Please sign up or log in for the best forum experience!

avatar! Jan 3, 2017

"Family Sues Apple, Claiming FaceTime Distracted Driver in Crash That Killed 5-Year-Old Daughter"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-sues-ap … d=44506168

"Apple failed to configure the iPhone to automatically 'lock out' the ability to utilize FaceTime while driving at highway speeds"

"The Wilhelm family offers their thoughts and prayers for the family of the young lady who lost her life in this tragic accident. We are confident that after all the facts are brought out in court, it will be shown that the use of a cellular device did not contribute and Mr. Wilhelm did not commit a crime ... It was simply an accident."

Double failings. In my mind, it seems like the family is suing Apple because Apple is worth billions of dollars. Probably hoping they will reach some cash settlement for a few million. Probably urged by lawyers who saw $$$ as soon as the accident occurred (I could be mistaken, but doubt it). As for the Wilhelm family lawyer saying "Mr. Wilhelm did not commit a crime", I give that guy the big middle finger. Again, lawyers doing what they do best, trying to manipulate the system. Fortunately, the driver was indicted on manslaughter charges by a grand jury.

TerraEpon Jan 4, 2017

Regardless of that lawyer's words, it's kinda like suing the knife maker if someone stabs someone else.

raynebc Jan 4, 2017

Apple is not required to disable the phone just because it is moving, like other manufacturers it's not their fault if their products are misused.  I don't think it's realistic to know if a mobile app can tell if the user is currently a driver or a passenger, the closest they could get is disable themselves if they are traveling at car speeds but that would severely impair the usage of the device for passengers.  If Wilhelm was found to be operating the phone while driving, he will probably be guilty up to the amount of involuntary manslaughter.

Ashley Winchester Jan 4, 2017

Why does this remind me of the Pokemon Go thing were people were blaming Nintendo/Niantic[sp?] for kids getting hit or going into traffic for catch Pokemon? Seriously, if kids don't know when to cut their losses that's on the parent and children.

That being said, I shouldn't be surprised by either. It is such a human thing to blame someone else for ones mistakes. Looking inward and taking actual stock of ones failings? Yeah, who needs that.

avatar! Jan 5, 2017

"Chicago torture: Facebook Live video leads to 4 arrests"

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicag … index.html

"The disturbing 30-minute video shows a man tied up and his mouth covered, cowering in the corner of a room. His attackers laugh and shout "f*ck Donald Trump" and "f*ck white people" as they kick and punch him."

"That certainly will be part of whether or not ... we seek a hate crime, to determine whether or not this is sincere or just stupid ranting and raving."

Um, they physically assaulted this special needs student, said derogatory and bigoted comments, but the police need to "determine" if this is a hate crime or "just stupid ranting"... yeah. I think the word stupid here applies to many an individual. Hopefully some justice will prevail, we'll see.

raynebc Jan 5, 2017

IIRC, there were one or more arrests resulting from the anti-Trump hate crime video I posted in the election discussion thread a while back.  With all the public attention, I don't think this hate crime can swept under the rug.  Even the Associated Press was shamed enough to update their reporting to include the racial components involved:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … -press.php

avatar! Jan 6, 2017

"Mom Says Delta Asked Her to Leave First Class Seat Because Her 9-Month Old Baby Was Crying"

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/mom-says-d … 45702.html

“screaming crying.”..."“I was getting tons of eye rolls and head shakes,” Charnas recalled...She tried to ignore the frustrated flyers"

and herein lies the problem. Many parents think they can just ignore everyone else around them! As if their kid's screaming isn't so bad and their shit doesn't smell. I personally don't think responsible parents should fly with infants in the first place (no really, really, you shouldn't) unless of course it's medical related. In many ways, this is Delta's fault. Why do they allow infants in first class? Maybe they don't have a choice, but at any rate, I'm taking the passengers side here.

Ashley Winchester Jan 6, 2017

avatar! wrote:

"Mom Says Delta Asked Her to Leave First Class Seat Because Her 9-Month Old Baby Was Crying"

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/mom-says-d … 45702.html

“screaming crying.”..."“I was getting tons of eye rolls and head shakes,” Charnas recalled...She tried to ignore the frustrated flyers"

and herein lies the problem. Many parents think they can just ignore everyone else around them! As if their kid's screaming isn't so bad and their shit doesn't smell. I personally don't think responsible parents should fly with infants in the first place (no really, really, you shouldn't) unless of course it's medical related. In many ways, this is Delta's fault. Why do they allow infants in first class? Maybe they don't have a choice, but at any rate, I'm taking the passengers side here.

Wow. See, I would take the side you're taking, but I'm sure someone would tell me I'm inhuman and don't understand this and that. When I have admitted to things like this, like a review of a comedy CD on amazon.com where I just flat out say I don't like children, I've been attacked.

