LawDawg: A thought based upon some posts made in older forums recently… have you thought about moving to a more traditional message board format? With a front page for news and then a vBulletin format behind it for discussions?
Eh, it can already go down that road under the current format. In fact, it has, and LD has been pretty darn good about reigning it in. A bulletin-board would at least bring new posts to the forefront and to readers' attention. The bad aspects is that: 1) under the current format old discussions quickly fade away as new news is posted, and 2) implementation costs.
How about a Las Vegas Law subreddit with a LawDawg and maybe a few other mods who could aggregate news/make posts regularly and then let the community participate, with its commentary and own posts? The mods could set up rules for the community to help reign in defamation, brigading, doxing, etc.
In theory, the best content would rise to the top through reddit's upvote/downvote system, and users could sort the results by "new", "hot", etc.
Reddit is far from perfect, but it may improve the experience for readers who frequent this blog.
@3:08, yeah and while I agree that having to sign up on reddit would be an obstacle to some people participating, I think most folks would quickly become accustomed to using throwaway accounts from time to time, just as much of the rest of reddit functions. For me personally, I wouldn't mind having a Las Vegas Law sub and easily checking it regularly along with the other subs I subscribe to. For me, that convenience would likely result in me checking in much more frequently than I visit this blog. I just prefer the reddit platform, even with the trade offs.
Very cool idea. I’m an avid Redditer myself and will read and participate in your sub, but y’all need to de-link to this blog. We can’t have something we don’t control, bringing us potential liability, as demonstrated by your second post.
As for all the questions surrounding the outdoor concert itself, and the security measures imposed, it appears to me the plaintiff's attorneys are going down a path wherein they may, in the public eye, be making liability very difficult for themselves to establish.
They are basically saying, gee whiz, there are so many interesting potential security questions, and it will take massive discovery to determine if the hotel is liable under any of these theories, or any other theories which come to light later.
That is certainly valid, and is, arguably, the responsible decision to take as far as how the case and discovery proceeds. But when offering comments to the media, attorneys ,IMO, need to be a lot more forceful.
After all, this tragedy is quite unique in our valley, most believe it was not reasonably forseeable, and jurors are often very resistant to view a casino as the "bad guy" because gaming is our life blood, many jurors may be employed by gaming or have family members employed, or some other connection to gaming.
So, the lawyers should pick two or three supposed faulty security matters to get righteously indignant about for the press. They can always change their theories later. The public will not really remember if they change their theories later, or what their original theories were that were presented to the press and public, they will only remember that at all times the attorneys were extremely concerned with what they believed to be serious security problems and the attorneys were convinced there was a breach.
Just because it is a large, difficult manner does not justify taking a "golly, we don't know" type of approach. On a car accident case an attorney wouldn't say we will conduct discovery to try to determine if there is a theory of liability and whether defendant breached a duty owed. From the get go it would be that defendant is at fault and crashed into my client. In crim. matters the D.A. doesn't decide to prosecute someone and then tell the press we will research this matter extensively to see if there are theories which can be developed to hold someone responsible for this taking of life, and then try to determine if Defendant's conduct can be inserted into any of these theories. No. They say we believe we have the right guy–the actual murderer.
Again, what the attorneys here are saying appears very true, very valid, and how the case and discovery will proceed because, yes, we really don't know the answers. But in this case, and how massively covered it will be, a lot of potential jurors will lean one way or the other long before they are selected to serve.The Plaintiff's attorneys should not want those potential jurors exposed for months to a very strong narrative form the casino that there is no duty breached, but we care immensely and are establishing victim funds, etc(and yes, they will ultimately decide to establish some sort of mechanism to provide some limited payments to concert goers. After they are aggressively advised not to do so because that may be construed as conceding liability, they will in fact implement something, even if it is quite limited, that they can use for P.R. purposes to show how much they(supposedly care).
And how will the plaintiff's attorneys be countering this narrative? Apparently,by saying that it is all so complex and we really don't know–it will take many months to sort through all of it, so we will see–or not. Jurors generally are loath to find liability if Plaintiff's counsel concede the liability issue is really complex and it took us a few years to fashion a couple possibly viable theories.
The attorneys are in a tough position because it would not look too responsible to forcefully advance a theory of liability, in a public forum, that they later abandon or cannot effectively advance.
That said, I agree with your general point that the more informed jurors, who have regularly paid attention to the news prior to their selection, may be less likely to find liability if it is clear that it took lawyers years of preparation and research to arrive at theories they will advance.
