Spaz Wrote:They're 60% scrolls for browser for defense. They all worked.
You should have scrolled for speed. Defense is not as important as downloading 200 gigabytes worth of pr0n.
Katie Wrote:Hey now! They have a compound about an hour from me where the Oaklahoma City bomber met his buddies. It's a lovely town!
Anyways, they have to put all that crap on there even though it seems quite stupid. I love it when people sue McDonald's for their "hot" coffee. Obviously it's gonna be freaking hot you dumb asses.
Katie, in America nothing is ever your fault. Timmy isn't to blame either. The federal government made him do it.
Quantact... You called the copypasta "BS written by her lawyers" when it makes her look like a complete idiot. It also corrects several claims you made in the thread, which is why I posted it (ie. she made 3mil, she was driving, she was holding it at the crotch instead of at the knees, etc.) I don't see why you're trying to turn this into an argument.
Here's a comical and dumbed-down paraphrasing of our interaction in this thread, from my perspective:
- (all the previous posts before my first one)
- Me: yeah, it's ridiculous... although here's the correct facts, in copypasta form.
- You: no, pat, she's stupid and doesn't deserve anything.
- Me: Did you read it at all? It shows she was an idiot... and I was just giving out the correct facts. I wasn't defending her (because I agree, it is all her fault)
- You: I reread and you haven't refuted anything I said!
I apologize for the slight mockery there, but of course I haven't refuted anything you said; I'm not trying to. We agree with each other. The only part I disagree with is how you presented the following:
Quote:The jury of peers is who should be deciding the merits of the case, not a bullpomegranate artist who stands to gain $$$ and is therefore completely biased.
While I agree with the sentence, that's already how it is. The lawyer selectively presents all the evidence that makes his side look good, just as the opposite side's lawyer does. Their job is to act in the best interest of their client, so they obviously don't want to present what makes their client look bad. The jury then has to put the 2 pictures together in order to decide what actually happened and then decide the appropriate way to go forward with regards to the accused. The jury of peers makes the decisions, not the lawyer...
The lawyer is only there to supply the information (with obvious bias) to the jury and destroy the validity/credibility of the evidence presented by the opposing lawyer. They're more there because they know the many loopholes, precedents, obscure exceptions in the law and so forth, which can benefit their client. They're generally also good speakers, which works wonders when trying to convince jury members to take your client's side.
...unless I completely misunderstood you and you meant the judge instead of the lawyer, since the former evaluates the merit of the case based on how much evidence there is, in order to see whether it has enough to even go to trial. If that's what you meant, then you can just ignore most of what I wrote
Also, around here, the vast majority of lawyers are paid admittedly way too much by the hour, not by % of settlement or whatever else (or at least my mom was, as were all her coworkers and law students. Same goes for the lawyers I supported when I was in tech support at a one of the most prestigious law firms in the country...) They're not twisting the facts to make money; they're twisting them because it's in their client's best interest. They've already made most of the money they're going to get, whether they win or lose the case. (of course, some of the 2-bit traffic violation lawyers have promotions like "You don't pay unless we win!", but that's a different story...)
2009-01-07, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 2009-01-07, 03:49 PM by Derimed.)
psychopat Wrote:Quantact... You called the copypasta "BS written by her lawyers" when it makes her look like a complete idiot. It also corrects several claims you made in the thread, which is why I posted it (ie. she made 3mil, she was driving, she was holding it at the crotch instead of at the knees, etc.) I don't see why you're trying to turn this into an argument.
Here's a comical and dumbed-down paraphrasing of our interaction in this thread, from my perspective:
- (all the previous posts before my first one)
- Me: yeah, it's ridiculous... although here's the correct facts, in copypasta form.
- You: no, pat, she's stupid and doesn't deserve anything.
- Me: Did you read it at all? It shows she was an idiot... and I was just giving out the correct facts. I wasn't defending her (because I agree, it is all her fault)
- You: I reread and you haven't refuted anything I said!
I apologize for the slight mockery there, but of course I haven't refuted anything you said; I'm not trying to. We agree with each other. The only part I disagree with is how you presented the following:While I agree with the sentence, that's already how it is. The lawyer selectively presents all the evidence that makes his side look good, just as the opposite side's lawyer does. Their job is to act in the best interest of their client, so they obviously don't want to present what makes their client look bad. The jury then has to put the 2 pictures together in order to decide what actually happened and then decide the appropriate way to go forward with regards to the accused. The jury of peers makes the decisions, not the lawyer...
Spoiler
Much of the coverage about Stella Liebeck has been grossly unfair. When you have a more complete summary of the facts, you might change your mind about her. Or maybe not -- that's up to you. Did you know the following aspects of the Stella vs. McDonald's case?
* Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup. * Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
* McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
* From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
* Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.
* While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.
But...
* The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal. The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!
