Police dog rips a kids arm and hand.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by James Evans, Jul 20, 2018.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They wouldn’t get it. They are only entitled to be indemnified. Punitive damages aren’t awarded for property damage.
     
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A kid? He was a 17 year old car thief and the moral of the story is don't commit crimes. If you get caught in the act bad things can happen in the ensuing chaos.
     
  3. Bridget

    Bridget Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,261
    Likes Received:
    1,726
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and they would be punished by having to pay a big fine. It's just that no individual would collect that money. Which would cut out the opportunists.
     
  4. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does being severely injured make one an opportunist?
     
  5. Bridget

    Bridget Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,261
    Likes Received:
    1,726
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The individual would be paid for every penny he/she lost, if wins the lawsuit. Just not for hard feelings, anger, that sort of thing. And that would be fair. But many people are opportunists. You don't get paid for every bad thing that happens to you.

    For instance, the lady who burned herself with the McDonalds coffee...if she proved that the coffee was, indeed, hotter than was reasonable, they would pay her medical bills, time off work, legal fees, etc. If she wanted to take it to a higher level and make McDonalds really suffer, she could do that, only she wouldn't get the 4 million dollars or whatever it was. It would go to like a burn center or something. And, of course, a law that McDonalds couldn't claim the payment was a charitable contribution on their taxes. Her son-in-law made a statement that she wasn't really trying to get rich off of it, that it was a principle, so that would suit her just fine, don't you think?
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018

Share This Page