• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot.

loboloco

Well-known member
jpr, the problem is, most of the legal profession is viewed as ambulance chases or word twisters only trying to advance a paid agenda without regard to the effect on the justice system or society at large. I realize this is an incomplete view of attorneys, but when this kind of thing happens it really reduces the views of the general public on lawyers.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
jpr, the problem is, most of the legal profession is viewed as ambulance chases or word twisters only trying to advance a paid agenda without regard to the effect on the justice system or society at large. I realize this is an incomplete view of attorneys, but when this kind of thing happens it really reduces the views of the general public on lawyers.

Couldn't have said it better, LL. This kind of lawsuit drives me nuts. I'll definitely be keeping track of its progress.
 

snow dog

New member
jpr, the problem is, most of the legal profession is viewed as ambulance chases or word twisters only trying to advance a paid agenda without regard to the effect on the justice system or society at large. I realize this is an incomplete view of attorneys, but when this kind of thing happens it really reduces the views of the general public on lawyers.




Very well said :clap::clap::clap::clap:
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
It is a little comforting to know that there are some (one?) lawyers out there that have the view that this type of frivolous lawsuit is not in our societal interest...
 

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
Every profession has people who finished at the bottom of their class, yet share the same title as the valedictorian. This is obviously one of the bottom dwellers in your profession.
 

Lia

Banned
One has to question the motives of the plaintives in this one, imho; since they are so willing to forgive the perp who actually caused their brother's death, directly. Yet, they are not ready to forgive the innocent defendants in the lawsuit (it ain't often that I support corporations, but in this case...), who couldn't possibly have second guessed the actual incident, or the participants actions of it.

They, the family, even went so far as to allow the offender to scatter the victims ashes... no doubt they knew their brother well enough to understand that their unusual actions in allowing this 'memorial' event to take place as it did would have been sanctioned by him. But, if their forgiveness can extend to the felon, who started this ball rolling, why can't they forgive the Starbucks corporation also? Could it be that Starbucks have decidedly more in the kitty than the felon?
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
One has to question the motives of the plaintives in this one, imho; since they are so willing to forgive the perp who actually caused their brother's death, directly. Yet, they are not ready to forgive the innocent defendants in the lawsuit (it ain't often that I support corporations, but in this case...), who couldn't possibly have second guessed the actual incident, or the participants actions of it.

They, the family, even went so far as to allow the offender to scatter the victims ashes... no doubt they knew their brother well enough to understand that their unusual actions in allowing this 'memorial' event to take place as it did would have been sanctioned by him. But, if their forgiveness can extend to the felon, who started this ball rolling, why can't they forgive the Starbucks corporation also? Could it be that Starbucks have decidedly more in the kitty than the felon?

No forgiveness where there's a deep pocket. I wonder if the plaintiffs have considered the possibility that Starbucks files a third party complaint against the kid who killed their brother?

And if Starbucks gets a verdict in their favor against this kid, guess what? It's not dischargeable in bankruptcy (you can't discharge debts from intentionally harmful conduct).

Then there's that motion for attorneys' fees for filing frivolous litigation. Usually, I can think of some set of facts that, if true, justify at least the filing of the action. Having read the complaint, I can't see any, but we'll see.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
These lawyers should be disbarred, just like the doctors that do boob jobs on teenagers (even though I may like the results) should lose their licenses.

If the professions themselves won't police their reputations then eventually, maybe the public will do it for them. But that is a little overly optimistic of me.
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
JPR,

I'm not an attorney, but I do fancy myself intelligent enough to read laws and decipher their meaning; being able to do that consistently is the primary reason I'm not writing this from Leavenworth Federal Prison. With that thought in mind, wouldn't Starbucks be able to simply use a "reasonable person" defense? After all, a reasonable person should recognize the potential for personal harm when deciding to pursue a criminal. While I feel for Mr. Kreutz and his family, there are obvious inherent risks in such a situation.

Or am I being too simplistic (or logical)?

 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
JPR,

I'm not an attorney, but I do fancy myself intelligent enough to read laws and decipher their meaning; being able to do that consistently is the primary reason I'm not writing this from Leavenworth Federal Prison. With that thought in mind, wouldn't Starbucks be able to simply use a "reasonable person" defense? After all, a reasonable person should recognize the potential for personal harm when deciding to pursue a criminal. While I feel for Mr. Kreutz and his family, there are obvious inherent risks in such a situation.

Or am I being too simplistic (or logical)?

I think what you're saying is that the decedent assumed the risk of pursuing the petty thief.

My problem is that there doesn't seem to be any proximate cause between having a tip jar on a service counter and being hit by a car.
 
Top