Why I hate lawyers

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Why I hate lawyers

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/possible-lawsuit-over-aurora-movie-shootings-targets-owner/

Quote:
 

A possible lawsuit is brewing over the shootings at the Aurora movie theater, and there may be many more. The suit could target the owner of the theater.

 Lawyers in New York they say Cinemark is the main entity they’re planning to go after for compensation for the victims. They’re hoping they can reach some sort of settlement right off the bat, but they’re prepared to go to court.
 So I guess the theater owner is supposed to be able to predict that some crazy guy is going to enter the theater and start shooting? Are all businesses supposed to have armed guards patrolling their premises? These kinds of lawsuits are completely absurd and the people who participate in them are greedy, self-centered scum. I'm sorry you lost a loved one or were injured, but that doesn't justify going around suing people who had nothing to do with it and were in fact victimized by the same guy. The sad part is that Cinemark will probably settle because it will be cheaper than risking trial and avoid any potential bad press, so these greedy little leeches are going to get a few pennies and the lawyers will walk away with a few million. Disgusting.  

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Since when are greed and

Since when are greed and self-centeredness bad qualities according to you, or does that only apply to other people?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Since when

Manageri wrote:

Since when are greed and self-centeredness bad qualities according to you, or does that only apply to other people?

When you are harming other innocent members of society


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 I wonder if the 9 people

 I wonder if the 9 people who recently were accidentally shot by the incompetent New York cops are going to bring a suit against the city ?   

Oh yeah, and there was another accidental shooting by a New York cop a few days ago and this time the innocent civilian died.    I bet the cop gets off without being charged with anything.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13729792-witness-deli-worker-mistakenly-shot-dead-by-new-york-cops?lite


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3192
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 I wonder if the 9 people who recently were accidentally shot by the incompetent New York cops are going to bring a suit against the city ?   

Oh yeah, and there was another accidental shooting by a New York cop a few days ago and this time the innocent civilian died.    I bet the cop gets off without being charged with anything.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13729792-witness-deli-worker-mistakenly-shot-dead-by-new-york-cops?lite

I saw that in the headlines. This is getting to be a bad pattern with these NYC cops.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
This is bullshit.

This is bullshit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Wow. The gall of some people.

 I guess those kids that got shot at Virginia Tech should have sued the school. I guess the families of the students that got shot should have sued Columbine High school. I guess that from now one, people should sue the location of wherever they happen to be at when they or a loved one happens to get shot.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Manageri

Beyond Saving wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Since when are greed and self-centeredness bad qualities according to you, or does that only apply to other people?

When you are harming other innocent members of society

Funny how I can see that you are right on this issue, but you cannot yourself see the destructive climate you blindly and unwittingly support. So what the banks, housing and car industry did because of deregulation had no affect on anyone? And your solution is "trust the bully, he wont hurt you".

.

You harm innocent people when you make profit more important than investment, when both are equally important. You hurt innocent people when you explode the pay gap. You hurt innocent people when that collective society increasingly cannot make ends meet.

There is absoultly no physical way you cannot affect others positively or negitively unless you lived on a deserted island. I sincerely hope someday you head your own words.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Funny how I

Brian37 wrote:

Funny how I can see that you are right on this issue, but you cannot yourself see the destructive climate you blindly and unwittingly support. So what the banks, housing and car industry did because of deregulation had no affect on anyone? And your solution is "trust the bully, he wont hurt you".

Exactly what law was passed that you call "deregulation"? I do not support our current banking system at all, it is completely corrupt and highly regulated through an incestuous relationship between semi-private banks and the government called the federal reserve.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

You harm innocent people when you make profit more important than investment, when both are equally important. You hurt innocent people when you explode the pay gap. You hurt innocent people when that collective society increasingly cannot make ends meet.

Who do I hurt? My customers because I charge too much? They pay the price with a smile and keep coming back. The people I invest in? They seem pretty happy and have become good personal friends, I have little doubt that if they ever need someone to invest in another venture I will be at the top of the list to call back. My employees? Without me they have no job, and therefore zero income. So how am I "exploding the pay gap" when all I do is take my money and pay them which necessarily lowers my income and raises theirs (making the incomes closer). Show me exactly who I am hurting by providing products to people who want them. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

There is absoultly no physical way you cannot affect others positively or negitively unless you lived on a deserted island. I sincerely hope someday you head your own words.

