PDA

View Full Version : Careful --- Santa might sue if you give him cookies.



pghnative
2005-Feb-04, 09:24 PM
No good deed goes unpunished. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6914824/)

That woman gets my vote for jerk of the year.

sidmel
2005-Feb-04, 09:29 PM
“The victory wasn’t sweet,” Young said. “I’m not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson.”

Distrust your neighbor because there's a law suit around every corner...

TimH
2005-Feb-04, 09:30 PM
“The victory wasn’t sweet,” Young said. “I’m not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson.”

I'm sure the girls did learn something, trying to be kind to others gets you hurt. What a great lesson to learn

Ilya
2005-Feb-04, 09:46 PM
It's utterly disgusting. Much like elementary school students who had given Motrin to a classmatein pain, and were suspended or expelled under "zero tolerance to drugs" policies.

Doodler
2005-Feb-04, 10:00 PM
[The following statement is issued in lieu of what Doodler would otherwise say when presented with a situation so dispicably abominable because of the limitations of this being a family board]

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!!!!

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-04, 10:02 PM
The teenagers’ families offered to pay Young’s medical bills, but she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person.
Wow.

I hope the "lesson" those girls learn is that this particular neighbor is a royal $@#! and should be avoided.

I wonder how the other neighbors feel about this---the ones whose thank-you notes were entered as evidence in the case!

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 10:05 PM
Being a 38 year old single woman, I can sympathize with being frightened while home alone late at night.

That's why a bought a condo with a security (main entrance) door and security buzzer, so people can't just walk up to my condo door unless they're invited.

When someone knocks at my door, I know it's one of my 3 other neighbors that share a commons. Plus, I have a peephole, and I live on the second floor. :D

No one's getting to me, unless they have a ladder and/or start breaking down multiple doors! :o

Moose
2005-Feb-04, 10:16 PM
Even in a safe area, 10:30 is a bit late to be out knocking on doors, good intentions or not.

TimH
2005-Feb-04, 10:19 PM
Even in a safe area, 10:30 is a bit late to be out knocking on doors, good intentions or not.

That's a good point, but really, would you sue a couple of girls trying to give you a card and some cookies because they choose a bad time to knock?

Zachary
2005-Feb-04, 10:24 PM
Even in a safe area, 10:30 is a bit late to be out knocking on doors, good intentions or not.

That's a good point, but really, would you sue a couple of girls trying to give you a card and some cookies because they choose a bad time to knock?

Of course, what if they were terrorists driving a sherman tank? eh? EH? I'm suprised that woman didn't need years of psychiatric councilling to overcome the trauma of potential killers trying to enter her house with the dubious lure of homemade cookies.

Ilya
2005-Feb-04, 10:28 PM
Even in a safe area, 10:30 is a bit late to be out knocking on doors, good intentions or not.

That's a good point, but really, would you sue a couple of girls trying to give you a card and some cookies because they choose a bad time to knock?

I would... if I were a lawsuit leech.

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 10:29 PM
Even in a safe area, 10:30 is a bit late to be out knocking on doors, good intentions or not.

That's a good point, but really, would you sue a couple of girls trying to give you a card and some cookies because they choose a bad time to knock?
My previous home has been burglarized, and the culprit was still in the home when this happened. I didn't know that until later. I have been held up by gunpoint and robbed. I have had my car broken into while in plain sight. These events all happened in nice neighborhoods.

I know the girls were acting with good intentions, but again, this event would have scared me silly, too.

The answer to your question from my personal experience, I wouldn't necessarily sue them, but I would want them punished in some way.

If you read in between the lines of the article, the girls thought the lady was over reacting. The girls insincerely apologized. I'd be mad, too.

Normandy6644
2005-Feb-04, 10:39 PM
Well how sincere can you be if someone tries to sue you for doing something nice?

Ilya
2005-Feb-04, 10:40 PM
I know the girls were acting with good intentions, but again, this event would have scared me silly, too.

The answer to your question from my personal experience, I wouldn't necessarily sue them, but I would want them punished in some way.


Precisely. Get their parents to institute curfew, or something similar. This woman did not want them punished -- she wanted money.



If you read in between the lines of the article, the girls thought the lady was over reacting. The girls insincerely apologized. I'd be mad, too.

How do you know they were insincere -- at first? And after she refused their offer to pay her medical bills and sued them, of course they thought she was overreacting. In fact, if that's all they thought, they are more forgiving than I am.

Bad jcsd
2005-Feb-04, 10:42 PM
And they said eugenics was a bad thing

Doodler
2005-Feb-04, 10:44 PM
Even in a safe area, 10:30 is a bit late to be out knocking on doors, good intentions or not.

That's a good point, but really, would you sue a couple of girls trying to give you a card and some cookies because they choose a bad time to knock?

A 49 year old useless old maid who has nothing left to offer the world but her paranoia? Why not, she's the same type that retires to a life of reporting neighbors to homeowner's associations for every little infraction she perceives. And a heart attack? Gah, you'd hope this spineless breed of woman had gone extinct with the burning of the last plantations. Classic case of "frail female can't handle the stress and caught the vapors." I know this breed... And I don't particularly care for them. Gimme women with backbones, please.

(Yeah, I know I'm a Visigoth, but at times, its a necessary evil.)

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 10:48 PM
How do you know they were insincere -- at first? And after she refused their offer to pay her medical bills and sued them, of course they thought she was overreacting. In fact, if that's all they thought, they are more forgiving than I am.

‘Shadowy figures’ and no answer to ‘Who’s there?’
But Wanita Renea Young, 49, said she was at her rural home south of Durango around 10:30 p.m. when she saw “shadowy figures” outside the house banging repeatedly on her door. She yelled, “Who’s there?” but no one answered, and the figures ran away.

Apologies called insincere
The teenagers’ families offered to pay Young’s medical bills, but she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person.
No offense, but it wasn’t Wanita Renea Young, 49, who brought this to the public to state she was right. It was the two in the photo wanting sympathy for being wrong.

JUST NOTICED, the apologies weren't even in person. :wink:

Ilya
2005-Feb-04, 10:53 PM
No offense, but it wasn’t Wanita Renea Young, 49, who brought this to the public to state she was right. It was the two in the photo wanting sympathy for being wrong.

Well, they are getting it -- and you seem to be in the minority. And yes, Wanita Renea Young, 49, did not bring this to the public -- most likely because public is not going to pay her any money. She brought it to a court.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. Yes, what these girls did was wrong. What Wanita Young did to them is completely out of proportion and blatantly greedy. Had she accepted their apology and their money offer, I would have sympathized with her. As things stand now, THEY deserve sympathy.

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 10:57 PM
No offense, but it wasn’t Wanita Renea Young, 49, who brought this to the public to state she was right. It was the two in the photo wanting sympathy for being wrong.

Well, they are getting it -- and you seem to be in the minority. And yes, Wanita Renea Young, 49, did not bring this to the public -- most likely because public is not going to pay her any money. She brought it to a court.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. Yes, what these girls did was wrong. What Wanita Young did to them is completely out of proportion and blatantly greedy. Had she accepted their apology and their money offer, I would have sympathized with her. As things stand now, THEY deserve sympathy.
I edited my post to add - JUST NOTICED, the apologies weren't even in person.

I am the minority here, because I am a woman on this board. There aren't a lot of us here, if you haven't noticed. :wink:

Bad jcsd
2005-Feb-04, 10:58 PM
The girls did no wrong - this woman should be shot which would really give her something to be frightned of.

Lurker
2005-Feb-04, 11:00 PM
Beware the shadowy figure outside your door bearing cookies!! :o

I don't know about the girls, but I've learned my lesson!! I think that from now on when people ask, I'm gunna say I'm Canadian!! 8-[

Ilya
2005-Feb-04, 11:01 PM
Apologies called insencere

We only have Young's word for that. Her actions do not make her out as trustworthy, at least not in this particular case. Also, you already said yourself you would not have sued them. So, do you agree with me that what Young did was out of proportion? What would you have done?

Lurker
2005-Feb-04, 11:06 PM
We only have Young's word for that. Her actions do not make her out as trustworthy, at least not in this particular case. Also, you already said yourself you would not have sued them. What would you have done?
Why does one have to do anything. This lady got upset and had to go to the hospital. Why should these people have to pay for anything?? If one of my coworkers gets me angry and I have a heart attack, are they responsible?? Why are such things always considered to be someone elses problem. This lady should take responsibility for her life and pay her medical bills!!

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 11:07 PM
Apologies called insencere

We only have Young's word for that. Her actions do not make her out as trustworthy, at least not in this particular case. Also, you already said yourself you would not have sued them. So, do you agree with me that what Young did was out of proportion? What would you have done?
Did I misspell insincere? My apologies. :)

If I wanted to be fair, I'd take them out to a deserted field at night and leave them there for 8 hours, individually. I'd let them know what it's like to be scared and alone - a feeling of helplessness.

I guess some folk won't ever know what it feels like, unless they experience it for themselves.

Trust me, it's not a nice feeling - cookies or not. :(

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-04, 11:07 PM
How do you know they were insincere -- at first? And after she refused their offer to pay her medical bills and sued them, of course they thought she was overreacting. In fact, if that's all they thought, they are more forgiving than I am.

‘Shadowy figures’ and no answer to ‘Who’s there?’
But Wanita Renea Young, 49, said she was at her rural home south of Durango around 10:30 p.m. when she saw “shadowy figures” outside the house banging repeatedly on her door. She yelled, “Who’s there?” but no one answered, and the figures ran away.

Apologies called insincere
The teenagers’ families offered to pay Young’s medical bills, but she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person.
No offense, but it wasn’t Wanita Renea Young, 49, who brought this to the public to state she was right. It was the two in the photo wanting sympathy for being wrong.

