Woman who fell into a fountain while texting

[nathalee81]

No, that is not what I wrote. Rather, I wrote that the fact that embarrassment by nudity is considered so much worse than embarrassment by other means is due to Americans being "childish prudes".

See the difference? See how what I wrote makes sense, and your statement didn't? I was pointing something out about a difference, and your counter-point was about one of the two things, in the absolute. Big difference.

Yet, there are still many laws that are decades behind-the-times. Don't get me started on the overt and pervasive self-centeredness that prevails among Americans, with regard to digital music and video, vis a vis their disrespect for copyright.

Perhaps it is because we've been spoiled, as citizens of the strongest nation on Earth, that fosters such self-centeredness, such focus on consumption and self-gratification, and such insistence that what we want is righteously ours based solely on the fact that we decide to want it. Every nation's citizens exhibit shared negative attributes; perhaps those are ours.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote. What's your point in saying so, in reply to my message?

Perhaps you didn't see it, but the question raised was whether this lawsuit is legitimate or frivolous, not just whether the plaintiff will prevail. Your statement, here, talking about whether there are demonstrable damages to assess, is in agreement with those of us saying that it is not a frivolous lawsuit, since clearly once you get to trying to prove damages, you've already gotten past the legal question of wrongfulness, and are just working to quantify whether there is any monetary significance.

Absolutely. Did you read what I actually wrote?

YouTube uses several back-doors within the law, some of which Geoff was probably thinking of when he wrote his comments, to avoid the responsibility that commercial television stations live up to.​

They shouldn't be able to hide behind those back-doors. That was the point.

With respect, you should get off your high horse and stop assuming that other people don't know what they're talking about, just because you disagree with them. We don't have to agree with you to be well-read and thoughtful. If I need advice about what and when to post, I'll ask people who do not have a vested interest in the thread in trying to distract attention away from the points I'm making.

Oh, my. You know that old saying-that is the pot calling the kettle black? And, before you post, nope no point. Just wanted to say that.

 

[Tinkerbellie16]

If I leaked information from the company I work for, I would be fired at the very least. If this was mall security, they should be fired at the very least for leaking this information (in the form of a video).

 

[bicker]

And, before you post, nope no point. Just wanted to say that.

At least you're honest that your only reason for posting was to post a personal attack on another poster rather than sticking to the topic.

 

[bicker]

If I leaked information from the company I work for, I would be fired at the very least. If this was mall security, they should be fired at the very least for leaking this information (in the form of a video).

FWIR, they did. That was the basis of my assertion, earlier, that the security company by doing so essentially admitted wrong-doing.

 

[nathalee81]

This is a very important distinction. Note that one of the most popular contexts within people are embarrassed publicly, these days, is the television series Wipeout! However, as you pointed out, just as in the case of the aforementioned website, the participants in Wipeout! are informed about what they are getting themselves into. It also helps that the show is presenting their compromising videos all in good fun. The same cannot be said of many videos posted on YouTube. There is simply no guarantee of reasonably mature discretion applied on YouTube.

Of course, I agree with you completely about what this is about. I don't think that you're not explaining it right, nor that other people aren't getting it. They simply don't share our values.

With respect, you should get off your high horse and stop assuming that other people don't know what they're talking about, just because you disagree with them. We don't have to agree with you to be well-read and thoughtful.

Bicker, i used your own quote to properly express how I feel about the above sentiment.

I thought it might be interesting to see if you can argue with yourself.

 

[dakcp2001]

Perhaps a couple of you need to start your own thread to squabble?

 

[bicker]

I thought it might be interesting to see if you can argue with yourself.

It might be interesting to see if you had anything of your own to add to the discussion. Your assumption that other people's values must necessarily be "lesser" values than the values that I share with Klismania is indefensible, but nay indicate why a lot of folks on "the other side" of the argument object so strongly: If you don't believe that different people can live in accordance with substantially different beliefs and values, and still all be good people, then you'll always have problems with the realities of our multi-cultural society.

