Voter disenfranchisement

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:09 am

Democrat slogan: "We don't vandalize the opposition!"

Well, ELF doesn't count, really.

Vandalism happens in my area in oddly selective ways, with a predominantly GOP region of aging WASPS flanked and permeated by shockingly poor (and violent) regions of black, white, or latino regions.... and yet the biggest produces of illegal activity come from the spoiled kids of aforementioned GOP WASPS.
Custom sports cars, pseudo-gangs bumming around WaWa parking lots at 2 AM, want to 'act black' and yet ironically hate blacks, etc.

During the previous election, all Democrat signs were knocked over, spraypainted, or stolen in my own and nearby neighborhoods.
It could have been one person or a group, doesn't matter; Republican signs were looming large (literally) and untouched.

I expect worse this year.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:50 am

Use metal signs. You know, the kind that practically have razor sharp edges? They'll spray paint them and knock them down, but at least one person is likely to suffer from mild lacerations before it happens.

Bonus points for dusting the edges with salt, limestone or some other "SWEET JESUS FUCKING HOBNOB-GOBBLERS ON A POGO STICK!" agony inducing irritant.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:23 pm

Booby traps are illegal.

I'm not sure if a sign that's just sharp on its own, rather than sharpened, counts, though. Salting its edges might.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:17 pm

Yes on 8 signs are having a short life span around here.

Of course, 'vote to take away your neighbor's rights!' isn't going to be very popular.

-Crissa

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:40 am

IGTN wrote:Booby traps are illegal.

I'm not sure if a sign that's just sharp on its own, rather than sharpened, counts, though. Salting its edges might.

The idea is that they'd use the kind that are naturally sharp - like road signs, or that most-certainly photoshopped one stating:

"Warning: this sign has SHARP EDGES that could cause painful lacerations! Also, the road ends ahead"

As for salting the edges, I suppose "Prove it" could be a good defence. Or indeed "So tell the court how it was that you received this injury." But perhaps simply leaving the salt off is better.

Or applying disinfectant, "in case someone accidentally cuts themselves. You wouldn't want infection to set in." You'd be doing them a favour AND causing incredible pain!

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:42 am

Considering how I've heard of burglars suing homeowners for personal injury when they fall through ceilings (through the attic), and winning the case, "so tell the court how it was that you received this injury" might not work.

shau · Post by **shau** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:20 am

virgileso wrote:Considering how I've heard of burglars suing homeowners for personal injury when they fall through ceilings (through the attic), and winning the case, "so tell the court how it was that you received this injury" might not work.

This is a myth. I thought it was on snopes but this is the closest I have found http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp.

Going back to the trap thing, you can be sued or arrested for setting up lethal traps. There is a noted case in which a man was sued by a burglar after the burglar was shot by a spring gun.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:25 am

Was that in the big email of court cases where someone does something stupid and successfully sues? That entire file is false - apparently these types of cases do not actually go through.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:51 am

Yeah, we've totally let white guys off for shooting to death foreigners for knocking on their door inadvertently.

But leaving a hazard that could kill or injure a child or animal is illegal in many areas.

-Crissa

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:06 am

Yeah, we've totally let white guys off for shooting to death foreigners for knocking on their door inadvertently.

Bah that's nothing, in the Australian state of Queensland a white guy can swerve off the road, run over an aboriginal, then back up and run over them again killing them and not even get points taken off their drivers licence.

I see your racist corruption and raise you an apartheid.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:12 pm

Koumei wrote:Was that in the big email of court cases where someone does something stupid and successfully sues? That entire file is false - apparently these types of cases do not actually go through.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Well, while those individual cases may indeed be false, there are lots of frivolous lawsuits that apparently do make it through, the most widespread one is probably the "I'm a dumbass and spilled hot coffee on myself, and now I'm suing you for making the hot coffee too hot."

Which seriously, is still ridiculous no matter what anyone might say.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:25 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
Koumei wrote:Was that in the big email of court cases where someone does something stupid and successfully sues? That entire file is false - apparently these types of cases do not actually go through.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
Well, while those individual cases may indeed be false, there are lots of frivolous lawsuits that apparently do make it through, the most widespread one is probably the "I'm a dumbass and spilled hot coffee on myself, and now I'm suing you for making the hot coffee too hot."

Which seriously, is still ridiculous no matter what anyone might say.

