Not REALLY evil.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
" the lawsuit goes to court. A judge awards this pathetic woman $900 to cover her medical bills."
I can't believe she actually won her suit.
Yes, the girls have probably learned their lesson--they will propbably never do a random act of kindness again. Without consulting an attorney first. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think I’ve figured out what has been annoying me about the media coverage (and some of the Hatrack discussion) about this issue. There are at least four parts to what the girls did.
1. They decided not to go to a party where there would be drinking 2. They decided to bake cookies for neighbors instead 3. They knocked on their neighbor’s door at 10:30 at night 4. They didn’t answer when she asked “who is it?” (although she could see that they were still there).
The people who think that what they did was wrong object to parts 3 and 4. But many of their defenders react as if they’re being persecuted for parts 1 and 2. I wouldn’t mind a discussion of whether 3 and 4 are serious enough for a lawsuit (I don’t think they are) or a discussion of whether 3 and 4 are mitigated by the good intentions displayed in 1 and 2. But I’m just floored by the persistence of the idea that the girls are being punished “for being kind.”
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I really don't see anything wrong with #3 (the lights were on), and #4 is very much mitigated by #2. People lie or withhold information for surprise parties, to keep gifts secret before they're given, or to maintain anonymity for charitable donations. This is similar in kind and degree.
#1 is flat out irrelevant.
Dagonee
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
dkw, I see your point. when I posted that a few minutes ago, I hadn't read the other thread, just the Neil Boortz link.
So I thought they just did 1,2,3, not 4. 1 is fine with everybody. 2 is a kind act.3- While some are bothered by knocking on a neighbors' door at 10:30, I am not. I don't consider it too late.
4 was a little rude, but they wanted the cookies to be a surprise, an innocent and believeable explanation. I don't believe 3 and 4 is enough to make the kids pay for the old bat's medical problem.
The "victim"'s subsequent behavior is an overraction, calling the police, not accepting a good-faith apology and offer to pay medical bills, but instead suing and further harrassing the fammily of one of the kids. It shows someone who is willing to make a mountain out of a molehill.
edit: although those of you who remember the Feng menu fiasco know I sometimes freak out, too
[ February 12, 2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
#1 certainly is irrelevant. That's what's annoying about the coverage it's getting.
Edit: especially the "religious persecution" speculation.
[ February 12, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
10:30 pm is too late, IMO. The woman is elderly and alone, right? Even if she's known as the neighborhood crank/loon, you don't torment the poor woman.
It's also true that a chat with the parents would seem to be the most effective way of making the point that the timing and at-door behavior could've been misunderstood.
Ah well...I do hope the girls learned at least a little bit of the lesson that viewing their own actions from another's perspective has some value.
I think a reasonable person would hesistate to knock on the door of an elderly neighbor alone in a house after dark, let alone at 10:30 pm. And, having knocked, one would definitely go ahead and answer if the person called out to ask who it is.
Sorry, I think that part of the plan was really ill-conceived. There are parts of the country where those girls would've been seriously in danger of being shot several times in the course of delivering cookies to their 10 closest neighbors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The woman is elderly and alone, right?
Nope - she has a husband and her mother (I think) was there as well.
quote:.I do hope the girls learned at least a little bit of the lesson that viewing their own actions from another's perspective has some value.
That's the one thing they didn't learn here, because the law rewarded the woman for not doing this. Basically, the overreaction by the woman overshadows everything else about this.
quote:especially the "religious persecution" speculation.
I didn't see this comment. Are they seriously claiming it's religious persecution?
Dagonee
[ February 12, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yeah, that’s the lesson they should have learned. Unfortunately, what they really will learn is that overreaction by the initially wronged person causes the initial mistake to be ignored/excused.
Not a positive learning experience for anyone that I can see.
Edit: Dag, I'm not sure if they're claiming it, but it has been mentioned a few times on radio rants and the like. I think someone even asked about it in the original "death cookies" thread.
[ February 12, 2005, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And that an overreaction based on someone's inability to look at things from their perspective will be rewarded.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah...good points all around.
It sure was stupid of that woman not to just calm down about it and, at most, ask the girls/parents not to scare her like that again, but thanks for the cookies...
It's just stupid.
