Anti-Gun Neighbors

[Alarmguy1]

Originally Posted by elderboy02

My house is protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

I am with you on this one

Alarmguy1

[Scothew]

im 99% sure that sign is photoshoped.

[madwilliamflint]

Cute but over the line.

[Don Fernando]

just to make it clear, I don't support the "ban all guns" opinion of the neighbor. I know that a ban isn't possible and it wouldn't work in the USA.

[bobarian]

My butt is starting to itch.

[ade06]

Originally Posted by bobarian

My butt is starting to itch.

Mine too

[Blueface]

Funny how even something funny can have a serious side to debate.

While all the posted about grounds for suit, grounds for summary judgment, etc may be correct, this picture is still comical. If true, clearly a pissed neighbor at another neighbor's statements/opinions. More likely? A photoshop joke.

Can it result in a suit? Why not? We live in a suit happy country where 1/3 of the world's attorneys reside, last I checked. I have read that 70% guesstimate is a myth.

Can't see how suing this person for placing this sign on his personal property would prevail if given to jurors with some common sense (I know, asking a whole lot here.)

[ade06]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Funny how even something funny can have a serious side to debate.

I realize that the OP probably didn't intend for all the side debate... I couldn't help myself.

Originally Posted by Blueface

Can't see how suing this person for placing this sign on his personal property would prevail if given to jurors with some common sense (I know, asking a whole lot here.)

You would be supprised by some of the jury verdicts reached in our Country. Jury's are even more unpredictable than judges.

[Ahbroody]

Okay I will seriously try to be done after this. I clearly stated I didnt want to turn this into what you just did by cutting and pasting law. Again I am just a dumb cop I dont practice in the area of torts this was not my specialty in school either as I am not a big Tort guy.

To me you are putting the cart before the horse as my instructors used to say. Before you can bring the IIED or negligence claim we must determine if the speech is protected. If the speech is deemed protected you have no basis for the action. How can you bring an action against someone for protected speech? You are asking that the court take away their 1st ammendment right in doing so.

So before you do your IIED or nusiance analysis shouldnt you do a 1st ammentdment analysis? Without this you are pissing in the wind or atleast I think you are. As you are asking the court to violate someones right to free speech. Now as to the freedom of speech argument you slipped in at the end and non protected speech. Which again before we can touch your IIED argument we must clear this hurdle.

This speech is protected lets look at why. To me its not black and white argument its just basic review of the 1st ammendment. You slip in the comment on yelling fire. You did not make a complete analysis as to why those statements are not allowed. It goes to the argument of emminent incitement of lawlessness/ illegal activity. You can yell fire in a theater and have nothing happen to you. It has happened in fact. I will not analyze the fighting words portion of your argument as it has no logical application.

What I find funny is you are quoting holmes "fire in a crowded theater" argument which was later overturned. The Brandenburg case which is the controlling case on this and overturned the holmes decision says the action must be one that is likely to result in emminent lawless action. So my dumb cop brain says you need to make an argument that the sign will create emminent lawless activity. Atleast based on what you have given me to work with to this point.

You may find my views funny. I find it funny you took all that time to write out that reply cutting and pasting in law and left things out and quoted one of the most discussed cases ever showing an error by one who is considered a great justice. Further you are discussing bringing an action on something that you have not even verified is unprotected speech yet.

Please show me first that this is unprotected speech and then we can discuss the possible remedies that can be brought. Again I am just a dumb cop so maybe I am way off on this one. I just thought you had to first determine if the speech was not protected before you could seek a remedy for it.

So where is the 1st ammendment violation

[markem]

This thread is funnier than the picture. Seriously.

I forwarded the picture and a summary of some of the arguments to four friends who are very experienced lawyers. One is faculty at the law school at Lewis and Clark College (highly respected place) and one is faculty at the law school at Willamette University (another highly respected place).

All four more or less stated the same thing: context is everything. The picture in question, sans context, is meaningless when discussing the merits of a suit.

One responded that all that can result is an online argument where each side gets further and further entrenched based on more and more suppositions.

Looks like this is what is happening.

[Don Fernando]

I read up Jordan, and still think that, after something happened to the unarmed neighbor, a lawsuit can be won.

[ade06]

Originally Posted by markem

All four more or less stated the same thing: context is everything. The picture in question, sans context, is meaningless when discussing the merits of a suit.

In a nutshell that is what I was trying to convey. All I was saying is that a lawsuit arising from the picture could lead to a lawsuit. Not would, but could.

Originally Posted by Ahbroody

Okay I will seriously try to be done after this. I clearly stated I didnt want to turn this into what you just did by cutting and pasting law. Again I am just a dumb cop I dont practice in the area of torts this was not my specialty in school either as I am not a big Tort guy.

To me you are putting the cart before the horse as my instructors used to say. Before you can bring the IIED or negligence claim we must determine if the speech is protected. If the speech is deemed protected you have no basis for the action. How can you bring an action against someone for protected speech? You are asking that the court take away their 1st ammendment right in doing so.

So before you do your IIED or nusiance analysis shouldnt you do a 1st ammentdment analysis? Without this you are pissing in the wind or atleast I think you are. As you are asking the court to violate someones right to free speech. Now as to the freedom of speech argument you slipped in at the end and non protected speech. Which again before we can touch your IIED argument we must clear this hurdle.

This speech is protected lets look at why. To me its not black and white argument its just basic review of the 1st ammendment. You slip in the comment on yelling fire. You did not make a complete analysis as to why those statements are not allowed. It goes to the argument of emminent incitement of lawlessness/ illegal activity. You can yell fire in a theater and have nothing happen to you. It has happened in fact. I will not analyze the fighting words portion of your argument as it has no logical application.