I agree completely. It is ridiculous that one would get 3rd-degree burns from coffee.

socrates999 · Post by **socrates999** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:57 pm

The coffee case may not be as frivolous as you think. . .

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:08 am

I spilled tea on my arm while talking on the phone and wearing a fleece jacket 5 years ago. I took the jacket off about 40 seconds after the spill, and ran my arm under cold water. The visible scarring on my arm is now only about 2 x 3 inches, although you can still see the full 4 x 5 inch extent if you look closely.

Anyway, I was an idiot but hot beverage spills really can leave a mark if they're held close to the skin. I have no difficulty believing that MacDonald's coffee could give 3rd degree burns.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:01 pm

Yeah, the McDonalds coffee case is actually a classic example of the system working. McDonalds cranked up the temp on their coffee to beyond safety guidelines in order to keep coffee "fresh" longer so they could save money on making new pots of the stuff. They were warned to knock it off and they didn't because making pots of coffee less often was making them too much money, and someone sued them when they got all the flesh melted off their limbs and nearly died.

McDonalds is the bad guy there, and anyone who tells you differently is a corporate apologist that would rather have corporate profits than corporate accountability - at the expense of public safety, and yes, human lives. McDonalds were bad people in that court case, and if you support them by claiming that "frivolous lawsuits" were in any way the problem in that instance - then you're a bad person too.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:14 pm

I used to work at a McDonalds store. So I was suspicious as soon as I heard of it being "frivolous" - they have/had a reputation for making it far too hot (and I'm sure they still do it, seeing as you probably couldn't legally fine them enough to make turning the heat down more profitable).

That being said, I desperately wanted to believe they were in the wrong, because if you ever work for them, you grow to hate them and want to see the company go bankrupt and Ronald burned at the stake.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:27 pm

Koumei wrote: That being said, I desperately wanted to believe they were in the wrong, because if you ever work for them, you grow to hate them and want to see the company go bankrupt and Ronald burned at the stake.

Yeah sure. I hate McDonalds and other big corporations too. But it still doesn't excuse the fact that someone wanted money for burning themselves.

I mean, the moment I read that she put the coffee between her fucking legs. That's where I said "Ok, this is totally her fault."

When you put something between you're legs while sitting in a car you're very likely to exert some measure of pressure against the sides, even involuntarily, when you try to take off the top or some other action. A styrofoam cup just can't take that much before spilling.

Maybe McDonald's policy was at fault somewhat for overheating their coffee, but seriously, the coffee didn't leap out of that container at her, she had to spill it, all while holding it in a very dangerous spot.

shau · Post by **shau** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:50 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote: Yeah sure. I hate McDonalds and other big corporations too. But it still doesn't excuse the fact that someone wanted money for burning themselves.

I mean, the moment I read that she put the coffee between her fucking legs. That's where I said "Ok, this is totally her fault."

When you put something between you're legs while sitting in a car you're very likely to exert some measure of pressure against the sides, even involuntarily, when you try to take off the top or some other action. A styrofoam cup just can't take that much before spilling.

Maybe McDonald's policy was at fault somewhat for overheating their coffee, but seriously, the coffee didn't leap out of that container at her, she had to spill it, all while holding it in a very dangerous spot.

Goddamn Bullshit. She held the cup with her legs for a second when she was removing the lid so she could put cream and sugar in. If the coffee was at a reasonable temperature, or even a temperature at which a human could safely consume it, she would have been fine. But because it was so hot she wound up with third degree burns over her lap area, including her labia. When she went to McDonald's to settle for 20,000 they told her to fuck off. This was after McDonald's received several warnings from local hospitals about how dangerous their coffee was.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:33 pm

shau wrote: Goddamn Bullshit. She held the cup with her legs for a second when she was removing the lid so she could put cream and sugar in.

There was an expectation that the coffee would be hot. It wasn't as though they handed her something she expected to be cold that turned out to be hot.

She knew she was getting hot coffee and yes, while it is true that the damage would have been less if the coffee wasn't so hot, much of the extent of the damage to her body was due to her own foolishness of where she placed it, and she doesn't deserve any extra money because she was dumb enough to put a hot container of coffee between her legs while she removed the lid.

Also, I'm not sure if this was her first trip to McDonalds or not, but if she had ever had that coffee in the past, she should have had an idea of how hot it was, if its heat was indeed store policy.

