Discussion:
__ Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home __
(too old to reply)
_ Prof. Jonez _
2007-08-03 23:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home

a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house

b.. Man was caretaker at house

c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Dogs apparently belonging to "Mission:
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.

The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.

"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at Rhames' home,
Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male, approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."

She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.

Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.

She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.

Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.

Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.

Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Red
2007-08-04 01:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at Rhames' home,
Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male, approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Bo Raxo
2007-08-04 01:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at Rhames' home,
Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male, approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no idea
what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several million
dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to cover whatever
amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on future earnings
(with an extra percentage tacked on for pain/suffering/loss of
consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a victim who is already halfway
through his working life and probably didn't earn that much per
year.

Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.


Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
2007-08-04 01:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at Rhames' home,
Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male, approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss.
He probably has an *excess liability* policy that covers things like this,


td
Bo Raxo
2007-08-04 02:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by tiny dancer
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss.
He probably has an *excess liability* policy that covers things like this,
And a publicist/spokesperson, to provide an "excess deniability"
policy.


Bo Raxo
¥ UltraMan ¥
2007-08-04 08:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by tiny dancer
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when
attack occurred LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Dogs
apparently belonging to "Mission: Impossible" star Ving Rhames
attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los Angeles home
Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was
found dead in front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive
Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles police spokeswoman Sandra
Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at
Rhames' home, Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male,
approximately 40 years old, on the front lawn, who had been mauled
by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there
was no one else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by
animal control officers. It was not immediately clear who had
called police, or how many dogs had mauled the caretaker, who had
worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and
alongside Tom Cruise in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies,
was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news
reports was out of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate
comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a
Golden Globe for starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the
flamboyant boxing promoter. He was nominated for an Emmy for the
same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives
was under way and that no further details were immediately
available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a card.
He probably has an *excess liability* policy that covers things like this,
LOL! ... how much you think flowers and a card cost ?
comadrejo
2007-08-04 05:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at Rhames' home,
Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male, approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no idea
what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several million
dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to cover whatever
amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on future earnings
(with an extra percentage tacked on for pain/suffering/loss of
consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a victim who is already halfway
through his working life and probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a heart
attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
¥ UltraMan ¥
2007-08-04 08:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood
neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at
Rhames' home, Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male,
approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and
alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to cover
whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on future
earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for pain/suffering/loss
of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a victim who is already
halfway through his working life and probably didn't earn that much
per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout.
Do tell ?
Post by comadrejo
If the caretaker died from a heart attack,
No, he died from a dog attack.
Post by comadrejo
the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
Why ?
Bo Raxo
2007-08-04 10:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood
neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at
Rhames' home, Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male,
approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and
alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to cover
whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on future
earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for pain/suffering/loss
of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a victim who is already
halfway through his working life and probably didn't earn that much
per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout.
Do tell ?
Post by comadrejo
If the caretaker died from a heart attack,
No, he died from a dog attack.
His death certificate might list that as a secondary or tertiary cause
of death, but the primary cause of death will be something like blood
loss, heart failure, traumatic head injury, whatever primary system
failure caused his direct expiration.
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
Why ?
Because they can argue that if a heart condition killed him, it would
have killed him before long anyway. It's a great tactic for an
attorney facing a case where his or her client is going to lose: find
an argument that the actual losses should be much smaller, and either
hope the jury splits the difference or use it as leverage to negotiate
a lower settlement. I'm not an attorney, but business is business,
you look for something to anchor an opposite end position and
negotiate the best middle ground deal you can get.
¥ UltraMan ¥
2007-08-04 20:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood
neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at
Rhames' home, Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male,
approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and
alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and
probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout.
Do tell ?
Post by comadrejo
If the caretaker died from a heart attack,
No, he died from a dog attack.
His death certificate might list that as a secondary or tertiary cause
of death, but the primary cause of death will be something like blood
loss, heart failure, traumatic head injury, whatever primary system
failure caused his direct expiration.
... due to dog attack.