Perhaps a couple of you need to start your own thread to squabble?

How about we just let everyone post their own perspectives about the topic and what other folks are saying about the topic, without the squabbling about things other than the topic?

 

[nathalee81]

Perhaps a couple of you need to start your own thread to squabble?

I apologize. I got drawn in and shouldn't have. Sorry.

Suffice it to say, I do NOT agree with what this security guard did-leaking the video or even showing the video to those outside the security team. I do believe he should have been fired, and he was.

I just don't agree that that this woman should tie up our court system with a frivolous (yes, I do deem it frivolous) suit. And everyone who is taking her character out of the equation-you can't. She brought herself out into the limelight and now the consequences are her dirty background has also been discovered. I stand by my earlier assumption that this is karma. If I am not mistaken, her character will be called into question in a trial, as well.

But, we can agree to disagree. Ultimately it will be up to the courts to deem this lawsuit is worthy or not (or, more than likely, she will just settle out of court).

 

[Klismania]

I just don't agree that that this woman should tie up our court system with a frivolous (yes, I do deem it frivolous) suit. And everyone who is taking her character out of the equation-you can't. She brought herself out into the limelight and now the consequences are her dirty background has also been discovered. I stand by my earlier assumption that this is karma. If I am not mistaken, her character will be called into question in a trial, as well.

But, we can agree to disagree. Ultimately it will be up to the courts to deem this lawsuit is worthy or not (or, more than likely, she will just settle out of court).

We will have to agree to disagree. I view this lawsuit not necessarily as a small personal issue (or some kind of vendetta as others would have it) but rather as a stand for all Americans who have the right to privacy. IMO, it's not the players that count but the precident itself that's important to anyone who finds themselves being monitored by security cameras.

To use another example: Your employer has a right to video tape you at work. They have a right to monitor your computer when you're at work. They have a right to search your locker, desk or purse for company items. They have a right to be able to use this evidence to fire you and/or prosecute you for fraud if you perpetrate a fraud.

What they don't have a right to do is to use that information to investigate your checking accounts, inform your husband that you're having an affair, hiding an illness or have started smoking again. They don't have a right to post videos of you spilling coffee down the front of your shirt on the internet. That's our right of privacy and, personally, I'd like to keep as much of that right to privacy as I can keep as an American.

This mall/Youtube incident is the same thing: using privileged information in a manner that is not in keeping with the reasons for capturing that information in the first place.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

IMO, it's not the players that count but the precident itself that's important to anyone who finds themselves being monitored by security cameras.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say as well.

 

[Imzadi]

Anderson Cooper:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze0OuDq9keM

 

[Hillbeans]

LOL Anderson Cooper...he is the best!

 

[hereyago]

Anderson Cooper:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze0OuDq9keM

OMG! i love me some AC. He was funny as heck: come a little closer..... I saw him on SNL last saturday night, hilarious.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Anderson Cooper:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze0OuDq9keM

 

[Geoff_M]

No, that is not what I wrote. Rather, I wrote that the fact that embarrassment by nudity is considered so much worse than embarrassment by other means is due to Americans being "childish prudes".

My point was that the "childish prudes" comment was completely unnecessary. Why that protection is given is immaterial to the case being discussed.

Yet, there are still many laws that are decades behind-the-times.

That is a perfectly meaningless statement that could be applied to any current legal standard that you personally don't agree with and feel is "out-dated". And the Anderson Cooper video above shows just how out in front of the legal curve you are on this issue

Perhaps you didn't see it, but the question raised was whether this lawsuit is legitimate or frivolous, not just whether the plaintiff will prevail.

