder with depraved indifference.
Yeah, well, Jack McCoy is a dick, too. Paradoxically, a
bleeding-heart dick (ewww!), but a dick nevertheless.

-- Rob
Default User
2009-01-06 00:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Jensen
Post by G***@NBA.com
Personally if I was Jack McCoy i'd have charged Rachel with first
degree murder with depraved indifference.
Yeah, well, Jack McCoy is a dick, too. Paradoxically, a
bleeding-heart dick (ewww!), but a dick nevertheless.
Has even he charged someone with murder when the victim didn't die?




Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Ken from Chicago
2009-01-06 11:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Default User
Post by Rob Jensen
Post by G***@NBA.com
Personally if I was Jack McCoy i'd have charged Rachel with first
degree murder with depraved indifference.
Yeah, well, Jack McCoy is a dick, too. Paradoxically, a
bleeding-heart dick (ewww!), but a dick nevertheless.
Has even he charged someone with murder when the victim didn't die?
Brian
There was the time when a DA was under witness protection and her would-be
killers were charged with her murder, but that might have been on SVU or CI.

-- Ken from Chicago
Barry Margolin
2009-01-04 15:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:19:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens".
An accident is when you're driving down the street and a car
broadsides you. Ingesting drugs a daughter stupidly put near
a child is not an accident.
Accident. n. 1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and
unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

That seems to describe what happened quite well. It was unfortunate,
she didn't expect it, she didn't intend it, and it resulted in injury.
Post by G***@NBA.com
I'm glad you'd give Greene's daughter an award for
being a great baybysitter. I on the other hand
would not.
Now you're being ridiculous. I agreed she was careless and stupid, and
that she could be charged with reckless endangerment. That's a far cry
from "great babysitter".

Actually, if the baby had died she possibly could have been charged with
felony manslaughter, since possession of the drugs is illegal.
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-04 18:36:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:22:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:19:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens".
An accident is when you're driving down the street and a car
broadsides you. Ingesting drugs a daughter stupidly put near
a child is not an accident.
Accident. n. 1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and
unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
That means it wasn't an accident. A prudent individual would foresee
that if they left a dangerous drug out that a curious baby would
grab it and ingest it.

That in my book is not an accident, it's neglegience.

The baby doesn't know better, Greene's daughter should have known
better.
Post by Barry Margolin
That seems to describe what happened quite well. It was unfortunate,
she didn't expect it, she didn't intend it, and it resulted in injury.
It's still careless and i'd hold Greene's daughter 100% responsibe.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
I'm glad you'd give Greene's daughter an award for
being a great baybysitter. I on the other hand
would not.
Now you're being ridiculous. I agreed she was careless and stupid, and
that she could be charged with reckless endangerment. That's a far cry
from "great babysitter".
Well you want to give her a pass and call it an accident,
instead of calling it what it really is.........a stupid and
reckless act that almost got the baby killed.
Barry Margolin
2009-01-04 22:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:22:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:19:24 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
Since it wasn't intentional then it was an accident. The *cause* of the
accident was being careless and stupid. It sounds like you think an
accident is something out of your control, that "just happens".
An accident is when you're driving down the street and a car
broadsides you. Ingesting drugs a daughter stupidly put near
a child is not an accident.
Accident. n. 1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and
unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
That means it wasn't an accident. A prudent individual would foresee
that if they left a dangerous drug out that a curious baby would
grab it and ingest it.
It's foreseeable that the baby *could* grab it, but not expected that
she *would*. Especially if you're immature and ignorant of how babies
behave.
Post by G***@NBA.com
That in my book is not an accident, it's neglegience.
They're not mutually exclusive. You can have an accident as a result of
negligence.
Post by G***@NBA.com
The baby doesn't know better, Greene's daughter should have known
better.
No one is disagreeing with this. But that still wouldn't make it
manslaughter. That's why we have charges like negligence and reckless
endangerment.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
That seems to describe what happened quite well. It was unfortunate,
she didn't expect it, she didn't intend it, and it resulted in injury.
It's still careless and i'd hold Greene's daughter 100% responsibe.
Of course it's her fault. She set the conditions that allowed for the
accident to happen. But it was still an accident, almost a tragic one.

