Lawsuit: Trump campaign failed to act after staffer pulled gun

[danarhea]

That's true and probably why he wasn't sued personally, just the incompetently run organization. eace

Kinda funny that, when the government screws up, they want Obama's head on a platter, but when the Trump campaign screws up, they make excuses for him.

 

[Taylor]

Well generally if an employee commits a tort against you in the course of doing his job, you go after the employer. ie, if a UPS truck runs you over while rushing to the next delivery, you go after UPS, not the individual.

Also: think deep pockets.

Generally if someone pulls a gun on you, you call the cops.

 

[Mr Person]

Why i$ he $uing the Trump campaign and not the guy who allegedly pulled the gun on him? Any theorie$?

Well generally if an employee commits a tort against you in the course of doing his job, you go after the employer. ie, if a UPS truck runs you over while rushing to the next delivery, you go after UPS, not the individual.

Also: think deep pockets.

Generally if someone pulls a gun on you, you call the cops.

WTF? YOU were the one suggesting someone should be sued.

You asked why he was suing the campaign "and not the guy who allegedly pulled the gun on him." The question necessarily implies that you expect someone to be sued. I answered that question. Your response makes no sense.

 

[iguanaman]

He hires incompetents?

and bullies. It is his M.O. No casino's in Atlantic city did as bad as his as a result.

While Trump was running Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts into the ground, the Dow Jones index of gambling stocks — the index that Trump himself cited in public filings as his best benchmark — soared 160%. Investors in Harrah’s saw their stake go up by nearly 150%. MGM MGM, -1.21% quintupled. These people were making out like bandits.

Donald Trump ran the worst performing casino company on the stock market. This isn’t a matter of “opinion.” This isn’t speculation or politics. It’s a matter of plain fact.

However, one person associated with Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts did make money:

Donald J. Trump.

Donald Trump’s business disaster is worse than you think - MarketWatch

 

[reinoe]

Well generally if an employee commits a tort against you in the course of doing his job, you go after the employer. ie, if a UPS truck runs you over while rushing to the next delivery, you go after UPS, not the individual.

Also: think deep pockets.

But Trump's campaign is flat broke and so is Trump. At least that's what the liberals tell us.

 

[reinoe]

"...Director pulled a gun on him and senior campaign officials refused to do anything about it..."

Why didn't he kick the living **** out of the director guy? Or, even better...uh...call the cops.

Because it's a bogus and frivolous lawsuit.

 

[JasperL]

Generally if someone pulls a gun on you, you call the cops.

It's an option, but if you're a loyal Trump soldier and don't want to bring this kind of bad publicity onto the campaign, maybe you try to work it out internally.

And also, generally if one of your employees pulls a gun for no reason on another employee, you FIRE the gun toting lunatic on the spot, instead of risking letting a deranged person supervise an entire state operation. I seem to recall Trump has some experience with that - "You're FIRED!" But, hey, let's keep shifting the blame to the victim here! :roll:

 

[JasperL]

Because it's a bogus and frivolous lawsuit.

What's bogus about it? And I wouldn't call letting a gun toting lunatic supervise ANYONE a "frivolous" decision.

 

[Mr Person]

But Trump's campaign is flat broke and so is Trump. At least that's what the liberals tell us.

I could swear I read an article this morning about Trump raising tens of millions last month...

 

[Mr Person]

Because it's a bogus and frivolous lawsuit.

Yeah, ok counselor:


In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. In Criminal Law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_(tort)



It's a basis for both criminal charges and civil suit.

 

[Taylor]

WTF? YOU were the one suggesting someone should be sued.

You asked why he was suing the campaign "and not the guy who allegedly pulled the gun on him." The question necessarily implies that you expect someone to be sued. I answered that question. Your response makes no sense.

Where did I suggest someone be sued? All I did was pose a rhetorical question about why he was suing the campaign, which doesn't "necessarily imply" any expectation on my part that he should sue somebody.

Yes, he could have sued the guy, or he could have called the cops (which is what I think most people would have done) - but he chose to sue the campaign. I already $tated why I think he cho$e the latter.

 

[Taylor]

It's an option, but if you're a loyal Trump soldier and don't want to bring this kind of bad publicity onto the campaign, maybe you try to work it out internally.

Seems like kind of a big thing to cover up to save the campaign from dealing with what's a fairly minor publicity concern. I don't buy it.

And also, generally if one of your employees pulls a gun for no reason on another employee, you FIRE the gun toting lunatic on the spot, instead of risking letting a deranged person supervise an entire state operation.

That's what I would do. Has the guy admitted to pulling the gun?

 

[danarhea]

Seems like kind of a big thing to cover up to save the campaign from dealing with what's a fairly minor publicity concern. I don't buy it.


That's what I would do. Has the guy admitted to pulling the gun?

Since he is only one of 5 people that got the gun pulled on hm in recent months, I think there is enough to warrant a civil trial at the very least.

 

[JasperL]

Seems like kind of a big thing to cover up to save the campaign from dealing with what's a fairly minor publicity concern. I don't buy it.

What's your alternative theory? He's a liar, complained to his regional, state then national directors, knowing they'd ignore it so he could file a lawsuit and embarrass the campaign because he's a Hillary plant? :roll:

That's what I would do. Has the guy admitted to pulling the gun?

