All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AZChristian]

Thanks for all the good wishes regarding our power outage.  We are home; the outage lasted 17 hours . . . 12 of which we spent in a hotel!  Thanks to having enough sense to pack the fridge and freezer with purchased ice before we left, all we lost was half a box of sugar-free popsicles.  I'll be spending part of today putting together the claim to send to the power company for the ice, the popsicles, the hotel, and even the stamp to mail the claim.  The TV judges would be proud of me; I kept receipts AND took pictures of the melted popsicles to prove my case.

 

I'm not a person to fool with.  LOL.

 

Back to the show . . .

Edited July 4, 2015 by AZChristian

[califred]

Every time I watch this show I'm grateful for my own life. And I feel like a genious.

[AngelaHunter]

Man, y'all we have GOT to figure out some way to get on that gub'ment payment train!

 

I've  never collected a dime from the gub'ment in my life. I worked even when I didn't feel "comfortable," even when I was sick or even if I sprained my wrist and had PTSD from that horrific experience. Although many of the litigants we see spend their lives striving to get something for nothing I guess it's just something I never wanted to do. Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed being self-supporting.

[Quof]

Every time I watch this show I'm grateful for my own life. And I feel like a genius.

Watching JJ makes me feel very pretty.

[SandyToes]

Kinda like watching SuperNanny makes me feel like the world's greatest mom.

 

This show has given us some wonderful, funny, sad, and some very deserving litigants. It's also given us a good share of moochers and scammers and just plain icky folks. I think it is the scammers and moochers-for-life that drive some of us nuts. (And it's true that we don't have all the facts about the people we see.) Those truly in need? Deserve all they can get. In my mind.

Edited July 5, 2015 by SandyToes

[SandyToes]

Ack

Edited July 5, 2015 by SandyToes

[QuelleC]

I'm sorry, I don't know why your power went out but if it was a storm and you and a thousand others suffered I don't get why that is the power company's fault.  Not to defend power companies in any way but we discuss a lot of legal issues here.  Good luck with proving negligence.  I mean that sincerely.  I'm very happy you're back in your home. 

[DoctorK]

 

(he sat in the way back with the kids)

Please tell us that you dressed him up so he looked like an unattractive child.

[AZChristian]

I'm sorry, I don't know why your power went out but if it was a storm and you and a thousand others suffered I don't get why that is the power company's fault.  Not to defend power companies in any way but we discuss a lot of legal issues here.  Good luck with proving negligence.  I mean that sincerely.  I'm very happy you're back in your home. 

 

I used to work for another power company, so I have a bit of objective experience.  This was not a storm.  A motor vehicle hit a transformer box nearby, and took out power to over 600 homes.  Under those circumstances (or even certain storm scenarios), the power can be rerouted quickly to bypass a non-functioning transformer.  This is literally a matter of flipping a few switches, providing power until the box is repaired.  Then the switches are flipped back.

 

In this case, the power was out for over 17 hours in 100+ degree temperatures.  I was encouraged by the customer service department to file a claim, and there was info on the utility's website promising reimbursement for reasonable expenses.  We did everything we could to mitigate the cost.  We stayed at a reasonably priced hotel that included a breakfast bar.  We bought 30 pounds of ice to put in our fridge to cut potential loss of perishable foods.  (All we lost was 9 popsicles.  The dumpsters in our community were FULL of rotting meat and veggies today.)

 

The "fault" was in the power company's inability to get the power back on within a reasonable time frame.  If their equipment fails, they are responsible.  And I'm pretty sure they're going to be filing a claim against the person whose vehicle hit the box in the first place.

[Toaster Strudel]

The unlicensed driver that drove into a telephone pole to "avoid a deer" to get "food and cigarettes" - in the hallterview, didn't he say  that he went to get WEED, then corrected himself to stick to the food & cig story?

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

Man, y'all we have GOT to figure out some way to get on that gub'ment payment train!

I'm quoting myself to clarify - this was meant in the most facetious way ever. I was just amazed at how somebody could get the government to pay a friend to drive you to your doctor's visits. Likewise when people get the government to pay relatives to watch your kids. I guess I'm just one of those old fogies that remembers when people did that kind of stuff for free. 

