[quote]i meant currently convicted felons, not felons that have already served their sentence u dumbass...<hr></blockquote>
Felons serving time in prison right now still have a lot of their rights. I don't know where you get this idiotic idea that criminals don't have rights, seems like you don't know much about the nation you live in.
[quote]why do u keep saying they physically accosted them???<hr></blockquote>
Because that's what the first article said.
-----
[quote]It doesn't matter how intimidating they were<hr></blockquote>
Actually, that matters a great deal. That's the entire purpose of the lawsuit. You do not have the right to physically attack someone and chase them around in high speeds in your car.
-----
Here's a fun little tidbit you guys seem to ignore:
"She didn't have one and fled the parking lot in her station wagon, leaving the groceries behind."
She didn't even have the goddam groceries with her. She left them behind and still these just and moral men decide she needs to be chased and physically accosted. They were CHASING her. They were ATTACKING her. She didn't even have the groceries, there was NO REASON for them to put everyone in such danger.
You people have got to be kidding me. This lady broke the law. She made the choice to steal, to put the girl in the front (also illegal), and to speed. A judgement against the defendant here would be a travesty of justice. The employees should receive a verbal reprimand, and nothing else.
You want to compensate her for this? Are you ****ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks this is, IMO, "what is wrong with America today".
<strong>I wonder if this lady knows that other lady that had the homeless guy stuck in her windshield. They sound like they're from the same gene-pool. maybe they should get together with OJ, the Ramses, and Condit and cry about how they were wronged by the 'system'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>You people have got to be kidding me. This lady broke the law. She made the choice to steal, to put the girl in the front (also illegal), and to speed. A judgement against the defendant here would be a travesty of justice. The employees should receive a verbal reprimand, and nothing else.
You want to compensate her for this? Are you ****ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks this is, IMO, "what is wrong with America today".
She was the lead car. She set the pace for the 'chase'. If she had been trying to 'get away' at 40mph they would have still followed her. She was going 90 because she was trying to escape and not own up to her actions. She was afraid. Afraid of going to jail. I doubt she was afraid of getting beat up. That's a weak argument, IMO.
If the car with the dumbass baggers in it had crashed and one of them had been killed could their families sue her? Does her family have a 'policy' of breaking the law? Does Albertson's have a 'policy' of sending out dumbass baggers to break the law? I doubt it. It was a dumb, dumb act on the part of the manager.
The woman is guilty of manslaughter. The boys are guilty of reckless endangerment. The manager is guilty of being a bad manager, and being a first class moron. Albertson's should not have to pay this woman a cent. Rewarding criminals is a bad, bad idea.
If she wants to try to use the reckless endangerment to get her punishment lessened that is one thing, but she should get no reimbursement.
The ultimate tragedy is that the innocent kid was killed. I wonder if this woman has any other kids.
I still don't know what "physically accosted" means exactly. Did they pull her hair? Punch her in the face? Grab her arm while reaching for her keys? Not enough facts to use the "physically accosted" argument in my forming of an opinion on this.
She shouldn't get a dime. Its her own fault for stealing. She fled because she was scared of going to jail.
Since she is a crook, she is probably full of bullfeces when she says she was "accosted" both "verbally and physically" at the red light. They were probably telling her to stop and get out and wait for the cops.
Regarding the license plate. Anybody with half a brain who was planning to steal something and take off in their car after would first put on a plate from another car onto their car. I'm sure these employees were thinking ahead and probably came to the conclusion that the plate could be a fake.
And yes, it is very sad that the 9yr old had to die because of the selfish actions of her mother who was trying to escape responsibility for breaking the law.
Its also sad that people actually think that she should be able to sue and win when she is the one who killed her daughter!!!
<strong>Yeah, chase a woman and her kid for miles and miles, kick her doors in, yell at her, chase her again at 90 mph...
Nah, they didn't break any ****ing laws. Jesus, do you even read what you post here?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point Calvin. And if by some chance someday I walk by you while your getting the $hit beat out of you by some thugs, I won't try to kick their asses or yell at them or chase them away. I'll be polite and ask them to stop hurting you in a Mr.Rogers tone of voice.
seb and sc_markt said it very well. i have a hard time explaining myself on here sometimes, but u guys did a good job of saying what ive been trying to explain...
[quote]They were probably telling her to stop and get out and wait for the cops.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, wait for the cops they hadn't called... good idea.
They didn't call the cops at all until she hit the tree.
--
seb, ANY possible definition of "physically accosting" will work. You DO NOT hit people. You don't reach into their car to grab their arm, even.
Sure she set the pace, but who are these guys to chase her? It's like egging a suicide jumper on. If someone had been banging on my car (at this point the shoplifting is a complete separate incident) and threatening to hit me I might beat the snot out of both of them but the same can't be expected of her.
All she has to do was say she was scared of them after they physically assaulted her and there's no way in hell to prove otherwise. She left the groceries there, so what reason would they have to chase her? They are not cops so they can't arrest her, it's not a felony so they can't citizen's arrest her. Their intention was to do her physical harm her or to physically restrain her, which is also illegal for them to do.
