Pacman Sued by Vegas Bouncer...

I dont disagree. I think it is certainly a case that is worthy of being heard. What comes of it I dont know, but I can certainly see why a court would hear this case.

 

You guys have already concluded that Pac had knowledge or was otherwise associated with the shooting. That is an error in judgement.

Pac was not the shooter. We don't KNOW if Pac has knowledge of the shooter or if he WAS associated in any way. The hard evidence thus far suggests that the bouncer's initial claims that Pac bit him do not appear substantiated.

A civil suit against you for something your friends did IS frivolous IMO. You guys seem satisfied that SOMEBODY get sued because a horrible event happened. It appears you want it to be Pac regardless.

I hope the guy who is guilty gets the stiffest punishment possible. I just hope the right guy gets sued and/or found guilty. If it's Pac great- we can all have a party. But I'm go to make SOME attempt to let rational thought conquer emotion when it comes to justice.

Listen, I argued months ago (within days of the event) that a civil suit would arise out of this shooting. I understand completely how this process works.

RT- you wouldn't know a liberal if he hit you in the mouth.

 

I havent concluded anything. It was you, not me or RT who have written this off as nothing but a frivolous lawsuit. The bias is obviously on your part, not mine. I certainly acknowledged that once they got into a trial setting that nothing could come of it. But you, by saying it is frivolous, are saying that it shouldnt even be heard in a court. So, lets get that straight, you are the one jumping to conclusions here.

If Pac started the ruccus and then the shooter shot because of a the events that insued, then yes, Pac is somewhat liable IMO. If I start a riot and dont punch or hit anybody I am still responsible for enciting the riot. And again, Im not saying Pac did that, but to ignore it as frivolous is nothing but an obvious bias on your part.

 

We are actually agreeing here. I think the word frivolous in regards to lawsuit is confusing some. I'm using in the context defined by the Wiki reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

"Frivolous litigation is a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit.......

In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because a frivolous defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned."

I am NOT suggesting that a man who was shot is a frivolous event nor am I suggesting that the victim has NO RIGHT OR MERIT to seek compensation. I've actually stated in SEVERAL posts that the victim does have rights and deserves compensation. I am referencing the fact that irregardless of guilt, the evidence for a case (criminal and civil) against Pac does not appear to have merit. That won't stop either from occurring and running up taxpayer dollars.

Let me ask this. Why do you think the DA rejected the case twice before he finally went forward with it? Why do you think he finally went forward with the case?

IMO- it is because the Atlanta report that Pac was being sought for questioning regarding another similar event. That strengthened an otherwise weak case against Pac. That is why I'm so down on Pac and believe he is a gamer- because there is no doubt HE WAS AT THAT ATLANTA STRIP CLUB at 2am. Pac's credibility went from low to next to zero with that single event.

So RT- don't make assumptions about what I think. Use direct statements and don't CONCLUDE. Your record of accuracy isn't very strong (at in regards to what I think or believe).

 

Uh, if Pac allegedly bit someone on the ankle, doesn't that mean that Pac was on the ground and trying to keep people from stomping/stepping on him?

Pac isn't a Don, he isn't ordering hits on people! Sigh!

 

By the way, RE: the Atlanta case. Pac was at the strip club. People started acting stupid. He and the ACTUAL people that he came with left the club and were eating at the Waffle House when all the actual violence/shooting happened.

I have been to a number of clubs where violence happened. Heck, I was just on 2nd Ave. the night of the NBA Playoffs and one man got stabbed and 2 others got shot and 2nd Ave. isn't exactly the 'hood!

 

One of the best examples of something never to say, it's most likely to be at least partially wrong.

 

2nd ave might not be the hood, but it has certainly become an area that attracts gang members after 10 oclock or so, especially on weekends. So, I wouldnt consider it the "hood", but it certainly isnt a country club either. Not that it really has anything to do with this debate, though.

 

Uh, ok.