The jurors will want to be convinced, before they award huge sums of money, that liability is clear and glaring, and that security lapses should have been clear to the MGM from the inception. It is awfully hard to sell that position, that glaring security lapses should have been clear at the time the event was arranged, if it takes attorneys a few years of discovery, research, and retention of experts before Plaintiff's can even amplify with any specificity what those supposed defects are.
True. But the progress of this case, and any theories of negligence, will be very heavily covered by the press, just like they are with most mass tort litigation–particularly something so incredibly unique and one-of-a kind like this that affects our community, and entertainment industry, in such a profound and visceral manner.
Many people were killed. Many others who survive were shot. This, in conjunction with the type of outdoor event it was(and many people in Vegas attend such events,impacts most people. Most people attend outdoor events in Vegas. Add the other huge factors, like how it ignites debates about gun violence, and many people who ordinarily don't pay much attention to the news will be well aware of all important developments.
Additionally, the tentacles extend even further. People are wondering if in order to thwart matters like this if metal detectors will now be installed in casinos(unlikely, but it just goes to show how far ranging the issues are).
So, I tend to agree with posters who believe the attorneys should publicly be somewhat more definitive about some of the theories of negligence, even this early on. The narrative seems to be along the lines of let's all study the questions to see how things can be improved. If ways that it can be improved are not yet apparent, not yet widely agreed on, and need to be studied for years, it becomes very difficult for some entity to be found negligent. It is hard to fail to meet a standard of care that no one else in the industry abides by, or is even aware of. And this is made even more difficult when those standards can't even be well-articulated at this time, and there are no theories that yet have wide-support.
So, although the attorneys are afraid of appearing that they exploiting this tragedy, that ship has already sailed. Since people already tend to think the attorneys are exploiting the tragedy and are just out for money and recognition, they may as well try to get some traction, and perhaps move some public opinion in their favor, by acting upset at certain(supposed) perceived short comings in security that they believe contributed to the accident.
Instead, when they take the ludicrous position that they are not primarily motivated out of finances and professional recognition, but instead are supposedly motivated out of sincere desire to improve security and get answers, they end up accomplishing the seemingly impossible–insulting the intelligence of the average Clark County resident.
Guest
Anonymous
November 20, 2017 7:20 pm
Did Jeffrey Rugg die? I saw some facebook posts and an obituary website (with no detail). Seems unreal. The guy was super young.
Somebody walked Rugg around my office when he was running for judge. Seemed like a smart, likable guy. I don't know the details, but the obit says in lieu of flowers to donate to the american brain tumor association. Very sad.
I only met him once. Nice enough for the one visit. On Thanksgiving week, I am grateful this is not my family. Be nice to people this week. We can all go back to being assholes next week. But for one week (or 3 days), try to just keep it professional.
Judge Jerry Wiese, who handily fended off the challenge
I recall a lot of talk at the time that Rugg was encouraged to run by a union(I forgot which one) which was displeased with the judge's rulings concerning a case involving said union.
At any rate, very tragic. A life ended several decades too soon.
As one poster stated–a very stressful profession. Many attorneys insist the profession ages us all at least 15 years.
And yet no matter how much we spent before there was a wall and before there were tax cuts, cancer did not get cured, the hungry remained hungry and all compassion has made dents but not delivered. I am opposing the wall but must say that the question of whether cancer gets cured is not going to be solved by whether the wall gets built.
Guest
Anonymous
November 20, 2017 10:16 pm
The Supreme Court suspended Jacob Hafter for six months. Finally …
Guest
Anonymous
November 21, 2017 1:46 am
Other than piss off the Johnsons, what did Hafter do to anybody other than be annoying? He is not a dumb man.
Have you read it? According to the order, he lied, under oath, about ownership of his law practice claiming a trust owned his law practice (which is not allowed in Nevada), and that he had no income (which of course was untrue.) Presuming those statements are correct, an attorney lying under oath is a serious problem.
LawDawg: A thought based upon some posts made in older forums recently… have you thought about moving to a more traditional message board format? With a front page for news and then a vBulletin format behind it for discussions?
Sounds like chaos and a lot of work for LawDawg. FWIW, I think this is a terrible idea that will descend quickly into meangirls defamation.
9:28 here.
Eh, it can already go down that road under the current format. In fact, it has, and LD has been pretty darn good about reigning it in. A bulletin-board would at least bring new posts to the forefront and to readers' attention. The bad aspects is that: 1) under the current format old discussions quickly fade away as new news is posted, and 2) implementation costs.
