When silence...isn't.

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2014 12:15:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 3, 2014 9:10:47 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Here's your post (#7) I still haven't seen you find anything just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP. You promised. (Hint; laws passed by the legislature aren't the same as the interpretive decisions made by the judiciary)

hint: post 10 contains actual laws.  you can read the full text of them HERE:

www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/arkansas

good luck repairing your glass house.  please stop throwing stones until you do.

I didn't see anything just as dumb from the Arkansas Judiciary as in the OP.  When perusing the link it was just some old laws. (Didn't find any glass to repair)

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2014 14:54:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 22, 2014 14:53:04 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I can. California, land of the fruits and nuts.

if you tell me what state you live in, i guarantee i can find something just as dumb that your judiciary has done within one day.

Here is your post #7  It's been quite a bit longer than one day now.  I haven't seen anything just as dumb from the Arkansas Judiciary as was shown in the OP.  I wasn't the one who made the claim.  Time to back the bluster with information.  I could easily accept that an Arkansas Hillbilly Supreme Court could muster bone head decisions by the dozens, but it's starting to look like one of those educated liberal states has taken a loss.  To Arkansas yet!    The flyover state of judicial competency. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2014 13:01:43 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Aug 22, 2014 14:54:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you tell me what state you live in, i guarantee i can find something just as dumb that your judiciary has done within one day.

Here is your post #7  It's been quite a bit longer than one day now. 

post #10 was made in less than a day.  i have pointed that out every day since then.

I haven't seen anything just as dumb

read carefully.  i never said that YOU would see it as just as dumb, jma.  you probably think it is just fine that there is a statute in Arkansas that makes it illegal to mispronounce Arkansas.  you probably like the McDonalds law, too.  and the one making it illegal for dogs to bark after 6PM.  these probably all seem sensible to you compared to a law which limits the circumstances under which a person can exercise their 5th amendment rights.  i am actually not here to defend that law, btw.  i think it is stupid too.  and now that i know that a CONSERVATIVE COURT is responsible for it, i hate it even more.  if you don't think your laws are just as dumb, i couldn't care less.

incidentally, you made a stipulation about law that i disagree with.  a law imposed by a legislature is just as binding as one from the courts, until the former is tested, and fails.  given the fact that the RULING in the OP will likely be overturned, your laws which have been and in some cases will continue to be enforced, are far worse than an unenforceable opinion.  but let's just treat them as the same for argument's sake.    wouldn't want to move the goalposts on you, after all.  i like a fair fight.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2014 13:01:43 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I could easily accept that an Arkansas Hillbilly Supreme Court could muster bone head decisions by the dozens, but it's starting to look like one of those educated liberal states has taken a loss. 

pointing out again: this was a conservative decision, not a liberal one.  liberals on the bench dissented this opinion.  and, come January, liberals are (probably) going to overturn it- unless the ONE GOP appointee that voted against it last time ends up voting for it.

[Artemis Windsong]

North Dakota.  The newspaper used to publish archaic laws that mean little or could be huge trouble makers.  The senators and representatives need to clean up the laws.

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2014 16:46:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 5, 2014 13:01:43 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Here is your post #7  It's been quite a bit longer than one day now. 

post #10 was made in less than a day.  i have pointed that out every day since then.

I haven't seen anything just as dumb

read carefully.  i never said that YOU would see it as just as dumb, jma.  you probably think it is just fine that there is a statute in Arkansas that makes it illegal to mispronounce Arkansas.  you probably like the McDonalds law, too.  and the one making it illegal for dogs to bark after 6PM.  these probably all seem sensible to you compared to a law which limits the circumstances under which a person can exercise their 5th amendment rights.  i am actually not here to defend that law, btw.  i think it is stupid too.  and now that i know that a CONSERVATIVE COURT is responsible for it, i hate it even more.  if you don't think your laws are just as dumb, i couldn't care less.

incidentally, you made a stipulation about law that i disagree with.  a law imposed by a legislature is just as binding as one from the courts, until the former is tested, and fails.  given the fact that the RULING in the OP will likely be overturned, your laws which have been and in some cases will continue to be enforced, are far worse than an unenforceable opinion.  but let's just treat them as the same for argument's sake.    wouldn't want to move the goalposts on you, after all.  i like a fair fight.