And putting a flimsy container of something very hot between your legs is incredibly bad judgment.

I mean this wasn't a case of the styrofoam cup failing, or of any unfair surprise to the woman in question. It was just a case of a woman spilling hot coffee on herself.

Now we all want to stick it to McDonalds, because lets face, we don't like them. But they're only minimally at fault in this case. Perhaps the coffee was overheated, but the damage it dealt was magnified by the actions of the woman in question.

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:49 pm

WTF RC? The company knowingly and willfully sold her an unsafe product. Is it unreasonable to expect to not suffer extreme harm from a minor accident (spilling) while using a purchased product in an expected way (i.e. adding creme and/or sugar)? I don't care how she spilled it, or that it was made more likely because she wasn't adding her cream and sugar with the cup in a perfectly fitted cup holder at proper height mounted on an earthquake proof platform. Are you next going to suggest that it's her fvcking fault for purchasing an unsafe product from a reputable place of business in the first place, and that she should have known better than to buy such a thing?

Ugh. The fact that McDo knew about the safety issues with their coffee and ignored them sorta kills any sort of "minimally at fault" argument you could make. They ignored safety in favor of profit, and only suffered a semi-serious loss after they refused to make simply right the damage their specific business practice caused.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:10 pm

RC, if she had drunk the damned coffee, i.e. used it as intended, she would have likely scalded her throat. Is that a better outcome than 3rd degree burns on 6% of her body?

When I play paint ball I expect for it to hurt a little bit when I get hit by the little paint balls. I don't expect for them to be jackasses and load the gun with marbles instead. I've enjoyed the experience of watching a co-worker spill hot coffee in his lap twice in one week, rather than get 3rd degree burns, he just made us laugh. That is what is supposed to happen when you spill properly heated coffee on yourself.

3rd degree burns don't happen from simply having "hot" coffee. It happens from having near boiling point coffee. If the coffee was heated to a properly non-ridiculous temperature as most places do so, then the spilling of coffee wouldn't have been serious at all.

McDonalds knew it had done wrong. Did you even read the link? http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:58 pm

So, RC, what you are saying is that if I buy a gun that is sold by a company that knows that it can, um, randomly explode and still sells it.

I don't place it properly in my hip holster (whatever, I don't know gun terminology) and since everyone knows that the gun should be placed in X fashion rather than Y fashion in said holster, it would be my fault if the gun explodes and deeply fvcks my nuts, legs, hips, intestines, but i still survive...somehow.

Hell, I was shaking someone's hand when it went off and they are injured too.

So who is to blame in this case? Colt for their horrible gun? Or me for not putting it into my holster properly?
~~

See, what I did there, I took what could be seen as a frivolous argument and upped the ante a little bit. It seems a little retarded but the analogy works.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:07 am

The millions of dollars came as a result of a class-action lawsuit because this thing has happened before and McD's didn't do anything about it.

I think what's most funny is that the woman originally just asked for enough money to cover the 20,000 hospital bill. Regardless of whether or not you believed in the verdict, a lawsuit like that seems reasonable to me.

This is a classic example of blaming the victim. One lady asked for a reasonable amount of money that no one would really protest and a bunch of other injured consumers latched onto the case, which of course drove compensation costs up.

But then the lady gets blamed and a serious safety issue gets turned into some bleating tort reform talking point. WTF.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:45 am

McDonalds was already warned that said coffee was unsafe. As for normally hot coffee, I'm fairly sure that if I poured it inside my underwear, there wouldn't be much damage (well, let's say lots of pain, but not anything lasting). Her fault my backside.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:10 am

RC: The jury in the case agreed that McDonald's and the woman shared responsibility for the damage. The reason the punitive damages were so high? Because McDonald's makes so much frickin' money. It was only 1 day of nationwide coffee sales for Mickey D's. It takes that much money for the Golden Arches to feel the slightest pinprick.

And 180 degrees is way above the mandatory minimum for coffee. Most things only have to be heated to 140 degrees. The only thing that has to be 180 degrees is the rinse water in a dish machine. And, for the record, the biggest adjustment to pulling dishes off a dish tank is that temperature. Of course, dishwashers only have to handle dishes very briefly while transferring them to a cart, so they only get mild burns and callused hands from it