Got it?
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
Why ?
Because they can argue that if a heart condition killed him, it would
have killed him before long anyway.
Look up "bad faith".
Post by Bo Raxo
It's a great tactic for an attorney facing a case where his or her client is
going to lose: find
an argument that the actual losses should be much smaller, and either
hope the jury splits the difference or use it as leverage to negotiate
a lower settlement.
See above. Then look up punitive damages associated with
such specious tactics.
Post by Bo Raxo
I'm not an attorney,
Clearly.
Post by Bo Raxo
but business is business,
you look for something to anchor an opposite end position and
negotiate the best middle ground deal you can get.
If you anchor your position on a lie or deceit, the courts and juries tend
to come down exponentially hard upon you when you lose.
Bo Raxo
2007-08-05 00:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost toRhameswill be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout.
Do tell ?
Post by comadrejo
If the caretaker died from a heart attack,
No, he died from a dog attack.
Which you know because you're a coronoer and a psychic? Sorry bub,
but it turns out that initial media reports aren't the last word in
criminal forensics:

http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=7193

"The caretaker, pronounced dead at the scene, may not have died as a
result of the attack, a new report suggests, but rather from a heart
attack. "


Gee, just like I suggested.
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
His death certificate might list that as a secondary or tertiary cause
of death, but the primary cause of death will be something like blood
loss, heart failure, traumatic head injury, whatever primary system
failure caused his direct expiration.
... due to dog attack.
Got it?
Yes, I got that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Haven't seen many wrongful death suits, I'm guessing. Try less
spouting off and you might actually learn something,
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
Why ?
Because they can argue that if a heart condition killed him, it would
have killed him before long anyway.
Look up "bad faith".
Look up "moron". *If* the death certificate, as I said, lists a
primary cause that can be ascribed to a pre-existing condition it
could severely limit the extent to which the dog attack is considered
to have shortened his life. Think that if Joe jumped off the roof of
a tall building, and as he whizzed past my open window I shot him to
death. I shot and killed him just as surely as if he'd been on solid
ground, and it can be prosecuted as murder. But the wrongful death
suit wouldn't be worth a dollar ninety eight, because I'd only
deprived him of at most a few seconds of life.
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
It's a great tactic for an attorney facing a case where his or her client is
going to lose: find
an argument that the actual losses should be much smaller, and either
hope the jury splits the difference or use it as leverage to negotiate
a lower settlement.
See above. Then look up punitive damages associated with
such specious tactics.
Punitive damages aren't awarded for raising specious arguments in
defense against a lawsuit. Punitive damages are punishment for the
behavior that lead to the loss the suit is filed over, not punishment
for aggressive courtroom tactics. Sheesh.
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
I'm not an attorney,
Clearly.
And neither are you. Clearly. Punitive damages for raising an
argument, and more hilarious, in my example raising an argument
supported by the death certificate.
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
but business is business,
you look for something to anchor an opposite end position and
negotiate the best middle ground deal you can get.
If you anchor your position on a lie or deceit, the courts and juries tend
to come down exponentially hard upon you when you lose.
If you know anything about these suits, they always end up in a
negotiated settlement. Even if the defendant loses at trial, they
threaten to tie it up in appeals court for years, and so it always
gets negotiated and never relies on simply a court verdict.

But you don't know shit about these suits, or shit about this case, or
shit about these dog maulings in general: it isn't that rare for a
victim to be so terrified they are scared to death, dying of a heart
attack from the extreme stress of the situation. I speculated that
could be the case here, and already within days there are press
reports supporting this theory.


Bo Raxo
¥ UltraMan ¥
2007-08-05 09:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he
died could limit the liability payout.
Do tell ?
Post by comadrejo
If the caretaker died from a heart attack,
No, he died from a dog attack.
Which you know because you're a coronoer and a psychic? Sorry bub,
but it turns out that initial media reports aren't the last word in
http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=7193
"The caretaker, pronounced dead at the scene, may not have died as a
result of the attack, a new report suggests, but rather from a heart
attack. "
Gee, just like I suggested.
Wow Bo, looks like you're the psychic !
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
His death certificate might list that as a secondary or tertiary cause
of death, but the primary cause of death will be something like blood
loss, heart failure, traumatic head injury, whatever primary system
failure caused his direct expiration.
... due to dog attack.
Got it?
Yes, I got that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Haven't seen many wrongful death suits, I'm guessing.
I've got one or two hanging in the back of the storage closet.
Post by Bo Raxo
Try less spouting off and you might actually learn something,
Oh my, Bo's had a heapin' serving of attitude this Saturday.
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by comadrejo
the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance
liability could be limited...
Why ?
Because they can argue that if a heart condition killed him, it would
have killed him before long anyway.
Look up "bad faith".
Look up "moron".
See - Kent Wills.
Post by Bo Raxo
*If* the death certificate, as I said, lists a
primary cause that can be ascribed to a pre-existing condition
Death as a pre-existing condition?