I can't treat them the same. The courts can't create law, only interpert the ones in existance. Still waiting for something just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP, which you promised in post #7. This has been a loooong 1 day. I couldn't care less what political affiliation the judges had. A conservative judge in California is like an ultra-lib in Arkansas. We're talking California court vs Arkansas court decisions, you know, judiciary. I'm glad I don't live in California.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2014 11:38:37 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 5, 2014 16:46:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

read carefully.  i never said that YOU would see it as just as dumb, jma.  you probably think it is just fine that there is a statute in Arkansas that makes it illegal to mispronounce Arkansas.  you probably like the McDonalds law, too.  and the one making it illegal for dogs to bark after 6PM.  these probably all seem sensible to you compared to a law which limits the circumstances under which a person can exercise their 5th amendment rights.  i am actually not here to defend that law, btw.  i think it is stupid too.  and now that i know that a CONSERVATIVE COURT is responsible for it, i hate it even more.  if you don't think your laws are just as dumb, i couldn't care less.

incidentally, you made a stipulation about law that i disagree with.  a law imposed by a legislature is just as binding as one from the courts, until the former is tested, and fails.  given the fact that the RULING in the OP will likely be overturned, your laws which have been and in some cases will continue to be enforced, are far worse than an unenforceable opinion.  but let's just treat them as the same for argument's sake.    wouldn't want to move the goalposts on you, after all.  i like a fair fight.

I can't treat them the same.

yes you can.  you choose not to.

The courts can't create law, only interpert the ones in existance. Still waiting for something just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP, which you promised in post #7. This has been a loooong 1 day.

it wasn't a long day on post 10.  it was an entire 130 mins.  and post 10 satisfies the condition, as far as i am concerned.  as i said, if you like your laws, to paraphrase Obama, you can keep them.  if you want to keep waiting, be my guest.  but you will be waiting until the day you perish.

I couldn't care less what political affiliation the judges had. A conservative judge in California is like an ultra-lib in Arkansas.

i disagree.  a conservative judge in CA, appointed by a member of my party, is a MODERATE, at "worst" in AR.  the ultra-libs on the bench voted against this ruling.  if there were more of them, it would never have made it this far.  but don't worry, that is likely to change in January, when another ultra-lib will rule on this, and likely reverse it.

We're talking California court vs Arkansas court decisions, you know, judiciary. I'm glad I don't live in California.

that's nice.  but keep in mind that all of your dumbass laws are enforceable, and this ruling is not. 

[Deleted]

Sept 8, 2014 11:59:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 8, 2014 11:38:37 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I can't treat them the same.

yes you can.  you choose not to.

The courts can't create law, only interpert the ones in existance. Still waiting for something just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP, which you promised in post #7. This has been a loooong 1 day.

it wasn't a long day on post 10.  it was an entire 130 mins.  and post 10 satisfies the condition, as far as i am concerned.  as i said, if you like your laws, to paraphrase Obama, you can keep them.  if you want to keep waiting, be my guest.  but you will be waiting until the day you perish.

I couldn't care less what political affiliation the judges had. A conservative judge in California is like an ultra-lib in Arkansas.

i disagree.  a conservative judge in CA, appointed by a member of my party, is a MODERATE, at "worst" in AR.  the ultra-libs on the bench voted against this ruling.  if there were more of them, it would never have made it this far.  but don't worry, that is likely to change in January, when another ultra-lib will rule on this, and likely reverse it.

We're talking California court vs Arkansas court decisions, you know, judiciary. I'm glad I don't live in California.

that's nice.  but keep in mind that all of your dumbass laws are enforceable, and this ruling is not. 

"Keep waiting till the day I perish" I guess that answers your ability to come up with anything just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 6:32:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 8, 2014 11:59:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that's nice.  but keep in mind that all of your dumbass laws are enforceable, and this ruling is not. 

