FULL TOPIC TITLE: NYC Mayor Bloomberg bans donation of food to gov-run Homeless shelters due to not being able to assess fat, salt and fiber content of donated food

 

Story: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/no_kugel_for_you_N4VuTrqavfOiApSHngxuMJ

Government run is the key word.

 

They must not want to be sued for a bums high blood pressure and chlorestoral.

 

They can still donate to churches, Salvation Army and directly to the homeless themselves. This won't change much.

They must not want to be sued for a bums high blood pressure and chlorestoral.

 

I hope you are joking.

 

Speculation, Joking, and curious all in one. There has been precedent for frivolous lawsuits from family who believe the states have caused or contributed or were negligent in deaths.

 

Think a death row inmate being placed on suicide watch to prevent the family from suing for mistreatment and negligent care.

 

I say let them hang themselves if they feel so inclined btw

My point was that it was an incredibly dumb thing to say. It almost certainly has nothing to do with potential lawsuits.

 

 

Why else? Haven't all the public schools removed soda and snacks for potential health concerns and lawsuits from parents claiming their kids fat because the school made them that way.

By the way, I can't track this report back to anything legitimate. It came from a March 2012 op-ed, and all the links are either to stories quoting the same op-ed or are unrelated. It's also not clear that, even if this is true, whether Bloomberg banned all food or just food without nutritional/production information.

 

P.S. salt intake is not correlated with higher blood pressure, according to a recent meta-analysis.

They must not want to be sued for a bums high blood pressure and chlorestoral.

 

I hope you are joking.

 

Speculation, Joking, and curious all in one. There has been precedent for frivolous lawsuits from family who believe the states have caused or contributed or were negligent in deaths.

 

Think a death row inmate being placed on suicide watch to prevent the family from suing for mistreatment and negligent care.

 

I say let them hang themselves if they feel so inclined btw

Precedent in cases involving homeless people in government facilities? Prove it. First of all, sovereign immunity is a massive hurdle. Second, even if you got past that, I would still expect courts to take a hands-off approach -- except in cases of intentional mistreatment -- because they don't want to discourage government programs that care for the homeless.

They must not want to be sued for a bums high blood pressure and chlorestoral.

 

I hope you are joking.

 

Speculation, Joking, and curious all in one. There has been precedent for frivolous lawsuits from family who believe the states have caused or contributed or were negligent in deaths.

 

Think a death row inmate being placed on suicide watch to prevent the family from suing for mistreatment and negligent care.

 

I say let them hang themselves if they feel so inclined btw

Precedent in cases involving homeless people in government facilities? Prove it. First of all, sovereign immunity is a massive hurdle. Second, even if you got past that, I would still expect courts to take a hands-off approach -- except in cases of intentional mistreatment -- because they don't want to discourage government programs that care for the homeless.

 

If you re-read what you quoted it says nothing about homeless suing. Only precedent has been set for family's suing states for mistreatment. Either in prison, homeless shelters, wrongful deaths or suicides while incarcerated it has happened.

 

Most times a settlement is made, silence for payment. In the end, it's become a "sue and take what they give you free" culture.

On my phone with no sleep, this should do. Not exact I don't believe but similar to my previous statements

http://www.correctionsone.com/law-and-legislation/articles/5919244-Kan-sheriff-gets-wrongful-death-claim-over-inmate-suicide/

I didn't say you claimed there were cases with homeless people; my point was that the ones you're discussing are not analogous and don't apply. That link didn't say if those cases were even successful, but the duty of care is greater in a jail setting, where the prisoner is a ward of the state, under its control 24/7. That's not the case with homeless shelters.

Yeah, I don't see how the two situations are remotely comparable. And I think you can file a lawsuit for pretty much anything; that doesn't mean that it won't be thrown out.

 

Exactly, but most times you need to pay for representation. If it doesn't get thrown out most settle since it can end up cheaper.

 

Then again I'm sure the state has its own stable of attorneys.

 

 

I just woke up. That was a great nap- midnight to 4:30pm

Filing a lawsuit isn't cheap, either. Lawyers aren't easily going to spend the time and money filing lawsuits with almost no chance to win, especially with poor, i.e. homeless clients who are unlikely to be able to pay for the lawyer's time.

Filing a lawsuit isn't cheap, either. Lawyers aren't easily going to spend the time and money filing lawsuits with almost no chance to win, especially with poor, i.e. homeless clients who are unlikely to be able to pay for the lawyer's time.

 

You would be surprised what a lawyer will do for a bigger cut of the pie.

Paying for representation and filing isn't the only reason why it's silly to think that Bloomberg did this out of fear of lawsuits.

 

 

Your reading comprehension might not be as great as you think. I said I was

"Speculation, Joking, and curious all in one. "

 

Never once did I say I was serious.

LOL

 

Penis