JUST NOTICED, the apologies weren't even in person. :wink:
It's a huge leap to say that because Young (who may already have been very angry at the girls) thought their apologies were insincere, therefore the girls must not have really been sorry. In fact, if the apologies were not offered in person, it's hard to see how she could have accurately judged their sincerity.

You may sympathize with Young, but you don't have to take all her opinions as fact.

And I don't understand how it was not Young who "brought this to the public to state she was right." She filed the lawsuit, didn't she? That's the only reason this business made the papers at all.

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 11:10 PM
And I don't understand how it was not Young who "brought this to the public to state she was right." She filed the lawsuit, didn't she? That's the only reason this business made the papers at all.
Big difference and you know it.

I don't see Young holding stale cookies in the photograph.

gethen
2005-Feb-04, 11:20 PM
I don't know. I would think that if I were in Young's shoes, I'd just feel pretty stupid for panicking over some cookies. Why didn't she just tell the parents that she'd been frightened and suggest that the girls be more careful about night time activities? Because she was embarrassed I'll bet. Yesterday I was walking my dog and another dog ran out into the street, jumped on my dog in play, and knocked me to the ground. I have a purple bruise on the back of my hand that looks like something out of a
Stephen King movie. All I could think of as I was flailing around on the ground with two dogs dancing on my back was, "I hope nobody sees me down here. I must look like an idiot." Yes, when it was over I was angry, but would I sue the owner? Of course not. You have to put things in some kind of perspective. The dog meant no harm, and neither did the kids. No real harm was done.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-04, 11:21 PM
And I don't understand how it was not Young who "brought this to the public to state she was right." She filed the lawsuit, didn't she? That's the only reason this business made the papers at all.
Big difference and you know it.

I don't see Young holding stale cookies in the photograph.
Normally, when I see a picture of somebody in the papers, I assume that the picture is there because a reporter came to them and asked for a picture. I believe this is usually the way it works.

On second thought, I retract my characterization of Young as a royal !$#%. That's unfair. For all I know, the teenagers may have been very rude to her and provoked her after the incident. Or perhaps she has had experiences in the past that cause her to react this way. I can understand that. But still, given the little I know of this case, I think she has done far more harm than good.

Maybe we disagree on this point, but I personally don't think retribution is called for in most cases where one has been wronged.

Gramma loreto
2005-Feb-04, 11:36 PM
But Wanita Renea Young, 49, said she was at her rural home south of Durango around 10:30 p.m. when she saw “shadowy figures” outside the house banging repeatedly on her door.

A question comes to my mind...why was there not adequate lighting at her front door? In today's overly litigous society, if these "shadowy figures" had fallen afoul of some hazard and injured themselves, Mr. Young may well have been the one sued.

Of course, this is all after-the-fact, 20-20-hindsight, armchair quarterbacking but on it's face it does appear to me to be overblown. I have to wonder how the "reasonable person" test was applied in this case. To me the average, reasonable person would not likely be shaking the next morning, or have an upset stomach. There would have been no shadowy figures if a light had been working at the door...something I, as a reasonable homeowner, made sure of for my own door. But she evidently passed that test in court...although it wouldn't be the first time a court has handed down a dubious, if not downright ridiculous, civil judgement.

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 11:36 PM
I don't know. I would think that if I were in Young's shoes, I'd just feel pretty stupid for panicking over some cookies. Why didn't she just tell the parents that she'd been frightened and suggest that the girls be more careful about night time activities? Because she was embarrassed I'll bet. Yesterday I was walking my dog and another dog ran out into the street, jumped on my dog in play, and knocked me to the ground. I have a purple bruise on the back of my hand that looks like something out of a
Stephen King movie. All I could think of as I was flailing around on the ground with two dogs dancing on my back was, "I hope nobody sees me down here. I must look like an idiot." Yes, when it was over I was angry, but would I sue the owner? Of course not. You have to put things in some kind of perspective. The dog meant no harm, and neither did the kids. No real harm was done.
Oh dear, are you comparing dogs to teenage girls?

I know the gals meant no harm, but I bet the other (happy) neighbors didn't yell out "who's there?" twice, either. [edit to add] It sounds like the other neighbors actually answered the door when the gals knocked.

It was a bad unfortunate incident.

I do see both sides. And standing very far removed, I can only do this....



:lol:

Candy
2005-Feb-04, 11:44 PM
A question comes to my mind...why was there not adequate lighting at her front door? In today's overly litigous society, if these "shadowy figures" had fallen afoul of some hazard and injured themselves, Mr. Young may well have been the one sued.
Especially, if Miss Young would have had a shot gun. :o

TimH
2005-Feb-05, 12:22 AM
I may not have been clear in my original post but I agree the girls are not blameless. If they asnwered the "Who"s there?" The odds nothing would have come of the late night visit. I still stand by my original assessment that suing was an overreaction.

Andromeda321
2005-Feb-05, 12:57 AM
Speaking from the same age bracket as the girls here: it probably wasn't the smartest of ideas to deliver the cookies that late but if you were going to and got "caught in the act" it'd be stupid to run away. No one asks "who's there?" without imagining on some level the worst possible scenario.
That said, I find it interesting that Young went to courts for money in order to punish the girls. Let me assure you that the money wouldn't have come from them: it would come from the parents because kids just don't have $900 lying around (even then the 'rents would probably be nice and pitch in). If Young was really out to punish the girls then she should've gone about it another way if she was sincere. I mean who thinks "hmmm they're not giving me a decent apology... lawsuit!" when trying to drive a point home? I know I don't, nor does anyone else I know.

jami cat
2005-Feb-05, 01:14 AM
First thought was "Someone smack some sence into that Biatch'!

But, of course I'll wait untill Paul Harvey gives me "the rest of the story".

Something seems missing in this situation, that would bring some more light on the "Why's".

Gramma loreto
2005-Feb-05, 07:11 AM
In today's overly litigous society, if these "shadowy figures" had fallen afoul of some hazard and injured themselves, Mr. Young may well have been the one sued.
[smack forehead]Man, I really, really hate tyops...um...topys...er...[/smack foreahead] I fully intended to write "Ms." No clue what the devil happened.


Especially, if Miss Young would have had a shot gun. :o
Considering that the situation, as briefly described in the article, would likely not have warranted the use of deadly force, I'd say she'd be subject to much more than a civil action. Again, the reasonable person test would apply. Being an advocate of self-reliant self-defense and a practitioner of CCW, I myself take the subject quite seriously.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-05, 07:17 AM
Being a 38 year old single woman, I can sympathize with being frightened while home alone late at night.

That's why a bought a condo with a security (main entrance) door and security buzzer, so people can't just walk up to my condo door unless they're invited.

When someone knocks at my door, I know it's one of my 3 other neighbors that share a commons. Plus, I have a peephole, and I live on the second floor. :D

No one's getting to me, unless they have a ladder and/or start breaking down multiple doors! :oI just answer the door by going to window first. If I don't know them I can talk to them there.

Actually, in this case I hope the judge gets a whole heap of negative feedback. Since when is knocking on a door, even late at night an action one should know better than to do as it could harm someone? I think the woman's anxiety attacks are her own responsibility since she knew she had this problem and she failed to buy that condo like Candy did. (Not that I'm saying you're paranoid, Candy. I have all the recommended anti-burglary devices and house lights as well. Can't have too much common sense these days.)

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-05, 10:38 AM
JUST NOTICED, the apologies weren't even in person. :wink:
It's a huge leap to say that because Young (who may already have been very angry at the girls) thought their apologies were insincere, therefore the girls must not have really been sorry. In fact, if the apologies were not offered in person, it's hard to see how she could have accurately judged their sincerity.
When I first heard about this case, I was amazed. 'Course, I only heard the sketchiest of details.

If the apologies were not in person, it's hard to see how they could have been sincere. :)

As much as I am against the rampant litigiousness, one thing is clear in study after study of medical lawsuits: the single most important factor in reducing the number of lawsuits is sincere apology.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-05, 02:09 PM
If the apologies were not in person, it's hard to see how they could have been sincere. :)
I'm reluctant to draw that conclusion because I don't know exactly what "not in person" means in this case. It could mean they sent her some kind of letter instead of apologizing to her face, or it could mean the parents apologized for them.

Staiduk
2005-Feb-05, 03:29 PM
With all respect to Candy; she who is every bit as sweet, tempting and addicting as her namesake, ;) I must disagree with her position.

Candy; you've said - and very eloquently - how a mature woman can feel alone and frightened in her home on a dark night. I respect that; and sympathise insofar as I can; based on my own rather violent past. However; we must be clear here: This woman's fears are of her own devising. I know people who live in a prison of their own fear; some who live in safe upscale neighborhoods. We can blame society or our environment all we want; but in the end it is we who must accept responsibility for our own thoughts and actions.
These girls did something sweet. If it was a trifle - and I stress a trifle ill-concieved; let's give them a break - they're teens! If they thought it would be funny to leave a dead skunk on the front porch or something like that (one of my juvenile pranks); then I could understand a bit better - though even then a sound thrashing would be a much better punishment than civil suit. The girls made a gift for a neighbor. Even if she was scared finding the package should have been the end of it. A reasonable person would cluck 'you scared me last night!" to them and thanked them for the gift. (At least, where I come from.)
As for the civil suit; no, that is not in any way reasonable nor can it be considered honest. She wanted money, period. Why do I say this? Because if her actions were not reasonable, they were unreasonable. If her fears had so gotten the better of her that she would scream bloody blue murder over this most trivial incident; then her judgement is to be severlely questioned. In short if she was not lying; she needs professional help and in this case should not be considered psychologically fit to lay a suit. However; if this is not the case, then her motives were not honest. Ergo, she wanted the money. Keep in mind; she asked for punitive damages as well. How much is not said; but that fact is signifigant. Also keep in mind; a woman frightened of what's outside her house left it to go to her sister's. As I said; I know a few prisoners of fear. My mother, sadly, is one of them. And in all cases; they would never leave the one place which in their minds provides a modicum of safety - their home. They would instead call and attempt to bring help to them.
Blunt, perhaps. Unfair, possibly. But one does not punish a child for an act of kindness.
One last thing: The girls didn't apologise in person; therefore were not sincere? Given how this woman has presented herself; I would be very nervous about sending or even allowing my daughter over there in person. We have spoken about Young's safety; what about the girls'? She did not present herself as rational, quite the opposite, especially to a parent. As a father I'd say "By all means, apologize. Here's the phone." Based on that conversation; if I deemed it safe for my daughter only then would I allow her to go over - and likely gnaw a finger to the bone before she got back.

