People Suing Good Smaritians for being Good Smaritians?

[jessi_chan]

Video :

http://www.yahoo.com/s/1005176

Story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_...itan_protection

With making this ruling you will be discouraging SO MANY people from helping others! And my god, there are LOTS of people ALREADY who don't care about people as it is, this is just going to add to the mix. I mean out of 4 of our family's accidents only 1 of the accidents did someone ACTUALLY help us out! And hell with the accident with Dodgefan and the Shadow like 4years ago some idiots in a Civic drove by laughing their asses off.. I mean come on people is this damn ruling really going to help anything but discourage people to help at all... What is this damn world coming to? Please discuss....

Edited December 21, 2008 by jessi_chan

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Naturally...

It's in California.

(I think the left coast needs to 'lay off the blow')

[Croc]

I really don't see what the big deal is. And FOG, your constant litany of didainful remarks toward west-coasters is becoming rather irksome.

All this ruling says is that a "good samaritan" CAN BE SUED. Not that the plaintiff will win, but merely that a "good samaritan" could be liable for damages caused by them if they fail to use appropriate judgement during their "assistance."

The article has virtually NO details on the case, and as anyone who knows anything about law knows, individual rulings are highly dependent on the facts of the individual case. That's how precedent is created.

So, let's posit two scenarios:

SCENARIO I: Car crashes into a light pole at 45 mph and is destroyed, leaking fuel, and starting to catch fire. Good Samaritan ruhes over, forces the car door open and forcefully extracts the incapacitated individual because he/she thinks the car is about to explode.

Saved a life, right?

SCENARIO II: Car crashes into a light pole at 45 mph and is damaged heavily, leaking fuel. The occupant is incapacitated due to shock from the collision and the deployment of the airbags, but otherwise fine. Bewildered, but suffering no life-threatening injuries, the occupant realizes someone is forcing their way into the car and forcefully removing them. Suddenly, the occupant feels a pop or snap, and can no longer move his/her limbs after being yanked out so forcefully.

Pretty different, huh? These are two extremes, and it's best to see how things play out over the long term. But Yahoo! posting this means it must have been a very slow news day, as this is a ruling that only says a lawsuit may proceed after an attempt by the defendant to have it preemptively dismissed due to the Good Samaritan statute.

Nothing earth-shattering about a court ruling that a lawsuit may proceed.

[thegriffon]

Ahh, so much like The Incredibles, yes?

[Croc]

Never saw it...no clue.

[thegriffon]

SCENARIO II: Car crashes into a light pole at 45 mph and is damaged heavily, leaking fuel. The occupant is incapacitated due to shock from the collision and the deployment of the airbags, but otherwise fine. Bewildered, but suffering no life-threatening injuries, the occupant realizes someone is forcing their way into the car and forcefully removing them. Suddenly, the occupant feels a pop or snap, and can no longer move his/her limbs after being yanked out so forcefully.…

Been watching Cold Case, eh?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

I do not find how this fits into the sanctions of the law.

1) you are NEVER to touch an injured person if you don't know what your doing UNLESS they are in dire and immediate danger (as in must be rectified before EMTs get there)

2) according to the story it did not seem as though the persons life was in dire danger.

3) the persons actions ended up causing harm (violated statement 1) which caused damages that are NOT protected under good Samaritan laws because statement 1 was not followed thereby making it negligence imo.

[Croc]

Been watching Cold Case, eh?

Never have. It's a crime show, right? I think I've seen promos, but nothing more. Just put my highly rational, legalistic mind to work.

I do not find how this fits into the sanctions of the law.

1) you are NEVER to touch an injured person if you don't know what your doing UNLESS they are in dire and immediate danger (as in must be rectified before EMTs get there)

2) according to the story it did not seem as though the persons life was in dire danger.

3) the persons actions ended up causing harm (violated statement 1) which caused damages that are NOT protected under good Samaritan laws because statement 1 was not followed thereby making it negligence imo.

Exactly, hence the lawsuit may proceed.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Croc

[ocnblu]

Somebody's a lot of fun @ parties. Wow.

[balthazar]

>>"SCENARIO I... SCENARIO II... Pretty different, huh?

Nothing earth-shattering about a court ruling that a lawsuit may proceed."<<

The situations are not different from the POV of the Good Samaritan ('GS'), and it is the GS's actions that are prompting any legal action whatsoever.

Two 45-MPH impacts, both leaking fuel, both with the potential to burn/explode.

Two incapacitated drivers, unable to exit the vehicle.

This is the exact point the GS must decide to act or not, and at that point, both scenario's are identical.

Standing by and watching a person burn to death merely because of fear of a lawsuit is reprehensible, IMO.

Intent is always a key component in legal cases. It's a pretty far stretch to suggest a innocent bystander approaching a burning vehicle intended to harm the occupant, which is why a GS allowance exists.

Also, this CA ruling only notches up an already hideously over-litigious society.

Edited December 21, 2008 by balthazar

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I really don't see what the big deal is. And FOG, your constant litany of didainful remarks toward west-coasters is becoming rather irksome.

Not even ONE post and someone took the bait! (What I said wasn't even insulting, merely an opinion. I could've said a lot worse) The next time someone says something about southern people or rednecks being stupid I'll be sure to tell them that they're becoming 'rather irksome' as well. (Because those kinds of comments aren't perpetuated on this board at all)

Thanks for playing! And it doesn't make me think any more of Californians or their OBVIOUSLY flawed logic.

[Croc]

Not even ONE post and someone took the bait! (What I said wasn't even insulting, merely an opinion. I could've said a lot worse) The next time someone says something about southern people or rednecks being stupid I'll be sure to tell them that they're becoming 'rather irksome' as well. (Because those kinds of comments aren't perpetuated on this board at all)

Thanks for playing! And it doesn't make me think any more of Californians or their OBVIOUSLY flawed logic.

Strange, I've never made a comment about Southerners, so I don't know why you lumped me in with that...I have quite a bit of family in the South, and I'e found Southerners to be pretty much the paradigm of hospitality.

[Intrepidation]

So from now on if you want to save someone from burning to death in a car or drowning you must bring a waver form for them to sign saying they won't sue you for saving their stupid life.

Ridiculous, I hope she gets in another life threatening wreck and everyone just stands and watches, while the emergency vehicles can't get to her because of traffic or something. Then she better hope she's got a pen to sign that form...and a functional hand as well. Stupid bitch.

[daves87rs]

I think you do or you don't....if I worried about everything I did in life, I'd be dead.

You take your chances.....

[Intrepidation]

"So the car's badly damaged and leaking fuel, but oh wait, she looks fine, so let's let someone else do it and grab a coffee!"

Edited December 21, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Croc]

>>"SCENARIO I... SCENARIO II... Pretty different, huh?

Nothing earth-shattering about a court ruling that a lawsuit may proceed."<<

The situations are not different from the POV of the Good Samaritan ('GS'), and it is the GS's actions that are prompting any legal action whatsoever.

Two 45-MPH impacts, both leaking fuel, both with the potential to burn/explode.

Two incapacitated drivers, unable to exit the vehicle.

This is the exact point the GS must decide to act or not, and at that point, both scenario's are identical.

No. The first scenario involved the beginnings of a fire, and the second merely involved leaking fuel--which may or may not progress.

And from the perspectie of a GS, these should NOT be identical, ESPECIALLY when extricating someone from a vehicle. It's common sense to be careful with an injured person. According to the complaint, the GS was negligent in this regard.

Standing by and watching a person burn to death merely because of fear of a lawsuit is reprehensible, IMO.

But this isn't what happened. Accordng to the article, the GS "believed" the car would explode. It said nothing about a GS removing someone from a burning vehicle, or anything about an actual fire. Doesn't sound like there was any imminent danger whatsoever.

Intent is always a key component in legal cases. It's a pretty far stretch to suggest a innocent bystander approaching a burning vehicle intended to harm the occupant, which is why a GS allowance exists.

You're correct in this statement, but this is not necessarily what happened. If the vehicle is NOT burning/on fire, but the GS merely THINKS it will spontaneously explode...what then?

Intent rarely negates responsibility/negligence in the eyes of the law. That's where the "lesser crimes" come into play. Voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, murder I, murder II, wrongful death, etc. Those are all crimes/misdemeaners relating to the death of a person at the hands of another. And involuntary manslaughter is pretty close to "I didn't mean to do it, it was an accident." Still a charge, still a sentence...because of negligence, not any malicious intent.

Also, this CA ruling only notches up an already hideously over-litigious society.