And I should say that I am an extremely positive influence (at least financially) on everyone I come into contact with on a daily basis. Either I am buying a product from them making them richer or I am selling a product to them giving them something they want/need. In what possible fucked up world is that negative? 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Funny how I can see that you are right on this issue, but you cannot yourself see the destructive climate you blindly and unwittingly support. So what the banks, housing and car industry did because of deregulation had no affect on anyone? And your solution is "trust the bully, he wont hurt you".

Exactly what law was passed that you call "deregulation"? I do not support our current banking system at all, it is completely corrupt and highly regulated through an incestuous relationship between semi-private banks and the government called the federal reserve.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

You harm innocent people when you make profit more important than investment, when both are equally important. You hurt innocent people when you explode the pay gap. You hurt innocent people when that collective society increasingly cannot make ends meet.

Who do I hurt? My customers because I charge too much? They pay the price with a smile and keep coming back. The people I invest in? They seem pretty happy and have become good personal friends, I have little doubt that if they ever need someone to invest in another venture I will be at the top of the list to call back. My employees? Without me they have no job, and therefore zero income. So how am I "exploding the pay gap" when all I do is take my money and pay them which necessarily lowers my income and raises theirs (making the incomes closer). Show me exactly who I am hurting by providing products to people who want them. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

There is absoultly no physical way you cannot affect others positively or negitively unless you lived on a deserted island. I sincerely hope someday you head your own words.

And I should say that I am an extremely positive influence (at least financially) on everyone I come into contact with on a daily basis. Either I am buying a product from them making them richer or I am selling a product to them giving them something they want/need. In what possible fucked up world is that negative? 

 

jesus christ, why don't you guys just start butt-fucking already?  goddamn, does every thread either of you start have to end with the two of you beating the same fucking dead horse over and over?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Beyond, you are an example

Beyond, you are an example of a good business owner, but you aren't in the top 1% by a long shot. Your effect on the economy at large is, frankly, miniscule. Your arguments would carry more weight if the top acted as you do, but they don't.
A blatantly ridiculous amount of resources and finances are tied up or locked up and the pile is only getting bigger.
You invest in new products and/or services as you encounter them, provided there is a sound business plan in place (I know I'm making a number of assumptions here, I feel I know you well enough to make them, but if I go out to right field anywhere feel free to smack me for it; if I'm giving you too much credit then so be it).
But the richest people aren't investing a fraction as much as you do, ratio wise at least. They are interested only in sustaining the models that have worked for them so far, hoarding more and more and starving their own consumer base.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
If you compare inflation to

If you compare inflation to minimum wages over the last 50 years, there is a significant discrepancy. Inflation has gone up 650 odd percent in that period of time. It literally costs 6.5 times more to live today than it did in the 60's.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/10/inflation-rate-hits-657-for-past-50.html

Only in the last few years have minimum wages caught up to overall inflation.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

But these figures aren't showing the actual cost of living, they show the bare minimum. Food, utilities, etc. There's no reflection of the fact it literally costs 5 times more today to fuel a car than it did when I was a kid. Or how rent has also jumped faster than inflation. Nor does it reflect quality, which has gone up for the rich, and down for everyone else (Kraft dinner instead of meat/veggies; expected product lifetimes significantly lower; banking fees which nickel and dime the poor while giving interest to the rich; I could go on).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Education, phones, and

Education, phones, and housing have all skyrocketed far beyond the point wages could keep up with. All three are prerequisites for having a job far more often than not.

Not the most scientific sources here, but it's amazingly difficult to root out basic information (damn pdf's everywhere), compared to referencing others who already did it (reflected by the fact that different figures are given, presumably due to location), so what the hell.

http://www.talkfinance.net/f32/cost-living-today-vs-1960-a-3941/ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5442257

Both of these reflect the reality that the majority have gotten poorer over the last 50 years through no fault of their own. They can only be stretched by the rich for so long before they snap. When they snap, every nation afflicted by this discrepancy will fall. Some harder than others, but they'll all crash to some degree.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:   goddamn,

iwbiek wrote:

 

  goddamn, does every thread either of you start have to end with the two of you beating the same fucking dead horse over and over?

