SouthLink02 8 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/ww...t.34f44815.html WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 That headline is a little misleading. The way I read it, he's being sued because he lost the guys boat. Had he returned it instead of leaving it on St Charles Avenue, this probably wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 That headline is a little misleading. The way I read it, he's being sued because he lost the guys boat. Had he returned it instead of leaving it on St Charles Avenue, this probably wouldn't have happened. Now that actually makes sense to me. I wonder if that guy was a liberal. Using someone elses boat to do something good, and then showing a complete lack of regard for taking care of the boat. Do they teach this stuff at journalism school? Splash the headline w/ one story, and then wait 'till the very last line to clarify the real situation? Lyons attorney, who did not want to talk on camera, said his client was not upset that the boat was used in rescue missions, but said that the boat should have been returned . Well duh, it should have been returned. Or at the very least , tell the owner where it was. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,510 Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Given the chaos in that area, it was likely impractical to impossible to return it where he got it. It would have been nice if he could have gotten in contact with the owner to let him know where it was, but all in all, I think I'd just eat the cost given what was at stake and be thankful I had a resource that could be used to save lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 Given the chaos in that area, it was likely impractical to impossible to return it where he got it. It would have been nice if he could have gotten in contact with the owner to let him know where it was, but all in all, I think I'd just eat the cost given what was at stake and be thankful I had a resource that could be used to save lives. I understand your sentiment, but $12,000 (the amount given in the article) is a lot of cost for one guy to eat. It would be nice if the boat owner, the boat borrower, the authorities (reads like he left the boat to be used for other rescues), and even the rescued victims (although they might have nothing left to contribute) could all come to some sort of an agreement for sharing the cost. [Another thing...the owner left the boat in the yard with the keys in it? Between the storm itself, the flooding, and the looting afterwards, what made him think his boat would be there when he got back anyway? ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.