Neat trick ... only been claimed once in the last 2000 years afaik ?
Post by Bo Raxo
it could severely limit the extent to which the dog attack is considered
to have shortened his life.
A heart attack isn't a pre-existing condition. A dog-attack induced heart-attack
isn't
pre-existing either.
Post by Bo Raxo
Think that if Joe jumped off the roof of
a tall building, and as he whizzed past my open window I shot him to
death. I shot and killed him just as surely as if he'd been on solid
ground, and it can be prosecuted as murder. But the wrongful death
suit wouldn't be worth a dollar ninety eight, because I'd only
deprived him of at most a few seconds of life.
A rather piss-poor analogy, claiming that jumping off the roof of a tall
building is in any way equivalent to a pre-existing medical condition.

Do tell, Bo, what pre-existing medical condition can modern medicine
diagnose to + or - 6 seconds of imminent death ?
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
It's a great tactic for an attorney facing a case where his or her
client is going to lose: find
an argument that the actual losses should be much smaller, and either
hope the jury splits the difference or use it as leverage to
negotiate
a lower settlement.
See above. Then look up punitive damages associated with
such specious tactics.
Punitive damages aren't awarded for raising specious arguments in
defense against a lawsuit.
Really ? Juries don't determine punitive damages? And juries aren't swayed
in their awards by the comport and demeanor of the defense, eh?
Post by Bo Raxo
Punitive damages are punishment for the
behavior that lead to the loss the suit is filed over, not punishment
for aggressive courtroom tactics. Sheesh.
Sure Bo ... juries would never do that... never.
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
I'm not an attorney,
Clearly.
And neither are you. Clearly. Punitive damages for raising an
argument, and more hilarious, in my example raising an argument
supported by the death certificate.
What death cert? The one where the dog attack triggered a heart attack ?
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by Bo Raxo
but business is business,
you look for something to anchor an opposite end position and
negotiate the best middle ground deal you can get.
If you anchor your position on a lie or deceit, the courts and
juries tend to come down exponentially hard upon you when you lose.
If you know anything about these suits, they always end up in a
negotiated settlement.
Hmmmmm, "always" ...."al-ways" ...."all ways" ....sure sounds like one of those
Larry Glasser
absurd absolutes that only an idiot would make regarding the U$ legal system.
Post by Bo Raxo
Even if the defendant loses at trial,
How could they? ... death certificate and all ?
Post by Bo Raxo
they threaten to tie it up in appeals court for years, and so it always
gets negotiated and never relies on simply a court verdict.
Wow! 2 (two) Kent Wills-class absolutes in one utterly absurd,
utterly false, assertion.

Bo, better cut back on the caffeine a wee bit ...
Post by Bo Raxo
But you don't know shit about these suits,
"it always gets negotiated and never relies on simply a court verdict"
"they always end up in a negotiated settlement"
-- Bo Raxo, he knows shit!
Ibid ...?
Post by Bo Raxo
it isn't that rare for a victim to be so terrified they are scared to death,
dying of a heart
attack from the extreme stress of the situation.
And the "extreme stress of the situation" is a pre-existing condition, in your
expert
medical and legal opinion, eh Bo ?
Post by Bo Raxo
I speculated
Yep.
Post by Bo Raxo
that could be the case here, and already within days there are press
reports supporting this theory.
Well, to quote a medical and legal expert
"Sorry bub, but it turns out that media reports aren't the last word in criminal
forensics"
BTR1701
2007-08-04 12:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no idea
what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several million
dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to cover whatever
amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on future earnings
(with an extra percentage tacked on for pain/suffering/loss of
consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a victim who is already halfway
through his working life and probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a heart
attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own death.
Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs, etc. before
he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was the one who
carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked them to attack,
Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever. Until the investigation is
over, it's silly to assume Rhames (or his insurance company) will have
to pay out.
¥ UltraMan ¥
2007-08-04 22:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and probably
didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a heart
attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own death.
Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs, etc.
before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was the one
who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked them to
attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Wanna bet?