  I agree.  Brian obviously has a deep-seated resentment toward Beyond and he ends up hijacking thread after thread accusing Beyond of being an evil capitalist oppressor.  Gee Brian why don't you start an thread that is strictly focused upon your complaints against Beyond and do all of your bitching there.   


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond, you are

Vastet wrote:
Beyond, you are an example of a good business owner, but you aren't in the top 1% by a long shot. Your effect on the economy at large is, frankly, miniscule. Your arguments would carry more weight if the top acted as you do, but they don't. A blatantly ridiculous amount of resources and finances are tied up or locked up and the pile is only getting bigger. You invest in new products and/or services as you encounter them, provided there is a sound business plan in place (I know I'm making a number of assumptions here, I feel I know you well enough to make them, but if I go out to right field anywhere feel free to smack me for it; if I'm giving you too much credit then so be it). But the richest people aren't investing a fraction as much as you do, ratio wise at least. They are interested only in sustaining the models that have worked for them so far, hoarding more and more and starving their own consumer base.

 

Where do you think the top 1% puts their money? Why do you think they put it there? 

 

Vastet wrote:
If you compare inflation to minimum wages over the last 50 years, there is a significant discrepancy. Inflation has gone up 650 odd percent in that period of time. It literally costs 6.5 times more to live today than it did in the 60's. http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/10/inflation-rate-hits-657-for-past-50.html Only in the last few years have minimum wages caught up to overall inflation. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html But these figures aren't showing the actual cost of living, they show the bare minimum. Food, utilities, etc. There's no reflection of the fact it literally costs 5 times more today to fuel a car than it did when I was a kid. Or how rent has also jumped faster than inflation. Nor does it reflect quality, which has gone up for the rich, and down for everyone else (Kraft dinner instead of meat/veggies; expected product lifetimes significantly lower; banking fees which nickel and dime the poor while giving interest to the rich; I could go on).

Of course we are having inflation, our government has been printing money left and right to pay for their debt. Higher money supply equals inflation. Our government has been intentionally pursuing inflationary policy so it is hardly surprising that it has worked, you can't blame private capitalists for the success of intentional government policy (except to the extent that private capitalists supported government policy). When the federal reserve sets out to intentionally cause inflation there isn't much the top 1%, or anyone else, can do to stop it. And yes, inflation has been the stated policy goal of the federal reserve since the 1980's and any threat of deflation sends the fed into panic even when the market signals are begging for it. IMO, it is this policy that is primarily responsible for the depth of our current recession because it is insane to believe you can have constant inflation and avoid all deflation. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
"Where do you think the top

"Where do you think the top 1% puts their money? Why do you think they put it there? "

Mostly in property and banks, where it sits doing nothing. The why is because they are as greedy and stupid as every other generation that sat on the brink of revolution. They think hoarding their money will save their money, but it won't.

"Of course we are having inflation, our government has been printing money left and right to pay for their debt."

Uh uh. Inflation is not the sole responsibility of the government, and printing money isn't the only thing that drives it either. They play a role, but the entire economic system is to blame, and everyone who's apart of it. Government didn't raise gas (taxes aren't the biggest driving force behind increased cost), rent, phone, and education costs; the private sector did that all by itself.

I agree with you that infinite inflation is unsustainable, but it'll take more than changing the policies of the reserve. The vast majority of business in the US operates the exact same.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Where do you

Vastet wrote:
"Where do you think the top 1% puts their money? Why do you think they put it there? " Mostly in property and banks, where it sits doing nothing. The why is because they are as greedy and stupid as every other generation that sat on the brink of revolution. They think hoarding their money will save their money, but it won't.

Our current recession is primarily due to a rapid decrease in demand for property. IOW, a sudden lack of people purchasing property. It seems to me that if millionaires/billionaires continued purchasing property the market for real estate would not have collapsed. Obviously, the top 1% is not putting their money in real estate. 

 Money in banks... not so much (jumbo CD's are only paying 1.85%), but certainly a portion of it. What do you think banks do with the money? You think the money just sits there and the banks pay rich people premium interest rates on money that isn't doing anything?

