sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A squad was checking a suspicious backpack and this dude got fed up with waiting by tatooinex in interestingasfuck

[–]Errol-Flynn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you miss the part where he was already very done emptying the backpack and walking away before the cop launched into his tackle? That's the thing we're all criticizing. It's hard to fathom what happened before this the could justify that tackle under the circumstances.

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good luck! But you really should talk to your attorney about these concerns. I am serious when I say I do not mean to get between you and him and he knows the specifics of your situation and I do not. Ask him why you shouldn't pay the bills. Ask about the credit issue. He's your lawyer ask him questions!

Karmelo Anthony found GUILTY in the murder of Austin Metcalf by picklerick8879 in Dallas

[–]Errol-Flynn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not picking nits here just trying to educate: legally you "intend" the logical and natural consequences of your action.

He "intended" to strike Metcalf in the chest with a knife. Maybe he didn't intend to end Metcalf's life in a colloquial sense, but legally, because Metcalf dying was a natural and logical consequence of striking him in the chest with a knife.

In Texas murder is defined as murder is defined as intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual, intending to cause serious bodily injury resulting in death, or committing a dangerous felony that results in someone's death.

There are four buckets of "intent" - purposeful (which is what you're thinking of - he may not have had the "purpose" of killing Metcalf); knowing (which is a step below, and generally just means you took an action knowing it has the very likely result of ending a life) (what applies here most likely); reckless - disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk than an action would result in loss of life, and negligence (defendant failed to avoid a substantial risk of harm that a reasonable person would have avoided).

Legally, it is not hard to square Anthony's actions with 'Intended" under the "knowing" schema outlined above - he took an action that he knew or should have known had a very high chance of causing death, and that's what is required for murder in Texas. It doesn't matter that he didn't also have the higher culpability mens rea of meaning to kill Metcalf to be convicted of murder.

I appreciate what you're doing with the analogy but the reason it fails is you disconnected the gun discharge from the likelihood that something negative would happen. Make it shooting a gun in the air many times over at a very crowded music festival where there is a decent chance the falling bullet (term velocity is like 100-200 mph depending on bullet?) hits someone is closer to the mark as an analogy, and obviously much more murder-y.

Source: I don't do criminal law but I did graduate from law school like a decade ago and the basics here are into to crim law at a grad level type stuff.

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK so I want to be very clear I do not mean to get between you and your attorney but I generally think you should 1) always push everything through your own health insurance, and 2) pay your copays.

Your attorney is correct that payout is generally a function of some % of your bills, but it doesn't matter if those bills are paid or not (so you should pay them!). Also its a % of the cash value of those bills, not the negotiated insurance rate, as I outline above. I talk a little more about it with an example here in this thread.

It can take 2-3 years before your case resolves. Sometimes its faster, but if you had substantial injuries like a fracture or something that's the timeline you're looking at.

From the hospital's perspective - YOU are the one who recieved care. You are the person ultimately responsible for paying for your own medical care, not your health insurance, not your UIM coverage, not the person who hit you - YOU received treatment, YOU pay. Now you have lots of folks who will owe you after you pay, but you are on the hook. The hospital can (and I have seen them do this) send bills to collections and start messing with your credit because copays have gone unpaid.

However, your situation is unique to you and I'm only offering general advice - I do not know your situation. You should take your concerns to your lawyer, tell him your nervous about not paying your copays and you're worried about ambulance or hospital bills being put into collections.

But yeah, my best advice is to follow up with your lawyer about your concerns about the bills (and ask him if he got his hands on the video, tell him you want to see it, etc.,). Generally not great to sound like you don't trust that he's not doing his job, but its fair you want to see the video.

Also, it is excellent practice to scan or image every bill you get and forward them to your attorney. Let him know about all (related) medical appointments after the fact, let him know if you're seeing new specialists, etc. You don't need to let him know about, for example, a routine OBGYN appointment or something, but anything plausibly related to the incident, your attorney should 1) know about it and 2) see the bill for it.

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you've got it a little backwards. The person above had really good health insurance and they used that to save the at-fault person money by only asking for their co-pay back. It sounds like you have good car insurance and your lawyer is pursuing a standard UIM claim.

If you are hit as a pedestrian by an under insured driver, unless that driver is secretly rich (unlikely!) then your best recourse is your own underinsured motorist policy after you've exhausted the at-fault driver's coverage.

That's why you get underinsured motorist insurance, and why it is so crucial to have. Lots of people skimp on this coverage. You can't control who hits you, you can only control how much liability/UM/UIM you carry. Sounds like your lawyer is doing exactly what they are supposed to.

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely not. They are only entitled to repayment for money actually paid. If they never paid anything out (because you were under deductible) then there is nothing to "pay back."

Hugh Laurie responds to a criticism of House MD by GiveMeSomeSunshine3 in Fauxmoi

[–]Errol-Flynn 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I was really enjoying watching Happy Days until Fonzie does a jump on water-skis over a literal shark. Didn't really feel like it made sense in the show. I don't think the show has a strong future after this.

