|
AAM3
|
It's funny how this article neglects to mention the fact that including Zachary's parents being home, there were TWO nannys "watching" him play in the pool - NOT IN THE POOL WITH HIM. As a young girl I baby sat, EVERY parent told me, "when the kids are in the pool, YOU have to be in the pool. If you don't go in, THEY DON'T go in." And that's that. I don't know, maybe these millionaires who have countless lawsuits under their belt, couldn't pay the nanny's enough two swim with their child or maybe they didn't know how to, but when I was a sixteen year old girl getting paid $7 an hour to watch 3 young boys, by myself, I took full responsibility for the safety of the children, who by the way were swimming in a Shoreline Pool. The death of this child in so unfortunate and horrible, but arresting an amazing family man, like David Lionetti isn't the answer. Tearing up his family and a company with amazing hard workers, is NOT the answer. Maybe it should concentrate more on parental supervision. This article also neglects to mention the fact the way before the lawsuit was even brought upon Shoreline, they updated all pools and sent out countless packets of safety information, offered safety seminars, and even gave free safety devices out to homes who's pools were built BEFORE the new laws. Also, Shoreline was not the only company to have not built their pools up to code. HUNDREDS of pools by ALL pool companies were not built to these codes. Was it on purpose? Of course not. Why weren't these companies warned about the change in code?? And more importantly, why did they pass inspection. I believe that the Town of Greenwich and all other towns need to inspect ALL new constructions properly, they are have the final say and they should be held liable (along with the two nanny's hired to watch one child).
|
|
hmm
|
AAM3, you sound like a Shoreline shill.
|
|
The Truth
|
Judged:
1
1
The truth of the matter is when something tragic like this happens, someone needs to take the fall - a scapegoat so to speak. Lionetti happens to be that scapegoat. When all is said on done, and all the facts come out, I'm sure he will be vindicated in court, but not after suffering the stress, humiliation and cost of being put on trial. My heart goes out to the Cohen family, but it is my opinion that there is not one single person to blame in this situation.
|
|
X RC TENANT
|
So how long have you been an owner or employee of Shoreline?
|
|
Yikes
|
Judged:
1
The Truth wrote: The truth of the matter is when something tragic like this happens, someone needs to take the fall - a scapegoat so to speak. Lionetti happens to be that scapegoat. When all is said on done, and all the facts come out, I'm sure he will be vindicated in court, but not after suffering the stress, humiliation and cost of being put on trial.
My heart goes out to the Cohen family, but it is my opinion that there is not one single person to blame in this situation. Perhaps I'd agree with you about the need for a scapegoat if this were a civil suit brought by the Cohn (not Cohen) family against one individual. However, it's not. It's a criminal case; Lionetti was arrested on criminal charges. To me that means the state has adequate reason to believe Lionetti is culpable in the child's death. Perhaps you are right, and the truth will come out in court. Perhaps it's the state that will be vindicated rather than the individual. Who knows. Anything could happen, including a plea bargain.
|
|
4Heavenssake
|
Judged:
1
1
Had the parents never been in pool before? Did they not know about the suction? Did they not know about the drain cover? If the pool had ever been cleaned, somebody sure knew. AAM3 is correct about how carefully children must be supervised in a pool area. What she says is nothing new to responsible owners of pools. The "rules of behavior" when it comes to supervising children have been the same for more than 40 years.
|
|
4Heavenssake
|
Judged:
1
Had the parents never been in the pool before? Did they not know about the suction? Did they not know about the drain cover? If the pool had ever been cleaned, somebody sure knew. AAM3 is correct about how carefully children must be supervised in a pool area. What she says is nothing new to responsible owners of pools. The "rules of behavior" when it comes to supervising children have been the same for more than 40 years.
|
|
Sad but true
|
Even if the nannies had been in the pool with Zachary, would that have prevented this tragedy given that two adults, including the boy's father, couldn't pull him out since the suction was so strong? I don't think so. The pool was installed defectively and not up to safety code. This is the responsibility of the pool company and the Town, not of the pool owners.
|
|
|
|
Danny Ocean
|
Judged:
1
Free Lionetti!!! Free Lionetti!
|
|
The Truth
|
Judged:
3
1
Yikes wrote: <quoted text>
Perhaps I'd agree with you about the need for a scapegoat if this were a civil suit brought by the Cohn (not Cohen) family against one individual.
However, it's not. It's a criminal case; Lionetti was arrested on criminal charges. To me that means the state has adequate reason to believe Lionetti is culpable in the child's death.
Perhaps you are right, and the truth will come out in court. Perhaps it's the state that will be vindicated rather than the individual. Who knows. Anything could happen, including a plea bargain. But even in a criminal case, scapegoats can and have be employed. One could argue why no charges have been filed against the city employees who signed off on the pool. I recall in the NYC crane incident, charges were filed against the inspector. Shouldn't they also be held liable?
|
|
Knew them when
|
I agree most of these comments that side with the Lionetti's are probably Shoreline employess. I am sure poor sales, both on the service and construction ends, loss of public confidence in their services and now both the fire and David's legal woes certainly seem to indicate that Shoreline may have economic troubles in the future.
|
|
Pete
|
Judged:
1
1
A six-year-old kid should've stayed in the swallow end of the pool!
