Time to sue The Journal News- Guns and Permits Stolen from man published in Journal

[nodoginnafight]

Journal News map-listed guns, permits stolen from New City home, cops say

I would sue the ever loving dog shit out of them! Sue them in to bankruptcy.. every last person who was published.

Why are you so sue happy? You think the trial lawyers should get rich? Only pinko commies sue people.

Everyone's looking for a free payday.
Whatever happened to EARNING your money?????

No worries about lawsuits. Some lawyer may file a suit in order to get his name in the paper or to curry some favor with those who think they should be able to sue, but it will be tossed out quickly.

 

[Jarhead]

unfortunately, a lawsuit will be thrown out because the information is public information and obtained legally.

They could be nailed for being an accessory to a crime.

No they can't.
They are protected by the first amendment. They can publish public records. Anyone who wanted to has the right to go to where the records are kept and inspect them. That makes them fair game for publication.

You are partially correct....

If the person who sues is suing for INTENTIONAL unecessary pain and suffering or loss of money or possessions due to someone else using their first ammendemnet rights, they would need to answer to the suit.
they would need to prove that their intent was not to create any type of pain or suffering....

And therefore, in this case, they would need to state AND prove what their intentions were.....

 

[Jarhead]

Journal News map-listed guns, permits stolen from New City home, cops say

I would sue the ever loving dog shit out of them! Sue them in to bankruptcy.. every last person who was published.

Why are you so sue happy? You think the trial lawyers should get rich? Only pinko commies sue people.

Everyone's looking for a free payday.
Whatever happened to EARNING your money?????

No worries about lawsuits. Some lawyer may file a suit in order to get his name in the paper or to curry some favor with those who think they should be able to sue, but it will be tossed out quickly.

You are speaking on a topic you quite obviously know very little about.

I have the legal right to print in the paper the name and address of anyone in the phone book and say they are a whore that doesnt charge.

But I would be sued for it and rightfully lose.

 

[Jarhead]

I guess the Rightyloons have something to blame every crime on for the next 10 years. Never let a tradgedy go to waste.

It it can be proven that the thieves used information from the Journal article to target their marks then, by law, the journal can and should be held liable and culpable.

So, when murders use a gun to... you know, murder someone, we can sue the gun maker then?

yes, you can. But you would lose for the gun maker will easily be able to prove that his/her intent was not to cause harm.

 

[Politico]

Everyone's looking for a free payday.
Whatever happened to EARNING your money?????

That America died a long time ago.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I hope they are sued out of existence..

serves them right

What happen to your faith in the free market? You think the justice system should pick winners and losers?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Journal News map-listed guns, permits stolen from New City home, cops say

I would sue the ever loving dog shit out of them! Sue them in to bankruptcy.. every last person who was published.

Why are you so sue happy? You think the trial lawyers should get rich? Only pinko commies sue people.

there is nothing wrong with suing someone who tried to illegally, unethically or immorally capitalize on an action that causes pain suffering or loss of money to an innocent individual.

What laws were broken?
What code of ethics?
Immoral? Really? Its the job of a judge and juries to dictate morals? They make them up as they go along or do they use a Bible?

Suing becuase you dont like the look of the scar on your toe after having a bunion surgically removed is what pinko commies do.

Every medical malpractice case is exactly like that, too, because doctors are perfect people in capable of negligence. It should even be legal to sue them.

 

[Yurt]

unfortunately, a lawsuit will be thrown out because the information is public information and obtained legally.

They could be nailed for being an accessory to a crime.

no they cannot. i don't know NY law, but i highly doubt they meet the elements for accessory. further, there would be the defense that they are not liable for TP wrong doing.

 

[RoadVirus]

They could be nailed for being an accessory to a crime.

No they can't.
They are protected by the first amendment. They can publish public records. Anyone who wanted to has the right to go to where the records are kept and inspect them. That makes them fair game for publication.

You are partially correct....

If the person who sues is suing for INTENTIONAL unecessary pain and suffering or loss of money or possessions due to someone else using their first ammendemnet rights, they would need to answer to the suit.
they would need to prove that their intent was not to create any type of pain or suffering....

And therefore, in this case, they would need to state AND prove what their intentions were.....

Whatever the case, i'm sure there's a lawyer out there somewhere looking for a legal precedent to use against Journal News.

 

[nodoginnafight]

They could be nailed for being an accessory to a crime.

No they can't.
They are protected by the first amendment. They can publish public records. Anyone who wanted to has the right to go to where the records are kept and inspect them. That makes them fair game for publication.

You are partially correct....

If the person who sues is suing for INTENTIONAL unecessary pain and suffering or loss of money or possessions due to someone else using their first ammendemnet rights, they would need to answer to the suit.
they would need to prove that their intent was not to create any type of pain or suffering....

And therefore, in this case, they would need to state AND prove what their intentions were.....

You are partially correct.
In this case the plantiff would have to prove that the intent was to cause unecessary pain.

As I said, easy to file a suit. Essentially impossible to prevail.

 

[Ringel05]

I guess the Rightyloons have something to blame every crime on for the next 10 years. Never let a tradgedy go to waste.

It it can be proven that the thieves used information from the Journal article to target their marks then, by law, the journal can and should be held liable and culpable.

So, when murders use a gun to... you know, murder someone, we can sue the gun maker then?