Kizarvexis
2005-Feb-06, 11:12 AM
With all respect to Candy; she who is every bit as sweet, tempting and addicting as her namesake, ;) I must disagree with her position.

Candy; you've said - and very eloquently - how a mature woman can feel alone and frightened in her home on a dark night. I respect that; and sympathise insofar as I can; based on my own rather violent past. However; we must be clear here: This woman's fears are of her own devising. I know people who live in a prison of their own fear; some who live in safe upscale neighborhoods. We can blame society or our environment all we want; but in the end it is we who must accept responsibility for our own thoughts and actions.
These girls did something sweet. If it was a trifle - and I stress a trifle ill-concieved; let's give them a break - they're teens! If they thought it would be funny to leave a dead skunk on the front porch or something like that (one of my juvenile pranks); then I could understand a bit better - though even then a sound thrashing would be a much better punishment than civil suit. The girls made a gift for a neighbor. Even if she was scared finding the package should have been the end of it. A reasonable person would cluck 'you scared me last night!" to them and thanked them for the gift. (At least, where I come from.)
As for the civil suit; no, that is not in any way reasonable nor can it be considered honest. She wanted money, period. Why do I say this? Because if her actions were not reasonable, they were unreasonable. If her fears had so gotten the better of her that she would scream bloody blue murder over this most trivial incident; then her judgement is to be severlely questioned. In short if she was not lying; she needs professional help and in this case should not be considered psychologically fit to lay a suit. However; if this is not the case, then her motives were not honest. Ergo, she wanted the money. Keep in mind; she asked for punitive damages as well. How much is not said; but that fact is signifigant. Also keep in mind; a woman frightened of what's outside her house left it to go to her sister's. As I said; I know a few prisoners of fear. My mother, sadly, is one of them. And in all cases; they would never leave the one place which in their minds provides a modicum of safety - their home. They would instead call and attempt to bring help to them.
Blunt, perhaps. Unfair, possibly. But one does not punish a child for an act of kindness.
One last thing: The girls didn't apologise in person; therefore were not sincere? Given how this woman has presented herself; I would be very nervous about sending or even allowing my daughter over there in person. We have spoken about Young's safety; what about the girls'? She did not present herself as rational, quite the opposite, especially to a parent. As a father I'd say "By all means, apologize. Here's the phone." Based on that conversation; if I deemed it safe for my daughter only then would I allow her to go over - and likely gnaw a finger to the bone before she got back.

Staiduk, you've said everything that I wanted to only with more eloquence. Do you mind if I just say ditto? :)

Kizarvexis

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-06, 12:20 PM
If the apologies were not in person, it's hard to see how they could have been sincere. :)
I'm reluctant to draw that conclusion because I don't know exactly what "not in person" means in this case. It could mean they sent her some kind of letter instead of apologizing to her face, or it could mean the parents apologized for them.
That was my point. I am reluctant to draw conclusions. The judge, who is supposed to draw conclusions, says he believes the girls were not being malicious, so that's probably true.

Here's another account (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2691638,00.html), which has a few points not mentioned in the OP link:


She thought perhaps they were burglars or some neighbors she had tangled with in the past, she said.
That doesn't portray her in a positive light, but who knows. The article does say that she was not home alone.


The families had offered to pay Young's medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims.
Which suggests (not begs) the question, when did that come up? They offered to pay her medical bills, but only after they were sued? Or did they offer to pay the medical bills, but asked for indemnification while doing so? That doesn't put the offer in the same positive light as the first article.

Reacher
2005-Feb-06, 01:49 PM
While instigating circumstances should always be considered, the basis of this entire situation is that a woman got frightened when two girls placed some cookies in front of her door. If the woman who got startled isn't the kind of person that can stand back and have a little chuckle about that, then she's definately "a royal !$#%" as W.F. Tomba said. He may have retracted the statement, but I stand by it.

[edit to change "circumstance" to "situation" just because I'm pedantic.]

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-06, 01:55 PM
Obviously, these girls meant no harm. When the woman found that out, she should have acted differently.

I can understand why she might have been frightened...I can't understand why she sued.

Candy
2005-Feb-06, 02:37 PM
Here's another account (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2691638,00.html), which has a few points not mentioned in the OP link:

But Young, home with her own 18-year-old daughter and her elderly mother, said she saw shadowy figures who banged and banged at her door. When she called out, "Who's there?" no one answered. The figures ran off.
The plot thickens.

First, why didn't the 18-year-old daughter answer the door?
Perhaps, she was to busy baking cookies for the neighbors. :-k

Second, why didn't the elderly mother answer the door?
Perhaps, she was busy sleeping.
Unless, "lights on" mean everyone in the home is awake. :-k

Third, why didn't Young answer the door after shadowy figures kept banging and banging?
Perhaps, the silence of shadowy figures should create a sense of security.
No wait, the runny off of figures should've been the clue that it's safe to open the door now. :-k

This story gets better and better with more information. :wink:

What a great debate for Court TV!

[edited twice]

Grey
2005-Feb-06, 04:24 PM
Which suggests (not begs) the question...
This has nothing to do with the discussion, I'm just really happy someone else in the world knows the difference between those two.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-06, 05:33 PM
From that Denver Post article:

The girls wrote letters of apology to Young. Taylor's letter, written a few days after the episode, said in part: "I didn't realize this would cause trouble for you. ... I just wanted you to know that someone cared about you and your family."

The families had offered to pay Young's medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims.

Young wouldn't sign the agreement. She said the families' apologies rang false and weren't delivered in person. The matter went to court.
I think "agree to indemnify the families against future claims" does not imply that she had already sued them. It may imply that she had threatened to do so, but we can't tell.

The way this article tells it, it really sounds like her complaints about the apologies being insincere were just an excuse not to sign the agreement so she could sue. Could be just biased reporting, though. If she had not already threatened legal action, she may have been offended by the families' insistence that she indemnify them.

I'd like to know just when the cookies on the front porch were discovered.

Grendl
2005-Feb-06, 07:02 PM
I think the judge did a real disservice in indulging this woman's histrionic reaction to something a reasonable minded person would get over. I don't think she should have even had her medical bills paid. We don't know everything in the court case, but it opens up the ability for people to sue others for what they can't possibly know--and in this case it's that the woman is an unreasonable nut who wants to tie up the court's time instead of dealing with her anxiety problems. The fact that she wanted punitive damages just shows what a sour puss she is. She needs to get real. She's only 49, not some elderly woman--she wasn't alone. Did her 18 year old and elderly mother suffer? If she is so fragile to not overcome her fear when it turns out to be a harmless event then she needs to be on some serious anti-anxiety meds. Imagine all the things that can trigger anxiety attacks in people prone to anxiety attacks. Not even spending the night at her sister's calmed her down--she probably stayed up obsessing about it. Something's not right here.

She wouldn't sign the indemnity agreement, which is just attorneys' wise advice and is standard OP. What if she said a month from now she was still suffering anxiety attacks due to this "terrifying" incident? She has already shown herself to be unstable. She's had an issue with some other neighbors--she thought it might be them. She didn't like the way they apologized. If I were their parents I wouldn't have let them go near her--a letter should suffice and it was a nice letter. The woman is just looking to blow things out of proportion-the girls didn't do anything illegal or malicious--you just have to suck things up at times.

The girls showed poor judgement in going to people's homes late (apparently since dusk was at 9:00 pm it was summer) and they should have answered, but you know, teenagers don't always think of every possible outcome of their actions. When I was growing up, people got eggs in their mailboxes, snowballs thrown at their cars and what have you. Our society has become so litigious that we no longer settle problems and disputes on our own and events become opportunistic ways to get money and stick it to your neighbor. I can think of tons of things that happened in my neighborhood while growing up that would now probably go to court. What's the lesson learned here--the girls will be gun-shy about doing a nice thing like that again, whether in the daytime or not. What if they don't say what the ingredients are and someone has an allergic reaction to flour? That kind of bizarreness has gone to the courts. So much for strengthening the community!

At the same time I read this there was an article in the paper where two 11 year old girls got in a fight at school--a shoving match basically, no injury done, no weapons. The parents of the victim called the police and charged assault. The other 11-year old was taken away from school in handcuffs (before her mother could get there) and is now facing a Class-A misdmeanor charge. The police said it's unusual for things like this to lead to assault charges, but it does happen. School yard fights happened on my elementary schoolyard in a nice suburban town. Parents dealt with it.

Candy
2005-Feb-06, 07:54 PM
I'd like to know just when the cookies on the front porch were discovered.

Inside one of the nine scattered rural homes south of Durango that got cookies that night, a 49-year-old woman became so terrified by the knocks on her door around 10:30 p.m. that she called the sheriff's department. Deputies determined that no crime had been committed.
My guess is the cookies were discovered by the deputies.