What I find funny is you are quoting holmes "fire in a crowded theater" argument which was later overturned. The Brandenburg case which is the controlling case on this and overturned the holmes decision says the action must be one that is likely to result in emminent lawless action. So my dumb cop brain says you need to make an argument that the sign will create emminent lawless activity. Atleast based on what you have given me to work with to this point.

You may find my views funny. I find it funny you took all that time to write out that reply cutting and pasting in law and left things out and quoted one of the most discussed cases ever showing an error by one who is considered a great justice. Further you are discussing bringing an action on something that you have not even verified is unprotected speech yet.

Please show me first that this is unprotected speech and then we can discuss the possible remedies that can be brought. Again I am just a dumb cop so maybe I am way off on this one. I just thought you had to first determine if the speech was not protected before you could seek a remedy for it.

So where is the 1st ammendment violation

We get it, you're a self proclaimed "dumb cop" (which I think it's safe to say that we all know is not true). Due to the lack of facts surrounding the picture (which is most likely photo shopped, so we're arguing about picture without context), I'm done arguing a hypothetical without details. As stated above, my entire point of providing two potential cause of actions was that a potential for a lawsuit was plausible, even in the face of a 1st Amendment defense. The 1st Amendment defense is not an absolute defense. That's all, nothing else!

If McDonalds can get sued for serving hot coffee, it would seem anything is fair game these days...

[BigCat]

I'm a practicing attorney. Of course, I'll probably have to find a new board to call home after that revelation. In any event, I think the sign is funny as hell, but from a legal standpoint (and I'm mostly a defense attorney), I would have no problem putting together a legitimate lawsuit if the neighbor were to be harmed by someone coming into the house. It is a straight-forward negligence case. You have a duty to your neighbor not to increase his risk of being robbed, harmed, killed, etc. By posting this sign, you have breached that duty. If he is harmed by someone entering his home because of your sign, you caused it. And if he is harmed, he has been damaged. The elements of negligence are (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damage. You've got all four here. It isn't going to be a viable defense that you breached that duty by speaking - speech can be an action as well as an expression. You can't go into a bad neighborhood and post a notice that your neighbor is on vacation for a week and doens't have an alarm and then claim free speech protection when he gets robbed. Just sayin...

[ade06]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I'm a practicing attorney. Of course, I'll probably have to find a new board to call home after that revelation. In any event, I think the sign is funny as hell, but from a legal standpoint (and I'm mostly a defense attorney), I would have no problem putting together a legitimate lawsuit if the neighbor were to be harmed by someone coming into the house. It is a straight-forward negligence case. You have a duty to your neighbor not to increase his risk of being robbed, harmed, killed, etc. By posting this sign, you have breached that duty. If he is harmed by someone entering his home because of your sign, you caused it. And if he is harmed, he has been damaged. The elements of negligence are (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damage. You've got all four here. It isn't going to be a viable defense that you breached that duty by speaking - speech can be an action as well as an expression. You can't go into a bad neighborhood and post a notice that your neighbor is on vacation for a week and doens't have an alarm and then claim free speech protection when he gets robbed. Just sayin...

Please no more legal analysis This will only lead to responses of how there wasn't actual or factual causation or there was some intervening act, which broke the chain of causation, etc.

Isn't it great how legal backgrounds can mess-up a joke thread.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by ade06

Please no more legal analysis This will only lead to responses of how there wasn't actual or factual causation or there was some intervening act, which broke the chain of causation, etc.

Isn't it great how legal backgrounds can mess-up a joke thread.

ok, ok, I just thought I'd lend some support to my fellow brother of the law I will refrain from further comment.

[ade06]

Originally Posted by BigCat

ok, ok, I just thought I'd lend some support to my fellow brother of the law I will refrain from further comment.

Man, I was just joking!!! But, I wasn't even thinking about negligence. I'm sure a plaintiff attorney could come up with some other claims too. I practice transactional and securities law, so what do I know about litigation. LoL.

[wrench turner 85]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I'm a practicing attorney. Of course, I'll probably have to find a new board to call home after that revelation. In any event, I think the sign is funny as hell, but from a legal standpoint (and I'm mostly a defense attorney), I would have no problem putting together a legitimate lawsuit if the neighbor were to be harmed by someone coming into the house. It is a straight-forward negligence case. You have a duty to your neighbor not to increase his risk of being robbed, harmed, killed, etc. By posting this sign, you have breached that duty. If he is harmed by someone entering his home because of your sign, you caused it. And if he is harmed, he has been damaged. The elements of negligence are (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damage. You've got all four here. It isn't going to be a viable defense that you breached that duty by speaking - speech can be an action as well as an expression. You can't go into a bad neighborhood and post a notice that your neighbor is on vacation for a week and doens't have an alarm and then claim free speech protection when he gets robbed. Just sayin...

depending in what part of the country its in, a lawsuit on this sign probly wont see the light of day. CA and MI maby SC&TX not so much. But the sign is funny.

[icantbejon]

Wow....this is the worst joke thread ever.

[Ahbroody]

Thank you Colin I was hoping someone who practices would chime in. I can see your points to a certain extent provided someone actually robs the house. There is defiently an argument that can be made, would it fly dont know but its there. Up to and until that point do you see anyway to bring a cause of action?

I am in no way trying to be a smartass, I have thought about this today and just dont see one if nothing is done. That has been my argument through this thread that just the sign equals no cause of action. It is likely photoshoped and if its not the guy is a clown, but I see no legal cause of action for removing the sign.

Originally Posted by ade06

Please no more legal analysis This will only lead to responses of how there wasn't actual or factual causation or there was some intervening act, which broke the chain of causation, etc.

Isn't it great how legal backgrounds can mess-up a joke thread.

hhahahahahahahahahahha seriously. My wife hates when I watch crime shows or law shows and ruin everything