The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Frosty on July 13, 2013, 05:22:42 PM
-
http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext?nxd_id=679272 (http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext?nxd_id=679272)
-
Oh the liability :o :o :o Why is it so many people worry about the liability of taking this kind of stance, but there seems to be no liability for sitting on your thumbs while a madman walks past your "Gun Free Zone" on the way to harm the students you are responsible for? ???
-
Not to change subject but since ya mentioned the liability word, a few historic things regarding the legal profession and a possible reason why we are such a litigious society and liability is pretty much at the forefront.
Lawyers were actually banned outright ;D or faced tight restrictions in many colonies for much of the 18th century. Especially in Puritan New England, Quaker communities in Pennsylvania and Dutch settlements in New York, colonists firmly believed that disputes were best solved within the community.
The "Body of Liberties" adopted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641 expressed the typical attitudes of the time:
"Every man that findeth himselfe unfit to plead his own cause in any court shall have libertie to employ any man ..., provided he give him noe fee or reward for his pain."
In the 20th century the legal profession so successfully sold Americans on its favorite public relations slogan, "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client." And it's even more surprising that without great opposition, the American Bar Association convinced states to pass "unauthorized practice of law" statutes in the 1920s and 1930s, which effectively gave lawyers a monopoly over the sale of legal information. The fact that lawyers won't voluntarily relinquish their legal monopoly goes far to explain why the profession is ridiculed by so many Americans.
Hence we live in a litigious society as the liability monster rears it's head. The outcome of liability issues would certainly be different if "the community" were to decide, now there are ethical lawyers (the good) and the unethical, pond scum ones that give the profession a bad name. You know the type they'll sue McGarbage over coffee that's hot (if I was in that community that she lived & filed suit I would have said "You must be sh*t stupid - coffee is hot, maybe you shouldn't be stuffing your pie hole with that McGarbage crap & talking on the phone at the same time!, "We the community award nothing for being sh*t stupid, wasting our time and suspend your license for 2 yr's., get some common sense" the ambulance chasers, etc.
Sorry for getting off subject ::)
-
Hence we live in a litigious society as the liability monster rears it's head. The outcome of liability issues would certainly be different if "the community" were to decide, now there are ethical lawyers (the good) and the unethical, pond scum ones that give the profession a bad name.
Gotta agree with you there. It's only 99% of lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name.
Crusader Rabbit