 

 

Please tell us that you dressed him up so he looked like an unattractive child.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I didn't dress him up. I wasn't for lack of trying. I USED to try and dress him up in the past (he's a feisty black pug and he looked adorable in his bright pink polo shirt) but unfortunately he would turn to stone if I put clothing on him - wouldn't walk, wouldn't move, but would just give me the death glare that said "as soon as I'm out of this damn shirt I'm going to pee in your shoes". 

 

 

Although many of the litigants we see spend their lives striving to get something for nothing I guess it's just something I never wanted to do. Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed being self-supporting.

I'm with you Angela - the only thing the government ever "gave" me was an EBT card for a couple of hundred dollars after one severe hurricane that everybody in our county got to help replace (ironically) all the food we lost during the storm when we were without power for 17 days. My parents drilled it into me to be as self sufficient as possible. 

[Brattinella]

 

I USED to try and dress him up in the past (he's a feisty black pug and he looked adorable in his bright pink polo shirt) but unfortunately he would turn to stone if I put clothing on him - wouldn't walk, wouldn't move, but would just give me the death glare that said "as soon as I'm out of this damn shirt I'm going to pee in your shoes".

 

*Snorting coffee all over now, Thanks!*

[6 MeowMeowBeenz]

Although many of the litigants we see spend their lives striving to get something for nothing I guess it's just something I never wanted to do. Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed being self-supporting.

 

well, and if you listen to what kind of money these folks are actually living on--maybe 1-2 K a month--I say I enjoy having a higher standard of living than that.

 

I feel sorry for those that must live on that kind of income, and maybe even MORE sorry for those who plot and scheme to get that gubmint pittance and think they are accomplishing something. They spend more energy figuring out how not to work than they would have on an honest job. 

[Milz]

I admire JJ so much for being able to walk out and face the four mutants we saw today and show no reaction. Of course it's possible she watches them enter off set and gets out her "Holy shit!" then. The wonky "life partner," the visually impaired caregiver, the disabled def. who cannot put her clothes on by herself without state money (to pay visually impaired caregiver 600$/mnth which seems to all go on gas) yet can drive a van by herself - all left ME crying, "HOLY SHIT!".  I totally believe def and her... whatever he is to her - vandalized the cars, etc. The old guy may have looked to be in his late 90s or early 100s, but in the hall he explained he knows just how to wreck tires.

 

A good day on JJ.

 

Okay. I had to deal with Mr. Milz and his injured shoulder during this case, so I missed parts of it (which made it even more confusing than I think it really was) So what was JJ's verdict?

[teebax]

Darn.  Our power was out today and I missed this!!!

 

We're holed up in a hotel.  When it's 102 outside and you have no a/c (or even electricity to run a fan), home is NOT where the heart (or the rest of the body) is.

As you know, I'm in Tucson, My A/C went out the day it was 108 a couple of weeks ago. I put up with it for a night and got it repaired the next day. If  it had been any longer, I'd have used one of my comps and stayed at the casino near my house.

 

I had a mini JJ marathon this weekend and thought the rent to own trailer case was new, but I don't remember any other new episodes in the block I watched. Are we officially in rerun season? JJ airs so many times a day in my market that it's hard to keep up.

 

 

I don't mind reruns (I'd rather watch JJ reruns than almost any new shows) but do we have to get the silliest litigants?

Since I finally gave up on Under the Dumb and ABC couldn't be arsed to brink back Motive (one of the few summer shows I liked), I don't have much to watch during the summer. So I, like you, will watch JJ reruns, unless they're really stupid cases. We've had some classics over the past year. I wish they'd air some of them.

 

Even better would be if they really dug into the archives and went back to her early seasons. I missed a lot of those because I was still going to school and working full-time.

 

[pagooey]

 

Every time I watch this show I'm grateful for my own life. And I feel like a genius.

Watching JJ makes me feel very pretty.

Watching any hoarding-type show inspires me to clean like a mofo, and then I sit around in my anti-filth congratulating myself. :)

 

Okay, I know JJ makes scads of money doing this, but I doubt she really needs more, so she must be doing this because she loves it.

This has to be true, and I kind of admire her for it. Not that racking up some more $millions$!!$1 isn't also an enticement, but she's in her 70s. She could quit any time, but she sticks around to entertain us...and herself. My favorite moments are the ones where she so clearly relishes taking some ding-dong apart, or even asks this or that yammering litigant to shut up and let HER do the demolishing. "Let me have my fun." 