Again, how so? The lawsuit was already filed. It goes to trial. The verdict has not been received, for all we know the GS law will remain upheld and the complaint against the GS will be dismissed. Or maybe there's something unique about this case and the GS parted ways with rationality a long time ago and in fact acted negligently.

But again, the court merely said a lawsuit could go to trial. The GS/defendant had tried to preemptively dismiss the lawsuit under the Good Samaritan statute, and the court merely disagreed with that and said that the lawsuit can go to trial. Nothing has ACTUALLY been rendered against the GS.

Here's another scenario that follows similar logic to this case:

I'm walking in a parking lot, I see someone getting into the exact same car I saw featured on an investigative report on Sudden Acceleration by the local news station last night. They aren't paying attention, and had to flood the engine to get the car started. I see a little old lady walking behind the car, and then the driver puts the car in reverse. I rush over in a panic and knock the old woman down and out of the way of impending doom! But nothing happened, the car just backed out like normal. "Phew, crisis averted!" I think. But the old woman now has broken wrists, ribs, and a hip. She was going to go on a cruise the next day to see her granddaughter's wedding in the Carribbean, and now has to miss both to get hospital care because some random dude knocked her over because he was paranoid about sudden acceleration.

I'd better be sued in that scenario...you can't go pushing old people down without any real evidence that that vehicle will strike her. Just like you can't reasonably go from zero to freak out that a car is OMG ABOUT TO EXPLODE and act impetuously, thereby seriously injuring someone.

ALL PEOPLE need to practice sound judgment and evaluate the situation, ESPECIALLY good samaritans, due to the recent accidents, or whatever, just observed.

[Intrepidation]

I bet the guy being sued will never help anyone out again.

[Croc]

So from now on if you want to save someone from burning to death in a car or drowning you must bring a waver form for them to sign saying they won't sue you for saving their stupid life.

Who said anything about a waiver?

NO, THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO IN THIS SITUATION IS TO CALL THE PARAMEDICS ASAP AND THEN GO OVER TO THE VEHICLE AND SEE IF YOU CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE IN ANY WAY. UNLESS THE CAR IS ACTUALLY BURNING, AND IMMINENT DANGER EXISTS, YOU SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO EXTRICATE SOMEONE FROM A CAR BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SPINAL INJURIES. THIS IS COMMON SENSE. BY TALKING TO THE PERSON IN AN ACCIDENT, YOU CAN BETTER TAKE STOCK OF THE SITUATION INSTEAD OF ACTING BRASHLY. IF THE VEHICLE IS MERELY LEAKING FUEL, AND NO FIRE HAS STARTED, WAIT TIL THE PARAMEDICS ARRIVE. IF THE LEAKING FUEL EVENTUALLY DOES CATCH FIRE, GUESS WHAT? YOU'RE ALREADY AT THE DOOR, TALKING TO THE PERSON, AND ARE IN A GREAT POSITION TO HELP THEM GET OUT IF NEED BE.

Ridiculous, I hope she gets in another life threatening wreck and everyone just stands and watches, while the emergency vehicles can't get to her because of traffic or something. Then she better hope she's got a pen to sign that form...and a functional hand as well. Stupid bitch.

WOW you just wished serious harm on someone for filing a lawsuit that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS ANY MERIT? That's extremely low. Not cool.

[Croc]

I bet the guy being sued will never help anyone out again.

1) He has no obligation to, but more mportantly 2) Any ruling against the defendant will be a clarification or nuance to the GS law, not an invalidation of it. If he/she truly acted negligently and paralyzed someone, then they should learn from it and use those lessons in the future, whether they help someone or not.

[ocnblu]

Mr. Croc, I am afraid all of your bluster is for naught in this thread. You're on the wrong side of the argument here. Edited December 22, 2008 by ocnblu

[Enzora]

Mr. Croc, I am afraid all of your bluster is for naught in this thread. You're on the wrong side of the argument here.

No, he's not. Neither the video nor the article tells what the scenario was that caused the co-worker to fear why the car would catch on fire. The video does an even greater disservice to the argument by trying to draw parallels between that situation and that of a family trapped in a flood who would certainly drown had they not been rescued. Standard protocol for avoiding fires is to make sure the car is turned off and call professionals ASAP. This isn't trying to discourage people from helping others, just to get them to do it in a responsible way.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Enzora

[Croc]

No, he's not. Neither the video nor the article tells what the scenario was that caused the co-worker to fear why the car would catch on fire. The video does an even greater disservice to the argument by trying to draw parallels between that situation and that of a family trapped in a flood who would certainly drown had they not been rescued. Standard protocol for avoiding fires is to make sure the car is turned off and call professionals ASAP. This isn't trying to discourage people from helping others, just to get them to do it in a responsible way.

