PDA

View Full Version : Pacman and NFL being sued by Urbanski


Moses
10-20-2007, 09:14 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3070590

Urbanski told reporters he holds the NFL responsible for his injuries because he believed they ignored Jones' previous run-ins with police.

"Even 'three strikes and you're out' and this wouldn't have happened to me," Urbanski said at a news conference with his schoolteacher wife.

You have to feel bad for this guy, but come on. How is it the NFL's fault that you were shot? Why are you suing Pacman, instead of the SHOOTER, for your injuries? Obviously a cash grab and I can't see him getting a dime.

remix 6
10-20-2007, 09:23 AM
not NFL's fault imo. hes saying that the NFL waited to see that the man would be paralyzed to be suspended so he was thinking "Pacman wont be suspended unless im hurt severly which is BS"

thats speculating on his part. sue Pacman..NFL doesnt have anything to do with Pacman's idiotic decisions to shoot up clubs.

nhlkdog411
10-20-2007, 09:52 AM
he has every right to sue pacman..first of all did they ever find the shooter? second of all pacman told urbanski that he was done and made a gesture across his throat.

TitanHope
10-20-2007, 02:12 PM
second of all pacman told urbanski that he was done and made a gesture across his throat.

Where did you hear this from?

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:15 PM
he has every right to sue pacman..first of all did they ever find the shooter? second of all pacman told urbanski that he was done and made a gesture across his throat.

a link would be nice.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:18 PM
he has every right to sue pacman..first of all did they ever find the shooter? second of all pacman told urbanski that he was done and made a gesture across his throat.

So since they can't find the shooter, Pacman should take the blame? That is idiotic. Also, don't post crap like this without having a credible source to back it up.

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:20 PM
So since they can't find the shooter, Pacman should take the blame? That is idiotic. Also, don't post crap like this without having a credible source to back it up.

the guy just wants to get rich the easy way, so he sues where the money is.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:22 PM
the guy just wants to get rich the easy way, so he sues where the money is.

Yup. Obviously a cash grab. Sues the NFL and the Titans, who have absolutely NOTHING to do with this at all. Would he be suing the post office if Pacman was a postal employee? Then he sues Pacman who wasn't the gun man whether he was involved in the initial melee or not. Unless they can prove Pacman ordered the shooting (which will mean Pacman will be in jail for a loooooong time anyway) this case is idiotic.

nhlkdog411
10-20-2007, 02:40 PM
it was all over the news that witnesses said pacman said it but here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2813615 talks about how the police recommend charging him with threatening someones life

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-22-Thu-2007/news/12741485.html

this also mentions the threat

and heres another that talks about it as well

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/titans/2007-02-21-jones-shooting_x.htm


I suppose I should have said allegedly but I don't really see any reason why I should believe Pacman's version of the story over the one given by Urbanski, the club co-owners and several witnesses

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:43 PM
it was all over the news that witnesses said pacman said it but here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2813615 talks about how the police recommend charging him with threatening someones life

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-22-Thu-2007/news/12741485.html

this also mentions the threat

and heres another that talks about it as well

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/titans/2007-02-21-jones-shooting_x.htm

So somebody said that Jones threatened somebody and that equates to proof that he should be liable for Urbanski's injuries?

zoinks
10-20-2007, 05:04 PM
Urbanski suing Jones is no surprise; anyone could see that coming from a mile away.

However, the fact that he included the NFL and the Titans turns the whole thing into a sham....as others have called it, a cash-grab. Moreover, it will almost certainly make this whole lawsuit a lost cause. A good attorney might have convinced a jury that Pacman had a role in Urbanski's injuries.....but there's no way on God's green earth anyone will believe for a minute that the NFL or the Titans organization could be held responible for this.

Maybe Urbanski's lawyers are going for a "mad dog" approach....suing a dog's owners for failing to properly restrain their animal. ;)

TitanHope
10-20-2007, 05:08 PM
I suppose I should have said allegedly but I don't really see any reason why I should believe Pacman's version of the story over the one given by Urbanski, the club co-owners and several witnesses.