 

Mr. Life Parter or Spiritual Mate or whatever the hell he was had an amazing facial tic that I could have watched for hours. grimace....precision date recall...grimace

[NowVoyager]

*sigh!*

The Women's World Cup has concluded. However, President Obama had a press conference about Isil today. Looks like I'll get 1 full episode.

Edited July 6, 2015 by NowVoyager

[27bored]

The law doesn't really care about the Disrespect Defense. He wanted the car just to piss her off (nice retaliation, dad). He wanted the money cos basically he needed money.  I was impressed a bit by the plaintiff actually admitting she disrespected him.

 

Yeah. I feel a little less sorry for the father if what the daughter said was true. I don't think being disrespectful to your parents is okay, and if they're being unreasonable, there's a way to discontinue contact while being respectful. That being said, if what she said was true, it sounded like he was more or less stiffing her on their agreement to make his boo happy. Parents...can sometimes be guilty of that. Not every parent will place their kid before anyone else, especially not an aging man just happy to have a girlfriend and his daughter with three kids who should be old enough and mature enough to take care of herself. There probably is some of that, "I'm your dad, even if I'm being a bastard, I still deserve to get my way...because I'm your dad". Fuck that noise.

 

Today's cases:

 

I turned to JJ about four minutes into the "call me Mom" case. I don't know. The daughter of the Plaintiff's mouth looked like the grille on one of those new Mustangs. I bet she stay rolling on dubs.

 

2nd case: Check out the Defendants...looking like a fake ass Jojo and Yvette.

 

The case where the dude with the recording studio sued the Green Power Ranger. Here we go with the renter's insurance. I...don't know. Would renter's insurance even cover something like that? Shouldn't the owner of the facility have some kind of insurance policy if he's going to store people's belongings? Why have a fake-out deterrent of a security system instead of an actual security system? JJ was saying he should've changed the locks, but...that's a rich lady proposition. He can't just pay a locksmith to change locks on a facility he's renting. I don't think they had anything to do with his property being stolen, but if they're that bootlegged where they have a BS non-security system, they probably have a master key they make copies of and give to tenants who rent more than one unit. They probably don't tell them that it opens every unit, and most people being honest wouldn't try. But it's very possible one of them stole the guy's equipment. The guy should've secured renter's insurance, but I think even the insurance company would want to know about some of these things before insuring someone. I would.

 

The case with the lady selling the woman's brother's truck. Again: I don't know. It wasn't her truck to sell or salvage, and JJ kind of missed that because it had been destroyed in the fire. Even if it had, it was still not hers to sell or salvage. If she sold it for parts, it's possible the truck was only superficially damaged and could've been restored to working order. If it was such an eyesore and an impediment to her garage, why not call the lady and ask her to come get it? Why make a transaction with two people off the street without consulting with her first? I mean, there's usually a way to not an asshole in life...you just have to find it.

 

Another "yo dog bit my dog" case. Yawn.

[AngelaHunter]

Shouldn't the owner of the facility have some kind of insurance policy if he's going to store people's belongings? Why have a fake-out deterrent of a security system instead of an actual security system? JJ was saying he should've changed the locks, but...that's a rich lady proposition. He can't just pay a locksmith to change locks on a facility he's renting.

 

I'm pretty sure we've been here before, but, IMO, this wasn't a storage facility and the landlord has no obligation to insure his tenants' belongings, just the building itself. Tenants need to insure their own property. When I was renting, it wouldn't have occured to me to sue my landlord if my place were burglarized. I can just imagine what would happen if landlords insured tenants' property. Burglaries would rise astronomically.

 

One hardly needs to be rich to change a lock. I've changed my own lock - cost: $50 for a deadbolt -  and it didn't tax my brain or my wallet too much.

[SandyToes]

If the guy could afford such high-end equipment, he should have also been able to protect it. Whether renter's insurance (which was weird that his company wouldn't cover it - hmmmmm), or changing the locks.  Another case of "Something bad happened to me, therefore I must find someone to sue."  Sometimes life sucks. And it isn't someone's fault.

 

Idiot son with dopey girlfriend sued by Momma: I need a better word than "idiot."

JJ:  "Who's gonna pay this?"

Idiot Son: "She already did!" 

I hope mom has learned there's helping your child, and letting them learn unpleasant lessons on their own.

