Think of how many hunters would be murdered every year during interaction with wildlife officers.
Think of how many hunters would be murdered every year during interaction with wildlife officers.
I generally hate the litigiousness of modern society but SJWs use the whole "emotional distress" thing to hammer away at anything they don't like. Good for the deputy for using their own weapon against them. The security guard and his company were idiots and deserve to pay through the nose.
#1: It's a crazy argument to say abuse of the courts is acceptable if "the thin blue line" is doing the abuse, but unacceptable if it's anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
#2: The officer apparently doesn't have litigation experience. Even if he gets a judgment against the rent-a-cop, it's almost guaranteed an noncollectable judgment. It's highly unlikely to get one against the security company. I hope he enjoys paying his attorney an ass-ton.
PS: Remember this guy? https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.fa0f15193979
He got off without any prosecution of any kind, and got rewarded with a lifetime pension of $30,000 for murdering somebody. LEO already have a different standard than the rest of us - and I'm not arguing bias, their legal standard makes them much, much, much harder to be convicted for lethal force / be sued. Top that off with the likelihood of getting a polarized jury (almost a guarantee) and they can count on their being at least one juror that will tow the line all the way to hell if need be. If we agree that our society is litigious and the emotional distress thing against officers is usually generally bullshit, then maybe we should even the playing field in all regards.
I want to agree with this, but why the assumption that the security guard is a SJW? Just his job and his actions show me he'd be more likely to post on a forum like this than Democratic Underground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Heard Gerigos talking about this. The video is heart breaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by OxArt
What I'm saying is the inverse. The others are already abusing the courts so why hamstring the officer in this case? At least his lawsuit may result in a overall positive by restraining some of the knee-jerk anti-gun reaction already out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by OxArt
I'm not assuming the guard in question is an SJW but I AM saying the SJWs are already abusing the courts to change societal norms with the idea of "emotional distress". We've had some pretty far-out people post in this forum so the idea of anyone -- SJW or not -- being "more likely" to post here than anywhere else is a non-sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
It's not the inverse, it's a different point of view of the same fact. You find it unacceptable that others do it, but find it acceptable here because the plaintiff is LEO, with your reasoning being non LEO have done it previously. I cannot connect in any way how his EIED suit would have any bearing on public anti-gun reaction either, or to the extent it would have any fraction of a minute difference, it would seem to give them ammunition more than anything... (e.g. non LEO can't be trusted with a gun, and they hurt LEO by emotionally damaging them). But really, it's not going to have any bearing as there are no middle-fences in that debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
At any rate, there's really nothing for me to debate here either.... https://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html
Yes it is the inverse: http://www.nativlang.com/logic/logic...-contrapos.php
You were claiming my argument was that it's acceptable for A but unacceptable for not A. I was saying not A already exists so it shouldn't be unacceptable for A. That's an inverse condition of the logical statement you were trying to insert in my mouth. As I stated explcitily ... since the the anti-gunners and other SJWs are already using "emotional impact" in the courts to drive their agendas, why hamper the officer from using the same tactic against those who would disarm even someone in the performance of his duties? Your argument about "two wrongs" is a logical fallacy in itself because the argument of "emotional impact/emotional damage" has already been accepted by the courts as valid. As much as I disagree with how it has been used, his lawyer isn't inventing something new or untested.
You are the one here who is making this a case about him being a LEO. My argument holds for anyone who had a petty tyrant point a gun at their back while exercising their legally-sanctioned rights (or in this case, legally-mandated duty).