No where in those links does it say, "second of all pacman told urbanski that he was done and made a gesture across his throat." Please don't make statements that you have no basis off of, especially when it comes to something as serious as this shooting. All of your links state something different. One says he pervents a security guard from getting involved in the fight. One says he threatens an unnamed guard. The other one says he threaten to kill Urbansky. You can make a fake quote and then say you have the right to believe other stories over PacMan's. So please tell me which of these three situations you believe, or would you like to create another unproven situation like you did with your quote?

ny10804
10-20-2007, 05:30 PM
All I know is that I would find it odd if someone told me they were gonna shoot me and then later in the night I was shot. Urbanski claims this, and the owner said Jones and the shooter were sitting together prior to the shooting. As for the comments on it being a cash grab, if you were shot and paralyzed below the waist, I'm sure you would be pretty angry and want to be properly compensated, if that is even possible.

The Unseen
10-20-2007, 06:16 PM
He has no case against the NFL, and not much of one against Pacman.

TitanHope
10-20-2007, 07:13 PM
All I know is that I would find it odd if someone told me they were gonna shoot me and then later in the night I was shot.

Again, did he say he was gonna shoot him when he threatened him?

Seriously, everyone needs to be quiet about this threat thing. If you don't know what was said for a fact and can provide a link to the quote from a witness, do not add fuel to the fire.

As for the lawsuit, it very well could stand to go to court but I don't think it will. His case is that if the NFL knew about PacMan's prior run ins with the law which he could have been suspended for, then they are liable for him since he wasn't suspended, an act that may have prevented him from throwing around his money wrecklessly. Another point they attempt to make is that the Titans drafted PacMan knowing he was a criminal and in addition didn't keep as tight of a leash on him so they should be punished. Neither of these hold very much water, but Urbanski's attorney will aim to take this in front of a jury. And hopefully they'll be able to get a favorable ruling due to the defendents being celebrity and large organizations who have a lot of money or because they sympathize with him. But I'm assuming that Pac's, Titan's, and NFL's attornies are much better than Urbanski's.

smittyjs
10-20-2007, 11:49 PM
it was all over the news that witnesses said pacman said it but here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2813615 talks about how the police recommend charging him with threatening someones life

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-22-Thu-2007/news/12741485.html

this also mentions the threat

and heres another that talks about it as well

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/titans/2007-02-21-jones-shooting_x.htm


I suppose I should have said allegedly but I don't really see any reason why I should believe Pacman's version of the story over the one given by Urbanski, the club co-owners and several witnesses
I really don't belive club owner after there interview with a local radio station, afte he claimed that pacman was rolling with trained ninja's, that bought a ? to my mind.

yourfavestoner
10-21-2007, 02:50 AM
This is idiotic on so many levels.
1. The NFL's new suspension happy personal conduct policy had not even been implemented at the time of the shooting.
2. An employer is not responsible for an employee's behavior outside of work.
3. The case is nothing more than "he said, she said" anyways.

None of us were there. None of us know what happened. Let the "justice" system figure it out.

LionSmack
10-21-2007, 09:56 AM
the guy just wants to get rich the easy way, so he sues where the money is.

Are you freaking kidding me? the guy is PARALYZED FOR LIFE. He's going to need a fortune's worth of medical care and equipment and he won't be able to work. Think his benefits as a strip club bouncer will take care of that?

If that were me, I'd hire the sleaziest lawyer in Las Vegas and tell him to sue everyone and everything. Just get me some money. Maybe the Titans or the NFL will settle out of court and kick down a few bucks out of that world-sized pile of cash they have.

You think he's going to get dime one out of the dude that shot him? No, that guy is obviously a thug piece of s*** with no resources, since his "profession" is being part of another thug piece of s***'s posse.

Fairness can go take a flying leap into a pig's ass. If I am that guy, it's not about getting rich. He's going to need to be rich to take care of his terrible injury for the rest of his life.


