BF2S Forums Girl Wins $33,000 Settlement from Her School (Naked Pics In Her Phone)

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.

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.

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  Saying that the second amendment is outdated is certainly an argument, but it's a firmly entrenched freedom.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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.