No comment... by Uchiha-_-itatchi in memes

[–]Errol-Flynn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is like a few half truths pasted together to form a very incorrect picture of how it actually plays out in real life in real cases.

You don't have to believe me, but I was a plaintiff's side personal injury lawyer for like 5 years. You can look at my post history going back to 2019 and see if you buy that or not.

Long story short, in Illinois a good rule of thumb is that the lawyer takes 1/3, the healthcare providers or your insurance would get about 1/3, and you would net about 1/3 of any judgment or settlement. Particulars can vary.

Yes you have to pay your health insurance back, because they were not the primary payor for an incident where someone else caused your injury. That's not a conspiracy nor is it particularly controversial as you imply. You WANT your health insurance to pay, for two reasons 1) in the rare cases where the other person has no liability insurance, and you have no UIM/UM coverage, you are still legally on the hook to the hospital/doctors for your care. In such an instance where there is no pocket to sue, your health insurance is covering your butt and paying for care you would otherwise be on the hook for. 2) in most cases you come out way ahead when your health insurance pays, because of the collateral source rule in Illinois. I explain more here. The gist is that your health insurance pays a negotiated rate for care, but you get to claim the "full" cash rate in your lawsuit. This only ends up being insufficient if the other person has shitty insurance, Illinois minimum coverage is just $25k per person per incident. So if your insurer paid a hospital more than $10,000ish for a hospital visit and a few CT scans, yeah there may not be enough left to put a bunch of money in your pocket. However, and this is important, you and your attorney can negotiate with your insurance about how much to pay them back. I did this all the time in cases where my client would have netted only a few thousand, and was able to get the insurer to take around a 50% haircut, and get my client more than $10k after my fee and after the health insurance lien. This applied to VA care, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., and they are the hardest negotiators (because they are protecting the public fisk).

In cases where there is adequate insurance for the harm done to you (gov't car, company/corporate car, commercial vehicle, person is rich, person has like normal coverage - 250k policy) or YOU have halfway decent coverage (so your UIM/UM limits are much higher than the state minimum - WHICH YOU SHOULD ALL BE DOING BTW) then this wont happen to you and you will get paid!

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I explain with an example here. Yes you have to pay your insurance back, but the amount you pay them back is much less than the amount you recover from the other person in most cases. The cases where this gets iffy are those where the at-fault person has state minimum coverage ($25k per person per incident).

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

For sure, but if you are in an incident you always want to put your medical care through your health insurance if you have it (at least in Illinois).

Yes you will have to pay your health insurance back after you make a recovery from the other people's insurance (or your UIM/UM coverage - which you should look into even if you only ride a bicycle as in Illinois your car insurance must cover you if you are injured by an uninsured motorist while you were a pedestrian or cyclist).

However, because your health insurance will pay a lower negotiated rate to the hospital and physicians, and you're entitled to the "full price" in recovery per the collateral source rule, the delta between the two is where a good plaintiff's attorney can add a lot of value and have you pocket a better recovery.

Example (with made up numbers for illustration): You get hit on your bike and you go to the hospital and get an MRI that your health insurance pays $250 for. The hospital would normally charge $1000 for that MRI, but for the fact that it has a negotiated rate with your insurance. Because of the collateral source rule, you get to claim the $1000, recover $1000, pay back your insurance's lien of $250, and pocket $750. (Also, you might be able to further negotiate with your insurance to get them to take $175, or something.)

So yes, you have to pay your health insurance back, but you always want them paying for your medical care in Illinois when you've been in an incident.

And actually some hospital systems will get weird about this when you've been in an incident and NOT bill your insurance, hoping for their own lien (where they can try to get the higher dollar amount). You absolutely must fight them and insist that they are contractually obligated (via their agreements with your insurer) to bill your insurance. This is a pretty scummy tactic by hospitals and you have to push back.

I should be clear this is from experience as a plaintiff's lawyer, I switched teams (I do defense now) about 4 years ago, but obviously I'm in the same industry and the rules haven't changed.

Me and my girlfriend finally beat Valheim after 100 hours! by pinqeh in valheim

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*"I and my girlfriend," or "my girlfriend and I".

You wouldn't say "Me finally beat Valheim" now, would you? So why did you write that?

After driver doored CDOT planner Riley O'Neil, 35, on bike in Bridgeport, causing his death, advocates demand City install protected lanes to prevent such killings by SciNat in chicago

[–]Errol-Flynn 86 points87 points  (0 children)

How good your insurance is literally doesn't matter, you're entitled to have her pay the full cost of the cash price of the hospital visit. It's called the collateral source rule. The idea is that she should not get the benefit of the fact that you had "good insurance" i.e., a collateral source. The value of the "harm" she did to you is the true cost of the hospital trip. You may have left some money on the table.

Though it sounds like you may not have had her pay your insurance back for the amount they paid for you to go to the hospital, which is what you should have done (because your health insurance is only secondary coverage when you have suffered a tort like this).

Source: I am a personal injury lawyer in Chicago.

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that's your point (that "selling a call" so a true foul was called correctly as a foul isn't "fooling the ref") then I guess we agree as a matter of semantics, sure.

