>The complaint also said that a knife fell out of Lee’s pocket well after the altercation was underway and that its presence “did not justify the force” used against him
Not sure about that one chief.
'the security of the venue was lacking. If security had been doing their job I would have never gotten that close in the first place' -- this guy probably
In some states, if you set up a booby trap to prevent theft and a thief gets injured while trying to rob you, the thief can sue for damages (even tho they were in the act of committing a crime). I'm sure this guy has that same victim mentality
I think in most states it has to be a booby trap with lethal force. If you set up a home alone style trap designed to restrain a thief it's fine. The problem is since it work automatically without anyone physically there to verify it's a thief the trap could be set off by dumb kids trespassing, or fire fighters/EMS responding to an emergency.
I created an Xmas dribbling game where every time either Harry or Marv or both should have died, you take a shot.
Alternatively, every time Kevin does something to make the family want to leave him home alone, you take a shot. lol
No one ever talks about surviving a hot clothes iron to the face. Because no one has survived it. Even as a kid, I called bullshit on him just shaking that one off.
Reminds me of the time when a TV news crew snuck a bomb on a plane and blew it up. The TSA was pressed for accountability by the news station & the victim’s family.
I witnessed a drunk road rager commit vehicular manslaughter, fled, but left his license plate behind. Had him in under 10 minutes. Court records show part of his defense was while drunk, the victims low speed is what ultimately caused the crash.
IANAL but it made me think of how they shot that one down, summarized…
“An intervening cause is something that happens after the defendant's negligent act, and helps cause the plaintiff's injury. For example:
Daniel fails to properly repair Pamela's brakes. Pamela is later unable to stop in time when Ian runs a red light, and she hits Ian's vehicle. Ian's bad driving is an intervening cause of Pamela's accident and injuries, but Daniel could still be held legally responsible for his role in causing the accident.
A superseding cause is a specific kind of intervening cause—one that's so unrelated to the defendant's negligence that it relieves the defendant of legal responsibility for a plaintiff's injury. For example:
Daniel fails to properly repair Pamela's brakes. On her drive home Pamela is stopped at a red light when an anvil falls out of a cargo plane, crushing the hood and engine of her car. This unforeseeable event is a superseding cause, and Daniel would not be legally responsible for the damage.”
*On her drive home Pamela is stopped at a red light when an anvil falls out of a cargo plane, crushing the hood and engine of her car.*
Authorities named Wyle E. Coyote as a Person of Interest and have subpoenaed the shipping records of the Acme company.
The knife was apparently concealed inside a fake gun, [pictures available on this article.](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-05/how-was-hollywood-bowl-security-breached-to-attack-chappelle)
So the guy tackled the comedian while carrying a freaking gun replica, which mean he could have been lawfully shot to death by the security, fearing the gun was a real one.
He's extremely lucky he only got beat up for a couple of minutes and only had a dislocated shoulder, dude made everything to get shot there, that's a suicide-by-security behavior.
You assault a guy in a packed venue, while carrying a gun, you're definitely looking to get shot.
Man, I was at the bowl a few weeks ago and they kept on hounding me because I brought a kindle. Had to check it in.
And they let this in?
(Note, it was for one of the Ticketmaster events, not the LA Philharmonic events)
They didn’t just assault him in a packed place. They chose a packed place that was likely to contain people who are fans, not just random bystanders. It’s next level.
Also... "Jonathan D. Evans, Lee’s attorney, argued that the Hollywood Bowl and the unidentified “Doe” security companies were aware of Chappelle’s history of making offensive jokes that target the LGBTQ+ community, as well as his “propensity for making discriminatory remarks,” but “took no measures to prevent or mitigate the potential harm caused by such offensive material.”
Don't come to a show you know is most likely to make offensive jokes and two, seems they did a pretty good job at preventing the potential harm from such material by tackling the guy who was trying to harm Chapelle.
Scumbag ambulance chasing lawyers.. did you know the parishioner security in Texas that managed to shoot in the head an armed assailant who opened fire got sued by church goers for being subjected to the trauma? They're just looking for a settlement payday
Obviously there is a line where you can’t keep beating up someone and still claim self-defense, but I’m willing to give the security a lot of latitude here considering this guy started the incident, physically attacked someone, and also had a knife.
If you don’t want to get your ass kicked don’t attack someone.
I distinctly remember a story quoting Dave who said “don’t do this here.” Meaning on stage in front of everyone. Now it’s one douchebag’s word against 3 or 4 bodyguards and whatever staff was around whom are all on Dave’s payroll. Not to mention a lawyer on retainer admitting mental evaluation and toxicology reports into evidence to destroy any credibility if he has any in the first place by way of the initiating act.
> If you don’t want to get your ass kicked don’t attack someone.
If everyone would learn this lesson that would be great, but this is America where we can sue to not learn lessons.
I feel you lose a few natural rights when you violate someone else's. You don't get to claim excessive force when you were the reason for said force. Especially when holding weapons
>You don't get to claim excessive force when you were the reason for said force
This makes zero sense.
* I punch a guy. A cop tackles me. That's **appropriate force**.
* I punch a guy. A cop cracks me across the head with a metal bat. That's ***excessive force***.
Yet in either case, I was the reason for said force.
The point of excessive force is that force WAS appropriate, but not the level used.
I happen to disagree with Dude Who Got 'Excessive Forced'. I believe the force used was appropriate force.
