Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: GarMan on May 17, 2010, 12:27:25 PM
-
In case there was any doubt...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/my-gun-control/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/my-gun-control/)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
NUGENT: My gun control
Celebrate 139 years of the NRA
By Ted Nugent
Water, water, everywhere water. Know it, embrace it, manage it or drown. Same goes for cars, trucks, chain saws, knives, crowbars, blowtorches, teakettles and guns. I will not be denied the pragmatic, functional utility of anything based on the inept, clumsy, irresponsible failure of brain-dead, uncoordinated numskulls.
I will not drown; drink and drive; chain-saw massacre anyone; stumble; slice, burn or shoot myself, nor will I ever hold up a bank. So the best advice would be to think, improvise, adapt and overcome, man up, but by all means, leave me alone. You don't ban electric guitars just because someone may have a lapse in logic, goodwill and decency and spontaneously break out into country and Western music. The vast majority of sensible people will use electric guitars as God intended and whip out good, sexy rock 'n' roll licks.
I need my cars, trucks, chain saws, knives, crowbars, blowtorches, scalding-hot water, guitars and guns, thank you. Amazingly, I have mastered them all, and they are all wonderful ingredients for my American dream of rugged individualism, declared independence and self-sufficiency. They all serve me well, and I am not giving up any of them. Ever.
The masses must never be controlled for the sake of the lunatic fringe. Remember "Don't Tread on Me"? Don't.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) was formed 139 years ago. Members of this ultimate "we the people" grass-roots family organization dedicated to the self-evident truth of self-defense will gather together in Charlotte, N.C., May 14 through 16 for our annual meetings to celebrate good over evil. It is a beautiful thing. I will be there.
With NRA memberships increasing and gun and ammo sales and concealed-weapons permits surging at unprecedented rates, never in the history of mankind have more people possessed more firepower and, most significantly, carried more concealed weapons on their persons than today across America.
And the inescapable truth - as FBI crime reports and numerous law enforcement and academic studies conclude - is that more guns clearly equal less crime. Where there are more guns per capita, violent crime goes down, particularly crimes of assault, such as rape, burglary and robbery. This is good. This is what the NRA stands for. Anti-gunners, not so much.
It is indeed Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's gun-ban dream of "gun-free zones" that have proved to be the guaranteed slaughter zones, where the most innocent lives are lost every time. Think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northwest Illinois University, New Jersey, Salt Lake City and Omaha malls, Luby's Cafeteria, Calgary University, Toronto, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, Flight 93, the mayor's office in San Francisco, ad nauseam. Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa."
So why in God's good name would any human being wish to force unarmed helplessness on another? That level of cruel indecency and forced victimization is incomprehensible to me and about 100 million Americans who own guns and believe in self-defense. The lunatic-fringe left won't dare touch the issue of gun control. Self-defense is the most powerful, driving instinct in good people everywhere. To deny this is evil personified.
Write this down: Gun-free zones are a felon's playground. Ban gun-free zones now. Join the NRA.
Good people don't want the rapist to succeed. We want him dead. We don't want our homes invaded. We want invaders dead. We don't like carjackers. We like them dead. We don't like armed robbers. We like them dead.
We have examined all the evidence we could possibly need to know that calling 911 is a joke unless, of course, the cops bring a dustpan and a mop to clean up the dead monster we just shot while protecting our families.
The choice is clear: Gun control as forced by the Chuck Schumers and Michael Bloombergs of the world is complicit in every violent crime committed. Conversely, gun control a la Ted Nugent is putting the second shot through the same hole as the first shot, where innocent lives are saved and recidivistic maggots come to a screeching halt, felled by the lovely ballet of good over evil we call the "Double Tap Center Mass Boogie." Learn it, know it, love it, shoot it. Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much.
It is reassuring and ultimately convenient that fresh from escaping the scourge of tyranny and slavery of kings and emperors, our brilliant, sensible Founding Fathers knew it was important to write down the self-evident truth that the right to self-defense is surely a God-given individual right to keep and bear arms.
Write this down, too: "To keep" means it is mine, you can't have it. "Bear" means I've got mine right here on me. "Shall not be infringed" echoes that beautiful "Don't Tread on Me" chorus. Sing it.
I like the U.S. Constitution and our sacred Bill Of Rights, but quite frankly, I don't really need them to know in my heart and soul the list of self-evident truths therein. Those came from thinking, common-sense men who refused to be helpless, dependent slaves to anyone or anything. Those truths are all burned forever into my soul. I live them, no matter what.
Meanwhile, in order to stop the drowning and murders, I will work on banning water; President Obama can try to ban guns. Good luck. Save an innocent life, join the NRA and celebrate 139 years of keeping and bearing. Drive a bad guy nuts. Then shoot him.
Ted Nugent is an unstoppable American rock 'n' roll, sporting and political-activist icon. Author of "Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto" and "God, Guns & Rock 'N' Roll" (Regnery Publishing), he serves in the NRA board of directors.
No gray areas... Absolute positions... No doubt... It's pretty clear to me.
-
In case there was any doubt...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/my-gun-control/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/my-gun-control/)
No gray areas... Absolute positions... No doubt... It's pretty clear to me.
Ακριβώς ποιων σκέφτεστε ότι μπαίνετε σε αυτό το φόρουμ beta για να μιλήσετε για την ηθική απολυταρχία σας;
Moral absolutist!
Great article!
-
Ακριβώς ποιων σκέφτεστε ότι μπαίνετε σε αυτό το φόρουμ beta για να μιλήσετε για την ηθική απολυταρχία σας;
Moral absolutist!
Great article!
Я собираюсь кричать
-
¡sǝɥɔʇıq 'uʍop ǝpısdn ǝdʎʇ uɐɔ ı ʇnq 'ʞǝǝɹƃ ʎɔuɐɯɥs-ʎɔuɐɟ ɹnoʎ puɐʇsɹǝpun oʇ ǝןqɐ ǝq ʇou ʇɥƃıɯ ı
-
By your reasoning, these guys are also alpha males...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtTEibFvlQ#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtTEibFvlQ#ws)
Just saying...
-
In case there was any doubt...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/my-gun-control/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/my-gun-control/)
No gray areas... Absolute positions... No doubt... It's pretty clear to me.
You're smart enough to realize that absolutes rarely end well for the party asserting them. There are precious few things in life that can be reduced to black/white.
I'll preemptively call myself racist for that last sentence.
-
By your reasoning, these guys are also alpha males...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtTEibFvlQ#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNtTEibFvlQ#ws)
Just saying...
Absolutely! YEAHYAAHH!!!!!!
-
Damn crazy drug-addled rock-n-roll gun freak!
-
Я собираюсь кричать
:rofl:
-
I understand where Nugent is coming from for the most part, but he's also waaayyyy out in La-La land. I watched an episode the other night where he brought down a moose with a bow and it only confirmed what I've thought all along....that boy ain't right in the head.
"When I come up on a magnificent beast like this and every fiber of my inner being just screams out for joy as the spirit of the one great animal god rips through my very core. (Long, deep inhale and goofy smile as he looks to the sky) I know that slaughtering a beast like this is good and right and helps to protect and sanctify natures circle of never ending goodness and....
STFU already Ted. Being rich and living on a farm where corn fed big game animals are released from a holding pen just before you begin your 'hunt" does not make you one with nature. I watched the man bow hunt whitetail over a field that was...GOLD. The hapless deer were walking and feeding in a field that had no grass, only feed. Ssssnnnniiiiifffff....aahhh...smell that? It's the spirit of the wild as it pulses through my veins.
-
I understand where Nugent is coming from for the most part, but he's also waaayyyy out in La-La land. I watched an episode the other night where he brought down a moose with a bow and it only confirmed what I've thought all along....that boy ain't right in the head.
"When I come up on a magnificent beast like this and every fiber of my inner being just screams out for joy as the spirit of the one great animal god rips through my very core. (Long, deep inhale and goofy smile as he looks to the sky) I know that slaughtering a beast like this is good and right and helps to protect and sanctify natures circle of never ending goodness and....
STFU already Ted. Being rich and living on a farm where corn fed big game animals are released from a holding pen just before you begin your 'hunt" does not make you one with nature. I watched the man bow hunt whitetail over a field that was...GOLD. The hapless deer were walking and feeding in a field that had no grass, only feed. Ssssnnnniiiiifffff....aahhh...smell that? It's the spirit of the wild as it pulses through my veins.
Yeah yeah - you say this all on the Al Gore Innerwebs, but what would Ted do if you were saying this 10 feet (or 1,324 feet) from him?
-
Yeah yeah - you say this all on the Al Gore Innerwebs, but what would Ted do if you were saying this 10 feet (or 1,324 feet) from him?
Well, I may look stupid but....
No, I grew on Ted and saw him in concert. Love hunting etc. But this guy is a certifiable nuttz case.
-
I understand where Nugent is coming from for the most part, but he's also waaayyyy out in La-La land. I watched an episode the other night where he brought down a moose with a bow and it only confirmed what I've thought all along....that boy ain't right in the head.
"When I come up on a magnificent beast like this and every fiber of my inner being just screams out for joy as the spirit of the one great animal god rips through my very core. (Long, deep inhale and goofy smile as he looks to the sky) I know that slaughtering a beast like this is good and right and helps to protect and sanctify natures circle of never ending goodness and....
STFU already Ted. Being rich and living on a farm where corn fed big game animals are released from a holding pen just before you begin your 'hunt" does not make you one with nature. I watched the man bow hunt whitetail over a field that was...GOLD. The hapless deer were walking and feeding in a field that had no grass, only feed. Ssssnnnniiiiifffff....aahhh...smell that? It's the spirit of the wild as it pulses through my veins.
Ted is goofy, and loud...but he's spot on on gun rights and gun control, and hunters rights. In some states using bait is perfectly legal, Texas for one. I assume it is in Mich too if that's where Nugent filmed that hunt.
-
You're smart enough to realize that absolutes rarely end well for the party asserting them. There are precious few things in life that can be reduced to black/white.
I'll preemptively call myself racist for that last sentence.
I couldn't disagree more with you. Absolutes are everywhere, and there's nothing wrong with them. It's just become fashionable, Oprah-esque and Politically Correct to accept moral and socio-economic subjectivism as "justification" for these gray areas. He car-jacked you because he was economically "disadvantaged", lacked transportation or hungry, and therefore should receive a lighter sentence... BULLSCHIT! Cap his ass and do society a favor.
-
Well, I may look stupid but....
No, I grew on Ted and saw him in concert. Love hunting etc. But this guy is a certifiable nuttz case.
Ted may be out there I don't disagree, but the message holds true. It doesn't make it any less relevant, and it doesn't make it incorrect. Aside from that, I'm still a fan, and I'll always be...
-
I couldn't disagree more with you. Absolutes are everywhere, and there's nothing wrong with them. It's just become fashionable, Oprah-esque and Politically Correct to accept moral and socio-economic subjectivism as "justification" for these gray areas. He car-jacked you because he was economically "disadvantaged", lacked transportation or hungry, and therefore should receive a lighter sentence... BULLSCHIT! Cap his ass and do society a favor.
Politically speaking, absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time. Guns and hunting are issues that the proponents have to be willing to compromise on, and take baby steps at times.
-
I couldn't disagree more with you. Absolutes are everywhere, and there's nothing wrong with them. It's just become fashionable, Oprah-esque and Politically Correct to accept moral and socio-economic subjectivism as "justification" for these gray areas. He car-jacked you because he was economically "disadvantaged", lacked transportation or hungry, and therefore should receive a lighter sentence... BULLSCHIT! Cap his ass and do society a favor.
Wasn't this already discussed in the BETA-MALE thread?
-
Politically speaking, absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time. Guns and hunting are issues that the proponents have to be willing to compromise on, and take baby steps at times.
Again, I strongly disagree on both points. The absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time only happens when you're on the wrong side of the position. As for compromise, you can't be serious. They took their baby-steps during he Clinton years banning high-capacity magazines and declaring certain hunting firearms as assault rifles. Today, they're calling the device used in the attempted bombing in New York a WMD, but we can't agree on the same classification of the thousands of more powerful weapons confiscated and destroyed in Iraq that were found.
-
Again, I strongly disagree on both points. The absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time only happens when you're on the wrong side of the position. As for compromise, you can't be serious. They took their baby-steps during he Clinton years banning high-capacity magazines and declaring certain hunting firearms as assault rifles. Today, they're calling the device used in the attempted bombing in New York a WMD, but we can't agree on the same classification of the thousands of more powerful weapons confiscated and destroyed in Iraq that were found.
Disagree if you want, you'll be wrong.
-
A hunter that is willing to compromise on gun rights, is a last generation hunter.
And a beta-male.
-
Disagree if you want, you'll be wrong.
Lawyer are ya?
-
A hunter that is willing to compromise on gun rights, is a last generation hunter.
And a beta-male.
Depends on what the compromise is.
-
Here's what I have a problem with.
"And the inescapable truth - as FBI crime reports and numerous law enforcement and academic studies conclude - is that more guns clearly equal less crime. Where there are more guns per capita, violent crime goes down, particularly crimes of assault, such as rape, burglary and robbery. This is good. This is what the NRA stands for. Anti-gunners, not so much."
Now, let me say first that I have zero anti-gun agenda and in fact have owned (still own) quite a few. I'm just curious about these "Studies" and what areas they focus own, how they come up, what criteria they use etc. I guess I'm conjuring up this vision of Nugent wanting a wild west type mentality where most law abidin' folk are packing. Somehow, this is going to deter violent crime. Here's the logic that just boggles my mind.
"It is indeed Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's gun-ban dream of "gun-free zones" that have proved to be the guaranteed slaughter zones, where the most innocent lives are lost every time. Think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northwest Illinois University, New Jersey, Salt Lake City and Omaha malls, Luby's Cafeteria, Calgary University, Toronto, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, Flight 93, the mayor's office in San Francisco, ad nauseam. Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa."
Columbine? Uumm...no. Unless you want every school in America secured with armed guards at every door and expecting some of their very own to plan an unwarranted attack on students... Do you want the students packing. Sorry, can't prevent this kind of thing. And where did the kids get the guns in the first place?
Va. Tech? Same situation. You can't guard against shit like that. Who is going to lock down a college campus 24/7 with armed security? Again, you want the students packing heat in class? The Professors?
Lane Bryant? Now why in the hell would anyone feel the need to have armed guards in the Big Girl's store? And guess what...the majority of these incidents cited were perpetrated by individuals who knew going in they were going to die anyway. They don't give a rats ass if you're packing or not. And before you argue that maybe somebody could have gotten them first...well maybe...hardly though. These things go down in a blink of an eye and the 8-10 popped off in the Mall are gone long before you and I and all other gun totin patrons in the food court can whip em' out and start blasting away.
Look, I have no qualms with the right to bear arms and I agree it is my constitutional and God given right to protect myself. But this kind of logic is just baffling. I've taken two trips to Guatemala ove the past few years. If you go in a store..any store..armed guard. You go to a hotel..armed guards. The little fishing resort I went to...away from everything..armed guards on each side of the resort. Not firearms in a holster, sawed off shotguns, machine guns locked and loaded. If there is a truck load of sugar cane going down the road for a delivery, armed guards riding along. Why? Because everyone else who can afford a gun or get their hands on one...has one too and they WILL attack you and blow your ass away...quick. No, not comparing apples to apples. But I picture Nugents' idea of a gun toting America evolving into something similar.
-
Here's what I have a problem with.
"And the inescapable truth - as FBI crime reports and numerous law enforcement and academic studies conclude - is that more guns clearly equal less crime. Where there are more guns per capita, violent crime goes down, particularly crimes of assault, such as rape, burglary and robbery. This is good. This is what the NRA stands for. Anti-gunners, not so much."
Now, let me say first that I have zero anti-gun agenda and in fact have owned (still own) quite a few. I'm just curious about these "Studies" and what areas they focus own, how they come up, what criteria they use etc. I guess I'm conjuring up this vision of Nugent wanting a wild west type mentality where most law abidin' folk are packing. Somehow, this is going to deter violent crime. Here's the logic that just boggles my mind.
"It is indeed Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's gun-ban dream of "gun-free zones" that have proved to be the guaranteed slaughter zones, where the most innocent lives are lost every time. Think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northwest Illinois University, New Jersey, Salt Lake City and Omaha malls, Luby's Cafeteria, Calgary University, Toronto, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, Flight 93, the mayor's office in San Francisco, ad nauseam. Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa."
Columbine? Uumm...no. Unless you want every school in America secured with armed guards at every door and expecting some of their very own to plan an unwarranted attack on students... Do you want the students packing. Sorry, can't prevent this kind of thing. And where did the kids get the guns in the first place?
Va. Tech? Same situation. You can't guard against shit like that. Who is going to lock down a college campus 24/7 with armed security? Again, you want the students packing heat in class? The Professors?
Lane Bryant? Now why in the hell would anyone feel the need to have armed guards in the Big Girl's store? And guess what...the majority of these incidents cited were perpetrated by individuals who knew going in they were going to die anyway. They don't give a rats ass if you're packing or not. And before you argue that maybe somebody could have gotten them first...well maybe...hardly though. These things go down in a blink of an eye and the 8-10 popped off in the Mall are gone long before you and I and all other gun totin patrons in the food court can whip em' out and start blasting away.
Look, I have no qualms with the right to bear arms and I agree it is my constitutional and God given right to protect myself. But this kind of logic is just baffling. I've taken two trips to Guatemala ove the past few years. If you go in a store..any store..armed guard. You go to a hotel..armed guards. The little fishing resort I went to...away from everything..armed guards on each side of the resort. Not firearms in a holster, sawed off shotguns, machine guns locked and loaded. If there is a truck load of sugar cane going down the road for a delivery, armed guards riding along. Why? Because everyone else who can afford a gun or get their hands on one...has one too and they WILL attack you and blow your ass away...quick. No, not comparing apples to apples. But I picture Nugents' idea of a gun toting America evolving into something similar.