If she is so fragile to not overcome her fear when it turns out to be a harmless event then she needs to be on some serious anti-anxiety meds. Imagine all the things that can trigger anxiety attacks in people prone to anxiety attacks. Not even spending the night at her sister's calmed her down--she probably stayed up obsessing about it. Something's not right here.
I agree with you here. It sounds like the whole ordeal triggered a panic attack due to a 'traumatic past experience'.

Quite frankly, I don't get the whole panic attack thing people experience anyway. I've always associate 'it' to a reason to call in sick to work.


What if they don't say what the ingredients are and someone has an allergic reaction to flour?
Or peanut oil? I hear that stuff can kill a person.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-06, 08:05 PM
She wouldn't sign the indemnity agreement, which is just attorneys' wise advice and is standard OP.



Our society has become so litigious that we no longer settle problems and disputes on our own and events become opportunistic ways to get money and stick it to your neighbor.

Weirdly, I see the first as an example of the second, but you see it as just OP. But I can deal with that.

jami cat
2005-Feb-06, 08:26 PM
I agree with you here. It sounds like the whole ordeal triggered a panic attack due to a 'traumatic past experience'.

Quite frankly, I don't get the whole panic attack thing people experience anyway. I've always associate 'it' to a reason to call in sick to work.


Wait a min Candy.
[begin rant]
I've had panic attacks and their not something that requires calling in sick to work. I've had to deal with them by trying to ignore them. Im not sure of the cause. But, I do know that they happen anytime, anyplace uncontrollably. I'm sure there are degrees of them. You shouldn't dismiss them as fiction, if that is what your implying.
[/end rant]
:wink:

Captain Kidd
2005-Feb-06, 08:31 PM
Boy, Halloween must make her hide in the closet for weeks afterwards.

Grendl
2005-Feb-06, 09:04 PM
She wouldn't sign the indemnity agreement, which is just attorneys' wise advice and is standard OP.



Our society has become so litigious that we no longer settle problems and disputes on our own and events become opportunistic ways to get money and stick it to your neighbor.

Weirdly, I see the first as an example of the second, but you see it as just OP. But I can deal with that.

Indemnity agreements are now standard operating procedure because people would come back at a later time after the situation was thought to be rectified and make further claims, often unjustifiably so. They're an outgrowth of rampant litigation. Indemnity agreements prevent litigation. The families wisely said, "OK, we'll pay your medical bill, but we're not going to leave it open for you to blame future anxiety attacks on this event." How would you prove future anxiety attacks were all the cause of these girls? It's not like a spinal injury suffered as a result of an accident--something more easily verifiable. The family tried to solve the problem out of court and avoid litigation. The lady wanted to go the whole nine yards AND get punitive damages too. Having her medical bill paid just wasn't good enough for her. She didn't like the idea that the family was just protecting themselves from a lawsuit (by someone who displays mental instability, no less). She wanted more.

As an aside, this was in a rural area. This woman is probably going to isolate herself socially as a result, further contributing to her paranoia and anxiety.

Candy
2005-Feb-06, 09:09 PM
I agree with you here. It sounds like the whole ordeal triggered a panic attack due to a 'traumatic past experience'.

Quite frankly, I don't get the whole panic attack thing people experience anyway. I've always associate 'it' to a reason to call in sick to work.


Wait a min Candy.

I've had panic attacks and their not something that requires calling in sick to work. I've had to deal with them by trying to ignore them. Im not sure of the cause. But, I do know that they happen anytime, anyplace uncontrollably. [b]I'm sure there are degrees of them. You shouldn't dismiss them as fiction, if that is what your implying.
[/end rant]
:wink:
So do you think Ms. Young was over-reacting in this case? Or do you think her panic attack could be geniune? 8-[

The majority here seem to think she is just out to sue people for money.

[edited]

jami cat
2005-Feb-06, 09:29 PM
I agree with you here. It sounds like the whole ordeal triggered a panic attack due to a 'traumatic past experience'.

Quite frankly, I don't get the whole panic attack thing people experience anyway. I've always associate 'it' to a reason to call in sick to work.


Wait a min Candy.

I've had panic attacks and their not something that requires calling in sick to work. I've had to deal with them by trying to ignore them. Im not sure of the cause. But, I do know that they happen anytime, anyplace uncontrollably. [b]I'm sure there are degrees of them. You shouldn't dismiss them as fiction, if that is what your implying.
[/end rant]
:wink:
So do you think Ms. Young was over-reacting in this case? Or do you think her panic attack could be geniune? 8-[

The majority here seem to think she is just out to sue people for money.

[edited]

I think the problem could have sufficiently be resolved outta court.

People are funny/weired, gotta be carefull these days. You never know
how someone will react sometimes. It has happened to me several times.
I crack a joke or help someone and then suddenly i'm in the middle of **,
because my intentions were missinterpreted.

I keep to myself these days. FTW :roll:

Candy
2005-Feb-06, 09:42 PM
People are funny/weird, gotta be careful these days. You never know how someone will react sometimes.
So do you think a 17 or 18 year old would understand what you and I understand?

I'm sorry to have baited you, but you fell into proving my point as to why Ms. Young went to such extremes.

jami cat
2005-Feb-06, 10:17 PM
People are funny/weird, gotta be careful these days. You never know how someone will react sometimes.
So do you think a 17 or 18 year old would understand what you and I understand?

I'm sorry to have baited you, but you fell into proving my point as to why Ms. Young went to such extremes.

Funny, how I never encountered this type of problem when I was growing up. People actions or words weren't taken "literaly" or "they mean well".

It's something i've noticed more and more latley (past 15 years or so) that people are ready to take any of your words or actions and twist them around to hold them against you for some reason that alludes me. Like an "epidemic of Paranoia". Drag you through the mud to discredit you for no gain, other than the fact that they can.
Instead of just taking things with a grain of salt and GET OVER IT! :evil:

People like this don't want facts they want... BAT BOY (http://www.msu.edu/~daggy/cop/images/00000157.gif)
:)

Grendl
2005-Feb-06, 10:44 PM
There's more to this. Mrs. Young is being nationally shamed. A radio station has raised money for the girls' fine and there is an outpouring of support for the Ostergaards. On the Denver Post board someone posted a letter to the public from the Ostergaards. Apparently, they are not out of the woods yet and may have to deal with another suit. There are some good comments that touch on the broader implications of these kinds of matters. A lot of people think the judge was wrong in awarding medical costs.

Also: " Meanwhile, Richard Ostergaard, father of Taylor, got a restraining order against Young's husband, Herb, in county court, claiming he continues to make harassing telephone calls to the Ostergaard residence."

All this mess over good intentions?

It's on this link: http://denverpost.ezboard.com/fdenverpostnewsfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=74.to pic&start=41&stop=56

Candy
2005-Feb-06, 11:28 PM
All this mess over good intentions?
I think it is hilarious on both sides.

Just think, it all could have been avoided if daddy didn't give permission so late at night to delivering cookies. COOKIES?

Seriously, who delivers cookies at 1030pm?

I still think this was a dumb idea from the start, good intentions or not.

It sounds like the teenagers questioned this as well, because they asked for permission prior to delivering. #-o

[edit to add - I checked curfew for Durango, Colorado, and the girls don't fall into the category. They needed no permission.]

frenat
2005-Feb-06, 11:42 PM
I don't think the 1030 time is all that bad. They wanted the cookies to be a surprise. How much of a surprise would it be if people see you walking up the sidewalk in broad daylight? Also, they probably just got done baking the cookies. If they waited the cookies would not be as fresh. I know I like my cookies straight out of the oven. This lady just overreacted.

Candy
2005-Feb-06, 11:45 PM
I don't think the 1030 time is all that bad. They wanted the cookies to be a surprise. How much of a surprise would it be if people see you walking up the sidewalk in broad daylight? Also, they probably just got done baking the cookies. If they waited the cookies would not be as fresh. I know I like my cookies straight out of the oven. This lady just overreacted.
And baking only occurs at 1030pm at night (on a SATURDAY)? For some reason, I thought normal people baked during the daytime.

frenat
2005-Feb-06, 11:52 PM
Who's to say they didn't start when they decided not to go to the dance?

beskeptical
2005-Feb-06, 11:53 PM
I'm glad to see the support of the girls and non-support of the judge. If the judge had made a better decision, the situation would be de-escalating now in stead of escalating. Instead, the judge gave the anxious neighbor a feeling of justification for her over reaction.

But as to panic disorders, and to address Candy and jami cat's posts, the disorders are very real and not something someone makes up to miss work. I think that is a very insensitive position to take without at least investigating what they are, what causes them, and how they are medically managed.

A google search give this page for panic attacks. (http://www.google.com/search?q=panic+attacks&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) There are organizations and support groups with good information.

There are a number of anxiety disorders recognized by the psychiatric community. Causes and degree of disability vary, but to suggest they are not a real disorder is nonsense. Some people are completely debilitated by them while others suffer but can manage a normal life without treatment.

My position on this case is the woman probably does have a disorder but how were the girls to have anticipated that? The trip to the ED was the result of the disorder, and not IMO, the result of the late night door knock. It may sound like a chicken and egg argument, but it comes down to where you draw the line of responsibility. If you have a disorder, it is your responsibility to take care of it. If someone makes that disorder worse, then a judge could find the offender at fault but it should be only after the person with the disorder did everything possible to protect themselves first, and the offender should have the benefit of the doubt if their actions weren't blatantly harmful.

As far as suing for money, I doubt that is the direct motive here unless it turns out their is some other civil case for a hundred thousand or something. The woman who has the anxiety disorder seems to have convinced herself she was harmed. Going to court 'proves' to herself she was harmed which is why I say the judge fed into that myth. Making this the girl's fault and not her disorder justifies her actions. If it were just her disorder, well, it would just be her disorder. No blame, no cause except an internal one. There is a whole psychology to this sort of thing.

