Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > No Guns Allowed

No Guns Allowed (Page 3)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Just saw a sign to that effect on the window of my local cheese shop.

It's no mystery I'm on the "pro-gun" side of things, but I like to think I put in the effort to understand the other side. It's not hard for me to see why people are against the free flow of killing machines. I don't agree with that position, but I can certainly respect it.

So, I want to know if I'm out of order thinking that sign is a douchebag move made by a bunch of douchebags.

The only person that sign will affect is someone with a concealed carry license, which here in this state is really hard to get.

Why **** with this person. What did they do wrong, exactly? Can anyone seriously argue they're the problem?
Maybe you are just projecting your own political views onto a sign that was merely put up for business reasons.

Or maybe you believe those signs with "No Food or Drink", "No Pets Allowed", or "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" must be political?

I'm guessing the owner doesn't want to clean up the mess and/or deal with customers complaining about crazy dogs running loose. Or two crazy dogs fighting and ended up killing/injuring each other or other customers in the restaurant.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Translation of the sign, as read by passing burgler: "This shop is gun-free. Hold me up any time."

They'll probably remove the sign after their first hold-up. Someone will get away with all their dough ... er, cheese. Might have to wait awhile for that magic first holdup.
I think you are misinterpreting the sign. I don't believe it implies the owner(s) won't have a gun.

Maybe subego should hold-up the shop with a gun and test out both theories.

Theory 1: Shop owner doesn't own a gun.
Theory 2: Shop owner will remove sign after being held-up with a gun.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 09:01 PM
 
First off... welcome back! Good to see you again! (No snark)

Second, I ask you what benefit is the proprietor gaining by stopping people who in this case, have multiple licenses for their guns? In Illinois, every firearm owner needs a Firearm Owners Identification Card (i.e. you register with the State Police) and then also a concealed carry license if you want to carry it around in public.

What is gained by refusing this person admittance?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 09:07 PM
 
Already answered the question.

Some customers are not comfortable eating while others carry a gun on them.
Some customers are not comfortable eating while others are breastfeeding.
Some customers are not comfortable eating while others are shirtless.

Easier for business owner to put up a sign than having to constantly ask gun guy, shirtless guy, or breastfeeding mom to leave.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 09:24 PM
 
Should cops not be allowed into these places? They have guns on them.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 09:29 PM
 
I do want to say however, that's the first rationale I've heard which makes some sort of sense.

Not something which would bother me in the slightest, so not something I thought of.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2014, 12:04 AM
 
Sounds like disclaimer is a perfectly sensible reason to put up such a sign. Just means that you are liable to pay for anyone or anything that you shoot in the event that someone decides to file suit over it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2014, 02:08 PM
 
I see this as different than a disclaimer. You can disclaim liability without making someone who doesn't follow the disclaimer risk losing their CCL license, which is what this sign does.

Likewise, we are very vulnerable when we're eating, and choosing who we eat with is no small deal (hence Jesus eating with hookers turning heads back in the day), so I can get not eating with guns around, but that doesn't explain the cheese shop, or the tire shop I just walked by.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2014, 02:54 PM
 
To put it another way, liability is a civil issue, getting your CCL revoked isn't.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2014, 05:11 AM
 
I feel this is a good way to show the concern is liability.

     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2014, 01:52 PM
 
I went to a kosher deli, one of my favorites, and they had recently put up a sign with a gun on it, and a circle and slash over it (similar to the one above). I stuck my head in and yelled at the manager, "does this sign mean I can't come in and eat here anymore?" He assured me that I was fine and could dine there any time I want. Pretty sure it's just for limiting liability in the event something did go wrong.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2014, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I went to a kosher deli, one of my favorites, and they had recently put up a sign with a gun on it, and a circle and slash over it (similar to the one above). I stuck my head in and yelled at the manager, "does this sign mean I can't come in and eat here anymore?" He assured me that I was fine and could dine there any time I want. Pretty sure it's just for limiting liability in the event something did go wrong.
So, if you're in there eating, and some one comes in, threatens you, and you shoot someone else by mistake, and the person shot sues him for allowing you in, what's next? Is his liability suddenly limited, because he let you in? Or is it increased, because he knew you had a gun?
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2014, 08:34 PM
 
As a side note, I've found it's usually insurance companies suing in these sorts of situations, not actual people.

Still a legit question though.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 12:28 AM
 
I didn't really think about that, it's a good question. It's probably best if he simply takes it down. (Not that I ever plan on shooting anyone. Plus, I'm a LEO, though I'm not sure if he's aware of that.)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Ω
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 04:37 AM
 
I honestly can't understand the need the right to carry a gun.

For those that carry a gun, how many times have you needed to defend yourself and draw your weapon?

For those that don't carry a gun, how many times do you think you needed one to protect yourself?

In my life I have been physically assaulted twice, but on neither occasion even been close for the need for "protection".
"angels bleed from the tainted touch of my caress"
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 05:02 AM
 
I think it depends on where you live.
     
Ω
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 05:12 AM
 
And I think that is my point. I do not know a single person who owns a gun for protection. For hunting, maybe a few.