Studies can be made to say whatever the agenda of the one creating the study wants to say. Here's the bottom line, and you touched on it. It's a GOD GIVEN right to self protection. The government has some rational basis for limiting how we can do that...within reason. The right to own guns is a Constitutional right that is actually a limiting aspect of the God given right to self protecton, or we'd all be free to own Atom Bombs to protect ourselves. The debate comes in as to what's reasonable for one to use for self protection. But no crime study is needed to show that I can own a gun to protect me and mine. You know I really believe in the following:
"The society of late twentieth century America is perhaps the first in human history where most grown men do not routinely bear arms on their persons and boys are not regularly raised from childhood to learn skill in the use of some kind of weapon, either for community or personal defense - club or spear, broadsword or long bow, rifle or Bowie knife. It also happens to be one of the rudest and crudest societies in history, having jubilantly swept most of the etiquette of speech, table, dress, hospitality, fairness, deference to authority and the relations of male and female and child and elder under the fraying and filthy carpet of politically convenient illusions. With little fear of physical reprisal Americans can be as loud, gross, disrespectful, pushy, and negligent as they please. If more people carried rapiers at their belts, or revolvers on their hips, It is a fair bet you would be able to go to a movie and enjoy he dialogue from the screen without having to endure the small talk, family gossip and assorted bodily noises that many theater audiences these days regularly emit. Today, discourtesy is commonplace precisely because there is no price to pay for it."
-Samuel Francis
As Heinlein put it,
"An armed society is a polite society."
-
Disagree if you want, you'll be wrong.
Talk about black and white... Seriously, share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about. Give me some perspective or points to review.
-
Here's what I have a problem with.
<snip>
Now, let me say first that I have zero anti-gun agenda and in fact have owned (still own) quite a few. I'm just curious about these "Studies" and what areas they focus own, how they come up, what criteria they use etc. I guess I'm conjuring up this vision of Nugent wanting a wild west type mentality where most law abidin' folk are packing. Somehow, this is going to deter violent crime. Here's the logic that just boggles my mind.
It's not the "wild west" that anybody's advocating. It's more about the ability to defend yourself. It's a very simple concept taken down to the basic of arguments.
<snip>
Columbine? Uumm...no. Unless you want every school in America secured with armed guards at every door and expecting some of their very own to plan an unwarranted attack on students... Do you want the students packing. Sorry, can't prevent this kind of thing. And where did the kids get the guns in the first place?
One armed guard or armed teacher could have changed the course of events that day. Instead, the victims had no chance. Oh and, the kids got the guns from their parents, while they weren't home. They didn't purchase them from gun shows like Moore, Bloomberg and others would have you believe. Their parents had to purchase them. By the way, my high school had armed police officers, and that was well over 20 years ago. Is that such an outrageous idea? In fact, my coach kept a gun in his office desk drawer. Nobody thought twice about it.
Va. Tech? Same situation. You can't guard against poop like that. Who is going to lock down a college campus 24/7 with armed security? Again, you want the students packing heat in class? The Professors?
All of my schools had an armed police force. Is that a new idea? They even had police cars, a small police station and holding cells. And, is it that outrageous to expect a college student or professor to own a gun? Nobody is saying that you have to own and carry a gun.
Lane Bryant? Now why in the hell would anyone feel the need to have armed guards in the Big Girl's store? And guess what...the majority of these incidents cited were perpetrated by individuals who knew going in they were going to die anyway. They don't give a rats ass if you're packing or not. And before you argue that maybe somebody could have gotten them first...well maybe...hardly though. These things go down in a blink of an eye and the 8-10 popped off in the Mall are gone long before you and I and all other gun totin patrons in the food court can whip em' out and start blasting away.
Fair enough...
Look, I have no qualms with the right to bear arms and I agree it is my constitutional and God given right to protect myself. But this kind of logic is just baffling. I've taken two trips to Guatemala ove the past few years. If you go in a store..any store..armed guard. You go to a hotel..armed guards. The little fishing resort I went to...away from everything..armed guards on each side of the resort. Not firearms in a holster, sawed off shotguns, machine guns locked and loaded. If there is a truck load of sugar cane going down the road for a delivery, armed guards riding along. Why? Because everyone else who can afford a gun or get their hands on one...has one too and they WILL attack you and blow your ass away...quick. No, not comparing apples to apples. But I picture Nugents' idea of a gun toting America evolving into something similar.
You're taking it to a ridiculous extreme. I don't see what's baffling about any of these points. Knowing that these types of things do happen, it's better to have a choice to carry than let someone take that choice away from you.
-
Talk about black and white... Seriously, share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about. Give me some perspective or points to review.
Would you feel better if I just posted "I strongly disagree" then cited one thing to "prove" I'm right? On most political issues, guns, hunting, abortion, etc, etc...you either have to give the other side something they want to get ALL you want, or give up something to get the things you hold most sacred. That's pretty simple. If you don't think so, name a bill (of any consequence) that passes with the first draft. I'll wait here holding my breath.
-
Would you feel better if I just posted "I strongly disagree" then cited one thing to "prove" I'm right? On most political issues, guns, hunting, abortion, etc, etc...you either have to give the other side something they want to get ALL you want, or give up something to get the things you hold most sacred. That's pretty simple. If you don't think so, name a bill (of any consequence) that passes with the first draft. I'll wait here holding my breath.
Wait a minute... You're not making any sense here. You're the one who threw out, absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time, and I requested that you share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about. The way I see it, most gun bans end up getting overturned; D.C., Seattle, University of Colorado, San Fran-sissy, etc... As I stated previously, those absolutes only seem to lose when you're on the wrong side of the position.
-
Talk about black and white... Seriously, share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about. Give me some perspective or points to review.
From this article only:
"Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa."
Self-defense is the most powerful, driving instinct in good people everywhere. To deny this is evil personified.
Good people don't want the rapist to succeed. We want him dead. We don't want our homes invaded. We want invaders dead. We don't like carjackers. We like them dead. We don't like armed robbers. We like them dead.
Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much.
I couldn't disagree more with you. Absolutes are everywhere, and there's nothing wrong with them. It's just become fashionable, Oprah-esque and Politically Correct to accept moral and socio-economic subjectivism as "justification" for these gray areas. He car-jacked you because he was economically "disadvantaged", lacked transportation or hungry, and therefore should receive a lighter sentence... BULLSCHIT! Cap his ass and do society a favor.
So, all persons convicted of felony grand theft auto should be shot. That's what you're advocating here, right?
-
From this article only:
"Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa."
Self-defense is the most powerful, driving instinct in good people everywhere. To deny this is evil personified.
Good people don't want the rapist to succeed. We want him dead. We don't want our homes invaded. We want invaders dead. We don't like carjackers. We like them dead. We don't like armed robbers. We like them dead.
Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much.
Are these really gray areas?
So, all persons convicted of felony grand theft auto should be shot. That's what you're advocating here, right?
Not that it's a gray area or even requires clarification, we're not talking about simply shooting those arrested and convicted of these crimes. We're talking about defending ourselves as we are being victimized during the commission of these crimes. There's a context that goes along with these statements. You know that.
-
There's a context that goes along with these statements.
Context being the keyword. Sometimes people will take it out to left field and use the shit out of it.
-
Are these really gray areas?
Not the way Ted presents them, of course. This, however:
Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much.
is as gray as the day is long. "Good" and "bad" are mind-numbingly subjective terms.
Not that it's a gray area or even requires clarification, we're not talking about simply shooting those arrested and convicted of these crimes. We're talking about defending ourselves as we are being victimized during the commission of these crimes. There's a context that goes along with these statements. You know that.
Pop off anytime you feel threatened? Peace through superior firepower, Bodi?
-
I believe in ammunition and my own good judgment.
-
Not the way Ted presents them, of course. This, however:
Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much.
is as gray as the day is long. "Good" and "bad" are mind-numbingly subjective terms.
Of course, the article is referencing car-jackers, muggers, rapists, murderer, etc... The statement alone, taken out of context, may be subjective, but you're just playing devil's advocate here.
Pop off anytime you feel threatened? Peace through superior firepower, Bodi?
And, I love this one... Am I supposed to wait until the thug has his knife 1/4" in me? Does he have to slice all the way through my carotid artery before I use my firearm? Or, is a woman supposed to wait until her clothes have been torn completely off before she can retrieve her firearm? Oh wait... I got it. How about a time out period for criminals? No, it's not a time out for the criminals; it's a time out for their victims. Perhaps, we should wait 30 seconds from the first time we feel threatened during an altercation before we take any action.
Sorry Wes... If the immediate facts of any given situation suggest that I may be harmed by another, I'm emptying the clip. And, I carry a spar clip with both of my automatic handguns just in case I have any doubts.
-
If the immediate facts of any given situation suggest that I may be harmed by another, I'm emptying the clip. And, I carry a spar clip with both of my automatic handguns just in case I have any doubts.
Judged by 12 in lieu of being toted by 6.
-
Wait a minute... You're not making any sense here. You're the one who threw out, absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time, and I requested that you share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about. The way I see it, most gun bans end up getting overturned; D.C., Seattle, University of Colorado, San Fran-sissy, etc... As I stated previously, those absolutes only seem to lose when you're on the wrong side of the position.
No, you're being childish. Here, I'll fix it so it's not an "absolute": "all or nothing" gets you beat most every time in politics". The NRA has played the give and take game for a long time. I don't like some of the concessions they've made over the years, but I'm glad the leadership doesn't think like you, or they'd probably have been less successful in preserving my 2nd Amendment rights. You don't only lose when you're on the wrong side, and I don't care how you see that. But, you do couch things in "non-absolute" terms with your "the way I see it.." statements. If you want an intelligent discussion, don't play word games.
-
Judged by 12 in lieu of being toted by 6.
Truer words have never been spoken. Unless you have been trained or brought up with knowledge of safety and responsible use of firearms, you are a product of a victim society. A society where lawyers have everyone afraid of getting sued. At one point in this great country, people were afraid to protect their own homes due to reprisals from the criminal and civil legal system. Thank God we have the right to protect our own without fear of the lawyers. No longer are we homeowners required to by a shovel when we purchase a gun for self defense.
-
No, you're being childish. Here, I'll fix it so it's not an "absolute": "all or nothing" gets you beat most every time in politics". The NRA has played the give and take game for a long time. I don't like some of the concessions they've made over the years, but I'm glad the leadership doesn't think like you, or they'd probably have been less successful in preserving my 2nd Amendment rights. You don't only lose when you're on the wrong side, and I don't care how you see that. But, you do couch things in "non-absolute" terms with your "the way I see it.." statements. If you want an intelligent discussion, don't play word games.
You've got to be kidding me. If I'm being childish by your standards, you're a belligerent ass. I can't think of any of these so-called concessions by the NRA, and you can't seem to provide any examples. Which ones don't you like? If I'm wrong, please site an example of this "give and take". You can't get anymore absolute than the cold, dead hands catch-phrase used by Heston. There are no word games being played here. The gun bans that I referenced were overturned. They were on the wrong side of the absolute position, and they lost. End of story...
-
You've got to be kidding me. If I'm being childish by your standards, you're a belligerent ass. I can't think of any of these so-called concessions by the NRA, and you can't seem to provide any examples. Which ones don't you like? If I'm wrong, please site an example of this "give and take". You can't get anymore absolute than the cold, dead hands catch-phrase used by Heston. There are no word games being played here. The gun bans that I referenced were overturned. They were on the wrong side of the absolute position, and they lost. End of story...
So, Heston's puffery is a no holds barred, absolute political stand by the NRA? Words my friend, mere words. A good motto, but in the real world of Washington D.C. it's not what flies.
I can't tell you you're wrong without you declaring that because you don't see it that way or b ecause you don't believe that it's not true. The NRA's compromises have come more in the form of being passive on some issues. You can read what some think here (on which I agree in part):
http://www.nrawol.net/Compromising_Strategy.html (http://www.nrawol.net/Compromising_Strategy.html)
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/15731-does-nra-compromise-too-much.html (http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/15731-does-nra-compromise-too-much.html)
-
Garman,
Here's the funny thing...it would appear that you and I are on the same side of the 2nd Amendment issue, and are arguing over something that matters little.
-
Garman,
Here's the funny thing...it would appear that you and I are on the same side of the 2nd Amendment issue, and are arguing over something that matters little.
Fucking a right. Cause what matters is getting rounds downrange and on target.
-
Fucking a right. Cause what matters is getting rounds downrange and on target.
While employing the use of adequate hearing and eye protection.
The NRA will not budge. They know that there is no compromise on the left. The left has stated adamantly that they want ALL guns out of the hands of citizens. There can be no compromise. And any gun owner that thinks there can be, will be a former gun owner in the years that come if it is allowed to take place.
-
While employing the use of adequate hearing and eye protection.
The NRA will not budge. They know that there is no compromise on the left. The left has stated adamantly that they want ALL guns out of the hands of citizens. There can be no compromise. And any gun owner that thinks there can be, will be a former gun owner in the years that come if it is allowed to take place.
CCT -sometimes I just really agree with you. This is one of those times.
-
While employing the use of adequate hearing and eye protection.
The NRA will not budge. They know that there is no compromise on the left. The left has stated adamantly that they want ALL guns out of the hands of citizens. There can be no compromise. And any gun owner that thinks there can be, will be a former gun owner in the years that come if it is allowed to take place.
They shouldn't budge, but they have, in the form of failure to act at times. On paper, and in the public areana, they hold fast...in reality, they've given in a time or two.
-
Truer words have never been spoken. Unless you have been trained or brought up with knowledge of safety and responsible use of firearms, you are a product of a victim society. A society where lawyers have everyone afraid of getting sued. At one point in this great country, people were afraid to protect their own homes due to reprisals from the criminal and civil legal system. Thank God we have the right to protect our own without fear of the lawyers. No longer are we homeowners required to by a shovel when we purchase a gun for self defense.
I won't even go into your constant and pathetic generalizations, stereotyping and bashing of an entire profession, one of which I am a proud member. There was no point in this country, ever, where people were afraid to defend themselves as they saw fit for fear of getting sued. Utter bullshit. If you choose to purchase a gun for protection and train yourself in it's proper usage, at NO time is a person ever going to be faced with a life threatening situation and go..."Well golly gee, I've got this gun here and this guy is coming at me with a knife. Hmm, maybe I should just go ahead and let this guy stab me because I just might get sued."
Are there those who would threaten our 2nd Amendment rights? Sure there are. Always has been and always will be. As I've said before, I'm also a proud gun owner and plan on staying that way. And if me or my family find ourselves in a life threatening situation, I WILL use that gun for protection. Despite the fact that I am a lawyer, I am afforded the same protections and face the same possible reprisals that you say exist from all those other nasty lawyers. I can safely say that if faced with that situation, at no time will I ever consider the possibility of reprisals either criminally or civilly if mine or my family's lives are in danger. If that's what's on your mind, you need to focus.
-
So, Heston's puffery is a no holds barred, absolute political stand by the NRA? Words my friend, mere words. A good motto, but in the real world of Washington D.C. it's not what flies.
Of course... But, you see the sharp contrast. I'm sure that you understand the point that I'm making.
I can't tell you you're wrong without you declaring that because you don't see it that way or b ecause you don't believe that it's not true. The NRA's compromises have come more in the form of being passive on some issues. You can read what some think here (on which I agree in part):
http://www.nrawol.net/Compromising_Strategy.html (http://www.nrawol.net/Compromising_Strategy.html)
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/15731-does-nra-compromise-too-much.html (http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/15731-does-nra-compromise-too-much.html)
And, there we go. I agree with you. This is what I would have expected to conduct a rational discussion, but instead, you just threw spins at me without supporting your position. Yes, the NRA has backed down from expecting tanks, grenades and atom bombs in every citizen's garage. I think that we'd agree the intent of the 2nd Amendment didn't support that level of arms. I really don't think they've ever argued that, but you hear differently from the media and the left-wing nutjobs out there. And from some of the discussions on these websites, I definitely agree with you. The NRA has backed away from fully automatic firearms, and in several ways, they've become a little passive as you've identified. Most of us really don't need or want a Gatling gun. We just want the basic arms to support our sporting and defensive activities, as I would suggest, the basic intent of the 2nd Amendment.
The Nuge's article isn't anything different. It's a hardline look at the basic right simplified for everyone in terms that all can understand. If you take some of those statements and post them without the context of the article, they appear wacko and kooky. I don't disagree, but the NRA isn't compromising basic gun rights between the hours of x and y. We either have gun rights, or we don't. There is no compromise, and there are no gray areas.
http://www.youtube.com/v/bpFDHO-tqUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]http://www.youtube.com/v/bpFDHO-tqUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&
-
I won't even go into your constant and pathetic generalizations, stereotyping and bashing of an entire profession, one of which I am a proud member. There was no point in this country, ever, where people were afraid to defend themselves as they saw fit for fear of getting sued. Utter bullshit. If you choose to purchase a gun for protection and train yourself in it's proper usage, at NO time is a person ever going to be faced with a life threatening situation and go..."Well golly gee, I've got this gun here and this guy is coming at me with a knife. Hmm, maybe I should just go ahead and let this guy stab me because I just might get sued."
I just like the thin skin.
There WAS a time in the late 70s to early 90s where many homeowners were charged for shooting an assailant on THEIR property. It was to the point where the old joke was that if you shoot them coming through the window, pull them in so you won't get sued. If you shot through the door when someone was trying to break it down, you got arrested. Not sure how old you are, but growing up this was a common occurrence. I guess all of these castle laws that have been passed in the last few years were just from a random common sense thoughts. No. They were because of all of the lawsuits that folks had to endure when they tried to protect their family on their property and it was alleged by lawyers in court that force was not needed.
I subscribe to the southern way of self protection:
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and two small children.
Suddenly, an Islamic
Terrorist with a huge knife
comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you...
You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN:
Democrat's Answer:
· Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
· Does the man look poor or oppressed?
· Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
· Could we run away?
· What does my wife think?
· What about the kids?
· Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
· What does the law say about this situation?
· Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
· Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
· Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
· Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
· If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
· Should I call 9-1-1?
· Why is this street so deserted?
· We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.
· Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
· I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
· This is all so confusing!
............................................................................
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
.......................................................................
Southerner's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!'
'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Point s?! '
Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'
Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!
-
I just like the thin skin.
There WAS a time in the late 70s to early 90s where many homeowners were charged for shooting an assailant on THEIR property. It was to the point where the old joke was that if you shoot them coming through the window, pull them in so you won't get sued. If you shot through the door when someone was trying to break it down, you got arrested. Not sure how old you are, but growing up this was a common occurrence. I guess all of these castle laws that have been passed in the last few years were just from a random common sense thoughts. No. They were because of all of the lawsuits that folks had to endure when they tried to protect their family on their property and it was alleged by lawyers in court that force was not needed.
I subscribe to the southern way of self protection:
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Southerner?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and two small children.
