Trick or treat?

goldomark said:

It is a quote from your post. I read it.

Click to expand...

That's good. Now that you have read it you have the option of going back and responding to it, instead of pretending that the quote said something else.

There is no law against what the woman is doing. Invoking law is a moot point.

Click to expand...

There actually may be- the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress could apply.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.

Click to expand...

That her conduct is intentional, there is not a question. The fourth element would be easily claimed & probably proven- the standard would be the civil "preponderance of evidence"- and causality would be pretty obviously demonstrated. The main question would be proving the second element.

And since it is a community type question, the jury chosen would matter qreatly, and therein lies part of the skill of a trial attorney.

I'm an attorney, but not a trial specialist. However, my own informal poll of parents has been unanimous: the behavior in question is "extreme and outrageous" to them. Even the vast majority of non-parent adults have used terms like "bullying".*

Imagine if I were a trial attorney picking a jury...

Why? See the answer that you thought was poor- she is overstepping her boundries. The behavior she said she would do is well outside the norm for the holiday tradition wherein you give candy or treats or you don't give anything out at all, but you don't single kids out for ostracism. At least, not as an adult.

If she went through with her plan, I wouldn't be surprised to see her in an American court defending her actions...and losing.








* and remember, I live in the same area as the parent brought the lawsuit over the football game- he's not winning in the court of public opinion, BTW.

jonesy said:

That's good. Now that you have read it you have the option of going back and responding to it, instead of pretending that the quote said something else.

Click to expand...

If you do not like what I wrote I can't help it, like I can't help you being snarky and trying to avoid answering.

Dannyalcatraz said:

There actually may be- the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress could apply.

That her conduct is intentional, there is not a question. The fourth element would be easily claimed & probably proven- the standard would be the civil "preponderance of evidence"- and causality would be pretty obviously demonstrated. The main question would be proving the second element.

And since it is a community type question, the jury chosen would matter qreatly, and therein lies part of the skill of a trial attorney.

I'm an attorney, but not a trial specialist. However, my own informal poll of parents has been unanimous: the behavior in question is "extreme and outrageous" to them. Even the vast majority of non-parent adults have used terms like "bullying".*

Imagine if I were a trial attorney picking a jury...

Why? See the answer that you thought was poor- she is overstepping her boundries. The behavior she said she would do is well outside the norm for the holiday tradition wherein you give candy or treats or you don't give anything out at all, but you don't single kids out for ostracism. At least, not as an adult.

If she went through with her plan, I wouldn't be surprised to see her in an American court defending her actions...and losing.

* and remember, I live in the same area as the parent brought the lawsuit over the football game- he's not winning in the court of public opinion, BTW.

Click to expand...

goldomark said:

If you do not like what I wrote I can't help it, like I can't help you being snarky and trying to avoid answering.

Click to expand...

Heh.

I feel the old levels of snark rising up inside me.

Ahem. Here it comes:

Yes. You can. You can help me not like what you wrote, because what you wrote assumed I said something I did not, and so you did help in my dislike thereof. You also can help me be snarky and avoid answering anything you ask, and in fact you are doing so right now with the way you yourself are avoiding responding to what I actually said.



In a conversation you follow what the other person is saying and then you respond to it. You do not invent responses and then act like those happened. Quoting me and then playing it as a response to something different that I didn't say anything at all about is not a conversation, it is baiting and it is rude.

Cute.

But the tort has major cases-plaintiffs victories and losses- dating back to the 1950s. No gymnastics needed, just black letter law.

I'm not saying its a slam-dunk case. I'm not even saying such a case is guaranteed to occur. I'm just saying the law is there, and all that need happen to start the ball rolling is one crying child.

Umbran said:

No.

You were told that it was not your business. That it wasn't your place to initiate that discussion with someone else's child.

You asked for an explanation why. I offered an explanation - by the law and custom, raising that child is the business of the parents, legal guardians. It is not your duty, business, or problem, so it is not for you to start that conversation. There are some delegates (like schoolteachers, people who run after-school programs) who also have some authority, but even theirs is limited, and often debated. As a basically random stranger, beyond noting potential abuse to authorities, you have very little say in the matter.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, you are correct; it is not the place of other people to initiate that discussion with the child nor the parent. That is, until the child goes over to a stranger's house begging for candy. The child can get some free candy, but they may have to listen to some "friendly" or "unfriendly" advice as part of the interaction they have with the person giving out the candy. If parents don't want their child to possibly have that type of interaction, they shouldn't send them to people's houses begging for candy. And yeah, it's not the stranger's place to raise the child, but the lady who is giving out the letters isn't really doing that. She is giving out a suggestion. It isn't as if she has some method of implementing whatever her letters say.

Homicidal_Squirrel said:

Generally speaking, you are correct; it is not the place of other people to initiate that discussion with the child nor the parent. That is, until the child goes over to a stranger's house begging for candy. The child can get some free candy, but they may have to listen to some "friendly" or "unfriendly" advice as part of the interaction they have with the person giving out the candy. If parents don't want their child to possibly have that type of interaction, they shouldn't send them to people's houses begging for candy. And yeah, it's not the stranger's place to raise the child, but the lady who is giving out the letters isn't really doing that. She is giving out a suggestion. It isn't as if she has some method of implementing whatever her letters say.

Click to expand...

Orrrr...

The woman in question could have followed the rules of sociey & etiquette- see the above cites to Ms. Manners- and simply keep her anti-fat crusade to herself on Halloween and not participate in the giving of any candy (or anything else). No fat kids get poisoned, no fat kid gets humiliated.

That is perfectly acceptable. There are people in our neighborhood who don't participate in the candy giveaway- for whatever reason*- and nobody cares that they don't.

Better angels, yada, yada, yada.









* concerns over candy & obesity, dental health, the holiday's pagan roots, or what have you.

Dannyalcatraz said:

Cute.

Click to expand...

And true.

But the tort has major cases-plaintiffs victories and losses- dating back to the 1950s. No gymnastics needed, just black letter law.

I'm not saying its a slam-dunk case. I'm not even saying such a case is guaranteed to occur. I'm just saying the law is there, and all that need happen to start the ball rolling is one crying child.

Click to expand...

Oh, someone can definitely sue the woman and emotional distress cases have been won. I didn't mean that was not possible. Someone could want to sue her for being Satan too. But the chances these cases win or do not get thrown out right off the bat are laughable.

Dannyalcatraz said:

Orrrr...

The woman in question could have followed the rules of sociey & etiquette- see the above cites to Ms. Manners- and simply keep her anti-fat crusade to herself on Halloween and not participate in the giving of any candy (or anything else). No fat kids get poisoned, no fat kid gets humiliated.

That is perfectly acceptable. There are people in our neighborhood who don't participate in the candy giveaway- for whatever reason*- and nobody cares that they don't.

Better angels, yada, yada, yada.









* concerns over candy & obesity, dental health, the holiday's pagan roots, or what have you.

Click to expand...

Why do you hate freedom and liberty? Why put pressure on her for doing what she wants in accordance to the law? After all we are talking about the US ) yeah!) here, not the USSR.