Anti Smoking to the extreme

[Alexx1401]

Utah restaurant owner appears to spray cigarette smoker in face with fire extinguisher

A Utah restaurant owner was captured on video Friday appearing to spray a fire extinguisher in the face of a smoker who he claimed was within 25 feet of his business.

www.foxnews.com

While I have to say the guy is most likely going to pay money out for this, and it was VERY stupid to do, it was kind of funny. I suspect he will end up being charged with some kind of assault over this. The smoker looks like he may have been one of the homeless who are starting to feel very protected and entitled. If this was LA, San Fran, Seattle or Portland the guy would probably be in jail now.

Read More

 

[Kruel J]

Live and let live says me.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Free agency. On both sides.

 

[CountryGent]

Live and let live says me.

Could not agree more.

 

[CRBMoA]

Thought experiment:

One of us is smoking outside said establishment. We get doused with the extinguisher.

What happens next....................................?

 

[Certaindeaf]

This is why I use a 25' cigarette holder.

 

[Alexx1401]

The "anti smoking" thing has long gotten to the point of insanity. Don't smoke, don't want to be standing next to someone who is but this is getting insane. It is what leads to stuff like this. I have zero doubt the only reason the guy is doing the apology thing now is he has been told he is in legal hot water. It shows how many like this guy have been driven to the point of doing stuff like this and feel it's fine, until they get in trouble.
Where I work the official answer we are supposed to give when asked "where can I smoke" is you have to leave the property. This is of course insane. When asked I say, go outside and stand were people can't see you from the doors. I said if you go out in the parking lot 100ft away and they can see you, they will run to me and swear they can smell it.
When this state started to force bars and such to ban it was another great example. To me if the people who own the place want to allow it? Great. Customers who do not like it can go to a place that does not allow it. Voters were not happy with that though. They wanted all forced to do as they wanted.

 

[SavageGerbil]

Oregon law says over 10 feet from the door, doubt Utah is any more than that.

Witnesses, I'd press charges. No witnesses....well....
Though I wouldn't have been in the situation. Always tried to keep my habits to myself, not share them by putting myself near other people.

 

[Alexx1401]

Oregon law says over 10 feet from the door, doubt Utah is any more than that.

Witnesses, I'd press charges. No witnesses....well....
Though I wouldn't have been in the situation. Always tried to keep my habits to myself, not share them by putting myself near other people.

This is why I suspect the guy will end up having to pay out, it's on video. I have to assume he knew he was being recorded and did it anyway. Biggest problem I have is the "victim" will sue, and no doubt get money, but not from the guy who did it. The owner I am sure has insurance that will most likely just pay to make it go away. Then everyone else gets to pay more.

 

[SavageGerbil]

This is why I suspect the guy will end up having to pay out, it's on video. I have to assume he knew he was being recorded and did it anyway. Biggest problem I have is the "victim" will sue, and no doubt get money, but not from the guy who did it. The owner I am sure has insurance that will most likely just pay to make it go away. Then everyone else gets to pay more.

Yes, and no. Yes, his insurance will likely cover the fruits of the resulting lawsuit...but he will pay for it in a brutally increased rate. Can't get insurance? You can't keep the business open, so they're free to run wild on him. Considering the circumstances, run wild they will.

Edit: Got to thinking about it, and I wonder if insurance would cover it. It's not exactly a slip and fall, it's a willful case of assault. Seems like the insurer's lawyer could make a good case for it being like asking them to pay for a fire that the owner started intentionally, no?

 

[Alexx1401]

Yes, and no. Yes, his insurance will likely cover the fruits of the resulting lawsuit...but he will pay for it in a brutally increased rate. Can't get insurance? You can't keep the business open, so they're free to run wild on him. Considering the circumstances, run wild they will.

Edit: Got to thinking about it, and I wonder if insurance would cover it. It's not exactly a slip and fall, it's a willful case of assault. Seems like the insurer's lawyer could make a good case for it being like asking them to pay for a fire that the owner started intentionally, no?

Don't know for sure as each state is different. Suspect his liability will pay just to make it go away. Now if they did refuse and he had to close to pay the guy off? I would think it was funny as hell. The bottom feeders make a living like this. Many of them get quite rich doing it. Its why there is so many of them fighting each other. Every time insurance pays out the policy will go up for the owner but we all get to share. Car insurance is a GREAT example of how this works. Have not had any claims for decades. Yet I still get to pay more to cover the morons who drive around looking for another wreck. The cost is spread out to us all sadly.

 

[Flymph]

I'm surprised insurance is legally required, and when I really think about it, I'm surprised it's legal at all.

This anti-smoker thing is dumb, like people need to control everyone else but their own lives which they let some TV program dictate to them...
I feel for both parties, the guy just trying to smoke a cigarette and the business owner. However, the business owner acted like an idiot and will probably get what's coming to him. I know if I was sprayed in the face like that I'd press charges, but I also wouldn't smoke in the guy's face defiantly to be a jerk...