Suddenly, an Islamic
Terrorist with a huge knife
comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you...
You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN:
Democrat's Answer:
· Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
· Does the man look poor or oppressed?
· Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
· Could we run away?
· What does my wife think?
· What about the kids?
· Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
· What does the law say about this situation?
· Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
· Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
· Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
· Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
· If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
· Should I call 9-1-1?
· Why is this street so deserted?
· We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.
· Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
· I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
· This is all so confusing!
............................................................................
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
.......................................................................
Southerner's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!'
'Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Point s?! '
Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'
Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!
Really classic little funny story, but typical of how you'd support your position.
Unfortunately, you're dead wrong. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for shooting an assailant on their property, when it was a reasonable and proper defense of themselves or another person, and even in some cases, mere defense of property. The funny thing about the "make sure you drag them inside" theory, is that if you have to do that, you probably had no reasonable need to use deadly force to begin with. And, it's a hell of a lot easier to justify your own fear of your own life, than to justify tampering with a crime scene to make it APPEAR you feared for your life.
Fear of getting sued, in large part, stems from anti-lawyer blowhards like you who don't know anything and think every lawsuit is frivolous, or that anybody sued for shooting a "bad guy" is being wrongfully sued.
-
Really classic little funny story, but typical of how you'd support your position.
Unfortunately, you're dead wrong. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for shooting an assailant on their property,
Total bullshit. Maybe they didn't get convicted. But then again, who did that help support?
THE LAWYERS. The only ones who ever win..........
Seems sensible for you to take this position (more money for you), but the rest of us lived it.
-
Total bullpoop. Maybe they didn't get convicted. But then again, who did that help support?
THE LAWYERS. The only ones who ever win..........
Seems sensible for you to take this position (more money for you), but the rest of us lived it.
This is why we need a "loser pays" system. If you lose the lawsuit, you get to pay all of the expenses for trying the case including the defense costs, administrative costs (judge, jurry, etc.) and your own costs. It would solve a lot of problems!
-
This is why we need a "loser pays" system. If you lose the lawsuit, you get to pay all of the expenses for trying the case including the defense costs, administrative costs (judge, jurry, etc.) and your own costs. It would solve a lot of problems!
No, it wouldn't. Not totally. Again, you can't go black and white here. Actually, there may be some merit in part of that theory. The majority of lawsuits that seem baseless at the outset will ultimately be thrown out of court on Summary Judgment anyway. There are also motions that defense counsel uses called an Offer of Judgment in many civil cases. This means that they will file an offer with the Court. Should you choose to accept it, you settle the case and move on. If you decide to reject it and go forward with the case...and lose...the Court can order you to take care of exactly what you're talking about.
I would have no problem with a Court making a finding that a suit was absolutely frivolous and ordering defense costs paid. But many of the judgments made by the public about the merits of a case are based on misinformation (Many times intentional) or a lack of information...or as has been discovered many times, outright fabrications made by Tort Reformers (The guy suing because he wrecked when he left the drivers seat to walk to the back of his motor home...oh yeah, that was one of many). If a case truly has a legitimate question of fact that a jury should decide, the case will pass muster in Summary Judgment and move on. If not, it will be tossed. (Which you rarely hear about with our media). However, I would have no problem with a Judge finding that a case was truly frivolous (It would have to be obvious after all facts were in) and making the Plaintiff bear the costs.
-
This is why we need a "loser pays" system. If you lose the lawsuit, you get to pay all of the expenses for trying the case including the defense costs, administrative costs (judge, jurry, etc.) and your own costs. It would solve a lot of problems!
Wrong, it would deter legitimate law suits as well as the "fraudulent" ones.
-
Wrong, it would deter legitimate law suits as well as the "fraudulent" ones.
Good. Cut down on the whole lot of them so that more important cases can be heard.
-
Good. Cut down on the whole lot of them so that more important cases can be heard.
Reading comprehension is a much valued skill.
-
No, it wouldn't. Not totally. Again, you can't go black and white here. Actually, there may be some merit in part of that theory. The majority of lawsuits that seem baseless at the outset will ultimately be thrown out of court on Summary Judgment anyway. There are also motions that defense counsel uses called an Offer of Judgment in many civil cases. This means that they will file an offer with the Court. Should you choose to accept it, you settle the case and move on. If you decide to reject it and go forward with the case...and lose...the Court can order you to take care of exactly what you're talking about.
I would have no problem with a Court making a finding that a suit was absolutely frivolous and ordering defense costs paid. But many of the judgments made by the public about the merits of a case are based on misinformation (Many times intentional) or a lack of information...or as has been discovered many times, outright fabrications made by Tort Reformers (The guy suing because he wrecked when he left the drivers seat to walk to the back of his motor home...oh yeah, that was one of many). If a case truly has a legitimate question of fact that a jury should decide, the case will pass muster in Summary Judgment and move on. If not, it will be tossed. (Which you rarely hear about with our media). However, I would have no problem with a Judge finding that a case was truly frivolous (It would have to be obvious after all facts were in) and making the Plaintiff bear the costs.
I can agree with that. Perhaps, more Judges need to step up and make the losing side bear the costs more often. If both sides had more risk, it would discourage a lot of ridiculous cases, whether you assess them to be entirely frivolous or not.
-
Reading comprehension is a much valued skill.
Its OK. With the increased traffic, the bambalances are slower than ever now. So it will still be easy to get cases. Nobody is gonna pass any tort reform any time soon. Hell, all of the legislators are lawyers anyhow. They know which side the bread is buttered on.
What is a legitimate lawsuit anyway?
We alpha males just want our pound of flesh.
-
I can agree with that. Perhaps, more Judges need to step up and make the losing side bear the costs more often. If both sides had more risk, it would discourage a lot of ridiculous cases, whether you assess them to be entirely frivolous or not.
Judges are afraid to judge. Everything has been boiled down to a precedent and whether or not the case will get overturned by a more librul interpretation of the law. So judges just pass it on to an ignorant public masquerading as jurors.
In a jury trial, would any of us really get a jury of our "peers".
-
Total bullshit. Maybe they didn't get convicted. But then again, who did that help support?
THE LAWYERS. The only ones who ever win..........
Seems sensible for you to take this position (more money for you), but the rest of us lived it.
No you didn't, you dreamed it, or made it up talking tough over cheap beer.
-
Wrong, it would deter legitimate law suits as well as the "fraudulent" ones.
Many of these so-called legitimate law suits need to be discouraged, especially when they needlessly tie up our legal system, but you can argue with these guys.
Tort Law
A ‘Loser Pays’ Legal System Will Cut Frivolous Lawsuits, Report Says
Posted Dec 2, 2008 6:34 PM CDT
By Rachel M. Zahorsky
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research released a report today advocating for a "loser pays" rule to help staunch the exorbitant litigation costs that arise from nuisance lawsuits in the U.S.
“Greater Justice, Lower Cost: How a 'Loser Pays' Rule Would Improve the American Legal System,” reports that Americans spend more on tort litigation every year, which is often unfair and inefficient, than on new cars. A loser-pays rule, which is already in place in the rest of the developed world, “would discourage meritless lawsuits,” while ensuring “plaintiffs of modest means but strong legal cases access to justice,” the study says.
The report comes on the heels of a federal judge’s order granting sanctions to Walt Disney Co.’s mobile phone division, LG Electronics and Pantech & Curitel Communications Inc. for a “frivolous” patent infringement suit brought by Triune Star Inc.
<snip>
LOSER PAYS
By Walter Olson, 05-21-2004
Adapted from a fuller treatment originally written for overlawyered.com
America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.
Our editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". For a more extensive look at an argument for the loser-pays system, see chapter 15 of The Litigation Explosion, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".
As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.
<snip>
-
Judges are afraid to judge. Everything has been boiled down to a precedent and whether or not the case will get overturned by a more librul interpretation of the law. So judges just pass it on to an ignorant public masquerading as jurors.
In a jury trial, would any of us really get a jury of our "peers".
Have you had any contact with the legal system? Your rants against it are so cliche and ignorant, it boggles the mind!
-
Many of these so-called legitimate law suits need to be discouraged, especially when they needlessly tie up our legal system, but you can argue with these guys.
You think you want to deter law suits. And what, in your mind, is a legitimate law suit?
-
No you didn't, you dreamed it, or made it up talking tough over cheap beer.
First off, I like my cheap beer. I don;t have any clients to be able to bill for the good stuff.
Yes. Yes. Talk is cheap. Like my beer.
But the fact remains that there are several example of hoe the system still leans to the left and the only ones that win are the ones who get paid.
Defending his property. Who won? Lawyer.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/)
Defending his home. The intruder was in his house. Why does it matter that he ran? He could have easily turned around and attacked the old man. Who wins? Lawyer.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss)
Who wins in this one?
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html)
-
First off, I like my cheap beer. I don;t have any clients to be able to bill for the good stuff.
Yes. Yes. Talk is cheap. Like my beer.
But the fact remains that there are several example of hoe the system still leans to the left and the only ones that win are the ones who get paid.
Defending his property. Who won? Lawyer.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/)
Defending his home. The intruder was in his house. Why does it matter that he ran? He could have easily turned around and attacked the old man. Who wins? Lawyer.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss)
Who wins in this one?
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html)
You're so damned ignorant, and lawyer hating...in the first case he was charged with a crime...no lawyer won shit! It wasn't a civil suit! Geez, does your wife scream out the name of a lawyer you know at inappropriate times? Oh, then there's this from the first case.
Ross also told police that he walked onto a back deck, and that after Heiston turned toward him, Ross fired once, wounding Heiston in his back and on the back of his head with buckshot.
Then there's the little matter of the law: "Virginia law allows people to use deadly force when serious injury or death is imminent, but not to defend property outside a home, Hollomon said. "Under the law, his actions were unreasonable," the prosecutor said."
-
You think you want to deter law suits. And what, in your mind, is a legitimate law suit?
Legitimate... See definitions #4 though #7 for further explanation.
le·git·i·mate /adj., n. lɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. lɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/ Show Spelled [adj., n. li-jit-uh-mit; v. li-jit-uh-meyt] Show IPA adjective, verb,-mat·ed, -mat·ing, noun
–adjective
1.according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2.in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.
4.in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.
6.not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.
7.of the normal or regular type or kind.
8.Theater. of or pertaining to professionally produced stage plays, as distinguished from burlesque, vaudeville, television, motion pictures, etc.: an actor in the legitimate theater.
–verb (used with object)
9.to make lawful or legal; pronounce or state as lawful: Parliament legitimated his accession to the throne.
10.to establish as lawfully born: His bastard children were afterward legitimated by law.
11.to show or declare to be legitimate or proper: He was under obligation to legitimate his commission.
12.to justify; sanction or authorize: His behavior was legitimated by custom.
–noun
13.the legitimate, the legitimate theater or drama.
14.a person who is established as being legitimate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1485–95; < ML lēgitimātus (ptp. of lēgitimāre to make lawful). See legitim, -ate1
—Related forms
le·git·i·mate·ly, adverb
le·git·i·mate·ness, noun
le·git·i·ma·tion, noun
de·le·git·i·mate, verb (used with object),-mat·ed, -mat·ing.
de·le·git·i·ma·tion, noun
non·le·git·i·mate, adjective
post·le·git·i·ma·tion, noun
qua·si-le·git·i·mate, adjective
qua·si-le·git·i·mate·ly, adverb
—Can be confused: legitimate, legitimize.
—Synonyms
1. legal, licit. 2. sanctioned. 4. valid. 9. legalize.
—Antonyms
1. illegitimate.
-
First off, I like my cheap beer. I don;t have any clients to be able to bill for the good stuff.
Yes. Yes. Talk is cheap. Like my beer.
But the fact remains that there are several example of hoe the system still leans to the left and the only ones that win are the ones who get paid.
Defending his property. Who won? Lawyer.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/)
Defending his home. The intruder was in his house. Why does it matter that he ran? He could have easily turned around and attacked the old man. Who wins? Lawyer.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss)
Who wins in this one?
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html)
No. 2, again, no civil suit mentioned, shot a fleeing suspect. Again, you want to shoot someone, better damn well makes sure you can reasonably articulate you feared for your life...hard to do when you shoot someone in the back running away.
-
First off, I like my cheap beer. I don;t have any clients to be able to bill for the good stuff.
Yes. Yes. Talk is cheap. Like my beer.
But the fact remains that there are several example of hoe the system still leans to the left and the only ones that win are the ones who get paid.
Defending his property. Who won? Lawyer.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/ROSS251_20091124-231201/307787/)
Defending his home. The intruder was in his house. Why does it matter that he ran? He could have easily turned around and attacked the old man. Who wins? Lawyer.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html?syndication=rss)
Who wins in this one?
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/01/19/2003-01-19_b_klyn_dad_under_the_gun_aft.html)
And in case #3, you seek to use a NY gun case (the shooting was legit, and no charges are based on the legality of the self defense shooting) to support your argument. Geez, pretty weak all the way around.
-
And in case #3, you seek to use a NY gun case (the shooting was legit, and no charges are based on the legality of the self defense shooting) to support your argument. Geez, pretty weak all the way around.
He defended his home, now he gets arrested. The whole point was that people are defending themselves and paying a price. Doesn't matter why. Once again a LAWYER will get paid.
-
He defended his home, now he gets arrested. The whole point was that people are defending themselves and paying a price. Doesn't matter why. Once again a LAWYER will get paid.
Wait...this is the example you use? Are you serious?
-
Wait...this is the example you use? Are you serious?
Harv...it's becoming clear to me that his hatred is more socio-economic oriented, than anything else. Laywers make a tidy profit in his eyes, and he hates people that make more money than him. Lawyers are an easy target to him.
-
Legitimate... See definitions #4 though #7 for further explanation.
le·git·i·mate /adj., n. lɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. lɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/ Show Spelled [adj., n. li-jit-uh-mit; v. li-jit-uh-meyt] Show IPA adjective, verb,-mat·ed, -mat·ing, noun
–adjective
1.according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2.in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.
4.in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.
6.not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.
7.of the normal or regular type or kind.
8.Theater. of or pertaining to professionally produced stage plays, as distinguished from burlesque, vaudeville, television, motion pictures, etc.: an actor in the legitimate theater.
–verb (used with object)
9.to make lawful or legal; pronounce or state as lawful: Parliament legitimated his accession to the throne.
10.to establish as lawfully born: His bastard children were afterward legitimated by law.
11.to show or declare to be legitimate or proper: He was under obligation to legitimate his commission.
12.to justify; sanction or authorize: His behavior was legitimated by custom.
–noun
13.the legitimate, the legitimate theater or drama.
14.a person who is established as being legitimate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1485–95; < ML lēgitimātus (ptp. of lēgitimāre to make lawful). See legitim, -ate1
—Related forms
le·git·i·mate·ly, adverb
le·git·i·mate·ness, noun
le·git·i·ma·tion, noun
de·le·git·i·mate, verb (used with object),-mat·ed, -mat·ing.
de·le·git·i·ma·tion, noun
non·le·git·i·mate, adjective
post·le·git·i·ma·tion, noun
qua·si-le·git·i·mate, adjective
qua·si-le·git·i·mate·ly, adverb
—Can be confused: legitimate, legitimize.
—Synonyms
1. legal, licit. 2. sanctioned. 4. valid. 9. legalize.
—Antonyms
1. illegitimate.
Ok, your turn...give an example of a non-legit lawsuit.
-
I don't hate lawyers. As a matter of fact one of my best friends is an attorney and someone who I consider one of my greatest advisers in college (and life for that matter) is a lawyer...........but I do love me a good lawyer joke every now and then. :)
-
I don't hate lawyers. As a matter of fact one of my best friends is an attorney and someone who I consider one of my greatest advisers in college (and life for that matter) is a lawyer...........but I do love me a good lawyer joke every now and then. :)
How do you keep a lawyer from drowning?
Take your foot off the back of his head.
-
How do you keep a lawyer from drowning?
Take your foot off the back of his head.
:clap:
-
Ok, your turn...give an example of a non-legit lawsuit.
We can play this game all day. The interWebs is full of 'em.
A New Frivolous Lawsuit Statute
By: Joe Messerli
A woman buys a coffee at McDonald's and drives off with the coffee between her legs. After the coffee spills and scalds her, she sues McDonald's for the coffee being too hot. She wins a $2 million dollar judgment.
In a class action suit against Cheerios over a food additive—with no evidence of injury to any consumers—lawyers were paid nearly $2 million in fees, which works out to approximately $2,000 per hour. Consumers in the class received coupons for a free box of cereal.
A Florida man sues six bars and liquor stores and the local electric company after he sustains injuries from his drunken climb up an electrical tower. The "victim" climbed over a fence and a locked gate to reach the power lines.
Over hundred people die in a nightclub fire due to unsafe indoor pyrotechnics at a Great White concert. A wrongful death lawsuit is filed, with one of the defendants being a large oil company. What is the connection of this company to the lawsuit? It gave away tickets to the concert as part of a sales promotion.
We've all heard plenty of examples like these. The list of frivolous lawsuits brought by greedy lawyers and plaintiffs who won't take any responsibility for their own lives is endless. Most people read examples like these and laugh, especially when the defendants are doctors, insurance companies, corporations, etc. who have deep pockets. Unfortunately, the legal costs and settlements translate to higher insurance costs, layoffs of workers, falling stock prices in our 401(k)'s, and other problems. It is no longer a laughing matter. This editorial explores some of the problems caused by frivolous lawsuits as well as a solution to the problem.
<snip>
Awards For Frivolous Lawsuits
Funny and unfortunately true examples of our legal system.
DEBORAH WHISTLER
EDITOR
I got an email from a trucker friend, Bennie Foy, a few days before Christmas. It included nominations for the "Stella Awards." The awards are named after Stella Liebeck, then 79 years old, who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds for making the coffee too hot.
That lawsuit always got me, because I personally suffered a similar grievous injury.
Several years ago, another truck editor and I were visiting a truckstop. I grabbed myself a steaming cup o' joe to go. I placed the cup between my legs as I belted myself into the seat of his pickup.
I'm sure you know where this is going: The top popped, the coffee spilled, I was very scorched on a very vulnerable body part. We had to stop several times on the way home to pick up fresh cans of cold soda. Not to drink, mind you, but to stick on my whatsit. The cold cans kept the pain somewhat at bay.
