Police Investigation Continued

Police Investigation Continued

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 16th, 2004, 4:57 pm #1

thekid09 is right by stating "They will be held responsible to some degree." It happened during the course of company business, so the company is as guilty as the individuals.
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

March 17th, 2004, 1:22 am #2

I thought that company would be responsible for an infraction performed by an employee too, but I got talked into understanding how only the employee would be subject to the law in some sort of infraction. The company, however, could be the subject of a possible lawsuit. I forgot the reasons why it works that way. I guess a comparison could be made to the head guy of Enron. He's being made personally liable for some sort of crime, but Enron itself can't be prosecuted for a crime.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 17th, 2004, 1:26 am #3

are alcor personnel handling these body collections medical professionals authorized to be administering these type of drugs?
Quote
Share

lurker
lurker

March 17th, 2004, 1:31 am #4

I thought that company would be responsible for an infraction performed by an employee too, but I got talked into understanding how only the employee would be subject to the law in some sort of infraction. The company, however, could be the subject of a possible lawsuit. I forgot the reasons why it works that way. I guess a comparison could be made to the head guy of Enron. He's being made personally liable for some sort of crime, but Enron itself can't be prosecuted for a crime.
is the principle of law which holds the employer liable for the acts of the employee. Here, Hixon and Hovey have possible criminal liability for aiding and abetting, and Alcor could be subject to civil liability and criminal charges.
Quote
Share

Joined: March 14th, 2004, 8:41 am

March 17th, 2004, 5:04 am #5

Yes....exactly, because they both knew it occured, yet remained silent. They are guilty of that. Alcor will have to be responsible for the people they employ and their actions while on the job, on their property.
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 17th, 2004, 6:04 am #6

is the principle of law which holds the employer liable for the acts of the employee. Here, Hixon and Hovey have possible criminal liability for aiding and abetting, and Alcor could be subject to civil liability and criminal charges.
The patients would be fine.

"Aiding and abeting" is for those who aid and abet a known criminal (for example, the Alcor board knew that convincted criminals were hiding somewhere there, and when the police came to get them, all the board members denied that they were there), it's called "coconspiring" when you knowingly do something that is generally considered "wrong." For example, handing someone a bolt cutter and watching them break in to something. In this case, only those in the same room, who were there when it happened (this is assuming it happened at all here, I am merely playing devils advocate), would be responsible. People finding out about it later (again, assuming anyone did) would not necessarily be responsible for "not reporting it" as there tends to be a level of plausible deniablity there. He said she said isn't enough to really achieve anything in the court of law.

Why are you guys grasping at straws?
Quote
Share

Joined: March 14th, 2004, 8:41 am

March 17th, 2004, 7:26 am #7

I am not grasping at straws, I am merely stating my opinion with the information that has brought forward as of late. Alcor will have to be held responsible "to some degree" if the allegations turn out to be true. It is just an opinion, no grasping here.
Quote
Like
Share

lurker
lurker

March 17th, 2004, 12:43 pm #8

The patients would be fine.

"Aiding and abeting" is for those who aid and abet a known criminal (for example, the Alcor board knew that convincted criminals were hiding somewhere there, and when the police came to get them, all the board members denied that they were there), it's called "coconspiring" when you knowingly do something that is generally considered "wrong." For example, handing someone a bolt cutter and watching them break in to something. In this case, only those in the same room, who were there when it happened (this is assuming it happened at all here, I am merely playing devils advocate), would be responsible. People finding out about it later (again, assuming anyone did) would not necessarily be responsible for "not reporting it" as there tends to be a level of plausible deniablity there. He said she said isn't enough to really achieve anything in the court of law.

Why are you guys grasping at straws?
Hixon WAS present at the event in 1992. Hovey knew about it when it happened but covered it up ever since. They should retain some good criminal defense lawyers right now - at their own expense and not the same lawyers who Alcor uses, either.
Quote
Share

Texas Cryo
Texas Cryo

March 17th, 2004, 1:45 pm #9

Lurker wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hixon WAS present at the event in 1992. Hovey knew about it when it happened but covered it up ever since. They should retain some good criminal defense lawyers right now - at their own expense and not the same lawyers who Alcor uses, either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Oh, baloney. That patient was in a hospice for the terminally ill, and was in the throes of death, for what I have read about it. The patient was dying in a hospice. The staff had already said death was imminent. Whatever it is you are talking about was hearsay, anyway. Impressions of what happens in a situation like that may be jumbled, anyway.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

March 17th, 2004, 2:16 pm #10

...not only was Nick in the throes of death, but in addition, Nick was already several days into his own planned dehydration! Here is a review of the situation I did several months ago that gives you my best interpretation-- which I think is pretty accurate. [+]. The anti-shivering drug, metubine, was delivered, I conjecture, pre-mortem. That would be considered ethenasia which is illegal. However, the essential question becomes "in what context was the euthenasia performed?". The context in which is was performed (answer) is described as a "self-chosen dehydration suicide by Nick"-- which is perfectly legal, as I understand it. Nick was in the process of dehydrating, planning his own "exit" which would have been within days, as medical experts know. A euthenization within the framework of a patient self-imposed dehydration suicide leading to cardiac arrest within a few days must be viewed, legally, as quite distinct from a euthenization within a framework of the absence of a patient's self-imposed dehydration suicide, and within, therefore, a framework which would have the patient "hanging on" for an indeterminate future timeframe. So Tex is right-- the patient was in the throes of death. But Tex didn't go far enough. The patient was in the throes of his own chosen self-induced dehydration-- knowing that this would cause cardiac arrest within days. And OF COURSE this is all theoretical because I certainly am not an expert in anything here-- I'm just connecting dots I see into a pattern which may or may not turn out to be, in fact, true. It's simply what I personally see at this time.
Quote
Like
Share