 

Vastet wrote:

 Uh uh. Inflation is not the sole responsibility of the government, and printing money isn't the only thing that drives it either. They play a role, but the entire economic system is to blame, and everyone who's apart of it. Government didn't raise gas (taxes aren't the biggest driving force behind increased cost), rent, phone, and education costs; the private sector did that all by itself. I agree with you that infinite inflation is unsustainable, but it'll take more than changing the policies of the reserve. The vast majority of business in the US operates the exact same.

Taxes are an extremely small part of the role government plays in the value of our money. The entire tax debate is completely absurd because it is so unimportant compared to the effect that government has by controlling interest rates- which has the practical effect of controlling money supply. The private sector has virtually no control of interest rates, they are limited by law how much they can charge beyond the government rates (called usury laws). If you have a problem with inflation, then you should target your anger at the federal reserve which has intentionally pursued low interest rate policies to increase monetary supply and cause inflation as the stated goal. The only fault the private sector has is in not overthrowing the government. You change the policies of the federal reserve and private companies will follow suit because they will have to in order to make a profit, and private companies will always attempt to pursue the most profitable route. (Because we are greedy)

A free market goes through periods of inflation and periods of deflation, the US has not had a free market for almost 100 years and the government has done everything it can to avoid deflation at all costs. When you have a fiat currency, government can effectively prevent deflation and cause inflation by controlling the monetary supply and the interest rates which is exactly what our government has done. There isn't jack shit I, Bill Gates or Warren Buffet can do to stop the government from maintaining inflation. The government sets an inflation goal and it is pretty damn good at getting close to it on a consistent basis. It is absurd to blame private business for government achieving a stated goal, especially when so many of us are doing everything we can to stop those fuckers in the government from achieving their goals. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/possible-lawsuit-over-aurora-movie-shootings-targets-owner/

Quote:
 

A possible lawsuit is brewing over the shootings at the Aurora movie theater, and there may be many more. The suit could target the owner of the theater.

 Lawyers in New York they say Cinemark is the main entity they’re planning to go after for compensation for the victims. They’re hoping they can reach some sort of settlement right off the bat, but they’re prepared to go to court.
 So I guess the theater owner is supposed to be able to predict that some crazy guy is going to enter the theater and start shooting? Are all businesses supposed to have armed guards patrolling their premises? These kinds of lawsuits are completely absurd and the people who participate in them are greedy, self-centered scum. I'm sorry you lost a loved one or were injured, but that doesn't justify going around suing people who had nothing to do with it and were in fact victimized by the same guy. The sad part is that Cinemark will probably settle because it will be cheaper than risking trial and avoid any potential bad press, so these greedy little leeches are going to get a few pennies and the lawyers will walk away with a few million. Disgusting.  

There's an argument that could be made by the litigants that the theatre's insurance could/should cover such random acts. They have insurance for fire. And that would presumably include fire by arson, right? Which is a random crime, right? So, if the fire just happened to have been in the chamber of a gun, with a bullet between it and freedom, then why shouldn't insurance cover that, too? That's what insurance is for, protecting people against unpredictable events.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
"Our current recession is

"Our current recession is primarily due to a rapid decrease in demand for property. IOW, a sudden lack of people purchasing property. It seems to me that if millionaires/billionaires continued purchasing property the market for real estate would not have collapsed. Obviously, the top 1% is not putting their money in real estate. "

I'm sure even a billionaire has a limit on how many houses he or she needs. They already have a shitload of money in real estate. And as you note, the housing market is not stable. So they keep income in banks, and purchase property as it is profitable, which won't have a positive effect on the housing market, as they primarily look for forclosures and other bargains.

"Money in banks... not so much (jumbo CD's are only paying 1.85%), but certainly a portion of it. What do you think banks do with the money? You think the money just sits there and the banks pay rich people premium interest rates on money that isn't doing anything?"

No, they use the money to expand their own

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
..operations. I'm well aware

..operations. I'm well aware how banks work. They don't generally do anything but for themselves.

"Taxes are an extremely small ~ profitable route. (Because we are greedy)"

I'm not denying the government has a role, but it has also reduced the speed at which inflation grows by regulating it in the first place.

