Aug 11 2022 - Case updated with "Waive right to indictment" and "transportation order" - Review scheduled for next year

Status
Not open for further replies.
A-№1 said:
ANY use of the bat, trolls or not, properly or not, would have landed them and the con in extreme hot water. Surely their attorney or insurer would have told them that, but they must have been too stupid to ask.

I doubt even today they understand just how lucky they were.
Click to expand...
I found something interesting while looking through the TMG page. In the background around 12 seconds in and onwards, a person is coincidentally getting a bat checked in at the front. What exactly the bat is made of I can't tell, but I'm leaning towards metal. So it seems Chris isn't the only person who got a bat through security, I guess TMG just has pretty lax security?
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Shanndog, DeformedPeen, The Un-Clit and 1 other person
GypsyBard said:
No he mostly just quietly Cooks on the grill
Click to expand...
That sounds much more ominous.

Maybe it would be less unsettling if he was quacking?

A-№1 said:
ANY use of the bat, trolls or not, properly or not, would have landed them and the con in extreme hot water. Surely their attorney or insurer would have told them that, but they must have been too stupid to ask.

I doubt even today they understand just how lucky they were.
Click to expand...
Why would it get the con in hot water?

I am not being facetious, if a person takes a knife to a public place like a bar or restaurant, then attacks a stranger, it’s not the fault of the venue?

Many cons I have been too have had items which would make improvised weapons, on sale, within the reach of the public.

Granted, Chris is not a pro baller or even an amateur one, but a bat is still a piece of sports equipment.
So he could claim he had it as he was playing a game with friends afterwards.

I could understand if the con asked Chris to leave his bat in his hotel room or check it with security, but then allowed him to get it if he expressed intent to use it on someone, but ultimately Chris is a member of the public.
Organizers of public events and venues can’t be held liable for their attendee’s random acts of violence, surely?
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Shanndog and SpiceyHuman
Jon Osterman said:
View attachment 3613822

Found this DM from Silverman on the Farms. At the bottom it says he thought Chris would be an issue, but also thought it'd be fine because of how he conducted himself at Magfest. And to be fair, TMG was the only time Chris acted like that at a con (he got close before but no kissing). Main takeaway is that they probably didn't have anyone watching him, least not on the first day. Why they let him have the bat is still anyone's guess, maybe they too thought trolls would attack him or that he'd be too stupid to use it properly.
Click to expand...

No offense, but this is pretty old news bro, and it has been posted here many times. I think we originally got it shortly after Silverman made the comment.
 
A-№1 said:
Plastic? It looks like a metal bat in those pics. Trust Chris not to do the right thing and use a wooden bat.
Click to expand...
🤔 You're right. I guess I never noticed through the laughter tears whenever stills or video of that mantrum have popped up.

Pretty much everyone in here would know better than I do, but I thought his weapon of choice was one of those stunted wiffle ball toy bat type things, but you're right.

He either had two, or I'm wrong. But he carried some kind of bat around with him all the time back then & it was an ever-resurfacing talking point of contention, given the history of assaults he had already racked up by then.

Since the guys running that con were definitely aware of who he was & that he had a documented history of being an unpredictably temperamental/violent retard & still let him hurple around with what many considered a weapon, that became one of several points of outrage as the weekend unfolded.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shanndog
Pointless Sperg said:
The helmet thing is mostly because the bike infrastructure sucks, as biking at a normal speed without hazards doesn't really require a helmet. The helmet comes more into play when you're biking at high speeds or risk being thrown across someone's windshield (though in a direct hit from a car anything short of a full brain bucket isn't gonna save ya).
Click to expand...
Good luck hitting your head on a kerb without a helmet. I strongly advise to wear a helmet if you ever want to bike anywhere, even at a reasonable pace. Like you said, it won't protect you from driving into a speeding car, but I prefer not denting my skull on a rock if i skid after a soccer mom cuts me off.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shanndog and hambeerlyingnreed
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back