Owners of the iconic “Town Talk Diner” at Lake and MInnehaha in Minneapolis – which was turned into the “Town Talk Pile of Rubble” during the Floyd Riots – are sueing the City of Minneapolis for failing to protect…
…well, much of anyone or anything – notwithstanding it being one of the city’s only unambiguously legitimate jobs.
I’m not gonna do a pullquote – just read it.
And list for me in the comments:
- How the city will respond
- Why a “progressive” appointee will throw the case out. .
I was tempted to say “wrong answers only”, like all the kids are doing on social media these days.
But I figure even the right answers will test credulity these days.
Go to it.
1. The city will not respond, and a “progressive” appointee will throw the case out.
I did it all in one sentence.
The city will respond.
The reprobate judge will throw it out on a technicality. Allowing it to move forward will expose the fecklessness of the government when it comes to fulfilling the duties it actually exists to fulfill.
I assume the owners are white, so it’s a small chance, but there’s still a chance a jury will find in favor of the plaintiff, which leaves the city and state open to paying reparations to everyone that paid the price for that fecklessness.
The attorney for Minneapolis will adroitly point the finger at . . .UMBRELLA MAN!!
Perhaps this law suit will be the key to bringing the devilish Umbrella Man to justice!
Weren’t you listening? We just covered this: public safety is a state responsibility.
Ryan Winkler will introduce legislation to have all the damaged businesses rebuilt at state expense, using public employee union labor.
I would think that the courts will pass on the suit because this is an issue that is best addressed using the polls and not the judiciary.
Businesses should have known that Frey would not protect businesses from rioters & not invested in a future in Minneapolis.
I think a class action on the part of all Lake Street businesses in federal court against the Trump administration would get heard!
MO, although I’ve never met him, I’m acquainted with the guy who was fingered as “Umbrella man’s” friends. The fact he could prove his whereabouts beyond question aside, the cops never believed he was the umbrella man; it’s just not the kind of thing those guys do and the cops know it.
But the cops believed they could make use of the heat, so they never publicly let him off the hook. As per usual; 99% of what the fake media printed about that guy was complete and utter bullshit, including the “incident” in Stillwater, which, since no one ever said a word to that slag, he wasn’t even aware was an “incident” until it became a fake news story.
You’ll never hear about the “umbrella man” again; the reprobates have squeezed that lie dry.
How will the city respond? Same way the DFL politburo did to election theft– “no evidence that it ever happened.” Therefore there is no basis for the lawsuit. You cannot prove that your business was damaged. And you should have filed suit before the damage occurred.
Based on the comments so far, I think that we all agree that the Town Talk Diner is shit out of luck.
If…the suit isn’t tossed by a sympathetic judge, and if….other businesses file similar suits, the city will settle rather than be tied up in litigation, knowing that if a hair on the head of a single rioter in the previously scheduled peaceful protests beginning next month is harmed, there will be more lawsuits from the “community.”
Swiftee sits down to craft a serious comment at Shot in the Dark: “Say guys, I’m actually friends with the Aryan Cowboys, I know what’s actually going on with all that…”
JK appears and misquotes an earlier comment by someone else.
Carry on!
John Krapinthepants says …
Hey, JK, how many of the people killed in the January 6th riots were beaten to death with a fire extinguisher? You used to have a firm opinion on this topic.
^MO. I take it the best answer no know is none. Whats your point
John, here’s a pro tip: you want to get along better with Mitch so you can continue to post here? Answer the questions Mitch posed in his column.
How will the City respond to the lawsuit?
Why will a Progressive Judge throw the lawsuit out?
Joe, if you haven’t noticed, it takes A LOT to get Mitch to administrate his blog. I’m well within the 40 yard lines of discourse. I’m not worried. And, I wouldn’t care.
That sort of liability claim is fairly post modern. Its a spitball shot by a slip and fall lawyer. The reason its going to get thrown out is there isn’t any precedence for that sort of claim sticking against governments. You know this. It’s not going to take a prog judge to throw it out. It will get thrown out by a very conventional judge.