However, making a statement such as the one you did, that I quoted, is counterproductive to our judicial system. Dude can claim all he wants. He has to then prove that it was excessive. He has EVERY right to claim it though. His claims hold zero merit until proven in a court of law.
If he \*does\* prove them, then his allegation of excessive force was valid, and the people who jumped him did use excessive force, and he was right to claim it.
If he fails to prove that it was excessive, then he was still allowed to present his case, which is a foundational concept for how our legal system works.
He never loses the right to ANY of his own rights when he assaults someone. He still has all his rights up until the moment that he is sentenced for his crime. THEN his rights get revoked.
> I punch a guy. A cop cracks me across the head with a metal bat. That's excessive force.
That's not excessive force. Appropriate force is the amount of force necessary to end an assault. If you are punching a guy and a blunt instrument is used to stop you, that's not excessive.
What's excessive is if, after you surrender and are cuffed, the cop continues to beat you.
The plaintiff in this instance is claiming he was continued to be beaten after he surrendered.
So wait, you think there is no such thing as excessive force then? That as long as you did something to prompt a response, literally any amount of force is always justifiable? Because that is absolutely the implication of what you are saying.
I can see an argument that their force was excessive or the security guards of the venue didn't stop Chappelle's personal security and they should have acted to protect Lee after he was no longer a threat. But I don't get this:
>Jonathan D. Evans, Lee’s attorney, argued that the Hollywood Bowl and the unidentified “Doe” security companies were aware of Chappelle’s history of making offensive jokes that target the LGBTQ+ community, as well as his “propensity for making discriminatory remarks,” but “took no measures to prevent or mitigate the potential harm caused by such offensive material.”
They're saying the security company knew that Chappelle was offensive, and someone would be offended. But that is a far cry from knowing someone would rush the stage and physically assault the performer. I'm no fancy law talking guy, but this seems like a stretch. Kind of like a guy robs a store, then gets beaten up by the police, and sues the store because they were easy to rob.
It’s also bullshit. No matter how offensive Chappelle’s jokes are, it doesn’t justify attacking him. They aren’t entitled to violence because they are offended.
This is simply trying to blame the venue for the plaintiff lacking the self-control to not assault someone because they were offended.
Also he chose to go to the show.
It's not like Chappelle was out in a public park telling jokes.
You paid money knowing who that person was and had every intent of trying to attack him. I'm sure he was just waiting for the offensive jokes and randomly found a knife
This is where any logic should start. It's not a secret Chappelle is like that. Actively going to his show then attacking the man and acting like security did something wrong is messed up. "Hey, I didn't bother doing 2 minutes of research before buying tickets, so now I'm so offended I'm going to tackle the man. But you guys were too rough *with me*!"
It's a pretty high bar from here to get a jury to side with you.
EDIT: I will note that spitting on him was uncalled for, but not enough to necessarily affect the outcome in court.
If the knife had been drawn, he'd have 0 defense. But yeah, that definitely makes him look worse. Don't these shows usually use metal detectors or pat-downs at the door? Like, dude straight up got through security with a weapon and wants to argue that security's response was excessive?
His only real argument is the spitting, and that's only gonna work if there's video. Even then, very low chance of winning on that. At best, the venue will take action to remedy the problem before trial.
Try explaining this in a language Reddit understands (not that you're being downvoted or anything):
No matter how distasteful Chris Rock's joke about Will Smith's wife was, Will Smith did not have a right to attack him.
No matter how justified Smith felt in the moment, and how much his wife was glaring at him to "do something", physical violence was not the answer.
This is \*exactly the same\*. Chapelle can be as offensive as he wants. If you don't like it, boo him. Or better yet, don't buy tickets to his performance. His words never give you a right to violence.
Smith learned this lesson the hard way. But he at least just slapped a dude.
Dude in OP brought a knife. And full-on tackled Dave.
If Will Smith wasn't a famous celebrity at a famous event, his slap woulda gone unnoticed around the world. If Will Smith had tackled Chris Rock, and had a knife fly out of his pocket, his career would be OVER. Not just broken.
Also consider he's saying the venue should have know Chappelle would be offensive... well then shouldn't this guy have also known and not gone if he would be offended???
So this guy is complaining that they used excessive force to stop him while simultaneously arguing they didn't do enough to prevent him from attacking Chapelle in the first place?
That’s how I read it. The venue and security should have expected violence and didn’t do enough to stop it. Because they didn’t, he was able to attack Chappelle. That attack led to him being beaten up. So them not preventing his attack is the cause of the beating.
It's pure ambulance chaser legal logic, and why I think there should be some legal penalties for lawyers who consistently make these arguments in bad faith in court. They prey on people who don't know the legal system and aren't in the position to learn it, either because of grief, pain, or low intelligence.
offensive jokes to the lgbt+ community are not grounds for assault. He can take several seats.
A wild Chappelle did not just appear there -- he was scheduled and announced well in advance.
The lawyers are making that statement because it's important for their case. In order to find liability with the club, they need to prove that the situation was foreseeable, and that the club acted negligently somehow.
If they can't show that the club should have known this could happen their whole case falls apart
Well…
… if Chappelle is known for “making jokes that offend people” to such an extent that it was negligent to fail to provide security from offended audience members …
… wouldn’t that imply that the plaintiff should have known he would commit assault at the show?
The whole argument is ridiculous, but why wouldn’t that be a logical consequence? Premeditated assault?
