Spur Incident

JStrike said:
I've always laughed at "As jy k4k soek, gaan jy k4k vind". Stupid is a stupid does.
The beauty of being litigious : Provoke someone and then let them argue "They were provoked. He was walking for it!" to a judge later :)
Click to expand...

someone shouting hit me hit me hit me, should get hit.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Go read my previous posts. You don't understand the legalities.
Click to expand...

Releasing edited footage that fuels a witch hunt instead of releasing all relevant footage? Please give the legal precedent for doing that.

Imagine if shoot someone who was attempting to hijack you at a petrol station, and the manager only releases edited footage showing you shoot a "poor, innocent, urban youth", instead of showing the full part where he runs up and breaks your window and tries to pull you out your car.

Deliberately telling lies or a false truth to demean someone's reputation is grounds for legal action for libel. Spur could very well get sued because of this.
 
access said:
yeah ive read what you said earlier.

how will showing him approaching the table, the whole event, jeopardise the truth. the footage release seems too selective to me, hiding something.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't get it. Showing the whole story will reveal the truth not jeopardise anything. The only reason to show a shortened clip is to hide something.
 
Slootvreter said:
No, if you provoke, don't cry when you get knocked.

And before you soil your panties, I'm NOT talking about rape here.
Click to expand...

Cry? Litigate or ruin the person in some other way (Like trial by media like has happened here).
People who think they can use physicality to get away with not being able to control themselves need to learn the hard way
 
JStrike said:
Cry? Litigate or ruin the person in some other way (Like trial by media like has happened here).
People who think they can use physicality to get away with not being able to control themselves need to learn the hard way
Click to expand...

how much provocation can occur before you can be charged with harassment?
 
JStrike said:
B]People who think they can use physicality to get away with not being able to control themselves need to learn the hard way[/B]
Click to expand...

The same type of physicality that both parents are encouraging here? Both parents are telling their kids to hit each other, then doing nothing to punish them when they do so.

My mom sees this type of behavior from the kids who she looks after at aftercare. They resolve everything with violence, that only comes from the parents.
 
konfab said:
The same type of physicality that both parents are encouraging here? Both parents are telling their kids to hit each other, then doing nothing to punish them when they do so.

My mom sees this type of behavior from the kids who she looks after at aftercare. They resolve everything with violence, that only comes from the parents.
Click to expand...

Agree, neither are particularly good parents here
 
konfab said:
Releasing edited footage that fuels a witch hunt instead of releasing all relevant footage? Please give the legal precedent for doing that.

Imagine if shoot someone who was attempting to hijack you at a petrol station, and the manager only releases edited footage showing you shoot a "poor, innocent, urban youth", instead of showing the full part where he runs up and breaks your window and tries to pull you out your car.

Deliberately telling lies or a false truth to demean someone's reputation is grounds for legal action for libel. Spur could very well get sued because of this.
Click to expand...

Deliberately? It is under legal advice. Then you go add a completely irrelevant scenario to this one. Yeah, you do know that there are minorities involved? No, you don't, otherwise you would not have made the above comment that I have highlighted in bold. You know and understand consent, you know that there are more than two parties involved here?
 
Slootvreter said:
That would be pathetic from Cattle Baron's side.
Click to expand...

yeah, but these things happen here it seems. lol.

jstrike reminds of childhood days when one get those kids that cause **** everywhere then say they will sue if anything is done to them.

"my parents will sue you" "I'm gonna sue you" lol!! nothing ever happened.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Again, did she not ask him to leave prior to him lashing out? He approached their table, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Yes but he turned around and walked away, she actually tries to draw him back into the fight. So from that perspective she was in the wrong.
She actually does that several times. Given every thing else and what he did, he was a dangerous person and was aggravated, she chose to further engage him when he walked away.

Now was that the best thing to do ? No
She endangered her kid and others, she chose to take it further when the situation was defusing by its self already.
The situation is not her fault at all but she needed to not make worse.
 
access said:
yeah, but these things happen here it seems. lol.

jstrike reminds of childhood days when one get those kids that cause **** everywhere then say they will sue if anything is done to them.

"my parents will sue you" "I'm gonna sue you" lol!! nothing ever happened.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen those types a thousand times. Klein mannetjie sindroom

****.jpg

Then again, we don't know him from schit, so we can't really say that.
 
rietrot said:
Wow you said absolutely nothing. LMFAO. At least try to offer a different opinion. Show why my reasoning is BS.
Now you are only making yourself look stupid.
Click to expand...

So I am now following an imbecile's lead? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X