Pacers staffer sues Tinsley over shooting

Post #1 » by **ranger001** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:16 pm

http://www.indystar.com/article/2009051 ... 8/SPORTS04

Indiana Pacer Jamaal Tinsley's rush for safety during a 2007 shooting left the team's equipment manager a sitting duck in the back of Tinsley's Rolls-Royce, a new lawsuit says.

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #2 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Thu May 14, 2009 11:52 pm

I hate guys like this.

What happened to him sucked, but its not Tinsley's fault. I don't know if they ever caught the guys who were shooting, but they are the ones he should be worried about.

Post #3 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:09 am

The lawsuit revolves around the claim that Qatato was in the back seat, where the door can only be unlocked from the drivers seat. Qatato then goes onto claim that all the front seat passengers ran out of the car and hid in the lobby of the Conrad hotel, leaving everyone locked into the backseat.

Makes some legal sense to me. False imprisonment? In the loosest sense of the term, yeah. If they would've unlocked the door, Qatato could've sought refuge in the Conrad lobby and escaped unscathed much as Tinsley did. However, they thought they should run and not take the half second to think to unlock the rear doors, leaving Qatato in the back seat to try and literally dodge bullets.

PacerGuy · Post #4 » by **PacerGuy** » Fri May 15, 2009 3:31 am

Settle this out of court w/ a simple letter, something like:

Mr. Tinsley,
Please agree to accept a buy-out of your contract for 4 mil (2 mil/yr) & the Pacers...errrr..... Mr. Qatato will accept & drop all charges.
Sincerely,
The Law Offices of Simon/Bird/ & Morway

Post #5 » by **PR07** » Fri May 15, 2009 3:39 am

If I'm getting shot at, I'm not sure I'm going to take the time to unlock the doors. Not that it's not the right thing to do, but if my life's in danger, I'm probably not going to be doing more running than thinking.

Post #6 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Fri May 15, 2009 4:24 am

PacersRule07 wrote:If I'm getting shot at, I'm not sure I'm going to take the time to unlock the doors. Not that it's not the right thing to do, but if my life's in danger, I'm probably not going to be doing more running than thinking.

Probably, most people would, but at the same time, you're single-handedly responsible for any injuries or danger that someone else would face if you single-handedly constrained them into the back seat the car and put them in harm's way yourself.

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #7 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Fri May 15, 2009 4:54 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:The lawsuit revolves around the claim that Qatato was in the back seat, where the door can only be unlocked from the drivers seat. Qatato then goes onto claim that all the front seat passengers ran out of the car and hid in the lobby of the Conrad hotel, leaving everyone locked into the backseat.

Makes some legal sense to me. False imprisonment? In the loosest sense of the term, yeah. If they would've unlocked the door, Qatato could've sought refuge in the Conrad lobby and escaped unscathed much as Tinsley did. However, they thought they should run and not take the half second to think to unlock the rear doors, leaving Qatato in the back seat to try and literally dodge bullets.

Ahh, that makes more sense.

chatard5 · Post #8 » by **chatard5** » Fri May 15, 2009 5:30 am

Tinsley has probably been shot at before. He should've been ready and known to lock the door. That is actually semi-serious. Yeah, I don't blame this guy at all.

Post #9 » by **Miller4ever** » Fri May 15, 2009 7:33 am

This is one way to get Tinsley's money back to the Pacers.

Donerik · Post #10 » by **Donerik** » Fri May 15, 2009 11:59 pm

you think this "feature" would be dangerous in a fire too. or on railroad tracks. I'd toss a lawsuit at the manufacturer too.

I hope Tinsley pays. Read: I am tired of JT, take a lower buyout and quit trying to have your cake(contract money) and eat it too(play)