Reply With Quote
I believe the “official” term derp used for the security guard is “media associate.”
But you have no idea whether or not he was using the spray in self defense, then?
I believe the “official” term derp used for the security guard is “media associate.”
he had already assaulted the guard who was trying to keep him from the newsman.
My point remains. In order to sue a party for negligence, you need to demonstrate that party owed you a duty of care
and breached it. Setting aside how impossible it would be to show a duty of care was breached, the notion that media companies have a duty of care to MAGA s to ensure that none of the security guards they hire for the MAGA rallies they cover are left wing anti-Trumpers is ridiculous. There’s no duty of care that exists between the parties to begin with.
They have a duty to vet the person for safety reasons. It's reported that he was hired through an agency, so that could be a mitigating factor. Though that may not hold up very well as early indications are that the reporter was seemingly aware that this man is a hostile actor.
No they don’t. It’s a protest that’s open to the general public. They have absolutely no duty to “vet” the person. You’re just making up legal precedents.
Used a Mark Dice SkillShare discount code and now he’s a “law student”
Hiring a person inclined to escalate matters rather than deescalate matters is not fulfilling duty of care. Nor would it be if he has an egregious criminal record (I saw something on that but didn't click).
Have you taken a law class?
It doesn't matter. I believe people have a right to defend themselves against reasonable threats of physical violence. If you are being confronted by a person openly brandishing a weapon then you can reasonably conclude the threat is real and defend yourself.
A can of bear spray is a weapon.
What law class did you take, derp?
There is no duty of care that exists in the first place. It’s a protest that’s open the general public. You’re fabricating a legal precedent that media companies have a duty to not hire someone who “escalates” out of then air.
If they're paying an unstable or hostile person to be involved, they may be culpable.
Have you taken a law class?
I’ve sued someone for negligence before and got a $20k settlement out of it and I handled the entire matter pro se. I’m willing to bet that’s exponentially more experience with tort law than you have.
Damn Snakeboy is more triggered than usual tonight. Wonder why.
What precedent is that based off? Cite some case law in Colorado that sets this precedent, counselor.
If they're paying an unstable or hostile person to be involved, they may be culpable.
That's something. But I wouldn't say it replaces the value of classes. You're denying fundamental legal concepts right and left.
Legal concepts that your unable to cite any precedent for.
I'm not going to be your (unpaid) paralegal just because you're lacking understanding.
Defendant - “Your honor, my client had no duty of care, and the plaintiff hasn’t cited any precedent to show that any duty of care exists.”
Plaintiff - “I’m not you’re paralegal lib . If you want to see case law and precedent that supports my case, go find it yourself”
Based off what you learned from Mark Dice Law School, which side wins in the above scenario?
This isn't a courtroom. Let's be clear on that, Will.
I'm going to speak as reasonably and knowledgeably as I am able on the matters and not apologize that it hurts your feelings.
Derp folds
You're better than this (blake/chump level stuff).
You'll calm down after the election.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
derp