A boutique owner shot outside an East Village deli in July sued Craigslist for $10 million Thursday, claiming his assailant bought a gun through the online classified ad service.Yeah, well, one problem there:
...prohibited or restricted items...Now is it possible to do an end run and post a gun ad? If you use a text ad, it will probably be detected very quickly, if not rejected outright. But if you post a hosted image file, yeah, I could see an ad being up for a couple hours before it's reported and removed. But that still requires the seller and buyer to intentionally disregard a slew of "gun control" edicts.
Weapons and related items, including but not limited to firearms, disguised, undetectable or switchblade knives, martial arts weapons, scopes, silencers, ammunition, ammunition magazines, BB guns, tear gas or stun guns.
I'm no fan of Craigslist--their gun prohibition policy alone is enough to turn me off. And it seems every time you turn around there's another headline about scammers and robbers and whores (oh my!)...
If there was ever a place where the words "Caveat Emptor" need to be branded into the frontal lobes...
In a rational world, this lawsuit would be thrown out, the plaintiff scolded and the lawyer warned of sanctions. But who knows? Maybe they'll luck out and get Jack Weinstein...
3 comments:
I hate to stereotype but, the story does start out with: "A Manhattan boutique owner....". That says it all right there.
"Mohammed Islam" that's pretty vague, I wonder what nationality....
I know it is immoral of me to be glad about this. But I am. When in a fight, I will use the tactics of the enemy and try to improve on them. I will not grant him an advantage by allowing him to engage in tactics or strategies that are beneath me. At that point, the only thing I want beneath me is his throat under my boot.
All covenants are broken and rendered moot once attacked. One owes his attackers or attackers of his rights nothing.
Now it must be said that Craig's List has not participated directly in attacking our rights, and it must further be stipulated that as a privately owned entity any policy they wish to endorse that is not illegal is their right.
I know this. Yet I am still imorally gleeful that Craig's List is receiving the same treatment by his fellow travelers using the courts to unfairly try to victimize him as they have gunshop owners and others.
If he didn't want to sell or advertise weapons, that is his right. But I so enjoy seeing a family squabble amongst those who would deny others. And I have hope that once his dick is in the vise, though I am sure he will emerge unscathed, except of course his legal fees, he might at the least, become active in resistance to the use of the courts in this manner.
My feelings on this have nothing to do with his barring of weaponry from his site. That is his business alone. It is much more important than that. It is based on my objections to gaming the system, where wealth wins the day simply because the target has not sufficient assets to participate effectively.
That will not be a problem for Craig's, but I hope it still is expensive with no recompense for legal costs. Call it a wake-up call for which I am wishing, not just to him, but to all the other tacit supporters of the likes of Bloomberg and Weinstein, et al.
Post a Comment