Only a complete loon would come up with that association. One is direct causation under the law (my assertion), the other is based on a false presumption attributed to a specific agenda, (your assumption).
Now if a weapons manufacturer made a defective product then they are liable. Do you sue mattress manufacturers because children die accidentally in beds? Do you sue pool manufacturers because children accidentally drown in pools? Do you sue automakers because someone "snaps" or loses control due to their own misuse of the product and drives through a group of people? No.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why are you so sue happy? You think the trial lawyers should get rich? Only pinko commies sue people.

Everyone's looking for a free payday.
Whatever happened to EARNING your money?????

No worries about lawsuits. Some lawyer may file a suit in order to get his name in the paper or to curry some favor with those who think they should be able to sue, but it will be tossed out quickly.

You are speaking on a topic you quite obviously know very little about.

I have the legal right to print in the paper the name and address of anyone in the phone book and say they are a whore that doesnt charge.

But I would be sued for it and rightfully lose.

So you claim a phone book and calling someone a whore who doesn't charge is "public record"?

And somehow I'M the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about??????
Amusing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why are you so sue happy? You think the trial lawyers should get rich? Only pinko commies sue people.

Everyone's looking for a free payday.
Whatever happened to EARNING your money?????

No worries about lawsuits. Some lawyer may file a suit in order to get his name in the paper or to curry some favor with those who think they should be able to sue, but it will be tossed out quickly.

You are speaking on a topic you quite obviously know very little about.

I have the legal right to print in the paper the name and address of anyone in the phone book and say they are a whore that doesnt charge.

But I would be sued for it and rightfully lose.

That's like saying I have right to kill anyone I want but I might be prosecuted for it and rightfully lose.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you sue pool manufacturers because children accidentally drown in pools?

Depends on how they drowned.

 

[Ringel05]

Do you sue pool manufacturers because children accidentally drown in pools?

Depends on how they drowned.

Liability for defective products is the gist. If something about the pool was defective then the liability exists, otherwise no.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Do you sue pool manufacturers because children accidentally drown in pools?

Depends on how they drowned.

Liability for defective products is the gist. If something about the pool was defective then the liability exists, otherwise no.

The liability requires more than merely a defective pool, it requires that the defect cause or contribute to the drowning (or other form of death, like diving into a pool with mislabelled depth and breaking your neck)

 

[Ringel05]

Depends on how they drowned.

Liability for defective products is the gist. If something about the pool was defective then the liability exists, otherwise no.

The liability requires more than merely a defective pool, it requires that the defect cause or contribute to the drowning (or other form of death, like diving into a pool with mislabelled depth and breaking your neck)

Oh, I should have included negligence in my statement also. My bad.
That wouldn't necessarily be the fault of the manufacturer but, most likely, the fault of the installer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Liability for defective products is the gist. If something about the pool was defective then the liability exists, otherwise no.

The liability requires more than merely a defective pool, it requires that the defect cause or contribute to the drowning (or other form of death, like diving into a pool with mislabelled depth and breaking your neck)

Oh, I should have included negligence in my statement also. My bad.
That wouldn't necessarily be the fault of the manufacturer but, most likely, the fault of the installer.

Well at any rate this is what its good to carry liability insurance and lots of it.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

It it can be proven that the thieves used information from the Journal article to target their marks then, by law, the journal can and should be held liable and culpable.

So, when murders use a gun to... you know, murder someone, we can sue the gun maker then?

Only a complete loon would come up with that association. One is direct causation under the law (my assertion), the other is based on a false presumption attributed to a specific agenda, (your assumption).
Now if a weapons manufacturer made a defective product then they are liable. Do you sue mattress manufacturers because children die accidentally in beds? Do you sue pool manufacturers because children accidentally drown in pools? Do you sue automakers because someone "snaps" or loses control due to their own misuse of the product and drives through a group of people? No.

Yes, logically the association is moot. However, I do believe the point of the post is how is publishing public information liable and culpable? And if it is, where is the line drawn between personal choices (the choice to commit a crime) and access to tools to commit a crime? is it not all personal responsibility?

I dont think the question is soooo looney... but then again, i tend to be looney!

 

[Ringel05]

So, when murders use a gun to... you know, murder someone, we can sue the gun maker then?

Only a complete loon would come up with that association. One is direct causation under the law (my assertion), the other is based on a false presumption attributed to a specific agenda, (your assumption).
Now if a weapons manufacturer made a defective product then they are liable. Do you sue mattress manufacturers because children die accidentally in beds? Do you sue pool manufacturers because children accidentally drown in pools? Do you sue automakers because someone "snaps" or loses control due to their own misuse of the product and drives through a group of people? No.

Yes, logically the association is moot. However, I do believe the point of the post is how is publishing public information liable and culpable? And if it is, where is the line drawn between personal choices (the choice to commit a crime) and access to tools to commit a crime? is it not all personal responsibility?

I dont think the question is soooo looney... but then again, i tend to be looney!

Reckless endangerment. By posting said names and addresses the Journal, de facto, provided criminals with a potential "shopping list". Smart criminals, professionals, know how to properly case a house and it's occupants and wait for the opportune time to commit their crime.
Also many of those listed are former or current law enforcement who have enemies, perps who have no love for those who put them away. Again, reckless endangerment.