* The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?
* Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?
And...
* Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?
The Court of Public Opinion has also issued its verdict: Stella has become an American icon. Rightly or wrongly, she is a symbol of the American Tort system gone wrong, and most have heard of her case -- and have an opinion on it. For more than 10 years, the term "Stella Award" has been used to refer to any lawsuit that sounds outrageous. Because of this huge name recognition, we chose to continue the name that has captured the public's attention like no other: "Stella Awards". But rather than use fabricated stories to illustrate a real problem, our goal is to legitimize the "Stella Awards" name by reporting real case stories (in the This is True tradition) to get the point across much more powerfully.
Abuse of the system is going on, and sometimes judges and juries grievously err and set terrible precedents. [/quote]
This is all of your copypasta. While you mostly agree with me in your interpretation of it, a substantial part of your copypasta is symphathetic with her, namely the bolded portion.
In the hands of an attorney, the bolded portion of your copypasta can be exaggerated and excluded from the other portion of the copypasta. In other words, give this to a lawyer for the plaintiff, and the bolded portion is ALL the jury will get. To be precise to a greater point, something like the bolded copypasta is what the jury ended up agreeing with, while the non-bolded copypasta was rejected. This is the case of Liebeck v. Mickey Ds, and the old hag won. Therefore my argument is not quite the same as yours. I think the act of putting that coffee in the crotch is so utterly retarded that even if she needed skin grafts, she is such an idiot that it shouldn't be mentioned. Why even mention that 700 spills occured when McDonald's serves millions of cups and you yourself are going to say that somewhere down there? Maybe I misinterpreted you, but to me it seemed that by putting the copypasta there you were insinuating that she actually has a side of the case, where I am saying she doesn't have jack pomegranate.
Quote:The lawyer is only there to supply the information (with obvious bias) to the jury and destroy the validity/credibility of the evidence presented by the opposing lawyer. They're more there because they know the many loopholes, precedents, obscure exceptions in the law and so forth, which can benefit their client. They're generally also good speakers, which works wonders when trying to convince jury members to take your client's side.
...unless I completely misunderstood you and you meant the judge instead of the lawyer, since the former evaluates the merit of the case based on how much evidence there is, in order to see whether it has enough to even go to trial. If that's what you meant, then you can just ignore most of what I wrote
Also, around here, the vast majority of lawyers are paid admittedly way too much by the hour, not by % of settlement or whatever else (or at least my mom was, as were all her coworkers and law students. Same goes for the lawyers I supported when I was in tech support at a one of the most prestigious law firms in the country...) They're not twisting the facts to make money; they're twisting them because it's in their client's best interest. They've already made most of the money they're going to get, whether they win or lose the case. (of course, some of the 2-bit traffic violation lawyers have promotions like "You don't pay unless we win!", but that's a different story...)
With any type of law, a lawyer does not take a case unless he sees $$$ in it for himself. He will NOT take a case if he doesn't see $$$ in it for himself because it's a waste of his $500 per hour time. Therefore, he is not just representing his client's interests in court, he's to a greater extent looking out for #1. I went to law school briefly, and I saw what they were doing: they weren't teaching me anything in particular but rather trying to beat my right-and-wrong out of me and replace it with the mentality of defending any argument for money. While there are decent lawyers, (I've met a few,) I think significant portions of the profession consist of intellectual prostitution. You spend your days screaming at other people on the phone as if you really give a pomegranate, where you're really just lining your pockets with money, and could just as easily be on the other end of the line screaming back.
My main point in briefly mentioning Liebeck, (which derailed from humor into this,) was to mention the stupidity of the legal system. Since that stupidity is largely created by lawyers, I'd say putting a tort in front of a judge and eliminating the lawyers from that stuff would be nice. Honestly, I just wanted to call the lawyers whores, which I often do, and with much gusto.
You need a lawyer with certain things, like wills, contracts and patents. I think in criminal cases they're unavoidable. In most tort litigation, I think the judge could guide the plaintiff and defendant, making the facts clear for the jury without using rhetoric and mind games to make them adopt ridiculous stances such as in Liebeck and the OJ trial. If the defendant is a corporation, let the manager from McDonald's come and explain why the coffee was hot, and why she was a retard for spilling it in her crotch. I've been to traffic court, normal people ARE capable of articulating their interests. I don't see how slick $500 per hour lawyers are needed for any of this.
Edit: Can we both just stop talking about merit of the law and lawyers and just go back to lulz? Funhouse is for lulz, not srs business.
I informed myself a bit more regarding the pay on tort lawyers. Around here, I'm right. In the states, you're right... Which is detrimental to their system, for the reasons you already said.
Other than that... My girlfriend's coffee cup yesterday had instructions on it.
1 - Lift tab.
2 - Press tab onto clip.
3 - Drink. Caution: Contents may be hot.