I work in occupational health. If a person gets a needle stick through their own actions, it's routine. But have someone else cause the injury and the fireworks begin. The same is true when people have claims of injury from nebulous things like carpet fumes. (I'm making up this scenario, so no need to start a discussion about carpet fumes, thanks.) Anyway, you just rarely see any kind of claim for fumes from one's own carpet. You rarely see anyone blaming their symptoms on the diesel fumes from the truck in front of them on the way to work. There is an element of the human psyche at work here.

Candy
2005-Feb-07, 12:01 AM
beskeptical, based on what you wrote...

are you saying Ms. Young was over-reacting?

Or that Ms. Young may have a serious problem that the teenagers didn't know about until after they banged and banged on her door (then ran away after confrontation without saying a word) at 1030pm at night?

Just wondering.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-07, 12:43 AM
beskeptical, based on what you wrote...

are you saying Ms. Young was over-reacting?

Or that Ms. Young may have a serious problem that the teenagers didn't know about until after they banged and banged on her door (then ran away after confrontation without saying a word) at 1030pm at night?

Just wondering.I'm saying Ms Young was over reacting because she appears to have a condition which causes her to overreact. She may also react to many very normal situations.

If someone knocked on your door at 10:30 and no one was there, you might be concerned the person was now headed to your backyard to break in or something. You could call the police or go to your sister's or do nothing. Freaking out then thinking you had a heart attack would clearly be an over reaction.

Why not just call the police? Even with an anxiety attack, that would be the proper action. Why would imagining chest pain a day later be caused by the knock on the door? Even a real heart attack would have seemed more directly related to the late night knocking. Imagined chest pain a day later is clearly the disorder. The direct cause has been separated by many layers.

Suppose the woman had accepted the cookies, ate one, thought it tasted funny, and fled to the ED for imagined poisoning? That would be a reaction to an event there was no reason to react to as opposed to an over reaction if the semantics matter. So now are the girls at fault? They gave her the cookies. Would the judge have seen the situation the same?

There is not much support coming in for the neighbor nor the judge. So the fact the judge decided knocking at 10:30 and leaving the cookies was beyond the norm is contradicted by the public consensus. In other words, it's hard to see that action as worth a $900 fine so to speak.

So to get back to your question about the girls not knowing about the condition, I don't see how they could have thought knocking at 10:30 was going to injure the woman. Even the judge seemed to be saying that.

Candy
2005-Feb-07, 12:47 AM
Why not just call the police?
She did.

Captain Kidd
2005-Feb-07, 02:02 AM
Why not just call the police?
She did.I think beskeptical mean only call the police to see if anything fishy was going on and then let it drop not call and sue.

The feeling I got from reading the articles was that beyond recouping her medical expenses, she wanted to teach the girls a lesson.
"The victory wasn't sweet," Young said Thursday afternoon. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson."

And this bothers me too:
Young said she believes that the girls should not have been running from door to door late at night.

"Something bad could have happened to them," she said.
As if another reason for her suing was to teach them not to be outside at night...

beskeptical
2005-Feb-07, 02:05 AM
Why not just call the police?
She did.I see that in the second account which is all the more reason the judge was wrong. The police determined there was no hazard. Everything from that point on was definitely the result of the woman's anxiety disorder and not the knock on the door, per se.


Surely the cookies were found at that time. (Or did the girls not leave them?) All the more reason to see this as the woman's anxiety and/or personality disorder.

The judge was wrong. It's too bad.

Candy
2005-Feb-07, 02:07 AM
Why not just call the police?
She did.I think beskeptical mean only call the police to see if anything fishy was going on and then let it drop not call and sue.

The feeling I got from reading the articles was that beyond recouping her medical expenses, she wanted to teach the girls a lesson.
"The victory wasn't sweet," Young said Thursday afternoon. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson."

And this bothers me too:
Young said she believes that the girls should not have been running from door to door late at night.

"Something bad could have happened to them," she said.
As if another reason for her suing was to teach them not to be outside at night...
Okay, you're totally right. I'll concede to the mishap of girls behaving badly, yet in an innocent way to not warrant circumstantial retaliation. :-?

Candy
2005-Feb-07, 02:10 AM
Why not just call the police?
She did.I see that in the second account which is all the more reason the judge was wrong. The police determined there was no hazard. Everything from that point on was definitely the result of the woman's anxiety disorder and not the knock on the door, per se.


Surely the cookies were found at that time. (Or did the girls not leave them?) All the more reason to see this as the woman's anxiety and/or personality disorder.

The judge was wrong. It's too bad.
Let me get this right, if the police deem something not hazardous, then we simply take their word? Okay, then. You're right.

Apparently, you have never been on the other end of the stick before? :-?

Captain Kidd
2005-Feb-07, 02:26 AM
The girls wrote letters of apology to Young. Taylor's letter, written a few days after the episode, said in part: "I didn't realize this would cause trouble for you. ... I just wanted you to know that someone cared about you and your family."

The families had offered to pay Young's medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims.

Young wouldn't sign the agreement. She said the families' apologies rang false and weren't delivered in person. The matter went to court.
They apologized, she refused to accept it citing grounds that it "rang false" and the continued (or initiated) the lawsiut. I'm not seeing reason here to feel much sympathy. Yes that was kinda late but they did apologize, she refused it, and wanted them to pay medial and punitive damages. Had she stopped at the apology and the acceptance of reimbursement of incurred medical expenses then I'd feel far more sympathy.

And a face-to-face apology would have been out of the question had it been me as the father. I would not have gone unless I had witnesses, i.e. my and her lawyers which could get pricy, a letter should have sufficed.

jami cat
2005-Feb-07, 02:38 AM
Let me get this right, if the police deem something not hazardous, then we simply take their word? Okay, then. You're right.

Apparently, you have never been on the other end of the stick before? :-?


Yet, more on "One Cookie To Give".
The layers of abstract rationale once again halts the balance of truth and justice.

[Expand Dialog=www.**]
[stir pot]

Maybe the cookies reminded her of Dallas and JFK? Turns out Oswald was just a forum moderator for the Q3 mod Urban Terror.
She freaked when the cookies had faces with eyes like holes... :o

[/stir pot]
[/runs hide=www.exe]
[/**]

beskeptical
2005-Feb-07, 02:51 AM
Why not just call the police?
She did.I see that in the second account which is all the more reason the judge was wrong. The police determined there was no hazard. Everything from that point on was definitely the result of the woman's anxiety disorder and not the knock on the door, per se.


Surely the cookies were found at that time. (Or did the girls not leave them?) All the more reason to see this as the woman's anxiety and/or personality disorder.

The judge was wrong. It's too bad.
Let me get this right, if the police deem something not hazardous, then we simply take their word? Okay, then. You're right.

Apparently, you have never been on the other end of the stick before? :-?Geeze Candy, is that what it means to say in this one case the police determined there was no reason for this woman to worry about the knock on her door? That to you means I said the police are always right in every situation?

Not to mention I am talking about the events as they occurred should have given the judge cause to blame the woman's disorder, not the kids' actions. We know in hindsight there were no boogymen at this woman's door.

Are you identifying with this woman who feared the late night knock? I've lived alone, except now I have a kid, most of my adult life. I've traveled around the world alone. You take certain precautions. It's not a big deal for someone to knock on the door late at night. As a matter of fact my neighbors have done just that with a sick kid question on more than one occasion. And sometimes when I get the door, because I have a big house, the person at the door is half way down the driveway thinking I wasn't home. The kids weren't doing something bad.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-07, 03:09 AM
Indemnity agreements are now standard operating procedure because people would come back at a later time after the situation was thought to be rectified and make further claims, often unjustifiably so. They're an outgrowth of rampant litigation. Indemnity agreements prevent litigation.
No, they don't. The first thing that an insurance company tries to get is an indemnity agreement from the victim. Some people may sign them, but it's usually the signal to most people that they should prepare for litigation whether they would pursue it or not. Anybody who signs an indemnity agreement after an incident is a fool, or desperate to some degree. Litigation itself is "standard operating procedure." That was my point.

gethen
2005-Feb-07, 03:20 AM
Just trying to get this all in chronological order, so I can figure it out: The kids are out at 10:00 p.m., secretly delivering cookies. At this particular woman's house, the residents hear people outside, get scared, maybe call out and get no response. So the woman calls the police. They come out, probably find the cookies, and tell the woman that there doesn't seem to be anything to worry about. The next day the woman has a panic attack and goes to the ER? After she most likely knows that the figures she saw or voices she heard belonged to kids delivering cookies? Or am I getting it mixed up? Because the more I read about this, the less rational this woman's response seems to me.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-07, 03:25 AM
Just trying to get this all in chronological order, so I can figure it out: The kids are out at 10:00 p.m., secretly delivering cookies. At this particular woman's house, the residents hear people outside, get scared, maybe call out and get no response. So the woman calls the police. They come out, probably find the cookies, and tell the woman that there doesn't seem to be anything to worry about. The next day the woman has a panic attack and goes to the ER? After she most likely knows that the figures she saw or voices she heard belonged to kids delivering cookies? Or am I getting it mixed up? Because the more I read about this, the less rational this woman's response seems to me.That's my impression except sometime in the night the woman went to her sister's. And she has a husband who has apparently harassed the kid's family to the point the girl's dad has asked for a restraining order. No mention in the articles is said of where the hubby was during all this.

Morrolan
2005-Feb-07, 03:36 AM
if i may ask: this apparently happened in July (is what i read in one article). now how dark does it get there in summer around that time? because back home at 10.30 pm with DST it wasn't even completely dark yet.

gethen
2005-Feb-07, 03:52 AM
if i may ask: this apparently happened in July (is what i read in one article). now how dark does it get there in summer around that time? because back home at 10.30 pm with DST it wasn't even completely dark yet.
Looks like sunset between about 8:15 and 8:30 (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=75&obj=sun&month=7&year=2004&day= 1) in Denver.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-07, 03:57 AM
Durango is at ~37 degrees latitude. Same as San francisco. (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=224&obj=sun&month=7&year=2005&day =1) It's dark at 10:30 in July as gethen noted.

