Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wow...leave it to Texas to lead the charge of crazy.

 Frazzled wrote:
It is pretty conservative but is Democratically controlled and has a good bit of nanny statism to it. On the positive its Mayor may be your next Vice President.

That's a positive?

Someone tried to bring me up on charges once for nailing their kid in his left ass cheek with a auto injector. He was allergic to bee stings. Prior training took over from all the NBC training on Atropine injectors.

 Jihadin wrote:
Someone tried to bring me up on charges once for nailing their kid in his left ass cheek with a auto injector. He was allergic to bee stings. Prior training took over from all the NBC training on Atropine injectors.

Could easily be a legit charge depending on your capacity and where you were (and more importantly how frisky the DA is feeling).

I used to be a medic, but off duty I could do nothing more than basic first aid because anything beyond that would go into "practicing medicine without a license (especially with anything that you need an Rx for like an EpiPen)" and I wouldn't be covered by Good Samaritan laws.

Sad thing is you and me would probably be more likely to be charged than a regular bystander with no training who just happened to have an EpiPen because "we should have known better". Such is the world of litigation.

Edit: (If I would be in the same situation and have an EpiPen handy I would have done the same though).

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Someone tried to bring me up on charges once for nailing their kid in his left ass cheek with a auto injector. He was allergic to bee stings. Prior training took over from all the NBC training on Atropine injectors.

Could easily be a legit charge depending on your capacity and where you were (and more importantly how frisky the DA is feeling).

I used to be a medic, but off duty I could do nothing more than basic first aid because anything beyond that would go into "practicing medicine without a license (especially with anything that you need an Rx for like an EpiPen)" and I wouldn't be covered by Good Samaritan laws.

Sad thing is you and me would probably be more likely to be charged than a regular bystander with no training who just happened to have an EpiPen because "we should have known better". Such is the world of litigation.

Edit: (If I would be in the same situation and have an EpiPen handy I would have done the same though).

I cannot fathom the depths of d-baggery that is required to want to sue/charge someone for saving your kid. If one of my kids had anaphylaxis and was saved from going into shock by timely stranger, I'd be falling over myself to shake his hand and buy him lunch, not calling the cops/lawyers.

Getting sued is always a small risk, but going beyond your scope is a crime and a frisky cop of DA could always file.

Not that it's very likely that they would, but it's there.

Agreed big time. Even if things went south, I wouldn't blame the guy trying to help, that's just insane

 Kain wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kain wrote:
It's Texas, did you expect sanity from any part of it that isn't Austin?

Democrat detected

The American democratic party is at best, a center-right party, or at worst a fair deal to the right party.

They're far too conservative for my tastes.

Oh man that was good for a morning laugh.

Just because the rest of the world is insane doesn't mean the Democrats are "conservative".

 djones520 wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kain wrote:
It's Texas, did you expect sanity from any part of it that isn't Austin?

Democrat detected

The American democratic party is at best, a center-right party, or at worst a fair deal to the right party.

They're far too conservative for my tastes.

Oh man that was good for a morning laugh.

Just because the rest of the world is insane doesn't mean the Democrats are "conservative".

Yeah, America truly is a bastion of sanity in the madness that is the rest of the world.

Seriously though, by first world standards the US firmly right-wing, and these days fairly conservative. Just because the Democrats aren't conservative by American standards doesn't mean they're not not conservative (yay for double negatives!) by the rest of the first world's standards.

Yeah for serious. You guys are generally centre-right. And that's okay, there's nothing particularly wrong with that. But it doesn't make the rest of us "insane" if we're a little more left wing.

It's more complicated than the simple left-right axis anyhow. Even the right wing parties in the UK are pro completely socialised medicine for example.

I agree with the other Europeans on this. America is, by our standards, centre at best, far right at worst. Let's face it, the NHS is practically communist to you guys.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kain wrote:
It's Texas, did you expect sanity from any part of it that isn't Austin?

Democrat detected

The American democratic party is at best, a center-right party, or at worst a fair deal to the right party.

They're far too conservative for my tastes.

Oh man that was good for a morning laugh.

