phreddy wrote:

this IS Texas we're talking about.  What do you think Georgi?  Would a jury of your peers carve a big judgment out of this guy?

I honestly don't know.  If this took place in or near a metropolitan area, the deceaseds' families might have a shot at an award--probably not a very large one. 

But if it happened out in the boonies, not a fucking chance.  Texas heritage includes a heapin' helpin' of both rugged individualism and gun violence, and Texans are very, very fond of their heritage.

(I realize the original news story would tell me where all this went down; but frankly, this thread is too fucking long for me to bother with backtracking.)

Last edited by orangeplus (2007-12-11 14:52:01)

headkicker_girl wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Headkicker wrote:

As I said before, he'll lose in a civil suit and lose his home.  It will be fucking awesome.

Maybe not, after all, this IS Texas we're talking about.  What do you think Georgi?  Would a jury of your peers carve a big judgment out of this guy?

As I said before, I wouldn't have shot them, but I'm really glad the thieving fucks are dead.

Actually, I don't even care about the outcome...the cost to defend against two civil suits will bankrupt him anyway.

Precisely why "loser pays" should be the rule.  But the lawyers will always effectively lobby against that.

ToeJam wrote:

Let's say I have a valid suit against General Motors for problems with their in-car margarita blender, which sliced my nutsack off.

Something about your nutsack in a blender makes me chuckle.

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Precisely why "loser pays" should be the rule.  But the lawyers will always effectively lobby against that.

Loser pays can have drawbacks as well.  Let's say I have a valid suit against General Motors for problems with their in-car margarita blender, which sliced my nutsack off.  If I try to sue them myself and their $200,000 perpetually-on-retainer dream team manages to squeeze it past a judge or jury and I lose, I'm screwed for the rest of my life, which will have the effect of letting the people with sufficient money constantly hang complete financial ruin over the heads of those that dare seek legal recourse.

Any legislation supporting loser pays would have to have limitations or at least give the judge discretion on setting a cap one could be responsible for in a David vs. Goliath scenario like that.  As it stands predators can take advantage of the point that HKG made: you can bankrupt someone by suing them even if you don't have a winning case.  And of course there's the "Trailor Park American Dream" of making a modest living from nuisance suits against deep pockets.