"Keep waiting till the day I perish" I guess that answers your ability to come up with anything just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP.

oh!  that is your entire beef?  really?  you spent two pages badgering me about the fact that i said "JUDICIARY"?

so, what you are saying is that your Arkansas judiciary is the infallable oracle of truth and wisdom?  that it has never made a summary judgement that challenges the conservative California superior court for stupidity?  really?


edit: this is pretty f-ing dumb, imo:

www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/arkansas_court_marijuana_is_cause_to_deny_workers.php

this is beyond dumb.  it is infuriating:

rt.com/usa/arkansas-appeal-taser-beaten-818/

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 10:41:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 6:32:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

"Keep waiting till the day I perish" I guess that answers your ability to come up with anything just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP.

oh!  that is your entire beef?  really?  you spent two pages badgering me about the fact that i said "JUDICIARY"?

so, what you are saying is that your Arkansas judiciary is the infallable oracle of truth and wisdom?  that it has never made a summary judgement that challenges the conservative California superior court for stupidity?  really?

I never made any claims about the infallability of Arkansas' courts, nor any statements about it's members affiliation politically. You however, made a claim on the ability to come up with something just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary in one day as in the OP. (post #7) It's been a loooong one day, still nothing. Time to back the bluster with the information. (As an aside, when someone posts "judiciary", I take it that they mean "judiciary".) 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 11:08:29 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 10, 2014 10:41:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh!  that is your entire beef?  really?  you spent two pages badgering me about the fact that i said "JUDICIARY"?

so, what you are saying is that your Arkansas judiciary is the infallable oracle of truth and wisdom?  that it has never made a summary judgement that challenges the conservative California superior court for stupidity?  really?

I never made any claims about the infallability of Arkansas' courts, nor any statements about it's members affiliation politically. You however, made a claim on the ability to come up with something just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary in one day as in the OP.

dude.  i apologize, but i thought i said "dumb laws".  gmafb.  i gave you two, but that is all i have time for, today.

 (post #7) It's been a loooong one day, still nothing. Time to back the bluster with the information. (As an aside, when someone posts "judiciary", I take it that they mean "judiciary".) 

ibid.

edit: by the way, i am impressed with Arkansas' "conservative" courts.  they reversed the voter ID law and the gay marriage ban. 

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 10:41:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 6:32:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

"Keep waiting till the day I perish" I guess that answers your ability to come up with anything just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary as in the OP.

oh!  that is your entire beef?  really?  you spent two pages badgering me about the fact that i said "JUDICIARY"?

so, what you are saying is that your Arkansas judiciary is the infallable oracle of truth and wisdom?  that it has never made a summary judgement that challenges the conservative California superior court for stupidity?  really?


edit: this is pretty f-ing dumb, imo:

www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/arkansas_court_marijuana_is_cause_to_deny_workers.php

this is beyond dumb.  it is infuriating:

rt.com/usa/arkansas-appeal-taser-beaten-818/

That's some pretty small time stuff that only affects the immediate suspects, but hey, if that's all you got, it's still a judiciary decision. I'd have to side with the court on potheads cutting open an oil barrel with a torch and then trying to collect. The tased kid? that one reads like the first day or two of the Ferguson police killing of the strong arm robber that attacked a cop in his car. (I actually went back and read the original two articles from the AP in our paper on Ferguson and laughed out loud at the one sided story.) Noticeable lack of information on what that kid was doing to cause him to be tasered. I'm sure he was a subdued, meek young child that just mis-understood what was going on and was brutalized by a heavily militarized, overzealous police force.  Thanks for finally following through. Not even close to the time frame stated, but I'm flexible. Not too deflectable though.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 11:45:03 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 10, 2014 10:41:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh!  that is your entire beef?  really?  you spent two pages badgering me about the fact that i said "JUDICIARY"?

so, what you are saying is that your Arkansas judiciary is the infallable oracle of truth and wisdom?  that it has never made a summary judgement that challenges the conservative California superior court for stupidity?  really?


edit: this is pretty f-ing dumb, imo:

www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/arkansas_court_marijuana_is_cause_to_deny_workers.php

this is beyond dumb.  it is infuriating:

rt.com/usa/arkansas-appeal-taser-beaten-818/

That's some pretty small time stuff that only affects the immediate suspects

that is more impact than the CA court ruling has had, or is every likely to have. 