Just because the rest of the world is insane doesn't mean the Democrats are "conservative".

Or maybe you're just conservative...

I would give my kid an AR-15, to shoot anyone who tries to take the sunscreen of her/him.

I took my nuts into school all the time as a child. Don't think I killed or injured anyone with them though.

Of course, being in England we did not have to worry about the sun.

It does make you wonder, though, just what happened in the past to make the district put this policy in place.

Just asked my wife for her thoughts (she's a teacher), and her comment was "that's bs." In fact, at her school's field day, they even included in the notes they sent home with the kids ahead of time was that they would need to bring sunscreen.

I wonder if the school can be sued if a kid gets skin cancer while or shortly after attending it because of sun burns suffered during a field trip.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I wonder if the school can be sued if a kid gets skin cancer while or shortly after attending it because of sun burns suffered during a field trip.

Possibly if its been documented that the school has repeatedly banned sunscreen and the kid has come home from nearly every field trip with a sunburn.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If only the sunscreen was carrying a gun.

...what? Somebody had to say it. Seriously though, I hope the family of the girl who got burned sues the school and wins. This is feth-tarded. The school officials should be fired and the family should receive recompense. Especially with skin cancer having shown up in a recent family member's death. Could the school know that? No. But they made a dumb decision that has clearly had consequences on this girl's genetic makeup. Throw the book at them. The argument the school official made is pants-on-head slowed. God, I hate stupid people. Which, by the way will include anyone who sides with the school. If you side with the school, I hate you and you're stupid. The end.

Looks like the school doesn't want the kids to have anything not issued by the school at this point. No pills, no food, no sunscreen, no motrin, nothing that could in any way not be in their control. Its legal liability gone amok.

On the positive GC's school is not like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
And the moment the kid with allergies gets exposed they will sue the school as well.

Don't blame schools for covering their ass because of lawyers looking for easy paydays.

Exactly. Schools are terrified by this. Thats why everythings with the nurse, and policies are taken to their extreme conclusion (suspending kids for making pew pew noises, but leaving bullies to run amok).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It is pretty conservative but is Democratically controlled and has a good bit of nanny statism to it. On the positive its Mayor may be your next Vice President.

That's a positive?

Did I say it was? San Antonio's redeeming value is excellent food and strategically located near the largest water park in the history of mankind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Someone tried to bring me up on charges once for nailing their kid in his left ass cheek with a auto injector. He was allergic to bee stings. Prior training took over from all the NBC training on Atropine injectors.

Could easily be a legit charge depending on your capacity and where you were (and more importantly how frisky the DA is feeling).

I used to be a medic, but off duty I could do nothing more than basic first aid because anything beyond that would go into "practicing medicine without a license (especially with anything that you need an Rx for like an EpiPen)" and I wouldn't be covered by Good Samaritan laws.

Sad thing is you and me would probably be more likely to be charged than a regular bystander with no training who just happened to have an EpiPen because "we should have known better". Such is the world of litigation.

Edit: (If I would be in the same situation and have an EpiPen handy I would have done the same though).

I cannot fathom the depths of d-baggery that is required to want to sue/charge someone for saving your kid. If one of my kids had anaphylaxis and was saved from going into shock by timely stranger, I'd be falling over myself to shake his hand and buy him lunch, not calling the cops/lawyers.

Thank California for that. Too many Good Samaritans were sued there. You won't however be sued if you do nothing.
Frazzled's never been sued for helping others. Trying to eat others...well thats a different story.
Human, the other other white meat!

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And the moment the kid with allergies gets exposed they will sue the school as well.

Don't blame schools for covering their ass because of lawyers looking for easy paydays.

Exactly. Schools are terrified by this. Thats why everythings with the nurse, and policies are taken to their extreme conclusion (suspending kids for making pew pew noises, but leaving bullies to run amok).

Don't just say your kid was bullied.

Tell them that the bully was sitting on your kid and was using one hand to point his fingers in the air while going "pew pew pew" and using his other hand to paint a Christian cross on his forehead with sunscreen while also having peanut breath.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And the moment the kid with allergies gets exposed they will sue the school as well.