And Furthermore:
2. An employer is not responsible for an employee's behavior outside of work.
Have you never heard of a company getting sued because an employee caused a horrible drunk-driving accident and the company was shown to have known about his alcoholism and failed to address it? I've heard of that happening.

nhlkdog411
10-21-2007, 11:24 AM
I didn't actually mean what I said as a quote otherwise i probably would have put it in quotes, but fine, I screwed up there (I'm sure you look up everything you say for 100% accuracy though). Regardless, is there any meaningful difference between telling your people to smoke someone and telling them there done? the police recommended he be charged with threatening a life but you all assume you know so much more about it than they do? So if he did make a threat on Urbanski's life, and less than an hour later Urbanski is shot in the spine, I'm supposed to believe that that's coincidence? If he DID make a threat on Urbanski's life that shortly after was carried out (even if the man didn't die), why shouldn't Urbanksi be able to sue him and get money? The way the man made his money was as a security guard and mixed martial artist, I don't see him having much of a livelihood now that he is paralyzed.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-21-2007, 11:37 AM
I feel bad for the guy, and if I was him I'd do the same thing, but I still don't think he'll get anything or should get anything from pacman, the titans or the nfl unless he can prove that pacman made a threat on his life and told one of his thugs to take the shot. Which has yet to occur or pacman would be heading behind bars.

yourfavestoner
10-21-2007, 12:20 PM
Are you freaking kidding me? the guy is PARALYZED FOR LIFE. He's going to need a fortune's worth of medical care and equipment and he won't be able to work. Think his benefits as a strip club bouncer will take care of that?

If that were me, I'd hire the sleaziest lawyer in Las Vegas and tell him to sue everyone and everything. Just get me some money. Maybe the Titans or the NFL will settle out of court and kick down a few bucks out of that world-sized pile of cash they have.

You think he's going to get dime one out of the dude that shot him? No, that guy is obviously a thug piece of s*** with no resources, since his "profession" is being part of another thug piece of s***'s posse.

Fairness can go take a flying leap into a pig's ass. If I am that guy, it's not about getting rich. He's going to need to be rich to take care of his terrible injury for the rest of his life.


And Furthermore:

Have you never heard of a company getting sued because an employee caused a horrible drunk-driving accident and the company was shown to have known about his alcoholism and failed to address it? I've heard of that happening.

You're okay with that happening?

Jesus Christ, DOES NOBODY ******* BELIEVE IN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILIITY ANYMORE? Why is it the company's job to intervene if one of it's employees is an alcoholic unless it's affecting his job at the workplace?

TitanHope
10-21-2007, 01:19 PM
(I'm sure you look up everything you say for 100% accuracy though).

Actually, I do. But in most cases I just don't make the comment in the first place.

PacMan and the supposed shooter that no one can find (And because of thus I'm assuming no one really has a description about this man besides that he was black) were supposedly seen together by the club owner. PacMan was sitting in a larger group with 2 notable rappers, Nelly and Jermaine Dupree. The three men were "making it rain" and then all hell broke loose. Who said that the shooter couldn't have been from the other two's group?

All the evidence in this case is heresay.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-21-2007, 04:04 PM
You're okay with that happening?

Jesus Christ, DOES NOBODY ******* BELIEVE IN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILIITY ANYMORE? Why is it the company's job to intervene if one of it's employees is an alcoholic unless it's affecting his job at the workplace?

If people did do you think we'd see mcdonalds getting sued for not warning people that their hot coffee was hot.

Addict
10-21-2007, 05:56 PM
Are you freaking kidding me? the guy is PARALYZED FOR LIFE. He's going to need a fortune's worth of medical care and equipment and he won't be able to work. Think his benefits as a strip club bouncer will take care of that?

If that were me, I'd hire the sleaziest lawyer in Las Vegas and tell him to sue everyone and everything. Just get me some money. Maybe the Titans or the NFL will settle out of court and kick down a few bucks out of that world-sized pile of cash they have.

You think he's going to get dime one out of the dude that shot him? No, that guy is obviously a thug piece of s*** with no resources, since his "profession" is being part of another thug piece of s***'s posse.

Fairness can go take a flying leap into a pig's ass. If I am that guy, it's not about getting rich. He's going to need to be rich to take care of his terrible injury for the rest of his life.