, but hey, if that's all you got, it's still a judiciary decision. I'd have to side with the court on potheads cutting open an oil barrel with a torch and then trying to collect.

there is no evidence that they were impaired.  and they were told to open that drum, bro.  that was a bad ruling, imo.

The tased kid? that one reads like the first day or two of the Ferguson police killing of the strong arm robber that attacked a cop in his car. (I actually went back and read the original two articles from the AP in our paper on Ferguson and laughed out loud at the one sided story.) Noticeable lack of information on what that kid was doing to cause him to be tasered. I'm sure he was a subdued, meek young child that just mis-understood what was going on and was brutalized by a heavily militarized, overzealous police force.  Thanks for finally following through. Not even close to the time frame stated, but I'm flexible. Not too deflectable though.

like i say, i didn't remember saying "judicial".  no "deflection" was ever attempted, jma.  simple mistake.  please forgive me.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 11:23:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 11:08:29 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I never made any claims about the infallibility of Arkansas' courts, nor any statements about it's members affiliation politically. You however, made a claim on the ability to come up with something just as dumb from the Arkansas judiciary in one day as in the OP.

dude.  i apologize, but i thought i said "dumb laws".  gmafb.  i gave you two, but that is all i have time for, today.

 (post #7) It's been a loooong one day, still nothing. Time to back the bluster with the information. (As an aside, when someone posts "judiciary", I take it that they mean "judiciary".) 

ibid.

edit: by the way, i am impressed with Arkansas' "conservative" courts.  they reversed the voter ID law and the gay marriage ban. 

I think there's a stay on the voter ID law ruling until it goes to the Supreme Court. It will still be in effect for this November's election. They're still not giving out licenses for gay marriages and I don't know why. That's a non issue for me. I don't understand all the angst over it. Gays are such a small % of the population. What's "ibid" mean.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 11:53:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 11:45:03 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

That's some pretty small time stuff that only affects the immediate suspects

that is more impact than the CA court ruling has had, or is every likely to have. 

, but hey, if that's all you got, it's still a judiciary decision. I'd have to side with the court on potheads cutting open an oil barrel with a torch and then trying to collect.

there is no evidence that they were impaired.  and they were told to open that drum, bro.  that was a bad ruling, imo.

The tased kid? that one reads like the first day or two of the Ferguson police killing of the strong arm robber that attacked a cop in his car. (I actually went back and read the original two articles from the AP in our paper on Ferguson and laughed out loud at the one sided story.) Noticeable lack of information on what that kid was doing to cause him to be tasered. I'm sure he was a subdued, meek young child that just mis-understood what was going on and was brutalized by a heavily militarized, overzealous police force.  Thanks for finally following through. Not even close to the time frame stated, but I'm flexible. Not too deflectable though.

like i say, i didn't remember saying "judicial".  no "deflection" was ever attempted, jma.  simple mistake.  please forgive me.

No apologies needed, nor forgiveness. No personal attacks were present, we were just discussing the issues. I don't ever recall you personally attacking me. I have to say those two guys cutting an oil drum open with a torch had to be dumber than a box of rocks. Did I ever explain about the general education level here in this state. 2,000 degree torch vs much lower oil flashpoint. No excuse for that ruling though if it was done by the information reported. There are probably just as many conservative activist judges out there as liberal.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 11:55:52 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 10, 2014 11:23:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ibid.

edit: by the way, i am impressed with Arkansas' "conservative" courts.  they reversed the voter ID law and the gay marriage ban. 

I think there's a stay on the voter ID law ruling until it goes to the Supreme Court. It will still be in effect for this November's election. They're still not giving out licenses for gay marriages and I don't know why. That's a non issue for me. I don't understand all the angst over it. Gays are such a small % of the population. What's "ibid" mean.

ibid = "already referenced"

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 12:29:49 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 10, 2014 11:53:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

like i say, i didn't remember saying "judicial".  no "deflection" was ever attempted, jma.  simple mistake.  please forgive me.