Don't blame schools for covering their ass because of lawyers looking for easy paydays.

Exactly. Schools are terrified by this. Thats why everythings with the nurse, and policies are taken to their extreme conclusion (suspending kids for making pew pew noises, but leaving bullies to run amok).

Don't just say your kid was bullied.

Tell them that the bully was sitting on your kid and was using one hand to point his fingers in the air while going "pew pew pew" and using his other hand to paint a Christian cross on his forehead with sunscreen while also having peanut breath.

Good grief, I thought you were already running out of prison space.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I wonder if the school can be sued if a kid gets skin cancer while or shortly after attending it because of sun burns suffered during a field trip.

Well, it doesn't work that way for most. Bad sunburns in childhood have definitely been linked to melanoma, but the cancer might not show for YEARS after the damage is done. But this is still incredibly irresponsible.

Most people don't realize how bad melanoma is because they confuse it with less nasty skin cancers like basal cell carcinomas. Melanoma is easily taken care of (i.e. cut out) if you catch it early. But if it metastasizes, it's a hard cancer to treat. Literally only in the past few years have researchers developed medications that attack it with any effectiveness. IIRC, a few years ago survival rates for stage 4 melanoma was in the single digits. It may be higher now because of new medications, but it's not a cancer you want to feth with. And unlike most cancers, melanoma and skin cancer rates have been climbing for decades.

And this is the risk to which that school district wants to expose their children. Heads should roll.


Edit: Oh, and get your skin checked, folks!

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I wonder if the school can be sued if a kid gets skin cancer while or shortly after attending it because of sun burns suffered during a field trip.

Doubtful. It can take decades for skin cancer to develop.

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If only the sunscreen was carrying a gun.

...what? Somebody had to say it. Seriously though, I hope the family of the girl who got burned sues the school and wins. This is feth-tarded. The school officials should be fired and the family should receive recompense. Especially with skin cancer having shown up in a recent family member's death. Could the school know that? No. But they made a dumb decision that has clearly had consequences on this girl's genetic makeup. Throw the book at them. The argument the school official made is pants-on-head slowed. God, I hate stupid people. Which, by the way will include anyone who sides with the school. If you side with the school, I hate you and you're stupid. The end.

Looks like the school doesn't want the kids to have anything not issued by the school at this point. No pills, no food, no sunscreen, no motrin, nothing that could in any way not be in their control. Its legal liability gone amok.

On the positive GC's school is not like that.

TBH, I dont blame schools. IT blame parents and lawyers. Or the worse thing ever, parents that are lawyers

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If only the sunscreen was carrying a gun.

...what? Somebody had to say it. Seriously though, I hope the family of the girl who got burned sues the school and wins. This is feth-tarded. The school officials should be fired and the family should receive recompense. Especially with skin cancer having shown up in a recent family member's death. Could the school know that? No. But they made a dumb decision that has clearly had consequences on this girl's genetic makeup. Throw the book at them. The argument the school official made is pants-on-head slowed. God, I hate stupid people. Which, by the way will include anyone who sides with the school. If you side with the school, I hate you and you're stupid. The end.

Looks like the school doesn't want the kids to have anything not issued by the school at this point. No pills, no food, no sunscreen, no motrin, nothing that could in any way not be in their control. Its legal liability gone amok.

On the positive GC's school is not like that.

TBH, I dont blame schools. IT blame parents and lawyers. Or the worse thing ever, parents that are lawyers

Its probably fortunate Frazz is fully aware he is the worst thing ever. otherwise you'd currently have an army of weiner dogs en-route to your location for that slight.

He might dispatch them anyway just for lolz though, but at least it wouldn't be personal

I agree with him actually.

Evil knows evil and all that?

Yep, professional courtesy.

 Frazzled wrote:
I agree with him actually.

Wait, You are a Lawyer? You mean are dont yell att kids to get off your lawn proffesionally?

I think hotsauceman has had a drinky or two...

No yelling at kids to get off my lawn is more of a happy pastime.

Not today....what kind of animal drinks o a monday