[27bored]

I'm pretty sure we've been here before, but, IMO, this wasn't a storage facility and the landlord has no obligation to insure his tenants' belongings, just the building itself. Tenants need to insure their own property. When I was renting, it wouldn't have occured to me to sue my landlord if my place were burglarized. I can just imagine what would happen if landlords insured tenants' property. Burglaries would rise astronomically.

 

Like I said, I don't know. From the photo they showed, it looked like a storage facility. I was agreeing with JJ about renter's insurance, but it's like, I always thought that covered your home...not just any space you might be renting out. I know about insuring certain high-end items (like recording equipment), but it seems strange to get renter's insurance for something like that. I figured it didn't work that way given the Plaintiff said he wasn't able to be insured, at least not through his existing insurer.

 

If someone burglarized that facility and stole something, I don't know if their insurance would cover those items or not. It would seem to me the renter wouldn't necessarily have the ability to change out locks and keys as they see fit, because it's not theirs to begin with. I'm sure they could if they asked the owner, but what if someone changed the locks to a unit and then left with the keys? The owner would then be left with having to change the locks or getting a key made.

 

I'm also wondering why someone would steal with all the decoy equipment up. A random crook wouldn't know the sign and cameras are non-working, but someone already renting there might. That's why I said it's likely his stuff was taken by someone who has a master key. If they don't have actual security equipment, they don't advise their renters to obtain renter's insurance (not their responsibility, but it would alleviate a lot of problems at the front end to avoid litigation later on), I wouldn't be surprised if they do like I said: give a master key to people who rent out several units.

 

I guess the problem I have is JJ treats renter's insurance like car insurance. I know it's important and necessary, but it's like she uses that as an excuse to dismiss people's cases right off hand. I'm sure if they were totally forthcoming that they're not liable for anything that happens to their renters' belongings, and they don't have any security whatsoever besides a low gate, many people wouldn't be inclined to rent space from them. Even if someone did have insurance, who would want to leave their stuff in a space where it's pretty much open season for robbers and/or fellow renter's going through their stuff?

Edited July 7, 2015 by 27bored

[teebax]

You can buy a policy specifically for your property in storage, and it's often cheaper than renter's insurance. Most storage facilities have insurance brochures all over the place for these types of outfits. You can also look to your renter's or homeowner's policy, but you may capped at a limit. My limit is 10 % of my contents limit on my homeowners policy. With a $300,000 contents limit at home, I would have a $30,000 limit for my crap in storage.

For his equipment, I think plaintiff should have had business personal property coverage, since his equipment was for his business.

[seacliffsal]

Any storage facility I have used encouraged me to buy insurance but also mandated that I provide my own lock.  If someone stops paying the monthly fee, the contract clearly states that the facility can sell the items that are stored (that's those storage wars shows on some channel) via an auction.  So, the cost of cutting/changing the lock is covered by what they will make from the sale.  

Renter's insurance is so underutilized-much like car insurance.  People don't want to pay for it until AFTER they need it.  Sigh.  I always tell friends/family who rent that they should get renter's insurance.  It is way less expensive than homeowner's insurance (yes, I am master of the obvious, why do you ask?).  There was one episode in which a young man was renting from his aunt whose house burned down and he wanted reimbursement.  Judge Judy was all 'you should have had renter's insurance' until he told Judy that his aunt made a claim for his items and the insurance company paid her (for his possessions).  Then Judy was all 'okay pay him back' but only because the aunt received value from his items in her claim.

[AngelaHunter]

Renter's insurance is so underutilized-much like car insurance.  People don't want to pay for it until AFTER they need it.  Sigh.  I always tell friends/family who rent that they should get renter's insurance.  It is way less expensive than homeowner's insurance

 

Totally. Renter's ins. is only insuring your items, not the building, so the cost is minimal as far as insurance goes. People say, "But I don't really have anything of value," and it's only after their apartment burns down that they realize the true cost of replacing every single thing they owned. It's really high, even for the contents of a one-bedroom apartment.

 

These people who don't bother with any insurance make the decision to gamble that nothing bad will happen to their stuff, then want someone else to foot the bill when it does.

[Brattinella]

I think renter's insurance used to cost about $5 a month for about $10,000 coverage.  Is that about right?  Seems cheap to me.

