Pimp Sues Nike After Conviction for Stomping Man's Face

Sirgiorgiro Clardy of Portland, Oregon, was convicted of assault and robbery following an incident in which a man failed to pay a prostitute under Clardy's control. He received a 100-year sentence. Now Clardy has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Nike.

Jurors early in 2013 found him guilty of second-degree assault for using his Jordans -- a dangerous weapon -- to beat the john's face to a pulp. The man required stitches and plastic surgery on his nose.

The jury also found him guilty of robbing the john and beating the 18-year-old woman he forced to work as his prostitute. She was injured so badly that she bled from her ears.

In his three-page complaint handwritten from the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Clardy claims that Nike, Chairman Phil Knight and other executives failed to warn consumers that the shoes could be used as a weapon to cause serious injury or death.

On the surface, this seems silly. Shoes are shoes, and the manufacture will most likely not be deemed even partially responsible for the damage Clardy did when he stomped on the victim's face. But when you look closer, you can see a method to the madness.

In the past, Oregon defendants have been convicted of using a wide array of items or substances as dangerous weapons. The list includes boots, rope, a phone receiver, scalding hot water and HIV-infected blood. The "dangerous weapon" classification can spur longer prison sentences.

It appears that Clardy expects the lawsuit to be thrown out as frivolous, which would give him ammunition to appeal the "with a deadly weapon" portion of the charges. The Oregonian has more on the story. -via Uproxx

(Image credit: Multnomah County Sheriff's Office)


Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

While this looks like one of those "wow, what a clever criminal" type things, and one might think he is going to game the system and somehow walk out, the end result here will be that the obvious nature of the shoe (a solid object) meant no warnings were required as to its possible misuse, any more than such warnings would be required of the tens of thousands of other consumer goods with which people have beaten each other to death. It is really just another example of throwing something on the wall, knowing it won't stick, because no lawyer has the stones anymore to just tell his client, "That, sir, is ridiculous." A great reason to stay away from pro bono work (no way this guy is paying one cent toward his defense).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that the gentleman has some prior convictions, always going in and out of the system. This was probably his "strike three; you're out", hence the long prison sentence.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Commenting is closed.





Email This Post to a Friend
"Pimp Sues Nike After Conviction for Stomping Man's Face"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window