No apologies needed, nor forgiveness. No personal attacks were present, we were just discussing the issues. I don't ever recall you personally attacking me. I have to say those two guys cutting an oil drum open with a torch had to be dumber than a box of rocks.

Milgram's 37.  if you don't know the reference, Google it.

Did I ever explain about the general education level here in this state. 2,000 degree torch vs much lower oil flashpoint. No excuse for that ruling though if it was done by the information reported. There are probably just as many conservative activist judges out there as liberal.

i think the judiciary is intrinsically activist.  and, personally, i like it that way. 

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 12:33:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 12:29:49 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

No apologies needed, nor forgiveness. No personal attacks were present, we were just discussing the issues. I don't ever recall you personally attacking me. I have to say those two guys cutting an oil drum open with a torch had to be dumber than a box of rocks.

Milgram's 37.  if you don't know the reference, Google it.

Did I ever explain about the general education level here in this state. 2,000 degree torch vs much lower oil flashpoint. No excuse for that ruling though if it was done by the information reported. There are probably just as many conservative activist judges out there as liberal.

i think the judiciary is intrinsically activist.  and, personally, i like it that way. 

Familiar with m-37 but haven't thought about it for a long time.  My point was that they weren't educated enough to use the proper procedure to cut open the drum.  If they were told to drive a truck off a cliff, they wouldn't, they have the knowledge that they can be injured or killed.  To my understanding M-37 doesn't really apply, but was the point you were trying to make that they were just following the boss' orders?   

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 12:54:08 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 10, 2014 12:33:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the judiciary is intrinsically activist.  and, personally, i like it that way. 

Familiar with m-37 but haven't thought about it for a long time.  My point was that they weren't educated enough to use the proper procedure to cut open the drum. 

my point is that if they were doing it as part of their job, their supervisor is responsible for knowing that.  furthermore, their supervisor is responsible for making sure that they don't perform work in an impaired condition.

If they were told to drive a truck off a cliff, they wouldn't, they have the knowledge that they can be injured or killed.  To my understanding M-37 doesn't really apply, but was the point you were trying to make that they were just following the boss' orders?   

i am assuming they were unaware of the risk, which is an ADDITIONAL problem, here.

they were on the job.  they were asked to cut the drums open.  if that resulted in their injury, that is not THEIR fault.

i have been doing this job for 25 years, and i can tell you without hesitation that if this happened in my place of work, i would absolutely be on the hook for the worker's comp.  if they were impaired, that would not relieve me of it one bit.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 13:30:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 12:54:08 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Familiar with m-37 but haven't thought about it for a long time.  My point was that they weren't educated enough to use the proper procedure to cut open the drum. 

my point is that if they were doing it as part of their job, their supervisor is responsible for knowing that.  furthermore, their supervisor is responsible for making sure that they don't perform work in an impaired condition.

If they were told to drive a truck off a cliff, they wouldn't, they have the knowledge that they can be injured or killed.  To my understanding M-37 doesn't really apply, but was the point you were trying to make that they were just following the boss' orders?   

i am assuming they were unaware of the risk, which is an ADDITIONAL problem, here.

they were on the job.  they were asked to cut the drums open.  if that resulted in their injury, that is not THEIR fault.

i have been doing this job for 25 years, and i can tell you without hesitation that if this happened in my place of work, i would absolutely be on the hook for the worker's comp.  if they were impaired, that would not relieve me of it one bit.

