Comments
uhh.. nice vid *sigh* any cute guys wanna chat? im sooo bored
The Lotto Agency should put some thing in their “Terms and conditions” stating “Sex offender s need not apply”that s what they should be doing.
he will use the money to do research into how he can do more sexual assaults without getting caught. so money raised for victims of sex assault goes to sex offender to allow him to do more sex assaults.
he bought a house added a basement with dungeon/arcade got a van with no windows 2 tons of candy and pre paid lawyer fees
Dont even need to see the vid. Of course he gets the money, not saying it doesnt suck but a lottery win is seperate from his criminal act. If the penalty was more appropriate he wouldnt have got out of jail to buy the ticket.
He gave 100,000 to charity? He doesn’t owe anyone anything, he served his time. and you people are morons for questioning it.
The media reported this mans name, and also that he was a sex offender, so they helped in the attack, IMO. This is why people who win the lottery, should not be broadcasted to the world for some idiot thief or robbery to see.
So what? He bought the ticket. Are you just jealous you did not win? He was also attacked and beaten real bad from a vigilante idiot as well.
lol
the law is never going to “catch up” so people are “stabbed to death immediately” for something they said
i think people who threaten to stab other people should be stabbed to death immediately
that means you and no i’m not joking (well actually i am)
No, I have no problem with people being executed by lethal injection, electric chair, whatever. However, trolls who say on youtube that they’re determined to murder other people, but then suddenly do nothing in real life, confuse me.
Hopefully the laws catch up with the times and things change so this can be accomplished.
just wondering if your also against it when the government murders people with electric chairs or lethal injection,,,is that ok with you?
again, just because the rules didnt state that before hand, doesnt mean the charity is utterly legally bound, and has no rights as to who the money will go to. they can dispute this as a civil case and the law can be manipulated in their favour. which may set a precedent for future cases.
and just to further clarify, the justification for refusal isnt that hes a sex offender, its that the charity has a right to refuse a claim to anyone.
From a legal point of view, they set up a contest with which the parameters set were that anyone could donate and anyone could win. If they change that now after he had already donated, then it would be considered illegal for him to be denied his money based on his past. He has served his time to society. Like it or not, he won the money fair and square with the same chance as anyone else. He could only be denied the prize if the rules were in place before the contest.
soillustrious
If this case goes to court, then yes, a judge will ultimately decide. As you stated; will be interpreted by the judge, I’m not arguing that. Bushiness and retailers, in the context you mentioned, that are private organizations, adhere differently – which is outside the scope of this argument. In any case, If this were to be taken to court, then yes, the judge can subjectively interpret the rules that are CURRENTLY in place, not create new ones from thin air. That is my point.
my point is this, just like businesses and retailers reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, this charity should be given that same right.
‘Arbitrary law or regulation is not congruent with OUR laws’ yes, it is. its decided by judges, who may interpret and set precedents as they please occording to individual cases and often moral obligations. law isnt always completely objective, otherwise that’d be totally unfair, there is room for subjectivism.
@soilustrious
“so surely they have the right to refuse a claim if your taking money from a charity, whos specific aim it is to work against people like you”
Further more…
Where are your legal references regarding this statement? If no legal or authoritative backing, this equals nothing more than YOUR OWN opinion. Nothing More. And that’s ALL it is. Stop trying to make a legal conclusion based on your opinion.
soillustrious
My point is simple. If there IS a stipulation or other regulation that could prohibit him from winning the money, then that would warrant investigation. My argument is NOT, I repeat, NOT my opinion whether he deserves the money or not. My point: Arbitrary law or regulation is not congruent with OUR laws, or for that matter, any other. Otherwise, you would be deserving of chaos and tyranny, stripped of any legal, or human rights you posses, in any country.
but arent they a charity first and a lottery second? had it been the national lottery, which has no agenda, then i wouldnt see the issue. but seeing as it was run by a charity, they should have a right to refuse service to him.
True, but those laws are in place before the person won, not after. So the guy legally won the charity.
I think they still have a case … his financial status just changed, and they still have damages.
Civil lawsuits have no time limit.
Time for a proper legal opinion.
(ps, who are the haters who thumbed me down for suggesting the girls deserve more than their attacker?)
if you work for or are related to someone who works for the loterry, you cant keep the money. random example i know, but it shows how money can be withheld under some circumstances. so surely they have the right to refuse a claim if your taking money from a charity, whos specific aim it is to work against people like you.