If a truck driver doesn't get enough sleep and falls asleep at the
wheel, he can cause an accident that injures or kills a number of other
people. He didn't intend it, and he didn't expect it (he presumably
thought he could stay awake, but he was wrong), so it's a horrible
accident that was caused by his poor judgement.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
I'm glad you'd give Greene's daughter an award for
being a great baybysitter. I on the other hand
would not.
Now you're being ridiculous. I agreed she was careless and stupid, and
that she could be charged with reckless endangerment. That's a far cry
from "great babysitter".
Well you want to give her a pass and call it an accident,
instead of calling it what it really is.........a stupid and
reckless act that almost got the baby killed.
I never gave her a pass. I keep saying things like "reckless
endangerment" and "negligent". You seem to think there's nothing
between murderer and great babysitter. If you were interviewing a
babysitter, would your only question be "have you ever been accused of
trying to kill a baby?" When they answer no, would you just hand over
the kid?
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-05 15:42:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:08:43 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
It's foreseeable that the baby *could* grab it, but not expected that
she *would*. Especially if you're immature and ignorant of how babies
behave.
Baloney. Babies are hard wired to grab for anything in their line
of sight. The best way to keep it out of the reach of the baby
is to keep it out of the house.
Post by Barry Margolin
If a truck driver doesn't get enough sleep and falls asleep at the
wheel, he can cause an accident that injures or kills a number of other
people. He didn't intend it, and he didn't expect it (he presumably
thought he could stay awake, but he was wrong), so it's a horrible
accident that was caused by his poor judgement.
It also may be depraved indifference that led to it, the trucking
company was so determined to keep a schedule that they required the
driver to drive many more hours than is legal, fudge the log book,
speed, drive heavily overloaded, etc.
Post by Barry Margolin
I never gave her a pass.
Calling it an accident implies giving her a pass.

I'd eliminate the use of "accident" in this case.
Barry Margolin
2009-01-05 21:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:08:43 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
It's foreseeable that the baby *could* grab it, but not expected that
she *would*. Especially if you're immature and ignorant of how babies
behave.
Baloney. Babies are hard wired to grab for anything in their line
of sight. The best way to keep it out of the reach of the baby
is to keep it out of the house.
Do you even bother to read what I write? "ignorant of how babies
behave" means you don't know realize that they're "hard wired to grab
for anything".

I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
If a truck driver doesn't get enough sleep and falls asleep at the
wheel, he can cause an accident that injures or kills a number of other
people. He didn't intend it, and he didn't expect it (he presumably
thought he could stay awake, but he was wrong), so it's a horrible
accident that was caused by his poor judgement.
It also may be depraved indifference that led to it, the trucking
company was so determined to keep a schedule that they required the
driver to drive many more hours than is legal, fudge the log book,
speed, drive heavily overloaded, etc.
Post by Barry Margolin
I never gave her a pass.
Calling it an accident implies giving her a pass.
I disagree. Causing an accident through stupidity, neglicence,
indifference, etc. means it's your fault. But it's still not as bad as
harming someone intentionally, which is required for murder or
manslaughter. Intent is an important factor in deciding what someone is
guilty of.
Post by G***@NBA.com
I'd eliminate the use of "accident" in this case.
It sounds like you'd reserve that word only for acts of god, e.g. being
struck by lightning would be an accident. So hardly anything would fit
that word.
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-06 00:12:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:06:05 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:08:43 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
It's foreseeable that the baby *could* grab it, but not expected that
she *would*. Especially if you're immature and ignorant of how babies
behave.
Baloney. Babies are hard wired to grab for anything in their line
of sight. The best way to keep it out of the reach of the baby
is to keep it out of the house.
Do you even bother to read what I write? "ignorant of how babies
behave" means you don't know realize that they're "hard wired to grab
for anything".
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Barry Margolin
2009-01-06 01:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:06:05 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:08:43 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
It's foreseeable that the baby *could* grab it, but not expected that
she *would*. Especially if you're immature and ignorant of how babies
behave.
Baloney. Babies are hard wired to grab for anything in their line
of sight. The best way to keep it out of the reach of the baby
is to keep it out of the house.
Do you even bother to read what I write? "ignorant of how babies
behave" means you don't know realize that they're "hard wired to grab
for anything".
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew. If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-06 15:48:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew. If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Barry Margolin
2009-01-07 13:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew. If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach. It's not like she said "here, kid, hold on to these for me."
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-07 15:56:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:06:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew. If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach.
It was in reach. You do realize babies crawl and do climb?