Agreed, when moving up the chain of command, the next step up should be aware of the correct way to do the job. It continues on up to the owner. One of the problems in Arkansas which is a low density population area is that trustworthy, qualified, and educated help is hard to find for middle management. So family and friends often fill these positions when they're strong on trust not to steal, but somewhat lacking in the qualification or education department. That's somewhat common knowledge here and accepted as the way things are done and have been done for a long time. That court ruling isn't really that controversial to someone who has lived here for a long time. Self reliant and responsible for your own safety plays a bigger role here than in a lot of other places. (joke; When a redneck from Arkansas says "hey y'all watch this", you better watch. Not just for your own safety, but it might be the last thing he ever does. ) 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 15:05:24 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 10, 2014 13:30:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am assuming they were unaware of the risk, which is an ADDITIONAL problem, here.

they were on the job.  they were asked to cut the drums open.  if that resulted in their injury, that is not THEIR fault.

i have been doing this job for 25 years, and i can tell you without hesitation that if this happened in my place of work, i would absolutely be on the hook for the worker's comp.  if they were impaired, that would not relieve me of it one bit.

Agreed, when moving up the chain of command, the next step up should be aware of the correct way to do the job. It continues on up to the owner. One of the problems in Arkansas which is a low density population area is that trustworthy, qualified, and educated help is hard to find for middle management. So family and friends often fill these positions when they're strong on trust not to steal, but somewhat lacking in the qualification or education department. That's somewhat common knowledge here and accepted as the way things are done and have been done for a long time. That court ruling isn't really that controversial to someone who has lived here for a long time. Self reliant and responsible for your own safety plays a bigger role here than in a lot of other places. (joke; When a redneck from Arkansas says "hey y'all watch this", you better watch. Not just for your own safety, but it might be the last thing he ever does. ) 

the reason i am reacting badly is this:

let's say it was a piece of food processing equipment, and a newly hired cleaning lady was told to clean it, and lost her finger doing it, because someone neglected to lock it out.  whose fault is that?

let's say it is some 14 year old kid that was hired to drive a tractor, and was not told how steep of a grade he could plow with it, and it rolled over on him and killed him.  whose fault is that?

sure.  both these things are dumb.  the drum thing is dumb.  but does the employer owe NOTHING to their employees in those situations?

[Deleted]

"

Sept 10, 2014 15:31:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 15:05:24 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Agreed, when moving up the chain of command, the next step up should be aware of the correct way to do the job. It continues on up to the owner. One of the problems in Arkansas which is a low density population area is that trustworthy, qualified, and educated help is hard to find for middle management. So family and friends often fill these positions when they're strong on trust not to steal, but somewhat lacking in the qualification or education department. That's somewhat common knowledge here and accepted as the way things are done and have been done for a long time. That court ruling isn't really that controversial to someone who has lived here for a long time. Self reliant and responsible for your own safety plays a bigger role here than in a lot of other places. (joke; When a redneck from Arkansas says "hey y'all watch this", you better watch. Not just for your own safety, but it might be the last thing he ever does. ) 

the reason i am reacting badly is this:

let's say it was a piece of food processing equipment, and a newly hired cleaning lady was told to clean it, and lost her finger doing it, because someone neglected to lock it out.  whose fault is that?

let's say it is some 14 year old kid that was hired to drive a tractor, and was not told how steep of a grade he could plow with it, and it rolled over on him and killed him.  whose fault is that?

sure.  both these things are dumb.  the drum thing is dumb.  but does the employer owe NOTHING to their employees in those situations?

I agree with you that the court ruling on the drum cutters is wrong when judging on the information that I read from the link. In actuality I would of had to sit in the court room and listen to all the testimony given before giving more than a slight casual interest in the resultant ruling. It's not that I don't care about the possible unfairness of the ruling, but too many times I've been mislead by media sources only to hear "the rest of the story" a month later. I really don't do the hypothetical situation thing because it's just fiction tailored to fit an argument. So I have no comment on your other possible situations. Of course living in an agricultural, area watching the bubble (inclinometer) is one of the first things taught when using a tractor. In comparison to an urban area it would be like a new young delivery driver was owed compensation because he got hurt in an accident because he didn't know where the brake pedal was and couldn't stop the vehicle and your manager "told" him to make the delivery.  If you hired this "driver", would you want to compensate him or did he possibly mis-represent his abilities and knowledge upon hire?  (It was very easy to come up with a hypothetical to fit my idea of fairness)    Same goes for, "do you know how to use a cutting torch"? Testimony that is easily omitted from a news story.