Brain damaged man awarded $58million after bouncer smashed his head in

hawkeyethenoo

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353389/Brain-damaged-man-awarded-58million-bouncer-smashed-head-badly-quarter-skull-removed.html

lost a 1/4 of his skull. :eek: shocking that the person who did this disappeared withouth trace!

balfe1990

My God, it looks like the picture of him is a botched Photoshop...
58 mill is not nearly enough IMO, no amount is.

Frosty McSnowballs

Fcuking hell!! Poor bastard, brain damaged and can't speak! No money is worth that. I hope the bouncer gets what he deserves!

Guy:Incognito

balfe1990 wrote: »

My God, it looks like the picture of him is a botched Photoshop...
58 mill is not nearly enough IMO, no amount is.

Presumably the 58m is supposed to be paid by the pub or the 2 guys?

So hes not likely to see much or any of it.seems like a pointlessly large figure given to grab headlines. Like when people over there sue for 500m for mental anguish

BoardsMember

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Presumably the 58m is supposed to be paid by the pub or the 2 guys?

So hes not likely to see much or any of it.seems like a pointlessly large figure given to grab headlines. Like when people over there sue for 500m for mental anguish

That might be a bit of a premature conclusion there....you ask a question you dont know the answer to, then presume the answer, and then write off the whole thing as a result. A good AH approach I suppose.

billy87

hes not half the man he used to be!

endacl

billy87 wrote: »

hes not half the man he used to be!

Bad taste dude.

Drakares

No amount of money can compensate something like this. Death Penalty for the **** involved.

michael999999

billy87 wrote: »

hes not half the man he used to be!

But he's probably still more intelligent than others!

LizT

billy87 wrote: »

hes not half the man he used to be!

Jesus Christ. A bit of sensitivity wouldn't go amiss here.

JJayoo

billy87 wrote: »

hes not half the man he used to be!

You just failed at being funny good lad.

bumper234

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Presumably the 58m is supposed to be paid by the pub or the 2 guys?

So hes not likely to see much or any of it.seems like a pointlessly large figure given to grab headlines. Like when people over there sue for 500m for mental anguish

I would think insurance will take the hit.

Riddle101

I wouldn't be surprised if the bouncer had a criminal backround, maybe a member of a gang. It just doesn't seem right that a normal bouncer would go that far with someone.

Peregrine

billy87 wrote: »

hes not half the man he used to be!

We could say the same about you after that sick joke..

ThreeBlindMice

I am surprised that the DM readers comments are not moderated.

Frosty McSnowballs

billy87 wrote: »

hes not half the man he used to be!

Goddamnit Billy!

That's it, gimme your badge and piece! You are suspended silly Billy

--Kaiser--

endacl wrote: »

Bad taste dude.

Yeah, you might get away with that kinda stuff in After Hours but not....oh, wait

endacl

Jeez. Post backfire of the day!

And quoted too many times to delete!

Hang your head in shame Billy. Hang your head...

Nemeses

Jesus , how he's still alive after that is a miracle in itself!

Gbear

Riddle101 wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if the bouncer had a criminal backround, maybe a member of a gang. It just doesn't seem right that a normal bouncer would go that far with someone.

A job that mostly involves violence towards people would tend to attract a certain kind of individual.

Guy:Incognito

BoardsMember wrote: »

That might be a bit of a premature conclusion there....you ask a question you dont know the answer to, then presume the answer, and then write off the whole thing as a result. A good AH approach I suppose.

So who was he awarded 58m from?

bumper234

Gbear wrote: »

A job that mostly involves violence towards people would tend to attract a certain kind of individual.

Whats that supposed to mean?

Ruudi_Mentari

Fcuking hell, that's a lot of money to not know what to do with

/that felt distasteful. I hope, it covers the care he will need.

BoardsMember

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So who was he awarded 58m from?

I don't know.

FTA69

Gbear wrote: »

A job that mostly involves violence towards people would tend to attract a certain kind of individual.

I read an article recently where a taxi driver raped a drunk woman. Obviously all taxi drivers are thus potential rapists. After all, what type of person would otherwise be attracted to a job that involves them being alone with women?

See what I did there?

Stupid isn't it?

Gbear

FTA69 wrote: »

I read an article recently where a taxi driver raped a drunk woman. Obviously all taxi drivers are thus potential rapists. After all, what type of person would otherwise be attracted to a job that involves them being alone with women?

See what I did there?

Stupid isn't it?

It is stupid, because it's a **** analogy.

Being a bouncer involves hitting or generally being aggressive to people.
It's not going to generally attract shrinking violets who would never lift a hand against their fellow man.

Being a taxi driver involves driving.

bumper234

Gbear wrote: »

It is stupid, because it's a **** analogy.

Being a bouncer involves hitting or generally being aggressive to people.
It's not going to generally attract shrinking violets who would never lift a hand against their fellow man.

Being a taxi driver involves driving.

Really? And you know this how?

See i worked as a doorman around Dublin for nearly 20 years and in all that time i punched/hit 3 people.

the first guy had stuck a pint glass in my face leaving a cut that required 7 stitches.

the second guy bit me on the arm requiring me to go to the mater hospital every 6 weeks for tests for hepatitis, HIV and all that other good stuff.

the third guy pulled a knife and attempted to stab the manageress of a place i was working.

surprisingly all 3 of them happened on a Friday night, all three of them had gone out after work for a few beers and all three wore suits. But best not to tar everyone with the same brush right?

FTA69

Gbear wrote: »

It is stupid, because it's a **** analogy.

Being a bouncer involves hitting or generally being aggressive to people.
It's not going to generally attract shrinking violets who would never lift a hand against their fellow man.

Being a taxi driver involves driving.

A bouncer is someone tasked with vetting a crowd and/or keeping a venue secure, something hugely necessary in a place where large amounts of people are drinking. Despite your clueless stereotype, the fact is that bouncers want a quiet night and to go home after a minimum of fuss.

bumper234

FTA69 wrote: »

A bouncer is someone tasked with vetting a crowd and/or keeping a venue secure, something hugely necessary in a place where large amounts of people are drinking. Despite your clueless stereotype, the fact is that bouncers want a quiet night and to go home after a minimum of fuss.

THIS^^^^

For me a long slow quiet boring night was perfect. Get in get the hours done and get home to my babies. Sure there are bad eggs like in ANY industry but to say all are violent thugs is not only an insult but a pretty stupid comment to make.

JustAThought

Read the article - Couldn't believe the pic. Apparently the poor man was sticking up for his nephews who were being picked on : ( Shame the bouncers didn't intervene there . Poor man look OK ( apart from The half moon head) but needs 24 hour care. No life. Ironically his nephews will probably ultimately gain by his misfortune ( on their behalf) - twice.