Exhibit A: The baby got them. End of story.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Barry Margolin
2009-01-08 04:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:06:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew. If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach.
It was in reach. You do realize babies crawl and do climb?
Exhibit A: The baby got them. End of story.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Lots of things happen that people don't expect to happen.

She's an immature teenager, she didn't think of the consequences of her
actions. That's practically the definition of a teenager.

The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Anim8rFSK
2009-01-08 14:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:06:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew. If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach.
It was in reach. You do realize babies crawl and do climb?
Exhibit A: The baby got them. End of story.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Lots of things happen that people don't expect to happen.
She's an immature teenager, she didn't think of the consequences of her
actions. That's practically the definition of a teenager.
The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
YOUNG teenagers. Pre teenagers. But only if they're girls.

I can remember being 12, maybe 13, and the boys parents wanted them to
have sitters, while the girls our age were out babysitting. At 13, we
were hoping we might get one of the cute girls in our class to come sit
with us for the evening. :)

Of course, the very first time I convinced my parents to leave me alone
for a couple hours at night, there was an incident, and went they got
home, the police and the criminals car were in the driveway and the cops
were trying to pound down the door . . .
--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline
Obveeus
2009-01-08 15:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
I can remember being 12, maybe 13, and the boys parents wanted them to
have sitters, while the girls our age were out babysitting. At 13, we
were hoping we might get one of the cute girls in our class to come sit
with us for the evening. :)
Of course, the very first time I convinced my parents to leave me alone
for a couple hours at night, there was an incident, and went they got
home, the police and the criminals car were in the driveway and the cops
were trying to pound down the door . . .
Would the 'criminal' be the kid that lived there taking a joyride in his
parents car?
Ellen K Hursh
2009-01-09 04:25:42 UTC
Permalink
The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.  
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
YOUNG teenagers.  Pre teenagers.  But only if they're girls.
I can remember being 12, maybe 13, and the boys parents wanted them to
have sitters, while the girls our age were out babysitting.  At 13, we
were hoping we might get one of the cute girls in our class to come sit
with us for the evening.  :)
Of course, the very first time I convinced my parents to leave me alone
for a couple hours at night, there was an incident, and went they got
home, the police and the criminals car were in the driveway and the cops
were trying to pound down the door . . .
"The prosecution rests, Your Honor..." :)
Anim8rFSK
2009-01-09 05:00:19 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Ellen K Hursh
The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.  
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
YOUNG teenagers.  Pre teenagers.  But only if they're girls.
I can remember being 12, maybe 13, and the boys parents wanted them to
have sitters, while the girls our age were out babysitting.  At 13, we
were hoping we might get one of the cute girls in our class to come sit
with us for the evening.  :)
Of course, the very first time I convinced my parents to leave me alone
for a couple hours at night, there was an incident, and went they got
home, the police and the criminals car were in the driveway and the cops
were trying to pound down the door . . .
"The prosecution rests, Your Honor..." :)
heh
--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-08 14:19:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:44:57 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:06:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew. If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach.
It was in reach. You do realize babies crawl and do climb?
Exhibit A: The baby got them. End of story.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Lots of things happen that people don't expect to happen.
She's an immature teenager, she didn't think of the consequences of her
actions. That's practically the definition of a teenager.
The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
Well there are a lot of adults who aren't mature enough to vote but by
golly they vote anyways.