[QuelleC]

I remember paying about $100 a year when I was renting a long long time ago.  You can probably get a deal if you get your car ins the same place.  IIRC renter's also includes a bit of liability coverage in case someone slips in your bathroom or something.  We discussed this all the first time around, but I'm thinking the agent was trying to sell him a BOP, business owner's policy, if in fact he was earning anything at all from his "studio" it would probably include a loss of earnings section that the renter's wouldn't.  He was using it from what I understand, not just storing it.  Also renter's would have a limit for property off premises mentioned above.  It's only really meant to cover personal property stolen from your car or something you lent someone if you can show you owned it, not expensive recording equipment. 

[Oinky Boinky]

Re the nice looking lady who sold her Rottweiler puppy to the bully looking guy because her child had allergies.

 

He

'You can tell that dog was abused, every time I yell she shakes in her cage'

(No shit Sherlock)

 

Was - I don't think so. Is - yes.

 

Some dogs lives are just horrible. 

 

I am not a dog lover but I totally changed my mind about pit bulls this weekend. 

 

I met two of the nicest doggies in the world this weekend - pit mom and son. Total sweethearts. 

[stitcher73]

Yesterday I saw, for the first time, the man who had his vasectomy reversed at the request of his fiancee; the fiancee's mother paid for the procedure.    I think Judy got this one wrong.   She should have made the daughter pay half.

[AngelaHunter]

She should have made the daughter pay half.

 

Why? He's a mature man of at least normal intelligence and after discussions he voluntarily had the procedure done. He may very well get married again to a woman who wants a child. Why should his former girlfriend (or his girlfriend's mother) have to pay for the now-live ammo he's packing and using on someone else?

[basiltherat]

I'm surprised JJ didn't do what she is wont to do and ask the question we all were thinking:  "If  you can't afford a vasectomy reversal, what makes you think you can afford children ???!

[27bored]

I thought that lady was lying. Her uncle bought her a dog for $600 and she paid him back? Even though he got it without her asking? Nah. JJ skated past that answer but the last looked kinda shifty.

As for the vasectomy thing, the way I see it, the daughter and the mother should've been made to eat half that bill. No they didn't made him get it, but it was as much their idea as it was his. The MIL wanted to spend that not just for him but for her and her daughter. She wanted grandkids, her daughter wanted kids, and he was game for having a reversal. If they were just dating and he asked the mom for the money for the procedure, and the idea of potentially having grandkids was a secondary motivation, I would've agreed he owed her the entire thing. But it seemed like mom and daughter came up with it and he just went along with the idea.

And, he mentioned the daughter doesn't work full time. It could've been that mom went after him because she knew dear daughter wouldn't have been able to pay her share anyway.

Bad ruling by JJ.

Edited July 9, 2015 by 27bored

[stitcher73]

I thought that lady was lying. Her uncle bought her a dog for $600 and she paid him back? Even though he got it without her asking? Nah. JJ skated past that answer but the last looked kinda shifty.

As for the vasectomy thing, the way I see it, the daughter and the mother should've been made to eat half that bill. No they didn't made him get it, but it was as much their idea as it was his. The MIL wanted to spend that not just for him but for her and her daughter. She wanted grandkids, her daughter wanted kids, and he was game for having a reversal. If they were just dating and he asked the mom for the money for the procedure, and the idea of potentially having grandkids was a secondary motivation, I would've agreed he owed her the entire thing. But it seemed like mom and daughter came up with it and he just went along with the idea.

And, he mentioned the daughter doesn't work full time. It could've been that mom went after him because she knew dear daughter wouldn't have been able to pay her share anyway.

Bad ruling by JJ.

EXACTLY!   it's no different than if mom gave her daughter and future son-in-law money for a car or a house or whatever.   They both wanted it, they both should have to pay.   Poor guy.

[Rick Kitchen]

 

I thought that lady was lying. Her uncle bought her a dog for $600 and she paid him back? Even though he got it without her asking? Nah. JJ skated past that answer but the last looked kinda shifty.

 

Plus she said in the hallterview that her husband bought her the dog.

[AngelaHunter]

It was "Great Name" day.

 

We had Raelynn Butzback and her mom, Cecile Knute vs. Ms.Veal. All from St. Paul, MN.  Veal, boyfriend and pack of 3 kiddies are homeless, move into the Butzback/Knute home and pay no rent and buy no food, other than McDonald's, Burger King and other junk food with which to stuff their own maws.

"Never again," say Ms. Veal in the hall. Never again, what? Sponge off someone who opened her home to you and your horde and not pay a frickin' dime? Noble aspiration, indeed.