Morrolan
2005-Feb-07, 05:22 AM
wow... no long summer nights... bummer. :o

anyway, BOT: i think the reaction of the woman was quite over the top.

beskeptical
2005-Feb-07, 07:28 AM
wow... no long summer nights... bummer. :o

...Having grown up in LA and later living in Seattle, I can say the evening daylight (which is what I assumed you meant) is great in summer, but dark at 4pm in winter is not so good. LA's got the same number of daylight hours, just distributed differently.

Candy
2005-Feb-07, 11:30 AM
Are you identifying with this woman who feared the late night knock? I've lived alone, except now I have a kid, most of my adult life. I've traveled around the world alone. You take certain precautions. It's not a big deal for someone to knock on the door late at night. As a matter of fact my neighbors have done just that with a sick kid question on more than one occasion. And sometimes when I get the door, because I have a big house, the person at the door is half way down the driveway thinking I wasn't home. The kids weren't doing something bad.
Do I identify with this woman? No, I think she’s a nut. I think she probably over reacts at several things in her life.

What I’ve learned in my life is that people are different. Some, you have to walk on egg shells around. Ms. Young appears to be that kind of person. This is where I understand her odd behavior. I used to have a neighbor that I would totally avoid due to his odd behavior.

If I lived in her neighborhood, I would not have knocked on her door in the first place. It sounds like the Young’s are the black sheep on the block, based on what Ms. Young herself said and with her husband’s current harassment to one of the teenager’s family. I see a dysfunctional pattern that didn't just start overnight.

Let this be a lesson in life learned the hard way for the young ladies about the people they will come into contact with on a daily basis. :wink:

Captain Kidd
2005-Feb-07, 12:33 PM
Just trying to get this all in chronological order, so I can figure it out: The kids are out at 10:00 p.m., secretly delivering cookies.One article says that they left home a little after 9PM, she says they "banged and banged" (a little hyperboli there IMO) on her door at 10:30. An hour and a half is a long time to be delivering cookies. I'm wondering if the real time wasn't somewhere closer to 10 like you said.

Here's the US Naval Observatory (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html) info for July 31st:

Begin civil twilight 5:28 a.m.
Sunrise 5:58 a.m.
Sun transit 1:06 p.m.
Sunset 8:13 p.m.
End civil twilight 8:44 p.m.


Additionally, it was a full moon too. (which explains a lot ;) ) So unless it was overcast, they weren't in complete darkness either.


Let this be a lesson in life learned the hard way for the young ladies about the people they will come into contact with on a daily basis.
I get the feeling she'd have sued whether it was girls or boys.

You know, where I grew up, we have a simpler way of discouraging people from sneaking up to your door at night than lawsuits. Discharge a shotgun into the air. It's even more effective if you can sneak out the back and do it from an unexpected direction. Ah, the joy of growing up in the hicks. :D

AstroSmurf
2005-Feb-07, 12:41 PM
:o Well, looks like I won't be visiting the US anytime soon...

Grendl
2005-Feb-07, 01:21 PM
Indemnity agreements are now standard operating procedure because people would come back at a later time after the situation was thought to be rectified and make further claims, often unjustifiably so. They're an outgrowth of rampant litigation. Indemnity agreements prevent litigation.
No, they don't. The first thing that an insurance company tries to get is an indemnity agreement from the victim. Some people may sign them, but it's usually the signal to most people that they should prepare for litigation whether they would pursue it or not. Anybody who signs an indemnity agreement after an incident is a fool, or desperate to some degree. Litigation itself is "standard operating procedure." That was my point.

We must have a different understanding of indemnity agreements. We use them at work all the time and when people sign them they are agreeing to hold my company harmless in the event something happens in the future, in our case, because they are willingly taking a risk we've advised them against. If something happens they can't blame us and having signed the agreement they are going to get nowhere with suing us. It's not at all a signal they should prepare for litigation. If Young had signed the parents' indemnity agreement saying she wouldn't sue them if they paid for her $900 in medical bills, she would have been foolish to attempt going to court having signed it. She didn't sign it, went to court thinking she might get even more from the court. So, that's why I see indemnity agreements prevent litigation or further litigation.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-07, 01:27 PM
We must have a different understanding of indemnity agreements. We use them at work all the time and when people sign them they are agreeing to hold my company harmless in the event something happens in the future, in our case, because they are willingly taking a risk we've advised them against.
Such indemnity clauses appear in software agreements all the time. Is the software company really advising the user against using their software?

Nicholas_Bostaph
2005-Feb-07, 01:27 PM
If I wanted to be fair, I'd take them out to a deserted field at night and leave them there for 8 hours, individually. I'd let them know what it's like to be scared and alone - a feeling of helplessness.

I guess some folk won't ever know what it feels like, unless they experience it for themselves.

Trust me, it's not a nice feeling - cookies or not. :(

This is a completely invalid analogy. Besides the fact that you're ignoring intent, she was not lost in a dark field alone, she was in her home with lights on and behind locked doors. Just about any female friend I have would have looked out the window to see who it was before overreacting; I'm sure it wasn't that dark with neighborhood lights on (or even just her house lights). Beyond that, why not just call the police and ask them to drive by. They will do it happily and you can be safe and feel secure.

Besides, 10:30 is not really late IMO; I would personally say around 11:00 pm is a good cutoff if I had to speak to one of my neighbors. It's all relative anyway. I have had people knock on my door at midnight and I didn't care one bit, but I can't stand people who think I'm going to be up at 9:00 am on a Saturday morning...I mean, geez, I just got to bed a few hours ago! ;)



Anyway, on to the actual purpose behind my post. I'd love to send these girls a note of support; or even do more. Imagine what percentage of teenage girls would still rather bake cookies for neighbors than go boozing and dancing at a party. 1 in a 1000...optimistically? I can't think of much that would depress me more than to see two such people lost to society, especially this way. Does anyone know if there is any kind of support fund setup? I'd contribute a few bucks to keep them from having to pay the medical expenses. These girls should walk out of this feeling like they were rewarded for good deeds and that people know and appreciate what they do; not walk away feeling punished. :(

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-07, 01:30 PM
Besides, 10:30 is not really late IMO; I would personally say around 11:00 pm is a good cutoff if I had to speak to one of my neighbors. It's all relative anyway.
Right, you live in Pittsburg. In Colorado, they go to bed at sundown. :)

Neighbors might be miles apart--I dunno.

I have had people knock on my door at midnight and I didn't care one bit, but I can't stand people who think I'm going to be up at 9:00 am on a Saturday morning...I mean, geez, I just got to bed a few hours ago! ;)
How would you react (ignore the litigation aspect) if kids rang your doorbell at 9am Sat., ran, then did it again? Just curious.

Nicholas_Bostaph
2005-Feb-07, 01:48 PM
Besides, 10:30 is not really late IMO; I would personally say around 11:00 pm is a good cutoff if I had to speak to one of my neighbors. It's all relative anyway.
Right, you live in Pittsburg. In Colorado, they go to bed at sundown. :)

Neighbors might be miles apart--I dunno.

I have had people knock on my door at midnight and I didn't care one bit, but I can't stand people who think I'm going to be up at 9:00 am on a Saturday morning...I mean, geez, I just got to bed a few hours ago! ;)
How would you react (ignore the litigation aspect) if kids rang your doorbell at 9am Sat., ran, then did it again? Just curious.

Thanks for the response. :)

First, I want to say sorry. I posted after reading only page one, not realizing their were more, so some of my concerns/questions were already discussed. I don't usually do that. :oops:

BTW, I agree totally with Staiduk's post on page 2.



How would I react? That depends. I would have answered the door immediately, after looking out the window to see who it was, so this situation would never have occurred in the first place. If concerned, I may have left the chain lock on so I could just look and speak to them through the cracked door.

Assuming that they ran before I could open the door each time? If I felt relatively safe and others were home, I might sneak out the back and drag the hose around for use, just in case they were prankster teens ;). If I was actually concerned I would have called the police, told them what happenned and that I was slightly concerned, and just asked them to drive by the house. They will do that. My mom owns a small store and has had them drive by near closing many many times over the past few years.

A lawsuit is a completely illogical reaction, accomplishing absolutely nothing...unless her primary goal was $$$$ or self justification.

Once I found out that they woke me up simply because they baked me cookies, I would have forgotten about every negative thought I had. Seeing two teenagers decide to do something like that in lieu of going to a teenage dance where alcohol was is not something that you see very often around here. That truly would have made my day; more like made my month even. I'd be amazed, and part of my confidence in the potential of our petty race restored. They would have received nothing by praise from me, and anything else I could offer.

* edit to add last paragraph for clarity

gethen
2005-Feb-07, 02:24 PM
Maybe Ms. Young should get a dog. :wink: Nobody sneaks up to our door at any time of day or night. Also, it sounds as if she was not alone. Her mother and daughter were with her. Which makes me wonder--how old is the daughter? Is she the same age as the cookie girls? Is there more going on here than a single incident of pastry-based terrorism?

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-07, 02:34 PM
I read somewhere on this thread that the daughter is 18.

Nicholas_Bostaph
2005-Feb-07, 02:52 PM
I just read about half way down the page here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=112678) that:


"This has turned into quite a fiasco," Young said. "It's something that never should have happened and it's just devastating. My phone hasn't stopped ringing. My life has been threatened and I'll probably have to move out of town.
funny how two teenagers with cookies give her a panic attack, but a myriad of death threats doesn't seem to phase her.