In this case I'm sure I would have been annoyed by the infant, but I'm sure I wouldn't have acted on my annoyance. I guess it's like anything else, you have to pick and choose your battles. This kind of reminds me of work when people unintentionally give me "openings" to say something impolite I've been dying to say. I have to remind myself it's not worth the momentary feeling of release compared to all the BS that will follow.

But I get it, I'm a jerk and probably more self-centered than I should be. That said, I have to admit that I'm impressed in you posting an opinion that's obviously going to go against the grain.

avatar! Jan 6, 2017

"Woman sues Chipotle for $2 billion over use of photo in promo materials"

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/ … rials.html

"Leah Caldwell, of Sacramento, Calif. says she was dining at a Denver-area Chipotle in 2006 when photographer Steve Adams snapped a photo of her enjoying a meal. The photo was taken without the customer's knowledge and, according to the compaint [sic], Adams later asked Caldwell to sign a release form as she left the restaurant, but Caldwell refused."

"Caldwell is seeking a grand total of $2,237,633,000-- the amount of money the suit claims Chipotle has made from the use of the photo between 2006 and 2015. Once Chipotle 2016 profits are made public, the suit is calling for that amount to be added to the total."

Nope, nothing greedy here at all. Not. A. Thing. I'm sure her picture is just like Helen of Troy. I'm sure America was like "I'm not hungry today. Oh my God! Look at that face! Now, I'm hungry for Chipolte, because nothing says Chipotle like Leah Caldwell." What the hell?? This is just yet another example of why people suck.

raynebc Jan 6, 2017

You condone a multi-billion dollar corporation using your image for promotion even when you directly deny them their request to do so?

longhairmike Jan 7, 2017

raynebc wrote:

You condone a multi-billion dollar corporation using your image for promotion even when you directly deny them their request to do so?

how many of you watch impractical jokers? after every filming the show's staff runs out to get consent signatures from every bystander whose face appears in each challenge.. those who refuse, or are unattainable, have their faces blurred when the show airs. granted the AMOUNT for which she is asking is ridiculous, but the fact that she explicitly refused and they still used her pic should result in some degree of monetary compensation

raynebc Jan 7, 2017

Punitive damages are often applied to offenders that knowingly violate laws.

longhairmike Jan 8, 2017

yes,, punitive damages for physical harm would likely be in the millions,, but not use of an image (unless her face was a trademarked photo). she will probably end up settling with chipotle for 100k + free diarrhea for life.

avatar! Jan 10, 2017

"Woman Arrested in Craigslist Rape Fantasy Plot Was Actually Framed by Ex-Boyfriend’s Wife, Prosecutors Allege"

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/woman-a … 56246.html

"A California woman who authorities claimed had recruited men on Craigslist to rape her ex-boyfriend’s wife has been cleared of all charges related to the case — and officials allege the man’s wife herself was behind the whole thing."

yikes

avatar! Jan 31, 2017

If ya'll are tired of calling each other names in the politics thread, here is something amusing tongue

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/johnny- … 33324.html

"Johnny Depp Lives $2 Million-a-Month Lifestyle, Claim Ex-Managers in Lawsuit"

"$75 million spent on 14 residences, $18 million spent on a luxury yacht and $30,000 per month spent on wine...over $3 million to blast from a specially-made cannon the ashes of author Hunter Thompson over Aspen, Colorado,"

Well, gotta say that blasting Hunter Thompson is a nice way to say adieu to the man! Not sure WHY it should cost $3 million yikes
Anyway, I'm always amused how some of us wonder how we're going to make ends meat in the next few months, and others are spending more than $2 million a month...

Ashley Winchester Jan 31, 2017

I know this is a bit off topic (and yes, I shouldn't pass judge someone I don't know) but I don't know, I've never cared much for Johnny Depp. I think it's somewhat related to his portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow. I think I liked that character as much as the next person when the first movie came out, but when they kept making movies (and it got annoying) I think my ability to separate the two ceased being plausible.

It's kind of like Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother. For some reason I cannot buy Neil Patrick Harris as a womanizer when I know he's a homosexual in real life. Additionally, I can't buy David Spade as a womanizer on Rules of Engagement either because David Spade is so unappealing I cannot think of him being a sexual being in any conceivable dimension.

avatar! Feb 1, 2017

Ashley Winchester wrote:

I know this is a bit off topic (and yes, I shouldn't pass judge someone I don't know) but I don't know, I've never cared much for Johnny Depp. I think it's somewhat related to his portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow. I think I liked that character as much as the next person when the first movie came out, but when they kept making movies (and it got annoying) I think my ability to separate the two ceased being plausible.

It's kind of like Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother. For some reason I cannot buy Neil Patrick Harris as a womanizer when I know he's a homosexual in real life. Additionally, I can't buy David Spade as a womanizer on Rules of Engagement either because David Spade is so unappealing I cannot think of him being a sexual being in any conceivable dimension.