The ride home was mostly silent, except of the occasional snicker my companion was unable to suppress. I laughed too, through the tears (it hurt like hell).
You know, it never even occurred to me to blame anyone else for that stupid stunt. As a matter of fact, I swore my friend to secrecy, which he has honored (I think) to this day.
Imagine my amazement when Stella hit the press with her McDonalds suit. When she won $2.9 million from the fast food chain I was in shock. As were plenty of other folks.
So was born The Stella Awards, a project of This is True. The commentary on the cases comes from Colorado humorist Randy Cassingham (edited by me for space). Following are some of the most bizarre examples of truly frivolous lawsuits:
• Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas: Awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. Why is this verdict surprising? The tot was none other than Robertson's own son.
• A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman was attempting to steal the car's hubcaps at the time.
• Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pa., was leaving a house he had just finished burglarizing by way of the garage. He couldn't get out because the automatic door-opener was malfunctioning. and he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Dickson was locked in the garage for eight days. He survived on a case of Pepsi, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance for undue mental anguish. He won $500,000.
• Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Ark., was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been provoked. Williams had shot it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
• A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pa., $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her tailbone. How did the beverage happen to be on the floor? Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend during an argument.
• Kara Walton of Claymont, Del., successfully sued the owner of a nightclub when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying a $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
• Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Okla., purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago. Driving the motorhome onto the freeway, Grazinski set the cruise control at 70 mph, calmly left the drivers seat and walked to the back of the coach to make himself a cup of coffee. The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not warning him in the owner's manual that he couldn't do this. A jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. Winnebago has since changed their owner's manuals to warn users that cruise control can't actually drive the vehicle for them.
These cases are funny. They're also scary. Publishing and circulating them may help push forward the case for tort reform. You can get free subscriptions to The True Stella Awards by logging onto the Internet at www.stellaawards.com (http://www.stellaawards.com).
-
We can play this game all day. The interWebs is full of 'em.
You do realize that even in these so call frivolous suits you cite, many times, they're often misreported or they fail to report all the facts. The first one you cite, and a popular one to cite, and in fact the Stella Awards is named after the plaintiff in the case, is the McDonalds hot coffee case. Since you like the innerwebs for all your information, google it, and read the facts. As they're reported by such outlets that are clearly anti-lawyer, and anti-law suit, they're often completely false on one or more facts. The VAST MAJORITY of suits with no merit, never make it anywhere near trial, and are tossed on summary judgement. For every 1 frivolous suit you think you can find, I can show you 100s of legit suits, often having to be brought because greedy insurance companies will just see if the plaintiff, who is clearly damaged by the negligence of another that is insured by them, has the balls, and patience to see it through.
-
You do realize that even in these so call frivolous suits you cite, many times, they're often misreported or they fail to report all the facts. The first one you cite, and a popular one to cite, and in fact the Stella Awards is named after the plaintiff in the case, is the McDonalds hot coffee case. Since you like the innerwebs for all your information, google it, and read the facts. As they're reported by such outlets that are clearly anti-lawyer, and anti-law suit, they're often completely false on one or more facts. The VAST MAJORITY of suits with no merit, never make it anywhere near trial, and are tossed on summary judgement. For every 1 frivolous suit you think you can find, I can show you 100s of legit suits, often having to be brought because greedy insurance companies will just see if the plaintiff, who is clearly damaged by the negligence of another that is insured by them, has the balls, and patience to see it through.
Well, I wouldn't expect you to show me hundreds, but why don't you start by showing how some of these cases are misreported... I have no doubt that most cases are legit, but a lot of them, especially when dealing with insurance and malpractice, are not.
-
Well, I wouldn't expect you to show me hundreds, but why don't you start by showing how some of these cases are misreported... I have no doubt that most cases are legit, but a lot of them, especially when dealing with insurance and malpractice, are not.
Facts in Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds:
What you often read and hear: Liebeck ordered coffee (which everyone expects to be hot), and drove off spilling the hot coffee on herself. Awarded a total of $2.7 Million in damages. Pretty much all you hear, right?
Facts: Liebeck was a passenger, not the driver. The car, driven by her grandson, was stopped. She placed the coffee between her knees to add cream. Spilled it, and recieved 3rd degree burns (full thickness burns) over 6% of her body, including her innerthighs, perinium, buttocks, etc.
McDonalds had recieved hundreds (@ 700 in the prior 10 years) of complaints of serious burns due to their coffe in the past...ie they were on notice.
Their own quality control manager testified that he was aware of these complaints but kept strict orders to maitain the coffee at 180 Degree, + or - 5 Degrees. Further admitted to a burning hazard on any food served over 140 degrees, and stated that coffee served at the temp that McDonalds held the coffee was, in fact, not consumable as it would cause severe burns to the mouth and throat at that temp. Said they had no intention of changing the holding temp either. There was substantial testimony about how hot other establishments hold and serve their coffee, about what temps will cause burns, etc. etc.
Oh, then there was the fact that Liebeck initially only asked for $20,000 dollars to cover her meds of $11,000 from an 8 day hospital stay, skin grafts, debridements, etc. ( a far cry from a normal "ouch that's hot" burn) McDonalds refused, but did offer something like $800.
The warning on the cup was deemed to be insufficient as to the extent of the potential danger.
Finally, a JURY that heard the facts, not a lawyer or a judge, awarded $200K in compensatory damages, and $2.7 in punitives (an amount equal to about 2 days coffee sales for McDonalds). The compensatory damages were reduced by 20% because Liebeck was found 20% at fault.
The judge said McDonalds was reckless, callous and willful.
Afterwards the judge reduced the punitive award to $480K.
And it was appealed...and subsequently settled before the appeals were exahausted.
Now, I know that you the hard line is "she spilled the coffee, her fault, no money for her". If you feel that way, fine. Then, in your eyes, it's a frivolous suit. I can't change that...but the facts aren't as most, ie THE FUCKING STELLA AWARDS, would have you believe. I'm not going to delve in to every one you cited. STELLA is notorious for inexact, inaccurate, and flat false reporting of facts in these cases, but then they have a "tort reform" agenda too. What would you expect?
-
Facts in Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds:
<snip>
Now, I know that you the hard line is "she spilled the coffee, her fault, no money for her". If you feel that way, fine. Then, in your eyes, it's a frivolous suit. I can't change that...but the facts aren't as most, ie THE phukING STELLA AWARDS, would have you believe. I'm not going to delve in to every one you cited. STELLA is notorious for inexact, inaccurate, and flat false reporting of facts in these cases, but then they have a "tort reform" agenda too. What would you expect?
At the end of the day, you have a clumsy slob who spilled her coffee, sustained some injury and won a cash reward. You don't like the summary presented on the interWebs because it doesn't tell the whole story. Perhaps, the only thing inaccurate about the story is the final cash settlement that Stella finally did receive.
- Did the additional facts really matter to me? To be honest with you, not much...
- Would the facts matter to a sensible-thinking person on a jury? Maybe some...
- Were the compensatory damages resonable? Probably not...
- Was the original punitive damage award reasonable? I think it was absolutely ridiculous.
- Was the reduced punitive award reasonable? No...
I'm sorry, but even as you presented it, this case should serve as a call for tort reform. I'm not saying that she didn't deserve anything, but these awards make no sense to me. I don't care if it was McDonalds or McDowells.
-
At the end of the day, you have a clumsy slob who spilled her coffee, sustained some injury and won a cash reward. You don't like the summary presented on the interWebs because it doesn't tell the whole story. Perhaps, the only thing inaccurate about the story is the final cash settlement that Stella finally did receive.
- Did the additional facts really matter to me? To be honest with you, not much...
- Would the facts matter to a sensible-thinking person on a jury? Maybe some...
- Were the compensatory damages resonable? Probably not...
- Was the original punitive damage award reasonable? I think it was absolutely ridiculous.
- Was the reduced punitive award reasonable? No...
I'm sorry, but even as you presented it, this case should serve as a call for tort reform. I'm not saying that she didn't deserve anything, but these awards make no sense to me. I don't care if it was McDonalds or McDowells.
And at the end of the day, who got theirs? Ahhah. You guessed it........THE LAWYERS.
I only dislike them because I is po and they is so rich and upstanding. It do be a pitiful life I do be have. I sho is hongry. I wish somebody would rear-end me so's I could get Ken Nugent to sue dey ass and win me millins of dolarses.
-
At the end of the day, you have a clumsy slob who spilled her coffee, sustained some injury and won a cash reward.
I'm sorry, but even as you presented it, this case should serve as a call for tort reform. I'm not saying that she didn't deserve anything, but these awards make no sense to me.
Here here.... :clap:
-
At the end of the day, you have a clumsy slob who spilled her coffee, sustained some injury and won a cash reward. You don't like the summary presented on the interWebs because it doesn't tell the whole story. Perhaps, the only thing inaccurate about the story is the final cash settlement that Stella finally did receive.
- Did the additional facts really matter to me? To be honest with you, not much...
- Would the facts matter to a sensible-thinking person on a jury? Maybe some...
- Were the compensatory damages resonable? Probably not...
- Was the original punitive damage award reasonable? I think it was absolutely ridiculous.
- Was the reduced punitive award reasonable? No...
I'm sorry, but even as you presented it, this case should serve as a call for tort reform. I'm not saying that she didn't deserve anything, but these awards make no sense to me. I don't care if it was McDonalds or McDowells.
I like that you called her a clumsy slob. You know this lady, or do you just have to run her down persoally to feel better about your position? Lets also recall that SHE was pretty reasonable in her original demands, and McDonalds told her to get fucked. But hey, I figured facts wouldn't mean much to you. Hey, if you want to live in a society where companies can do things so outside the industry norm, and where an accident with their product results in SERIOUS injury, where with other similar products it would not, and you just have to say, oh well, that's life, I'm a clumsy slob that spilled coffee on myself...have a ball. People usually talk tough like this...until it happens to them or their family, then, it's somehow different. Same way with tough on crime talk...until it's YOUR precious son or daughter that gets in trouble. And I've seen it too many times to count. Talk is cheap.
OTOH, I agree that the awards were excessive, but I also think that it could have been easily avoided by McDonalds doing what was right. You know, using some common sense, not only in paying the bills, but in how they sell their product to the public. You people love that common sense stuff don't you? Does it really make common sense to serve a product that, if consumed as served, not spilled, but consumed as intended and at the temperature served, would cause a serious injury? Does it make common sense to serve a product that isn't fit for consumption WHEN IT'S SERVED? On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice? Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".
-
And at the end of the day, who got theirs? Ahhah. You guessed it........THE LAWYERS.
I only dislike them because I is po and they is so rich and upstanding. It do be a pitiful life I do be have. I sho is hongry. I wish somebody would rear-end me so's I could get Ken Nugent to sue dey ass and win me millins of dolarses.
You're seriously telling on yourself. Make light if you wish...your sole gripe is that lawyers make money. That's pathetic. And you're so ignorant about the legal system, you apparently don't know the difference in a civil and criminal case...but you do seem to know that "lawyers get paid". Damn shame that a professional goes to work and makes a profit for providing his time and professional services.
-
On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice? Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".
Side note: I watched a great documentary last year, The Corporation, that sought to ascertain the personality characteristics of corporations. As you know, corporations are "persons" under the law. The filmmaker found that the corporation exhibits all the classic symptoms of a psychopath: no empathy, no remorse, acting solely in self-interest.
-
You're seriously telling on yourself. Make light if you wish...your sole gripe is that lawyers make money. That's pathetic. And you're so ignorant about the legal system, you apparently don't know the difference in a civil and criminal case...but you do seem to know that "lawyers get paid". Damn shame that a professional goes to work and makes a profit for providing his time and professional services.
I think its the fact that many trial lawyers take advantage of situations to cash in and chase ambulances like Mr. Nugent. Its a broad brush to paint with, but its the reason why people have a very negative image of lawyers in general. Taxes, Bankruptcy, Real Estate, Prosecutors - I have no issue with. They do good services for people. Its the former (ie - Nugent, John Edwards and their like) that I have a problem with.
-
I like that you called her a clumsy slob. You know this lady, or do you just have to run her down persoally to feel better about your position? Lets also recall that SHE was pretty reasonable in her original demands, and McDonalds told her to get fucked. But hey, I figured facts wouldn't mean much to you. Hey, if you want to live in a society where companies can do things so outside the industry norm, and where an accident with their product results in SERIOUS injury, where with other similar products it would not, and you just have to say, oh well, that's life, I'm a clumsy slob that spilled coffee on myself...have a ball. People usually talk tough like this...until it happens to them or their family, then, it's somehow different. Same way with tough on crime talk...until it's YOUR precious son or daughter that gets in trouble. And I've seen it too many times to count. Talk is cheap.
OTOH, I agree that the awards were excessive, but I also think that it could have been easily avoided by McDonalds doing what was right. You know, using some common sense, not only in paying the bills, but in how they sell their product to the public. You people love that common sense stuff don't you? Does it really make common sense to serve a product that, if consumed as served, not spilled, but consumed as intended and at the temperature served, would cause a serious injury? Does it make common sense to serve a product that isn't fit for consumption WHEN IT'S SERVED? On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice? Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".
For generations coffee beans were dropped into a boiling pot of water and then served. After this verdict, a good cup of hot coffee cannot be found anywhere. Now even the lawyers cannot buy a good cup of hot coffee. Once again greedy lawyers changed society to avoid future litigation. It's a vicious cycle. I mean now we have "iced" coffee. I wonder who is gonna sue when their tongue accidentally gets stuck to the ice.
-
For generations coffee beans were dropped into a boiling pot of water and then served. After this verdict, a good cup of hot coffee cannot be found anywhere. Now even the lawyers cannot buy a good cup of hot coffee. Once again greedy lawyers changed society to avoid future litigation. It's a vicious cycle. I mean now we have "iced" coffee. I wonder who is gonna sue when their tongue accidentally gets stuck to the ice.
FAIL! On the bright side...you can count yourself one of the unwashed masses Tim James hopes to sway his way by accusing other candidates of being "trial lawyers".
-
FAIL! On the bright side...you can count yourself one of the unwashed masses Tim James hopes to sway his way by accusing other candidates of being "trial lawyers".
Kind of like the unwashed masses in November 2008 who Barack Hussein Obama swayed his way by falsely painting a BROAD, negative picture of banks, oil companies and insurance companies who are simply out to "screw the little man"?
-
FAIL! On the bright side...you can count yourself one of the unwashed masses Tim James hopes to sway his way by accusing other candidates of being "trial lawyers".
Would you take the case, or not? The pay could be really big. Maybe Starbucks this time. McDonald's has already been hit.
-
I like that you called her a clumsy slob. You know this lady, or do you just have to run her down persoally to feel better about your position? Lets also recall that SHE was pretty reasonable in her original demands, and McDonalds told her to get phuked. But hey, I figured facts wouldn't mean much to you. Hey, if you want to live in a society where companies can do things so outside the industry norm, and where an accident with their product results in SERIOUS injury, where with other similar products it would not, and you just have to say, oh well, that's life, I'm a clumsy slob that spilled coffee on myself...have a ball. People usually talk tough like this...until it happens to them or their family, then, it's somehow different. Same way with tough on crime talk...until it's YOUR precious son or daughter that gets in trouble. And I've seen it too many times to count. Talk is cheap.
She's a clumsy slob because she felt it necessary to prepare her coffee in a moving car and was unable to adequately secure the coffee without spilling it. Remember, they did find her at least 20% at fault.
She came to them with reasonable demands, and they declined. That's no reason to reward her with a jackpot award. As I said, I agree that she deserved something, but the original jackpot was absurd.
Industry norms? I completely disagree. Companies, products and services are remembered when they exceed the norms. If McDonalds' coffee tasted the same and was served at the same temperature as Burger King and McDowells, they wouldn't stand out. The temperature did exceed norms to the point of becoming hazardous. For this reason, I agree that she deserved something, but the jackpot was absurd.
OTOH, I agree that the awards were excessive, but I also think that it could have been easily avoided by McDonalds doing what was right. You know, using some common sense, not only in paying the bills, but in how they sell their product to the public. You people love that common sense stuff don't you? Does it really make common sense to serve a product that, if consumed as served, not spilled, but consumed as intended and at the temperature served, would cause a serious injury? Does it make common sense to serve a product that isn't fit for consumption WHEN IT'S SERVED? On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice? Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".
It's not your job to tell companies to do things your way, or Stella's way. What if I like 180 degree coffee? Who are you to deny me that??? Let market forces prevail. If the coffee's too hot to drink and their consumers don't approve, they'll stop being consumers. It's not your job to punish companies when they fail to meet your or Stella's standards. It's everyone's job through free market forces.
-
Would you take the case, or not? The pay could be really big. Maybe Starbucks this time. McDonald's has already been hit.
Funny thing is, Starbucks doesn't serve their coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns! And the reason they don't is there is no reasonable reason to do so! Yet, they serve some damn hot coffee and good coffee!
And, if I sued folks, which I don't (not because I'm against it, just not what I do), if it had legal merit, I sure would. And here's what I know about people, you included... If you or yours got burned by something so outside the industry norm as to make it unreasonably dangerous, you'd sue too. You can pop off about it all day long. I've seen way to many "good common sense people" try to "do the right thing" when they got hurt or damaged, and just try to be made whole...they get kicked around by the company hoping they'll just go away...they finally have no option but to sue. You'd do it too.
-
Funny thing is, Starbucks doesn't serve their coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns! And the reason they don't is there is no reasonable reason to do so! Yet, they serve some damn hot coffee and good coffee!
And, if I sued folks, which I don't (not because I'm against it, just not what I do), if it had legal merit, I sure would. And here's what I know about people, you included... If you or yours got burned by something so outside the industry norm as to make it unreasonably dangerous, you'd sue too. You can pop off about it all day long. I've seen way to many "good common sense people" try to "do the right thing" when they got hurt or damaged, and just try to be made whole...they get kicked around by the company hoping they'll just go away...they finally have no option but to sue. You'd do it too.
At the time. it was the industry norm. Everyone knew that if you wanted a good hot cup of coffee, go to McDonald's.
And if this damn site carried over quotes, you would see that I was asking if you would take the case of the frozen tongue on the iced coffee. And then I suggested suing Starbucks because they area big company that could afford to pay out a huge settlement that would only add up top maybe two days worth of cookie sales. And folks would be sympathetic to McDonald's because they had already been skewered.
