I saw him chasing an ambulance down the street.
That must have been one of his secretaries. He was spotted catching a flight to Connecticut.
That must have been one of his secretaries. He was spotted catching a flight to Connecticut.
Well then it would have to be the property owner's bullet that injured them. This is more about the property owner's failure to provide a deterrent. If a woman is mugged in a dark parking lot, the lot owner might be successfully sued for failure to provide adequate security lighting, to deter muggers. If a company prohibits self-defense items on their property, but then fails to provide security officers armed with self-defense items or methods to detect unauthorized carry of weapons, they are not backing up their policies with ethical actions.
So let me play devil's advocate, if your armed and hit by that bullet are they no longer liable?
That's not entirely set in stone. See the following from a previous thread on the subject:
In my opinion, if they allow CCW on their property, then you are responsible for your own defense. It may not work that way legally, but ethically it does (IMO).
So essentially, the property owner could assume increased liability by posting the property as weapons prohibited, as an additional security measure?
So essentially, the property owner could assume increased liability by posting the property as weapons prohibited, as an additional security measure?
Basically, it said that if a landlord offered additional security measures such as guard patrols, he could be held liable for negligence if the failure of those security measures to work is determined to be one of the proximate causes of injury to a tenant.
Granted, this is not a SCOTUS or Oklahoma case, so it really only directly applies in Pennsylvania, but Courts have been known to reference other states in cases of first impression.
Probably staring at the Obama poster on his ceiling.
Nah, he probably got his "Obaminator" doll in the mail from Sinclair Products...
Similar threads
