The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 28, 2014, 09:46 PM   #51
Bezoar
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 578
off hand, the deranged bloody clown set, well technically that would qualify as terrororism.
Bezoar is offline  
Old May 29, 2014, 12:16 AM   #52
leadcounsel
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
I wonder if any victims of these mean spirited actions (some people call pranks) have filed civil suits.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs must be "severe."

Thinking of the video with the scary clown who smashed a prone body to a bloody pulp, then advanced menacingly on the innocent victim.

I wonder if a jury could be persuaded that people pretending to be murderers who threatened a plaintiff with acts which the plaintiff reasonably believed to be a real threat to their life committed intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A successful tort lawsuit requires duty, failure to adhere to duty, causation and damages. What damages are these 'victims' suffering? And even if a person prevails after spending $10,000 on litigation, if the sued party has no money, the judgment is worthless (unless there are garnished wages, and good luck getting paid).

Now, one of these days a victim will fall and get hurt, have a heart attack, run blindly away and into speeding traffic, etc... then these morons will have a wrongful death or injury lawsuit (for which they likely don't have the means to pay any damages anyway, hence the need to do these childish stunts instead of working real jobs).
leadcounsel is offline  
Old May 29, 2014, 03:14 PM   #53
Mike1234
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2010
Location: Alamo City
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel
A successful tort lawsuit requires duty, failure to adhere to duty, causation and damages. What damages are these 'victims' suffering? And even if a person prevails after spending $10,000 on litigation, if the sued party has no money, the judgment is worthless (unless there are garnished wages, and good luck getting paid).

Now, one of these days a victim will fall and get hurt, have a heart attack, run blindly away and into speeding traffic, etc... then these morons will have a wrongful death or injury lawsuit (for which they likely don't have the means to pay any damages anyway, hence the need to do these childish stunts instead of working real jobs).
PTSD... as documented though a reasonable period of time after filing a police report, seeing appropriate professionals, keeping a daily diary/log, and having several witness to any initial/ongoing change(s) in your personality, lifestyle, professional performance, etc. All of this clearly evident of emotional/mental, social and personal economic damage.

EDIT: Would the trouble be worth it? It depends on how severe the impact was/is and whether the perpetrator is wealthy... and how good his/their attorneys are vs. yours.

Last edited by Mike1234; May 29, 2014 at 03:21 PM.
Mike1234 is offline  
Old May 30, 2014, 04:30 PM   #54
leadcounsel
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
PTSD... as documented though a reasonable period of time after filing a police report, seeing appropriate professionals, keeping a daily diary/log, and having several witness to any initial/ongoing change(s) in your personality, lifestyle, professional performance, etc. All of this clearly evident of emotional/mental, social and personal economic damage.
I suspect that would not survive a summary judgment or directed verdict motion from opposing counsel, unless a person directly and tangibly lost his/her job, and ABILITY to mitigate by earning income, and tangible economic harm proximately caused by such a stunt. It's so immensely unlikely that a 'reasonable person' would become effectively unemployable and anti-social from this stunt...

Of course, if a person had a pre-disposition due to life experiences, the 'thin skull' rule in Torts may allow a person to recover... But then there's still the question of a person not being able to recover from such a prank, and significant financial damages proximately caused by the prank.

Talk about a long-shot!
leadcounsel is offline  
Old May 30, 2014, 06:29 PM   #55
psalm7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2014
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 543
I'm reminded of the Girl that jumped out of a door at her Father and He shot her . And the exchange student from Japan that was shot in New Orleans several years ago during Halloween that didn't know every one was not into the celebration . He kept coming towards a Man on his porch that was showing him a .44 Mag and telling him to stop . As terrible as these and other situations are if somone was pulling a realistic enough prank on me I hope they would let me know its a prank before things got outta hand . The 2 cases mentioned are around a decade old and were used to try and pass anti firearm laws by the left . They were not sucessful at the time . It would have banned alot of now legal firearms and how you store the ones you would be abel to own .
psalm7 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05341 seconds with 10 queries