respondeat superior
Post by BTR1701
Until the investigation is over, it's silly to assume Rhames (or his insurance
company) will have to pay out.
You really were a crappy lawyer, weren't you?
Bert
2007-08-04 22:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by BTR1701
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and probably
didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a
heart attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the
caretaker benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance
liability could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own death.
Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs, etc.
before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was the one
who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked them to
attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Wanna bet?
respondeat superior
Post by BTR1701
Until the investigation is over, it's silly to assume Rhames (or his insurance
company) will have to pay out.
You really were a crappy lawyer, weren't you?
Clue: He ain't and never wuz a lawyer...
_ Prof. Jonez _
2007-08-04 23:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by BTR1701
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and
probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a
heart attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the
caretaker benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's
insurance liability could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own
death. Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs,
etc. before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was
the one who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked
them to attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Wanna bet?
respondeat superior
Post by BTR1701
Until the investigation is over, it's silly to assume Rhames (or his insurance
company) will have to pay out.
You really were a crappy lawyer, weren't you?
Clue: He ain't and never wuz a lawyer...
As absurd as it may seem based on his decades of postings, BTR actually
was a lawyer in Texas for a short time before he quit to work for
the U$ Secret Service goons.

The pinacle of his career was "guarding" the drunken Bu$h Twin Sluts as
they proceeded to habitually violate Texas Criminal laws. BTR1701's
SS team even aided and abetted the commission of those continuing criminal
acts. When called-out by myself and others on the criminal corruption that
he and his team engaged in, BTR1701's asserted that Federal Agents had
no moral, ethical or legal duty to prevent, stop or even report State crimes.

The recent ruling by US District Judge in the Peter Limone, right, and Joseph
Salvati
case clearly shows that BTR1701 is a comtemptible piece of shit.


U.S. must pay $101.7 million to men framed by FBI
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A federal judge Thursday ordered the government to
pay more than $101 million in the case of four men who spent decades in prison
for a 1965 murder they didn't commit after the FBI withheld evidence of their
innocence.

The FBI encouraged perjury, helped frame the four men and withheld for more than
three decades information that could have cleared them, U.S. District Judge
Nancy Gertner said in issuing her ruling Thursday.

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."

She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved in
the state case "absurd."
BTR1701
2007-08-05 01:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by BTR1701
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and probably
didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a heart
attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own death.
Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs, etc.
before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was the one
who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked them to
attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Wanna bet?
respondeat superior
Independentus contractus
_ Prof. Jonez _
2007-08-06 21:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by BTR1701
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and
probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he
died could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from
a heart attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the
caretaker benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's
insurance liability could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own
death. Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs,
etc. before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was
the one who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked
them to attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Wanna bet?
respondeat superior
Independentus contractus
TX CODE TITLE 4 § 101.07, § 106.02, § 106.025, § 106.04, § 106.07, § 106.071
TX PENAL CODE TITLE § 32.51
BTR1701
2007-08-06 22:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Post by BTR1701
Post by ¥ UltraMan ¥
Post by BTR1701
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no
idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several
million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to
cover whatever amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on
future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for
pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a
victim who is already halfway through his working life and
probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he
died could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from
a heart attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the
caretaker benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's
insurance liability could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own
death. Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs,
etc. before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was
the one who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked
them to attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Wanna bet?
respondeat superior
Independentus contractus
TX CODE TITLE 4 § 101.07, § 106.02, § 106.025, § 106.04, § 106.07, § 106.071
TX PENAL CODE TITLE § 32.51
And since the incident happened in California, citations to the Texas
Code are absolutely irrelevant. I wouldn't expect anything different
from you. Glad to see you're still operating true to form.

Let me ask you a question, do you EVER post anything relevant or are you
constitutionally incapable of doing so?

[Feel free to copy and paste some random article that has nothing to do
with any of this as a response. Oh, and be sure and repeat one line from
the article a half dozen times, too.]

Red
2007-08-05 15:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by comadrejo
Post by Bo Raxo
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no idea
what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several million
dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to cover whatever
amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on future earnings
(with an extra percentage tacked on for pain/suffering/loss of
consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a victim who is already halfway
through his working life and probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he died
could limit the liability payout. If the caretaker died from a heart
attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the caretaker
benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's insurance liability
could be limited...
It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own death.
Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs, etc. before
he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was the one who
carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked them to attack,
Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever. Until the investigation is
over, it's silly to assume Rhames (or his insurance company) will have
to pay out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maybe John Edwards should represent the dead man in absentia. You
know, he's the candidate for the little man!
Bo Raxo
2007-08-05 23:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Maybe John Edwards should represent the dead man in absentia. You
know, he's the candidate for the little man!
You're gonna need the *other* John Edwards to get the dead guy's
testimony,

