Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4338|foggy bottom
ima legal scholar
Tu Stultus Es
jord
Member
+2,382|5757|The North, beyond the wall.

eleven bravo wrote:

jord wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

youre confusing cable news and forum posters for actual jurisprudence
I'm not confusing anything charlene, I'm simply commentating on what I've seen in debates here.
thats my point, giggles.
Its your duty as an american to question everything, everywhere, all the time.

Get to it negative nancy.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4338|foggy bottom
its my duty to participate in civic society and to obey the laws of the land and if I find I dont agree with the law do what it is I can to change it, legally.
Tu Stultus Es
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|5209|North Tonawanda, NY

eleven bravo wrote:

ima legal scholar

SenorToenails wrote:

Most of us on BF2s aren't legal scholars though, so such minutae would be lost on us.
Thus my qualifier.    I most certainly am not.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4338|foggy bottom
arent you a law student?
Tu Stultus Es
jord
Member
+2,382|5757|The North, beyond the wall.

SenorToenails wrote:

jord wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


People question it and it's interpretations here all the time.  Commerce clause anyone?
They don't question it as a force though. Whenever the right to bear arms comes up you can guarantee rather than the subject being debated solely with logic, reason and facts someone will come in and start shouting "read the 2nd amendment fags" like it has any bearing on the discussion at hand... It pains me.
See, here's the thing though--that right to bear arms and how it has been interpreted is the law of the land.  In order to change that, one would need to pass an amendment.  Until then, there isn't much to discuss other than 'how much is too much' for gun control.  Saying that the second amendment is outdated is certainly an argument, but it's a firmly entrenched freedom.

Besides, people do argue about the comma placement in the wording of the second amendment.  Most of us on BF2s aren't legal scholars though, so such minutae would be lost on us.
I know it's the law of the land, the differance I'm trying to construe here is laws are questioned all the time here; the illegality of certain drugs, jaywalking, speeding, etc. What I'm getting at, is nobody seems to question the actual constitution as an entity. It just seems odd to me.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|5209|North Tonawanda, NY

eleven bravo wrote:

arent you a law student?
Me?  Hell no!  I have a masters in computational physics and work in medical research.  I took a class in high school that covered basics in law...like, contracts for dummies kind of.  That's about where my expert legal training ends.  lol
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4338|foggy bottom
its questioned all the time youre just a sleep when it is.


I dislike the the decision in citizens united.  many disagree with roe v wade.  quit being a dingle brain
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4338|foggy bottom
Im a senior in pre law, thats about as scholarly as i am
Tu Stultus Es
jord
Member
+2,382|5757|The North, beyond the wall.

eleven bravo wrote:

its my duty to participate in civic society and to obey the laws of the land and if I find I dont agree with the law do what it is I can to change it, legally.
Best get rid of your illegal firearm, copious amounts of pot and illegal immigrant gardener.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|5209|North Tonawanda, NY

jord wrote:

I know it's the law of the land, the differance I'm trying to construe here is laws are questioned all the time here; the illegality of certain drugs, jaywalking, speeding, etc. What I'm getting at, is nobody seems to question the actual constitution as an entity. It just seems odd to me.
But people do.  Maybe not here, but it does happen.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4338|foggy bottom

jord wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

its my duty to participate in civic society and to obey the laws of the land and if I find I dont agree with the law do what it is I can to change it, legally.
Best get rid of your illegal firearm, copious amounts of pot and illegal immigrant gardener.
wtf are you on about?
Tu Stultus Es
jord
Member
+2,382|5757|The North, beyond the wall.

SenorToenails wrote:

jord wrote:

I know it's the law of the land, the differance I'm trying to construe here is laws are questioned all the time here; the illegality of certain drugs, jaywalking, speeding, etc. What I'm getting at, is nobody seems to question the actual constitution as an entity. It just seems odd to me.
But people do.  Maybe not here, but it does happen.
That's good to know but I suspected so. I'd like to see it happen here though.

So the next time someones reasoning is failing them and they quote the constitution I want to see some real emotion from you guys. Unless its a legal debate...
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,926|5851|USA

Reopened in a barely mutilated form. It takes a lot of time to sift through these threads, so don't expect it too often. Also:

wall of text wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Students use phones to help them cheat.  Maybe suspicion was there that she'd photoed a cheat sheet?  Principal still not allowed to look?
I'd think cheating that way would result in confiscation of the phone for the day, detention and a failing grade on the test.

loubot wrote:

Now, she knows how to exploit institutions/people and acquired the taste of fast-money, the dancing pole or porn industry seem the best career choices so far.
I'd hold off on that until I knew what her grades where exactly. People boast about chatting on the internet at work all the time, so against the rules or not, cell phone use in class is more indicative of falling into social norm than just being lazy.

