Texsox Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251782,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251782,00.html No way. The fact this is even in the courts is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) No way. The fact this is even in the courts is ridiculous. She was convicted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 This should be an non-issue. It is very easy to determine if the browsing activity on a PC is intentional or not or redirected from spyware. How many people have had a popup storm bomb their machine. You hit the wrong site, and it just bombs popup after popup. All it takes is one sextracker cookie, and a non-patched version of IE. The only way to shut this is to kill the browser by hitting control-alt-delete and killing the browser process and sometimes the spyware instance itself. Its understandable that she got startled and didnt know exactly what to do when this started to happen with her audience the age that they were. The only way this would of sunk in to the jury is if they did a demonstration of how it works. Hopefully the appelate court will overturn this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 This is ridiculous. If anyone thinks she should go to jail at all, no less 40 years, they should be shot and killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(redandwhite @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) This is ridiculous. If anyone thinks she should go to jail at all, no less 40 years, they should be shot and killed. They will if its judged by the same people who ruled in favor of the dumbass who burnt herself with hot coffee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) They will if its judged by the same people who ruled in favor of the dumbass who burnt herself with hot coffee God I hate it so much when people cite that case as if it was a frivolous lawsuit. Please, take some time and actually learn about the merits of that case. 3rd degree burns. 700 other burn cases before a lawsuit finally was triggered, including burns which caused permanent disability. Edited February 14, 2007 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) God I hate it so much when people cite that case as if it was a frivolous lawsuit. Please, take some time and actually learn about the merits of that case. 3rd degree burns. 700 other burn cases before a lawsuit finally was triggered, including burns which caused permanent disability. It was frivolous, even reading those blogs, the people are retarded. If you make hot soup in your microwave, you spill it on yourself placing it on your lap, do you sue the microwave company? can you sue yourself? If something is served hot, most likely it will be hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) It was frivolous, even reading those blogs, the people are retarded. If you make hot soup in your microwave, you spill it on yourself placing it on your lap, do you sue the microwave company? can you sue yourself? If something is served hot, most likely it will be hot. If someone else buys a gun and shoots you with it, do you want them sued or going to jail, or do you laugh it off and say "oh, if I bought a gun and shot myself I can't just sue myself"? Anyway, that's my last comment on this matter, I'll stop sidetracking this thread from this point. Edited February 14, 2007 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I can't believe this is in the court system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Sounds like she had a very, very bad attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) It was frivolous, even reading those blogs, the people are retarded. If you make hot soup in your microwave, you spill it on yourself placing it on your lap, do you sue the microwave company? can you sue yourself? If something is served hot, most likely it will be hot. If the world serves coffee at 150 degrees and one company sells it at 180 degrees, isn't that a substantial difference? She had a reasonable expectation that this was "normal" coffee, not superheated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) If the world serves coffee at 150 degrees and one company sells it at 180 degrees, isn't that a substantial difference? She had a reasonable expectation that this was "normal" coffee, not superheated. What is the industry standard for coffee temperature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 that is insane that she could go to jail for popups. I have no respect for the prosecuting lawyer or the jury in this case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) What is the industry standard for coffee temperature? IIRC, 130ish. The coffee that burned Liebeck was "at or about 190 degrees" per McDonalds admission, FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) If someone else buys a gun and shoots you with it, do you want them sued or going to jail, or do you laugh it off and say "oh, if I bought a gun and shot myself I can't just sue myself"? Anyway, that's my last comment on this matter, I'll stop sidetracking this thread from this point. Unless a mcdonalds employee threw the cup of coffee at her, I just don't see your example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) What is the industry standard for coffee temperature? According to the testimony during the trial, most places serve around 155 degrees. At that temperature it does not scald. At 180 it does. And McDonalds knew of the danger. That's why the jury sided against McDonalds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 With any luck, this verdict will be overturned. And now, if you will excuse me, I have to perform multiple scans on my computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 My guess is that some high powered law firm takes the case Pro Bono now and wins at the appellate level. She probably did not have alot of money to hire a defense attorney and most likely thought that this was an open and shut case. It could be hard though because most likely its statutory and probably poorly written so that there is no knowledge requirements etc. Kind of like the case where a 18 year old boy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. And eventhough the girl comes to court and says its consensual, the law says that consent does not matter so the jury is forced to convict. Its a hard place for a juror to be because your supposed to enforce the law, regardless of whether you think that its stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) My guess is that some high powered law firm takes the case Pro Bono now and wins at the appellate level. She probably did not have alot of money to hire a defense attorney and most likely thought that this was an open and shut case. It could be hard though because most likely its statutory and probably poorly written so that there is no knowledge requirements etc. Kind of like the case where a 18 year old boy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. And eventhough the girl comes to court and says its consensual, the law says that consent does not matter so the jury is forced to convict. Its a hard place for a juror to be because your supposed to enforce the law, regardless of whether you think that its stupid. Aren't juries allowed (if they know about it) to participate in jury nullification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Jury nullifications are very rare for 2 reasons: 1) Judges can not instruct the Jury about jury nullification (US v. Moylan) 2) Attorneys can not argue for the jury to disregard the law. (Edit: They can argue a law is unconstitutional, but they cant just tell the jury to "disregard the law" because its foolish/etc.) So it takes an extremely rare jury to have heard of nullification, and an extremely strong person to convince the entire jury to go for it. Edited February 14, 2007 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Idonno, I know Jurors are apposed to consider the law when they are ruling guilty or not guilty. But if it was me, I would have a hard time being convinced to send someone to jail for having sex with a girl one year younger than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) Idonno, I know Jurors are apposed to consider the law when they are ruling guilty or not guilty. But if it was me, I would have a hard time being convinced to send someone to jail for having sex with a girl one year younger than him. The age of sexual consent in Connecticut is 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yeah it varies by state, I was just going with the common 18 is an adult, 17 and 364 days is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) Yeah it varies by state, I was just going with the common 18 is an adult, 17 and 364 days is not. It's 18 in only 10 states. It's 14 in 3, and 13 in Virginia. The solid average is 16. http://www.amber-net.org/amberstatutes.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts