Advice Please: Injured at a place of business.

Ok, I must be thinking of worker's comp then, which is for sure zero-fault.

workers comp, derived from pirate law, removes the question of fault but only pays for economic loss, not pain or suffering or emotional damages.

Oh that explains why there are never false claims LOL I remember back in the 89's I think, they first had a race up the stairs of the Empire State Building. The winner was a New York City Fireman on disability to a back injury so severe the could not even do desk duty LOL He shoulda went for a nut job disability.

Quote: Elrohir44

Take responsibility for yourself OP. Lack of signage or disclaimers did not cause you to be injured. The business owner you are attempting to steal from did not injure you, nor did their GL insurance carrier. YOU should have known what you are capable of. YOU should have known that you are obese. YOU injured yourself and YOU are attempting to make someone else pay for YOUR mistake. YOU and predatory litigious people who think like you are what is destroying this country. Unless the equipment was faulty the business owner does not owe you a penny.

Elrohir? Is that you? Elrohir from the trampoline entertainment venue?
What a complete **** post. People like this destroy the country.
If I was OP and considering a suit, I would shut my trap and go see a lawyer, not post material for the defense of prior injury's etc. That's my advice.

Quote: OzzyOsbourne

The stupidity hurts.

I crush up 2 Tylenol and mix it in a warm tea for mine.

I don't need self-interest to stand up for what is right and to cry foul on what is wrong.

People that dislike BS lawsuits are destroying the country?? Remind me what kind of people made it necessary to have all that fine-print and fast talking everywhere?

What does the **** stand for anyway? The first half of your post is pointless enough without a key word being omitted.

Quote: Elrohir44

The first half of your post is pointless enough without a key word being omitted.

I'm new to this site, so I'm sorry if I misquoted you at the start of my post. What word did I omit?

Whatever your swear word was that you typed got censored. I wasn't referring to the quote.

Quote: Alembert

Crystal Math- you propose a valid question that I must think on. Thank you.

Regarding the healing process, I have been thru a ruptured Achilles before, on my other foot, 15 years ago. Sustained the injury playing basketball, I knew the risks at that time and took the responsibility. It took 2 years, but I did return to playing in that basketball league.

So basically in the above quote you are admiting that you have foot problems in your past and knowing this you should have realized it could be a problem if you play on the trampoline.YET YOU DID IT ANYWAY.

You need to use your common sense.You knew it could be a problem but thought well it will probably be ok.YOU ARE NEGLECTING CONDITIONS THAT FOR SURE EXIST N THIS EXAMPLE.


Come on man!

KB1

... I was implying your quoted post was the "pointless first half" of my post..
I didn't think I was swearing (it's not a swear) but it was changed so I won't be saying it again.
I can give you a hint since it's such a big mystery for you :
male organ for copulation and urination

Edit: I'm not trying to start an argument or decide what's right and wrong. I just thought some of the comments towards the poster were a bit uncalled for.

In my opinion, some of this is nonsense.

There is nothing immoral about suing for personal injury. There is nothing immoral about choosing not to sue. There is nothing immoral about exercising your rights, regardless of others' political or moral beliefs. This is not comparable to fraud.

This is not a slam dunk for a plaintiff. First of all, a read and signed standard liability disclaimer for a trampoline business will hold up for injuries that could normally occur on a trampoline, like a broken leg or torn tendon. Whether this was a standard disclaimer or a poorly worded one, whether it was a condition of a license or contract, him claiming to have never seen the disclaimer, and the question as to whether the trampoline was functioning properly are what muddle the issue. Secondly, trampolines are primarily for children and teens. The majority of overweight adults on trampolines are probably drunks that you would most likely see on Youtube or something similar--and the result is always the same, they break the trampoline, or fall and hurt themselves. Would the business expect the OP to climb on and start jumping? Was the OP reasonable in thinking this was a good idea? If he does go after them in a suit, there will be no bright-line test. The business will be judged on the precautions they took in preventing injury, which practically speaking, may translate into their track-record. It's not impossible the OP could win, it just doesn't seem likely to me. Seeing a lawyer is a good idea if he is prepared to invest in the cause, and wants to see a final outcome. Contingency is especially useful because aside from costing nothing up-front, it would quickly give the OP a sense of value of his case, because the first lawyer(s) he sees will take it or they won't (they will all suggest he's the victim). But I think it is poor advice to encourage litigious behavior by suggesting it is a sure-win.