Thank you, it's really heartening to find that all the intelligent life hasn't yet deserted the site. I know half of them are just arguing with me to be contrarian anyway...and because it's me.

[Intrepidation]

I don't argue with you because it's you, I just feel it's BS to sue someone who was trying to help and had the best of intentions. Maybe he could have done it better? Who knows, we weren't there to judge, and in this day and age, a lot of people with the slightest reason will try to sue. I just think it turns off people who want to help, but now have to think twice about being sued for it.

[Enzora]

Who knows, we weren't there to judge, and in this day and age, a lot of people with the slightest reason will try to sue.

Her actions likely led to a person being paralyzed for the rest of her life. If you're looking for an example of frivolous lawsuits, this isn't the best one you could find.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Enzora

[Croc]

I don't argue with you because it's you, I just feel it's BS to sue someone who was trying to help and had the best of intentions. Maybe he could have done it better? Who knows, we weren't there to judge, and in this day and age, a lot of people with the slightest reason will try to sue. I just think it turns off people who want to help, but now have to think twice about being sued for it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This person may have had the absolute best of intentions, but their alleged irresponsibility paralyzed someone for life. That person can no longer work, travel independently, or live anything close to a normal life. Lifespan is decreased, and the person is completely dependent on the care and goodwill of others for the rest of his/her life because of the "Good Samaritan's" good intentions but (alleged) utter gross negligence.

What about a doctor who tries to save a patient by cutting off their arm when they had a papercut? Sure you can have great intentions, but you do not have carte blanche to be as reckless, thoughtless and irresponsible as you please simply because you "meant well."

[Intrepidation]

What about a doctor who tries to save a patient by cutting off their arm when they had a papercut? Sure you can have great intentions, but you do not have carte blanche to be as reckless, thoughtless and irresponsible as you please simply because you "meant well."

A papercut and a severe car wreck (not fender bender) aren't exactly apples to apples. I'd like to know whether the GS actually caused the paralysis or the wreck did.

Also, I somehow doubt that being pulled out of the car by the arm, as this woman alleges, would injury your back and lacerate your liver, the most that would happen is your shoulder gets dislocated. That's assuming she even was pulled by the arm and not by how the GS described it.

Torti said she put one arm under the victim's legs and one behind her back, carrying her out of the car. But Van Horn testified that her friend grabbed her by the arm and pulled her from the car "like a rag doll," allegedly causing injury to a vertebrae and a lacerated liver.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Enzora]

A papercut and a severe car wreck (not fender bender) aren't exactly apples to apples. I'd like to know whether the GS actually caused the paralysis or the wreck did.

It would be difficult to determine if she was paralyzed before or after the other woman tried to help her, but certainly the woman's actions did not help the situation.

One of the big issues in this case is whether or not it is reasonable to expect an untrained civilian to know what (and what not) to do in such a situation. I'm not sure how reasonable that is, but I do remember learning that avoiding spinal injury was priority #1 when I was in elementary school, even though I've never received any special training.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Enzora

[Blake Noble]

I do not support the plaintiff in this particular case. For starters, the injuries do not sound as if they could be caused by a swift tug to the arm. How could tugging on someone's arm cause a lacerated liver, for example? Sounds like an injury that could be inflicted by the seatbelt to me. And I've been tugged by the arm plenty of times before, and really hard too, and as far as I know my limbs are fully functional.

Edited December 22, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Enzora]

I do not support the plaintiff in this particular case. For starters, the injuries do not sound as if they could be caused by a swift tug to the arm. How could tugging on someone's arm cause a lacerated liver, for example? Sounds like an injury that could be inflicted by the seatbelt to me. And I've been tugged by the arm plenty of times before, and really hard too, and as far as I know my limbs are fully functional.

I don't think they are saying that the tugging caused her back to break. In these cases, people are urged not to move the injured person out of fear that their back is already broken and that any movement could cause the already-broken spine to shift and injure spinal cord.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Enzora

[Croc]

I do I remember learning that avoiding spinal injury was priority #1 when I was in elementary school, even though I've never received any special training.

