Woman who fell into a fountain while texting

[nathalee81]

The point of reprimand is to punish someone who did something wrong. Something is effective as a reprimand as long as it takes something away from the transgressor. Where that "something" goes has no impact on its effectiveness as a reprimand.

You may wish that the money goes somewhere else, but I'm sure we all wish we could control a lot more of where money goes in our society.

Are you kidding? Imagine if this lone employee posted details from medical records stored in the mall security office. Wouldn't you expect that the mall or the security company would be held to account for that violation? Of course. They can assert the same control over the security video, if they are made to realize that they indeed have a responsibility to treat the sometimes invasive video they take in that manner.

There are medical records stored in a mall security office?

 

[Geoff_M]

That would make sense only if you consider nudity to be the only compromising depiction possible. It isn't.

No, but at least it would be within the realm of things that courts have held that members of the general public should not have to be subjected to. There's no general concept of "Freedom From Embarrassment At The Hands of Others" in our legal system.

 

[dakcp2001]

Have you ever seen mall security? Where I live its high school kids. No major security happens there. If they need any real security they call the police. They prob make little more than minimum wage. They arent guarding any heavily secured medical records. And last time i checked, fishing idiots out of the fountain isnt security related. For 8 bucks an hour, I hope they laughed as hard as we did when watching this idiot fall in the drink.

 

[Mermaid02]

Have you ever seen mall security? Where I live its high school kids. No major security happens there. If they need any real security they call the police. They prob make little more than minimum wage. They arent guarding any heavily secured medical records. And last time i checked, fishing idiots out of the fountain isnt security related. For 8 bucks an hour, I hope they laughed as hard as we did when watching this idiot fall in the drink.

And now, knowing what kind of person she is..... I'm laughing even harder!

 

[krcit]

Have you ever seen mall security? Where I live its high school kids. No major security happens there. If they need any real security they call the police. They prob make little more than minimum wage. They arent guarding any heavily secured medical records. And last time i checked, fishing idiots out of the fountain isnt security related. For 8 bucks an hour, I hope they laughed as hard as we did when watching this idiot fall in the drink.

Although I bet Paul Blart wouldn't have released the video

 

[MrsToad]

It's my understanding that she did nothing until the video was posted on Youtube. So if the people who recorded the security video in the guard's room on their phone hadn't jacked the recording and put it on Youtube, this wouldn't be an issue.

Let's put another perspective on it. If a robbery occurred in any of those stores, then the video would be considered evidence that the mall may or may not choose to turn over to the police. It's within the mall's right to consider their video private property that may need a court order before they turn it over. Why was this particular video not considered private property as well?

Another argument is that you have to get people's permission before releasing their likeness to the public. Especially if that likeness is collected via hidden or obscure means such as a camera in the ceiling. While we may not have known this woman from Adam, those who know her in real life may have recognized her. Instead of her trying to forget an embarrassing incident, she's now having to face family, coworkers and acquaintences snickering at her for days or weeks, not to mention they could retain a copy of said accident for future purposes and/or intents.

Do I believe she deserves millions because she was texting and fell into a fountain because she wasn't watching where she was going? No. Do I believe the mall should be penalized because their agents (the guards):

1). Allowed non-employee personnel into a what should have been a secure area
2). Mall agents not only allowed non-employee personnel to record one of their surveillance camera images but rewinded the incident to play again and re-presented the incident from a different angle
3). The mall's agents allowed publication of that video on Youtube

You bet I do. Because if they'd do that to this woman, then they wouldn't think twice about doing it to me.

All's fair if you happen to be in a public place and someone happens to catch you on their phone when you accidentally slip on ice or fall into a fountain. I'd question the humanity of anyone who would do that, but it's not necessarily a lawsuit-worthy issue unless and until that photo or video causes more harm to the person depicted.

But this incident doesn't fall under that example. Not even close.

Putting aside her past and her lack of judgment in texting while walking, a part of me is glad she is making a stink about the actions of the mall security people. I do not know the legal rules concerning when and to whom security tapes may be released, but this case really bothers me. Privacy is such an important issue in today's world and I would like to see rules prohibiting this type of video release unless it's related to a crime.

Hopefully, all of this publicity will encourage other malls and public venues with security cameras to have serious conversations with their teams and to form or tighten their own policies concerning their security videos, even if only for the sake of decency toward our fellow man.

 

[Geoff_M]

9. There's a 50% chance she "fell" in on purpose. I'm still making up my mind regarding her lifting her leg as she falls in.....while texting a lady FROM CHURCH. Amen. You just know she spends oodles of time in church, don't you? Well, there are lots of pretty gold things in many churches.......

