Federal Appeals Court Re-Affirms Simple Concept: Bulldozers Don’t Kill People

Being Stupid kills people.

A federal appeals court panel has refused to reinstate a lawsuit brought against Caterpillar Inc. by the family of a 23-year-old peace activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer.

17 Responses to “Federal Appeals Court Re-Affirms Simple Concept: Bulldozers Don’t Kill People

  1. Tainted Bill says:

    I’m sure several German chemical companies are feeling quite relived at this moment.

  2. And in this case adding “arrogant” to the cup of stupid gets you killed faster.

  3. Gunslinger says:

    And just like their idiot daughter, the decision left the suit bringers feeling flat.

  4. RebeccaH says:

    Sometimes you flatten the caterpillar. Sometimes the Caterpillar flattens you.

  5. Gunslinger says:

    Thank you Rebecca, you just made my night.

  6. Skyler says:

    Even the 9th Communist Court could not justify making a ruling about foreign policy, and that says a lot, but they still couldn’t refrain from jabbing US foreign policy in the eye.
    “A court could not find in favor of the plaintiffs without implicitly questioning, and even condemning, United States foreign policy toward Israel,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote. “It is not the role of the courts to indirectly indict Israel for violating international law with military equipment the United States government provided and continues to provide.”
    In other words:
    “No matter that the defendant is guilty, we have no jurisdiction.”
    Well, it’s something that they at least stuck to the rule of law.

  7. Gunslinger says:

    Now that quote sounds like the ninth circus court I know and loathe.

    “It is not the role of the courts to indirectly indict Israel for violating international law”

    1. There is no such animal as international law.

    2. Even if there were they wouldn’t have any jurisdiction in such a case.

  8. Skyler says:

    Sure there’s international law. Where’d you get the idea that there wasn’t?
    It may not be universally enforceable, but there are innumerable treaties that are international law, and there are what amounts to common law that is international as well (such as genocide, etc.)
    Admiralty law, patent laws, laws of war, etc. all involve international agreements, which are laws.
    But to say that running over people with a bull dozer is de facto a violation of international law is absurd.

  9. The_Real_JeffS says:

    The case of Saint Rachel of the Pancake has been settled. Please pass the syrup.

  10. Gunslinger says:

    Treaties aren’t the same thing as international law.

    A treaty only pertains to and affects the signatories of said treaty and can be dissolved by one or all signatories.

    International law would have to be crafted by an internationally sanctioned body of legislators, be universally binding, and would have to be enforced by a policing organization with universal jurisdiction regardless of boundaries.

  11. Skyler says:

    Not true, gunslinger. Not true.
    When the signatories of a treaty involve almost every nation on Earth, that’s pretty much a universal law. The most common and oldest international laws are probably laws of the high seas. They are enforced by all nations that I know of, excepting those at war or those that we don’t recognize as civilized.

  12. Gunslinger says:

    ‘When the signatories of a treaty involve almost every nation on Earth, that’s pretty much a universal law.”

    u·ni·ver·sal /?yun??v?rs?l/ Pronunciation[yoo-nuh-vur-suhl]
    1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
    2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
    3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
    4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
    5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.
    6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius.
    7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause.
    8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic.
    9. Logic. (of a proposition) asserted of every member of a class.
    10. Linguistics. found in all languages or belonging to the human language faculty.
    11. Machinery. noting any of various machines, tools, or devices widely adaptable in position, range of use, etc.
    12. Metalworking.
    a. (of metal plates and shapes) rolled in a universal mill.
    b. (of a rolling mill or rolling method) having or employing vertical edging rolls.

    Sorry but “almost” and “pretty much” do not make it.

  13. Skyler says:

    Listen, you can argue all you want, but it’s still called international law.
    In fact. common law used to be assumed to be without borders. The legal theory of common law, for quite some time, was that it is law that exists prior to man, prior to nations. It is absolute, universal, and natural law. The role of the courts was to come to a closer understanding of what common law is. In fact, common law is the basis of the US Constitution.
    So, you may wish to argue semantics about whether something is perfectly universally in a laboratory kind of way, but that is moot. It only matters if they have the power to take your money or your freedom for violating it. Trust me, they do.

  14. Gunslinger says:

    “Listen, you can argue all you want, but it’s still called international law.”
    I can also call a cat a dog but it won’t start barking.

  15. Dave J says:

    Gunslinger, real international law does very much exist: it’s just that it and “International Law” (TM) as according to the Tranzi Left are non-contiguous and indeed largely unrelated concepts.
    To say that that which has non-universal force and effect is not international law, even though it may have international scope and be controlling between and among nations, seems to me to be playing pedantic word games. To be international law, a legal obligation need not have a purely or solely international source, i.e., that a treaty is something existing in international law, as well as presumably in the domestic law of its parties, should be plainly obvious.
    And admiralty is indeed the best place to look: it is the place where one first, and still most often, finds customary international law, the “law of nations” that is regarded as an international source of legal obligations both on nations and on private parties. By analogy, customary international is to treaty what the common law is to statute. Positive law can abrogate it or derogate from it, but it is assumed to preexist all positive law, an assumption going back at least to the Romans if not earlier.

  16. Skyler says:

    I think it’s funny how the definition of “universal” includes machines that roll metal. Yeah, different kind of machine, different meaning of rolling, but it still makes things flat as a pancake just like our favorite bull dozers.
    My first dog’s name was “Dozer.” She was a bull dog. So many fun coincidences!

Image | WordPress Themes