Burglar Sues Men Who Restrained him

[Panther]

Chris,

In the U.S., frivolous suits are way too damn common because the loser does NOT have to pay and even tho the winner can "ask" for legal expenses, judges rarely grant them. And even then, as you point out, you can't get blood from a stone. I was under the (obviously incorrect) impression that the original group were "working guys" who got drunk and went too far and then tried to capitalize on it. Being just a group of thugs with nothing to lose makes much b etter sense, since that group seems to be the ones that are more likely to sue for some imagined injury... and enough of them win in the U.S. (especially with the average jury make-up here) that it is often worthwhile for them to do so. To continue this "soap box rant" I also must say that I personally believe it will be a cold day in he!! before there is tort reform here simply because most of our politicians come from the ranks of attorneys and would never dream of biting the hand that has, does and will feed them.

Disclaimer: IANALNDIPOOTV... YMMV...

[Glenn]

In the U.S. lawsuits are seen as a get-rich-quick strategy (even though decisions are rarely quick and the lawyers get most of any money) with better odds then the lottery. So if the opportunity arises to sue someone, many people can't see beyond the dollar signs and may even feel they are set for life. That is particularly true if they can sue a corporation, which will generally settle out of court rather than fighting the suit so the person suing is almost guaranteed of getting something.

[gmattson]

An attorney advertises. .. ". . . even if you cause the accident, you may be entitled to up to $25,000!"

Hmmm. . .

[Panther]

[Van Canna]

An attorney advertises. .. ". . . even if you cause the accident, you may be entitled to up to $25,000!"

Hmmm. . .

This is true in states where there are a comparative negligence laws ....whereby....a person who is up to 50% at fault in causing an accident, can collect up to 50% of his damages.

Comparative Negligence

Tort law attempts to compensate victims if their injury is caused by another person. When one person clearly causes all of another person's injury, it is easy to place blame. In many other cases, however, the victim's actions help cause the injury or make it worse than it would be otherwise.

This is known as contributory or comparative negligence. For instance, a negligent driver might injure a pedestrian who is negligently walking in the street, instead of on a sidewalk where a reasonable pedestrian normally walks.

The pedestrian negligently contributed to his or her injuries. A prudent person might suffer minor injuries from using a defective chainsaw, whereas a less prudent person who negligently fails to wear safety goggles while using the chainsaw might incur more severe injuries.

In these cases, a judge or jury must calculate how much each party is at fault. Each state has its own rules for calculating damages that can be recovered when a victim is at least partially to blame for his or her own injury.

Florida has a comparative negligence rule. Under the comparative negligence rule, the judge reduces the amount of any damage award by the percentage of the victim's contribution to his or her own injuries. For example, if a jury finds that a plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages, but was 30 percent at fault, the judge reduces the damage award by 30 percent to $70,000.

[cxt]

I think John Stossell did a whole show on frivolous lawsuits not to long ago.

They highlighted a women whom made job of dropping lawsuits on people----and she promptly sued Stossell for using her as an example.

The in-my-opinion vile and odious Fred Phelps........the guy whose group protests at the funerals of military personal.....their whole plan is to get people to react so they can later sue them and make money.....its a revenue stream for his "church."

It s sooooo wrong.

[Jason Rees]

If Fred Phelps is correct in the existence of a supreme being, he'll get his just desserts.

If not, he's just one odious individual in a long line of opportunist scum.

[Bill Glasheen]

Best way to handle the Fred Phelps of the world is to defend their right to make asses of themselves. Then ignore them. The emotionally intelligent individual learns not to give bad but otherwise harmless behavior an audience.

- Bill

[Panther]

Those of us who help out the Patriot Guard Riders (http://www.patriotguard.org/) don't mind the free speech that people like Phelps have. We do mind the disruptions that he and his ilk create for grieving families. The old rule of "a time and a place for everything" seems to have been lost in this country on way too many occasions and in way too many situations.

The people who are being buried are the very people who've fought and died defending the Right of folks like Phelps to speak his mind freely. We continue to defend his Right to do so... but just like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not allowed, we think he should step away from the sacred procession and those who are grieving in this situation. Go ahead and shout your vitriol and/or beliefs to the world, but leave these people alone! Do it somewhere else. Any message that he and his ilk may have had has been completely lost in his actions and antics.

JMNSHO... YMMV... Don't Tread on Me!

[Glenn]

Yelling "fire" in a theater will get you attention though. For Phelps getting the attention is more important than any other consideration, and he likely would get very little attention from the media if he respected the funeral and grieving process. Unfortunately, what he does is the right time and place for getting that attention...likely he views it as the end justifies the means, so he sees not reason to change as long as it continues to work. What would stop him is if everyone just ignored him and he got no media attention, but that won't happen either.

[Panther]

Yelling "fire" in a theater will get you attention though. For Phelps getting the attention is more important than any other consideration, and he likely would get very little attention from the media if he respected the funeral and grieving process. Unfortunately, what he does is the right time and place for getting that attention...likely he views it as the end justifies the means, so he sees not reason to change as long as it continues to work. What would stop him is if everyone just ignored him and he got no media attention, but that won't happen either.

Fortunately, his antics haven't been occurring on "slow" news days and the MSM has been largely ignoring him and his ilk. The "Phelps crew" didn't even show for the last two funerals the PGR has attended. Poor SOBs tried to do one of their protests at a Memorial Bike run that a bunch of us were on a few weeks back (not a funeral: fund-raising, awareness-raising bike run in memory of one who'd fallen 4 years ago) and realized very quickly they'd made a HUGE mistake. I thought they were going to crap their undies when a rather large group of some rather large biker-types walked right up to them, told them they were welcome to say anything they wanted and hold whatever signs they wanted, and then asked them to "voluntarily donate to the fund-raising". (A few balked, but that's OK.) I think we got a few hundred extra from that. Glad they turned out... And not a single MSM camera covered them... go figure. (course it did help that one of the organizers is close friends with the media that covered the main event... )

They had their free speech, we had our event... but they didn't get free publicity from our organizing and efforts... and we got some additional donations... We were happy.

And in the interests of full disclosure, I'm against the "War on Terror" (as it is, has been and probably will be for the rest of my life) but I support the people who've been forced to fight it.

[cxt]

Panther

Good story!

Thank you for posting it.

Does not surprise me that few covered it. But they should have.