Posted on 08/15/2011 11:08:59 PM PDT by rawhide
What would he gain by putting one son's name on the ticket and then letting the other son shoot?
To say this is fraud is simply BS and the people who are getting all indignant about it are full of it.
This was not a "planned switch", it just happened. BTW, the way the article reads daddy didn't know at the time that Nate went in for Nick.
This whole thing is just an excuse for the insurance company not to pay out the $50,000. Insurance companies are all the fickin' same, they will go to great lengths not to pay up.
I will bet they don't pay, not because this was fraud(it wasn't)but because they will use any excuse not to pay out.
You’ve got it right; you said it well.
Anyone could buy a ticket and take the shot... even a pro. Interpreting the ticket as a family ticket, with identical twins to boot, is certainly reasonable.
At many minor league ball games in the USA, the “randomly” chosen fans are part of large group sales. When you place the order for a large group sale, the group sales ticket agent will ask you which promotion you want to be a part of — “Best Seat In The House” (a soft couch in the stands) — and what do you know, in the first inning someone from your group will be called to sit in the Best Seat In The House. It’s been a while since I’ve been to a game I don’t remember what all the other ones are - if there’s a child in your group and you request it the child can run the bases with the mascot - the child always wins of course.
Maybe since it was a raffle, the drawing wasn’t rigged.
They are kids. This wasn’t some elaborate scheme to scam a charity out of $50K. The father presumably purchased the tickets for each kid and himself for the “chance” to make a once in a lifetime shot, rewarded with a $50K prize. So could some deranged lawyer reasonably claim that the father should be the one to take the shot no matter what name is on the ticket?
The only fact that should matter is that they called somebody out onto the ice betting that person could not shoot a 3” diameter puck into a 3-1/2” hole from 90 feet away and they lost the bet. Pay up, sucker.
Organizers should have required state authorized photo ID....with thumb print!
“Those damn cheaters, throw the whole family in jail”.
And if the Father say’s he didn’t know, lock him up for fraud!
Oh for petes sake, go join the Taliban!!
LOL..but let the banksters roam free. Go figure.
Why is insurance even involved?
Btw, are those pics of Ops from the Trinity river? I used to set lines
out all the time on Livingston where the river ran through the lake.
I always had to throw back more than I kept.
/Salute
It is not terribly complicated.
They set up the contest so that it was unlikely that there would be a winner of the prize money.
Think about the “tiny three-and-a-half-inch goal” the boy was shooting at from 89 feet away (pretty much from center ice to the goal). The goal was maybe an inch larger than the puck, a nearly impossible shot.
Like I said this was a charity event what the kid really won was a chance to shoot at the goal in front of a crowd. The intent was that there would not be a winner the insurance company was there in case some one did manage to make the shot and a pay out needed to be made.
Shooting a hockey puck into a small opening or taking a 3 point shot at the basketball game is not considered a raffle because no money is exchanged they just randomly pick someone and give them a chance to win some cash or prizes. I guess it could have been a raffle to win the chance to take the shot, but was it specified you couldn't give your winning ticket to someone else? Here, people give winning raffle tickets away all the time-- to the organization holding the raffle as another donation, to their church, or whomever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.