"Having no sound basis" is the applicable definition of "frivolous" in this case. If there's are no realistic claim of damages that can be envisioned, then there's "no sound basis" for the suit. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that. I've asked for examples of what harm she might be able to claim other than "embarrassment" (which in and of itself is NOT civilly actionable). "Star Wars Kid's" harm was that it significantly impacted his ability to learn in school and he needed lengthy psychiatric help afterward. What measurable harm did Ms. Marrero suffer, especially given the unique circumstance that she remained safe in her anonymity after the video became popular until she decided to step into the public limelight? If there's no good answer to that question, then the suit stands no chance, and therefore is frivolous.

They shouldn't be able to hide behind those back-doors. That was the point.

Did you read what I wrote? Commercial TV stations (cable too!) do it too with grainy security videos on entertainment programs like "The World's Dumbest Criminals".

With respect, you should get off your high horse and stop assuming that other people don't know what they're talking about, just because you disagree with them. We don't have to agree with you to be well-read and thoughtful.

I'm not just disagreeing with you, I'm citing actual legal facts and standards. You're free to offer something other than vague generalities and wishful thinking in return. Ms. Marrero's possible case will reach two possible conclusions:
1) The mall offers a small settlement (perhaps just enough to pay the legal damages she owes someone else) to avoid the cost of going to trial and no one admits they did anything wrong.
2) The case will get thrown out.

She will not win if she files and if it goes to trial. Her and her lawyer's hopes seem to very much rest in Option 1. In which case then, it's a "nuisance lawsuit" which is a type of frivolous suit.

Someone that's actually a lawyer summed it up better than I can: "In order for her to sue she's got to have certain elements. You have to have a duty; you have to have causation; you have to have damages; you have to have a breach of a duty. There's no breach by the mall, the security, or anybody. She was just texting and not paying attention." Lawyers certainly can disagree, so perhaps you can offer some legal analysis from another member of the bar that might offer Ms. Marrero a glimmer of hope. But the lawyers I've read haven't offered much hope.

If I need advice about what and when to post, I'll ask people who do not have a vested interest in the thread in trying to distract attention away from the points I'm making.

I have a "vested" interest in this thread? Really??? How?

 

[eliza61]

Anderson Cooper:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze0OuDq9keM

Add me to the worship column. AC hit a home run with this one.

I'm sticking by my original statement. She's a moron looking for a quick dime.

 

[Nancy]

I'm watching Fox news right now and they are talking about it. Megyn Kelly is cracking me up. She doesn't feel bad for her at all, she is mocking her!

how do you miss the fountain? and from what I see, her left leg comes up, like she knows she is going to fall in, or she "wants" to.

That is what I saw too. The more I watch it the more I think this was a planned fall. She has to pay restitution and had asked the judge to give her more time to come up with the money...gee and now we are suing? She claims she would not have sued if it wasn't posted online, but can we really be sure of that? Possibly she would have sued the mall for some other reason from this incident.


And I can't believe a retail store would hire her with her retail theft records.

 

[quentina]

The marquee outside the mall says.....Now hiring lifeguards!

 

[Mermaid02]

The marquee outside the mall says.....Now hiring lifeguards!

And towel boys!

 

[ThunderMTexpert]

was it a shame that someone posted the video online? yes.
were you really all that shocked by it? no.

#1, i wouldn't even say that founftain lady was embarrassed by the VIDEO itself. i will 100% say that ON THAT DAY, having to get out of a mall fountain, soaking wet, yes. she was probably embarrassed. but, by the time the video surfaced, no one knew who she was. i would still be embarrasses, for myself, for my OWN STUPIDITY, but come on. a lawyer? you're another one of those money hungry, pain in the neck people who are out to make a quick buck.

#2, i would be more concerned about the people who may have slipped and fell and hurt themselves in (what i am sure are) the many puddles of water that were left behind, trudging to the exit.

when fountain lady says that "it COULD have been this," or "it COULD have been that," she doesn't mention the fact that she COULD have endangered someone else. i know that is a stretch, but come on. we are talking about a lawsuit for someone's own ignorance.

the fact that this story is getting additional media in general is ONLY because the idiot won't stop going on tv and talking about it!! come on, lady.