-
She's a clumsy slob because she felt it necessary to prepare her coffee in a moving car and was unable to adequately secure the coffee without spilling it. Remember, they did find her at least 20% at fault.
She came to them with reasonable demands, and they declined. That's no reason to reward her with a jackpot award. As I said, I agree that she deserved something, but the original jackpot was absurd.
Industry norms? I completely disagree. Companies, products and services are remembered when they exceed the norms. If McDonalds' coffee tasted the same and was served at the same temperature as Burger King and McDowells, they wouldn't stand out. The temperature did exceed norms to the point of becoming hazardous. For this reason, I agree that she deserved something, but the jackpot was absurd.
It's not your job to tell companies to do things your way, or Stella's way. What if I like 180 degree coffee? Who are you to deny me that??? Let market forces prevail. If the coffee's too hot to drink and their consumers don't approve, they'll stop being consumers. It's not your job to punish companies when they fail to meet your or Stella's standards. It's everyone's job through free market forces.
Highlighted a portion above to illustrate that you've still failed to read all the facts and comprehend them, though you've stated the facts beyond "hot coffee, she spilled it, her fault" are all you need to really know.
Agree about the standing out part, to a point. If you're going to market to the masses, you have to keep it within certain reasonable windows of acceptable norms, especially regarding your consumers physical saftey. There's no, NONE, ZERO logical reason to serve coffee that hot...the reason being is that NOBODY can consume it that hot without injury. Again, we're not talking about "shit that's hot" hot...we're talking about will cause 3rd degree burns with only You physically couldn't "like 180 degree coffee" and the fact that you have to use an aburdity to illustrate your point, makes my point.
I agree with you about market forces to a point. BUT, people shouldn't have to sustain serious injury to find out they aren't partial to and won't ever again consume a certain company's products. I would also say that though I think punitive damages are necessary to punish companies, because all they have is a bottom line (you can't tar and feather a company), you have to hit them where it hurts when they step outside reasaonable boundries. But, I don't think the plaintiffs should recover the vast majority of them. A large percentage of punitive damages should be redirected towards another source, charitable, or something to provide safety measures to prevent future incidents...I'm not smart enough to come up with it, but people shouldn't hit the lottery when injured, they should be made whole, and maybe given some money to compensate for the time and trouble of having to collect their damages. Lawyers, provide a professional service, and like any other profession deserve to get paid, and paid a professional type wage. How much is enough or too much? You're all about free markets right? You want to cap a certain profession's money? What about doctors...do they make "too much money"? Some things are out of whack, like lawyers making millions on class actions, where the class members collect a few dollars, but that's NOT the norm, and you know as well as I do, that it's the cases that are way far and away outside the box used to push tort reform agendas. And, when people with agendas, like "The Stella Awards" have to misinform the public to push their agenda, that tells you something.
Again, the system aint perfect. Lawyers come in all shapes, sizes, colors, moral and ethical make ups. Like society, there's a small minority that reflect badly on the vast majority...you can believe what you want, but all the lawyers AND judges I know do their level best to weed out the bad ones. NONE of us want that stigma. Bad cases, frivolous cases...they're like bad lawyers, not near the norm. Throing the baby out with the bath water isn't the answer in my opinion.
-
At the time. it was the industry norm. Everyone knew that if you wanted a good hot cup of coffee, go to McDonald's.
And if this damn site carried over quotes, you would see that I was asking if you would take the case of the frozen tongue on the iced coffee. And then I suggested suing Starbucks because they area big company that could afford to pay out a huge settlement that would only add up top maybe two days worth of cookie sales. And folks would be sympathetic to McDonald's because they had already been skewered.
One of the major points of the McD's case was that it wasn't the industry norm to serve coffee that hot...you'd know that if you'd read the facts. Where McDs served it 180-185, all others served it around 145-150.
To give an answer on your Starbucks question...if Starbucks were using dry ice in their coffee, and had gotten numerous complaints and had notice that people were being "burned" by the dry ice, yet persisted in serving something that was causing injuries, and they were on notice...even though the vast majority of the public liked the product...I might very well take the case. If they were within industy norms, if their product wasn't unreasonably dangerous, if the injured party was clearly at fault, I wouldn't. The thing in the McDs case is that while Ms Liebeck spilled the coffee herself, had she spilled coffee from Burger King, or Dunkin Donuts, she wouldn't have sustained the injuries she sustained. While it only matters to some of you that she spilled hot coffee, and tha coffee is supposed to be hot...to much of the public ALL the relevant facts matter. There's been at least one study done on public opinion on the McDs case where the opinion on whether it was a frivolous suit changed from about 97% thinking it was frivolous based on media reported facts, to about 95% thinking it wasn't after all the facts became known to them.
-
To give an answer on your Starbucks question...if Starbucks were using dry ice in their coffee,
Now why would anyone want to do that? You just want to sue so you are making stuff up.
What if one piece of ice somehow stayed dry and stuck to an old lady's tongue and pulled the skin off? Would that be a frivolous lawsuit or just an accident? In a lawyer's mind, do accidents even exist any more?
-
Now why would anyone want to do that? You just want to sue so you are making stuff up.
What if one piece of ice somehow stayed dry and stuck to an old lady's tongue and pulled the skin off? Would that be a frivolous lawsuit or just an accident? In a lawyer's mind, do accidents even exist any more?
:taunt:
-
:taunt:
You'll put your eye out.....
And then who would you sue?
-
We can play this game all day. The interWebs is full of 'em.
Why teh quotes function is kicking my ass today, I don't know. Anywho, the ones cited in your post concerning the guy stealing hubcaps, woman tripping over her own baby etc. All made up. Fabrications. No lawsuit ever existed nor do the law firms referenced in the article exist.
By golly gee....what? Someone lied? Must have been the lawyers.
-
You'll put your eye out.....
And then who would you sue?
Must suck when all your preconceived notions are shot all to hell. Stay strong in your beliefs and the boys down at the pool hall will still let you drink cheap beer with them.
-
Why teh quotes function is kicking my ass today, I don't know. Anywho, the ones cited in your post concerning the guy stealing hubcaps, woman tripping over her own baby etc. All made up. Fabrications. No lawsuit ever existed nor do the law firms referenced in the article exist.
By golly gee....what? Someone lied? Must have been the lawyers.
The hell you say! Why, someone making up shit about lawyers to discredit them? No fucking way!
-
Highlighted a portion above to illustrate that you've still failed to read all the facts and comprehend them, though you've stated the facts beyond "hot coffee, she spilled it, her fault" are all you need to really know.
I haven't failed at anything here. We have no proof that the car wasn't moving. They claimed that they were stopped, but we don't really know. I can only presume the obvious. The motor vehicle was in operation, stopped or moving, while she spilled her coffee. Take DUI for instance. If you're impaired and found in the driver's seat, you're getting charged with a DUI whether you were actually driving or not.
Agree about the standing out part, to a point. If you're going to market to the masses, you have to keep it within certain reasonable windows of acceptable norms, especially regarding your consumers physical saftey. There's no, NONE, ZERO logical reason to serve coffee that hot...the reason being is that NOBODY can consume it that hot without injury. Again, we're not talking about "poop that's hot" hot...we're talking about will cause 3rd degree burns with only You physically couldn't "like 180 degree coffee" and the fact that you have to use an aburdity to illustrate your point, makes my point.
When you make and pour a fresh cup of coffee at home, can you immediately start drinking it like it's water out of a fountain? The answer is NO if you're being honest. Yes, the coffee was unreasonbly hot for immediate consumption.
I agree with you about market forces to a point. BUT, people shouldn't have to sustain serious injury to find out they aren't partial to and won't ever again consume a certain company's products. I would also say that though I think punitive damages are necessary to punish companies, because all they have is a bottom line (you can't tar and feather a company), you have to hit them where it hurts when they step outside reasaonable boundries. But, I don't think the plaintiffs should recover the vast majority of them. A large percentage of punitive damages should be redirected towards another source, charitable, or something to provide safety measures to prevent future incidents...I'm not smart enough to come up with it, but people shouldn't hit the lottery when injured, they should be made whole, and maybe given some money to compensate for the time and trouble of having to collect their damages.
McDonalds' coffee wasn't a new product, and Stella wasn't the first person to ever purchase this product. I really believe that this case extends beyond the bounds of reason whether you want to argue the actual facts of those reported on the Stella Reports website.
Lawyers, provide a professional service, and like any other profession deserve to get paid, and paid a professional type wage. How much is enough or too much? You're all about free markets right? You want to cap a certain profession's money? What about doctors...do they make "too much money"? Some things are out of whack, like lawyers making millions on class actions, where the class members collect a few dollars, but that's NOT the norm, and you know as well as I do, that it's the cases that are way far and away outside the box used to push tort reform agendas. And, when people with agendas, like "The Stella Awards" have to misinform the public to push their agenda, that tells you something.
This is where we'll disagree to some extent as well. In my profession, I implement systems that save companies millions of dollars. Should I be compensated based on the benefits gained from my service? Or, should I be compensated a fair marketable rate for the services provided? These jackpot awards push the envelope of reason, norm AND otherwise.
Again, the system aint perfect. Lawyers come in all shapes, sizes, colors, moral and ethical make ups. Like society, there's a small minority that reflect badly on the vast majority...you can believe what you want, but all the lawyers AND judges I know do their level best to weed out the bad ones. NONE of us want that stigma. Bad cases, frivolous cases...they're like bad lawyers, not near the norm. Throing the baby out with the bath water isn't the answer in my opinion.
I don't think we want to throw the baby out. There are a lot of norms in your profession that many of us find unreasonable and unappetizing. Many just use these few exceptions as examples of the abusive practices.
-
Why teh quotes function is kicking my ass today, I don't know. Anywho, the ones cited in your post concerning the guy stealing hubcaps, woman tripping over her own baby etc. All made up. Fabrications. No lawsuit ever existed nor do the law firms referenced in the article exist.
By golly gee....what? Someone lied? Must have been the lawyers.
Fair enough... Although, Stella's case did exist, and a jackpot award and eventual settlement resulted.
-
I haven't failed at anything here. We have no proof that the car wasn't moving. They claimed that they were stopped, but we don't really know. I can only presume the obvious.
If it were me, I'd presume what the jury said in it's verdict was proved at trial. At any rate, whether the car was moving or not, would probably only go to how much she was at fault. I appears from the verdict that they believed the car wasn't moving. But if you need to "presume to feel better, by all means.
When you make and pour a fresh cup of coffee at home, can you immediately start drinking it like it's water out of a fountain? The answer is NO if you're being honest. Yes, the coffee was unreasonbly hot for immediate consumption.
It was not only too hot for immediate consumption which most coffee is, it was so hot that it would cause serious burns whether it was consumed, or negligently handled by the consumer. Most coffee in the industry, my leave a red mark, and hurt...McDonalds coffee caused 3rd degree burns!
McDonalds' coffee wasn't a new product, and Stella wasn't the first person to ever purchase this product. I really believe that this case extends beyond the bounds of reason whether you want to argue the actual facts of those reported on the Stella Reports website.
True, nor was Stella the first to complain about the coffee, or report an injury. McDonalds was on notice! That's big in the legal world. It's one thing to produce a dangerous product. Guns are inherently dangerous. Coffee isn't supposed to be. But when you produce a product that, by industry standards, isn't normally dangerous even if mishandled, and you're put on notice that it is dangerous. You better damn well expect a law suit down the road if you continue to produce it the same way.
This is where we'll disagree to some extent as well. In my profession, I implement systems that save companies millions of dollars. Should I be compensated based on the benefits gained from my service? Or, should I be compensated a fair marketable rate for the services provided? These jackpot awards push the envelope of reason, norm AND otherwise.
I think I said we agree on jackpot awards to an extent, though maybe not in whole.
I think people should be compensated for their value...sometimes that's governed by the market as a whole, sometimes that's governed by individual production. This is where individual markets rule. IT guys (for example) are paid salary in most places I would guess, though they may save the company money many times. Salesmen make companies money, and usually are paid a percentage of the revenue they generate. Companies view saving money and generating revenue differently...rightly or wrongly. That's a whole other ball of wax there partner.
I don't think we want to throw the baby out. There are a lot of norms in your profession that many of us find unreasonable and unappetizing. Many just use these few exceptions as examples of the abusive practices.
I'll agree with your second part there, IF you'll agree that many of the so-called "norms" are often really misconceptions held by the public. Case in point, the many ficticious cases you cited.
-
Fair enough... Although, Stella's case did exist, and a jackpot award and eventual settlement resulted.
Yes, but the jackpot (which was awarded by a jury of 12 citizens, not a bunch of lawyers) was reduced by the judge (a lawyer), AND on appeal after that, was settled...a settlement that was secret. We don't really know what she got.
-
We must be reading totally different facts. Stella did everything she could to settle her case without the need for any of this. $20K with $11K in meds and permanent scarring? Wow!!! Her injury was 100X worse than what the media portrayed. Yes, there was eventually a huge award but again, people tend to leave out those itty bitty details at the end. The ones that say that huge award was reduced to $480K and then eventually settled after McDonald's appealled and appealled to reduce it further. Who knows what Stella actually received in the end. Did the greedy lawyers rack up? Doubt it. The expenses in taking this kind of case this far would be well into 6 figures with medical and expert testimony etc.
Bottom line is this case is one of the greatest examples of misinformation and spin I've ever seen in my life...with the exception of the total fabrications listed earlier.
-
Damnit. Beat me to the punch. I actually had to work for a minute..or two.
-
We must be reading totally different facts. Stella did everything she could to settle her case without the need for any of this. $20K with $11K in meds and permanent scarring? Wow!!! Her injury was 100X worse than what the media portrayed. Yes, there was eventually a huge award but again, people tend to leave out those itty bitty details at the end. The ones that say that huge award was reduced to $480K and then eventually settled after McDonald's appealled and appealled to reduce it further. Who knows what Stella actually received in the end. Did the greedy lawyers rack up? Doubt it. The expenses in taking this kind of case this far would be well into 6 figures with medical and expert testimony etc.
Bottom line is this case is one of the greatest examples of misinformation and spin I've ever seen in my life...with the exception of the total fabrications listed earlier.
Another thing people don't know, or consider...the appeal process. You (plaintiff or attorney) don't see any money until the appeals are exhausted or settled. In the mean time creditors are banging on your door for money now, and the lawyers had to pay the doctors to depose them and the experts to testify out of their pocket, and up front. Lawyers? Well, yes, sometimes they get paid nicely. The flip side is they can take a case that has merit, and still lose...and get NOTHING, not one thin dime, AND the lawyers pay the expenses, or a good portion of it. There's a lot of risk vs reward in taking plaintiffs cases. The reward is almost never nearly as big as some think.
-
If it were me, I'd presume what the jury said in it's verdict was proved at trial. At any rate, whether the car was moving or not, would probably only go to how much she was at fault. I appears from the verdict that they believed the car wasn't moving. But if you need to "presume to feel better, by all means.
It's not feelings; it's logic. The car was in operation at the time, stopped or otherwise.
It was not only too hot for immediate consumption which most coffee is, it was so hot that it would cause serious burns whether it was consumed, or negligently handled by the consumer. Most coffee in the industry, my leave a red mark, and hurt...McDonalds coffee caused 3rd degree burns!
Too hot for immediate consumption? I agree. Dangerous? If used or handled inappropriately. I'm sure that a fresh pot of anybody's coffee can be dangerous if poured on the soft tissues of the inner thighs and genital region. It's absurd to think otherwise, and holding McDonald's accountable to this extent exceeds reason.
I'll agree with your second part there, IF you'll agree that many of the so-called "norms" are often really misconceptions held by the public. Case in point, the many ficticious cases you cited.
Misconceptions... Even the non-fictitious cases seem to identify issues with these "norms", and I can tell you that my personal experiences with these "norms" haven't exactly been fair or reasonable.
-
You can't out argue these guys.
Exhibit A:
A snake and a rabbit were racing along a pair of intersecting forest pathways one day, when they collided at the intersection. They immediately began to argue with one another as to who was at fault for the
mishap.
When the snake remarked that he had been blind since birth, and thus should be given additional leeway, the rabbit said that he, too, had been blind since birth. The two animals then forgot about the collision
and began commiserating concerning the problems of being blind.
The snake said that his greatest regret was the loss of his identity. He had never been able to see his reflection in the water, and for that reason did not know exactly what he looked like, or even what he
was. The rabbit declared that he had the same problem. Seeing a way that they could help each other, the rabbit proposed that one feel the other from head to toe, and then try to describe what the other
animal was.
The snake agreed, and started by winding himself around the rabbit. After a few moments, he announced, "You've got very soft, fuzzy fur, long ears, big rear feet, and a little fuzzy ball for a tail. I think that
you must be a bunny rabbit!"
The rabbit was much relieved to find his identity, and proceeded to return the favor to the snake. After feeling about the snake's body for a few minutes, he asserted, "Well, you're scaly, you're slimy, you've
got beady little eyes, you squirm and slither all the time, and you've got a forked tongue. I think you're a lawyer!"
-
Yes, but the jackpot (which was awarded by a jury of 12 citizens, not a bunch of lawyers) was reduced by the judge (a lawyer), AND on appeal after that, was settled...a settlement that was secret. We don't really know what she got.
Even the reduced award was unreasonable at over $600k. Sure, there was an undisclosed settlement, but with the amount of the awards, I would bet that it was still a jackpot for Stella and her attorneys.
-
It's not feelings; it's logic. The car was in operation at the time, stopped or otherwise.
Too hot for immediate consumption? I agree. Dangerous? If used or handled inappropriately. I'm sure that a fresh pot of anybody's coffee can be dangerous if poured on the soft tissues of the inner thighs and genital region. It's absurd to think otherwise, and holding McDonald's accountable to this extent exceeds reason.
Misconceptions... Even the non-fictitious cases seem to identify issues with these "norms", and I can tell you that my personal experiences with these "norms" haven't exactly been fair or reasonable.
> Again, a case where you clearly admit relevant facts really don't mean much to you.
> Again, most coffee is too hot for immediate consumption, and most would even injury you if you poured a large quantiy on you. There was medical tesitmony in the McD's case on the different types of injuries that would occur and how long the coffee would have to be in contact with the skin at various tempratures. It was plainly evident to the jury, and the judge, that there was not reasonable excuse for serving coffee that hot espeically in light of the fact that they'd been put on notice with many prior complaints.