I feel safe in my country, because the people who have guns tend to be the people who should have the guns.
"angels bleed from the tainted touch of my caress"
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 06:15 AM
 
The lack of safety here has far less to do with the availability of guns than with drug prohibition.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I went to a kosher deli, one of my favorites, and they had recently put up a sign with a gun on it, and a circle and slash over it (similar to the one above). I stuck my head in and yelled at the manager, "does this sign mean I can't come in and eat here anymore?" He assured me that I was fine and could dine there any time I want. Pretty sure it's just for limiting liability in the event something did go wrong.
In Texas it's something like a $10,000 fine (max) and a felony charge to ignore the sign (regardless of what the owner tells you). That only applies to concealed carry holders, of course.

Sorry if that's already been covered.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2014, 08:02 PM
 
Yeah, that's quite a difference, right there.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 03:16 PM
 
What do you guys think about smart guns?

Jon Stewart Blasts The NRA's Opposition To 'Smart Guns'
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 04:59 PM
 
Bullshit sensors are pinned on this one. Look who just got a bunch of free advertising.

As for the question, not a big fan. Guns are "mission critical" devices. Adding additional failure points is bad policy.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 05:24 PM
 
Also... HuffPo?

You should really stop that.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also... HuffPo?

You should really stop that.

I haven't found a better site with a better compilation of funny skits and things from various shows and sites. This, oddly enough, was in their comedy section.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Bullshit sensors are pinned on this one. Look who just got a bunch of free advertising.

As for the question, not a big fan. Guns are "mission critical" devices. Adding additional failure points is bad policy.

Are you against people having them though? They seem like they could be useful for certain households or something.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 07:34 PM
 
I'm against them. I don't think they should be illegal however.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I haven't found a better site with a better compilation of funny skits and things from various shows and sites. This, oddly enough, was in their comedy section.
I'm okay with that, just don't give them other people's traffic. Give it to the people they steal from.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel this is a good way to show the concern is liability.
You can bring guns into a bar in Chicago?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 10:58 PM
 
This is what happens when a few gun nuts try to show off how big their penis gun is at a Chipotle in Dallas.

Chipotle: Don't Bring Guns in Our Stores | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

The company said that "the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."

Well duh?

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2014, 11:35 PM
 
If a person wants a "smart" gun, MPTT, but I wouldn't own one.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2014, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
So, if you're in there eating, and some one comes in, threatens you, and you shoot someone else by mistake, and the person shot sues him for allowing you in, what's next? Is his liability suddenly limited, because he let you in? Or is it increased, because he knew you had a gun?
You do know you can't just sue someone for any ole' thing right? Though the media doesn't make it seem like it; there actually is a standard.

You cannot sue a shop owner for letting a customer into their store unless you can prove the owner knew what the customer was about to do.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2014, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You do know you can't just sue someone for any ole' thing right? Though the media doesn't make it seem like it; there actually is a standard.

You cannot sue a shop owner for letting a customer into their store unless you can prove the owner knew what the customer was about to do.
Can't find anything, but wasn't there a case of someone suing a country club for 'letting in' a wasp*.

*No, not a W.A.S.P., the flying thing that stings.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2014, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You do know you can't just sue someone for any ole' thing right? Though the media doesn't make it seem like it; there actually is a standard.

You cannot sue a shop owner for letting a customer into their store unless you can prove the owner knew what the customer was about to do.
If you're injured, and your insurance company has to pay out, they'll sue everybody. Including the floor you landed on. Probably God too, for good measure.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2014, 10:26 PM
 
You've got to prove that the party you're suing acted in a way that was "outrageous" and "unforeseeable" and caused the damages you're suing for.

This is why a fan that gets hit by a foul ball cannot sue the stadium or baseball player - it's totally foreseeable at a baseball game.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2014, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you're injured, and your insurance company has to pay out, they'll sue everybody. Including the floor you landed on. Probably God too, for good measure.
Filing a complaint and seeing the litigation through are wholly separate things. Insurance companies often "throw spaghetti up on the wall" to see what sticks in hopes of getting settlement money out of it. They also mainly sue other insurance companies - the lawyers and actuaries between them have it pretty down pat for these things. (though tort reform is needed - there's enough there to cover 10 threads).
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2014, 03:39 PM
 
Agreed. It's basically a circlejerk.

In connection to that however, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy angle going on. Insurance companies know the stupid shit they try and sue for, so they want to get their own clients buttoned-up against the practice.

Insurance companies take a "don't try and bullshit a bullshitter" stance.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2014, 08:15 PM
 
It looks like there are a number of companies coming forth now and saying that they don't want guns in their stores.

As valid as the arguments are that sane people toting around guns can make, for me the strongest sort of argument against this is the possibility of this being an open invitation or beacon to the not-so-sane gun nuts. The NRA has spoken out about this group, for example:

NRA: Actions of open carry supporters are "downright foolishness - Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

I tend to think that groups like this are more likely to come about because of politically powerful figures (including the NRA) riling up nutty people and manipulating their emotions with, for example, these thoughts of Obama being some sort of tyrant that wants to take away all of our guns and make as a socialist Muslim country (and yes, I'm being intentionally silly here in my exaggeration).