I wish the plaintiffs well, and legally, I’d argue they’ve got a good case because the requirement for police protection is, well, law. So if the mayor tells the police to stand down….well, yes, that would be actionable, and it arguably happened.
The cost is also pretty straightforward–billions of dollars of property damage and a surge in COVID infection and death rates. Yes, the governor ought to be a defendant as well.
What bugs me is why Frey allowed the far-right white supremacists to riot, loot and burn down swathes on Minneapolis last summer.
It only makes sense if . . . Frey is a white supremacist himself!
I am onto something here. Can Frey say that he has never worn Klan robes! Well of course he will deny it! Just like a guilty man would! Has Frey ever denounced David Duke? Or Hitler? Has any one ever heard Frey say “I am not a Nazi”?
Frey Grew up in Virginia, a confederate state and the birth place of arch-traitor Robert E. Lee. Really, the truth is right there when you have eyes to see it.
^ It’s not the law, or rather a proper understanding of the law. This kind of lawsuit claim has been made before and dismissed with the argument [I paraphrase] that the police aren’t actually burdened with a responsibility to prevent crime such that you have a claim if they don’t prevent it.
I’m not a lawyer. I am very well read, and I paraphrase generally. It’s my sense that people who are highly informed in the details of say concealed carry have had some overviews in this principle (…Mitch).
So the downstream conclusion is right, basically. The lawsuit will get dismissed.
But Mitch doesn’t have the reason right. The reason he chooses is a product of righty paranoia and conspiracy theory thinking.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
So, we get to a point where this gets dismissed and you think its a prog judge who did it…
That isn’t part of the equation. This is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Precedent.
Am I right Lawyer Joe?
So Mitch, I’ve said you’re right in your conclusion in a very general way, but wrong in your reasoning, and I’ve pulled the casework. And you are familiar with it as an artifact of concealed carry culture, that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
What’s your rebuttal. Are you still right?
Joe, if you haven’t noticed, it takes A LOT to get Mitch to administrate his blog.
In a sense, you’re right. I do 90% of the writing and “administrating” between 5-6:30 AM, and I always have. My day job is pretty busy, so I don’t spend a lot of time riding herd on the comment section, and I rarely look into things after dinner…
…and for most of the past fifteen years, that’s been OK, since the very few people that tried to take advantage of it either crossed “the line” pretty quickly and got expunged (probably 4-5 examples) or got bored with being pummeled by smarter people and left.
I’m well within the 40 yard lines of discourse.
Your “discourse?” Perhaps.
Admitting publicly that you see the “weakness” in my approach? That I’m not a paranoid, insecure Sally Jo Sorenson type character who curates my comment section for my own ideological comfort like I’m raising a bonsai tree?
Doesn’t exactly fill my heart with charity.
The Emery twins take their liberties with topicality, and I’ve administered some consequences, in the light, deft manner I’ve chosen. Things are at a dull roar.
I like it when things stay that way.
I’ve said you’re right in your conclusion in a very general way, but wrong in your reasoning.
Just curious, JK – without going back to the top of the thread, what was my “conclusion” and “reasoning”?
… I know I’m not bored by getting pummeled by smarter people…
Mitch, you think a prog judge will throw out the claim because of their ideological instincts to protect government.
Where did I say that?
Actually – where did I say, telegraph, insinuate or think (in some form readable from a distance by you) any such thing?
Answer my question, and I’ll answer yours.
“Why a “progressive” appointee will throw the case out. .”
Where in that sentence fragment was a motivation ascribed, explicitly or implicitly? Other than the use of “progressive judge”, which is just a synonym for “any judge within 30 miles of Minneapolis?
Mitch, if you’re trolling your own readers…. I’ll kinda accept that answer.
That’s what I think you said, and that what they think. If it’s not what you meant, there’s a problem with the way you wrote it.
It’s implicit, Mitch. You’ve got an English BA do you not.
It’s implicit, Mitch. You’ve got an English BA do you not.
You’ve gotten the implication wrong.
Mitch, if you’re trolling your own readers…. I’ll kinda accept that answer.
Yet another interesting conclusion.
