Pimp Who Brutally Stomped Client's Face Blames Shoe Company

Sirgiogio ClardyIn the world of insane lawsuits, the story of Sirgiorgio Clardy, a pimp sentenced to 100 years for stomping the face of a client so severely that he had to have facial reconstruction surgery, may be the weirdest. Clardy, a pimp from Portland, Oregon, is not blaming himself for beating the man (or the 18-year-old prostitute he made bleed from the ears), but Nike, the shoe company who made his Air Jordans.

Yes, seriously.

Clardy, who has yet to serve Nike with this insane lawsuit, claims that  Nike "failed to warn of risk or to provide an adequate warning or instruction," by not cautioning that their shoes are "potentially dangerous." In his defense, the shoes were classified as a dangerous weapon by the court, but the court in order to assure his long sentence, but really? Couldn't they have said his FEET did the stomping?

Advertisement

It would go without saying that this is a frivolous lawsuit and is yet another example of the overly litigious society we are living in today, but that seems the simplest explanation. What is more disturbing about this is the lack of self reflection. It is the lack of remorse over a crime that was not committed by shoes. It was committed by a person.

I suppose in some ways, this goes to the gun debate only in this case, shoes don't stomp people's faces, people do. We can argue that anything could be used as a dangerous weapon -- stilettos, flower pots, vases, even glasses -- and it need not be classified as such.

i have no idea if he can win this case and it is not even clear that a lawyer has taken it on. One thing is clear: If he CAN win, this would change our world significantly. Then, anything we use in our day to day life could suddenly be "dangerous." I mean, when you buy Wustof knives, are they classified as "dangerous." Maybe to children, but their correct usage is to chop vegetables and fruits for the kitchen.

This man needs to take responsibility for his own actions and stop blaming his shoes. It's laughably absurd. But let's also recall: If he'd had a gun, this would be murder, not assault with a dangerous weapon.

Do you think he can win this case?

 

Image via Multnomah Co. Sheriff's Office

Read More >

crime