On February 19 2011 13:13 Fenrax wrote: - how can the parents of the children in the video sleep well at night when they know that another mother and father probably cry every night right now because their son might face a life in jail for a joke?
- how can the persecutors and police look into the mirror without being ashamed of themselves? These hypocrits.
It's astounding what people will do to not look stupid. Or for money.
This guy shouldn't get any jail time. There would be no "destroying of reputations" or whatever bullshit DarkPlasmaBall was going on about, if people didn't make such a huge deal about this in the first place. Nobody would care. Except some uptight parents who couldn't take a joke.
Now those children will be known as the kids whose parents are litigious, butthurt morons that actively tried to ruin someone's life for no reason.
I was trying to be more civil about this discussion before, but honestly the more I think of it, the more pissed off I get.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
Well, I can understand how some ppl are up in arms over this, but I blame the media headline for it. The singer was charged with the offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years, but that is because there was nothing else to charge him for. If he gets convicted, it'll be up to the judge to set the sentence.
A lot of people are saying that the police shouldn't charge him, but really, they are missing the point - under USA's separation of systems, it is not up to the Executive branch to determine if he has broken the law or not. It is up to the Judiciary.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
I stated multiple times that i do not no anything about how your legal system. I just said that it has an image problem. And, after reading that link you posted, i still think that that is stupid. It simply slips my mind how someone who drips coffee onto her lap, by her own fault, can than sue the company providing the coffee because it was hot, and actually win. Maybe i do not have the right mind for this stuff, but that seems insane to me. People are not babies, so it you can not demand that everything is children-proof, and can not damage people, even if handled totally wrong. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Putting very hot stuff on your skin is not a good idea. If you do so, even if by accident, it is your own fault, and not the fault of the person supplying the hot stuff, which probably even tells you that it is hot, also everyone who orders a coffee should know that it is hot anyway, since coffee is supposed to be hot. So i do not understand how a court could rule that the company providing the coffee should pay 2.86 million, or 640000$. But for that amount of money, i would probably spill a cup of hot coffee onto my loin any day.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
I stated multiple times that i do not no anything about how your legal system. I just said that it has an image problem. And, after reading that link you posted, i still think that that is stupid. It simply slips my mind how someone who drips coffee onto her lap, by her own fault, can than sue the company providing the coffee because it was hot, and actually win. Maybe i do not have the right mind for this stuff, but that seems insane to me. People are not babies, so it you can not demand that everything is children-proof, and can not damage people, even if handled totally wrong. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Putting very hot stuff on your skin is not a good idea. If you do so, even if by accident, it is your own fault, and not the fault of the person supplying the hot stuff, which probably even tells you that it is hot, also everyone who orders a coffee should know that it is hot anyway, since coffee is supposed to be hot. So i do not understand how a court could rule that the company providing the coffee should pay 2.86 million, or 640000$. But for that amount of money, i would probably spill a cup of hot coffee onto my loin any day.
You're correct it's absolutely absurd, serious amendments need to be made to stop morons like that form taking advantage of others due to their own profound stupidity and greed.
20 years is too much. And this is coming from someone who hates this guy. Not because what he did is "wrong". Its just ridiculously unfunny and a complete and total modern cliche to try to shock with this kind of humor to get hits on fooltube. What he did wasnt an act against morality, its an act against hilarity.
I say give him a couple years probation, but forbid him to tell any jokes or make any youtube vids for 20 years for having dog crap sense of humor.
Or how about this, have him remake a different youtube vid. And in this one hes not allowed to use any shock value or sex appeal, or anything like that. Force him to actually BE witty and do something genuinely ironic or full of crystal clear talent, no gimmicks. If he accomplishes it, then he goes free. If he cant (because he cant), he goes to jail.
If the justice system is going to be unfair and random, lets at least use it to prove various interesting points about humanity.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
I stated multiple times that i do not no anything about how your legal system. I just said that it has an image problem. And, after reading that link you posted, i still think that that is stupid. It simply slips my mind how someone who drips coffee onto her lap, by her own fault, can than sue the company providing the coffee because it was hot, and actually win. Maybe i do not have the right mind for this stuff, but that seems insane to me. People are not babies, so it you can not demand that everything is children-proof, and can not damage people, even if handled totally wrong. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Putting very hot stuff on your skin is not a good idea. If you do so, even if by accident, it is your own fault, and not the fault of the person supplying the hot stuff, which probably even tells you that it is hot, also everyone who orders a coffee should know that it is hot anyway, since coffee is supposed to be hot. So i do not understand how a court could rule that the company providing the coffee should pay 2.86 million, or 640000$. But for that amount of money, i would probably spill a cup of hot coffee onto my loin any day.
You're correct it's absolutely absurd, serious amendments need to be made to stop morons like that form taking advantage of others due to their own profound stupidity and greed.
So you have never spilled anything on yourself before? I don't see how this women is a "moron" for having an accident. McD's severed the coffee at an unsafe temperature she had ever right to sue. It was only a matter of time before someone hurt themselves with the coffee being severed at that temperature.
But the incident this thread is about is absurd when no crime was actually committed only a crass attempt at comedy.
This trial is barely entering the red tape. it will be shut down lonnnnnnnnnnng before a sentence is called. Not only is this a net neutrality issue, its a free speech issue and the American government is smarter than that. Meanwhile; i wonder if /b/ knows....
*sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
He should probably get in trouble for publishing videos of other people's children. But that's nothing.
I don't really get what the big deal is. There's worse things on youtube. It falls under parody. So yeah. This is just a bunch of old farts/Christians still living 20 years in the past.
The way I see it, a group of adults are trying to screw over someone's life for a minuscule mistake. (If they're trying hard for 20 years in jail) These people are thinking they stand for something good, but if they're going that extreme, then I can't distinguish who the bad guy is here.
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
Those guys need to chill the fuck out, seirously. he edited the video, i mean if i edited a video of me shooting JFK in the head does that make me the murderer of him?
Of course, no.
Lol ppl these days cant understand humor sometimes. Even Oprah got trolled by 4chan before with OVER 9000 PENISES
Imo, Eddie Van Halen should be brought up on charges too, look at the explicit material in this video with kids and also filmed in a class room! (omg might be NSFW)
Honestly this is pretty stupid that this guy could be given 20 years in jail for this.
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
In every single post you have now stated that you do not know how the legal system works (be it american or european), yet you continue posting about it in great length and detail as if you did. Why? Just drop the issue. All you bring to the table are arguments based on your "feeling" about the topic without backing it up with actual knowledge or research.
P.S.: Feel free to browse german news for all the headlines were lawyers or victims "demand" ridiculous amounts of jail time - because it's the theoretical upper limit of the law and they want the media attention.
EPT