Which is why so many men voted for Palin.
Anim8rFSK
2009-01-08 20:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:44:57 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:06:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew.
If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach.
It was in reach. You do realize babies crawl and do climb?
Exhibit A: The baby got them. End of story.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Lots of things happen that people don't expect to happen.
She's an immature teenager, she didn't think of the consequences of her
actions. That's practically the definition of a teenager.
The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
Well there are a lot of adults who aren't mature enough to vote but by
golly they vote anyways.
Which is why so many men voted for Palin.
That and the fact that she was running against Biden.
--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline
Mason Barge
2009-01-09 13:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:44:57 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:06:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew.
If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach.
It was in reach. You do realize babies crawl and do climb?
Exhibit A: The baby got them. End of story.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Lots of things happen that people don't expect to happen.
She's an immature teenager, she didn't think of the consequences of her
actions. That's practically the definition of a teenager.
The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
Well there are a lot of adults who aren't mature enough to vote but by
golly they vote anyways.
Which is why so many men voted for Palin.
Good grief. If you can't find worse public officials/candidates than Sarah
Palin to bash, you aren't paying attention. Hell, what state are you from?
I bet I can find someone a lot worse right in your backyard.
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-09 21:26:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:54:07 -0500, "Mason Barge"
Post by Mason Barge
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:44:57 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:06:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:20:10 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
You've never been near a baby have you? If you had then you'd notice
everything goes in the mouth. Espcially if it sparkles, is bright,
or gets the babies interest..
What I've noticed is irrelevant. What matters is what Rachel knew.
If
*she* didn't know that babies grab everything near them, then she
wouldn't have expected this.
If she didn't know babies grab at everything then she has no business
babysitting a baby.
Isn't that clear? She's stupid, immature, irresponsible, etc. An
accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Barry Margolin
I haven't see the episode in many years. Just how close were the pills
to the baby?
Close enough that the baby got them, that means they were too close.
Did she put them on the table right next to the baby, or did the baby
have to crawl around the house to get to them?
Doesn't matter. The baby got them even though there was an
adult who should have known better.
Didn't you say that they grab at everything within reach? If the baby
is over here, and the pills are way over there, they're not within
reach.
It was in reach. You do realize babies crawl and do climb?
Exhibit A: The baby got them. End of story.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Lots of things happen that people don't expect to happen.
She's an immature teenager, she didn't think of the consequences of her
actions. That's practically the definition of a teenager.
The amazing thing is that teenagers are routinely hired as babysitters.
People trust them with their children's welfare, yet they aren't
considered mature enough to drive a car or vote.
Well there are a lot of adults who aren't mature enough to vote but by
golly they vote anyways.
Which is why so many men voted for Palin.
Good grief. If you can't find worse public officials/candidates than Sarah
Palin to bash, you aren't paying attention. Hell, what state are you from?
I bet I can find someone a lot worse right in your backyard.
There are worse. None of those worse though tried to say
they had foreign policy experience because they could see Russia from
their window or were running for VP with a guy who is very old,
in very poor health, and could very well not finish his term.

Sharon Too
2009-01-05 00:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
Ingesting drugs a daughter stupidly put near
a child is not an accident.
It is an accident being that it was not intentional, but that's a minor
definition considering it was negligence.
Ken from Chicago
2009-01-04 08:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
If the drugs weren't around the baby would not have consumed them.
Corday was right to be peeved.
If it were my child that left drugs around and a baby consumed them
i'd want the child charged with manslaughter/attempted manslaughter.
Accident isn't the way i'd describe it.
Whoa, not just drugs, but ecstasy. That seriously kicks it up a level. And
according to Wikipedia, Corday did want the teenager charged, or kicked out
of the house, neither of which Greene wanted to do.

-- Ken from Chicago
Mason Barge
2009-01-05 21:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
I don't think accident is the right is the right term. Sloppy,
careles, stupid might have been a better description.
If the drugs weren't around the baby would not have consumed them.
Corday was right to be peeved.
If it were my child that left drugs around and a baby consumed them
i'd want the child charged with manslaughter/attempted manslaughter.
Accident isn't the way i'd describe it.
"Attempted manslaughter" is a non sequitur, at least in common law terms.
Manslaughter does not require a specific intent to kill. It's the flip side
of "attempted murder by extreme indifference", another non sequitur.

I realize that idiot "legal" minds have tried to put every sort of spin on
every sort of case involving endangerment and death. I saw last night that
some AG in New York is trying to uphold a second degree murder conviction
for negligent vehicular homicide by a drunk driver, because she didn't think
the penalties for involuntary homicide were sufficiently tough. Really --
judicial activism at its worst. She managed to both supersede the
legislature's rightful power and simultaneously erode clearly understood
legal terminology.