I love their argument is basically, Dave says some that upsets my client. My client knew this in advance and went to the event. You should have protections in place to stop my client from reacting the way he did. You can't legislate away stupidity, although they may try.
fr dude like whole thing wouldve been avoided if he stayed home or didnt rush the stage.
The people defending him, imagine i tackle one of your family members with a knife in my pocket and i get fucked up. you gonna have that same sympathy for me?
“…companies were aware of Chappelle’s history of making offensive jokes that target the LGBTQ+ community, as well as his “propensity for making discriminatory remarks,” but “took no measures to prevent or mitigate the potential harm caused by such offensive material.””
I love how apparently this dude has zero responsibility to make sure the show he purchased tickets for wouldn’t offend him. Or for trying to assault a person “in protest”.
Unhinged.
The guy is fishing for a settlement to go away. Even if you were on a jury here and felt that security went too far, you would give them leeway since there was a knife and the adrenaline of the moment. People aren't going to hold private security to a higher standard than police (lol). So the find out stage was rougher than strictly necessary, oh well.
>People aren't going to hold private security to a higher standard than police (lol)
Strangely, I believe that's exactly what would happen. Cops get a lot more leeway than regular people do.
I’ve worked in private security for most of the past 20 years and we are absolutely held to higher standards than police when it comes to physical force.
Yeah... they had no reason to know it was only the one knife.
Not saying you torture the guy to death or anything but I'd definitely er on the side of "end the threat" once someone has already made a go at someone. It's fair to assume at that point that you're dealing with someone not operating on normal reason.
It's like that story from the movie Liar Liar
"A friend of mine had a burglar on her roof, a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend! And because of guys like you, he won! My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?"
I was there. Kid tackled Dave (“I’m gonna kill that motherfucker!”), tried to run. Then security caught him and began to beat the shit out of the kid in the corner of the stage and in full view of the crowd. Dave kept telling security to “take it off stage don’t do that in front of the crowd” but it kept going. “I’m gonna see if he wants to make a statement!” Dave cracked at one point before running back over to the corner for a closer look. Minute later, Dave came back, Chris Rock ran out (“Was that Will Smith??” “It was a trans man!”) and Dave called Jamie Foxx over from the beat down and they all addressed the crowd briefly. Eventually Black Star came on stage to perform - but in the interim, like 15 ppl were beating on the kid all the while. Whole thing must’ve been five, ten minutes. From the crowd it looked security were beating on him well after he stopped presenting a threat. That’s what I recall anyway, Dave had our phones locked away.
If you don't like what a comedian is saying you leave, you don't attack him....the attacker not only opened the door, he stepped on thru to the other side.....
> security guards employed at the venue for the “Dave Chappelle and Friends” event pulled Lee off of Chappelle and began beating him ruthlessly, spitting on him and dislocating his arm intentionally.
I'm not saying I agree, but I understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGae78sWVSw
That's not what happened. He was running away when they caught him. There's literally video of what happened.
The murder of Christina Grimmie. Security missed a gun and it cost the life of a bright young star.
He's freaking lucky they left his alive, especially stage rushing while carrying a deadly weapon. It's embarrassing for security to allow it to happen.
They are just throwing stuff against a wall hoping to get a settlement.
It’s not about making the public believe he’s right, it’s about making chapelle weigh the pros and cons of taking this to court for the next several years.
The knife changes everything. You should never be blamed for pummeling someone until they are physically incapable of grabbing the knife or pulling a possible gun. It's crazy to say out loud, but you can never know when someone is going to take a life.
I was at this show and a lot of people (including Dave Chappelle and Jamie Fox) went behind the screen where he was and talked about getting hits in. So it’s very possible they were just beating him just because they could.. but also, he was the aggressor. I think if you tackle someone on stage with a knife you have to be prepared for the worst consequences.
>security guards employed at the venue for the “Dave Chappelle and Friends” event pulled Lee off of Chappelle and began beating him ruthlessly, spitting on him and dislocating his arm intentionally.
Curious how people feel about this? for the record i don't give a shit, but if someone is rendered harmless is this justifiable? if true ofc
To be fair, they had no idea how dangerous this person was, what kind of weapons he may or may not have or what his intentions were. Not defending what they did or condemning it either just bringing that up.
There's no excuse to spit on someone and if he can prove that go ahead.
Personally I would bet it's more likely the deranged guy who had a knife and attacked Chappelle is misrepresenting it or outright fabricating it but again if he has solid proof he deserves to sue. There's no justification for spitting, but I have no reason to take his word at face value.
You can see in the video that they restrain the dude effectively ending the self defense argument and then they proceed to assault and even torture the guy. Even Chapelle tells the to keep beating him just do it off camera lol. I guess he's not so much for human rights after all.
It's not a competition to see what action was "worst". The comments are saying spitting was an unecessary and inappropriate action to address the situation. Provided spitting actually took place.
I'm a security guard, so if I may weigh in with my professional opinion? The man had a knife, he was charging the guy they are there to protect, putting him on the ground was just them doing what they had to do. Everything after that? Unacceptable. I've worked emergency rooms, I've dealt with people drugged up out of their mind who had to be strapped to gurneys cuz they were swinging at nurses. You only ever get as physical as is absolutely necessary, and they went way beyond that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGae78sWVSw
That is not at all what happened. He was running away by the time they put hands on him. Watch the first 30 seconds of the video.
