Great vid - This is a case of JUMPED UP SECURITY Guard playing Dress Up & making the T-Shirt issue a CRIME in his EYES. Was it an Advertising Issue? Do Advertisers care whether we get their products/adverts RAMMED down our Throats ALL THE TIME = NO. So this Guard made it PERSONAL - Too right - I would SUE his arse too - Perspective - The Man wore a T-Shirt! Did he cause harm/loss to another = NO - Ergo There is NO CRIME = Case Closed = 240,000 RESULT!! Peace :)
Though I agree we all have rights and we all need to fight to preserve them, I really think this lawsuit-addicted society is out of control. When a public official/agency gets sued, it is usually paid for by taxpayer dollars. Monetary compensation has become the norm, and in the case of public officials/agencies abusing their powers, it really does nothing since the abuser seldom receives any personal punishment. I'd rather see the offenders permanently lose their jobs.
If a public official fears losing his job, he'd be less apt to abuse his powers. When they know they will not be personally held responsible (other than paid leave or a firm talking-to by their boss), they have nothing to lose and no reason to show restraint.
I know there are exceptions, but I am speaking in general terms.
But, yeah, as far as corporations go, sue the pants off em for *legitimate* claims (not spilled coffee - like the infamous $2million Dunkin Donuts lawsuit).
That can be done to it depends on what capacity you are suing in official or individual, or sometimes both. Hopefully the taxpayer will get fed up with the Rouge Cops and take action too. You have to beat them at there own game $ for $
if the officer is acting outside of his lawful delegated authority, you may 'pierce the corporate veil' and sue him personally. Since most public officials have purchased surety bonds, if you sue them personally and not the State then you collect on the bond backed by the insurance company, not the taxpayers.
Great vid - This is a case of JUMPED UP SECURITY Guard playing Dress Up & making the T-Shirt issue a CRIME in his EYES. Was it an Advertising Issue? Do Advertisers care whether we get their products/adverts RAMMED down our Throats ALL THE TIME = NO. So this Guard made it PERSONAL - Too right - I would SUE his arse too - Perspective - The Man wore a T-Shirt! Did he cause harm/loss to another = NO - Ergo There is NO CRIME = Case Closed = 240,000 RESULT!! Peace :)
tazzym1 1 year ago
if you are farther away from the mic it wont make all those noises
whatvideowhere 3 years ago 3
Though I agree we all have rights and we all need to fight to preserve them, I really think this lawsuit-addicted society is out of control. When a public official/agency gets sued, it is usually paid for by taxpayer dollars. Monetary compensation has become the norm, and in the case of public officials/agencies abusing their powers, it really does nothing since the abuser seldom receives any personal punishment. I'd rather see the offenders permanently lose their jobs.
rataMacue22 3 years ago 2
If a public official fears losing his job, he'd be less apt to abuse his powers. When they know they will not be personally held responsible (other than paid leave or a firm talking-to by their boss), they have nothing to lose and no reason to show restraint.
I know there are exceptions, but I am speaking in general terms.
But, yeah, as far as corporations go, sue the pants off em for *legitimate* claims (not spilled coffee - like the infamous $2million Dunkin Donuts lawsuit).
rataMacue22 3 years ago
That can be done to it depends on what capacity you are suing in official or individual, or sometimes both. Hopefully the taxpayer will get fed up with the Rouge Cops and take action too. You have to beat them at there own game $ for $
fanovu 2 years ago
if the officer is acting outside of his lawful delegated authority, you may 'pierce the corporate veil' and sue him personally. Since most public officials have purchased surety bonds, if you sue them personally and not the State then you collect on the bond backed by the insurance company, not the taxpayers.
t3soro 2 years ago 2