If it were me, I would talk to the business and let them know I expect compensation from their liability insurance or I may sue. I would let them know how much it cost me, and I would suggest how much they should pay me, which would be a lesser amount. There is a cost to defending a lawsuit that they simply may not wish to spend. This is not advice, this is simply what I would do.

Disclaimers: IANAL, and there are less silly lawsuits in Canada.

In this case, I'm with the OP, at least partially. Even if he had signed the boiler-plate disclaimer, I think he still has a case that hinges on the trampoline operator having a maximum weight limit and not pointing the limit out to the OP. This is negligence that contributed to the injury.

I am almost positive the operator has insurance, which hopefully will help cover the injury, but even if they don't, the common law is clear: contributory negligence = financial responsibility.

Quote: Sonuvabish

In my opinion, some of this is nonsense.

There is nothing immoral about suing for personal injury. There is nothing immoral about choosing not to sue. There is nothing immoral about exercising your rights, regardless of others' political or moral beliefs. This is not comparable to fraud.

You sure about that? Morality is the judgement of what is right or wrong. Certainly, is depends on who you ask.

Personally, I think people who file claims of personal injury and who are also 100% at fault should be, at minimum, flogged through the streets. I just read about two kids here who trespassed and got injured on property, yet still won a multi million dollar settlement. Break the law, invade privacy, ????, profit. It's the American way?

The people who require a disclaimer on every GD thing are the reason we can't have nice things. If OP was injured because of something unknowable or negligible - maybe the tramp was broken, in ill repair, or assembled incorrectly - OK, then maybe some fault lies with the operator. But if OP engaged in a highly physical activity and blew out a wheel for no other reason than it was highly physical, why should he get a dime? Or an even better question - Why should he even try?

If getting hurt is all it takes to get cash, I could make the casinos of Macau look like some high school hot dog stand =p

Quote: Face

You sure about that? Morality is the judgement of what is right or wrong. Certainly, is depends on who you ask.

LOL. You got me there. Immoral is not the right word. Wrongful is better. One should be amoral if making moral judgments for others to follow.

I don't think the OP should sue unless he has a good case. And if he has a poor case and sues anyway, he deserves to lose. But sometimes losers get lucky and win. They usually don't, but they are the ones you read about. I have no problem if this happens. Sometimes it happens for a higher purpose--a criminal goes free to punish a corrupt police department, to send a message to police everywhere. Other times, possibly like your example, it just shows our system is frail and every once and a while someone wins the lotto. This is not typical. To add, I think it's in everyone's self-interest to not sleep on their rights, even if that is bad for society as a whole. I am certainly not going to sacrifice my rights for society...if society wants to improve, it can sacrifice everyone's right to the same thing. My effective tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's, I've sacrificed more than my share.

Quote: dwheatley

Disclaimers: IANAL, and there are less silly lawsuits in Canada.

In this case, I'm with the OP, at least partially. Even if he had signed the boiler-plate disclaimer, I think he still has a case that hinges on the trampoline operator having a maximum weight limit and not pointing the limit out to the OP. This is negligence that contributed to the injury.

I am almost positive the operator has insurance, which hopefully will help cover the injury, but even if they don't, the common law is clear: contributory negligence = financial responsibility.

Contributory Negligence = Absolute Defense & no financial responsibility, sometimes it's even presumed to exist. I think you are unclear on the law. Most jurisdictions have abandoned this law in favor of comparative negligence.

Yep...

Quote: Face

You sure about that? Morality is the judgement of what is right or wrong. Certainly, is depends on who you ask.

Personally, I think people who file claims of personal injury and who are also 100% at fault should be, at minimum, flogged through the streets. I just read about two kids here who trespassed and got injured on property, yet still won a multi million dollar settlement. Break the law, invade privacy, ????, profit. It's the American way?

The people who require a disclaimer on every GD thing are the reason we can't have nice things. If OP was injured because of something unknowable or negligible - maybe the tramp was broken, in ill repair, or assembled incorrectly - OK, then maybe some fault lies with the operator. But if OP engaged in a highly physical activity and blew out a wheel for no other reason than it was highly physical, why should he get a dime? Or an even better question - Why should he even try?

If getting hurt is all it takes to get cash, I could make the casinos of Macau look like some high school hot dog stand =p

Yep....

So if you are driving and fall asleep and have an accident,you should be able to sue the town or state because there was no sign saying don`t drive if you are sleepy or tired. For all I know this has probably happened already.

