Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou speak in riddles Young. Thugs... and militias to defend against a military out of control in the same post? .... Wha? I wouldn't shoot one of there loving protestors, but i was thinking that a person such as youself with your anti religion hatred may do so. Why would there be a bullseye on my forehead? Who's aiming for me? Sounds good.....bring it on!
I wonder if you thugs realize how big the one on yours is. Part of the reason for a civilian militia is to defend against a military that's out of control.
GRANNY.
2 edits
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThe tort is "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress". That requires: A) Intent AND B) Actual Infliction of emotional distress. There is no such tort as "Attempted Infliction of Emotional Distress" (which is what you are implicitly claiming).
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if you are trying to prove that the Westboro Church "Intended" to inflict emotional distress, then it's irrelevant whether or not Snyder saw the signs. Westboro may not have successfully inflicted emotional distress, but that's beside the point if it can be proven that they Intended to do so.
EDIT: Here's a more "lawyerly" description of the elements of the tort:
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are:
(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant;
(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress;
(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and
(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498
http://www.west.net/~smith/distress.htm
We are here discussing element (4).