And as for her being a scumbag, she was stealing *food*, not automatic weapons and crack. Not that stealing is "OK", but it's?Ø÷d.
What if her child hadn't died?...what if she didn't even crash?
Imagine if the accident had not occurred despite the chase. Do you sympathizers still believe she could rightfuly sue? The conditions are the same. The grocers would have still 'endangered' her life and her kid's life. I don't think so. She endangered her child's life while driving recklessly. That's how her kid died...it doesn't matter why she was driving recklessly...her child's life was not in danger until she endangered it.
Good point Calvin. And if by some chance someday I walk by you while your getting the $hit beat out of you by some thugs, I won't try to kick their asses or yell at them or chase them away. I'll be polite and ask them to stop hurting you in a Mr.Rogers tone of voice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying that these two situations should be approached in the same manner... stopping a violent assault, and stopping a lady with a young kid who tried stealing some groceries? I don't quite get it dude.
So you are saying that these two situations should be approached in the same manner... stopping a violent assault, and stopping a lady with a young kid who tried stealing some groceries? I don't quite get it dude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about this. What if she ran over somebody instead of killing her own daughter? Is it still the grocer's fault? What if she ran over several people in succession?
[quote]Do you sympathizers still believe she could rightfuly sue?<hr></blockquote>
For harrassment and reckless endangerment? Absolutely.
[quote]That's how her kid died...it doesn't matter why she was driving recklessly...her child's life was not in danger until she endangered it.<hr></blockquote>
What you are saying here is that if a person takes the action the motivating factors are of no importance whatsoever and shouldn't even be considered.
This is, of course, patently ridiculous, *especially* in a civil case.
Someone who hires a hitman has no legal culpability, apparently. Inciting a riot is now legal in Eugeneland. So is attacking and chasing someone, apparently.
What you are saying here is that if a person takes the action the motivating factors are of no importance whatsoever and shouldn't even be considered.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
but she was motivated by fear as a result of expressing her own guilt. she ran because she was guilty of a crime. they chased her because she was guilty of a crime (although that was a bit extreme, i agree). by running it basically just shows her guilt--thats all. if i run from a cop, its because i know im guilty of something. even though she wasnt running from a cop, she was running because she knew she was screwed. she panicked. that is the primary motivational factor involved. dont give me that bullsh*t that she was scared of those damn bag boys. thats just a load of sh*t she's hiding behind to draw away from her guilt and make her look pathetic and almost innocent in the eyes of the court. there is still no evidence that they even touched her. the words of a criminal never hold up in court. its like my word against a cops--who wins every time??? certainly not the accused...
Comments
Felons serving time in prison right now still have a lot of their rights. I don't know where you get this idiotic idea that criminals don't have rights, seems like you don't know much about the nation you live in.
[quote]why do u keep saying they physically accosted them???<hr></blockquote>
Because that's what the first article said.
-----
[quote]It doesn't matter how intimidating they were<hr></blockquote>
Actually, that matters a great deal. That's the entire purpose of the lawsuit. You do not have the right to physically attack someone and chase them around in high speeds in your car.
-----
Here's a fun little tidbit you guys seem to ignore:
"She didn't have one and fled the parking lot in her station wagon, leaving the groceries behind."
She didn't even have the goddam groceries with her. She left them behind and still these just and moral men decide she needs to be chased and physically accosted. They were CHASING her. They were ATTACKING her. She didn't even have the groceries, there was NO REASON for them to put everyone in such danger.
Nah, they didn't break any ****ing laws. Jesus, do you even read what you post here?
You want to compensate her for this? Are you ****ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks this is, IMO, "what is wrong with America today".
Give her money. WTF. No....OMFG!!!
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>I wonder if this lady knows that other lady that had the homeless guy stuck in her windshield. They sound like they're from the same gene-pool. maybe they should get together with OJ, the Ramses, and Condit and cry about how they were wronged by the 'system'.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What kind of name is LaDawna anyhow??
<strong>You people have got to be kidding me. This lady broke the law. She made the choice to steal, to put the girl in the front (also illegal), and to speed. A judgement against the defendant here would be a travesty of justice. The employees should receive a verbal reprimand, and nothing else.
You want to compensate her for this? Are you ****ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks this is, IMO, "what is wrong with America today".
Give her money. WTF. No....OMFG!!!
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
exactly!!!
Alliance:
Question for you:
Would she have driven 90mph into a tree had she not been illegally chased?
<strong>
Alliance:
Question for you:
Would she have driven 90mph into a tree had she not been illegally chased?</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, but she wouldnt have been illegally chased if she hadnt illegally stolen goods and then illegally run away. chaos has to start somewhere...
btw, she hit the tree at 80 mph (get it right).
She was the lead car. She set the pace for the 'chase'. If she had been trying to 'get away' at 40mph they would have still followed her. She was going 90 because she was trying to escape and not own up to her actions. She was afraid. Afraid of going to jail. I doubt she was afraid of getting beat up. That's a weak argument, IMO.
If the car with the dumbass baggers in it had crashed and one of them had been killed could their families sue her? Does her family have a 'policy' of breaking the law? Does Albertson's have a 'policy' of sending out dumbass baggers to break the law? I doubt it. It was a dumb, dumb act on the part of the manager.