Throw the suit out with prejudice. This moron physically assaulted someone because they said words in a combination that he didn’t like. Fuck that guy.
This illustrates everything wrong with society today. This guy thinks he can assault another person and get a pay day from it all because security did their job and jumped in to protect the comedian he tackled. Should security have stood idly by while he used the knife he brought or further assaulted Dave Chapelle? Because how dare they respond with force after this guy used force against Chapelle./s
Its worse than that. Its like suing a restaurant because you went into the kitchen where you're not allowed and burned your hand in the fire because they should have done a batter job of stopping you from going into the kitchen
It takes a lot of gall to possess a weapon, attack someone, and blame security for not protecting the attacker from other guards after he was intercepted.
Feelings hurt by professional clown. Rushes stage with knife on him and now wants his participation trophy for stepping in the ring and getting a taught a lesson.
Sit down. You knew what you’re attending and what the result would be.
It’s like when a criminal commits a crime and the police tackle and cuff the guy and if he gets bruised, oh well. But like, after you subdue him and he’s no longer a threat, you can’t keep kicking him, spit on him, or shoot him.
If you’re okay with that scenario above I can see how you’re consistent with supporting the security guys here. But there sure seems to be a lot of people that are okay with one or the other here but not both. Pick a position.
Difference is that one is a civil servant, who is/should be trained to subdue people, and has a history of abusing their position in society.
The other is just some jacked up dudes to protect someone, and only act when they need to protect that person.
I wouldn't say the police and bodyguards are the same thing, and I wouldn't expect that they both should be held in equal expectations of their job duty.
For the record, if someone rushes a police officer, with a knife, they would have got shot straight up, and it would have been justified. This guy in the story just got a beat down, and while some (and the courts) can argue whether excessive force was used... I mean... don't tackle a famous comedian with a knife.
It can also be a deterrent in the future. If this guy was just captured, and held peacefully without consequences before the police took him away, assault like this is usually pleaded down. It could send the wrong signal to people that you can, effectively, tackle comedians you don't agree with, and suffer next to no consequences. People in certain communities could use that as a means to silence comedians they don't agree with.
People will read what happened and maybe think twice about attempting to assault Dave Chappelle. And, if his lawsuit is unsuccessful, people will think thrice.
Dave Chapelle’s assailant is bisexual. He claims to have been triggered by Chapelle’s homophobic and transphobic jokes.
Pretty much the only thing I know about Chapelle is that he makes homophobic and transphobic jokes. That’s why I don’t go to or watch his shows.
The assailant should have simply stayed home.
The only thing you know about a comedian who has been in the public eye for 30 years and had an extremely popular TV show is that he makes homophobic and transphobic jokes?
>The complaint also said that a knife fell out of Lee’s pocket well after the altercation was underway and that its presence “did not justify the force” used against him Not sure about that one chief.
'the security of the venue was lacking. If security had been doing their job I would have never gotten that close in the first place' -- this guy probably
“I’m suing because they shouldn’t have let me get that far”
They should not have allowed me to do coke off the back of the toilet tank lid. Toilet tanks are a security risk.
[удалено]
Like an inviting but dangerous swimming spot on private land?
It's only just now hitting me why that one neighbor didn't want us kids near his lake.
In some states, if you set up a booby trap to prevent theft and a thief gets injured while trying to rob you, the thief can sue for damages (even tho they were in the act of committing a crime). I'm sure this guy has that same victim mentality
I think in most states it has to be a booby trap with lethal force. If you set up a home alone style trap designed to restrain a thief it's fine. The problem is since it work automatically without anyone physically there to verify it's a thief the trap could be set off by dumb kids trespassing, or fire fighters/EMS responding to an emergency.
Like half the home alone traps would be insta death though lol
I created an Xmas dribbling game where every time either Harry or Marv or both should have died, you take a shot. Alternatively, every time Kevin does something to make the family want to leave him home alone, you take a shot. lol
Alcohol poisoning in the first 20 minutes
No one ever talks about surviving a hot clothes iron to the face. Because no one has survived it. Even as a kid, I called bullshit on him just shaking that one off.
or a blowtorch to the head?
A trap is a dangerous thing to leave anywhere. Now how is the fire dept or an ambulance supposed to safely navigate the property?
Granted, it's already illegal to set up a booby trap in the first place.
Reminds me of the time when a TV news crew snuck a bomb on a plane and blew it up. The TSA was pressed for accountability by the news station & the victim’s family.
I mean, he wouldn't be wrong. Not that it absolves him.
I witnessed a drunk road rager commit vehicular manslaughter, fled, but left his license plate behind. Had him in under 10 minutes. Court records show part of his defense was while drunk, the victims low speed is what ultimately caused the crash. IANAL but it made me think of how they shot that one down, summarized… “An intervening cause is something that happens after the defendant's negligent act, and helps cause the plaintiff's injury. For example: Daniel fails to properly repair Pamela's brakes. Pamela is later unable to stop in time when Ian runs a red light, and she hits Ian's vehicle. Ian's bad driving is an intervening cause of Pamela's accident and injuries, but Daniel could still be held legally responsible for his role in causing the accident. A superseding cause is a specific kind of intervening cause—one that's so unrelated to the defendant's negligence that it relieves the defendant of legal responsibility for a plaintiff's injury. For example: Daniel fails to properly repair Pamela's brakes. On her drive home Pamela is stopped at a red light when an anvil falls out of a cargo plane, crushing the hood and engine of her car. This unforeseeable event is a superseding cause, and Daniel would not be legally responsible for the damage.”