But the girls get to believe that it's just all about this woman being crazy than that they could've done things a little differently and perhaps avoided the situation in the first place.
If they were my kids, I'd be more worried about them knocking on doors at 10:30 pm than I would anything else in this whole sad mess.
Kids that age shouldn't be out alone at 10:30 anyway. But especially not if they are going up to people's doors...
I mean, do YOU really know your neighbors well enough to assume that your children would be safe going door-to-door unescorted by an adult?
Or am I misremembering some details here? Were they driven around/escorted by a parent?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dana, you nailed my thoughts. Ouch!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kids that age shouldn't be out alone at 10:30 anyway.
OK, now I'm getting confused. I remember them being 17 and 18, but I can't find the article that gave me that impression. If I'm remembering the ages right, it doesn't strike me as too young.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Book...yeah, it was already pointed out that she lives with her husband and mother, so I just had misremembered it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Man, I had this totally wrong. Dag, you're right, the girls are 17 and 18 years old.
Okay, if they were my kids, I'd let them stay out until 11.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
10:30 is unreasonably late for solicitors, and it doesn't look like there were any punitive damages, just the 900 dollars for the medical visit. I could go either way. I'm kind of sympathetic. If I were eighteen years old and at somebody's door, I assume that I'm going to spook them pretty good.
[ February 12, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
I still don't understand why the lady was hospitalized the next day. She was that worked up over this that she had the anxiety attack the next morning? That just seems kind of strange to me.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I imagine it was the mental equivalent of a kind of car accident, where the severity of the incident takes a while to settle in.
[ February 12, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
She REALLY needs to replace her doorbell. That sucker must be louder than an air raid siren!!!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't think 10:30 is too late. The lady was up anyway with her 18-year-old daughter, according to what I read. The curfew for under 18 where I grew up was 11 on school nights, midnight on Friday and Saturday nights (meaning if you were a teenager under 18 and out after that time, you were expected to have a reasonable explaination and a destination in mind, like walking to or from a friend's house). Knocking or calling after 11 was considered rude in most families without small children. I see no problem in harmless fun before that time. It should have been harmless, anyway. This lady is a little strange to panic over it, especially after the cops came and found the cookies, and is definitely, in my opinion, wrong to take it to court instead of accepting an apology and the offer to pay her medical bills. I mean, I guess she has the right, but it just looks money-hungry to go for damages on top of what she had to pay for such a trivial matter.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Just a little bit more. . .
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think the real take-home lesson is to avoid Durango Colorado at all costs.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
This is tragic. It's just an unfortunate array of events.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yep. One could wish from better behavior from everyone involved, at least at one time or another. And nobody's unkind or unwise behavior excuses anyone else's.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Not once have I even heard if the cookies were even any good!
[Edit: SARA, are you still out there? Important email sent to you with only a quick response needed.]
[ February 12, 2005, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Or even what kind they were!
If there was chocolate involved, the woman is even more crazy than I thought. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
In one article it said sugar and chocolate chip. But a chocolate chip cookie could be overcooked, and a sugar cookie not cooked enough. I'm just saying.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Oh sure, will check hotmail. Just a sec.)
[done! ]
[ February 12, 2005, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The true lesson to be learned....
Never underestimate the power and beauty of human stupidity.
Then again, that lesson can be learned from almost any intrapersonal contact.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I live in the big bad city, and would be either very annoyed or seriously freaked (depending on circumstances) by someone ringing my doorbell at 10:30 at night -- unless I was expecting them.
I'm up until 11 or midnight (or later) most nights, and many people know it's ok to call me that late. But unless I have been specifically told by someone else that it's ok to do so, I would NEVER call after 10 pm.
Did she overreact? Yes. But that really does not mean the girls did nothing wrong.
Specific, targeted acts of kindness -- where you are giving someone something you know they want/need -- win out over "random acts of kindness" (which aren't always so very kind, given their random nature) every time. IMO, natch.
I echo what someone (Dan_R, I think) said in the other thread. If they wanted to do something nice for their neighbors, how about getting to know them a bit? What would be so bad about waiting until daylight to deliver those cookies -- when they could actually meet the neighbors?
You know what they say about good intentions.
