Largent80":3s6benql said:
NINEster":3s6benql said:
Would you be so quick to make this judgment if it was Lynch or Sherman (Mr. Compton) who was involved in this incident?
Hey jackass. Sherman went to Stanford. What an ultramaroon you are.
And Lynch went to Cal and was a 4.0 student.
For anyone who cares, here is Smith's answer to the complaint:
http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/S ... 820202.pdf
Allow me to explain a bit of what is being alleged here (None of the below should reflect what i think actually happened, just an explanation of allegations and response by Smith):
Remember, the Plntf is suing everyone who was involved in or escalated the exchange of gunfire leading to the alleged injuries, not just Walker and Smith. The difference is that the Plntf knows the identities of Walker and Smith. Should the identities of Doe(s) 1-100 become known, you can expect the complaint to be amended and their true names substituted. This would need to occur through written interrogatory responses from Smith and Walker, or deposition testimony from them or other witnesses who are not alleged to have escalated the situation. Interrogatories are written questions to the other party in a lawsuit that they must answer under oath.
From reading the Answer, Smith isn't saying the Plntf accepted that he might get shot by simply going to the party. Hes saying if the Plntf had reason to believe he may come to harm by being at the party (Like seeing Smith shooting a gun off a balcony), and made no effort to leave, he can't really be surprised if he was caught in gunfire 5 mins later.
In Item 20 of the complaint it says Walker was shooting the gun of the balcony.
Item 21 of the complaint says Walker then went to the driveway and shot in the air again.
Item 22 says that the people across the street (Does 1-100, also being sued) returned fire.
You can infer from the above that a measurable amount of time must have passed (Even if it's a minute) from Walker being on the balcony, to Walker being in the driveway to shots being returned by Does 1-100.
What Smith is saying is "If you saw me shooting a gun off a balcony, why didn't you attempt to get to safety?" Smith couldn't use this defense if the Plntf was struck by a bullet from the balcony. He still had a reasonable expectation of safety. What is key here is the time lapse from the first shots being fired, to the time that a bullet struck the Plntf.
In answering this complaint, Smith needs to lay out every the foundation of every possible defense he may present. He isn't stating what actually happened, hes laying out the factual defense of his liability or responsibility to the facts as presented by Plntf.
A very simple analogy. You're at a bar and a fight breaks out.
Scenario 1: You immediately get caught in the ruckus and fall to the ground and injure yourself. You didn't really have an opportunity to remove yourself from the situation. Pretty clear it's the fighters fault you got hurt.
Scenario 2: The fight isn't near you but goes on for 30 seconds and you're near the door. Instead of leaving, you stay, watch, maybe bust out your phone to get a youtube moment. The fight eventually crashes into you and you get hurt. You can't really claim that you had an expectation of safety. You chose to stay in an unsafe situation.
Smith's answer to the complaint is closer to Scenario 2 in this situation from what i see in the court documents.
Feel free to make up your own minds, but i hope i was able to clarify the allegations.