And Furthermore:

Have you never heard of a company getting sued because an employee caused a horrible drunk-driving accident and the company was shown to have known about his alcoholism and failed to address it? I've heard of that happening.

it was a tragic event, sure.
it's terrible the guy got injured, sure.
paralyzed for life, that sucks, sure.
give up your dignity by performing a cheap cashgrab, not so much
sueing the NFL for something a player did while not on the pitch? that's wrong .

basically as everyone else said; you can't hold the NFL as a company responsible for Pacmans' actions as an employee of that company. What your story would mean is that if a company is responsible for every little thing their employees do, even off-duty (on-duty is a different story), would imply an enormous sacrifice in terms of personal privacy and freedom.

If such a rule was ever introduced companies would be forced to get their own little police officers to keep everyone in check, therethrough ruining their income (hey, cops don't work for free either) since they got to have people check on the people who check on people, andsoforth, vicious circle-type stuff. In the end companies would go bankrupt because the costs of checking on everyone they employ is going to be quite expensive after a while. As more and more companies go broke the economie suffers and inflation goes through the roof. Then the world explodes and we all die, thanks to your standpoint.

Maybe carrying it a bit too far there, but you catch my drift, right? People are responsible for their own actions unless they are told otherwise in writing. As far as I know Pacman doesn't have a contract with the NFL stating the NFL takes responsibility for Pacman wherever, wherever.

ks_perfection
10-21-2007, 09:08 PM
I don't blame the guy, I blame his lawyer. His lawyer probably suggested it and even if he didn't should have talked him out of it as theres no chance it will win.

LionSmack
10-21-2007, 09:27 PM
You're okay with that happening?

Jesus Christ, DOES NOBODY ******* BELIEVE IN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILIITY ANYMORE? Why is it the company's job to intervene if one of it's employees is an alcoholic unless it's affecting his job at the workplace?

I am making no comment on whether that's right or wrong. What I'm saying I have no problem with is the paralyzed guy trying anything he or his lawyer can think of to get the resources he's going to be in desperate need of. Personal responsibility and bla bla bla, that stuff can all get f***ed. Is it fair he's paralyzed for life? Hell no.

TitanHope
10-21-2007, 10:05 PM
Life isn't fair. It is unfortunate that the guy was paralyzed, but the NFL and Titans should not be liable. Saying they should because of this man's situation is moronic.

I broke my femur by slipping in a movie theater that was showing movies despite it being under renovation. There were no signs up, and I slipped and fell on the floor and broke my leg. I filed a neglegance case against the company since my medical bills were around $20,000. The break was along the growth plate on my knee, and now my left leg is 3 inches shorter than my right which requires me to where a specially lifted shoe. This was a few years ago, and I have yet to see a red cent. Is this fair to me? No. Does this give me permission to sue any other company that I want just because my quality of life is hampered? No.

LionSmack
10-21-2007, 11:21 PM
You have permission to sue anyone and anything you want to in this country. So does everyone. It doesn't mean you'll win, and it doesn't mean this guy will. But he's within his rights to bring the matter to court. You just said life isn't fair. Damn right it's not. So why shouldn't that guy try whatever he can? I don't have a problem with it at all.

Moses
10-21-2007, 11:24 PM
You have permission to sue anyone and anything you want to in this country. So does everyone. It doesn't mean you'll win, and it doesn't mean this guy will. But he's within his rights to bring the matter to court. You just said life isn't fair. Damn right it's not. So why shouldn't that guy try whatever he can? I don't have a problem with it at all.

Nobody is saying that he shouldn't be ALLOWED to sue the NFL and the Titans. I'm just saying that it is IDIOTIC that he is doing so.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-21-2007, 11:52 PM
You just said life isn't fair. Damn right it's not. So why shouldn't that guy try whatever he can? I don't have a problem with it at all.

That I agree with. Still don't think he should see a cent from the NFL or Titans. And unless he can prove that pacman ordered the hit he shouldn't sees cent from pacman either.

Honestly though I think he'll settle out of court with the NFL and Titans, they all know he doesn't have a case, but could you imagine the public opinion issues with going to court with a guy one of your players allegedly had paralyzed.