We had replacement windows installed, and the frame of all the screens had a sticker with fine print: "Caution: screen will not prevent child from falling out of window. Do not place child in window." No shit, Sherlock.

Yeah, I get that product safety bit, but it has gone beyond common sense to avoid liability.

As an owner of a business, I had this happen to me. A customer claimed they fell down our steps because they were wet and hurt his shoulder. Luckily for me, my insurance company felt I had no fault and fought until the end. I had to go through multiple depositions and in the end the claimant's family walked down the steps at the same time as him and had no issues, nor did all the other people who used the steps that same night. His failure to use the provided handrail, by his own admittance was his choice. While I am sure my insurance company also spent a decent amount of money on lawyers, he finally gave up just before trial when I believe he realized we would not settle for anything and he was just running up bills. Not sure if he had a contingency lawyer or was paying out of pocket. Either way, someone realized he had little chance and gave up.

That said, and even though the claim was less than my limits, I had a lot of sleepless nights questioning what I was doing and what I did wrong. Perhaps he really did think we were at fault, but I also thought he was looking to hit the lottery.

I don't know the poster here, but I am of the belief that many of these cases are just that, someone looking to get something for nothing and in most cases the person to blame is right there when they look in the mirror.

Quote: Hunterhill

So if you are driving and fall asleep and have an accident,you should be able to sue the town or state because there was no sign saying don`t drive if you are sleepy or tired. For all I know this has probably happened already.

This is a fairly decent example of what I think is going on here. Although, products generally must carry warnings to those in privity and states are immune from suit absent abrogation.

Quote: chickenman

We had replacement windows installed, and the frame of all the screens had a sticker with fine print: "Caution: screen will not prevent child from falling out of window. Do not place child in window." No shit, Sherlock.

Yeah, I get that product safety bit, but it has gone beyond common sense to avoid liability.

I wish I would have known about the hair dryer in the bathtub. You should see my new doo! :-)

If I get injured at a state park, should the state be held responsible?

Quote: Face

I just read about two kids here who trespassed and got injured on property, yet still won a multi million dollar settlement. Break the law, invade privacy, ????, profit. It's the American way?

I don't know the details of this case, but this sounds OK to me. Property owners need to make sure their property is safe. Because we live in a SOCIETY. It's not every man for himself. As a society, we have decided that, hey, if my 10 year old kid wanders onto someone else's suburban property (which tends to happen), he's not going to fall into a snake pit or get electrocuted by a trip wire. If we didn't have liability for property owners injuring trespassers, we'd have property owners lining their property with booby traps.

As a society, it's also an indication that things are grey, not black and white. If we have a burglar who breaks through a window and gets his leg stuck in a bear trap waiting for him on the floor, that burglar can and should win a lawsuit against the property owner. Because as a society we have determined that the crime for burglary should not be losing a leg. Losing a leg is worse than having your house burgled.

Quote: sodawater

As a society, it's also an indication that things are grey, not black and white. If we have a burglar who breaks through a window and gets his leg stuck in a bear trap waiting for him on the floor, that burglar can and should win a lawsuit against the property owner. Because as a society we have determined that the crime for burglary should not be losing a leg. Losing a leg is worse than having your house burgled.

I don't think that's accurate. Over half of U.S. states have what's called "Castle Doctrine" laws that absolve a homeowner (or renter) from criminal prosecution for use of deadly force against an intruder. In Louisiana last year, a homeowner was charged with attempted murder after shooting a teenager who was on his property in the middle of the night. The grand jury has twice failed to return an indictment. http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/8494699-171/orleans-grand-jury-takes-no

Quote: sodawater

I don't know the details of this case, but this sounds OK to me.

This offends me on a level I cannot convey.

I agree with your post to a point. If the UPS man delivers a package to my house, he shouldn't have to fear my awning jarring loose from his knocking on my door and bopping him on the head. I can agree with that, because it's reasonable. It is not reasonable to convert 80 acres of wilderness into some child-safe utopia.

Booby traps might sound medieval to some. It sounds more like an answer to me. One trespassing shed poacher that encounters some punji sticks is gonna think twice before breaking the law again. Might be cured of law breaking for life. Instead we go our way in the name of "society" where innocent landowners are socked with multi-million dollar lawsuits for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

When I come to power...

Quote: Face

This offends me on a level I cannot convey.

