Desperate Debtor Cuts Off Finger In Court
A Lisbon man cut off his finger in the middle of court after a judge refused his offer to settle his 170,000 euro ($219,436) debt. "My intention was to tear up all the case papers and splatter them with blood so I could prevent the expropriation order for my land," said Orico Silva...
Silva, who owns a 20 hectare (50 acre) farm in the central town of Figueira da Foz, was being sued by a company for holding onto a cash deposit on a land deal which had fallen through, the local newspaper said."I freaked out when the judge refused my offer to pay the debt and ordered the sale of part of my land. I told her I had a 1.2 million euro bank guarantee which would have allowed me to pay the debt," Silva said.
When he went to take the bank papers from his briefcase, he noticed the butcher's knife he had recently bought at a market and decided to cut off his index finger, using a court desk as a chopping board. He then cut the finger into three.
"I didn't feel anything, I could even have cut off all my fingers. It was an act of despair," he said.
Tragic. Why the judge wouldn't let him pay off the debt?
Man cuts off finger in court over debt [Reuters] (Photo: oskay)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
@silver-bolt: Perhaps the fingerless man was being a jerk. If he could pay the debt off, why did he hold on to the deposit? Anyone who would cut their own finger off is probably not the most "calm" person under stress.
@T Axel Jones: It's Portugal. I doubt they are as paranoid as we are in the States. Mostly rural communities, I don't think Portugal is the hot bed of psychopaths. But, I may be wrong as this story attests.
@StacheSportin'_GitEmSteveDave: Once it got to court, it could have been a valid reason, which was judged to be incorrect. Even if he was a jerk and lost his temper, for the judge to become impartial, and order him to sell part of his land (Which would take longer, possibly months) instead of the relativly quick bank transfer, shows the judge to be a jerk, and ends up unjustly hurting both the plaintiff and the defendent.
Judges should be held to a higher standard.
@silver-bolt: I had a family friend get pulled over after the cops caught up to him after three counties. My Dad, a cop at the time, went to court with him and worked a deal out with the Prosecutor. Friend goes in front of the Judge chewing gum, and gets all pissy when the Judge asks him to remove it. Since he was pleading guilty, he needed to allocute. The Judge asked him what he did, and his response was, "You know what I did". Needless to say, at the end, in response to his dis-respect of the court, he tacked on an extra $400 fine. Judges are held to a higher standard, but when people appear in court, they have to act appropriately, or face the penalty.
@StacheSportin'_GitEmSteveDave: A contempt of court fine (or even jail stay) is way different then forcing someone to sell part of their land.
@silver-bolt: i think maybe b/c the dispute was in relationship to the land, the judge felt it was appropriate to require restitution in the form of a parcel equal to the deposit.
i don't think it's entirely the judge being a jerk - if this individual was skirting the law to hold onto the money, it certainly seems like an appropriate judgment.
Bailout the corrupt, let the rest to suffer. Ooh by the way, if anyone knows who received the 2 trillion dollar loan from the Federal Reserve at the end of 2008 please let me know. I am curious as to the investments made on my behalf by the Federal Reserve.
Thanks.
Are you angry yet after all of this blatant destruction of our economy? Well GET ANGRY!
@Karl Kvalvik: Uh, this took place in Lisbon, Portugal. I'm not sure what our politics have to do with their judicial system. If you need help, the area with the circle is Portugal. It's in Europe.
I'd guess that the guy held on to a cash deposit for sale of that parcel of land, then refused to sell it while keeping the cash. The judge decided that, when deciding in favor of the other company, it would be fair to uphold the deal that the deposit was meant to secure. There may have already been a contract involved, as you don't deposit that much without paperwork--at least you wouldn't get very far in court. I wouldn't say it was a jerk judge, unless someone can come up with a good reason the guy should hold the deposit long enough to get sued.
Since I don't care enough to read any farther, that's what I declare happened. Case closed. :)
@Fenders-Stratosphere: You have to help the facebookers out sometimes. They get confused. My only mistake was I should have done color.
@StacheSportin'_GitEmSteveDave: Color might have been more confusing with a facebooker, though. Then you'd have to have more visual aides to explain that....
@Karl Kvalvik: The Federal Reserve LITERALLY prints money. When they make a loan to someone they aren't taking money from anyone. Once this loan is paid back the currency is taken out of circulation as to not inflate the currency. It's basically temporary money, since eventually the company has to pay it back.
The problem is that if the company goes under, or can't pay back the loan THEN the American taxpayers take on the burden because the Fed needs to take that money out of circulation eventually in order to prevent devaluation of the currency.













Strange choice-if I lost a case like this one of my fingers would be getting extra use.