More importantly, if anyone is interested, the following was posted here (http://www.997wtn.com/p_stevegill.cfm):


If you want to send a donation (check or money order) to the girls to help pay off the judgement, or a letter of support, you can send it to Taylor Ostergaard, 415 County Road 307, Durango, Colorado 81303. Notes to Lindsey Jo Zeletti can be sent to the same address.
so I guess I answered my own question...

mid
2005-Feb-07, 03:18 PM
she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person.

Gee, I wonder why? Because the last time they came round to see you in person you gave them a $900 medical bill?

beskeptical
2005-Feb-07, 06:26 PM
... In Colorado, they go to bed at sundown. :).....Apparently you never lived in Steamboat. :wink:

Doodler
2005-Feb-07, 08:08 PM
From the same article. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=112678): Caption under the photograph of Young.


"Fifteen years ago, I was assaulted by one of my neighbors as I was taking my children to meet the school bus, and I wondered if somehow the incident was connected to that," she said.

May I be the first to say, in no uncertain terms: Get. Over. It.

Wonder if I should add that to my book of catch phrases?

I should see if I could get Ms. Young's phone number from Verizon 411 Connect. :P Nah, too evil even for me, but an interesting thought. :)

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-07, 08:36 PM
I noted (in the article you linked to) that her (19) year old daughter was home and awake.

Can someone tell me again just how in the world this woman received a judgement in her favor??

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for her...this is getting a lot of national attention...none of it good. Next I expect that she will become the "butt" of jokes on the late night talk shows.

edited to add...actually I don't feel that sorry for her...she "brought it on" herself when he decided to sue.

Avatar28
2005-Feb-08, 12:24 AM
I noted (in the article you linked to) that her (19) year old daughter was home and awake.

Can someone tell me again just how in the world this woman received a judgement in her favor??

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for her...this is getting a lot of national attention...none of it good. Next I expect that she will become the "butt" of jokes on the late night talk shows.

edited to add...actually I don't feel that sorry for her...she "brought it on" herself when he decided to sue.

And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the girls ended up on Leno or Letterman or the like either.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-08, 01:03 AM
in my personal experience, this woman was not having a panic attack.

how can I say that? well, because panic attacks aren't really caused by actual events, or at least, mine aren't. (in fact, the most frustrating questions people ask me when I'm having either a panic attack or a depressive episode are "what's wrong?" and "why?")

but let's say, for the sake of argument, that she was. let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was caused by the Cookie Incident. first off, if she left her house, she really ought to move. everyone I know who gets panic attacks wants to go home, because home is safe. leaving the house just isn't happening. and if her house isn't safe because of the Bus Stop Incident, she would have moved years ago. no one w/an anxiety disorder could stand living for fifteen years in a house that wasn't Safe.

okay, so let's move on to the ER. that was the next day. if her panic attack was, in fact, caused by the Cookie Incident, it should have been over by the next day. (it was noon or so when she went to the ER, wasn't it?) if it wasn't, she should have thought she'd been having a panic attack for literally hours. why? well, Mr. Logic says that, if her panic attack was caused by the Cookie Incident, it should have closely followed the Cookie Incident in time. and I mean w/in an hour at most. so she waited, what, 12 hours, and she thought she was having a heart attack? no, I'm not buying it.

I would have done similar things as a teenager, though I would have left the packages on the doorsteps of neighbors w/whom we were on good terms, whether their lights were on or not. it's a really sweet gesture, and I do understand their running away--they didn't want attention. they didn't even sign their names, though unless their neighbors were idiots, they could have figured it out, I'm sure.

oh, and for those who don't believe in panic attacks--of all my medical conditions, including the two physical ones, it's the only one the Social Security people thought was worth note in my initial rejection--they're bad, but they just mean I can't work w/the public. so you can, if your attacks are bad enough, be considered disabled by them by the US Government, which is hardly #1 in its concern about health conditions.

Grendl
2005-Feb-08, 02:13 AM
She wanted lights.

She said she would have never asked for money if the girls had apologized in person, so gee, since they wrote letters, they should learn their lesson by buying her lights.

"Martha Zellitti said the girls' families are not upset with the neighbor, or with the judge, who received many calls from people questioning his decision. Zellitti said the neighbor volunteers at the local food bank and does good deeds herself.

"And the judge made the best decision he could with the information he had," Zellitti said. "We just weren't prepared."

The judge awarded only $1 for damages, even though he could have given the plaintiff lost wages and the cost of new motion- sensor lights for her porch and more. She had itemized about $3,000 in all."

Full article:
http://www.denverpost.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,36~53~2693647,00.html

beskeptical
2005-Feb-08, 08:08 AM
She had an itemized bill for lost wages and motion lights? And the judge made the best decision given the information he had?????I would say that judge is an idiot.

This woman worked herself into a frenzy over a cookie drop. She must have sat around for weeks focused on the $3,000.oo worth of damages for the terrible terrible thing those girls did. That's clear evidence this woman had the problem, not the girls.

I agree, Gillianren, the description is more of a generalized anxiety disorder rather than a specific panic attack. Perhaps it's more of a hostile depression or some other borderline personality disorder.

Bawheid
2005-Feb-08, 11:47 AM
Can someone explain the logic behind punative damages?

I can see why someone itemises $3000 in a claim, and is awarded $1. Distress, damages, lost wages, whatever can all be quantified. But why should a pursuer in a civil trial receive what is essentially a fine levied on the defendant for bad behaviour? I assume the victim in a criminal trial does not receive any fine levied on an accused.

Wally
2005-Feb-08, 01:12 PM
Can someone explain the logic behind punative damages?

I can see why someone itemises $3000 in a claim, and is awarded $1. Distress, damages, lost wages, whatever can all be quantified. But why should a pursuer in a civil trial receive what is essentially a fine levied on the defendant for bad behaviour? I assume the victim in a criminal trial does not receive any fine levied on an accused.

Criminal trials are between the accused and "the people", not against an individual (even taking the victim into account here. . .). Any punitive "damages" are in the form of jail/prison time or moneys paid to the gov'mint (i.e. "the people").

civil trials, on the other hand, have a clear victim (the accuser), hense they are eligible to receive any resultant punitive damage awards.

Fram
2005-Feb-08, 01:19 PM
In Belgium, you can have a criminal and a civil trial for the same crime. I believe in that case, the criminal trial is held first, and the civil trial is only for measuring the damage, not for the question of guilt and innocence (which is answered in the criminal trial).
I'm not a lawyer or anything, so this is laymans knowledge of our judicial system only 8)

Bawheid
2005-Feb-08, 01:39 PM
Can someone explain the logic behind punative damages?

I can see why someone itemises $3000 in a claim, and is awarded $1. Distress, damages, lost wages, whatever can all be quantified. But why should a pursuer in a civil trial receive what is essentially a fine levied on the defendant for bad behaviour? I assume the victim in a criminal trial does not receive any fine levied on an accused.

Criminal trials are between the accused and "the people", not against an individual (even taking the victim into account here. . .). Any punitive "damages" are in the form of jail/prison time or moneys paid to the gov'mint (i.e. "the people").

civil trials, on the other hand, have a clear victim (the accuser), hense they are eligible to receive any resultant punitive damage awards.

But why does a person whose loss is compensated for by damages receive anything to punish the offender? For example in tobacco cases a pursuer may receive $20 million for ill health, loss of earning etc. and a further $100 million in punitive damages for loss they have not suffered, but simply to punish the offender.

Doodler
2005-Feb-08, 01:58 PM
And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the girls ended up on Leno or Letterman or the like either.

I wouldn't think so, they were pretty hurt by the whole thing. Given the way they were characterized in the articles I've read, it doesn't fit the profile.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-08, 02:11 PM
But why should a pursuer in a civil trial receive what is essentially a fine levied on the defendant for bad behaviour? I assume the victim in a criminal trial does not receive any fine levied on an accused.
Perhaps you missed the O.J. Simpson trials. Lucky.

Bawheid
2005-Feb-08, 02:13 PM
But why should a pursuer in a civil trial receive what is essentially a fine levied on the defendant for bad behaviour? I assume the victim in a criminal trial does not receive any fine levied on an accused.
Perhaps you missed the O.J. Simpson trials. Lucky.

I missed them completely, other than the verdict.

pghnative
2005-Feb-08, 02:49 PM
Can someone explain the logic behind punative damages?

I can see why someone itemises $3000 in a claim, and is awarded $1. Distress, damages, lost wages, whatever can all be quantified. But why should a pursuer in a civil trial receive what is essentially a fine levied on the defendant for bad behaviour? I assume the victim in a criminal trial does not receive any fine levied on an accused.
I believe the logic goes like this:

Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money.

maybe I'm too cynical...

Wally
2005-Feb-08, 03:03 PM
But why does a person whose loss is compensated for by damages receive anything to punish the offender? For example in tobacco cases a pursuer may receive $20 million for ill health, loss of earning etc. and a further $100 million in punitive damages for loss they have not suffered, but simply to punish the offender.

I'm guessing the logic is that in either type of case, the accused will/should be punished in some form. In crimes against "the people" (i.e. criminal cases), any money taken as punishment goes to "the people" (i.e. the gov'mint).

In civil court, it it truly a "1 on 1" situation. You have the accuser (plaintiff) against the accused (defendant). It it no longer "the people" against the accused. Hense, any monetary punishment rightfully (???) goes to the plaintiff.

Bawheid
2005-Feb-08, 03:13 PM
In civil court, it it truly a "1 on 1" situation. You have the accuser (plaintiff) against the accused (defendant). It it no longer "the people" against the accused. Hense, any monetary punishment rightfully (???) goes to the plaintiff.

That is the part I don't get, I understand how it works, I just don't see the logic behind it. I'm not sure how many jurisdictions have punitive damages, I only know of the US.