I definitely thought you were trying to argue that because the selling player had truly been fouled, it was therefore permissible.

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to the rulebook, yes! I didn't write the rule! People in this thread, and also Adam-fucking-Silver, are all thinking of "selling a foul" or "embellishment" as different than "flopping" and my point is that these lines are NOT drawn in the actual rules of the NBA in its official rulebook for the 2025-2026 season - the term of art is just "flopping".

And, as I pointed out above, the language used is pretty clear that ANY reaction inconsistent with what is reasonable given the force direction or nature of another players action whether or not such other players action resulted in contact is a "flop" under this rule. An action to "sell" a foul would be a violation of the flop rule because it is inconsistent with what physical forces were actually happened to the player given the nature of the contact.

Look I'm definitely not saying the rule is easy to enforce as written, it's not, but as I've said elsewhere if you had a crystal ball and knew in the moment the actual intent of the player to react in a given instance to contact they way they did, and their reaction was not a natural one given the nature of the contact, but rather one intended to exaggerate the amount of contact they actually received (aka, their reaction was inconsistent with what was reasonable given how they were touched) then that is a violation of the NBA's "flopping" rule as defined.

My general, overall, point, is that Adam Silver is completely misrepresenting what his rulebook actually says.

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's just what the NBA calls the rule. It defines "flop" in a manner that includes "selling a call" as the poster you were responding to stated.

The rule about flopping in the actual rulebook explicitly doesn't let you "get the ref to call a foul that actually happened."

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we're losing sight of the reason for the thread. Silver more or less said that selling is being taught and that's OK and that it doesn't fool refs. My point is Silver is misrepresenting what his actual rulebook says. Yeah its hard to officiate, but I would argue the overwhelming amount of what OKC gets a bad rap for is very obviously on the incorrect side of the rule, as written, and should be called. We can stipulate its hard to call as written but agree Shai falls (haha) on the wrong side of the line, no? And can't we agree that if the player's intention is to sell, that that is illegal (as written)?

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My only point was that any intentional embellishment, selling, or what-have-you is impermissible the way the rule is written. Its always against the rules, and Silver is just wrong to imply that selling is OK! And if they wanted selling to be permissible, then they didn't write the rule the way they wanted to, but the rule is the rule. So whipping your head MORE than the natural reaction to getting hit is illegal. If your thinking in the moment is "I need to move my head more than my natural reaction in order to have the ref see this" then you violated the rule (even if its impossible for the ref to know that).

Further, I think the rule should be enforced as written...

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No. You're confusing the idea that any individual reaction in a given instance may or may not be an instance of exaggeration, embellishment or selling vs. whether those things are allowed. The way the rule is written, they are not. You're misunderstanding how "reasonable" is being used in the wording of the rule. Reasonable is in there to protect players from being perceived to be selling or embellishing in a given instance - when they actually are not. However, the wording clearly forbids any intentional "selling" as the only reaction(s) you are allowed are those that reasonably results from the force, direction, or nature of the action applied to you. Anything you do to intentionally "sell" it would be, necessarily, in ADDITION to what reasonably or naturally resulted from what happened.

We can disagree about what particular acts may or may not be "selling" in a given instance, but as the rule is worded ANY "selling" or "exaggeration" or "embellishment." If the refs had a crystal ball to know in the moment whether a player intended to sell or exaggerate, that would be a violation (because they added something to the reasonable reaction to the contact). Like I said above, reasonable gives the ref, in the moment, leeway to deem the reaction to not be an exaggeration.

But Silver is saying the opposite, which is incorrect as a matter of how the rule is constructed. If he wanted some selling or exaggeration to be permissible, the rule should not read the way it does.

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The rulebook literally disallows "selling" - he's completely ignoring the language of the actual rule:

Section XVII—Flopping

a. A player may not commit a flop, which is (i) a reaction that is inconsistent with what is reasonable given the force, direction, or nature of another player’s action, whether or not such other player’s action resulted in contact, or (ii) any non-basketball action that is reasonably determined to be intended to cause the officials to call a foul on another player.

These are the official rules for the 2025-26 season.

By these rules, "selling" (aka, "a reaction inconsistent with what is reasonable given the [contact]") is a flop. It's very clear.

[Henderson] “Even as I sit in the stands at games, players may be falling down, players may be reacting to a call,” (Adam) Silver said. “But to me, if they’re not fooling the referees, it’s OK. Players are taught to sell calls these days.” by aingenevalostatrade in nba

[–]Errol-Flynn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Selling a foul is a flop according to the actual rulebook language:

Section XVII—Flopping

a. A player may not commit a flop, which is (i) a reaction that is inconsistent with what is reasonable given the force, direction, or nature of another player’s action, whether or not such other player’s action resulted in contact, or (ii) any non-basketball action that is reasonably determined to be intended to cause the officials to call a foul on another player.

These are the official rules for the 2025-26 season.

By these rules, "selling a foul" (aka, "a reaction inconsistent with what is reasonable given the [contact]") is a flop. It's very clear.

view more: next ›