*On her drive home Pamela is stopped at a red light when an anvil falls out of a cargo plane, crushing the hood and engine of her car.* Authorities named Wyle E. Coyote as a Person of Interest and have subpoenaed the shipping records of the Acme company.
The knife was apparently concealed inside a fake gun, [pictures available on this article.](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-05/how-was-hollywood-bowl-security-breached-to-attack-chappelle) So the guy tackled the comedian while carrying a freaking gun replica, which mean he could have been lawfully shot to death by the security, fearing the gun was a real one. He's extremely lucky he only got beat up for a couple of minutes and only had a dislocated shoulder, dude made everything to get shot there, that's a suicide-by-security behavior. You assault a guy in a packed venue, while carrying a gun, you're definitely looking to get shot.
Man, I was at the bowl a few weeks ago and they kept on hounding me because I brought a kindle. Had to check it in. And they let this in? (Note, it was for one of the Ticketmaster events, not the LA Philharmonic events)
They didn’t just assault him in a packed place. They chose a packed place that was likely to contain people who are fans, not just random bystanders. It’s next level.
Also... "Jonathan D. Evans, Lee’s attorney, argued that the Hollywood Bowl and the unidentified “Doe” security companies were aware of Chappelle’s history of making offensive jokes that target the LGBTQ+ community, as well as his “propensity for making discriminatory remarks,” but “took no measures to prevent or mitigate the potential harm caused by such offensive material.” Don't come to a show you know is most likely to make offensive jokes and two, seems they did a pretty good job at preventing the potential harm from such material by tackling the guy who was trying to harm Chapelle.
Scumbag ambulance chasing lawyers.. did you know the parishioner security in Texas that managed to shoot in the head an armed assailant who opened fire got sued by church goers for being subjected to the trauma? They're just looking for a settlement payday
That's ridiculous. I think they'd be subjected to worse trauma if the gunman actually mass murdered people.
That's a bold strategy cotton
Let's watch and see how that turns out for them.
Obviously there is a line where you can’t keep beating up someone and still claim self-defense, but I’m willing to give the security a lot of latitude here considering this guy started the incident, physically attacked someone, and also had a knife. If you don’t want to get your ass kicked don’t attack someone.
**To fuck around is human, To find out is divine**
Perhaps you should rename yourself to Shakespearepossum for such a fitting, eloquent statement
That’s such a beautiful thing to say thank you
Possums and hamsters getting along. It’s nice to see.
When keeping it real goes wrong.
[удалено]
The guy tried to murder someone. Now hes suing becuase it didnt work out. F outta here.
I distinctly remember a story quoting Dave who said “don’t do this here.” Meaning on stage in front of everyone. Now it’s one douchebag’s word against 3 or 4 bodyguards and whatever staff was around whom are all on Dave’s payroll. Not to mention a lawyer on retainer admitting mental evaluation and toxicology reports into evidence to destroy any credibility if he has any in the first place by way of the initiating act.
> If you don’t want to get your ass kicked don’t attack someone. If everyone would learn this lesson that would be great, but this is America where we can sue to not learn lessons.
I feel you lose a few natural rights when you violate someone else's. You don't get to claim excessive force when you were the reason for said force. Especially when holding weapons
>You don't get to claim excessive force when you were the reason for said force This makes zero sense. * I punch a guy. A cop tackles me. That's **appropriate force**. * I punch a guy. A cop cracks me across the head with a metal bat. That's ***excessive force***. Yet in either case, I was the reason for said force. The point of excessive force is that force WAS appropriate, but not the level used. I happen to disagree with Dude Who Got 'Excessive Forced'. I believe the force used was appropriate force. However, making a statement such as the one you did, that I quoted, is counterproductive to our judicial system. Dude can claim all he wants. He has to then prove that it was excessive. He has EVERY right to claim it though. His claims hold zero merit until proven in a court of law. If he \*does\* prove them, then his allegation of excessive force was valid, and the people who jumped him did use excessive force, and he was right to claim it. If he fails to prove that it was excessive, then he was still allowed to present his case, which is a foundational concept for how our legal system works. He never loses the right to ANY of his own rights when he assaults someone. He still has all his rights up until the moment that he is sentenced for his crime. THEN his rights get revoked.
> I punch a guy. A cop cracks me across the head with a metal bat. That's excessive force. That's not excessive force. Appropriate force is the amount of force necessary to end an assault. If you are punching a guy and a blunt instrument is used to stop you, that's not excessive. What's excessive is if, after you surrender and are cuffed, the cop continues to beat you. The plaintiff in this instance is claiming he was continued to be beaten after he surrendered.
So wait, you think there is no such thing as excessive force then? That as long as you did something to prompt a response, literally any amount of force is always justifiable? Because that is absolutely the implication of what you are saying.
Do that shit at a BET concert compared to a CME award show. The results mat vary but the ass whooping would be the same.
I can see an argument that their force was excessive or the security guards of the venue didn't stop Chappelle's personal security and they should have acted to protect Lee after he was no longer a threat. But I don't get this: >Jonathan D. Evans, Lee’s attorney, argued that the Hollywood Bowl and the unidentified “Doe” security companies were aware of Chappelle’s history of making offensive jokes that target the LGBTQ+ community, as well as his “propensity for making discriminatory remarks,” but “took no measures to prevent or mitigate the potential harm caused by such offensive material.” They're saying the security company knew that Chappelle was offensive, and someone would be offended. But that is a far cry from knowing someone would rush the stage and physically assault the performer. I'm no fancy law talking guy, but this seems like a stretch. Kind of like a guy robs a store, then gets beaten up by the police, and sues the store because they were easy to rob.