How about a Las Vegas Law subreddit with a LawDawg and maybe a few other mods who could aggregate news/make posts regularly and then let the community participate, with its commentary and own posts? The mods could set up rules for the community to help reign in defamation, brigading, doxing, etc.
In theory, the best content would rise to the top through reddit's upvote/downvote system, and users could sort the results by "new", "hot", etc.
Reddit is far from perfect, but it may improve the experience for readers who frequent this blog.
I like the idea of a subreddit. except people would lose some anonymity because they would have to be redditors to post.
But then I wouldn't be able to grin at the visitor counter, knowing that easily 25,000 of those visits have been mine.
I'm not sure this blog could survive at reddit. would probably lose most of the readers.
@3:08, yeah and while I agree that having to sign up on reddit would be an obstacle to some people participating, I think most folks would quickly become accustomed to using throwaway accounts from time to time, just as much of the rest of reddit functions. For me personally, I wouldn't mind having a Las Vegas Law sub and easily checking it regularly along with the other subs I subscribe to. For me, that convenience would likely result in me checking in much more frequently than I visit this blog. I just prefer the reddit platform, even with the trade offs.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Very cool idea. I’m an avid Redditer myself and will read and participate in your sub, but y’all need to de-link to this blog. We can’t have something we don’t control, bringing us potential liability, as demonstrated by your second post.
lol, baby
As for all the questions surrounding the outdoor concert itself, and the security measures imposed, it appears to me the plaintiff's attorneys are going down a path wherein they may, in the public eye, be making liability very difficult for themselves to establish.
They are basically saying, gee whiz, there are so many interesting potential security questions, and it will take massive discovery to determine if the hotel is liable under any of these theories, or any other theories which come to light later.
That is certainly valid, and is, arguably, the responsible decision to take as far as how the case and discovery proceeds. But when offering comments to the media, attorneys ,IMO, need to be a lot more forceful.
After all, this tragedy is quite unique in our valley, most believe it was not reasonably forseeable, and jurors are often very resistant to view a casino as the "bad guy" because gaming is our life blood, many jurors may be employed by gaming or have family members employed, or some other connection to gaming.
So, the lawyers should pick two or three supposed faulty security matters to get righteously indignant about for the press. They can always change their theories later. The public will not really remember if they change their theories later, or what their original theories were that were presented to the press and public, they will only remember that at all times the attorneys were extremely concerned with what they believed to be serious security problems and the attorneys were convinced there was a breach.
Just because it is a large, difficult manner does not justify taking a "golly, we don't know" type of approach. On a car accident case an attorney wouldn't say we will conduct discovery to try to determine if there is a theory of liability and whether defendant breached a duty owed. From the get go it would be that defendant is at fault and crashed into my client. In crim. matters the D.A. doesn't decide to prosecute someone and then tell the press we will research this matter extensively to see if there are theories which can be developed to hold someone responsible for this taking of life, and then try to determine if Defendant's conduct can be inserted into any of these theories. No. They say we believe we have the right guy–the actual murderer.
Again, what the attorneys here are saying appears very true, very valid, and how the case and discovery will proceed because, yes, we really don't know the answers. But in this case, and how massively covered it will be, a lot of potential jurors will lean one way or the other long before they are selected to serve.The Plaintiff's attorneys should not want those potential jurors exposed for months to a very strong narrative form the casino that there is no duty breached, but we care immensely and are establishing victim funds, etc(and yes, they will ultimately decide to establish some sort of mechanism to provide some limited payments to concert goers. After they are aggressively advised not to do so because that may be construed as conceding liability, they will in fact implement something, even if it is quite limited, that they can use for P.R. purposes to show how much they(supposedly care).
And how will the plaintiff's attorneys be countering this narrative? Apparently,by saying that it is all so complex and we really don't know–it will take many months to sort through all of it, so we will see–or not. Jurors generally are loath to find liability if Plaintiff's counsel concede the liability issue is really complex and it took us a few years to fashion a couple possibly viable theories.
The attorneys are in a tough position because it would not look too responsible to forcefully advance a theory of liability, in a public forum, that they later abandon or cannot effectively advance.
That said, I agree with your general point that the more informed jurors, who have regularly paid attention to the news prior to their selection, may be less likely to find liability if it is clear that it took lawyers years of preparation and research to arrive at theories they will advance.
