Since Corporations are people.

[44nutman]

How come nobody from GM has been arrested for involuntary manslaughter?

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motor...t--for-delayed-ignition-recall-133539747.html

They fired 15 employees who were to blame, so why not arrest them, or does the ruling only apply to first amendment rights but you can commit all the crimes you want as long as the donation flow does not stop.
In Democratic America, the corporations own you.

 

[OldGoat]

What's all that mean?

 

[panamaican]

First, not all accidents are criminal.

Second, corporations are associations of people operating to limit the liability of their actions to the business entity and not expose the individuals who own the business entity.

Third, you sue the owners of the corporation that means that the people being taken to court for involuntary manslaughter would be the stock holders. The millions of Americans who own GM stock should be tried for manslaughter?

But really just the first 2.

 

[7437]

Second, corporations are associations of people operating to limit the liability of their actions to the business entity and not expose the individuals who own the business entity.

I think this is what he is pointing out hobby lobby is trying to get rid of.

 

[td82394]

First, not all accidents are criminal.

Second, corporations are associations of people operating to limit the liability of their actions to the business entity and not expose the individuals who own the business entity.

Third, you sue the owners of the corporation that means that the people being taken to court for involuntary manslaughter would be the stock holders. The millions of Americans who own GM stock should be tried for manslaughter?

But really just the first 2.

Well, yeah, we all know that. But according to the law, corporations are literally people unless I'm confused about something.


That being said, you can't press criminal charges against a piece of paper, TS.

 

[Magooglie]

Are the justices in GM's pants pocket?

 

[TheBenjamins21]

Lawyers are the absolute scum of the earth.

 

[second sight]

citizens united has got everyones panties in a bunch

 

[44nutman]

First, not all accidents are criminal.

.

In this case they knowingly allowed a product that could cause a persons death to continue to be used. If known negligence led to a death then it is not an accident.
My point being since corporations are considered people, if I ran threw a stoplight and killed several kids because, my brakes which I knew were no longer operable, there would be charges against me.
I guess I am confused how a corporation is considered a person, except when they kill someone through negligence and then they are only fined. In the above case, I would not have the opportunity to pay a fine to the parents of the kids killed. I would do jail time.
I think they should just say corporations are people except when they perform criminal activities and then they are considered corporations.

 

[OldGoat]

In this case they knowingly allowed a product that could cause a persons death to continue to be used. If known negligence led to a death then it is not an accident.
My point being since corporations are considered people, if I ran threw a stoplight and killed several kids because, my brakes which I knew were no longer operable, there would be charges against me.
I guess I am confused how a corporation is considered a person, except when they kill someone through negligence and then they are only fined. In the above case, I would not have the opportunity to pay a fine to the parents of the kids killed. I would do jail time.
I think they should just say corporations are people except when they perform criminal activities and then they are considered corporations.

Where are corporations considered equal to people? Sharing a property doesn't establish equivalence otherwise fish are plants as they both have dna.

 

[panamaican]

Well, yeah, we all know that. But according to the law, corporations are literally people unless I'm confused about something.


That being said, you can't press criminal charges against a piece of paper, TS.

Corporations are not literally people. They are associations of people. That means that the people in the association retain all of their rights even through the corporate entity. That is what the law says. It's frequently misunderstood.

And yes, you can press criminal charges against a corporation or against the owners of the corporation. But not every time something goes wrong, is it a criminal act.

 

[panamaican]

In this case they knowingly allowed a product that could cause a persons death to continue to be used. If known negligence led to a death then it is not an accident.
My point being since corporations are considered people, if I ran threw a stoplight and killed several kids because, my brakes which I knew were no longer operable, there would be charges against me.
I guess I am confused how a corporation is considered a person, except when they kill someone through negligence and then they are only fined. In the above case, I would not have the opportunity to pay a fine to the parents of the kids killed. I would do jail time.
I think they should just say corporations are people except when they perform criminal activities and then they are considered corporations.

Not all negligence is criminal. Wrongful death suits are purely civil.

Your point about corporations being considered people isn't a real point because that's not what the law says. The law says that the people who form a corporation retain all of their rights and can exercise them through the corporation.

Similarly, you can sue the people who own the corporation. Your error is that you think this is a criminal act when it's not. It's a civil matter.

 

[Quipling]

Not all negligence is criminal. Wrongful death suits are purely civil.

Your point about corporations being considered people isn't a real point because that's not what the law says. The law says that the people who form a corporation retain all of their rights and can exercise them through the corporation.

Similarly, you can sue the people who own the corporation. Your error is that you think this is a criminal act when it's not. It's a civil matter.

Not all rights can be expressed through the corporation. The court has been a little selective about which ones they recognize and which ones they don't. While expression through the corporate form is protected, you're going to have much less luck exercising fifth and fourth amendment rights through the corporation.

(5th comes up a lot in white collar crime, so I don't know how much of your practice that makes up.)

(Fourth to a lesser degree because in some older cases corporations were granted much weaker protections against search and seizure, but those protections have more recently been weakened for natural persons as well. I still don't think there's a perfect overlap, but I don't think anybody's done a recent study on this.)

 

[Pelosi2020]

I agree with part of what you are saying OP. Corps should not have unlimited free speech rights. The SC got that one wrong. Free speech rights were intended for individuals as American Citizens and the monetary influence from corps in elections is grossly disproportionate to an individual's influence. Also this allows foreign corps and foreign individuals a large influence into American politics and elections which is can only be contrary to our own speech.

On the other hand, this same money train ensures that corps have wide exemptions from individual liabilities that would, in some cases, land a person in jail.

In the issue of cars...... if I ran a restaurant that sold bad food that killed people and I knew about it, it would be cut and dry. With cars the size and scope is vastly different and who-knew-what-and-did-not-react is hard to pin down. Having good lawyers certainly helps.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Lawyers are the absolute scum of the earth.

All the countries without lawyers are the absolute ideal societies!

 

[Quipling]

I agree with part of what you are saying OP. Corps should not have unlimited free speech rights. The SC got that one wrong. Free speech rights were intended for individuals as American Citizens and the monetary influence from corps in elections is grossly disproportionate to an individual's influence. Also this allows foreign corps and foreign individuals a large influence into American politics and elections which is can only be contrary to our own speech.

People contradicting you is allowed. Even if they are foreigners.

 

[OldGoat]

I agree with part of what you are saying OP. Corps should not have unlimited free speech rights. The SC got that one wrong. Free speech rights were intended for individuals as American Citizens and the monetary influence from corps in elections is grossly disproportionate to an individual's influence. Also this allows foreign corps and foreign individuals a large influence into American politics and elections which is can only be contrary to our own speech.

On the other hand, this same money train ensures that corps have wide exemptions from individual liabilities that would, in some cases, land a person in jail.

In the issue of cars...... if I ran a restaurant that sold bad food that killed people and I knew about it, it would be cut and dry. With cars the size and scope is vastly different and who-knew-what-and-did-not-react is hard to pin down. Having good lawyers certainly helps.

1 st amendment was not clearly meant for individuals. And where in the constitution does it give federal government the right to regulate speech? Remember, the constitution is a government charter.