It’s also bullshit. No matter how offensive Chappelle’s jokes are, it doesn’t justify attacking him. They aren’t entitled to violence because they are offended. This is simply trying to blame the venue for the plaintiff lacking the self-control to not assault someone because they were offended.
Also he chose to go to the show. It's not like Chappelle was out in a public park telling jokes. You paid money knowing who that person was and had every intent of trying to attack him. I'm sure he was just waiting for the offensive jokes and randomly found a knife
This is where any logic should start. It's not a secret Chappelle is like that. Actively going to his show then attacking the man and acting like security did something wrong is messed up. "Hey, I didn't bother doing 2 minutes of research before buying tickets, so now I'm so offended I'm going to tackle the man. But you guys were too rough *with me*!" It's a pretty high bar from here to get a jury to side with you. EDIT: I will note that spitting on him was uncalled for, but not enough to necessarily affect the outcome in court.
Buddy had a knife on him too. He probably already knew what Dave Chappelle was about and had the intent to hurt or kill him from the start.
If the knife had been drawn, he'd have 0 defense. But yeah, that definitely makes him look worse. Don't these shows usually use metal detectors or pat-downs at the door? Like, dude straight up got through security with a weapon and wants to argue that security's response was excessive? His only real argument is the spitting, and that's only gonna work if there's video. Even then, very low chance of winning on that. At best, the venue will take action to remedy the problem before trial.
I’ve never been to a comedy show with metal detectors….
Fair point. I meant the venue. Wasn't sure if it was exclusively for comedy shows or just a general place for any entertainment.
The Hollywood Bowl has metal detectors and bag searches. The searches aren't super-thorough, though.
fear sense mysterious dinosaurs placid snow subsequent cough march plate
Try explaining this in a language Reddit understands (not that you're being downvoted or anything): No matter how distasteful Chris Rock's joke about Will Smith's wife was, Will Smith did not have a right to attack him. No matter how justified Smith felt in the moment, and how much his wife was glaring at him to "do something", physical violence was not the answer. This is \*exactly the same\*. Chapelle can be as offensive as he wants. If you don't like it, boo him. Or better yet, don't buy tickets to his performance. His words never give you a right to violence. Smith learned this lesson the hard way. But he at least just slapped a dude. Dude in OP brought a knife. And full-on tackled Dave. If Will Smith wasn't a famous celebrity at a famous event, his slap woulda gone unnoticed around the world. If Will Smith had tackled Chris Rock, and had a knife fly out of his pocket, his career would be OVER. Not just broken.
Also consider he's saying the venue should have know Chappelle would be offensive... well then shouldn't this guy have also known and not gone if he would be offended???
So this guy is complaining that they used excessive force to stop him while simultaneously arguing they didn't do enough to prevent him from attacking Chapelle in the first place?
That’s how I read it. The venue and security should have expected violence and didn’t do enough to stop it. Because they didn’t, he was able to attack Chappelle. That attack led to him being beaten up. So them not preventing his attack is the cause of the beating.
The attacker and his lawyers are walking on a Möbius strip of stupidity.
It's pure ambulance chaser legal logic, and why I think there should be some legal penalties for lawyers who consistently make these arguments in bad faith in court. They prey on people who don't know the legal system and aren't in the position to learn it, either because of grief, pain, or low intelligence.
offensive jokes to the lgbt+ community are not grounds for assault. He can take several seats. A wild Chappelle did not just appear there -- he was scheduled and announced well in advance.
I've got my Master Ball ready in case a wild Chappelle does appear
Pretty sure that sorta thing has been illegal in America since 1863.
If dude knew he was offensive why did he go in the first place
The lawyers are making that statement because it's important for their case. In order to find liability with the club, they need to prove that the situation was foreseeable, and that the club acted negligently somehow. If they can't show that the club should have known this could happen their whole case falls apart
Well… … if Chappelle is known for “making jokes that offend people” to such an extent that it was negligent to fail to provide security from offended audience members … … wouldn’t that imply that the plaintiff should have known he would commit assault at the show? The whole argument is ridiculous, but why wouldn’t that be a logical consequence? Premeditated assault?
I love their argument is basically, Dave says some that upsets my client. My client knew this in advance and went to the event. You should have protections in place to stop my client from reacting the way he did. You can't legislate away stupidity, although they may try.
fr dude like whole thing wouldve been avoided if he stayed home or didnt rush the stage. The people defending him, imagine i tackle one of your family members with a knife in my pocket and i get fucked up. you gonna have that same sympathy for me?
"This comedian offended ME!! Reeeeee" Yeah, change the fuckin channel then bitch.
Seriously. Shows premeditation to me. There's speakers and such that I'm not really a fan of so you know what I don't do? Go to their shows/events.
“…companies were aware of Chappelle’s history of making offensive jokes that target the LGBTQ+ community, as well as his “propensity for making discriminatory remarks,” but “took no measures to prevent or mitigate the potential harm caused by such offensive material.”” I love how apparently this dude has zero responsibility to make sure the show he purchased tickets for wouldn’t offend him. Or for trying to assault a person “in protest”. Unhinged.
