The animal rights protestor who ran onto the field during the MNF game and was subsequently destroyed by LB Bobby Wagner has filed a police report.
From the WTF-LOL Department
- Thread starter Hungry Jack
- Start date
He could sue Wagner and the other LB who hit him, and easily win. That could prove to be a costly tackle for Bobby.
Paging all of our board lawyers… curious to hear what @No Chores, @IGNORE2 , and others would argue if the protestor hired them as their lawyer. Seems like a pretty slam dunk case as the football players are neither security nor law enforcement, and I’m 99% sure they’re told to not interfere or hit anyone who rushes the field.
The protestor ran into the field with an incendiary device. Wagner could convincingly plead self defense.
Best way to counter it would be to engage in a bunch of lawsuits against the guy. Just come up w reasonable arguments and bankrupt him. His plaintiff cases are worthless if pledged to BK court.
"Easily win"??? Guy who runs onto field with incendiary device assumes the risk that he's going to get blasted by someone, anyone. He's fortunate if he doesn't get jail time and a substantial fine...
Is Wagner a law enforcement officer? Was he trained by the 49ers stadium security to handle this situation as a visitor?
The guy with the incendiary device was trying to run away from people. He was not an imminent threat to Wagner or anyone - he just delayed the game for a couple of minutes.
I’m glad none of our players were dumb enough to tackle those protestors last year. Let the people who are trained to handle these situations handle them.
I must have missed the class at law school where they taught us that the affirmative defense of self-defense applied only to law enforcement or other "trained" personnel. And I guess I'll accept your opinion over a lawyer who has spent the past 34 years litigating civil rights cases, only a few of which were more frivolous than a potential claim being filed by your protestor...
I think you don’t understand what self defense is fundamentally.
Watch the video. Wagner and the other LB were under no imminent threat from 120 pound vegan with the pink incendiary device. They actually ran onto the field and hit him.
Now if the guy had a weapon and was threatening someone, different story. He didn’t, and Wagner shouldn’t have gotten involved.
I bet this will be settled quietly. Wagner’s got plenty of money, so no big deal to him.
Self defense also includes the reasonable defense of others. As a result of the dangerous actions of the protestor, at least one security guard was severely injured with a torn ACL. Wagner can also effectively argue his actions prevented further injuries caused by the protestor.
The protestor was not running after anyone, and had been running around on the field for a while before he was knocked out. He didn’t threaten anyone.
Name the people who Wagner could reasonably say he was defending. Because he certainly can’t say it was him or his fellow LB.
And look, I’m not defending the protester’s decision to run on the field. But Wagner shouldn’t have knocked him out. There’s a reason why most football players just ignore them and let the police / stadium security do their thing.
Sorry to hear the security guard tore his ACL. I’ve had a partially torn one for 12+ years that has caused some complications. Hope he has a full recovery.
I have represented injured people for over thirty five years. I’ve sued churches, hospitals, doctors. Even sued NU once. If I think a person has a case for which I can earn money for him/her and my firm and I believe the person should be compensated I will accept representation.
This fellow was injured while a trespasser in other peoples’ workplace. In this particular instance I do not believe he should be compensated nor do I believe he will be compensated.
I wouldn’t even have the guy come to my office if he called and told me some of the facts.
I would not take his case.
It’s a lot more fun when a world class athlete wipes them out like Wile E Coyote getting hit with the anvil.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would take the case. I would enter a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity."
Last edited:
If this happened at Ryan Field, he could sue under the "attractive nuisance" theory of tort recovery.
Google News alerted me that the cameraman who Davante Adams shoved and injured also filed a police report last night. He’s going to sue and get paid bigly too… right?
www.tmz.com
Photographer Pushed By Davante Adams Files Police Report, Claims Injuries
The photographer shoved to the ground by Davante Adams after the Raiders-Chiefs "MNF" game has officially filed a police report against the NFL superstar, TMZ Sports has learned.