|
|
Publius
AOL
|
Judged:
1
The Truth wrote: <quoted text>
But even in a criminal case, scapegoats can and have be employed. One could argue why no charges have been filed against the city employees who signed off on the pool. I recall in the NYC crane incident, charges were filed against the inspector. Shouldn't they also be held liable? Considering the dearth of real information about this case, there is a lot of speculation unsupported by facts. Based on the srticle, we know: 1. The state's attorney believes there is sufficient evidence to file a criminal charge against at least one person. 2. There is a civil suit against the pool company and the Town of Greenwich. There will probably be a trial in which the various issues will be explored. If further evidence of criminal behavior is found, perhaps others will be charged. If there is insufficient evidence of criminal behavior, there will be a finding of not guilty, or the charges may ultimately be dismissed. Until then, much of what has appeared in this forum has ranged from speculative to mischievous. A child died, and a family business and reputation are at stake. They all deserve a lot more respect than they are receiving in here.
|
|
The Truth
|
Knew them when wrote: I agree most of these comments that side with the Lionetti's are probably Shoreline employess. I am sure poor sales, both on the service and construction ends, loss of public confidence in their services and now both the fire and David's legal woes certainly seem to indicate that Shoreline may have economic troubles in the future. Due to the anonymous nature of these boards, there is no way to prove anyone's affiliation with Shoreline. Only speculation. Therefore, while I understand suspicion towards posts that propose viewpoints counter to the "mainstream" view, they are a critical part of a balanced outlooked. That said, while I have no way to prove it, I will still go on record and say that I have absolutely no affiliation with Shoreline, it owners or any of its employees. I don't own a pool, and never will. And I really don't care how this issue ultimately resolves other than from a principal perspective. That said, you are obviously free to believe what you want.
|
|
6 year olds
|
can be excellent swimmers! The pool was unsafe. Pete wrote: A six-year-old kid should've stayed in the swallow end of the pool!
|
|
The Truth
|
Judged:
1
Publius wrote: <quoted text>
Considering the dearth of real information about this case, there is a lot of speculation unsupported by facts. Based on the srticle, we know:
1. The state's attorney believes there is sufficient evidence to file a criminal charge against at least one person.
2. There is a civil suit against the pool company and the Town of Greenwich.
There will probably be a trial in which the various issues will be explored. If further evidence of criminal behavior is found, perhaps others will be charged. If there is insufficient evidence of criminal behavior, there will be a finding of not guilty, or the charges may ultimately be dismissed.
Until then, much of what has appeared in this forum has ranged from speculative to mischievous. A child died, and a family business and reputation are at stake. They all deserve a lot more respect than they are receiving in here. In my original post, one of my comments was: "When all is said and done, and all the facts come out, I'm sure he will be vindicated in court..." I'm not stating fact, I am expressing an opinion which I believe is a valid use of these message boards. And I did say "when all the facts come out" as an acknowledgment that we don't yet have all the facts. I don't believe that is being "mischievous", as you put it. Perhaps your statement is not being directed at me, but it is unclear from your post.
|
|
Vox Pop
|
A child died. You can point your finger anywhere. It does not erase the loss, or the grief. A respected local business is being used for target practice by (at least some) people with axes to throw. A prosecutor has charged the owner of that company with a serious crime, believing that there is evidence for a manslaughter conviction. What we have not heard is how far the chain of culpability will reach toward the employees who did, supervised, and signed-off on that work. An official of the Town of Greenwich apparently signed-off on the work as well. We have also not heard whether the proper code installations were made, failed, became dislodged, were subsequently ignored, etc. Civil action has also been taken. There are no winners here. One positive change could come from this tragedy. Amend the Code to mandate visible, accessable poolside emergency shut-off switches.
|
|
A Norwalk parent
|
I agree, the pool was installed in 2005, I KNOW for a fact it was maintained. How come the parents weren't aware before the son died? AND, what about the fire? Arson??? or coincidence. I would guess arson but I'm not the investigator. It's very suspicious that 35 of Shoreline's trucks exploded one by one... The parents, in my opinion should be charged with Negligent Homicide... THEY should have made sure the child had an adult IN the pool, not next to it. Get a load of that house, they showed it on News 12... they have $$$$, Shoreline pools AREN'T cheap.
|
|
Wrong
|
A Norwalk parent wrote: ...Get a load of that house, they showed it on News 12... they have $$$$, Shoreline pools AREN'T cheap. What does the parents' financial status have anything to do with the situation other than feed your jealousy and desire to see rich people go down?
|
|
Madmanmike
|
Publius wrote: <quoted text>
Considering the dearth of real information about this case, there is a lot of speculation unsupported by facts. Based on the srticle, we know:
1. The state's attorney believes there is sufficient evidence to file a criminal charge against at least one person.
2. There is a civil suit against the pool company and the Town of Greenwich.
There will probably be a trial in which the various issues will be explored. If further evidence of criminal behavior is found, perhaps others will be charged. If there is insufficient evidence of criminal behavior, there will be a finding of not guilty, or the charges may ultimately be dismissed.
Until then, much of what has appeared in this forum has ranged from speculative to mischievous. A child died, and a family business and reputation are at stake. They all deserve a lot more respect than they are receiving in here. The Judge should rule immediately if there is Probable Cause (criminal) to go forward, and I would guess that there is not.
|
Yellow Pages
Cars
Judge it!
55°F
Capricorn
Most Popular