BF2S Forums A Nation of Lawyers..

What is your issue with the first two? The first case is, without a doubt, sexual harassment. There's nothing more to it. It may have been innocent, but it was unprofessional conduct. Getting arrested for it? Alright, a little far in MY eyes, but still justifiable.

The second one... did you even read the article? What would you have done if that was your mother who was struck? Now, suing the daughter is a little weird... I'd sue the parents for negligence. Completely their fault on that one for not keeping a closer eye on their kids.

The third one I understand is ridiculous.

Poseidon wrote:

What is your issue with the first two? The first case is, without a doubt, sexual harassment. There's nothing more to it. It may have been innocent, but it was unprofessional conduct. Getting arrested for it? Alright, a little far in MY eyes, but still justifiable.

The second one... did you even read the article? What would you have done if that was your mother who was struck? Now, suing the daughter is a little weird... I'd sue the parents for negligence. Completely their fault on that one for not keeping a closer eye on their kids.

The third one I understand is ridiculous.

I agree on all three points, but I don't think he's questioning the legality of each issue so much as the pursuance of legal action in the first place...30 or 40 years ago people probably would have acted differently with regards to pursuing legal action in each instance. 

The second incident would've resulted in a "kids will be kids" sort of response, and probably a spanking or solid smack to the side of the head from the parents. 

The sexual harassment incident probably would have happened way MORE often back then, with little consequence due to the different social mores/norms back then.

The third incident would have probably never made it to court in the first place - the guy was obviously a responsible gun owner and would not have been messed with a few decades ago, regardless of what the exact letter of the law is.


I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but I'd say it's undeniable that - whether for good or ill - our litigiousness has increased drastically in the past couple of decades.

You can pay for your gas by letting me slam you mercilessly.

How the hell is a four year old gonna pay for damages anyway?

Civil suits are fucking stupid.

Turquoise wrote:

Acerider wrote:

I don't like the second one. Why sue? If your really angry and want to avenge your mom's death, try to put the girl in prison for manslaughter. As stupid and retarded as that is, how in any way does money make up for yourmoms death? 50% of sueing cases are cheap ways to get cash quick in my eyes, and therefore disgusting.

Well, compensation is the point of a lawsuit -- not vengeance, although I realize a lot of people get confused on that.

It's like how people utilize criminal cases as a vengeance system rather than a justice system.  Sometimes, vengeance and justice are the same thing -- sometimes not.

Don't humour him or he'll only chime in more.

50% of lawsuits are to get cash quick? Nice figure where did you pluck it from... Try adding 45% to it.

Apathy is taking over for me anyway so rather than call you up pace on your bone, captain obvious statements I'm just gonna ignore them. Despite the temptation to just deliver some verbal justice and take you down a few pegs.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/2 …  in brazil

Acerider wrote:

I don't like the second one. Why sue? If your really angry and want to avenge your mom's death, try to put the girl in prison for manslaughter. As stupid and retarded as that is, how in any way does money make up for yourmoms death? 50% of sueing cases are cheap ways to get cash quick in my eyes, and therefore disgusting.

She died three months later of unrelated causes.

NooBesT wrote:

Acerider wrote:

I don't like the second one. Why sue? If your really angry and want to avenge your mom's death, try to put the girl in prison for manslaughter. As stupid and retarded as that is, how in any way does money make up for yourmoms death? 50% of sueing cases are cheap ways to get cash quick in my eyes, and therefore disgusting.

She died three months later of unrelated causes.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Holy shit this countries laws are getting out of control and the idiots who enforce them are even worse. Just a list of news articals that seem to violate everything this country stands for.

A gas attendentand getting arrested for telling a girl she can pay him with a kiss.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/1 … tatio.html


a four year to be sued?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyreg … terstitial

and legally owned guns will land you in jail for 7 years.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-n … ke-no-laws

Three million lawyers in this country all trying to make their mark.

Gas station attendant needed to be arrested.
4 year old girl case needs to be thrown out.
New Jersey sucks ass.  I'm glad the Judge's re-appointment failed.  Free that guy.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

See wtf on the mcdonalds one as well. These people made me fat, they should reward him with a shotgun. Also it's not 100% the peoples fault, it's also the judges faults for awarding these people the time in the court room.

I think that cases like the 4 year old should be able to have a counter suite. Lets remember that an 87 year old woman might have the same mental state of the 4 year old child. It's insane to think that a judge actually decided to move foward on that case, who cares what older cases said.

Why would you arrest the gas attendant? Holy crap it's on the word of a 17-18 year old girl..

Yea... I remember the hot coffee thing. 

What's stopping the family from counter suing?

Well, if she only had $10 and he put in $20s worth....  I'd like to see some video from that one.

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Unfortunately, America and a few other countries like the U.K. are extremely litigious.

I don't know why this is, but it clearly shows a flaw in the system.

the UK is nowhere near as litigious as america.

civil law courts are still quite inaccessible, when it comes to representation and costs, tbh.

Well, the U.K. apparently has a ton of corporate injunctions on the media, and libel laws allow for much more litigation over there (see the libel tourist for a good example).

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Regardless, it's not sexual harassment unless it's in the workplace. Wow he said "Hey it was 20, you can pay me with a kiss", big fucking whoop. It's not like he raped her, also where is her pussy of a father. That mother fucker should have driven there and made him apologize. Now worst case, this kid ends up in jail or on the Megan's law website and we the tax payer have to cover the cost.

22 ain't a kid.  At minimum he should be incarcerated for ripping off the gas station.  I wonder how many times he's tried this and it worked? 

Do people guilty of sexual harassment go to jail in NJ?  Where was Dad?  I guess doing the right lawful thing by going to the police station...

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Counter suing? I'm 100% that people have better things to do then spend money on attorneys(which is what these lawyers want, it's them and a buddy getting employment off this deal) and time in court.

Pro Bono? Can't think of a reason anyone would want to defend a little 4 year old girl from this.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-10-29 20:08:38)