I'm uncomfortable with weird people out there thinking they are Rambo and need to save the country from non-specific threats due to their neurotic nature. Can we agree that if we are going to encourage people to embrace guns as a tool for responsible owners that we also explore finding ways to deal with the crazy elements, be it tone down political rhetoric, or anything else we can do?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 03:59 PM
 
Can we agree that if we are going to encourage people to embrace guns as a tool for responsible owners that we also explore finding ways to deal with the crazy elements, be it tone down political rhetoric, or anything else we can do?
This is exactly what the NRA and the right have been arguing for decades. Exactly what you just said. Decades.

Eddie Eagle GunSafe|Information For Parents

NRA-ILA | Good Citizens and Good Neighbors The Gun Owners Role

Learn the NRA's Gun Safety Rules for National Safety Month

^ National Safety Month. It's a real thing. I can provide you thousands of other links to the NRA promoting safety and responsible gun ownership. It's kinda what the NRA is all about.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 04:12 PM
 
That's great, but maybe they should adapt to what seems to be an increase in gun fanaticism in recent years in ways that don't rile people up?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's great, but maybe they should adapt to what seems to be an increase in gun fanaticism in recent years in ways that don't rile people up?
What would you have them do? It's already a core part of the NRA's mission. Infact, I can't think of anything the NRA does that isn't safety/responsible ownership oriented.

I think the problem here is a lack of understanding of what the NRA actually does except as filtered through the political blogs you're reading.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What would you have them do? It's already a core part of the NRA's mission. Infact, I can't think of anything the NRA does that isn't safety/responsible ownership oriented.

I think the problem here is a lack of understanding of what the NRA actually does except as filtered through the political blogs you're reading.

Where have you been the last several months while Wayne LaPierre has riled up gun enthusiasts using second amendment based arguments in the context of the mass shootings we have seen? The same open carry demonstrations they are now denouncing are based on perceived second amendment threats. The NRA has a powerful enough platform that they could be setting a more academic tone that perhaps does less to rile these sorts of people up.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 01:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Where have you been the last several months while Wayne LaPierre has riled up gun enthusiasts using second amendment based arguments in the context of the mass shootings we have seen? The same open carry demonstrations they are now denouncing are based on perceived second amendment threats. The NRA has a powerful enough platform that they could be setting a more academic tone that perhaps does less to rile these sorts of people up.
If you want a more academic tone, you should start by demanding that of those who're actually in an office that can do something about it. The NRA isn't where the fervor originated. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 02:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If you want a more academic tone, you should start by demanding that of those who're actually in an office that can do something about it. The NRA isn't where the fervor originated. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Please, like your open carriers really give a rat's ass about what politicians say, particularly those in power right now.

Besides, the NRA has had far more years of experience in learning how to set productive tones and communicating directly with gun advocates, they are in a unique position to influence a lot of people.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 02:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Please, like your open carriers really give a rat's ass about what politicians say, particularly those in power right now.
Not sure they have a choice. The constitution says one thing, our politicians another.

Besides, the NRA has had far more years of experience in learning how to set productive tones and communicating directly with gun advocates, they are in a unique position to influence a lot of people.
I'm still not understanding what you want them to do differently. It's a core part of their mission; they already influence a lot of people about responsible ownership and safety. Millions. I think you're misunderstanding a lack of headlines about it with it not actually occurring. Otherwise, I'm still at a loss for what additional action for them to take to win your support that they aren't already taking.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 02:14 AM
 
Forget it Snow-i, I don't have the energy.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You do know you can't just sue someone for any ole' thing right? Though the media doesn't make it seem like it; there actually is a standard.

You cannot sue a shop owner for letting a customer into their store unless you can prove the owner knew what the customer was about to do.
I would suspect that being shot rises to a level above "any ole' thing,"
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's great, but maybe they should adapt to what seems to be an increase in gun fanaticism in recent years in ways that don't rile people up?
It only riles up the liberals who still haven't got it through their little baseball sized heads that gun bans have never ever worked to lessen gun violence.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I would suspect that being shot rises to a level above "any ole' thing,"
Well of course, OldMan. But i couldn't sue you because a robber shot me in your store.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 04:53 PM
 
It should be specifically laid out in civil law that if you get shot while committing a crime, you can't sue the people who shot you. Getting shot, and getting convicted of committing a crime when that happens sort of says "you were in the wrong," don't you think?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
It should be specifically laid out in civil law that if you get shot while committing a crime, you can't sue the people who shot you. Getting shot, and getting convicted of committing a crime when that happens sort of says "you were in the wrong," don't you think?
In a much broader sense it already is, Glenn.

You have to be able to show that the person you're suing retains liability for the damages caused to you, equated to a monetary sum, to win any judgement.

Any time you are committing a felony, anything that happens in the commission of that felony is purely on you. If two guys Rob a bank and one of them is killed by the police, the other gets charged with the murder of the dead guy. That's criminal liability, and it applies to civil liability as well. No other parties have liability for the outcome of that felony unless they can be found to have been accessories to it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,