SeanF
2005-Feb-08, 04:42 PM
But why should a pursuer in a civil trial receive what is essentially a fine levied on the defendant for bad behaviour? I assume the victim in a criminal trial does not receive any fine levied on an accused.
Perhaps you missed the O.J. Simpson trials. Lucky.
What about what he said makes you think he might have missed the O.J. trial? :-s

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-08, 04:55 PM
What about what he said makes you think he might have missed the O.J. trial?


I missed them completely, other than the verdict.
I cheated. :)

Spacewriter
2005-Feb-08, 05:05 PM
In civil court, it it truly a "1 on 1" situation. You have the accuser (plaintiff) against the accused (defendant). It it no longer "the people" against the accused. Hense, any monetary punishment rightfully (???) goes to the plaintiff.

That is the part I don't get, I understand how it works, I just don't see the logic behind it. I'm not sure how many jurisdictions have punitive damages, I only know of the US.

Punitive damages are there to "teach a lesson" and send a signal to anyone else doing whatever it was the person/corporation is accused of doing. Supposedly if you do something and have to pay punitive damages, then anybody else who tries to do what you do could face the same damages, since there is now precedent for them. Kinda like spanking a kid in front of other kids to let them know that if they pee on the roses too, they'll get spanked, too.

SeanF
2005-Feb-08, 05:11 PM
What about what he said makes you think he might have missed the O.J. trial?


I missed them completely, other than the verdict.
I cheated. :) [-(

;)

Your post suggested that the O.J. Simpson case was an example of the victim receiving compensation from the accused in a criminal trial. Was that not your intention?

Gramma loreto
2005-Feb-08, 05:20 PM
As I understand it and with the caveat that IANAL...

Civil actions are brought to remedy loss or damages suffered by a plaintiff. Suffering damages (or the prospect of doing so) is one of the legal tests for bringing a civil suit. No damages, no suit. The damages may be due to negligence (simple, gross, criminal) or due to design. In cases where the damaging behavior is severe enough, punitive damages can be awarded to discourage a defendant from engaging in the behavior again.

For instance, say a defendant reasonably knows that the negligent action was likely to cause damage but proceeded anyway with a wreckless, callous, or ever malicious disregard for the consequences. Or, perhaps the damages were inflicted by design. Perhaps the damaging behavior was criminal in nature. Punitive damages can be awarded to to make the behavior more costly than a case simple negligence and send a message to the defendant not to do it anymore.

In many U.S. jurisdictions, restitution is now a part of many criminal trials. However, restitution cannot completely serve in place of civil action because the standards of proof are different. In a criminal trial, if proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no conviction and therefore no restitution. In a civil trial, proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. The O.J. trial was mentioned and serves as an example of the difference between the two. Evidently (and arguably) the prosecution did not prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt during the criminal trial. In the civil action, however, there only had to be enough evidence to tip the scales in favor of the plaintiff.

The foregoing makes me question parts of the OT even more. Why would a judge even mention motion-sensing lights as a part of contemplated damages? Evidently, the woman didn't even have a functioning light to be turned on the old-fashioned way...by flipping a bloody switch. Prudent security measures are a homeowner responsibility. The girls' behavior didn't significantly damage her in that regard.

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Feb-08, 05:40 PM
Your post suggested that the O.J. Simpson case was an example of the victim receiving compensation from the accused in a criminal trial. Was that not your intention?
It was not--that's why I said "trials" instead of "trial". The punitive damages in the second trial were, what, $25 million, originally?

beskeptical
2005-Feb-08, 08:32 PM
The reason for punitive damages is found in this argument (http://www.rolanddarby.com/br_punitive.html) for not limiting them.
Limiting punitive damages to an arbitrary level would undercut their deterrent value since reckless or malicious defendants might find it cheaper and more cost effective to continue their bad behavior and to risk paying punitive damages.

Avatar28
2005-Feb-08, 09:17 PM
I don't get the requests for lights, etc either. Did the girls act vandalously to damage her existing lights? If not, why should they be on the hook to purchase more? If she's worried about someone coming to her door, it should be her place as a homeowner to purchase and install the necessary hardware.

Bawheid
2005-Feb-09, 09:05 AM
Thanks for the link Beskep. I understand the deterrent nature of unitive damages, but as my first post asked; why does the pursuer/complainant receive these? They are compensated by the ordinary damages, as these damages are a fine on behaviour unrelated to loss should they not go elsewhere?

beskeptical
2005-Feb-09, 10:57 AM
Thanks for the link Beskep. I understand the deterrent nature of unitive damages, but as my first post asked; why does the pursuer/complainant receive these? They are compensated by the ordinary damages, as these damages are a fine on behaviour unrelated to loss should they not go elsewhere?The whole thing gets very complicated and I don't think it is fair at all. The link site did say very few cases get punitive damages. I agree such damages would be better directed to some community good. There could be some legal issues with that since the plaintiff is suing, not the state, and since it isn't criminal court. Maybe the court has the authority to award the plaintiff but not the community.

The lawyer 'system' is poorly set up as well. If you can't get a big settlement attorneys will not take the case without payment up front. The idea people can sue for anything is a fallacy unless they are putting up 5-10,000 to hire the lawyer. On the other hand, lawsuits with potentially big settlements make the lawyers rich for the same amount of work sometimes as case that has a lower payoff. It means people can get lawyers to work for free unless they win the case but I'm not sure that benefit's worth the price. It ends up some people whose cases deserve to be heard do not get justice because it would cost as much as they'd get. While other people get judgments that are like winning the lottery because they happen to be suing a Goliath and punitive damages are called for.

electromagneticpulse
2005-Feb-09, 11:23 AM
he did not believe the girls acted maliciously but that 10:30 was fairly late at night for them to be out.

They were 17 and 18. 10:30 is fairly early!

I always used to be out at 10pm when i was 13, when i was 14 i was often out at 2am. When i was 15 i used to be out all night. Where in gods name did that judge come from? He obviously can't have kids, or pay any attention to them if he thinks they'll be in doors at 10:30 at night when their 18.

I'm 16 now and i expect when i have kids that they'll be out all night, damn i'd be proud of them. But if they'd just made them that would mean they had just stepped out the house to take them round.


The teenagers’ families offered to pay Young’s medical bills, but she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person.
If i was a judge and heard that i'd have called her moronic and told her to get the heck out of my court room. Theres no decency left in the world when it comes to money, makes me look forward to the end of the world 8-[

Maksutov
2005-Feb-09, 12:19 PM
I'm 16 now and i expect when i have kids that they'll be out all night, damn i'd be proud of them...
If they're all out all night on the weekend doing astronomy, more power to them! But if they're out all night during school week meeting their connections, etc., then you might want to reconsider your position. But you're only 16, so I'm sure your position will change in about 5 to 10 years.


When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.

att. Mark Twain

Bawheid
2005-Feb-09, 12:20 PM
Thanks for the link Beskep. I understand the deterrent nature of unitive damages, but as my first post asked; why does the pursuer/complainant receive these? They are compensated by the ordinary damages, as these damages are a fine on behaviour unrelated to loss should they not go elsewhere?The whole thing gets very complicated and I don't think it is fair at all. The link site did say very few cases get punitive damages. I agree such damages would be better directed to some community good. There could be some legal issues with that since the plaintiff is suing, not the state, and since it isn't criminal court. Maybe the court has the authority to award the plaintiff but not the community. (Edit)


This was my problem, I just wasn't sure I wasn't missing anything. Thanks.

Maksutov
2005-Feb-09, 12:34 PM
Someone needs to give Judge Doug Walker a dictionary so he can become reacquainted with the meaning of the word "frivolous". (http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0450053.html) His hearing this case qualifies him for inclusion in the various travesties documented in this page. (http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/StupidLawsuit.htm)

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-09, 12:48 PM
His hearing this case qualifies him for inclusion in the various travesties documented in this page. (http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/StupidLawsuit.htm)

I imagine the it will be included there very soon. :) BTW, good to see ya back, Mak...long time no see.

Maksutov
2005-Feb-09, 12:56 PM
[edit]I imagine the it will be included there very soon. :)
If it isn't someone from the BABB will make sure it is. :wink:


BTW, good to see ya back, Mak...long time no see.
As Gen. Patton would say, "Tanks!" A bit of a run-in with what you get if you have a trained bird named Enza and leave the windows open...

Doodler
2005-Feb-09, 01:08 PM
I don't get the requests for lights, etc either. Did the girls act vandalously to damage her existing lights? If not, why should they be on the hook to purchase more? If she's worried about someone coming to her door, it should be her place as a homeowner to purchase and install the necessary hardware.

Basically, its striking while the kettle is hot. Young's got some hardcore paranoia issues that Valium couldn't scratch, so these two provided her with what she thought was an iron clad opportunity to put a new wall around her paranoid little fortress of false security.

Wally
2005-Feb-09, 03:29 PM
I always used to be out at 10pm when i was 13, when i was 14 i was often out at 2am. When i was 15 i used to be out all night. Where in gods name did that judge come from? He obviously can't have kids, or pay any attention to them if he thinks they'll be in doors at 10:30 at night when their 18.



Electro. I don't have kids, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions on how to raise them!

That said, let me be the first to say.

"GET YOUR BUTT HOME NOW!!!" [-(

(Now, play the above quote no later than 11 on school nights and 1 AM on weekends). :wink:

Gillianren
2005-Feb-09, 10:35 PM
see, but even you think 10:30 isn't that late, even on a school night--and these girls were out on a Saturday.

now, I'm not sure how much I believe the "we didn't want to go where there would be swearing" thing--do these girls even go to school? (certainly not any school I ever attended)--but the fact remains, they just got sued for trying to be nice. and we wonder why people are getting so rude . . . .