I agree with your post to a point. If the UPS man delivers a package to my house, he shouldn't have to fear my awning jarring loose from his knocking on my door and bopping him on the head. I can agree with that, because it's reasonable. It is not reasonable to convert 80 acres of wilderness into some child-safe utopia.

Booby traps might sound medieval to some. It sounds more like an answer to me. One trespassing shed poacher that encounters some punji sticks is gonna think twice before breaking the law again. Might be cured of law breaking for life. Instead we go our way in the name of "society" where innocent landowners are socked with multi-million dollar lawsuits for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

When I come to power...

Booby traps are not allowed because it is unreasonable to defend property with deadly force; even unforeseeable trespassers are owed a minimal duty of care. The castle doctrine allows for people to defend themselves or other people with deadly force or in other words, negates the duty to retreat when one is at home. If there is no threat, this doctrine is inapplicable--it cannot be used to murder trespassers. The exception I believe is Texas, where you can defend your property with such force. And Texas is not the most sophisticated place in the world. If you want to set a trap where paint drops out of a bucket, that's fine...but hidden spikes to impale? Not OK.

Quote: MathExtremist

I don't think that's accurate. Over half of U.S. states have what's called "Castle Doctrine" laws that absolve a homeowner (or renter) from criminal prosecution for use of deadly force against an intruder. In Louisiana last year, a homeowner was charged with attempted murder after shooting a teenager who was on his property in the middle of the night. The grand jury has twice failed to return an indictment. http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/8494699-171/orleans-grand-jury-takes-no

I am referring to a burglar getting hurt in a passive trap when no one is home. Obviously it is much different if the homeowner or resident feels human life is threatened. Human life is precious, and property is not. Human life can and should be defended by force. Property should not.

Quote: Face

It is not reasonable to convert 80 acres[...]Instead we go our way in the name of "society" where innocent landowners are socked with multi-million dollar lawsuits for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

Yeah, those poor, innocent 80-acre property owners have it sooo tough. Do you understand the percentage of this country that owns anything close to 80 acres? It's not a lot of us. And those who do tend to have some money. Even if the "80 acres" is in a rural area. They can afford to carry the legally minimum amount of homeowner's insurance.

If you own a home, you must have homeowner's insurance. If you own a business, you must have liability insurance. There are reasons we require this. Because as a society we have decided that safety is important, as many of us live in close proximity to one another. The vast, vast majority of insurance claims for personal injury in a home are in normal, small, everyday houses and yards, not 80-acre plots, (where every inch needs to be child-proofed).

I don't think Face means what you guys think. His point isn't necessarily about some 80-acre piece of land, but the fact that sh** happens and it's unreasonable to think someone can "keep up" in maintaining a "society safe" piece of land. My father runs a small business and told me that every year (or 6 months or however often) that the fire marshal comes by to do a fire-inspection-safety-check thing, it's basically impossible to get a "100% grade". I forgot the examples he told me about, but many things are "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't".

The world should not be like that.

I (obviously) don't know the whole story, so forgive any assumptions I may make.

Why is there a weight limit to the trampoline? Is it for a safety reason or because they don't want fat obeses to break their trampolines? It never crossed your mind that you were too large for the trampoline, so in your opinion, it would be safe for you to get on the trampoline. It was your intention and your idea to play on the trampoline as nobody forced or coerced you to get on it. If they didn't let you on the trampoline because of your weight, you might have decided to sue for discrimination. [I'm not saying that you would have, but you could have.]

Was your weight a factor in you getting hurt? Probably not.

For example, let's say I had a beer after work then decide to drive home and I hit someone who jumps off the sidewalk into the road....is the beer to blame? You could argue that my reflexes weren't as quick as they would be without having that 1 beer. Then again, had I beer or not had a beer, I would still have hit that guy who jumped off the sidewalk and went in front of my car. Is the 1 beer to blame? No. I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It reminds me of the player who has a 13 against a dealer's 6. The player hits, busts, and then claims "Omg I didn't mean to hit!" and takes a shot at the casino's expense. I think all players and most APs believe that is wrong....even though it's a huge multi-whatever conglomerate casino...that just ain't right.


The world isn't setup for people who by chance happen to get hurt can sue for whatever reason. If I'm in the shower at a hotel, slip, and crack my head open, I'm not going to sue the hotel because there wasn't some "may be slippery when wet" sign....although I have no doubt some posters in this thread would sue, thinking for whatever reason it's the right thing to do.

