93 Yr Old WW2 Vet freezes to death after company cuts power

soulsinging wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

btw - you never did answer my Q.....where is the line of doing 'everything absolutely possible' to be for a business? this isn't family or friends...but a business. an important one, yes...but when one refuses to pay, just how much is a company to get involved in their client's lives? as i said, we all agree...it's a tragedy. but let's face it, if dementia or something wasn't in the mix, this never would've happened. people reach out for help. this man didn't.

I did answer the Q, my answer was that the line is that the company doesnt' shut off power in mid-winter, period. Under any circumstances. They can get recourse through the courts if it comes to that. As for the distinction between electric and gas, it's immaterial to me. Electric driven heat isn't exactly uncommon. This is a foreseeable and preventable event.

and they DIDN'T. a restricter is not shutting off power. it's like a fuse that blows. you go and turn it back on. done. power is back. all this man needed to do was actually open his front door once in awhile and actually SEE the notice. or, again, if he noticed the power went out...CALL the power company and see wtf is up. if this mans fuse blew, and he didn't go to the circuit breaker to turn it back on, ended up without power b/c of it, called no one, etc....we'd all simply say, what a tragedy, that poor man, obviously had some sort of mental issues, no one to check up on him, etc, etc.


so i still don't fault the big, bad utility 100%. imo this man had to be in pretty sad mental shape to not even pick up the phone and call SOMEONE, and instead just lie down to die. there is NO record of him reaching out to ANYone. i seriously cannot even fathom that.


obviously we see it from different sides. and i DO see your point, and i agree to some extent...just not fully.

soulsinging wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

and they DIDN'T. a restricter is not shutting off power. it's like a fuse that blows. you go and turn it back on. done. power is back. all this man needed to do was actually open his front door once in awhile and actually SEE the notice. or, again, if he noticed the power went out...CALL the power company and see wtf is up. if this mans fuse blew, and he didn't go to the circuit breaker to turn it back on, ended up without power b/c of it, called no one, etc....we'd all simply say, what a tragedy, that poor man, obviously had some sort of mental issues, no one to check up on him, etc, etc.

so i still don't fault the big, bad utility 100%. imo this man had to be in pretty sad mental shape to not even pick up the phone and call SOMEONE, and instead just lie down to die. there is NO record of him reaching out to ANYone. i seriously cannot even fathom that.

obviously we see it from different sides. and i DO see your point, and i agree to some extent...just not fully.

Nobody ever bothered to make sure he knew what was going on with that shut off switch. It's a bullshit argument for you to act like they didn't cut power because they installed a switch that cut power for them. The result is the same... they set it up for his power to go out without ever finding out what was going on with him. That's not ok. If they wanted their money or whatever, they should have gone to the courts, not walked to his building, put in a switch that they knew could result in power loss, taped a note to his door, and split without ever making sure he knew what was going on. It wasn't worth hurting their profit margin to make sure they had all the facts before they jeopardized somebody's physical well being in the middle of winter. That's my point. Yes, it's sad that he had no one to contact and that nobody noticed how far gone he was. But none of those people are responsible for cutting the power that ended in his death. The electric company is. That's a big difference to me.

You discounted my earlier child example by virtue of the fact that that's a child and he's an adult and can care for himself, then argue here that he's demented. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to point fingers at his neighbors and family for not monitoring him close enough to notice his dementia, you can just as easily point fingers at mall shoppers and parents who weren't monitoring well enough to prevent an abduction. They all deserve to be criticized, but the one that bears the final guilt is the one that takes the actions that result in the harm.

i'm not trying to have it both ways. i am simply saying he was an adult, and obviously couldn't care for himself, and thus should not have been alone - but i do not expect a utility company to know this. ANYone else would've called SOMEONE for HELP! period. ANYone else would've PAID thier bills if they had $600,000+ in savings. so yes, he could not care for himself properly. i truly wonder if the man didn't leave his house, how did he truly care for himself at all? but that's another topic.


and the BIG difference in your scenario is an abducter willing and consciously chooses to do harm. sorry, i do not think ANy utility company wants to kill anyone. they simply want to get paid for the service they provide. they gave opportunity to do so, they put the restricter, et, etc. obviously this man's home is NOT the first to get this restricter device, in fact, after this occured they had to take them off ALL the houses they were put on. no one else had died. and no, i am not saying it's ok this man died....i am simply saying there are MANy factors in play here. i've already said, numerous times, they bear responsibility, but i personally do not seeing them as soley bearing the responsibility. that's my perspective. i think there is a 'bigger picture' to all this.....and it is in regards to elder care, monitoring seniors, etc. idk how it would work, if people would agree to it, etc...but in our increasingly fragmented society, and 'families' growing ever smaller, disconnected, non-existent, so the usual social systems we had in place are disappearing or gone.....this will not be an isolated incident.

soulsinging wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

and the BIG difference in your scenario is an abducter willing and consciously chooses to do harm. sorry, i do not think ANy utility company wants to kill anyone. they simply want to get paid for the service they provide. they gave opportunity to do so, they put the restricter, et, etc. obviously this man's home is NOT the first to get this restricter device, in fact, after this occured they had to take them off ALL the houses they were put on. no one else had died. and no, i am not saying it's ok this man died....i am simply saying there are MANy factors in play here. i've already said, numerous times, they bear responsibility, but i personally do not seeing them as soley bearing the responsibility. that's my perspective. i think there is a 'bigger picture' to all this.....and it is in regards to elder care, monitoring seniors, etc. idk how it would work, if people would agree to it, etc...but in our increasingly fragmented society, and 'families' growing ever smaller, disconnected, non-existent, so the usual social systems we had in place are disappearing or gone.....this will not be an isolated incident.

The fact that they intended to get paid and not to kill someone does not absolve them of taking actions that had fatal consequences that were reasonably foreseeable. Drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, but they still are guilty when they do because they engaged in actions based on selfish interests that hurt others. Same deal here.

The fact that they have since removed all of these devices is a pretty clear indication to me that they know what they were doing was wrong and they don't want to risk it happening again.

again, it is still knowingly be at all aware that harm may be caused. a drunk driver KNOWS he/she is working from a point of impaired judgement and should not drive. i am willing to beliee it's quite possible the utility did not forsee such harm, nor meant any harm, etc.

firstly, they were told to remove them...secondly, even if they weren't and did so of their own accord, does NOT mean they thought they were 'wrong' to utilize them, at most, to me means they realize they did NOT forsee ALL possible consequences of these devices, nd now realize, it can do harm. sorry if i don't automoatically think the worst of everyone....and that i don't see this issue 100% clearly, black/white, right/wrong.....but that there are other facets involved. i am not asking for agreement, just expressing my personal perspective. you clearly disagree, i get it....you think i'm 'wrong' in my thinking and clearly i don't. i see shades of grey in this scenario and i acknowledge it. that's all. i see it from a different pov than you. if criminal charges are brought up against the utility and they are found guilty, so be it.