[ February 13, 2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
You might have been annnoyed or frightened rivka, but how about *after* calling the police over and having them find cookies on your front porch?
I think all unwitting rudeness is trumped by the fact that the woman KNEW THAT SOMEONE HAD BAKED HER SURPRISE COOKIES and chose to take it as a threat.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Especially because there's a long tradition of knock-and-runs and leaving cookies on the porch at night. Not always that late, but I've had it happen.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Usually a knock and run leaves something else on the doorstep, and the smell is the opposite of fresh-baked cookies.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Now that I think about it, the last time I was involved in a surprise cookie drop-off, it involved talcum powder cookies as a cruel joke. But we knew the people - they threw a party that we weren't invited to. Revenge! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Especially because there's a long tradition of knock-and-runs and leaving cookies on the porch at night.
There are? This is the first I've ever heard of it.
I can see so many problems with that too. What happens when someone has a fatal allergic attack?
Leonide, I agree with you that she should not have taken it to court. But the fact of the matter is she WAS frightened and DID go to the ER because of it. If they had refused to pay her medical bills, I'd have little sympathy for them.
However, that was patently not at all the case. So I lose most of my sympathy for her.
That said, I still don't think they had any business knocking on people's doors late at night -- cookies or no.
[ February 13, 2005, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"What happens when someone has a fatal allergic attack?"
That's a real stretch, I'm sorry. If someone was severely allergic, they would not touch the cookies.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm not a big believer in the trump theory of righteous behavior. I don't play a zero-sum game when it comes to doing the right thing -- in my own mind, as I judge myself (and others), the world is much more complex than that.
Sometimes I'm still haunted by the times I acted dishonorably, even when it was in the face of greater dishonor. I judge my own actions on their own merits. This recalls a line from L Cohen that means a good deal to me:
quote: Do not choose a coward’s explanation That hides behind the cause and the effect.
If I do wrong, then it is wrong. Certainly, in the overarching judgement of whether what I did was understandable or its effects mitigated, it is reasonable and appropriate to look at the bigger picture. But that doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of the act.
[Leonide, this isn't directed at you, though I did become interested by the use of the word "trump." I know you are a wonderful person who is outraged at the likely greed and bitterness of another person -- not that you want to excuse any inappropriate behaviors. I know that! Pretty often, though, I get troubled by the dichotomy that is sometimes drawn between "saint" and "sinner." I'm pretty sure we all tend to fall somewhere on the range of sinner, although we have our saintly moments. I think it's useful to keep in mind that another's sin doesn't wipe out our own, so to speak.
Which is all a very meandering and apologetic way of saying "I didn't mean you!" Just a ramble, only tangentially connected. ]
[ February 13, 2005, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There’s absolutely no way I would eat home-made goodies left on my steps by an unknown donor. Did none of you ever get the razorblade in the apple lecture at Halloween? (Granted that story was greatly exaggerated, but the principle holds.) If you want to give the neighbors cookies do it during reasonable visiting hours and identify yourselves.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yup. We're on the same page.
Actually, I would consider it a disservice to leave unclearly identified food on anyone's doorstep, given that this is a form of encouragement to accept such gifts. Just like I consider it poor judgement to make friends with small children without talking to their guardians first. I wouldn't want to get them into the habit of trusting adult strangers who come up to them and want to play with them alone.
[Rereading this, it sounds quite uptight and persnickety. I assure you, I really am this uptight and persnickety. ]
[ February 13, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Actually, I am finding myself insufferable today. I am going to go do some hard, long manual labor just so I can stand myself again.)
[ February 13, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
CT, I'm right with you, uptight and persnickety and all.
I have a history of nasty anxiety attacks. Someone doing something like that could easily set me off. Granted, I wouldn't bother to sue, nor would I be likely to go to the hospital since I have enough experience dealing with them that I can deal with it without medical intervention, but yeah, I'd be having panic attacks and would probably not sleep much. Would I bother calling the cops? With cookies left on the doorstep, not likely. But 10:30, to me, is way too late unless I'm expecting someone, and even then, that's really late, light on or not. And like others, I also would not be eating food made and left by an unidentified person. If you want to be kind, you're gonna have to identify yourself.