Hopefully, the NY Court of Appeals is a bit better than some other state
supreme courts I could name.
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-06 00:20:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:29:49 -0500, "Mason Barge"
Post by Mason Barge
I realize that idiot "legal" minds have tried to put every sort of spin on
every sort of case involving endangerment and death. I saw last night that
some AG in New York is trying to uphold a second degree murder conviction
for negligent vehicular homicide by a drunk driver, because she didn't think
the penalties for involuntary homicide were sufficiently tough.
Let me put it this.......we've got a case around where a guy was
convicted of drunk driving 29 TIMES. Let me repeat that..........29
TIMES. That is a case where you could easily argue first degree
murder when this guy gets drunk and drives.
Post by Mason Barge
Really --
judicial activism at its worst. She managed to both supersede the
legislature's rightful power and simultaneously erode clearly understood
legal terminology.
Let me put it this way: when the legislature made the laws they
probaby wrote at 2am on the last night of the session
and never convieved that someone would be convicted of drunk driving
29 times and would still be driving.

Legislators are never known for their foresight in
their drafting of laws.
Post by Mason Barge
Hopefully, the NY Court of Appeals is a bit better than some other state
supreme courts I could name.
Personally i'd give drunk drivers the death penalty or throw them
in jail for life. IMHO they should not be driving around
after 29 convictions for DUI.
Barry Margolin
2009-01-06 01:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:29:49 -0500, "Mason Barge"
Post by Mason Barge
I realize that idiot "legal" minds have tried to put every sort of spin on
every sort of case involving endangerment and death. I saw last night that
some AG in New York is trying to uphold a second degree murder conviction
for negligent vehicular homicide by a drunk driver, because she didn't think
the penalties for involuntary homicide were sufficiently tough.
Let me put it this.......we've got a case around where a guy was
convicted of drunk driving 29 TIMES. Let me repeat that..........29
TIMES. That is a case where you could easily argue first degree
murder when this guy gets drunk and drives.
While you could certainly argue that it's as serious as first degree
murder, you can't say it IS first degree murder. Incredible stupidity
and disregard for other people is not the same as "malice aforethought".
Who did he have malice for and plan to kill?

That seems to be your problem -- you're trying to change definitions to
match the severity of the crime, rather than understanding that you can
have two different crimes that have similar severity.
--
Barry Margolin, ***@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
G***@NBA.com
2009-01-06 15:58:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:15:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:29:49 -0500, "Mason Barge"
Post by Mason Barge
I realize that idiot "legal" minds have tried to put every sort of spin on
every sort of case involving endangerment and death. I saw last night that
some AG in New York is trying to uphold a second degree murder conviction
for negligent vehicular homicide by a drunk driver, because she didn't think
the penalties for involuntary homicide were sufficiently tough.
Let me put it this.......we've got a case around where a guy was
convicted of drunk driving 29 TIMES. Let me repeat that..........29
TIMES. That is a case where you could easily argue first degree
murder when this guy gets drunk and drives.
While you could certainly argue that it's as serious as first degree
murder, you can't say it IS first degree murder. Incredible stupidity
and disregard for other people is not the same as "malice aforethought".
Who did he have malice for and plan to kill?
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but my understanding
is first degree murder requires pre-meditation. It could
be argued a drunk driver was pre-meditated to get drunk
and then drive and was willing to a family to get to get to
that end.

So maybe when you're nailed for drunk driving 29 times by the 27th
time if you pick up that first drink then telegraphing to the
world you're willing to kill a family and you don't give a Shi*.

We've had plenty of drunk drivers plow into other cars and
kill 1-8 people. So I think you could argue soemone is willing
to kill when they pick up that first drink when they've been
nailed for drunk driving 29 times.

After 29 times they should not be able to get any where
near alcohol much less get behind the wheel of a car.

