Saturday, April 24, 2004
Warren man deserves bonusfor protecting his property
EDITOR:
A $500 bonus should be awarded to Jason Price of Warren for defending his family and property against the burglars who tried to or did break into his home. They had no right to enter his property and as a result deserve the consequences of their illegal actions.
It makes no sense that a person should have to abandon his property and flee, possibly having to leave his family alone with the burglars. It is time for the burglars to begin to realize that they are taking a risk of their lives when they are in the process of illegal entry onto private property.
Whether the burglars fired a gun at him or not should not be a consideration; he did what he had to do to protect himself, his family and property.
Now the legal system is trying to determine whether charges should be filed against him, instead of what charges to file against the burglars.
It is ridiculous to make Price worry about hiring and paying a lawyer and going to court to fight whatever charge they institute against him, just because he protected himself, family and property.
The burglar was taken to the hospital and treated; probably that will be paid for by we, the taxpayers, and if he goes to court to face charges, he will be represented by a public defender, who will also be paid for by the law-abiding citizens.
The officials who pass these criminal protection laws probably have burglar alarms and other security systems at their homes for protection because they can afford them; not so for the working family.
The officials protect themselves in their working areas. You have to walk through a metal scanner and several security guards to enter certain buildings for security reasons. Whose security? They protect themselves with taxpayers' dollars.
A law should be passed whereby a $500 bonus or more should be paid to any individual who is instrumental in preventing or attempting to prevent a burglary or robbery of a person, place or thing and the law written to fully protect the victim against any lawsuit or legal action against him by the criminal or the legal system in the future.
If enough criminals are injured, the message will be clear to them -- that they are risking their physical being and lives -- and they may reconsider if the crime is worth the risk involved to themselves.
JIM BERTOLINI
Warren
Banking on Mahoning Riverfor progress is pure fantasy
EDITOR:
As a fan of water sports, including canoeing and kayaking, I hate to express negative views regarding chances for the Mahoning River to become much more than the glorified sewer it has now been for many, many years, thanks to abuse by heavy industry.
But I do have to chuckle when I read these enthusiastic accounts of what a great resource the Mahoning Valley has in its namesake river.
The stumbling block to any development along the river, such as the condominiums envisioned by Mahoning County Commissioner David Ludt in Peter H. Milliken's recent article, are the railroad tracks that run along both banks of the river through much of Youngstown and neighboring communities.
Trains are very disturbing in a residential setting, and they also obviate the serenity necessary for realization of a waterway as a true recreational resource. Who would want to have one's slumber constantly interrupted by the blaring of locomotive horns and the rumble of freight cars, or have the tranquillity of a canoe excursion marred by the same ruckus?
I therefore believe that those who see the Mahoning River's progressing little beyond the ruined waterway it is today are likely quite prone to spending their spare time on fantasies.
This, of course, raises the issue of spending so much money on dredging the river of its contaminated steel mill sediment.
I suggest that until the trains are rerouted (which may itself be a fantasy) that this project be held in abeyance. But should the trains and their tracks be removed as a river development issue, and the river dredged as well, then recreational use of the river and such upscale projects as Ludt's condos would qualify as other than just pipe dreams.
ROBERT STANGER
Boardman
A blooming shame
EDITOR:
The beautiful flowers I put on my beloved husband's graver for Easter were stolen. The persons who took them should be ashamed of themselves.
How could you steal and think nothing of it?
My husband was a good and honest person, always helping people.
What's happening to our society? No morals and no one cares.
ANNIE CORDOVA
Youngstown
Unfair methods drive upinsurance costs for doctors
EDITOR:
A writer recently posed a question to me via this column. To simplify, he wondered if I knew of any frivolous malpractice case that has ever been won by a plaintiff in court. I assume by posing this question, his point is that a frivolous case, by definition, should never even make it to court. So what are the doctors worried about? If frivolous cases are always dropped before they get to the courthouse, why the big commotion by the medical community? Let me clear this up once and for all.
The legal definition of a frivolous malpractice suit is one in which a plaintiff's attorney cannot find an expert witness to support his suit. What the doctors are concerned about is the addition of blameless physicians to claims when their addition has no merit whatsoever.
As I have previously stated on this page, any patient who has come to harm at the hands of a physician deserves the right to sue that physician and win his case. However, in the process, his attorney does not have the right to harm other innocent physicians. Remember, for each malpractice "case" filed in court, sometimes 10 or 20 physicians may have been named, and usually most, if not all, are dismissed. These nonmeritorious filings waste insurance company money and are driving up the doctors' malpractice insurance costs. Remember, the doctors have to ultimately pay for the wasted funds with higher premiums. This is causing physicians in all specialties to look at positions outside Ohio, where the rates are much lower.
By way of example, let's say a motorist is driving on I-680 at a legal speed, when just as he passes the Midlothian exit, another car zips by him at 20 mph over the sped limit. A state trooper with a radar gun isn't sure who was speeding, so he gives tickets to the speeding car and 10 cars around him, since they were all in the general vicinity. Suppose this happens three days in a row, so our motorist ends up with three tickets, when he has previously had a clean, exemplary driving record. All of a sudden his auto insurance finds him a high risk, even though he's done nothing wrong, and raises his rates 150 percent. By the same token, all of the other people who got tickets have auto insurance with the same company, so the company feels our area is filled with dangerous drivers and declares our risk high, raising everyone's rates. The motorist is at the mercy of the shotgun approach to ticketing, just as the doctors in Ohio are victims of the shotgun approach to medical malpractice lawsuits. The only difference is that this doesn't happen to drivers on the road, but it does happen to physicians.
I'm sure the motorist wouldn't want his insurance rates to be raised because of someone else's unfair methods. Neither do we.
MARC S. SAUNDERS, D.O,
President, Mahoning County Medical Society