40 replies to this topic

[BradfordNC]

We do agree there. I thought long and hard before getting one. If I thought I couldn't shoot and hit, I won't have one in the house. Don't want to provide the criminal with a gun to use on me. I've taken several gun classes and I practice at my parents gun club. I still think the criminal armed only with say a knife, has an advantage over me armed with a gun. The odds are just a little less skewed if I'm armed.

ok, this is getting way off topic. lol

but WW mentions a big key to the training. visualization.

its one thing to go to a range and shoot paper all day long, and another to point a loaded firearm at an air breathing human.

you have to practice with it clear in your mind that the end result of your training is to possibly destroy a human life (even though it is a scumbag).

you can't see practice as simply firing the gun and making little holes in a piece of paper, you need to think about and visualize a person. you only get realistic results in the real world when your training is realistic.

hmmmmm, that goes for scuba too.

[Sophia]

you have to practice with it clear in your mind that the end result of your training is to possibly destroy a human life (even though it is a scumbag).

No problems with visualization. Just another reason to leave the house as Plan A. I've seen what splattered brains will do to the decorating. Not that I'd be aiming for the head, if I did have to shoot.

[WreckWench]

you have to practice with it clear in your mind that the end result of your training is to possibly destroy a human life (even though it is a scumbag).

No problems with visualization. Just another reason to leave the house as Plan A. I've seen what splattered brains will do to the decorating. Not that I'd be aiming for the head, if I did have to shoot.

Whew those Texas girls are tough...and she's a transplant!!!

p.s. if one person has learned something from this thread at all then its been VERY good...on or off topic! BTW...since when does ANY thread on this board stay on topic???? Its like a good conversation....it wanders and meanders and usually winds back up where it started!

[Marvel]

Ya know...our laws are so whacked out and screwed up. But then we've brought it upon ourselves. If we weren't the 'sue happy' society that we've become then a large part of this conversation would be moot.

Funny you should mention this. Last Sunday, my pastor actually challenged our entire congregation (somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 people) on this subject. He strongly suggested that we, as Christians, should not be engaging in lawsuits & asked that everyone who might be involved in one to pray about their continued involvement.

[WreckWench]

Ya know...our laws are so whacked out and screwed up. But then we've brought it upon ourselves. If we weren't the 'sue happy' society that we've become then a large part of this conversation would be moot.

Funny you should mention this. Last Sunday, my pastor actually challenged our entire congregation (somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 people) on this subject. He strongly suggested that we, as Christians, should not be engaging in lawsuits & asked that everyone who might be involved in one to pray about their continued involvement.

I like your pastor. I have a similar opportunity and for now I am passing on it caring to put my focus into 'positive' energy rather then 'negative' energy. Although I am being hurt in the process and have excellent grounds for a suit, I know that throwing more of my focus towards negative things will beget more negative things!

[Walter]

Lawsuits are not inherently bad. They are bad when one person tries to blame someone else for their own mistakes. If I dive and come up bent, it's no one's fault unless I was never taught about DCS. I should accept it and move on. OTOH, if a boat runs over me when I come up beside my flag, that is the helmsman's fault. If I (or my heirs) can't get an adequate settlement out of court, there's nothing wrong with seeking restitution in court.

We should all accept responsibility for our actions. That doesn't mean we should ignore the responsibilities of others.

[cmt489]

Well said Walter.

As a defence lawyer I see frivilous claims everyday. This being said, I also see many legitimate claims where there may be a defence, multiple parties to whom blame must be apportioned or a dispute over the dollar amount. With the frivilous claims I fight them tooth and nail. On the other hand, when I see a file with a legiitimate claim, I consider these claims valid and never argue whether or not we should pay (unless my client has been named as a deep pocket and there really is no claim against it), but rather, how much my particular client should pay on them.

The idea of lawsuits are not bad (for example, they keep corporations honest and help prevent harm from being done to people), however, the use of them is what has left such a bad taste in so many people's mouths.

Alright, enough ranting ! And now, back to your regulared scheduled programming.

[Walter]

Good for you Michelle!

[jextract]

So Michelle (and other esquires on the board) ... how do you feel about "loser pays" tort reform?

[Walter]

es·quire
Pronunciation: 'es-"kwIr, is-'
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French escuier squire, from Late Latin scutarius, from Latin scutum shield; akin to Old Irish sciath shield
1 : a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight
2 : a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
3 -- used as a title of courtesy usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname <John R. Smith, Esq.>
4 archaic : a landed proprietor

Some lawyers have tried to use it to mean lawyer, but it doesn't.

[Boatlawyer]

So Michelle (and other esquires on the board) ... how do you feel about "loser pays" tort reform?

Most jurisdictions already have a "loser pays" mechanism, it is nothing new. In Florida it is called "proposals for settlement." Within 90 days of filing suit either side may propose a settlement offer. If the amount awarded to Plaintiff is not equal to or greater than 125% of the Defendants offer, Plaintiff must pay Defendants' attorney's fees from the date of the offer. Similar deal with a Plaintiffs offer.

In regard to the USCG case, Julio, was this an issue of duty or sovereign immunity? For the non-lawyers, sovereign immunity is an ancient defense wherein "no one can sue the King" (or something like that). Practically applied, it means that recovery against government agencies is usually limited. For example, in Florida one can only recover $100,000 from a govt. agency, unless the legislature grants an exception.

[Boatlawyer]

Ya know...our laws are so whacked out and screwed up. But then we've brought it upon ourselves. If we weren't the 'sue happy' society that we've become then a large part of this conversation would be moot.

Funny you should mention this. Last Sunday, my pastor actually challenged our entire congregation (somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 people) on this subject. He strongly suggested that we, as Christians, should not be engaging in lawsuits & asked that everyone who might be involved in one to pray about their continued involvement.

Marvel-

I find it interesting that your pastor could make such a sweeping statement about lawsuits. After all, if it weren't for lawsuits, we'd still have water fountains labeled "white" and "colored," Ford might still be building the Pinto with explodable gas tanks, corporate greed would be running even more unchecked than it already is, lenders would be charging 100% interest, and so forth. It is dangerous to paint with such a broad brush, don't you agree?

[BradfordNC]

I find it interesting that your pastor could make such a sweeping statement about lawsuits. After all, if it weren't for lawsuits, we'd still have water fountains labeled "white" and "colored," Ford might still be building the Pinto with explodable gas tanks, corporate greed would be running even more unchecked than it already is, lenders would be charging 100% interest, and so forth. It is dangerous to paint with such a broad brush, don't you agree?

very very true.

chemical companies would dump waste into rivers and lakes with impunity.

nothing would have been done about the Love Canal disaster.

it is the law and the use of lawsuits that allow the small to take on the mighty.

a recent case in AZ forced a so called "pharmacuitical" company to stop their false advertising and to provide refunds to those who had purchased the bogus product.

it was a "drug" that claimed to permanently increase penis size.

and no, i was not a plantiff in the case.

i only found out about the product after the settlement

lol

[WreckWench]

it was a "drug" that claimed to permanently increase penis size.

and no, i was not a plantiff in the case.

i only found out about the product after the settlement

lol

But it seemed to work just fine for you!!!

[BradfordNC]

lol

guess i didn't put enough info in there.

i was neither a plaintiff in the case, nor a client/customer.

so guess this is a public declaration that i have never taken any drugs to increase the size of my wanker.

nor have i had any surgery or made any other attempts at such activity.

lol

this board rocks