That’s what I think you said, and that what they think. If it’s not what you meant, there’s a problem with the way you wrote it.
I’ll put it somewhere on the “everyone’s a copy editor” pile.
Well then you must agree with my reasoning regarding precedence, although you didn’t feel it necessary to cover it in the body of your post. Though you did construct your post as a way of feeding red meat to your readership.
So you agree with what I added to your post?
Though you did construct your post as a way of feeding red meat to your readership.
Wait – what? A blogger feeding red meat to an audience, in a post that was pretty clearly an attempt to get feedback from the audience?
What manner of sorcery do you speak of?
So you agree with what I added to your post?
Your first round of comments was a reasonable response to my question. This would seem to be some uncharted territory in the law, and I suspect the machine will make use of that.
I’m not sure the Emery Collective (nor paddyboy) are smart enough to figure it out, but The JK Threadjack is a pretty interesting beast. Sort of stick to the topic as a vehicle to drive the whole conversation off the cliff talking about… JK. How JK doesn’t like or respect Joe Doakes. How JK doesn’t approve of Mitch’s blog administration. How JK doesn’t approve of Mitch’s posts. How JK doesn’t approve of the intellectual abilities of the commenters. How JK doesn’t approve of anything at SITD. And yet, here he is.
Am I right or not Mitch? Tell us someone has come up with a righter answer in your ‘feedback’
JDM,
Astute observations on every point.
Wait up, JK – you extruded inferences and implications from whole cloth regarding the question I was asking, but when I respond with an inference that I agreed with something you said, you want it in as many words?
Sorry, JK. You want praise from the boss, you gotta earn it.
Keep at it..
You lost this one, debate me guy. Tuck your tail
John, you are so intent on being ‘right’ that you miss the point of the post.
Everybody here knows the police have no duty to protect us. That’s one reason we’re strong supporters of the Second Amendment – to ensure continued access to tools we can use to protect ourselves.
But everybody also knows Democrats like Ryan Winkler proclaim public safety is the government’s responsibility. That’s one of the most oft-cited reasons for gun control: leave public safety to the professionals.
So the City can’t be sued for failing to protect citizens but the Democrats running the city can’t brag about that for public relations reasons. The Mayor can’t come out and say, “Hey everybody, move to Minneapolis, start a business here, raise a family; but just FYI, when I decide to abandon you to the rioting mob, you’re on your own and don’t you DARE use a gun to protect yourself.” Saying that would expose him as a fraud to be ridiculed and might harm his chances of re-election in Minneapolis or of seeking higher office.
So, how do the Democrats running the City spin their response to this lawsuit?
Joe if they respond the city attorney is going to cite Warren vs DC to say the city isn’t culpable, and then the judge is going to do the same in dismissing it.
What elected officials say performatively isn’t part of the equation. The media isn’t going to hold them accountable to make their statement harmonious with a court decision. Part of that is bias, part of it’s not.
folks whenever you read a John Kraephammer post let the words from this song provide the proper background music. Think of it as JK’s theme song:
I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and bright!
And I pity
Any girl who isn’t me tonight.
I feel charming,
Oh, so charming
It’s alarming how charming I feel!
And so pretty
That I hardly can believe I’m real…
It makes the whole experience complete. Of course JK is just begging Mitch to break into song in reply, maybe something like:
I just met a girl named Maria
And suddenly that name
Will never be the same
To me
Maria
John K., I asked:
“So, how do the Democrats running the City spin their response to this lawsuit?”
If I might translate your answer:
“They don’t bother. The law is on their side, the media will cover for them and the voters will pull the lever for them next time.”
At last, we agree.
Pig, now that made me laugh.
Joe your translation of my answer there isn’t anything I’d quibble with.
You must by now agree with my point prog judges have no bearing on anything.
That’s a hot button for me, John K. Let’s not start that discussion in the middle of this thread.
I’ll just mention the affirmative action requirements of Minn. Stat. 480B.01, Subd. 8 and ask you to consider the backgrounds of the last few dozen judges appointed by the Governor. That’ll give us plenty to discuss.