Of course, which is what the Trump campaign did NOT do, which is of course the problem, not that this guy didn't behave exactly as you imagine you might in his shoes.

And I don't know if he's admitted to anything, but only if he's a complete idiot would he do so in public, since he's being sued. We do know the campaign finally fired him after the lawsuit was filed, so they must think there is some merit to the case.

 

[JasperL]

Where did I suggest someone be sued? All I did was pose a rhetorical question about why he was suing the campaign, which doesn't "necessarily imply" any expectation on my part that he should sue somebody.

Yes, he could have sued the guy, or he could have called the cops (which is what I think most people would have done) - but he chose to sue the campaign. I already $tated why I think he cho$e the latter.

He did sue the guy AND the campaign. Read the article - it's right there at the top of the page.

And one reason to sue the campaign is they failed to address an alleged dangerous lunatic in the workplace, so if his story is true, the campaign itself is at fault, and would be at least potentially liable.

 

[justabubba]

and bullies. It is his M.O. No casino's in Atlantic city did as bad as his as a result.

Donald Trump’s business disaster is worse than you think - MarketWatch

EVERY tRump supporter needs to read that linked story

 

[Taylor]

Since he is only one of 5 people that got the gun pulled on hm in recent months, I think there is enough to warrant a civil trial at the very least.

But why have none of the other alleged victims have joined in the suit?

I think there is enough to warrant a civil trial at the very least.

If they can prove that this had happened before, and that the appropriate people within the campaign knew about it but ignored it, then yes, he has a decent case. But there's a lot that just doesn't smell right with what we know so far.

 

[Taylor]

And one reason to sue the campaign is they failed to address an alleged dangerous lunatic in the workplace, so if his story is true, the campaign itself is at fault, and would be at least potentially liable.

Well, sure. The alleged action is an intentional tort; to bring a decent case against the campaign he needs to show that either pulling a gun on people is part of the guy's job duties, or that the campaign was negligent in its decision to hire/retain an employee known to be dangerous.

 

[Taylor]

What's your alternative theory?

Don't have one. I just have a hard time believing that the guy was so disturbed and distraught that he moved his family to a secret/secure location, but didn't call the cops because that might trouble the campaign with having to deal with a minor issue.

Of course, which is what the Trump campaign did NOT do, which is of course the problem

Of course, we don't know what the campaign did or didn't do, or what information they were or weren't given, or whether there's any truth to these allegations whatsoever. We don't even have an initial response from the defendants, yet.

 

[iguanaman]

EVERY tRump supporter needs to read that linked story

You mean the stuff like this....

A review of the company’s public filings show that over that period, while his ordinary investors were getting hosed, Trump himself was siphoning millions out of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts through salary, “bonuses” — yes, really — and cozy “service agreements” or side deals with his private corporations.

Check out the relevant page from the 2003 public filing, for example:

SEC/SECinfo.com
Detail from Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts 2003 proxy statement showing Trump's salary and "other compensation."
In total, Donald Trump pocketed $32 million over nine years, while his public stockholders lost more than $100 million.

Follow the money. It really isn’t that complex.

Now his supporters want to put him in charge of the federal government. They actually hope he will do for America what he’s already done for his business.

Heaven help us all.

I'm afraid his diehard supporters don't care that he is a con man. In fact that is what appeals to them. You know what P.T. Barnum said.....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketwatch.com%2Fstory%2Fits-worse-than-you-think-trumps-business-disaster-2016-03-04

 

[JasperL]

Well, sure. The alleged action is an intentional tort; to bring a decent case against the campaign he needs to show that either pulling a gun on people is part of the guy's job duties, or that the campaign was negligent in its decision to hire/retain an employee known to be dangerous.

Right, what I said.

 

[JasperL]

Don't have one. I just have a hard time believing that the guy was so disturbed and distraught that he moved his family to a secret/secure location, but didn't call the cops because that might trouble the campaign with having to deal with a minor issue.

What are the cops going to do? It's a he said/he said story, no witnesses in the car at the time. Obviously there are lots of reasons why people don't always call the cops, and being loyal to Trump is just one of them. He said he wanted a career in politics, working for Trump through November is good experience, he might fear not being believed, or that his superiors wouldn't back him, damaging future prospects in politics, he had a pregnant wife and wanted to keep the job, etc. The same reasons (essentially) that women don't always report sexual harassment or even rape, except here the guy is allegedly deranged, and armed and dangerous, so in addition to all that a fear for his life and that of his pregnant wife.

Of course, we don't know what the campaign did or didn't do, or what information they were or weren't given, or whether there's any truth to these allegations whatsoever. We don't even have an initial response from the defendants, yet.

LOL, we don't know the facts, so of cour$e initially you imply he'$ only $uing for the money, and not because he's got a legitimate complaint against the campaign or the guy....

 

[JANFU]

"...Director pulled a gun on him and senior campaign officials refused to do anything about it..."

Why didn't he kick the living **** out of the director guy? Or, even better...uh...call the cops.

Ahem- he had a gun pointed at him. Guess you missed that tidbit.

 

[j-mac]

I just love how everyone is just so damned quick to believe any damned thing that is negative about Trump, especially in this day and age of media....I think I'll wait on this one....

 

[Taylor]

Right, what I said.

Hence the "Well, sure."