Wow.... NRA outrage of the week

[Wildscar]

need a throw up smiley for this one. That just makes my blood boil for that one.
Guess this one will have to do.

You mean something like this?

Thats the one.

[Liko81]

The fact that they start their "facts" off with a statement that the coffee was not just hot, but scalding, raises my hackles a little. It makes it sound as though the liquid was super hot, while the fact is, the true fact, that even household temperature tap water can cause scald burns. The rest of the article suffers in that light.

I agree with the original poster - coffee was meant to be served hot, and coffee at 140 degrees soaked into sweat pants would as likely have caused injury to the tender domains on which it was spilled. The genital region is credited as 5% for burns, if I recall my EMT training correctly.

IT WASN'T 140 DEGREES! IT WAS 180! And yes, 40 degrees makes a difference. If you don't believe me, walk outside right now dressed as if you expected the temperature outside to be 50 degrees. Obviously, you didn't read beyond that first statement you had issue with. These facts you are pooh-poohing are taken directly out of the findings of the trial court, which I, in my Business Law class, had to read in its original form as this is a classic case study of corporate liability due to reckless conduct.

This isn't "ouch, that's hot", this is a sustained, painful, disfiguring burn to one of the most sensitive areas on the human body. In addition, it was either grossly negligent or reckless depending on from which angle you prefer to view it; McDonald's employs THOUSANDS of people who know all about food safety, hazards and proper temperature. The people who could have done something about it all testified that they KNEW the coffee could scald, and in fact McDonald's had itself documented evidence of many HUNDREDS of scaldings. Your average coffee pot serves it up at around 140* (yes, that can scald, but that temperature must be sustained for several seconds, like 15+, to cause a third degree burn). Commercial pots up that to about 160* as once the pot's made it usually is taken by a server out into the restaurant and doesn't go back on the hot plate again until it's empty and being refilled. McDonald's brewed their coffee at 195*, held it between 180 and 195, and served it at same; that is quite simply reckless.

[/offtopic]

Fallacious references to lack of common sense aside, "zero tolerance" is broken beyond repair. It was broken before it was put in place; if there's anything a law scholar knows it is that there is an exception to EVERYTHING. Murder isn't murder when it's self-defense. Rape isn't rape when it's between a 17-year-old adult and a 16-year-old minor who were having sex long before the 17-year-old reached the age of consent. Robbery isn't robbery when it's the repo man. Reckless driving isn't reckless driving when it's a medical emergency. Neither is breaking and entering in the same situation. And a weapons threat isn't a weapons threat when it's an expended blank cartridge brought for show and tell. Or a table knife packed with a kid's lunch so they can make their own PB&J. Or a Black Cat firecracker in the bottom of a backpack left over from the Fourth of July. Or an eavesdropped conversation about a hunting trip last weekend. Or a "what I did last summer" paper about same.

[DParker]

IT WASN'T 140 DEGREES! IT WAS 180!

If you read what you're responding to again I think you'll find that he wasn't claiming that the coffee was served at a temperature of 140 degrees F. He was saying that even if the coffee had been served at that temperature (as opposed to the higher one of 180) it would likely have caused serious burns to the area in question. Not necessarily that the burns would have been as bad (they wouldn't have been), but still seriously burned. Whether that's true or not is another matter. But you seem to have misread what you responded to.

McDonald's brewed their coffee at 195*, held it between 180 and 195, and served it at same; that is quite simply reckless.

Quite probably. But I think most people's objection is to the notion that plaintiff was a hapless victim, when in fact what she did was foolish no matter what temperature McDonald's serves their coffee at.

Fallacious references to lack of common sense aside, "zero tolerance" is broken beyond repair. It was broken before it was put in place; if there's anything a law scholar knows it is that there is an exception to EVERYTHING.

True dat.

Murder isn't murder when it's self-defense.

In that case the first instance of "murder" in that last sentance is incorrect and misleading to begin with. It really should have read, "Killing isn't murder when it's self-defense." Ditto your other examples.

[Mr.Scott]

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to

realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in

her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Here are the facts about the mcdonalds coffee settlement.
FYI: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

I would say people discussing things they know nothing about didnt help common sense's condition either.

There is nothing to read. It's HOT COFFEE. I learned when i was 4 or 5 that hot liquids and skin don't go together well.

[DoubleActionCHL]

What was the original post about? I forget...

[bpet]

I think it was about a kid who took a spent casing to school and it was seen by a teacher who had just won a civil suite for spilling a hot cup of coffee in her lap while in the third grade cafeteria. The school board got upset with the teacher and decided to keep the kids brass.

I think! Could be wrong.

[bryang]

This is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard! These are the kind of things that make me so upset that I am better off to just keep my mouth shut.

[SCone]

Take another cartidge out in the garage. Get a hammer and pound it into a little round medaliion. Take it to the school and present it to the Principal as a token of your appreciation for teaching your Son about "zero tolerance".

As you leave, tell him what the medallion really is and explain that he is holding the SAME THING that he suspended your Son for in the first place & demand that he give himself the same suspension.

Regardless of the arguement he gives you, he is in possession and that's all it took for your Son to get busted.

[JDKRIEK]

I cannot believe something like that is possible - its crazy and total bull!

[waterpump1]

need a throw up smiley for this one. That just makes my blood boil for that one.
Guess this one will have to do.