The jurors will want to be convinced, before they award huge sums of money, that liability is clear and glaring, and that security lapses should have been clear to the MGM from the inception. It is awfully hard to sell that position, that glaring security lapses should have been clear at the time the event was arranged, if it takes attorneys a few years of discovery, research, and retention of experts before Plaintiff's can even amplify with any specificity what those supposed defects are.
You substantially overestimate the intellect and depth of jurors who will be able to sit through a trial of this duration.
True. But the progress of this case, and any theories of negligence, will be very heavily covered by the press, just like they are with most mass tort litigation–particularly something so incredibly unique and one-of-a kind like this that affects our community, and entertainment industry, in such a profound and visceral manner.
Many people were killed. Many others who survive were shot. This, in conjunction with the type of outdoor event it was(and many people in Vegas attend such events,impacts most people. Most people attend outdoor events in Vegas. Add the other huge factors, like how it ignites debates about gun violence, and many people who ordinarily don't pay much attention to the news will be well aware of all important developments.
Additionally, the tentacles extend even further. People are wondering if in order to thwart matters like this if metal detectors will now be installed in casinos(unlikely, but it just goes to show how far ranging the issues are).
So, I tend to agree with posters who believe the attorneys should publicly be somewhat more definitive about some of the theories of negligence, even this early on. The narrative seems to be along the lines of let's all study the questions to see how things can be improved. If ways that it can be improved are not yet apparent, not yet widely agreed on, and need to be studied for years, it becomes very difficult for some entity to be found negligent. It is hard to fail to meet a standard of care that no one else in the industry abides by, or is even aware of. And this is made even more difficult when those standards can't even be well-articulated at this time, and there are no theories that yet have wide-support.
So, although the attorneys are afraid of appearing that they exploiting this tragedy, that ship has already sailed. Since people already tend to think the attorneys are exploiting the tragedy and are just out for money and recognition, they may as well try to get some traction, and perhaps move some public opinion in their favor, by acting upset at certain(supposed) perceived short comings in security that they believe contributed to the accident.
Instead, when they take the ludicrous position that they are not primarily motivated out of finances and professional recognition, but instead are supposedly motivated out of sincere desire to improve security and get answers, they end up accomplishing the seemingly impossible–insulting the intelligence of the average Clark County resident.
Did Jeffrey Rugg die? I saw some facebook posts and an obituary website (with no detail). Seems unreal. The guy was super young.
It looks like it. Here's his obit: https://kraftsussman.com/tribute/details/1511/Jeffrey-Rugg/obituary.html
That is awful. Life is too short. Thoughts and prayers for his family.
Wow. I only spoke to him a few times. Seemed like a smart, nice guy. Shocked that he died so young.
Somebody walked Rugg around my office when he was running for judge. Seemed like a smart, likable guy. I don't know the details, but the obit says in lieu of flowers to donate to the american brain tumor association. Very sad.
I only met him once. Nice enough for the one visit. On Thanksgiving week, I am grateful this is not my family. Be nice to people this week. We can all go back to being assholes next week. But for one week (or 3 days), try to just keep it professional.
Who did Rugg run against?
Judge Jerry Wiese, who handily fended off the challenge
I recall a lot of talk at the time that Rugg was encouraged to run by a union(I forgot which one) which was displeased with the judge's rulings concerning a case involving said union.
At any rate, very tragic. A life ended several decades too soon.
As one poster stated–a very stressful profession. Many attorneys insist the profession ages us all at least 15 years.
This is so sad. I had a case against Jeff. He was aggressive in his representation of his client yet very professional and kind. So sad.
Hopefully not. This is a stressful profession.
We don't need a fucking wall. We don't need tax cuts for wealthy.
We need to cure cancer, feed the hungry and be compassionate.
Some of us donate time and money to good causes and have compassion without the government telling us where our money should go.
And yet no matter how much we spent before there was a wall and before there were tax cuts, cancer did not get cured, the hungry remained hungry and all compassion has made dents but not delivered. I am opposing the wall but must say that the question of whether cancer gets cured is not going to be solved by whether the wall gets built.
The Supreme Court suspended Jacob Hafter for six months. Finally …
Other than piss off the Johnsons, what did Hafter do to anybody other than be annoying? He is not a dumb man.
I thought it was Vega that he went after.
Have you read it? According to the order, he lied, under oath, about ownership of his law practice claiming a trust owned his law practice (which is not allowed in Nevada), and that he had no income (which of course was untrue.) Presuming those statements are correct, an attorney lying under oath is a serious problem.
Are judges allowed to ignore perjury?
I would think that they are not allowed to ignore it. Attorneys have to notify the court if there client is lying.