I'd give drunk drivers the death penalty or life in prison.
Post by Barry Margolin
That seems to be your problem -- you're trying to change definitions to
match the severity of the crime, rather than understanding that you can
have two different crimes that have similar severity.
Mason Barge
2009-01-06 16:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:15:47 -0500, Barry Margolin
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by G***@NBA.com
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:29:49 -0500, "Mason Barge"
Post by Mason Barge
I realize that idiot "legal" minds have tried to put every sort of spin on
every sort of case involving endangerment and death. I saw last night that
some AG in New York is trying to uphold a second degree murder conviction
for negligent vehicular homicide by a drunk driver, because she didn't think
the penalties for involuntary homicide were sufficiently tough.
Let me put it this.......we've got a case around where a guy was
convicted of drunk driving 29 TIMES. Let me repeat that..........29
TIMES. That is a case where you could easily argue first degree
murder when this guy gets drunk and drives.
While you could certainly argue that it's as serious as first degree
murder, you can't say it IS first degree murder. Incredible stupidity
and disregard for other people is not the same as "malice aforethought".
Who did he have malice for and plan to kill?
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but my understanding
is first degree murder requires pre-meditation. It could
be argued a drunk driver was pre-meditated to get drunk
and then drive and was willing to a family to get to get to
that end.
Intent means that you set out to kill the person. Your motivating action in
doing something is the death of another person. Premeditation means that you
sat down and thought out how to kill someone.

Whatever you think of drunk drivers, very few of them are motivated by their
desire to kill their victim. I'm sure there are some people every year who
get drunk to get their courage up and then go out and run over their spouse
returning home from a walk, but that is treated as murder.

Drunk driving actually doesn't even rise to the level of "depraved
indifference", which requires that a person commits an act that any
reasonable person knows has a high likelihood of causing serious injury or
death to another. I'm guessing that driving drunk has a statistical
likelihood well under 1% of killing someone.

If you want to nail someone driving at high speed down the wrong side of a
highway, okay, that's depraved indifference and he should get locked up, and
for a very long time if he kills someone. But the DUI is a contributory
factor, not the is the proximate cause of the death. And the situation is
not the same as some guy quietly driving along under the influence behaving
traffic laws.
Post by G***@NBA.com
So maybe when you're nailed for drunk driving 29 times by the 27th
time if you pick up that first drink then telegraphing to the
world you're willing to kill a family and you don't give a Shi*.
We've had plenty of drunk drivers plow into other cars and
kill 1-8 people. So I think you could argue soemone is willing
to kill when they pick up that first drink when they've been
nailed for drunk driving 29 times.
After 29 times they should not be able to get any where
near alcohol much less get behind the wheel of a car.
I'd give drunk drivers the death penalty or life in prison.
Post by Barry Margolin
That seems to be your problem -- you're trying to change definitions to
match the severity of the crime, rather than understanding that you can
have two different crimes that have similar severity.
Rob Jensen
2009-01-04 08:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hunter
Post by Alison Dubois
Post by Rob Jensen
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:58:05 -0600, "Ken from Chicago"
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
They were married for about two or three seasons before Greene died.
They even had a baby together. (Emma?)
-- Rob
Not only did Greene and Corday have a baby but Greene's daughter
had the incident where she poisoned the baby with her drugs.
---
To be very clear it was an accident. A stupid, teenage accident that
Elizabeth was barely able to forgive her for after a long while, but
an accident.
Dude, it was a baggie or bottle of ecstasy tablets and the baby
ingested about a dozen of them.

Funny thing: Dr. Greene's elder daughter was named Rachel. Rachel
Greene. One gratuitous final vowell away from being Jennifer
Aniston's character on Friends.

Suddenly, it makes sense in a wild in-joke sort of way that
Rachel-on-Friends would name her baby Emma (Dr. Greene's baby
daughter.)

-- Rob
Hunter
2009-01-04 02:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
-- Ken from Chicago
---
Damn, I guess you were away for awhile. Way back in 2001 they got
married while Dr. Corday was pregnant with his daughter.
--
----->Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Ken from Chicago
2009-01-04 08:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hunter
Post by Ken from Chicago
Post by RichA
Post by David
from tv guide
Alex Kingston Books Appointment for ER Return
by Matt Mitovich
The doctor is in. Dr. Elizabeth Corday, that is.
Isn't that poor ER horse dead yet?
She and Greene? an item? when?
-- Ken from Chicago
---
Damn, I guess you were away for awhile. Way back in 2001 they got
married while Dr. Corday was pregnant with his daughter.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
I bailed out bout the time Clooney did. I think I watched a while for
Tierney, who was coming off NEWSRADIO, and was the new "Carol Hathaway"--the
original had been announced leaving that season.

-- Ken from Chicago
Loading...