(05-22-2015 10:24 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:58 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Good, this is how frivolous lawsuits should be handled.

Misleading title is misleading.

Misleading how?

Not surprising given how you have an interesting way of defining words in a dictionary.


The title alone is meant to elicit sympathy to the victim's parents, thus skewing it into their favor immediately. After reading the article, you discover that is not the case.

The owners of the gun store are the victims in this story, they are the ones that people will sympathize with.

Re posting explanation

The title is very factual and matter of fact.

(05-22-2015 10:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:24 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:58 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Good, this is how frivolous lawsuits should be handled.

Misleading title is misleading.

Misleading how?

Not surprising given how you have an interesting way of defining words in a dictionary.


The title alone is meant to elicit sympathy to the victim's parents, thus skewing it into their favor immediately. After reading the article, you discover that is not the case.

The owners of the gun store are the victims in this story, they are the ones that people will sympathize with.

Re posting explanation

The title is very factual and matter of fact.

Never said it wasn't factual, just misleading.

I'm speaking to the emotion it conveyed.

(05-22-2015 10:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:24 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:58 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Good, this is how frivolous lawsuits should be handled.

Misleading title is misleading.

Misleading how?

Not surprising given how you have an interesting way of defining words in a dictionary.


The title alone is meant to elicit sympathy to the victim's parents, thus skewing it into their favor immediately. After reading the article, you discover that is not the case.

The owners of the gun store are the victims in this story, they are the ones that people will sympathize with.

Re posting explanation

The title is very factual and matter of fact.

That doesn't preclude it from being misleading. You're leaving out the portion that the $250k they're being forced to pay is due to their own actions. You could have written the same title if they were being forced to pay back taxes or anything, really.

(05-22-2015 10:26 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:24 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:58 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Misleading how?

Not surprising given how you have an interesting way of defining words in a dictionary.


The title alone is meant to elicit sympathy to the victim's parents, thus skewing it into their favor immediately. After reading the article, you discover that is not the case.

The owners of the gun store are the victims in this story, they are the ones that people will sympathize with.

Re posting explanation

The title is very factual and matter of fact.

Never said it wasn't factual, just misleading.

I'm speaking to the emotion it conveyed.

Just because it made YOU feel a certain way doesn't mean it's misleading.

(05-22-2015 10:53 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:26 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:24 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:58 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Not surprising given how you have an interesting way of defining words in a dictionary.


The title alone is meant to elicit sympathy to the victim's parents, thus skewing it into their favor immediately. After reading the article, you discover that is not the case.

The owners of the gun store are the victims in this story, they are the ones that people will sympathize with.

Re posting explanation

The title is very factual and matter of fact.

Never said it wasn't factual, just misleading.

I'm speaking to the emotion it conveyed.

Just because it made YOU feel a certain way doesn't mean it's misleading.

Not the only one so really it comes down to the the possible misunderstanding of the word misleading. Here is a baseline to which we can work with.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mislead

Mislead: to lead astray, give a wrong impression.

(05-22-2015 09:53 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 09:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  This is a wholly misleading title Fitbud, the parents brought suit in a civil case and lost. The death of their child doesn't grant them immunity to paying for the legal fees of the opposing party if the case was frivolous, which it sounds like it was.

Please stop making patently misleading thread titles like this.

The original title was too long so I tried to shorten it.

Please provide a better title and I will gladly change it.

Shooting Victims File Frivolous Lawsuit -- Must Repay $250k Court Fees

Well, clearly not.

A logical judicial result. I have no problem with it.

If your suit is baseless, you should be forced to reimburse the other party.

If anyone is guilty in this story, it's the Brady Center. They probably encouraged the family to bring the suit in the name of their cause. It's funny how people are used by organizations for the sake of the cause. Of course the family it's be responsible for their actions, but honestly this is another case of never letting an opportunity go to waste, meaning the Brady Center were the opportunists.

(05-23-2015 08:26 AM)miko33 Wrote:  If anyone is guilty in this story, it's the Brady Center. They probably encouraged the family to bring the suit in the name of their cause. It's funny how people are used by organizations for the sake of the cause. Of course the family it's be responsible for their actions, but honestly this is another case of never letting an opportunity go to waste, meaning the Brady Center were the opportunists.

Yes.

The Brady Center had nothing to lose. If they had won, it would have been a huge victory for them and their cause. And if they lost (which is what happened), they owe nothing. They had no skin in the game.