The woman is guilty of manslaughter. The boys are guilty of reckless endangerment. The manager is guilty of being a bad manager, and being a first class moron. Albertson's should not have to pay this woman a cent. Rewarding criminals is a bad, bad idea.
If she wants to try to use the reckless endangerment to get her punishment lessened that is one thing, but she should get no reimbursement.
The ultimate tragedy is that the innocent kid was killed. I wonder if this woman has any other kids.
I still don't know what "physically accosted" means exactly. Did they pull her hair? Punch her in the face? Grab her arm while reaching for her keys? Not enough facts to use the "physically accosted" argument in my forming of an opinion on this.
Since she is a crook, she is probably full of bullfeces when she says she was "accosted" both "verbally and physically" at the red light. They were probably telling her to stop and get out and wait for the cops.
Regarding the license plate. Anybody with half a brain who was planning to steal something and take off in their car after would first put on a plate from another car onto their car. I'm sure these employees were thinking ahead and probably came to the conclusion that the plate could be a fake.
And yes, it is very sad that the 9yr old had to die because of the selfish actions of her mother who was trying to escape responsibility for breaking the law.
Its also sad that people actually think that she should be able to sue and win when she is the one who killed her daughter!!!
<strong>Yeah, chase a woman and her kid for miles and miles, kick her doors in, yell at her, chase her again at 90 mph...
Nah, they didn't break any ****ing laws. Jesus, do you even read what you post here?
Good point Calvin. And if by some chance someday I walk by you while your getting the $hit beat out of you by some thugs, I won't try to kick their asses or yell at them or chase them away. I'll be polite and ask them to stop hurting you in a Mr.Rogers tone of voice.
good thoughts, well said.
Yeah, wait for the cops they hadn't called... good idea.
They didn't call the cops at all until she hit the tree.
--
seb, ANY possible definition of "physically accosting" will work. You DO NOT hit people. You don't reach into their car to grab their arm, even.
Sure she set the pace, but who are these guys to chase her? It's like egging a suicide jumper on. If someone had been banging on my car (at this point the shoplifting is a complete separate incident) and threatening to hit me I might beat the snot out of both of them but the same can't be expected of her.
All she has to do was say she was scared of them after they physically assaulted her and there's no way in hell to prove otherwise. She left the groceries there, so what reason would they have to chase her? They are not cops so they can't arrest her, it's not a felony so they can't citizen's arrest her. Their intention was to do her physical harm her or to physically restrain her, which is also illegal for them to do.
And as for her being a scumbag, she was stealing *food*, not automatic weapons and crack. Not that stealing is "OK", but it's?Ø÷d.
Sorry, she wins this one.
Imagine if the accident had not occurred despite the chase. Do you sympathizers still believe she could rightfuly sue? The conditions are the same. The grocers would have still 'endangered' her life and her kid's life. I don't think so. She endangered her child's life while driving recklessly. That's how her kid died...it doesn't matter why she was driving recklessly...her child's life was not in danger until she endangered it.
[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
Good point Calvin. And if by some chance someday I walk by you while your getting the $hit beat out of you by some thugs, I won't try to kick their asses or yell at them or chase them away. I'll be polite and ask them to stop hurting you in a Mr.Rogers tone of voice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying that these two situations should be approached in the same manner... stopping a violent assault, and stopping a lady with a young kid who tried stealing some groceries? I don't quite get it dude.
<strong>
So you are saying that these two situations should be approached in the same manner... stopping a violent assault, and stopping a lady with a young kid who tried stealing some groceries? I don't quite get it dude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about this. What if she ran over somebody instead of killing her own daughter? Is it still the grocer's fault? What if she ran over several people in succession?
For harrassment and reckless endangerment? Absolutely.
[quote]That's how her kid died...it doesn't matter why she was driving recklessly...her child's life was not in danger until she endangered it.<hr></blockquote>
What you are saying here is that if a person takes the action the motivating factors are of no importance whatsoever and shouldn't even be considered.
This is, of course, patently ridiculous, *especially* in a civil case.
Someone who hires a hitman has no legal culpability, apparently. Inciting a riot is now legal in Eugeneland. So is attacking and chasing someone, apparently.
I don't want to live there, too dangerous.
<strong>
What you are saying here is that if a person takes the action the motivating factors are of no importance whatsoever and shouldn't even be considered.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
but she was motivated by fear as a result of expressing her own guilt. she ran because she was guilty of a crime. they chased her because she was guilty of a crime (although that was a bit extreme, i agree). by running it basically just shows her guilt--thats all. if i run from a cop, its because i know im guilty of something. even though she wasnt running from a cop, she was running because she knew she was screwed. she panicked. that is the primary motivational factor involved. dont give me that bullsh*t that she was scared of those damn bag boys. thats just a load of sh*t she's hiding behind to draw away from her guilt and make her look pathetic and almost innocent in the eyes of the court. there is still no evidence that they even touched her. the words of a criminal never hold up in court. its like my word against a cops--who wins every time??? certainly not the accused...