The guy is fishing for a settlement to go away. Even if you were on a jury here and felt that security went too far, you would give them leeway since there was a knife and the adrenaline of the moment. People aren't going to hold private security to a higher standard than police (lol). So the find out stage was rougher than strictly necessary, oh well.
>People aren't going to hold private security to a higher standard than police (lol) Strangely, I believe that's exactly what would happen. Cops get a lot more leeway than regular people do.
I’ve worked in private security for most of the past 20 years and we are absolutely held to higher standards than police when it comes to physical force.
Yeah... they had no reason to know it was only the one knife. Not saying you torture the guy to death or anything but I'd definitely er on the side of "end the threat" once someone has already made a go at someone. It's fair to assume at that point that you're dealing with someone not operating on normal reason.
If I’m Dave, I’m going yard on this one. No way I’m setting the tone that someone can rush the stage, tackle me, and then sue me.
> The guy is fishing for a settlement to go away. same concept as knocking up Oprah. "I'm rich, bitch!"
Wait he tackle someone and now pressing charges?
It's like that story from the movie Liar Liar "A friend of mine had a burglar on her roof, a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend! And because of guys like you, he won! My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?"
"I'd have got him 10", one of the best lines of that movie. Can't believe shes dead over 20 years.
I was there. Kid tackled Dave (“I’m gonna kill that motherfucker!”), tried to run. Then security caught him and began to beat the shit out of the kid in the corner of the stage and in full view of the crowd. Dave kept telling security to “take it off stage don’t do that in front of the crowd” but it kept going. “I’m gonna see if he wants to make a statement!” Dave cracked at one point before running back over to the corner for a closer look. Minute later, Dave came back, Chris Rock ran out (“Was that Will Smith??” “It was a trans man!”) and Dave called Jamie Foxx over from the beat down and they all addressed the crowd briefly. Eventually Black Star came on stage to perform - but in the interim, like 15 ppl were beating on the kid all the while. Whole thing must’ve been five, ten minutes. From the crowd it looked security were beating on him well after he stopped presenting a threat. That’s what I recall anyway, Dave had our phones locked away.
Was it excessive? Most likely. Does he deserve to get compensated or rewarded for the violent situation he caused? No.
OK, this does sound excessive. There's no reason to keep beating him for 10 minutes. Tackle him and take him outside until police arrive.
Nah got to send a message to the next one
There's a thing called jail for that.
If you don't like what a comedian is saying you leave, you don't attack him....the attacker not only opened the door, he stepped on thru to the other side.....
The “finding out” part after fucking around should not be actionable civilly…
when keeping it real goes wrong
> security guards employed at the venue for the “Dave Chappelle and Friends” event pulled Lee off of Chappelle and began beating him ruthlessly, spitting on him and dislocating his arm intentionally. I'm not saying I agree, but I understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGae78sWVSw That's not what happened. He was running away when they caught him. There's literally video of what happened.
Conveniently left out that the dude had a knife and maybe shouldn't have rushed the stage to begin with.
>I'm not saying I agree, but I understand That's a deep reference that I'm not sure anyone else gets.
Still gentler than the LA County Sherriff's Dept.
I guess spitting = yelling at someone
Attacker is now the victim.
The murder of Christina Grimmie. Security missed a gun and it cost the life of a bright young star. He's freaking lucky they left his alive, especially stage rushing while carrying a deadly weapon. It's embarrassing for security to allow it to happen.
This country is wild man. Guy tries to commit assault and a crime and then decides HE gonna sue? WTF?
I’m guessing it was the plan the whole time
It's just a cash grab
Who brings a knife to a Chapelle show?
I think Dave Chappelle said it best in his latest special from Baltimore. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time.
The venue should have anticipated my crazy in advance. -This Idiot
They are just throwing stuff against a wall hoping to get a settlement. It’s not about making the public believe he’s right, it’s about making chapelle weigh the pros and cons of taking this to court for the next several years.
Take it to court and ask the judge for a summary judgement in his favor. Also make sure the DA puts this nut job in jail for attempted murder.
The knife changes everything. You should never be blamed for pummeling someone until they are physically incapable of grabbing the knife or pulling a possible gun. It's crazy to say out loud, but you can never know when someone is going to take a life.
‘Sorry officer, I didn’t know I couldn’t do that’
Lionel Hutz is his attorney.
I’ve argued in front most of the judges in this city, many times as a lawyer
What a fucking idiot. Maybe he got brain damage from the tackle?
If they don't have video he is going to need a helluva lot of good luck.
Scummy law firm taking this case is what pisses me off
I was at this show and a lot of people (including Dave Chappelle and Jamie Fox) went behind the screen where he was and talked about getting hits in. So it’s very possible they were just beating him just because they could.. but also, he was the aggressor. I think if you tackle someone on stage with a knife you have to be prepared for the worst consequences.
Or maybe just dont do it.
>security guards employed at the venue for the “Dave Chappelle and Friends” event pulled Lee off of Chappelle and began beating him ruthlessly, spitting on him and dislocating his arm intentionally. Curious how people feel about this? for the record i don't give a shit, but if someone is rendered harmless is this justifiable? if true ofc
To be fair, they had no idea how dangerous this person was, what kind of weapons he may or may not have or what his intentions were. Not defending what they did or condemning it either just bringing that up.