 

I couldn't help thinking that Raelynn seemed a wee bit long in the tooth to have an eleven year old kid, but maybe she's younger than she looks.

 

It got even better with Shaquita, Delicesha and Champagne vs. Genaé (whatever, pronounced "Jenn-ay"). Friend of ten years is sold old beater car and decides she doesn't want it because things started going wrong with it. Who'd a guessed?

 

Finally, Danielle - sweetheart! Please rethink your outfit of sleeveless, belted, puffy party dress. Please. The usual b/f, g/f playing house, broke up, rent owed, blah blah. The only surprising part was that the goofy-looking, lanterned jawed ex b/f was able to find ANOTHER woman who really wanted him.

[SandyToes]

It was a great day for names!  And I laughed, too at Ms. Veal's, "Never again."   Still couldn't figure out what girlfriend wanted $4000 for. Maybe just to get a trip to LA?!

[Brattinella]

I missed it today, dang it!

[sandwoman]

 

goofy-looking, lanterned jawed ex

He looked like a cartoon character in profile! Or like a Star Trek alien! The oddest looking people show up on this show. 

[AngelaHunter]

The oddest looking people show up on this show.

 

And they're all chick magnets. Go figure.

[DebbieW]

I love JJ, but she's starting to annoy me with her lament that her parents didn't send her to law school to listen to your stupid problems.  I just wish a litigant would pipe up and say "then why the fuck did you bring me here?"

[AngelaHunter]

starting to annoy me with her lament that her parents didn't send her to law school to listen to your stupid problems.  I just wish a litigant would pipe up and say "then why the fuck did you bring me here?"

 

I see what you mean, but when someone is sueing for a napkin holder, a mop, a broom and the contents of a junk drawer I have to kind of agree with her. She needs to "proceed to inform" the person on the staff in charge of hunting down litigants to cool it with shit like that - cell phones and junk drawers and room mates fighting over utility bills.

[DebbieW]

Agreed, but that stuff is listed in their complaints and if she doesn't want to hear it then that case shouldn't be part of her "docket".  It happens with bigger items as well - she says all the time that she's not interested in certain things like a portion of rent or a utility bill.  I remember once she told a litigant that something was only $200 and she wasn't interested in hearing that.  I'm far from what would be considered a regular JJ litigant, but someone not paying me back $200 would be a serious set back to my budget (not that I'm dumb enough to go around lending it, but you get my point).

[DebbieW]

Sorry for the double post.  I DVR JJ during the week and let them play through on Saturday when I'm putzing around the house, so all of this week's episodes are happening for me today and I'm irked about something else.  (Maybe I just need a JJ vacation).

 

Earlier in the week, there was a case where a kid was messing around grabbing papers from the plaintiff's hand, which led to milk spilling and destroying the plaintiff's computer.  (On a side note, that was the angriest looking young man I've ever seen, and his excuse making mother is going to have her hands full).  JJ ruled that even though it was an accident the defendant has to pay because the kid's fooling around led to it happening.  JJ even illustrated her point by giving a scenario where the defendant was rear ended in an accident and would expect to be compensated even though it wasn't on purpose.

 

I just watched the case of the high school girl plaintiff's retainers being broken because her friend (frenemy?) was messing around with the locker door.  JJ reamed the plaintiff's parents out saying that it was an accident and accident's happen,.

 

So, which is it, JJ?  Is making reparation for an accident the responsibility of the one that caused it or not?

[Taffy]

So, which is it, JJ? Is making reparation for an accident the responsibility of the one that caused it or not?

Parents are responsible for the malicious acts of their children. JJ thought the mad paper grabber was malicious and the friend closing the locker door wasn't.

[DebbieW]

Except the plaintiff told the defendant that she wasn't in the mood to mess around and stop swinging her locker door.  If you're asked to stop whatever fooling around you're doing and you continue to do so, at that point it becomes malicious because you're obviously just trying to piss someone off.

[AngelaHunter]

(On a side note, that was the angriest looking young man I've ever seen, and his excuse making mother is going to have her hands full).

 

Very belligerent and fully feels that he has the right to take something that belongs to someone else when he's told he can't have it. Yeah, I see trouble in the future.

[AZChristian]

That whole exchange was troubling.   

 

Q:  "Why didn't you just ask to see it instead of grabbing it out if his hands?

 

A:  "Because I didn't think he would let me see it if I just axed him."

 

10 years later:

 

Q:  "Why did you use a gun and rob that old lady?

 

A:  "Because I didn't think she would give me any money if I just axed her."

[Bazinga]

I just watched the case of the high school girl plaintiff's retainers being broken because her friend (frenemy?) was messing around with the locker door.  JJ reamed the plaintiff's parents out saying that it was an accident and accident's happen,.

 

So, which is it, JJ?  Is making reparation for an accident the responsibility of the one that caused it or not?

 

 

Parents are responsible for the malicious acts of their children. JJ thought the mad paper grabber was malicious and the friend closing the locker door wasn't.

But she never makes that distinction.  IMO, the variation is that JJ picks and chooses who she likes and what she wants to care about. 

 

The plaintiff girl was totally well-spoken, nice, respectful and prepared, but JJ was all over her, trying to find an inconsistency, which she was not able to do, in order to do her usual, aha I got you on one minor inconsistency, so I don't have to believe anything you say because I don't want to.  First JJ tried to find some sort of lie about her past gym class participation and her not agreeing with the teacher's assessment, as if that would mean anything, and her being angry, which the girl admitted.  Then she moved on to not understanding why the girl would put her retainer half in and half out of the locker and why she had the audacity to keep her own retainer in a tissue instead of in a container.  Totally not understanding that the girl was in the middle of quickly changing and, if not for the defendant's actions, nothing would have happened with her retainer, even if she was not as careful as she should have been.  The plaintiff girl's actions being negligent only matters if she broke her own retainer, here the defendant's actions broke the retainer.  But for the defendant's actions, there would not have been injury.  Slamming the locker and causing injury or damage is something one could expect to occur.  Would the result be the same if she cut the girl's finger off by slamming the locker?  No, but JJ doesn't care about a stupid retainer. 

 

Didn't care for how JJ treated the plaintiffs.  They might have been legally wrong, but they were injured by the actions of another, and were not the bad guys deserving of the harsh inquisition and admonishment they got from JJ.

 

The plaintiff would have totally lost if not for the defendant father having offered to pay half.  Defendant girl didn't even have to defend herself or get a well-deserved admonishment for being a jerk.  Seemed unfair.

 

Except the plaintiff told the defendant that she wasn't in the mood to mess around and stop swinging her locker door.  If you're asked to stop whatever fooling around you're doing and you continue to do so, at that point it becomes malicious because you're obviously just trying to piss someone off.

JJ only cared that this was not ongoing bullying and that the girls did not have a history of being enemies and were to some extent friends.  Not sure why past history and their relationship changes this isolated incident.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Bazinga

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

"Never again," say Ms. Veal in the hall. Never again, what? Sponge off someone who opened her home to you and your horde and not pay a frickin' dime? Noble aspiration, indeed.

And the motto of that story is. . . no good deed goes unpunished.

 

However. . . the name game was just killing me. Butzback vs Veal with a side of Champagne thrown in. . . sounds like a drunk guy's idea of a New Year's buffet. . . . 

[AngelaHunter]

Parents are responsible for the malicious acts of their children. JJ thought the mad paper grabber was malicious and the friend closing the locker door wasn't.

 

There's also the fact that paper grabbing boy admitted he was being malicious, grabbing things not his, and that set off the chain reaction resulting in the wrecked computer.

[Bazinga]

 

There's also the fact that paper grabbing boy admitted he was being malicious, grabbing things not his, and that set off the chain reaction resulting in the wrecked computer.

But the defendant girl was never asked to admit she was being malicious.  She was pretty much not questioned.  I think the difference is that the mom in the computer case was present and heard the commotion her child was causing but only bothered to text and didn't get off her a$$ to see what was going on to prevent it.  The mom's presence and inaction are the negligence not the child's grabbing.

 

In the retainer case parents were not present and it was a Judge Judy "accident," so parents are not responsible. Again, would she feel the same way if the swinging locker cut the girl's finger off?  I doubt it would be a no biggie "accident" then with the plaintiffs treated as idiots for thinking they should recover, as they were in this case.  An accident would have been turning and her bookbag unintentionally closed the locker on the retainer.  Here she very much intentionally slammed the locker to annoy plaintiff and damage was caused.  Defendant parents, IMO, were most definitely responsible.

 

Of the two acts, IMO, the slamming of a locker is more malicious and more likely to cause some unforseen damage to the contents of the locker then grabbing something out of someone's hands and getting milk on it. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by Bazinga