No, police actually discovered WHO she was texting...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[laurie31]

Maybe all her "church friends" will come visit her in prison.

 

[MiniGirl]

Actually, it sounds like she will be the perfect person to head up the church's prison ministry.


ETA: In instances like this, I always try to put myself in the person's place. How would I feel if this happened to me. Well, I would be super embarrassed, but I would not have suffered any "damage" from this. Okay, honestly, I'm not always the most graceful person. I probably would've been laughing too hard at myself to be able to climb out of the fountain. If it had been put on youtube, again.... embarrassed, but not real harm done.

 

[ChrisFL]

Are you kidding? Imagine if this lone employee posted details from medical records stored in the mall security office. Wouldn't you expect that the mall or the security company would be held to account for that violation? Of course. They can assert the same control over the security video, if they are made to realize that they indeed have a responsibility to treat the sometimes invasive video they take in that manner.

Apples and Halibut

 

[Jabber_Jaws]

How can you expect privacy in an open area of a public place? Any Tom, Dick, or Harry with an I-phone could have taped her and placed it on YouTube. Now if the tapes would have been where one expects a reasonable level of privacy, I would agree with you. In a mall that would be a bathroom, or dressing room. Not out in the open around a crowd of people. Heck if I was there and had taped her falling in a fountain, I would not think twice about putting it on YouTube. Heck I would probably send it in to Americans Funnies Home Videos to try and win some cash.

The security company fired the guard that posted the video. That should be the end of it. What would suing the security company for cash accomplish? Well force the company to charge more, and then the mall would pass that cost to us the shopper. Why should we pay more for our goods because of some idiot who does not watch where she is going? I would hope our courts have more important things to do, and will not let this thing go to trial.

 

[MrsToad]

How can you expect privacy in an open area of a public place? Any Tom, Dick, or Harry with an I-phone could have taped her and placed it on YouTube. Now if the tapes would have been where one expects a reasonable level of privacy, I would agree with you. In a mall that would be a bathroom, or dressing room. Not out in the open around a crowd of people. Heck if I was there and had taped her falling in a fountain, I would not think twice about putting it on YouTube. Heck I would probably send it in to Americans Funnies Home Videos to try and win some cash.

The security company fired the guard that posted the video. That should be the end of it. What would suing the security company for cash accomplish? Well force the company to charge more, and then the mall would pass that cost to us the shopper. Why should we pay more for our goods because of some idiot who does not watch where she is going? I would hope our courts have more important things to do, and will not let this thing go to trial.

I agree with you that we have no control over random people capturing images of us in public places with their cell phones, though I don't particularly like it. However, at least there is a chance that someone won't have their camera ready at the instance I do something the world would think is humorous. The mall security cameras are likely "always on" which creates a greater likelihood that incidents will be captured. I think the mall has a greater responsibility to limit distribution of these videos in their somewhat more "official" role as security personnel.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

Sometimes the only way to hold people accountable is to sue. I'm not a fan of how sue-happy our society is, but the fact that you couldn't see her face is not the issue here as far as I'm concerned. And neither is the fact that she did something dumb.

I have no idea what the regulations are for security tapes in a mall, but I could list a page worth of specs for a bank branch security video.

I have a hard time believing that anyone on here would be okay with me taking one of those tapes, posting it on YouTube and laughing at the clothes you wore. That is not the same thing as a random person with a cell phone taking video.

This incessant need to make fun of people (even when they're doing something stupid) is disconcerting to me. Using something that is put in place to ensure the safety of others to further along that need is revolting.

ETA: Take away the fact that the woman did something stupid, wasn't hurt, and has a non-stellar history. What if your grandmother was walking through the mall, tripped on a wet spot, and fell. She wasn't hurt and you couldn't see her face, but when she fell she inadvertently mooned everyone. Would everyone be perfectly happy with that security video being posted on YouTube?

 

[Mickman0_3]

Actually, I think she has a point. She isn't suing because it is "dangerous" or she thinks they are responsible for her fall. She is suing about the invasion of privacy that occurred when the security camera footage of her fall was made public--for clearly no reason other than to laugh at her. I am not sure if that is really illegal, but it sure as heck is not professional or in good taste.

deserving so

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

While the lawsuit is over the top, I don't think the video should have been posted, just as I don't think sites like People of Walmart should be legal.

Somebody compared it to paparazzi. If I remember correctly (which I may not), there was a case with a well known actor concerning paparazzi photographing them while out in public. The judge specifically stated that because they chose to live their life in the public eye, they had no expectation of privacy. The implication is that you or I, who choose not to live our lives in the public eye, would have an expectation of privacy while in public.

