Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by BACK2SMASHMOUTH, Jun 25, 2007.
Riverman, once again you are the voice of reason and sanity on this topic. Keep up the good work!
No, Riverman thinks that the suit is frivilous because it's against pacman, when pacman was not the shooter (as far as we know) and there isn't much strong evidence that Pacman was connected with the shooter. He thinks the suit is going after the person with the most money, not the most guilt. That's what he thinks is wrong. He thinks this suit is being filed, regardless of whether or not it has merit, just because the victim wants someone to pay, and can't actually prove who should pay. Now, riverman could certainly be wrong. If Pacman loses the suit, then there was clearly enough proof. However, if it gets thrown out or is settled, he's very likely right.
It's hard to tell whether or not it should have been filed, that depends on if it has merit, and significant evidence that the lawyer thinks it is likely to win in court. If that's true, Riverman would change his stance, but I think he's speculating that this is a shake down, and an attempt to get pacman to pay rather than drag it out.
maybe it's just a move to force the identity of the shooter to light
and if Jones knows who it is, it's not worth protecting
That's true, although it should come out in the criminal trial, if anywhere.
if it gets that far
Never said he was lying, never said he wasnt either, we'll jsut have to see
You bout to get burned rollin with that name brah
See the light please..
Gotitans lectured me that riverman thinks this suit is frivolous because pacman didn't shoot the weapon. But the lawsuit isn't just about the shooting. Please read the article at the top of thread.
Fact-The man bringing this suit was shot and had permanant injuries but he was not the one paralyzed. Thomas urbanski was the one paralyzed.
Fact- this lawsuit isn't just about the shooting it is also about the fight. He is claiming he was ASSAULTED and according to him he wasn't just bitten but punched, kicked, knocked to the floor and hit in the head with a bottle.
Fact-The suit isn't just against pacman. It is also against at least 2 other people maybe more. The shooter was not sued because we do not yet know who he is.
To call this suit frivolous is to suggest that this man is an absolute liar not just about the shooting but everything. He didn't fight with pacman and his entourage? To call this lawsuit frivolous is to suggest that pacman and his entourage didn't do a damn thing wrong.
My assesment of riverman's position is entirely correct.
^ that sounded proper
and not that I'm choosing sides, but I do feel that this guy's suit has merit
whether he gets to stick anything to Jones remains to be seen
and like I said, it's a squeeze=play to bring forth the shooter
More suits to come..
Thomas urbanski the bouncer who is paralyzed will undoubtably bring a suit. In interviews with him and his family they all blame pacman for his condition. There is the woman patron who was shot and had minor injuries. What about the dancers that were possibly assaulted?
There might be a half dozen people suing pacman by the time this is over and of course every damn one of them will be frivolous and all of them are liars.
Simple question should put us all in the proper frame of mind for this case. If pacman jones and his entourage do not walk into that bar that night does anyone there get shot, beat up, injured or paralyzed? Anyone with any kind of sense has to say yes to that question so how is any law suit then frivolous?
Separate names with a comma.