It's the "if I can do it, I'm going to do it" attitude without considering if it's the "right" thing to do.


When it comes down to it -- was it your fault, the trampoline operator's fault, or was it simply an accident? By the way it looks.....it looks like it was just an accident.

Quote: sodawater

Quote: Face

It is not reasonable to convert 80 acres[...]Instead we go our way in the name of "society" where innocent landowners are socked with multi-million dollar lawsuits for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

Yeah, those poor, innocent 80-acre property owners have it sooo tough. Do you understand the percentage of this country that owns anything close to 80 acres? It's not a lot of us. And those who do tend to have some money. Even if the "80 acres" is in a rural area. They can afford to carry the legally minimum amount of homeowner's insurance.

If you own a home, you must have homeowner's insurance. If you own a business, you must have liability insurance. There are reasons we require this. Because as a society we have decided that safety is important, as many of us live in close proximity to one another. The vast, vast majority of insurance claims for personal injury in a home are in normal, small, everyday houses itand yards, not 80-acre plots, (where every inch needs to be child-proofed).

I hope you NEVER are my neighbor. So I'm away at work and your kid walks on my property and climbs a tree and falls out and gets hurt you will sue me.Even though you should have been watching your kid. And even if someone does have 80 acres and even if they can afford to pay doesn't mean they should be obligated to.

Also If you own your home and don`t have a mortgage I don`t believe you are required to have homeowners insurance.(maybe in some states you are) Most of us have homeowners in case of fire or hurricanes.

Quote: Face

Booby traps might sound medieval to some. It sounds more like an answer to me.

Fire and police personnel who may have to enter your premises under emergency circumstances don't particularly care for such views.

In rural areas, many sheriffs have made contact with major growers and made it clear: pot eradication efforts will be markedly intensified if the growers ever resort to: punji sticks, man traps, dangerous wildlife or poisoned darts. Guards, including armed guards are okay. Booby traps are not. The white bucket is the universal signal of "harmless collector of Lady Bugs" and avoids confrontations near grow areas. Punji sticks can't see the white buckets; armed guards can see the white buckets and go out to question the "but hunters" or "mushroom hunters" and let them proceed safely without any fear that they are actually pot rustlers. (edited for clarity).

Fleastiff,I dont quite understand what you are saying.Do you mean the pot growers put white buckets around the borders of thier property to warn people to stay away?

Quote: Hunterhill

Fleastiff,I dont quite understand what you are saying.Do you mean the pot growers put white buckets around the borders of thier property to warn people to stay away?

People in the woods carry the white buckets. That way the guards know.

Quote: FleaStiff

Fire and police personnel who may have to enter your premises under emergency circumstances don't particularly care for such views.

I did write a bunch about emergency services, but culled it for length. Serves me right =p

Of course the old "shotgun propped by the door" is a bad idea. I just know we had a case of punji sticks around here. And neither I or my friend that got nailed or any other of the 10+ people we rode with ever rode that trail again. Wheeler tires are $60 each, and shredding all four at once sort of ruins the day.

Quote: Hunterhill

I hope you NEVER are my neighbor. So I'm away at work and your kid walks on my property and climbs a tree and falls out and gets hurt you will sue me.Even though you should have been watching your kid. And even if someone does have 80 acres and even if they can afford to pay doesn't mean they should be obligated to.

This is my point. I can only assume you're an urbanite based on your assumption because around here, everyone has land. I know plenty of people with 40-80 acres, and they're not the type you assume them to be. Most of them are either poor and just happened to inherit land passed down since the 1800's, or they're farmers. The "rich" landowners are almost unanimously disliked by me, because they're the citiots that come here, get hurt, and through litigation or repeated use of emergency services get areas shut down.

But I don't care if it's a 100 acre wooded paradise or my acre and a half of lawn... I prefer fair use. If a neighborhood kid needs to use part of my yard as an outfield, then I'm all for it. That's how I grew up and that's what I did. But this new idea of this soft society that can't handle a single accident has robbed all of us of that. Everywhere I look there's activities and experiences that are gone forever because of one and only one reason - fear of liability. Fear that some (redacted) is going to get hurt and not think "haha, that was dumb of me", but think "this is anyone's fault but mine and someone's gonna pay".

Personal responsibility. What a horrifying idea.

