08-02-2015, 06:03 PM
(08-02-2015, 05:20 PM)Catherine Wrote: The company that hired him should have reacted differently.Indeed. The company even distorted the truth by saying that the man couldn't see the ducks in the long grass. But witnesses saw the man smile and laugh before deliberately running them over, and even reversing back to get some more.
The court, in sentencing him, clearly believed the act to be deliberate, so why did the company try to say otherwise? The man is clearly seriously ill mentally, and a long stretch in a mental hospital should have followed the prison sentence. But the company still tried to mislead people by saying that the crime wasn't intentional - even when the man himself admitted doing it deliberately.
Perhaps the company is trying to protect its reputation (for which word read "profits" $$$$). If I lived near, I certainly wouldn't use them for any gardening work!