> You're seriously going to stick with grossly misreported stories to support your agenda? Fiction (because that's what it is) identifies real issues? You're serious? You struck me as smarter than that.
I'd be glad to hear about your personal experiences. That might shed some real light on all this!
-
You can't out argue these guys.
Exhibit A:
You can't argue with people that use fairytales, and ficticious "anecdotes" to support their real world agenda and belief system.
Exibit A: your posts in this thread.
-
It's not feelings; it's logic. The car was in operation at the time, stopped or otherwise.
Does it matter that she was the passenger and not operating the vehicle (moving or otherwise)?
-
Does it matter that she was the passenger and not operating the vehicle (moving or otherwise)?
He's pretty well stated that his "logic" tells him what he needs to know, and that facts just don't really matter.
-
> Again, a case where you clearly admit relevant facts really don't mean much to you.
You call them relevant facts... They were enlightening. They cleared up some misconceptions. They did not prove to me that any of the unreasonable awards were justified.
> Again, most coffee is too hot for immediate consumption, and most would even injury you if you poured a large quantiy on you. There was medical tesitmony in the McD's case on the different types of injuries that would occur and how long the coffee would have to be in contact with the skin at various tempratures. It was plainly evident to the jury, and the judge, that there was not reasonable excuse for serving coffee that hot espeically in light of the fact that they'd been put on notice with many prior complaints.
I still don't see this as justification for the unreasonably high awards. I'm certain that this wasn't the first time Stella purchased coffee from McDonalds. I'm also certain that if you jamb a pencil in your eye, you could go blind. This extends beyond the bounds of reason. You'll never justify it to me.
> You're seriously going to stick with ficticious stories to support your agenda? Fiction identifies real issues? You're serious? You struck me as smarter than that.
I'm not sticking to the fictitious stories. Stop battling that straw man. We're arguing a real case here. How did you even get that? You guys are the ones who keep going back to the fictitious stories. We're beyond that. For Christ's sake, move on already...
I'd be glad to hear about your personal experiences. That might shed some real light on all this!
Too many details across too many cases to get into here... Perhaps, over a cheap beer sometime...
-
Does it matter that she was the passenger and not operating the vehicle (moving or otherwise)?
Why would it? Would a normal, intelligent person balance a hot cup of coffee between their legs in a car to add creme and sugar? I can't believe that lunacy... And, they only assigned 20% fault to her.
-
Why would it? Would a normal, intelligent person balance a hot cup of coffee between their legs in a car to add creme and sugar? I can't believe that lunacy... And, they only assigned 20% fault to her.
Are you even willing to entertain the fact that a jury heard ALL the facts came to this conclusion?
Something to consider:
http://www.iacbe.org/Hartigan-IACBE-Critical_Thinking_and_Critical_Reflection_on_Assumptions.pdf (http://www.iacbe.org/Hartigan-IACBE-Critical_Thinking_and_Critical_Reflection_on_Assumptions.pdf)
-
Why would it? Would a normal, intelligent person balance a hot cup of coffee between their legs in a car to add creme and sugar? I can't believe that lunacy... And, they only assigned 20% fault to her.
You might not believe this, but that really isn't the standard by which she (or any plaintiff, generally speaking) is judged. You have to account for the large number of mouth-breathing morons in the world.
-
He's pretty well stated that his "logic" tells him what he needs to know, and that facts just don't really matter.
There are lot of facts here. Some matter, and some don't. At this point, we're stuck in a logic argument between an engineer/IT professional and a group of attorneys. Engineer/IT professional knows that coffee is hot and recognizes a bimbo doing something stupid. My series of events starts at the time she purchased the coffee. You guys will go well beyond that until you find a suitable cash cow. If it wasn't McDonalds, lawyer logic might have gone after the manufacturer of the styrofoam cup, the manufacturer of the automobile, the processor of the coffee beans used, the manufacturer of the tires on the vehicle... You know... whoever has the biggest pockets and the largest bank account.
Nobody's gonna win this one...
-
You might not believe this, but that really isn't the standard by which she (or any plaintiff, generally speaking) is judged. You have to account for the large number of mouth-breathing morons in the world.
GREAT POINT! And, that's really my biggest problem in the Liberal versus Conservative debate. Liberalism is too busy trying to absolve everyone of personal responsibility, while my flavor of hardline Conservatism would let nature take its course thinning out the herd of the weakest in our species. I know... It's not nice, but it's how I roll.
-
GREAT POINT! And, that's really my biggest problem in the Liberal versus Conservative debate. Liberalism is too busy trying to absolve everyone of personal responsibility, while my flavor of hardline Conservatism would let nature take its course thinning out the herd of the weakest in our species. I know... It's not nice, but it's how I roll.
So, really your beef is with a common law standard that is at least a hundred years old.
That damned liberalism fucks everything up.
-
You might not believe this, but that really isn't the standard by which she (or any plaintiff, generally speaking) is judged. You have to account for the large number of mouth-breathing morons in the world.
True, and this isn't a concept new to American Jurisprudence. Eggshell skull, and "take your plaintiff as you find them" and all that.
-
True, and this isn't a concept new to American Jurisprudence. Eggshell skull, and "take your plaintiff as you find them" and all that.
This was exactly the phrase in my head when I posted that.
-
Once I am made benevolent dictator this will no longer be an issue.
-
This was exactly the phrase in my head when I posted that.
You mean inside your eggshell skull?
Did you apply the Rule in Shelly's case and the Rule Against Perpetuities, and factor in the Fertile Octogenarian?
-
You mean inside your eggshell skull?
Did you apply the Rule in Shelly's case and the Rule Against Perpetuities, and factor in the Fertile Octogenarian?
Yep, then I cracked a dude's skull cuz he tried to bugger me.
-
So, really your beef is with a common law standard that is at least a hundred years old.
That damned liberalism phuks everything up.
That's a leap, but thanks for playing...
-
That's a leap, but thanks for playing...
What leap?
You said that an intelligent person would know better.
I said that the standard isn't what an "intelligent" person would do.
You said:
that's really my biggest problem in the Liberal versus Conservative debate. Liberalism is too busy trying to absolve everyone of personal responsibility, while my flavor of hardline Conservatism would let nature take its course thinning out the herd of the weakest in our species.
And here we are. Your problem stems from your fundamental disagreement with the standard of behavior by which we should judge Stella's (or any plaintiff's) actions. This isn't a liberal/conservative argument as those words are known today, because this standard predates all the contemporary partisan labels.
-
What leap?
You said that an intelligent person would know better.
I said that the standard isn't what an "intelligent" person would do.
You said:
And here we are. Your problem stems from your fundamental disagreement with the standard of behavior by which we should judge Stella's (or any plaintiff's) actions. This isn't a liberal/conservative argument as those words are known today, because this standard predates all the contemporary partisan labels.
'tis true GarMan. This shit aint new! Goes back to some old King shit over in Europe, back in the day. Call it liberal if you want. Standards of care and behavior have always been imposed by law in such cases.
-
GREAT POINT! And, that's really my biggest problem in the Liberal versus Conservative debate. Liberalism is too busy trying to absolve everyone of personal responsibility, while my flavor of hardline Conservatism would let nature take its course thinning out the herd of the weakest in our species. I know... It's not nice, but it's how I roll.
I hear ya. But it is not in the best interests of lawyers to allow this to happen. They would have nobody left to defend and the juries would be full of logical humans. That in itself would be natural tort reform.
There used to be such things as accidents in this country. Now it all about assigning blame on anyone who has the biggest pockets.
What do you call 25 skydiving lawyers?
Skeet.
-
'tis true GarMan. This poop aint new! Goes back to some old King poop over in Europe, back in the day. Call it liberal if you want. Standards of care and behavior have always been imposed by law in such cases.
Look guys... I'm not entirely stupid. I had to take a couple of law courses for my undergrad, and I took another for fun in grad school. How else do you think I kept my GPA up when taking Thermo-god-damn-ics and AC/DC Circuit Anal-ysis? Common law typically refers to "Reasonable Person", and from the facts I've seen, Stella wasn't reasonable by sticking a styrofoam cup between her thighs to add creme and sugar.
-
I hear ya. But it is not in the best interests of lawyers to allow this to happen. They would have nobody left to defend and the juries would be full of logical humans. That in itself would be natural tort reform.
There used to be such things as accidents in this country. Now it all about assigning blame on anyone who has the biggest pockets.
What do you call 25 skydiving lawyers?
Skeet.
Sure there are accidents. They're generally the result of negligence. If you suffer injury, or damages to property, then you deserve to be made whole again. Least that's the right thing to do in my simple mind.
What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!
-
[quote author=wesfau2 link=topic=9472.msg128017#msg128017 date=1274297620
And here we are. Your problem stems from your fundamental disagreement with the standard of behavior by which we should judge Stella's (or any plaintiff's) actions. This isn't a liberal/conservative argument as those words are known today, because this standard predates all the contemporary partisan labels. [/quote]
You're right... I got it.
-
Look guys... I'm not entirely stupid. I had to take a couple of law courses for my undergrad, and I took another for fun in grad school. How else do you think I kept my GPA up when taking Thermo-god-damn-ics and AC/DC Circuit Anal-ysis? Common law typically refers to "Reasonable Person", and from the facts I've seen, Stella wasn't reasonable by sticking a styrofoam cup between her thighs to add creme and sugar.
Actually the reasonable person standard is a legal fiction normally applied to defendants and their standard of care, or breach of same. The ficticious "reasonable person" never makes a mistake, and always does the right thing...he is "the ideal human actor".
Here's an example of how it might be applied in what's called the Hand Rule: Under American common law, a well known—though nonbinding—test for determining how a reasonable person might weigh the criteria listed above was set down in United States v. Carroll Towing Co.[12] by the Chief Justice of the Second Circuit Court, Learned Hand. The case concerned a barge that had broken her mooring with the dock. Writing for the court, Hand held:
[T]he owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions.
-
I appreciate the lawyer jokes! Thanks! Carry on. :)
Oh, and they are funnier when coming from JR and Birdman.
-
I appreciate the lawyer jokes! Thanks! Carry on. :)
Oh, and they are funnier when coming from JR and Birdman.
What do you call a lawyer gone bad?
"Senator"
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
"Your Honor."
What do you throw to a drowning lawyer?
His partners.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a liar?
The pronunciation.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a vulture?
The lawyer gets frequent flyer miles.
What's the difference between a mosquito and a lawyer?
One is a bloodsucking parasite and the other is an insect.
Why did God make snakes just before lawyers?
To practice.
Why does California have the most lawyers in the country, and New Jersey have the most toxic waste sites?
New Jersey got first choice.
It was so cold last winter ... (How cold was it?) ... that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
FUNNY IS FUNNY. DON'T LIKE THE SOURCE, DON'T LAUGH. - CCTAU
-
What do you call a lawyer gone bad?
"Senator"
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
"Your Honor."
What do you throw to a drowning lawyer?
His partners.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a liar?
The pronunciation.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a vulture?
The lawyer gets frequent flyer miles.
What's the difference between a mosquito and a lawyer?
One is a bloodsucking parasite and the other is an insect.
Why did God make snakes just before lawyers?
To practice.
Why does California have the most lawyers in the country, and New Jersey have the most toxic waste sites?
New Jersey got first choice.
It was so cold last winter ... (How cold was it?) ... that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
FUNNY IS FUNNY. DON'T LIKE THE SOURCE, DON'T LAUGH. - CCTAU
Don't like the source? Hell that's cut and paste 101 dude!
-
Don't like the source? Hell that's cut and paste 101 dude!
I used Ctl+C and Ctl+V. I did not use the mouse. Therefore, that is cut and paste 102.
For years, the young attorney had been taking vacations at a country inn. The last time he'd finally managed an affair with the innkeeper's daughter. Looking forward to an exciting few days, he dragged his
suitcase up the stairs of the inn, then stopped short. There sat his lover with an infant on her lap!
"Helen, why didn't you write when you learned you were pregnant?" he cried. "I would have rushed up here, we could have gotten married, and the baby would have my name!"
"Well," she said, "when my folks found out about my condition, we sat up all night talking and talking, and decided it would be better to have a bastard in the family than a lawyer."
Addendum:
A lawyer and his Czechoslovakian friend were camping in a backwoods section of Maine. Early one morning, the two went out to pick berries for their morning breakfast. As they went around the berry
patch, gathering blueberries and raspberries in tremendous quantities, along came two huge bears - a male and a female.
The lawyer, seeing the two bears, immediately dashed for cover. His friend, though, wasn't so lucky, and the male bear reached him and swallowed him whole. The lawyer ran back to his Mercedes, tore
into town as fast has he could, and got the local backwoods sheriff.
The sheriff grabbed his shotgun and dashed back to the berry patch with the lawyer. Sure enough, the two bears were still there. "He's in THAT one!" cried the lawyer, pointing to the male, while visions of
lawsuits from his friend's family danced in his head. He just had to save his friend. The sheriff looked at the bears, and without batting an eye, leveled his gun, took careful aim, and shot the female.
"Whatdidja do that for!" exclaimed the lawyer, "I said he was in the other!"
"Exactly," replied the sheriff. "Would YOU believe a lawyer who told you the Czech was in the male?"
-
big time lawyer from New York went duck huting in Kansas. He shot a duck while it was in the air. It happen to land in a feild next to were he was hunting. Across a fence.
A farmer was in the feild with his tractor and saw it land on his side. The lawyer climb the fence to go get the duck.
As he reach for it. The farmer said. Put that down. Thats my duck. The lawyer said no it's not. I shot it. it's mine. The farmer said it landed on my feild it's mine.
The lawyer told the farmer that he was the best lawyer in N.Y. and he would sue him for every thing he has.
The farmer said in Kansas we don't sue people to settle dispute. We do by the 1,2, 3 kick.
The lawyer said. The 1, 2, 3 kick. Whats that.
The farmer said we kick each other until one give up. And the one who give up first can have the duck.
The lawyer was a body builder also. As he size up the farmer as he got off his tractor. He agreed to the 1, 2, 3 kick.
The farmer said. I get to go first. cause the duck landed in my field. The lawyer said ok.
Well the farmer kick him in the growing and the lawyer bent over in pain. Then the farmer kick him in the nose. all most took it off. As the lawyer tryed to get up. The farmer went and kick him in the kidnees,
The lawyer went down hard. As he muster all his strength he had to get to his feet.
He Said. NOW IT'S MY TURN.
The farmer said. Nope I give up.
You can have the duck.
-
Habeus Corpus Delecti...or something.
A lawyer pulls up in front of his firm so everyone can see him in his brand new $140K Mercedes. Just as he opens the door and begins to step out, this truck flies by and takes his door off. The lawyer jumps out in the street hollering..
"Son of a bitch, I just rolled off the lot. That car is $140K...my god..how could this happen?"
Just then, a guy comes running up and says, "Sir, calm down. I saw the whole thing. I got the license number, description and everything."
The lawyer continues to rant and rave..."I don't give a shit if they repair it or not. It'll never be the same. It's a $140K car and I just bought it....mother fucker"
The guy just looks at him in disgust and says, "You lawyers are all the same. All you care about are material things and money. Do you even realize that the truck also took your arm off at the shoulder?"
The lawyer stops cold and begins to turn white as he slowly turns to see the bloody nub where his arm used to be. His lip begins to quiver and tears well up in his eyes as he opens his mouth to scream....
"SON OF A BITCH....MY ROLEX"
-
At some point, I believe this would have been relevant to the discussion.
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home (http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home)
Man shot, killed while allegedly breaking in home
Times Staff Reports
Published: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 8:16 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 8:16 p.m.
An intruder was shot and killed late Tuesday at a home near Piedmont, Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson said.
A 41-year-old woman told investigators she had just gone to bed when she heard someone outside her house, trying to get inside.
The woman’s husband works the night shift and was not home, Amerson said.
The intruder, identified as Dale Micha Scott, 39, broke a sliding-glass door on an upstairs deck and went inside the home, Amerson said.
All of the lights were off, but Scott had a flashlight and went into a back bedroom and started going through a dresser.
The woman got a handgun and went upstairs.
She saw the man and he began yelling. She fired her gun, hitting the man several times.
She ran downstairs and waited for a family member and law enforcement officers to arrive.
Scott’s identification showed an address of Homosassa, Fla., but investigators determined he had been staying at a residence across the road from the woman’s house and also had stayed with different people in the area.
A witness told investigators the man left and said he would be back in a few minutes and walked across the road to the woman’s house.
Amerson said Alabama law allows residents to use deadly force to protect themselves from intruders in their home. Residents are not required to have a permit or license to own or possess a firearm in their home or on their property.
-
At some point, I believe this would have been relevant to the discussion.
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home (http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home)
Seems like appropriate application of the "castle doctrine" if you ask (axe) me. Good for her! :clap:
There's no telling what would have happend if she had approached him unarmed...
This reminds of an actual case back in the '80s with a friend of mine that I had forgotten about. While he and his wife were at work one day, someone tried to break into his home through one of the bedroom windows. The uninvited visitor managed to get halfway inside the home before my friend's two pit bulls greeted him and started gnawing on his face and shoulder. The guy was arrested for his obvious intentions. Several months after the event, my buddy received an invitation to court. This jackass attempted to sue him for the medical damages along wiff the associated "pain and suffering" caused by the attack. Apparently, he was claiming that he needed to use my buddy's phone to call for assistance because his car broke down. Of course, the phone was next to the other bedroom window. The case was eventually tossed in the trash, but my buddy was down several thousand dollars associated with home repairs, attorney's fees and missed work. Sure, he probably could have sued the scumbag and won a judgment against him, but he likely would have never collected anything from him.
Now, before any of you lawyer-folks snopes this or try to claim that it's just another fabricated story, keep in mind that this was a good friend of mine at the time that these events took place. The incident happened in Smyrna, Georgia, in a neighborhood behind the northwest corner of the intersection of South Cobb Drive and Concord Road. I believe that it occurred in 1987 or 1988. If you need me to narrow it down further, I'll give you his name. I can even drive the home later this week and give you the actual address, assuming the neighborhood is still there.
I guess this is just another one of those "reasonable person" scenarios under dat "common law". How could an attorney ever take something like this?
-
At some point, I believe this would have been relevant to the discussion.
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home (http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519835/1017/NEWS?Title=Man-shot-killed-while-allegedly-breaking-in-home)
I hope she used hollow points :clap:
-
Seems like appropriate application of the "castle doctrine" if you ask (axe) me. Good for her! :clap:
There's no telling what would have happend if she had approached him unarmed...