Yes, the mall was a public place. Just like Wal Mart or anyone else. So does that mean that if you don't want an embarassing photo or video of yourself to end up on one of these sites, you should never go out in public? That seems like quite the shame. We all have embarassing moments; we all trip and fall, or spill something, or make an unfortunate fashion choice. Why does that have to be put out there for the whole world to see without our consent?

 

[Mermaid02]

While the lawsuit is over the top, I don't think the video should have been posted, just as I don't think sites like People of Walmart should be legal.

Somebody compared it to paparazzi. If I remember correctly (which I may not), there was a case with a well known actor concerning paparazzi photographing them while out in public. The judge specifically stated that because they chose to live their life in the public eye, they had no expectation of privacy. The implication is that you or I, who choose not to live our lives in the public eye, would have an expectation of privacy while in public.

Yes, the mall was a public place. Just like Wal Mart or anyone else. So does that mean that if you don't want an embarassing photo or video of yourself to end up on one of these sites, you should never go out in public? That seems like quite the shame. We all have embarassing moments; we all trip and fall, or spill something, or make an unfortunate fashion choice. Why does that have to be put out there for the whole world to see without our consent?

www.peopleofwalmart.com

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

What exactly was the purpose of posting that site?

 

[MichelleVW]

www.peopleofwalmart.com

I love that site!!! It cracks me up!! I swear most of those people are from my Walmart!!

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

While the lawsuit is over the top, I don't think the video should have been posted, just as I don't think sites like People of Walmart should be legal.

Somebody compared it to paparazzi. If I remember correctly (which I may not), there was a case with a well known actor concerning paparazzi photographing them while out in public. The judge specifically stated that because they chose to live their life in the public eye, they had no expectation of privacy. The implication is that you or I, who choose not to live our lives in the public eye, would have an expectation of privacy while in public.

Yes, the mall was a public place. Just like Wal Mart or anyone else. So does that mean that if you don't want an embarassing photo or video of yourself to end up on one of these sites, you should never go out in public? That seems like quite the shame. We all have embarassing moments; we all trip and fall, or spill something, or make an unfortunate fashion choice. Why does that have to be put out there for the whole world to see without our consent?

I hate that site for a number of reasons... the top 2 being that bad dressed people exist everywhere, not just at Wal-Mart. And more importantly, I will never feel that I'm so perfect and wonderful that I'm going to laugh at and judge someone based on the way they look when they're shopping.

The world would be a much better place if we spent more time praising people for what's in their hearts and less time mocking them for what's on their backs.

But all that aside, there is such a HUGE difference between random people taking random pictures and someone using a security video. Yes, we give up the right to privacy to a certain extent when we go out in public. If someone takes a picture of me at WDW and posts in online, that's one thing. If the people who work at WDW take a picture of me from one of their security cameras and posts in online, I think that's an entirely different animal.

 

[eliza61]

Sometimes the only way to hold people accountable is to sue. I'm not a fan of how sue-happy our society is, but the fact that you couldn't see her face is not the issue here as far as I'm concerned. And neither is the fact that she did something dumb.

I have no idea what the regulations are for security tapes in a mall, but I could list a page worth of specs for a bank branch security video.

I have a hard time believing that anyone on here would be okay with me taking one of those tapes, posting it on YouTube and laughing at the clothes you wore. That is not the same thing as a random person with a cell phone taking video.

This incessant need to make fun of people (even when they're doing something stupid) is disconcerting to me. Using something that is put in place to ensure the safety of others to further along that need is revolting.

ETA: Take away the fact that the woman did something stupid, wasn't hurt, and has a non-stellar history. What if your grandmother was walking through the mall, tripped on a wet spot, and fell. She wasn't hurt and you couldn't see her face, but when she fell she inadvertently mooned everyone. Would everyone be perfectly happy with that security video being posted on YouTube?

Accountable for what? where they responsible for making sure she didn't fall? Was it some ones responsiblity to make sure she wasn't laughed at?
And pretty much if she had not gone on national tv, no one would have known who she was. So if you had a video of me on youtube wearing outrageous outfits, exactly how would I know you were laughing at me? If you couldn't see my face, where would my embarrassment come in at?

I highly doubt the faces on "the people of walmart" suffer any undue embarrassment at all.

Would I be happy that my mooning grandma was on youtube. No, would I then turn around and sue, saying some one owed it to me to not be embarrased? uhm, NO.

No one owes you a happy, embarrassment free life. I've said it a million times, yes it would be nice if we lived in a nice, courteous, civil society but last time I checked it isn't illegal to be a jerk and unfortunately the security agents were a bunch of jerks.

She's suing because she's embarrassed. plain and simple. And since the cause of her embarrassment is her own stupidity and no one else, she should move on.

Unfortunately we live in an age where every thing you do is open to public view.