Face,I agree with you I was replying to Fleastiff.
I am not an urbanite my family owns 300 acres and we are far from rich.The land has been in the family for more than 200 years.Originally there was more than 1000 acres but each generation has sold some.

Quote: Hunterhill

Face,I agree with you I was replying to Fleastiff.
I am not an urbanite my family owns 300 acres and we are far from rich.The land has been in the family for more than 200 years.Originally there was more than 1000 acres but each generation has sold some.

Oh, I know. Was replying a bit to your post, but directed at sodawater. I get it. My uncle is the same way, owns 100+ acres, all handed down. Him and my aunt have a combined income of $80k a year. None of us are rich. No one I know is rich.

I guess I just don't get it. I can easily see that if I were to try to force my way of life where it didn't belong, there'd be no end to the crying. Putting a pig farm in the middle of a little suburban cul-de-sac wouldn't ever cross my mind, nor would I fight to make it so.

But whenever city folk come to the country, they demand exactly that. A generalization, yes, but not far from the truth.

I say if you don't like it, don't come here. And take your lawyers when you leave =p

Ya I meant sodawater ,sorry Fleastiff. When I was in highschool some new city people moved in next to our farm.When spring time came they went and complained to the town about the smell of the freshly spead cow manure.

When I had just paved the parking lot at a business I used to have the skate boarders loved the fresh pavement, particularly the dip around the loading dock. I let them board there. My lawyer dropped by and noticed them and told me the liability was huge and that it wasn't a smart idea. There had been several successfull cases where the parents sued the business owners after an inury. I asked him what I should do. The answer was put up signage disallowing boarding and stop them anytime I was there. If the business was closed and they came anyway I was likely okay. This was even in Canada.

Quote: FleaStiff

Fire and police personnel who may have to enter your premises under emergency circumstances don't particularly care for such views.

In rural areas, many sheriffs have made contact with major growers and made it clear: pot eradication efforts will be markedly intensified if the growers ever resort to: punji sticks, man traps, dangerous wildlife or poisoned darts. Guards, including armed guards are okay. Booby traps are not. The white bucket is the universal signal of "harmless collector of Lady Bugs" and avoids confrontations near grow areas. Punji sticks can't see the white buckets; armed guards can see the white buckets and go out to question the "but hunters" or "mushroom hunters" and let them proceed safely without any fear that they are actually pot rustlers. (edited for clarity).

Police call up drug dealers and tell them they won't arrest them if they keep their guns on them at all times, rather than automate them? This doesn't sound right at all.

Quote: kenarman

When I had just paved the parking lot at a business I used to have the skate boarders loved the fresh pavement, particularly the dip around the loading dock. I let them board there. My lawyer dropped by and noticed them and told me the liability was huge and that it wasn't a smart idea. There had been several successfull cases where the parents sued the business owners after an inury. I asked him what I should do. The answer was put up signage disallowing boarding and stop them anytime I was there. If the business was closed and they came anyway I was likely okay. This was even in Canada.

It's sad. I can get not wanting them in the business district crashing into shoppers or using park benches because they chew them up. But even the most out of the way places, your loading dock for example, are shut down. Same thing happened in my town. And the same people that bitch about the skaters are the same people lamenting the generation for "being behind the TV and getting fat" all the time.

We have a bad part of town. Used to be a glue factory and tannery, was on the Superfund site list for years. They just finished cleaning it up, capping it, and creating a park on it. It's right next to the crick that sports prime steelhead fishing and some pretty good white water rafting. They didn't even cut the tape on it before a group worked to shut it down over fear that the easier access to the crick would result in increased emergency services use. I can't stand it.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Police call up drug dealers and tell them they won't arrest them if they keep their guns on them at all times, rather than automate them? This doesn't sound right at all.

There are places where large grow operations are largely ignored by local 5-0. Many rural towns are largely supported by it. I think certain areas in the Ozarks and Appalachian Kentucky are two of such places. 5-0 might turn a blind eye to some pot growing, but they sure wouldn't to some local kids getting blown up by claymores.

Quote: Face

There are places where large grow operations are largely ignored by local 5-0. Many rural towns are largely supported by it. I think certain areas in the Ozarks and Appalachian Kentucky are two of such places. 5-0 might turn a blind eye to some pot growing, but they sure wouldn't to some local kids getting blown up by claymores.

Are you saying selling drugs is +EV?

Quote: Sonuvabish

Are you saying selling drugs is +EV?