Interesting. Well, I admit I've seen a few of the Pirates movies, and never thought too much about Depp other than he's a good actor. Apparently, and arguably, bad at keeping his finances. Of course if this is truly the case, he is far far from the first "rich" person to blow his money. Haven't seen Neil Patrick Harris nor David Spade so I can't comment. I think it's different for everyone. For example, I've read the Game of Thrones books so I have in my mind my own idea of what Daenerys looks like. For those that watch the show I'm sure in their mind it's that actress. I do want to watch the show, but only after I finish the books (whenever those come out). So yeah, point, I guess we're all a little judgmental but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Ashley Winchester Feb 1, 2017

avatar! wrote:

and never thought too much about Depp other than he's a good actor. Apparently, and arguably, bad at keeping his finances.

Oh, I don't think he's a bad actor in the slightest. As for finances, they say the more you make the more you tend to spend.

That said, I can't pass judgment on Depp when it comes to that. I'm not saying I'm bad with money, but I could honestly be better at controlling some of my impulses.

avatar! Feb 2, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor … slaughter/

"A horribly bullied teen committed suicide. Now his former Dairy Queen boss has been charged with involuntary manslaughter."

" the jurors concluded the Dairy Queen “negligently failed to properly train employees about harassment prevention and resolution” and that the school district was “negligent in failing to prevent bullying.” Finally, they found Branham was the “primary actor” in the boy’s death."

Poor kid. I hope those responsible face some justice, and it sounds like at least his horrible boss will. I still can't help but feel that many of those responsible, kids at school, get basically nothing. Not even a slap at the wrist. I'd like to think there' some karmic justice coming, but who knows. Life is usually  not a fair sport.

Ashley Winchester Feb 4, 2017

Last night was interesting at work. Why do shoplifters always act so damn surprised when they get busted? It's pretty damn entertaining when they feign innocence.

I know we can't actually apprehend shoplifters, cause she bolted out of the store after talking on her phone and claiming she was being framed and was (oh my!) going call corporate, but these people know we have video evidence, right? I'm sorry, I'll just never understand why you'd steal from any place that's CRAWLING with cameras. Not saying you should steal when there are none, but I just don't understand the mindset.

avatar! Feb 4, 2017 (edited Feb 4, 2017)

Ashley Winchester wrote:

Last night was interesting at work. Why do shoplifters always act so damn surprised when they get busted? It's pretty damn entertaining when they feign innocence.

I know we can't actually apprehend shoplifters, cause she bolted out of the store after talking on her phone and claiming she was being framed and was (oh my!) going call corporate, but these people know we have video evidence, right? I'm sorry, I'll just never understand why you'd steal from any place that's CRAWLING with cameras. Not saying you should steal when there are none, but I just don't understand the mindset.

So, what exactly happened? I take it you called the cops and the cops arrested her? Stolen material returned? Well, of course they're going to feign innocent! After all, that's what their lawyers would tell them to do. You plead innocent, until you realize you're not going to get away with it, and then you accept a plea. That's how it often works. "Justice" isn't necessarily just.

Ashley Winchester Feb 4, 2017

avatar! wrote:

So, what exactly happened? I take it you called the cops and the cops arrested her? Stolen material returned?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but at least in my state (PA) I don't believe anyone at our store (even the Asset Protection Manager) has the authority to make a shoplifter go into the back room and wait for the cops to show up. The woman bolted after being confronted, but the stuff she had stuffed in duffel bags and backpacks didn't leave the store. The cops showed up after the fact, but I mean with all those cameras we probably have a clear shot of her face and they tallied up what she had stowed away - which was a shocking amount of things.

I think the way the law works is it becomes a felony if the amount exceeds $500. Reminds me of the time a kid stole one of the sample cellphones and the AP told him "you know you never would have gotten that phone to work anyway, so what you did was pretty damn stupid."

jb Feb 4, 2017

You have the authority to prevent them from leaving the store if you have probable cause, which includes them leaving the store with the merchandise, which she did not do per your description.

The majority of the reason store policy is to not approach them or let them leave is to prevent harm to the employee, be it accidental or intentional, because that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Most stores will just identify shoplifting on camera, have loss prevention tail the person in the store while the police are on the way, and then let the police deal with it before any of this becomes an issue.

Idolores Feb 4, 2017

jb wrote:

You have the authority to prevent them from leaving the store if you have probable cause, which includes them leaving the store with the merchandise, which she did not do per your description.

The majority of the reason store policy is to not approach them or let them leave is to prevent harm to the employee, be it accidental or intentional, because that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Most stores will just identify shoplifting on camera, have loss prevention tail the person in the store while the police are on the way, and then let the police deal with it before any of this becomes an issue.

Legislation d

Board footer

Forums powered by FluxBB