This reminds of an actual case back in the '80s with a friend of mine that I had forgotten about. While he and his wife were at work one day, someone tried to break into his home through one of the bedroom windows. The uninvited visitor managed to get halfway inside the home before my friend's two pit bulls greeted him and started gnawing on his face and shoulder. The guy was arrested for his obvious intentions. Several months after the event, my buddy received an invitation to court. This jackass attempted to sue him for the medical damages along wiff the associated "pain and suffering" caused by the attack. Apparently, he was claiming that he needed to use my buddy's phone to call for assistance because his car broke down. Of course, the phone was next to the other bedroom window. The case was eventually tossed in the trash, but my buddy was down several thousand dollars associated with home repairs, attorney's fees and missed work. Sure, he probably could have sued the scumbag and won a judgment against him, but he likely would have never collected anything from him.
Now, before any of you lawyer-folks snopes this or try to claim that it's just another fabricated story, keep in mind that this was a good friend of mine at the time that these events took place. The incident happened in Smyrna, Georgia, in a neighborhood behind the northwest corner of the intersection of South Cobb Drive and Concord Road. I believe that it occurred in 1987 or 1988. If you need me to narrow it down further, I'll give you his name. I can even drive the home later this week and give you the actual address, assuming the neighborhood is still there.
I guess this is just another one of those "reasonable person" scenarios under dat "common law". How could an attorney ever take something like this?
No need to Snope it. I will attest to this.
-
Was there an attorney involved? I'm asking seriously because many times people will file it themselves without an attorney. I would venture a guess in saying probably 3/4 or more of the small claims (Up to $3K) suits involve no attorney as you get the paperwork from the courthouse, plunk down $40-$50 bucks and then walk in front of a Judge to talk about the case.
If there was in fact a lawyer representing this guy and he brought the case knowing those facts...then yes, he/she is a dirtbag and has no business practicing law.
-
Was there an attorney involved? I'm asking seriously because many times people will file it themselves without an attorney. I would venture a guess in saying probably 3/4 or more of the small claims (Up to $3K) suits involve no attorney as you get the paperwork from the courthouse, plunk down $40-$50 bucks and then walk in front of a Judge to talk about the case.
If there was in fact a lawyer representing this guy and he brought the case knowing those facts...then yes, he/she is a dirtbag and has no business practicing law.
Of course... And, I agree with you. Perhaps, if we disbarred some of these dirtbag attorneys for representing some of these cases, we'd see reductions along the lines of a "loser pays" system.
-
Seems like appropriate application of the "castle doctrine" if you ask (axe) me. Good for her! :clap:
There's no telling what would have happend if she had approached him unarmed...
This reminds of an actual case back in the '80s with a friend of mine that I had forgotten about. While he and his wife were at work one day, someone tried to break into his home through one of the bedroom windows. The uninvited visitor managed to get halfway inside the home before my friend's two pit bulls greeted him and started gnawing on his face and shoulder. The guy was arrested for his obvious intentions. Several months after the event, my buddy received an invitation to court. This jackass attempted to sue him for the medical damages along wiff the associated "pain and suffering" caused by the attack. Apparently, he was claiming that he needed to use my buddy's phone to call for assistance because his car broke down. Of course, the phone was next to the other bedroom window. The case was eventually tossed in the trash, but my buddy was down several thousand dollars associated with home repairs, attorney's fees and missed work. Sure, he probably could have sued the scumbag and won a judgment against him, but he likely would have never collected anything from him.
Now, before any of you lawyer-folks snopes this or try to claim that it's just another fabricated story, keep in mind that this was a good friend of mine at the time that these events took place. The incident happened in Smyrna, Georgia, in a neighborhood behind the northwest corner of the intersection of South Cobb Drive and Concord Road. I believe that it occurred in 1987 or 1988. If you need me to narrow it down further, I'll give you his name. I can even drive the home later this week and give you the actual address, assuming the neighborhood is still there.
I guess this is just another one of those "reasonable person" scenarios under dat "common law". How could an attorney ever take something like this?
Y'all need to keep in mind a couple of thing. You can sue anybody, for anything. Whether it has merit and makes it to court is a whole other matter. As it turns out, in your friends case, the right thing happened. I'll say this again. Yes, even some lawyers will get involved in that kind of shit. Few of these types of lawyers make it long in the profession as they can't ever get a favorable decison out of a judge, and thus can't do their clients any good. Moreover, they're generally known not only by their legal collegues, but the community in general, and can't manage a good living being a complete dirtbag. Those of you that take the exceptions and try to make them the rule won't believe it, but the legal profession does a pretty good job of policing it's own. Again, not perfect, but we all want to make a living, and don't want to be associated with the shit in our profession.
-
Of course... And, I agree with you. Perhaps, if we disbarred some of these dirtbag attorneys for representing some of these cases, we'd see reductions along the lines of a "loser pays" system.
An attorney can't be disbarred for bringing a claim, that though distasteful the masses, has actual legal merit.
The "loser pays" system, though it has some merit, is a slippery slope that would effectively prevent many cases with true merit, with truely damaged parties, from brining a suit...suits that are forced by entities who are willing to wager that people won't sue because of the potential risks. A good case isn't a cod lock winner.
-
An attorney can't be disbarred for bringing a claim, that though distasteful the masses, has actual legal merit.
The "loser pays" system, though it has some merit, is a slippery slope that would effectively prevent many cases with true merit, with truely damaged parties, from brining a suit...suits that are forced by entities who are willing to wager that people won't sue because of the potential risks. A good case isn't a cod lock winner.
Is your real name Reggie Love. Because you sound like Reggie Love.
"What's the Cloak and Dagger all about Reggie, you know you can trust us? "
-
Here's what is at the root of the problem in my opinion. I may be off base here but I truly believe that much of the blame for the crap you see with regard to frivolous or baseless lawsuits has to lay at the door of the Bar Associations and their lack of regulation for the number of lawyers in our system. I say that knowing that I'm just as much a part of that problem as everyone else. Twice a year, I look at the "Alabama Lawyer" publication and see the smiling faces of a 1000 or so more lawyers who just got sworn in. My ugly mug was standing in the very same spot years ago.
The number of attorneys in this State...hell, America..is staggering. The competition out there is overwhelming. You have attorneys coming into the practice now averaging over $100K in debt and being a guppy in the Pacific Ocean. (Hold the shark references :)) Many lawyers nowadays are faced with taking on more crap than they normally would just to keep the lights on. I talked to a friend of mine last week who finally threw in the towel because he simply can't make a living any more. Just too many of us out there and he's not willing to compromise his principles to make a buck.
-
Here's what is at the root of the problem in my opinion. I may be off base here but I truly believe that much of the blame for the crap you see with regard to frivolous or baseless lawsuits has to lay at the door of the Bar Associations and their lack of regulation for the number of lawyers in our system. I say that knowing that I'm just as much a part of that problem as everyone else. Twice a year, I look at the "Alabama Lawyer" publication and see the smiling faces of a 1000 or so more lawyers who just got sworn in. My ugly mug was standing in the very same spot years ago.
The number of attorneys in this State...hell, America..is staggering. The competition out there is overwhelming. You have attorneys coming into the practice now averaging over $100K in debt and being a guppy in the Pacific Ocean. (Hold the shark references :)) Many lawyers nowadays are faced with taking on more crap than they normally would just to keep the lights on. I talked to a friend of mine last week who finally threw in the towel because he simply can't make a living any more. Just too many of us out there and he's not willing to compromise his principles to make a buck.
Yep, I have been considering going back in to private practice, but for the first time in anyone's memory, bad economic times are not prosperous times for attorneys as they have been in the past. I've known a few to throw in the towel and move on to other jobs/professions.
-
Y'all need to keep in mind a couple of thing. You can sue anybody, for anything. Whether it has merit and makes it to court is a whole other matter. As it turns out, in your friends case, the right thing happened. I'll say this again. Yes, even some lawyers will get involved in that kind of poop. Few of these types of lawyers make it long in the profession as they can't ever get a favorable decison out of a judge, and thus can't do their clients any good. Moreover, they're generally known not only by their legal collegues, but the community in general, and can't manage a good living being a complete dirtbag. Those of you that take the exceptions and try to make them the rule won't believe it, but the legal profession does a pretty good job of policing it's own. Again, not perfect, but we all want to make a living, and don't want to be associated with the poop in our profession.
While this might be another exception, the frequency still seems pretty amazing. You have to wonder how many of these sleazy cases are offered a settlement before ever getting tossed out.
An attorney can't be disbarred for bringing a claim, that though distasteful the masses, has actual legal merit.
This case had no merit.
The "loser pays" system, though it has some merit, is a slippery slope that would effectively prevent many cases with true merit, with truely damaged parties, from brining a suit...suits that are forced by entities who are willing to wager that people won't sue because of the potential risks. A good case isn't a cod lock winner.
I don't see any slope. If the case has merit, the potential plaintiff should have enough confidence to take on the risk before going through with with the suit. I know that's a change from the "norms" in your industry, but we don't build cars if there's a risk they won't run or implement systems if there's a risk they won't function. And, God knows the surge the legal industry would have if we started operating that way. It should be the same thing here.
-
While this might be another exception, the frequency still seems pretty amazing. You have to wonder how many of these sleazy cases are offered a settlement before ever getting tossed out.
This case had no merit.
I don't see any slope. If the case has merit, the potential plaintiff should have enough confidence to take on the risk before going through with with the suit. I know that's a change from the "norms" in your industry, but we don't build cars if there's a risk they won't run or implement systems if there's a risk they won't function. And, God knows the surge the legal industry would have if we started operating that way. It should be the same thing here.
The "frequency" is pretty low.
I didn't say the case had any merit.
Big differnce in being able to test your systems before hand. Like a football team that is better on paper, they don't always win when expected to. You analogies are not well grounded. Your background and education have you applying very black and white standards to a system that is anything but.
-
Big differnce in being able to test your systems before hand. Like a football team that is better on paper, they don't always win when expected to. You analogies are not well grounded. Your background and education have you applying very black and white standards to a system that is anything but.
Testing isn't cheap or easy... In fact, half the cost and schedule of my current project is tied up in testing.
Ever hear of focus groups? Reason? Common sense? Not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying...
-
Testing isn't cheap or easy... In fact, half the cost and schedule of my current project is tied up in testing.
Ever hear of focus groups? Reason? Common sense? Not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying...
Judges, juries and other human components in the system can do wacky things to your case.
I've seen great cases lose and weak cases win...and on another day the results in each instance might have turned out differently.
There is no valid comparison to be made between lawsuits and machines vis a vis "testing".
-
Judges, juries and other human components in the system can do wacky things to your case.
I've seen great cases lose and weak cases win...and on another day the results in each instance might have turned out differently.
There is no valid comparison to be made between lawsuits and machines vis a vis "testing".
Ditto, and like I said, an Engineer/IT guy is applying very black and white standards to a very gray system. Apples and oranges.
-
Another incident from yesterday that is somewhat relevant to the discussion.
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519823/1017/NEWS?Title=Two-attorneys-arrested-jailed (http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20100519/NEWS/100519823/1017/NEWS?Title=Two-attorneys-arrested-jailed)
EDIT-- After actually reading what was being discussed. I was wrong. This isn't relevant at all. Carry on.
-
Ditto, and like I said, an Engineer/IT guy is applying very black and white standards to a very gray system. Apples and oranges.
I'm not disagreeing with you guys. I'm just saying that more should be done to test the validity of some of these cases before they are even filed. Perhaps, the attorneys need to take some personal responsibility before pushing forward with some of these cases. I think Harv was onto something by assigning some responsibility to the Bar Associations and the lack of regulation.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you guys. I'm just saying that more should be done to test the validity of some of these cases before they are even filed. Perhaps, the attorneys need to take some personal responsibility before pushing forward with some of these cases. I think Harv was onto something by assigning some responsibility to the Bar Associations and the lack of regulation.
Here's an example though. I recently lost a robbery prosecution. Victim ID'd the suspect, and a second guy had seen and spoken to the suspect as well. The victim was a technician working on the cable of a local attorney's office. The the suspect had cased them, and actually walked through the ally and spoken to them. After the attorney went in, and the technician started the crawl under the house, the suspect came back and tapped the technician on the shoulder and pointed a gun in his face. He ran off after robbing him. Several days later, the attorney, in court, IDs the guy as the man who'd been in the ally the day his cable guy was robbed... the suspect is one of the guys brought in from the jail to court . The suspect was in jail on another unrelated robbery charge. The jury didn't think eyewitness ID was reliable...one of them said that maybe he just thought it was the same guy that had spoken to them earlier because he was fixated on the gun and not the robber's face, and since the lawyer had not actually seen the robbery itself, his testimony was disregarded... NOT GUILTY! About as good a robbery case as can be had short of video. Should my office, or I personally be held "accountable" for "losing" such a case, because the jury simply wouldn't convict?
-
Here's an example though. I recently lost a robbery prosecution. Victim ID'd the suspect, and a second guy had seen and spoken to the suspect as well. The victim was a technician working on the cable of a local attorney's office. The the suspect had cased them, and actually walked through the ally and spoken to them. After the attorney went in, and the technician started the crawl under the house, the suspect came back and tapped the technician on the shoulder and pointed a gun in his face. He ran off after robbing him. Several days later, the attorney, in court, IDs the guy as the man who'd been in the ally the day his cable guy was robbed... the suspect is one of the guys brought in from the jail to court . The suspect was in jail on another unrelated robbery charge. The jury didn't think eyewitness ID was reliable...one of them said that maybe he just thought it was the same guy that had spoken to them earlier because he was fixated on the gun and not the robber's face, and since the lawyer had not actually seen the robbery itself, his testimony was disregarded... NOT GUILTY! About as good a robbery case as can be had short of video. Should my office, or I personally be held "accountable" for "losing" such a case, because the jury simply wouldn't convict?
And for those of you who have never sat through a Voir dire....Jesus. I've seen some of the dumbest people on earth in the few that I've been involved with. Those people give me a headache, and all I have to do is listen to them.
-
Here's an example though. I recently lost a robbery prosecution. Victim ID'd the suspect, and a second guy had seen and spoken to the suspect as well. The victim was a technician working on the cable of a local attorney's office. The the suspect had cased them, and actually walked through the ally and spoken to them. After the attorney went in, and the technician started the crawl under the house, the suspect came back and tapped the technician on the shoulder and pointed a gun in his face. He ran off after robbing him. Several days later, the attorney, in court, IDs the guy as the man who'd been in the ally the day his cable guy was robbed... the suspect is one of the guys brought in from the jail to court . The suspect was in jail on another unrelated robbery charge. The jury didn't think eyewitness ID was reliable...one of them said that maybe he just thought it was the same guy that had spoken to them earlier because he was fixated on the gun and not the robber's face, and since the lawyer had not actually seen the robbery itself, his testimony was disregarded... NOT GUILTY! About as good a robbery case as can be had short of video. Should my office, or I personally be held "accountable" for "losing" such a case, because the jury simply wouldn't convict?
I didn't think we were talking about criminal cases. The most obvious differences being presumption of innosence and beyond a reasonable doubt. The standards are different, as you know.
-
Here's an example though. I recently lost a robbery prosecution. Victim ID'd the suspect, and a second guy had seen and spoken to the suspect as well. The victim was a technician working on the cable of a local attorney's office. The the suspect had cased them, and actually walked through the ally and spoken to them. After the attorney went in, and the technician started the crawl under the house, the suspect came back and tapped the technician on the shoulder and pointed a gun in his face. He ran off after robbing him. Several days later, the attorney, in court, IDs the guy as the man who'd been in the ally the day his cable guy was robbed... the suspect is one of the guys brought in from the jail to court . The suspect was in jail on another unrelated robbery charge. The jury didn't think eyewitness ID was reliable...one of them said that maybe he just thought it was the same guy that had spoken to them earlier because he was fixated on the gun and not the robber's face, and since the lawyer had not actually seen the robbery itself, his testimony was disregarded... NOT GUILTY! About as good a robbery case as can be had short of video. Should my office, or I personally be held "accountable" for "losing" such a case, because the jury simply wouldn't convict?
Here again. If the victim could have shot the POS after he turned to run, the said POS would not have caused any issues at all. But then YOU, JR4AU, would be prosecuting the victim instead of the POS.
-
Here again. If the victim could have shot the POS after he turned to run, the said POS would not have caused any issues at all. But then YOU, JR4AU, would be prosecuting the victim instead of the POS.
I don't know about you, but when I crawl under my house to run speaker wire, cable and cat5 cable, I usually don't pack heat. You know, dust and dirt tends to affect the action of a firearm.
-
I don't know about you, but when I crawl under my house to run speaker wire, cable and cat5 cable, I usually don't pack heat. You know, dust and dirt tends to affect the action of a firearm.
Depends on the firearm. A good revolver will still rotate and fire even after being in the mud. Priorities man, Priorities....
I'm partial to the JUDGE.
-
I didn't think we were talking about criminal cases. The most obvious differences being presumption of innosence and beyond a reasonable doubt. The standards are different, as you know.
It's more an example of how juries think and work. The system is inexact. Good cases with solid legal merit an issues are not assured victory.
-
Oh. I almost forgot...........
What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a demon from hell?
Another lawyer.
-
Here again. If the victim could have shot the POS after he turned to run, the said POS would not have caused any issues at all. But then YOU, JR4AU, would be prosecuting the victim instead of the POS.
You know, I don't think you're as stupid as you come across. Could just be you've abandoned any serious discussion here, and like to use absurd bullshit to provoke. I KNOW you're not nearly as tough as you like to talk, nor is talk of shooting people in the back even tough at all. And you don't know what I'd do. I do know this, that if you think you're a man, and that it should be "right", "OK", "ethical", "legal", or "moral" to shoot people...criminals...in the back as they flee...then you and I will never agree on much. You want to carry a gun, and protect yourself from harm, it's your right. I do. When the threat is no longer, and I'm still standing, I have no right to use deadly force except in extreme circumstances where the escape of the subject presents a REAL, and IMMINENT threat to another, or the public at large. You want to shoot people in the back as they flee? You're a pathetic coward. I hope you're just popping off.
-
I'm partial to the JUDGE.
That will likely be my next firearm purchase. I need to have it. I purchased the TCP a couple of months ago. It's GREAT for concealed carry. You can hide it just about anywhere.