The Feds seized $1.5mmm in weed from central Appalachia alone in 2012. That is but a fraction of the total. All the rest of that money is going somewhere.

I reckon you have a job, an education, stabilty, etc, etc. For you? Probably -EV.

But if you have no job in a depressed region with shameful education statistics and a mildly cooperative local law enforcement agency...

Quote: Face

The Feds seized $1.5mmm in weed from central Appalachia alone in 2012. That is but a fraction of the total. All the rest of that money is going somewhere.

I reckon you have a job, an education, stabilty, etc, etc. For you? Probably -EV.

But if you have no job in a depressed region with shameful education statistics and a mildly cooperative local law enforcement agency...

It's only +EV if I am unemployed? A depressed region with no education...does this mean that even hot girls are poor and dumb? Now I actually want to move there and deal drugs. Thanks Face.

Quote: Sonuvabish

It's only +EV if I am unemployed? A depressed region with no education...does this mean that even hot girls are poor and dumb? Now I actually want to move there and deal drugs. Thanks Face.

The flaw in your logic being your apparent belief that there are, 'hot girls,' in Central Appalachia.

Quote: Sonuvabish

It's only +EV if I am unemployed? A depressed region with no education...does this mean that even hot girls are poor and dumb? Now I actually want to move there and deal drugs. Thanks Face.

Well, most people with a steady job, 401k, and health insurance don't want to trade it for risk of jail time or getting shot by The Feds. I got a kid, so anything illegal is -EV for me. I dunno. Maybe the freedom would make it +EV for you. You decide.

Just head to Eastern Tennessee/Kentucky. There's a few casinos nearby to keep you busy, and you can pop in the next WoVCon East/Appalachia and report back. Better hurry, though. This legalization movement is gonna mess things up if it picks up steam ;)

Quote: Mission146

The flaw in your logic being your apparent belief that there are, 'hot girls,' in Central Appalachia.

Pfft. Hot girls are everywhere. Every time a "hot girl" thread pops up here, I always think I could find 5 better in my podunk little town. And I could in yours, and I could in Kentucky.

Don't listen to him, Son. Ashley Judd and her mama are from Ashland. They're out there. And when beauty fades (and it always does) you'll be left with a wholesome, hardassed, hardcore country girl. And THAT is always +EV ;)

Quote: Face

Pfft. Hot girls are everywhere. Every time a "hot girl" thread pops up here, I always think I could find 5 better in my podunk little town. And I could in yours, and I could in Kentucky.

Could you?

Here's what you are working with: a female population of 154 females and a Median Resident Age for the whole town of 42.3 years old. I should also mention that only 97 of our residents are between the ages of 18 and 45, and that includes the males, so you want to call that about 50 for the females...assuming the overall male/female ratio holds up across all ages.

Let's combine that with the fact that I know who thirty of these females are, and three of them (who would not qualify anyway) have moved out since the 2010 census. In fact, were you to find one of these, "Hot girl," threads and link me to it...I can pretty definitively say that this town might have one that can best her...and it really depends on who the specific hot female is.

This really is quite an unattractive town, though, in terms of what the average female looks like...I can assure you of that.

Quote: Sonuvabish

Police call up drug dealers and tell them they won't arrest them if they keep their guns on them at all times, rather than automate them? This doesn't sound right at all.

The police point of view is focused on local teenagers who go off to find some remote lover's lane or tourists who want to wander around public lands on or off nature trails and look at water falls, caves and the like. Police don't like dealing with booby traps or the people who set them. So often "The Word" goes out: Human guards only. No booby traps, no staked pits, no spring traps. No matter how large the grow operation is, no matter how remote: only human guards.

A family comes along a trail and finds a guy sitting there with a cooler blocking the left fork. He offers them small water bottles and a few candy bars and tells them there is real nice scenery ahead if they take the right fork. He didn't forbid them to take the left fork and he didn't threaten them in any way. Police much prefer this sort of arrangement than booby traps and grenades.

You can often talk to Mushroom Brokers in rural California towns: they do a straight cash business, no paperwork, no names, no social security numbers. If you ask about a specific area for "shrooms" they can be helpful on matters of safety.

My GF just got a grilled chicken wrap from Micky D's. She took a bite and noticed it was very chewy looked at it and the chicken was very, very raw she was discussed and proceeded to throw up. Doubtful she will get sick. I was thinking people have sued them for less and received nice sums of money.