www.tmz.com
The court system is hard to understand. Cases such as this which on the surface seem absurd but somewhere there will be an argument that the fan should be compensated
I did a lot of forensic examinations and I will describe one of the most bizarre cases. The plaintiff reported to the gas station attendant that a "defective pump" had splashed him, while fueling his car. The attendant checked the pump and told the customer he could not find anything wrong
The plaintiff asked the attendant for his name and tried to take his picture. The attendant raised his hand to block the Camera
Here is where the problem begins. The plaintiff hires an attorney stating that he had been knocked unconscious by the attendant. His attorney refers him to a neurologist, who begins an extensive work up with every possible test, scan or other diagnostic study. He is diagnosed with a closed head injury and post traumatic stress disorder. Over a 3-4 year time period he undergoes physical therapy, psychotherapy, occupational therapy and a wide variety of behavioral therapies. The medical bills reached almost $600 K and the demand was for several million dollars
The kicker was that the incident had been filmed by the security cameras. There was never any contact between the attendant and the plaintiff. He was not knocked out and was never on the floor as contested.. Case closed right - no- the plaintiff's attorney said the security film was invalid because it was 5 frames per second not 30 frames per second. The judge ruled out the film thus allowing that the plaintif was knocked out/down , recovered and regained his upright position in less than 1/5 of a second.
Fortunately, the plaintiff was such a poor witness and his experts so biased that the jury was out less than a few minutes before returning a verdict for the defense. Case closed right-not so fast- the attorney filed an appeal but was denied
The verdict was correct but the law allowed this farce to go forward
I did a lot of forensic examinations and I will describe one of the most bizarre cases. The plaintiff reported to the gas station attendant that a "defective pump" had splashed him, while fueling his car. The attendant checked the pump and told the customer he could not find anything wrong
The plaintiff asked the attendant for his name and tried to take his picture. The attendant raised his hand to block the Camera
Here is where the problem begins. The plaintiff hires an attorney stating that he had been knocked unconscious by the attendant. His attorney refers him to a neurologist, who begins an extensive work up with every possible test, scan or other diagnostic study. He is diagnosed with a closed head injury and post traumatic stress disorder. Over a 3-4 year time period he undergoes physical therapy, psychotherapy, occupational therapy and a wide variety of behavioral therapies. The medical bills reached almost $600 K and the demand was for several million dollars
The kicker was that the incident had been filmed by the security cameras. There was never any contact between the attendant and the plaintiff. He was not knocked out and was never on the floor as contested.. Case closed right - no- the plaintiff's attorney said the security film was invalid because it was 5 frames per second not 30 frames per second. The judge ruled out the film thus allowing that the plaintif was knocked out/down , recovered and regained his upright position in less than 1/5 of a second.
Fortunately, the plaintiff was such a poor witness and his experts so biased that the jury was out less than a few minutes before returning a verdict for the defense. Case closed right-not so fast- the attorney filed an appeal but was denied
The verdict was correct but the law allowed this farce to go forward
Yeah, then he could sue security for tackling him. The guy should have reasonably expected someone to tackle him. And, what do you know? Someone did.
I did not create the contingency legal system . I reviewed 4 years of complex medical records including multiple MRIs and other studies. I examined the patient for his orthopedic injuries, which were not the central part of his claim. He demonstrated multiple non-physiologic findings during his examination that undermined his claims of a neck injury. I did review the security film which clearly showed that he was not assaulted.although I could not address that in court but did so in my report that was written following his examination .The plaintiff's experts justified his treatment based on subjective complaints not on any physical findings or evidence of intracranial or neurological injury on any study. These experts had seen the film also but still affirmed in court that he had suffered a concussion as a result of the assault, necessitating his prolonged treatment and enormous medical bills and confirmed his permanent impairment.
I was compensated for reviewing the medical records, examining the plaintiff, generating my report and appearing in court. I was not compensated for my opinions, which were rarely "black and white"
I only did plaintiff's work for my patients and and military plaintiffs , whose physicians were not available. I am comfortable that my opinions were never related to what entity was paying me for my time but represented an impartial evaluation of the patient's injuries and treatment
Defense and plaintiffs' attorneys respected my opinions and rarely did I have to testify in court..
I do remember one appearance where I stated the plaintiff demonstrated non-physiologic findings. His attorney angrily asked if I was calling his client a liar. I replied"You used the term liar, I said he had non-physiologic findings"(Non-physiologic findings are those that do not conform to our knowledge of anatomy and neurology)