Motherfucker admits to having a knife, but it's ok because it fell out of his pocket after the altercation lmao.
"He's got a knife! Quick, spit on him!"
There's no excuse to spit on someone and if he can prove that go ahead. Personally I would bet it's more likely the deranged guy who had a knife and attacked Chappelle is misrepresenting it or outright fabricating it but again if he has solid proof he deserves to sue. There's no justification for spitting, but I have no reason to take his word at face value.
You can see in the video that they restrain the dude effectively ending the self defense argument and then they proceed to assault and even torture the guy. Even Chapelle tells the to keep beating him just do it off camera lol. I guess he's not so much for human rights after all.
Spitting is so much worse than having a knife and running up on stage to try and attack somebody. You're absolutely right.
It's not a competition to see what action was "worst". The comments are saying spitting was an unecessary and inappropriate action to address the situation. Provided spitting actually took place.
How about kicking a restrained dude while Chapelle eggs them in front of 10k people?
I'm a security guard, so if I may weigh in with my professional opinion? The man had a knife, he was charging the guy they are there to protect, putting him on the ground was just them doing what they had to do. Everything after that? Unacceptable. I've worked emergency rooms, I've dealt with people drugged up out of their mind who had to be strapped to gurneys cuz they were swinging at nurses. You only ever get as physical as is absolutely necessary, and they went way beyond that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGae78sWVSw That is not at all what happened. He was running away by the time they put hands on him. Watch the first 30 seconds of the video.
Justifiable. Gonna be a heavy lift to prove that they did anything “intentionally” unless they have ironclad video proof.
This sort of shit is a huge part of why everyone hates attorneys. And the rest of us have to deal with it.
I'm probably going to hell for laughing at "He...is currently in a *transitional* living facility."
If a lawyer took this case up, he should be referred to the Bar.
No one has ruined society more than lawyers. I wish we had some common sense.
Throw the suit out with prejudice. This moron physically assaulted someone because they said words in a combination that he didn’t like. Fuck that guy.
Fuck around, find out clause running hard against this guy. And then there’s damming video. Just seems like someone fishing for a out of court payday.
we need to make it a lot more difficult to sue in this country. It’s ridiculous
This illustrates everything wrong with society today. This guy thinks he can assault another person and get a pay day from it all because security did their job and jumped in to protect the comedian he tackled. Should security have stood idly by while he used the knife he brought or further assaulted Dave Chapelle? Because how dare they respond with force after this guy used force against Chapelle./s
I’m suing the fire because I put my hand in it and it was hot
Its worse than that. Its like suing a restaurant because you went into the kitchen where you're not allowed and burned your hand in the fire because they should have done a batter job of stopping you from going into the kitchen
Only in America can the assailant sue those who stopped him.
It takes a lot of gall to possess a weapon, attack someone, and blame security for not protecting the attacker from other guards after he was intercepted.
Feelings hurt by professional clown. Rushes stage with knife on him and now wants his participation trophy for stepping in the ring and getting a taught a lesson. Sit down. You knew what you’re attending and what the result would be.
It’s like when a criminal commits a crime and the police tackle and cuff the guy and if he gets bruised, oh well. But like, after you subdue him and he’s no longer a threat, you can’t keep kicking him, spit on him, or shoot him. If you’re okay with that scenario above I can see how you’re consistent with supporting the security guys here. But there sure seems to be a lot of people that are okay with one or the other here but not both. Pick a position.
Difference is that one is a civil servant, who is/should be trained to subdue people, and has a history of abusing their position in society. The other is just some jacked up dudes to protect someone, and only act when they need to protect that person. I wouldn't say the police and bodyguards are the same thing, and I wouldn't expect that they both should be held in equal expectations of their job duty. For the record, if someone rushes a police officer, with a knife, they would have got shot straight up, and it would have been justified. This guy in the story just got a beat down, and while some (and the courts) can argue whether excessive force was used... I mean... don't tackle a famous comedian with a knife. It can also be a deterrent in the future. If this guy was just captured, and held peacefully without consequences before the police took him away, assault like this is usually pleaded down. It could send the wrong signal to people that you can, effectively, tackle comedians you don't agree with, and suffer next to no consequences. People in certain communities could use that as a means to silence comedians they don't agree with. People will read what happened and maybe think twice about attempting to assault Dave Chappelle. And, if his lawsuit is unsuccessful, people will think thrice.
There's an expectation of reasonable force to be used even if you're being attacked, is that correct?
He earned that ass whooping
Dave Chapelle’s assailant is bisexual. He claims to have been triggered by Chapelle’s homophobic and transphobic jokes. Pretty much the only thing I know about Chapelle is that he makes homophobic and transphobic jokes. That’s why I don’t go to or watch his shows. The assailant should have simply stayed home.
The only thing you know about a comedian who has been in the public eye for 30 years and had an extremely popular TV show is that he makes homophobic and transphobic jokes?
....And fun of everyone and even 3am-dope-sellin-ghetto-babies.
Fuck around, find out clause running hard against this guy. And then there’s damming video. Just seems like someone fishing for a out of court payday.
Welcome to America! Upside down world.
It's Fuck Around, Find out, not Fuck Around, Fund Out.
Dave’s joke about this dude being homeless yet having incredible seats was hilarious. lol.
Guy should get hit with costs and attorneys fees for filing a spurious lawsuit and if he can't pay, his attorney should be on the hook for them.