Anyway, thanks again Scott for shedding some lawyerly wisdom on this incident.
Posted by Hey Paul
|
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
- dooce
- kottke
- cool hunting
- the sneeze
- evan jones
- emdot
- defective yeti
- fourdeadfish
- lileks
- collision detection
- word has it
- defense tech
- stan's blog
- 3 quarks daily
- volokh conspiracy
- andrew sullivan
- city journal
- cato institute
- heritage foundation
- rockridge institute
- fire
- aei
- factcheck
- congress
- supreme court
- playbill
- photographic
- popular photography
- file magazine
- css zen garden
- phaidon
- 34 west
- broadway
- qoop
- dpchallenge
- go psu sports
- the new yorker
- teaching company
- american rhetoric
- amazon
- slo town
- gladwell
- bryson
- singh
- ishmael
- macarthur foundation
- nobel prize
- wordspy
Apparently, Catherine Crier of CourtTV had a segment on Wanita Young and the cookie lawsuit tonight. Scott has left some very interesting comments regarding the lawsuit here. I greatly appreciate the comments, though I don't entirely agree. After reading Scott's perpective, I can see how this seemingly crazy lawsuit came to be, and how maybe Wanita isn't the world-class bitch I once thought; however, I disagree with Scott's assesment of the young girls delivering the cookies of kindness. I do not believe they had any malicious intent or were trying to be smart asses in any way. Maybe they didn't think things through as thoroughly as they should've. Maybe they used poor judgement. But if they just wanted to give this woman a scare, why go to the trouble of leaving cookies at the door? What's more, they baked the cookies themselves! I can't see this as any more than a random act of kindness goes horribly awry. It's sad that it went the way it did--though I suspect there are some lawyers to blame for that, or at least the legal system in they are forced to work.
Anyway, thanks again Scott for shedding some lawyerly wisdom on this incident.
Anyway, thanks again Scott for shedding some lawyerly wisdom on this incident.
2 comments
I know it sounds bad to criticize two teenage girls who seemingly were just doing a good deed. But I just can't get over the fact that they drove so far out of their way and chose such a random house. I just can't believe there wasn't something more to their motives. It's not like this lady lived down the street from them.
If, however, information came out that they delivered to a few other houses in the same general area as the plaintiff (even just one) then you and I will be in agreement.
Good site, by the way, I bookmarked it about a month ago when I started mine and have checked in with it regularly. Have you thought about making an RSS feed for it? It was really easy to do.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Ok, last comment on this. My understanding of the facts is that the girls lived 12 miles away from the plaintiff and gave out the cookies in their own neighborhood before going out to this woman's house. I don't know if they gave cookies to anyone else out near the plaintiff. That's why it sounds weird to me that they went to her house. I may have misread or misunderstood these facts, though.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Post a Comment | Back to Hey Paul.