-
That will likely be my next firearm purchase. I need to have it. I purchased the TCP a couple of months ago. It's GREAT for concealed carry. You can hide it just about anywhere.
All personal defense can be handled with a 1911 .45 ACP. In home security can be handled with a good pump 12ga. shotgun or 1911.
-
In home security can be handled with a good pump 12ga. shotgun or 1911.
I got ACOM. And if they get past that- Ive got that pump waiting.
-
You know, I don't think you're as stupid as you come across. Could just be you've abandoned any serious discussion here, and like to use absurd bullshit to provoke. I KNOW you're not nearly as tough as you like to talk, nor is talk of shooting people in the back even tough at all. And you don't know what I'd do. I do know this, that if you think you're a man, and that it should be "right", "OK", "ethical", "legal", or "moral" to shoot people...criminals...in the back as they flee...then you and I will never agree on much. You want to carry a gun, and protect yourself from harm, it's your right. I do. When the threat is no longer, and I'm still standing, I have no right to use deadly force except in extreme circumstances where the escape of the subject presents a REAL, and IMMINENT threat to another, or the public at large. You want to shoot people in the back as they flee? You're a pathetic coward. I hope you're just popping off.
When and individual decides to rob, attack, or threaten bodily harm on another, he is publicly stating that he is willing to kill for whatever it is that he wants. Because he decided to spare me and walk off, I am supposed to forgive his assault on my life? I am supposed to allow him to leave and do that to another person? A lawyer would I guess, since lawyers and dims try to figure out the law before they act. I guess I should have said that the criminal should have been confronted before he got away. IF we afforded the criminal the same respect they give victims, we might not have as many criminals. Or the criminals would just now be former upstanding citizens that were put in jail by courageous lawyers.
-
If you're going to carry that judge thing...use the .410 shot shell....45 Colt ammo isn't all that swuft. They can't load it at the factory to it's real potential because of all the old revolvers out there. If you load your own stuff, then the .45 Colt aint a bad choice.
-
That will likely be my next firearm purchase. I need to have it. I purchased the TCP a couple of months ago. It's GREAT for concealed carry. You can hide it just about anywhere.
How do you find ammo?
A JUDGE with the new .410 ammo is about as good as any shotgun due to the ease of concealment. That pump .12 is hard to hide on your hip or under your pillow.
-
When and individual decides to rob, attack, or threaten bodily harm on another, he is publicly stating that he is willing to kill for whatever it is that he wants. Because he decided to spare me and walk off, I am supposed to forgive his assault on my life? I am supposed to allow him to leave and do that to another person? A lawyer would I guess, since lawyers and dims try to figure out the law before they act. I guess I should have said that the criminal should have been confronted before he got away. IF we afforded the criminal the same respect they give victims, we might not have as many criminals. Or the criminals would just now be former upstanding citizens that were put in jail by courageous lawyers.
I don't care if you forgive it or not, legally you can't use deadly force AFTER the threat is over. Certain exceptions apply. And in certain states, you can use deadly force to protect property. Again, you love popping off about lawyers. Did you catch your wife or girlfriend with one, and does she still scream his name at inappropriate times?
-
That pump .12 is hard to hide on your hip or under your pillow.
It ain't alone. Its got friends. Its just the first gun I ever bought and my favorite... and packs a WALLOP. I want to make sure the bastard falls to the ground and doesn't get up until the coroner gets there to haul him off.
-
All personal defense can be handled with a 1911 .45 ACP.
Yeah sure, as long as you can carry a sidearm everywhere you go without raising concern or causing a disturbance. Some of us have to go with concealed weapons.
-
It ain't alone. Its got friends. Its just the first gun I ever bought and my favorite... and packs a WALLOP. I want to make sure the bastard falls to the ground and doesn't get up until the coroner gets there to haul him off.
I have to keep the kids on mind. It's hard to secure that .12. I have a gun vault under my side of the bed that I can take the smaller weapon in and out of. As the kids get older, they understand and are not intrigued by the guns as they are allowed to shoot whenever they want, with supervision. But it's the visiting children that we have to protect.
-
I don't care if you forgive it or not, legally you can't use deadly force AFTER the threat is over. Certain exceptions apply. And in certain states, you can use deadly force to protect property. Again, you love popping off about lawyers. Did you catch your wife or girlfriend with one, and does she still scream his name at inappropriate times?
I would say its mostly divorce lawyers that are scum. But how do you determine the type of slime is divorce only slime?
I did have a girlfriend once that left me for a lawyer with more money (not sure if divorce) but eventually she came back once a week for personal satisfaction. We both got what we wanted and it didn't cost me a dime, so that was fine. Come to think of it, he did have a nice expensive shiny car. It was big too. The car.
-
Yeah sure, as long as you can carry a sidearm everywhere you go without raising concern or causing a disturbance. Some of us have to go with concealed weapons.
Those who don't carry them don't know, and for some reason assume otherwise...the 1911 is one of the most concealable pistols there is, outside of those little useless pocket derringers. They've very thin...thinner than a S&W .38Spcl. They can be carried neatly merely tucked in a wasteband, and they make a miriad of holsters to choose from for them. A Colt Lightweight Commander is the absolute shit in personal concealed carry.
-
I would say its mostly divorce lawyers that are scum. But how do you determine the type of slime is divorce only slime?
I did have a girlfriend once that left me for a lawyer with more money (not sure if divorce) but eventually she came back once a week for personal satisfaction. We both go what we wanted and it didn't cast me a dome, so that was fine. Come to think of it, he did have a nice expensive shiny car. It was big too. The car.
Ah, now we're getting a clearer picture.
-
Those who don't carry them don't know, and for some reason assume otherwise...the 1911 is one of the most concealable pistols there is, outside of those little useless pocket derringers. They've very thin...thinner than a S&W .38Spcl. They can be carried neatly merely tucked in a wasteband, and they make a miriad of holsters to choose from for them. A Colt Lightweight Commander is the absolute shit in personal concealed carry.
Since you qualified it with "lightweight". Otherwise, a regular 1911 is fun to shoot, but a little on the heavy side fully loaded.
-
How do you find ammo?
All ammo is hard to find and expensive right now. I searched everywhere. My last purchase came from the Scottsdale Gun Club online. Their prices aren't bad. They actually screwed up my first order with them and sent me 9mm instead of 380s. After a couple of e-mails, they corrected the order and let me keep the 9mm for less than $10/box.
-
Since you qualified it with "lightweight". Otherwise, a regular 1911 is fun to shoot, but a little on the heavy side fully loaded.
I didn't qualify it...I remarked about a particular make and model. Yes the 1911 is heavier than many of these polymer 9s and 40s. For those of us that grew up shooting, hunting, and for some of us that have carried a firearm on duty...we will trade a little weight for having a cocked and locked 1911 stoked with 230gr Hydrashoks.
-
Those who don't carry them don't know, and for some reason assume otherwise...the 1911 is one of the most concealable pistols there is, outside of those little useless pocket derringers. They've very thin...thinner than a S&W .38Spcl. They can be carried neatly merely tucked in a wasteband, and they make a miriad of holsters to choose from for them. A Colt Lightweight Commander is the absolute poop in personal concealed carry.
You make it work for you because you like the gun. I like it too, but it's just a little too big for easy concealment. The largest I feel comfortable carrying is a Glock 19, and I feel like that pushes the envelope.
-
You make it work for you because you like the gun. I like it too, but it's just a little too big for easy concealment. The largest I feel comfortable carrying is a Glock 19, and I feel like that pushes the envelope.
It's a matter of personal choice for sure, but your glock 19, while lighter, isn't as concealable as a standard 1911. So, it's a trade off. Glocks are bulky in my opinion. Good guns, and I carried one in .40 at times when I policed. It's a great duty weapon. I also have to say that I'd never go with a 9mm unless forced to by an agency I worked for. I have no use for a 9mm in personal defense when I can get a .40 in the same style and sized platform, or a .45 in a 1911 platform.
-
I have to keep the kids on mind. It's hard to secure that .12. I have a gun vault under my side of the bed that I can take the smaller weapon in and out of. As the kids get older, they understand and are not intrigued by the guns as they are allowed to shoot whenever they want, with supervision. But it's the visiting children that we have to protect.
Understandable.
-
I also have to say that I'd never go with a 9mm unless forced to by an agency I worked for. I have no use for a 9mm in personal defense when I can get a .40 in the same style and sized platform, or a .45 in a 1911 platform.
I've heard it all before. The Glock 19 has capacity/volume at 15+1. The 1911 has half of that. I took that trade-off favoring capacity. As long as we empty the clips, the predators are dead.
-
I've heard it all before. The Glock 19 has capacity/volume at 15+1. The 1911 has half of that. I took that trade-off favoring capacity. As long as we empty the clips, the predators are dead.
You said "clips"! :sad:
If you carry a .45, you don't have to shoot dry to stop them.
-
You said "clips"! :sad:
If you carry a .45, you don't have to shoot dry to stop them.
:taunt:
If you know how to shoot a gun, you can stop them with virtually any calibre. Center mass is center mass. They'll stop.
-
:taunt:
If you know how to shoot a gun, you can stop them with virtually any calibre. Center mass is center mass. They'll stop.
If you say so...
-
Can we rename the thread on this one as well?
Suggestions:
GarMan vs JR4AU: Round 2
The Firearm Pissing Contest - May 2010
The Lawyer vs who cares - he's not a lawyer
-
(http://cdn1.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/poster33090609rc9-tm.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RYwUPr35rLw/SMSzcYalaPI/AAAAAAAAAM4/pgTUU7jUlFo/s1600/Magazine%2B-%2Bvs%2B-%2BClip.jpg)
(http://www.reoiv.com/images/random/clipmag.jpg)
(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ClipMagazineLesson.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/Hkmp5sd/thereisadifference2.jpg)
(http://thumbs.roflposters.com/images/rofl/thumbs/1225165698751.jpg.thumb.jpg)
-
:taunt:
If you know how to shoot a gun, you can stop them with virtually any calibre. Center mass is center mass. They'll stop.
Well. He do got a point. If you use the right kind of ammo, then the 9 will be fine. FMJ is teh sucks against the crazy. A .45 does not really care what kind of ammo, it is just so big.
The son carried a 9 in Iraq. He claimed it was so he would have something to shoot himself with in case of capture. Said the FMJs went right through the crazy guys. Took too many rounds. But they were not allowed to use the good ammo. At home we do not have that ammo problem.
But for the most part, a 9 will keep the bad guy off of you.
I had to get the wife a Bearcat. Her hands have arthritis so bad she cannot squeeze a trigger or pull back a normal hammer. Not a lot of stopping power, but beats the shit out of pepper spray. And has no kick. She is comfortable with it and that is important. She can handle, cock, aim, and shoot without flinching or thinking. I would hate to be on the other end.
She is more alpha-male than many men.
<I reined the thread back in just for you GH2001>
-
(http://cdn1.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/poster33090609rc9-tm.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RYwUPr35rLw/SMSzcYalaPI/AAAAAAAAAM4/pgTUU7jUlFo/s1600/Magazine%2B-%2Bvs%2B-%2BClip.jpg)
(http://www.reoiv.com/images/random/clipmag.jpg)
(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ClipMagazineLesson.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/Hkmp5sd/thereisadifference2.jpg)
(http://thumbs.roflposters.com/images/rofl/thumbs/1225165698751.jpg.thumb.jpg)
I think you took him waaaaay too literal when he said "as long as we empty clips". You know the point he was trying to make.
-
The term "clips" is easier to type. By using the generic term "clips", it give the alpha-male more time to aim and shoot rather than taking a longer time to type "magazine".
-
I think you took him waaaaay too literal when he said "as long as we empty clips". You know the point he was trying to make.
Just a "gun nut" terminology thing. It makes me cringe when people say "clips" the same way it does when people say "my house was robbed" when they mean burglarized.
-
The term "clips" is easier to type. By using the generic term "clips", it give the alpha-male more time to aim and shoot rather than taking a longer time to type "magazine". while the lawyer guy argues semantics with the bad guys and gets waxed.
FTFY
Just pickin at ya JR :bar:
-
I had to get the wife a Bearcat. Her hands have arthritis so bad she cannot squeeze a trigger or pull back a normal hammer. Not a lot of stopping power, but beats the poop out of pepper spray. And has no kick. She is comfortable with it and that is important. She can handle, cock, aim, and shoot without flinching or thinking. I would hate to be on the other end.
She is more alpha-male than many men.
Around here... That may be true.
-
Just a "gun nut" terminology thing. It makes me cringe when people say "clips" the same way it does when people say "my house was robbed" when they mean burglarized.
HA...I'm the same way with bias vs biased. And also the term "racket". Most things (99.9999999%) people refer to as a "racket" are not by the textbook definition. Maybe I've just been watching way too many Mafia flicks.
Also hate it when the Bammers say "Awbren". Or anyone for that matter.
-
The term "clips" is easier to type. By using the generic term "clips", it give the alpha-male more time to aim and shoot rather than taking a longer time to type "magazine".
"Mag" is perfectly acceptable, and doesn't reveal ignorance about guns the way "clip" does. "Dick" is less letters and sylables than "pussy", but they're aren't the same thing.
-
"Mag" is perfectly acceptable, and doesn't reveal ignorance about guns the way "clip" does. "Dick" is less letters and sylables than "pussy", but they're aren't the same thing.
They are if you are referring to someone in a derogatory manner.
-
They are if you are referring to someone in a derogatory manner.
Not to my way of thinking.
-
They are if you are referring to someone in a derogatory manner.
Not really CCT.
Birmingham is a dick.
Birmingham is a pussy.
Ok, nevermind - they are the same. Carry on.
-
"Mag" is perfectly acceptable, and doesn't reveal ignorance about guns a weapon the way "clip" does. "
Just sayin'.
-
You said "clips"! :sad:
You were definitely in law enforcement at some point.
-
:taunt:
If you know how to shoot a gun, you can stop them with virtually any calibre. Center mass is center mass. They'll stop.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm)
That's the reason most, if not all, major law enforcement agencies backed quickly away from the 9mm. Center mass is a helluva lot harder to hit during combat shooting. Anyone can make a nice pattern with no pressure.
I carry a Glock 22 and a Glock 27. Love them both.
-
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm)
That's the reason most, if not all, major law enforcement agencies backed quickly away from the 9mm. Center mass is a helluva lot harder to hit during combat shooting. Anyone can make a nice pattern with no pressure.
I carry a Glock 22 and a Glock 27. Love them both.
Like I said, I've been through these discussions before. Here's a good comparison chart for "one shot stop %" that is a bit revealing. http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm (http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm)
Have fun with it...
-
Just sayin'.
Weapon vs gun is a military and law enforcement thing, and is a matter of acceptable nomenclature used in those profession. I have been in the military, and in law enforcement. It's not improper or wrong to refer to a gun as a gun. However, a clip isn't the same thing as a magazine. They're, as my pictures above show, not interchangable. Just sayin'.
-
Like I said, I've been through these discussions before. Here's a good comparison chart for "one shot stop %" that is a bit revealing. http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm (http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm)
Have fun with it...
Lots of debate over those numbers. However, I'm a fan of them. I have long subscribed to Evan Marshall's research, from which those numbers are derived. IF you choose the right ammo, namely Cor Bon 115 +P+, then the 9mm is up there with the others. So many 9mm carriers, are fans of the 147gr pills. With those, the numbers of one shot stops drops down closer to 38 Special numbers. The top dog in that group is the .357 125 Remington offering. Followed closely by the .45ACP 230 HydraShok, then a the .40 cal pills. It is, of course, a matter of personal preference. My question to any 9mm carrier would be why, when there are .40 cal platforms that carry virtually the same number of shots in the same sized platform, would you carry a 9mm?
-
e-penises and teh googles abound.
-
e-penises and teh googles abound.
I walked in to a room full of massive e-penises. Just couldn't click out fast enough.
-
e-penises and teh googles abound.
I keep getting pulled back into this. At the time of my purchase, my reasons for a 9mm were primarily around cost along with the availability and pricing of ammo.
-
I keep getting pulled back into this. At the time of my purchase, my reasons for a 9mm were primarily around cost along with the availability and pricing of ammo.
Me thinks thou doeth protest the pussiness of your chosen shootin' iron too much.
-
Me thinks thou doeth protest the pussiness of your chosen shootin' iron too much.
Protest? Nah... Sorry... I just don't judge my manhood by the caliber of my firearm. It doesn't bother me. I thought I'd try to reason wiff you, but you have other plans. Carry on...
-
Protest? Nah... Sorry... I just don't judge my manhood by the caliber of my firearm. It doesn't bother me. I thought I'd try to reason wiff you, but you have other plans. Carry on...
There's a chosen group of folks on this board that are right no matter what - even if they aren't. Get over it GarMan and quit being a pussy.
-
There's a chosen group of folks on this board that are right no matter what - even if they aren't.
I know... I should know better by now.
-
Protest? Nah... Sorry... I just don't judge my manhood by the caliber of my firearm. It doesn't bother me. I thought I'd try to reason wiff you, but you have other plans. Carry on...
Lighten up Francis!
-
Lighten up Francis!
Any of you homos touch my locker...
-
Lighten up Francis!
HEY - thats MY quote of choice. Go get your own.
-
HEY - thats MY quote of choice. Go get your own.
Lighten up, GH2001
-
Lighten up, GH2001
:bugs:
-
Who here cried when they shot Old Yeller? Come on...
-
By the way, I haven't read this whole topic, and probably won't, but from the first couple of pages, this is one of the few cases where I'm in full agreement with GarMan and GH2001.
I'm sure somewhere along the line, the cliche's have been hashed out, but they're true.
Ban guns and only criminals will have guns. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I've got to believe that many of these massacres in gun-free zones could be prevented, or in the very least minimalized, had there been someone armed to cut their sprees short.
-
Who here cried when they shot Old Yeller? Come on...
Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I'm sure.
I cried my eyes out.
-
By the way, I haven't read this whole topic, and probably won't, but from the first couple of pages, this is one of the few cases where I'm in full agreement with GarMan and GH2001.
I'm sure somewhere along the line, the cliche's have been hashed out, but they're true.
Ban guns and only criminals will have guns. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I've got to believe that many of these massacres in gun-free zones could be prevented, or in the very least minimalized, had there been someone armed to cut their sprees short.
See there Chad - you're not Sancho after all. :bar: