Projo 7 to 7 News Blog

ALL RI business owners should know the law! Absolutely he is responsible for the boys death due to his business being an "Attractive Nuisance".

It's too bad that the little boy passed away. The parents want to blame someone, but where were they when he was playing on private property?
It's sad all around.

A back yard swimming pool is an attractive nusiance. A concrete plant is no more an attractive nusiance than I-95 is. Parents ceasingly expect "others" to be responsible for oversight of their children, and thus responsible for parental negligence.

We need a judge and jury who will be smart enough to say to the parents.. that they are being charged.. Watch your kids. If you live close to such a hazard.. teach them.. explain the danger and keep them clear of it.. This poor man did nothing wrong.. Yet another business will close because of stupid legal issues..

How is it that a man who has fences, signs, gates, and cameras. All up to both city and Federal specs can even be charged with manslaughter?

Both a city building inspector and a federal team from OSHA found the site meeting or exceeding all required regulations.
If they didnt it would have been shut down immediately.

Real manslaughter is a driver hitting someone in their car because they were to busy texting on their cell-phone.

Patty - Fall River is in MA.

Quality Concrete had appropriate fencing and signage. Mr Douglass's conduct was not wanton and reckless - the unsupervised child's was.

The single biggest problem our society faces is an unwillingness to accept consequences of our own actions. It was the responsibility of the child's caretakers to take care of him by overseeing his activities. They failed. Ruining the life and business of a property owner who has taken many steps to keep people away from his industrial site is wrong.

In reviewing the press coverage and what appears to be an orchestrated effort on part of the prosecution, and the District Attorney appears to be making a concerted effort to influence the public and the potential Jury Pool.

The public should be asking these questions:

1. Why did it take two years for an indictment?

2. Was this the first Grand Jury hearing this case?

3. How many 'No True Bill's' 'Runaway Grand Juries' have there been until the current 'True Bill (Indictment) was issued by a Grand Jury?

4. If indeed there were only one Grand Jury that convened on this matter in April of 2008 why did it take 15 months to indict/arraign Mr. Douglass.

5. Why has the District Attorney's office choose to continue to release statements, statements that proclaim Mr. Douglass is guilty as charged knowing Mr. Douglass assuredly has been advised by counsel not to make any statements at this time in his defense.

6. Why has the District Attorney appear to have elected to try this case in the court of public opinion versus protecting Mr. Douglass's due process rights provided to every citizen.

District Attorney Sutter and all of his ADA's should take the time to read what the Supreme Court has defined the role of a 'District Attorney' should be:

'The District Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.'

I would quote Paul Harvey 'Now you know the rest of the story' except this is not the rest of the story, as there is quite a bit more and it will unravel shortly most assuredly all those unanswered questions raised and solutions to the puzzling facts asserted will be revealed.

Unfortunately, when Mr. Douglass is exonerated, that news will not appear on the front page of any of these newspapers and most assuredly District Attorney Sutter will probably avoid comment at that time.

I would just like to say that I feel badly that a child lost his life. This is very sad. As for placing blame on the business and owner, Im sorry that is just wrong! I am responsible for keeping my child safe and to know her whereabouts at ALL times. The parents need to be held accountable, not the business. My question is.. Where were the parents/guardians when this child was playing at the concrete site?

To everyone here who blames the child's parent's, I know for a fact the child was at a friend's house so it is NOT the child's parent's fault. And let me remind you that this is not the first child that died there. If I'm not mistaken, and don't hold me to my exact word, there were three other children that died here. If he had the proper fences and which I also know that there were many holes in these fences that many of the kids decided to go through this wouldn't have happened.I'm not going to be totally bias and I do put blame on the child's friend's parents that were supposed to be watching them. Its neglect upon both parts but I do think the Mr.Douglass is responsible only for the fact that there were holes in the fences and of course he IS the owner. The little boy that died there was my little cousin and by far the best little cousin anyone could ever ask for and I miss him dearly and this was a real tragic accident, but since the kids that were his friends told me that they hung in there all the time, it was bound to happen to someone and sadly its happened before. Rest in peace, Codey Michael Duclos.