As an example, my rent goes up by a government approved percentage each year, modifiable only when renovations have taken place. The landowners, every landowner I've ever encountered, has used the full percentage every single year I've been around to see it. If the government did not regulate the amount, then the landowners would raise rates faster and higher. Despite the fact that this percentage has been higher than the inflation rate, despite the fact that wages aren't keeping up.

The logical response from you would be that when rates are too high, the landowners go bankrupt from lack of customers.
Problem is that by then, everyone's lost. All the people out on the street and the once rich guy

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
...are all in the same

...are all in the same boat.

This story is applicable to the big picture. America is the property. Yes, the landlords (government) bear some responsibility, but the landowners (rich), are the driving force. Take their hands off the wheel if you want to turn the government around.

You can't blame the public sector for the multitudes of private interests that have infiltrated the public sector. It's public. You can only blame criminals for crime, not the victims.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 The whole concept of

 The whole concept of lawyers is hugely irrational. It's really just a good ole boys club where judges look out for the interests of lawyers, then the lawyers become judges. All at the expense of the rest of society.

Supposedly we have a judicial system that is fair and impartial. But if you have money and can pay a good lawyer, then you get better a better outcome. If the law and judicial system was really fair, you wouldn't need a to pay lawyer. This is the best example of how the rich rig the system in their favor.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
here in slovakia this shit

here in slovakia this shit would never happen.  any lawyer who would bring this before a slovak judge would get his ass chewed out, and all those involved in bringing such a suit would likely find themselves in legal trouble.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Wonderist wrote:There's an

Wonderist wrote:

There's an argument that could be made by the litigants that the theatre's insurance could/should cover such random acts. They have insurance for fire. And that would presumably include fire by arson, right? Which is a random crime, right? So, if the fire just happened to have been in the chamber of a gun, with a bullet between it and freedom, then why shouldn't insurance cover that, too? That's what insurance is for, protecting people against unpredictable events.

Liability insurance is only covers damages caused by the person/entity that has the insurance. Property insurance only covers damage done to the specific property that is insured- for example, suppose that an arsonist burned down the theater, it would cover any damage to the theater but not damage to say a customers car that is damaged from being parked near the theater. Since the damage was not caused by the theater or employees and the damage at question is not the damage to the theaters property, there is no way insurance is going to cover any of it. Although, if this lawsuit is successful it is likely that we will see a new kind of "crime" insurance.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
If they can sue Warner

If they can sue Warner Brothers as being responsible for making the shooter delusional and mentally ill, can they sue the Lutheran church he was raised in as well?

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 " Our current recession is

 " Our current recession is primarily due to a rapid decrease in demand for property. "

He never said that the money was tied up in property or banks in THIS country.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Liability insurance is only covers damages caused by the person/entity that has the insurance. Property insurance only covers damage done to the specific property that is insured- for example, suppose that an arsonist burned down the theater, it would cover any damage to the theater but not damage to say a customers car that is damaged from being parked near the theater. Since the damage was not caused by the theater or employees and the damage at question is not the damage to the theaters property, there is no way insurance is going to cover any of it. Although, if this lawsuit is successful it is likely that we will see a new kind of "crime" insurance.

Don't know about the states, but where I live, there are some things that a business/property owner is liable for that, strictly speaking, they are not the cause of. For example, bars are liable if they let an obviously drunk person leave the premises in a car, even if, strictly speaking, the person didn't get drunk in the bar itself. It's the principle that property owners are responsible for the safety of the people they allow on the property as guests. Same kind of argument could (theoretically, if not necessarily in reality, since I don't know the laws there) be made about the shooting.

I'm not actually going to attempt to make that argument. I'm merely pointing out that it's not as absurd as your OP claims it is. That's what I was responding to.

And, I am ambivalent about whether it would actually be a good thing. I honestly don't know. The point about 'that's what insurance is for' is a serious point. (I've even heard hard-core libertarian types make arguments for just about any type of insurance you can imagine, so I don't think that concept is absurd on the face of it either, though I'm hardly a supporter of libertarianism as I've seen it presented.) On the other hand, I can clearly see how it could backfire and make life generally worse-off for everyone. My point in this thread is simply that it's not as clear-cut to me as you seemed to think it is in the OP.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!