Bonus points for not knowing the difference between "in absentia" and
"post mortem".
Red
2007-08-06 02:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Maybe John Edwards should represent the dead man in absentia. You
know, he's the candidate for the little man!
You're gonna need the *other* John Edwards to get the dead guy's
testimony,
Bonus points for not knowing the difference between "in absentia" and
"post mortem".
Lighten up Bo, it was a joke!
_ Prof. Jonez _
2007-08-06 14:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Maybe John Edwards should represent the dead man in absentia. You
know, he's the candidate for the little man!
You're gonna need the *other* John Edwards to get the dead guy's
testimony,
Bonus points for not knowing the difference between "in absentia" and
"post mortem".
Lighten up Bo, it was a joke!
Yes, you are ...
K Swynford
2007-08-04 13:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bo Raxo
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
Business expense!
Red
2007-08-05 15:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bo Raxo
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at Rhames' home,
Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male, approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss. I have no idea
what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several million
dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to cover whatever
amount is negotiated. Typically these are based on future earnings
(with an extra percentage tacked on for pain/suffering/loss of
consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a victim who is already halfway
through his working life and probably didn't earn that much per
year.
Bottom line; about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a
card.
Bo Raxo- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Too bad they don't throw him in jail for a couple of months to ponder
what his dogs have done.
AKA
2007-08-04 02:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Post by _ Prof. Jonez _
Man mauled to death at Ving Rhames' home
a.. Dogs kill man at Ving Rhames' L.A. house
b.. Man was caretaker at house
c.. Rhames, known for "Mission: Impossible," not at home when attack occurred
Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a caretaker at the actor's Los
Angeles home Friday, police said.
The caretaker, who was not immediately identified by name, was found dead in
front of Rhames' gated home in an expensive Brentwood neighborhood, Los Angeles
police spokeswoman Sandra Gonzalez said.
"This morning at 7:15 a.m. we got a call of a dead body" at Rhames' home,
Gonzalez said. "We found the body of a male, approximately 40 years old, on the
front lawn, who had been mauled by dogs."
She said the caretaker was pronounced dead at the scene and there was no one
else around when officers arrived.
Four dogs, at least two of them mastiffs, were taken away by animal control
officers. It was not immediately clear who had called police, or how many dogs
had mauled the caretaker, who had worked for Rhames for two years.
She said Rhames, known for starring in "Pulp Fiction" and alongside Tom Cruise
in all three "Mission: Impossible" movies, was not home when officers arrived.
Representatives for the 46-year-old actor, who according to news reports was out
of the country shooting a movie, had no immediate comment.
Rhames has a long list of film and television credits and won a Golden Globe for
starring as Don King in a 1997 TV movie about the flamboyant boxing promoter. He
was nominated for an Emmy for the same role.
Gonzalez said an investigation by Los Angeles police detectives was under way
and that no further details were immediately available.
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Litigious for a small minded wimp aren't you?
BTR1701
2007-08-04 12:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
Red
2007-08-05 15:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
BTR1701
2007-08-05 19:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.
kkkkkkkkkkkkkk
2007-08-05 20:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Red
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.
Empanel a jury anywhere but in LA, New Orleans or DC, and Rhames will be
found liable.

Maybe he bought the dogs from Michael Vick. Add his nappy dumb ass to the
lawsuit.
Red
2007-08-05 22:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Red
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.
If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.
BTR1701
2007-08-06 00:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Post by BTR1701
Post by Red
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.
If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.
Not necessarily.
Red
2007-08-06 02:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Post by BTR1701
Post by Red
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
I think the answer has something to do with personal responsibility.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally responsible, it
seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of his money.
If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.
Not necessarily.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OK, you were responsible, how's that!
_ Prof. Jonez _
2007-08-06 17:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Red
Post by Red
Post by BTR1701
Post by Red
Post by Red
Hopefully the man's family will sue Rhames and take all his money.
Why?
I think the answer has something to do with personal
responsibility. Perhaps you have heard of it?
Well, until it's determined that Rhames was personally
responsible, it seems odd to be a cheerleader for taking all of
his money.
If they were his dogs my friend, he is responsible.
Not necessarily.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OK, you were responsible, how's that!
Well, there are some crimes that BTR1701 is indirectly responsible
for .... but Ving Rhames dogs ain't one of them.
Loading...