Macbeth wrote:

There are ways to get money besides shooting off stupid lawsuits.
However:

ghettoperson wrote:

This is hardly the best example in the world of a frivolous lawsuit, so I'm not sure why you guys are getting so annoyed about it. Her rights were violated.
It isn't. Spilling hot coffee on your lap and suing McDonalds is. Reasonable search and seizure has a lot of grey areas. Public schools still qualify as government facilities, so it's reasonable to expect bag checks at the door or car searches upon suspicion. Lockers are school property, so are fair game as well. Notepads, journals, laptops and cell phones are in muddy terrain.

In this case, 33k wasn't really that much to sue for, since all the fees involved in a lawsuit still have to be covered. And schools are known to spend far more frivolously than that (~500 million dollars for a school that houses 4k, for an extreme example).

loubot wrote:

The one thing I am annoyed is the court system really did not need to get involved. Between her parents and the principal they could of reached an agreement like sensible people.
They could have, but you underestimate the power of parental outrage.

11 Bravo wrote:

...and kids dont have much privacy.  they are not adults.
Maybe they should. I've actually heard the same sort of arguments second hand from people whose parents didn't let them keep their doors closed for privacy. Sounded fairly creepy to me.

11 Bravo wrote:

i dont agree.  if she hadnt been talking on the phone in class like a entitled disrespectful little cunt then none of this would have happened.
I agree in part here. Earlier I said this incident was both parties' fault. She shouldn't have been dicking around on her cell phone in violation of school rules, and he shouldn't have been scanning her pics like a closet pervert. But I think the girl has the moral high ground in this case. So:

Finray wrote:

If he hadn't looked through her phone then none of this would have happened.

Looking through phone without permission = worse than talking in class.
tbh.

11 Bravo wrote:

Camm wrote:

Wow 11B is the first American I've heard going against the Constitution.
The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy


wow keep talking though
Lots of things aren't in the constitution, like the right to vote. Should we repeal that?
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|5209|North Tonawanda, NY

jord wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

jord wrote:

I know it's the law of the land, the differance I'm trying to construe here is laws are questioned all the time here; the illegality of certain drugs, jaywalking, speeding, etc. What I'm getting at, is nobody seems to question the actual constitution as an entity. It just seems odd to me.
But people do.  Maybe not here, but it does happen.
That's good to know but I suspected so. I'd like to see it happen here though.

So the next time someones reasoning is failing them and they quote the constitution I want to see some real emotion from you guys. Unless its a legal debate...
http://forums.bf2s.com/sphinx.php?q=com … rch=Submit

That's just what I thought of immediately, and I had intended to post it earlier but the thread was locked for a bit.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio
ya but privacy is......kind of subjective tbh.  i mean there have been cases where people were standing on the sidewalk taking pics of women inside their homes and it was deemed legal.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-09-24 13:15:03)

SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|5209|North Tonawanda, NY

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

This is hardly the best example in the world of a frivolous lawsuit, so I'm not sure why you guys are getting so annoyed about it. Her rights were violated.
It isn't. Spilling hot coffee on your lap and suing McDonalds is.
It's not as simple as just 'hot coffee'...it was scalding hot and served way above industry 'standards' for temperature.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's not as frivilous as one might assume. 
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|5209|North Tonawanda, NY

11 Bravo wrote:

ya but privacy is......kind of subjective tbh.  i mean there have been cases where people were standing on the sidewalk taking pics of women inside their homes and it was deemed legal.
That reminded me of this:  http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/1 … es_charges
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,926|5851|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

It's not as simple as just 'hot coffee'...it was scalding hot and served way above industry 'standards' for temperature.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's not as frivilous as one might assume. 
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
Everything about it sounds frivolous, just from that.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|5209|North Tonawanda, NY

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

It's not as simple as just 'hot coffee'...it was scalding hot and served way above industry 'standards' for temperature.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's not as frivilous as one might assume. 
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
Everything about it sounds frivolous, just from that.
She really should have just had her medical expenses covered with reasonable punitive damages.  A jury awarding such a massive sum does not make the suit frivilous by any means.

Check this out though:

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
Just because they found that AFTER the suit, the temperature of the coffee was lower means nothing.  McDonalds could have changed their QA policies to reflect the loss of the lawsuit.  The point was that serving coffee at 185F is not really responsible for a retailer when they admit to knowing that it WILL burn upon consumption.

This is a bit of a derail, so I apologize.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,926|5851|USA

No, it's a relevant point. After all, the thread's very title does kind of bring up the subject of frivolity in the courts.
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|4778
okay

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard