You've heard of don't text and drive...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reactions
90 0 0
#1
...Don't text and WALK!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/20/earlyshow/main7265096.shtml

Dumbass lady is texting while walking around the mall, and falls into a fountain. Security has a good laugh over the whole thing and posts it on youtube.

The lady wasn't hurt, she was just a dumbass. Well now she's suing because "everyone on the internet is laughing at her dumbass."

Cry me a fucking river. You should just take your licks and be done with it. So people are laughing at your expense, learn to laugh at yourself from time to time. We've all done stupid shit. Hell, if it were me, I'd try to make money off my 15 minutes of fame - just like double Rainbow Guy and BedIntruder. No, she's all butthurt and plans on suing the mall instead.


100 bucks says that malls are going to post "Caution Fountain" signs now to cover their assess from further dipshit lawsuits.
 
J

Jiarn

#2
I should sue that convience store with that door I walked into all those years back....
 
M

makare

#3
That woman was a dipshit and she deserved to fall in the fountain.

That being said WTF mall putting security camera footage on Youtube!? That is kind of creepy. I don't know if it is lawsuit worthy but it is definitely inappropriate.
 
J

Jiarn

#4
You obviously haven't seen the mall footage of the guy taking a crap in the mall. That made the cable TV funnies.
 
C

Chibibar

#5
The lady should just walk it off and move on.

But something to consider: should security footage be use to post on public places like youtube?
 
Reactions
188 5 0
#6
As someone in the industry all I can say is that in Canada it can be complicated. She’s in a public place thus the security can do as they please with the video especially if it is clearly indicated that the area is under supervision.

However, if she can easily be identified by the video and didn’t make an effort to impede her from getting noticed she can have a case as it’s a form of exploitation. She knows full well she fucked up however she shouldn’t have a video on the internet at her expense.

Is it funny? Yes. Is she a fucken texting tard? Yes. Can she sue? Possibly, yes.
 

Gusto

Staff member
Reactions
80 0 0
#7
One time I drunk-walk-texted home from a bar and ended up tripping over a curb and falling into a snowbank.

I thought that was pretty hilarious.

And this was like a month ago.
 
Reactions
503 140 7
#8
Watching a new medical drama show last night (medicine in the rain forest of some type or another) one of the characters tells tells about their previous SO, who she sent out on a late night errand on his bicycle, and she valued a text message he sent her during the trip. Shortly after we find out he died during that trip.

I turned to my wife and said, "Well duh, everyone knows you shouldn't text and cycle at the same time!"

I expect this'll be fixed with technology though. All this woman needed was a little corner of her screen used to display what the phone's camera saw - that way she can text and look ahead of herself without taking her eyes of the screen.

 
D

Disconnected

#9
or we could, you know.... stop walking.

Stop being in such a hurry people!
 
Reactions
448 217 1
#11
Maybe the fountain should have had some sort of technology that lets you know you are about to walk into a HALF ACRE BODY OF WATER... like the sound of splashing water that gets louder the closer you get to it.

She was on GMA this morning... talking about her suit. God bless her, she is such an idiot.
 
M

makare

#12
You obviously haven't seen the mall footage of the guy taking a crap in the mall. That made the cable TV funnies.

I don't really get what you mean. That would be wrong to send to youtube as well.

Forget "there's a fountain" warnings I would want "warning we are recording you and we have no qualms about publishing the video". I would not go to that mall.
 
J

Jiarn

#13
What I mean is, apparantly there's not going to be an issue with posting it on youtube, if on Cable TV shows, they show footage of people doing things in the mall as it is.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#14
I don't really get what you mean. That would be wrong to send to youtube as well.

Forget "there's a fountain" warnings I would want "warning we are recording you and we have no qualms about publishing the video". I would not go to that mall.

Is putting a video on youtube really "publishing" it though?
 
Reactions
448 217 1
#15
The issue is privacy... there was no way of knowing who it was that fell into the fountain. Her nephew that heard about her falling in the fountain, saw the video on YouTube. He then told her what he saw.

So

a. she told her family a very embarrassing story. which they could link back to her when they saw the grainy footage on YouTube.
2. she told the world that she is an idiot and now wants to sue. because the guards in the security booth did not come rushing to dig her out of the water, when she got out just fine.
 
M

makare

#16
You have to get people's permission before taking their picture and putting it online. At least for it to be legal. I think this would fall under that. Security camera's are allowed to record people because they exist in a little window of permission for "security purposes". Laughs is not a security purpose.

If this was a case of a woman suspected of shoplifting and they put a video of her on youtube to invite people to judge whether they think she was shoplifting or not, would that be ok?


The real thing is I do not care about this idiot who fell in a fountain. I am concerned about the standard this is setting and how it affects ME.

One time I was walking around the mall with my sister. This was just a couple years ago so I was probably 25 and she would be 20. She decided to pretend to be Hitler and goosestep around the mall. Why I don't know. She is an ass. But I couldn't get away from her. What if the mall had recorded that and put it on youtube. I would be even more humiliated than I was at the time. That isn't right in my mind.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#18

Haha there's more to this story:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/opinions...in-girl-in-another-hot-pennsyltucky-mess.html

The Reading Eagle reports that Cruz Marrero, 49, was charged in October 2009 for using a co-worker's credit cards to make more than $5,000 in purchases at two local stores. She was in Berks County Court on Thursday for a status hearing on theft-by-deception and related charges and had no comment when reached by the paper at home.


Thing is, I think it is perfectly legal the way the video was released. The video isn't of the actual security tape, but someone filming the footage from their own camera. How's this stuff work for public events anyway?

Say someone's at the Macy's Thanksgiving parade and the film crew zooms in on a goober picking his nose for the whole nation to see, and that goes viral. Can he sue NBC?

By the way I forgot to mention Reading, PA is like 40 minutes away from me :)
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#20
Oh another thing about the video that was released. The recording that went viral occurs AFTER the fact; not during. They're watching a recording of the event with friends filming. It's not like security saw this and said, "haha, stoooopid bitch fell in the water". They probably didn't view it until they heard that an employee fell into the fountain that day. I don't think the "nobody helped me" argument is going to fly.
Added at: 14:30
Just think Mathias, she's on the road with you at any given rush hour...
F- that. I take the train into Philly.
 
M

makare

#21
If it was a bystanders camera of the actual event then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Everyone knows that most people's phones have cameras and they are likely to put videos on line. That is a public knowledge thing. But people believe security cameras are for security reasons not to record and put online so they behave a certain way in those businesses operating under that reasonable belief.

And things can be legal and still be very wrong.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#22
If it was a bystanders camera of the actual event then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Everyone knows that most people's phones have cameras and they are likely to put videos on line. That is a public knowledge thing. But people believe security cameras are for security reasons not to record and put online so they behave a certain way in those businesses operating under that reasonable belief.

And things can be legal and still be very wrong.

Oh ok, I thought we were discussing the legality of it. Yeah, I agree, it's unprofessional of the security team to let their friends record it. At the same time, we all need to understand, we're talking about mall cops here...

 
M

makare

#23
Yeah I don't know the legal issues really beyond the having to have a waiver to publicize photos. Really I could argue for both the mall and the idiot. What I'm talking about is really just my personal opinion of it and it's more a symptom of my horror at watching our privacy disappear one youtube video at a time.
 
Reactions
448 217 1
#24
It's comedy gold! you can not pass up the opportunity to post something that hilarious online.

That video needs to be shown at every Defensive Driving Class in America. Title it, These Are the Idiots That Are in the Next Lane.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,348 1,090 23
#25
Why was someone recording at that particular moment if this wasn't security footage? Seems odd to me.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#26
I'm considering going to the Berkshire mall tonight and reenacting the entire thing for my 15 minutes of youtube fame. Unlike Fountain Lady, I'll spring for t-shirt copyrights.
 
C

Chibibar

#27
Does it make any difference between "public place" vs public place

public place are places like parks and such where the tax payers money fund the area. Those are open to anyone
"public place" is more like malls. These are not actually public. They are own by investors and business people. They do have a right to not service you (i.e. ban you, not sell to you, refuse service etc etc) so... wouldn't the footage kinda belong to the mall? (just for legal argument sake) I mean, I voluntary go to the mall knowing there will be cameras recording me (of course I didn't know that they might post it BUT I learned that ignorance doesn't excuse a person ;) ) so.... couldn't the security people could post it? like Makare said, it could be legal but still wrong, but I have accept that there will be people out there don't care of the "right vs wrong" as long it is legal to do it.
 
Reactions
90 0 0
#28
Why was someone recording at that particular moment if this wasn't security footage? Seems odd to me.
It is security footage. They're filming the security footage of an event that happened earlier that day.
 
C

Chibibar

#29
I'm considering going to the Berkshire mall tonight and reenacting the entire thing for my 15 minutes of youtube fame. Unlike Fountain Lady, I'll spring for t-shirt copyrights.
Don't Text and Walk
<insert logo of falling into fountain> ??
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,348 1,090 23
#30
It is security footage. They're filming the security footage of an event that happened earlier that day.
Okay....so instead of the ACTUAL security footage being released - which in my mind WOULD be an invasion of privacy and grounds for lawsuit against the mall - this is from a security PERSON'S camera who recorded the event right from the security camera's feed. Okay. Interesting twist. In my mind she still has a lawsuit, but this time against the person doing the recording and not the mall. Of course, it still happened in the mall's security area so they might still be implicated.

She might still have a case because of where & how it was recorded, but things happening in public are a matter of public record.
 
M

makare

#31
The mall security guards are agents of the mall and so the mall is responsible

Also the mall has the moneh.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,348 1,090 23
#32
The mall security guards are agents of the mall and so the mall is responsible

Also the mall has the moneh.
I think you're right on both counts. But the way that it was recorded throws everything into a sort of legal quagmire. (giggity) I think that both prosecution and defense will have cases and it would be in her best interest to just drop it. This will be dragged on for years and she won't see squat of that money if she wins the first go-round as it'll be in appeals hell.
 
D

Disconnected

#34
I disagree the mall is at fault.
Why must companies/employers/corporations be responsible for every single douchebag?
"the training programs weren't good enough"
"sensitivity training was lacking"
"They didn't teach them not to spit in the burgers"
etc.
If you have to be trained by your employer that you are doing something mean spirited, unconscionable, or plain out fucking stupid, I need me a lawyer and I'm on a fast track to scrooge mcduck's vault as there is so much my current and past employers have never taught me about common decency.

If this is a person recording footage with his own personal phone this means (to me and my limited knowledge here) that the system is most likely CC and this person knew that because he obviously wanted the world to see it. It is CC for a reason... so it does not get out.

get off my lawn.
Added at: 12:16
I'll do you one better:

i like this commercial but the little one at the end makes me sadface
 
Reactions
503 140 7
#35
It's not illegal for them to do this. Since the woman is not personally identifiable, they could in fact use the video in commercial promotional material as well without her consent.

At most, it's a disregard for one's own customers.

But if the woman had not come forth, there is absolutely no way for anyone to have known who it was, nevermind been able to prove i a court of law that it was her. Even now she has the burden of proving that she is the person on that low resolution grainy video if she is to get anywhere with her lawsuit, and that it couldn't have been any other person. Once she's proven that, there's nothing bad that happened to her that she didn't bring upon herself by first, not watching where she was going, and second by announcing that she is the woman in the video.

Even now it's quite possible that she is NOT the woman in the video, and has simply come forth for 15 minutes of fame and a possible payout from a mall that is willing to overlook the facts and simply hush things up. There are all sorts of con artists that would recognize this as an opportunity to pretend to be someone they are not, and attempt to profit from it.

So, whoever thinks this is illegal, wrong, or morally reprehensible, I suggest avoiding doing stupid and/or funny things, and appearing in public places where you have no expectation of privacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top