But that's just anal, uptight, anxiety-ridden me. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
CT, I think you and I have had some of the same counselor/caregiver professional ethics type training and it’s starting to show. Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
CT, dkw, I have not had your caregiver training and I agree with you. Especially about the asking/alerting the guardians of young children if I may meet them. The same principle applies to dogs, btw. Always Ask First.
I think that the whole thing was blown out of proportion and it's sad for all parties concerned.
Unidentified food on the porch? No thank you. Leaving your porch light on after ten? Asking for visitors. Allergies? A person with allergies should not eat food they can't read the ingredients to (or had not made themselves).
The backlash against the woman (the silly overwrought woman) is sad, too. She should have taken the offer of medical bills paid in the first place, but the press certainly isn't helping her state of mind.
I dunno. I try to remember to turn MY porch light off when I am no longer prepared for visitors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's what I consider the difference: No one would write a newspaper story about someone leaving cookies on their neighbors' porches, unless maybe they do it enough to become a neighborhood character. If I heard about someone knocking late, running away, and leaving cookies, I'd classify it at worst along the same lines as someone who parks too close to the line wasting a parking space, or who calls too late, or who gets into the express line with 30 items.
Cetainly I get madder than I should when any of the above happen. But I don't get "outraged." Here, I'm outraged. Why? Because she acted out of purely selfish motives, she set a very bad precedent, and she abused our legal system.
I don't generally comment on the many little incidents of rudeness I encounter daily, although sometimes I do blow off steam or lose my cool.
So while, yeah, this lady's outrageous actions don't change the nature of the kids' actions, there is no obligation to comment on every single aspect of the situation. The kids' actions are maybe worthy of someone saying, "this is why you shouldn't knock on doors and then refuse to answer." The lady's actions are worth comment because of their extreme churlishness and because of the public policy implications.
Dagonee
[ February 13, 2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: There’s absolutely no way I would eat home-made goodies left on my steps by an unknown donor. Did none of you ever get the razorblade in the apple lecture at Halloween? (Granted that story was greatly exaggerated, but the principle holds.)
Huh. I never even considered that. And dkw and I got the same lectures.
Yeah, but now that I think about it, I probably would have at least asked around the next morning and tried to find out where they came from before pitching them if I wasn't successful.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is funny, I thought of that right away as soon as I heard what they were leaving.
Still, I agree completely with Dag's last post.
The girls weren't bright, but we have all been there, right? Not that exact situation, but we have all done things that might not have been all that bright, even if it was with the best of intentions.
The woman who sued, though....I wouldn't give her teh time fo day from that point on if she lived in my neighborhood...and I would make sure she knew why. I would probably say " I can't talk to you, I wouldn;t wnat to set off another attack...adn to be honest I couldn't afford the legal fees of associating with you."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think the girls were "not bright"; I think they didn't think things through. And while I absolutely agree that we have all been there, it is exactly this sort of life lesson that SHOULD have helped them learn better judgment next time. Sadly, with all the hoohah, that is unlikely to have happened.
And dkw and CT, that is precisely what I was trying to say but couldn't verbalize properly. Thank you. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:The woman who sued, though....I wouldn't give her teh time fo day from that point on if she lived in my neighborhood...and I would make sure she knew why. I would probably say " I can't talk to you, I wouldn;t wnat to set off another attack...adn to be honest I couldn't afford the legal fees of associating with you."
Why bother?
I mean, really -- why bother? Why do anything at all to go out of one's way to "show" her? She is the one who has to live with herself, and it doesn't exactly sound like a pleasurable experience.
I think neighboring her would call for minimal contact at all times; grave, excruciating courtesy when one must interact with her; and a fervent and authentic hope that her life improves. Although I'd keep that last hope to myself, as -- like many things -- it could be seen as an attack or hurtful comment, and of course I would get no pleasure from anyone else's pain.
[At least, if I did, I'd be ashamed of that and would try to work on it. Anything less would be doing myself an injustice. Someday I'm pretty sure I'm going to be confronted with every petty, thoughtless, cruel and unmakerish thing I ever did or said. I'm racing to get enough on the other side of the ledger to comfort me when I have to face who I've been.]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But then, I'm evil. ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Or even what kind they were!![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)