Exactly.

And here's the thing: one of the issues to be decided is whether or not the GS' actions caused the injuries.

ALL THIS ARTICLE HAS SAID IS THAT THE COURT APPARENTLY FOUND THIS ISSUE ENOUGH IN CONTENTION FOR THE LAWSUIT TO GO TO TRIAL

Nothing more.

[Justin Bimmer]

I'm a law student in California and all I have to say is that people need to understand that there could be consequences for their actions. If you choose to undertake care for another and you put them into a positon where they are worse off then if you did not help, then there can be liability. Also, rescuers are only protected as long as they do not commit reckless acts. It could be argued that the act in this story is reckless.

Remember, if you change the facts of a story, then it changes the way the law will be applied.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Look, as long as you turn off the ignition, i dont care how much leaking fuel there is, there will be no ignition spark to set it off unless the electrical system is really hosed... or unlesss it gets to another car.

[Sixty8panther]

In FoGs defense, California DOES have a disproportionately large

amount of idiots, morons & waste-of-sperm-types living there, &

this coming from me, I live in the Socialist state of Taxachusetts.

[Croc]

In FoGs defense, California DOES have a disproportionately large

amount of idiots, morons & waste-of-sperm-types living there, &

this coming from me, I live in the Socialist state of Taxachusetts.

Really...how many times have you been there? As obsessed as you and several others seem to be on this site with denouncing California as being the home of some "crazy," "whacked out," and often "liberal" people, maybe you should think about how "crazy" and "whacked-out" you sound when painting such a broad brush across a state that, if separated from the US, would have the 9th largest GDP in the world and the 11th largest if measured by Purchasing Power Parity. What's funny is that in California, I never hear anyone obsessively deriding any other state in any way. There might be some NYC envy in LA, but Californians don't have pent-up hostility toward other states. It really says a lot more about you than it does us when you go on these ridiculous rants. Also, why do you care? How does it affect you in any other state what the Californian Supreme Court decides for the State of California? Oh, yeah, it doesn't! What this says to me is that whatever issue you have for whatever irrational reason, you're just looking for any possible reason to go on a rant about the good people of California. If what many of you typed about Californians were applied to different ethnicities or religions, it would be considered heinous bigotry and the mods would be taking care of it along with your memberships. But no. Frankly threads like these demonstrate just how low the common denominator at C&G has become since the gradual exodus began a year and a half ago. This site is but a shadow of itself, and it's the result of the assinine trolls and one-trick-ponies annoying all the intellectual members to the point of abandonment.

Keep it up guys, and see where these kinds of ignorant, ridiculous attitudes toward other Americans get this site. Merry f@#king Christmas.

[ocnblu]

But Mr. Croc, C&G members did not invent California jokes. They're all over the place. Some even originate within her borders. They're old-school. There are jokes about a lot of states...

You are not in CA for Christmas, are you?

[Croc]

Did I say anything about jokes? No. I clearly indicated my issue is with the rants. That said, many of those "jokes" can still be very offensive.

By the way, what California jokes are out there? The only one I know is the "cereal state--fruits, nuts and flakes." I'm really not familiar with any others.

[Nick]

I can relate to this story somewhat...

I used to work in a family owned pharmacy in a medical building. My old boss (from New Jersey, btw) strongly urged us not to help any of the customers for this exact reason.

Example...One day the elevator was broken. An elderly woman came in asking if she could get a hand walking up the stairs. While normally I would be a nice guy and help out, I had to refuse...well, my boss did for me I suppose. It is not worth the risk because if that woman was to get hurt while I was helping her, trip on the stairs, take a fall, hell, even develop some neck or back pain or something, not only would I get screwed, but so would my workplace if she decided to take action.

Apparently my boss experienced a situation like this first hand at one point, though I don't recall the example he had used.

The only exception I would have is I may be taking EMT/Paramedics courses in the idea of possibly becoming a firefighter/paramedic. If after such training I feel I could responsibly be of some assistance in a situation without placing the other person's life in harm, then maybe I would take action...otherwise, it is just best to notify and wait for the professionals.

[Justin Bimmer]

Croc, I'm with you on this. I live in California and I could start blasting away at all kinds of places that I have visited and learned about, but I see no need to do so. It is unfair that California has such a bad rap. I guess it isn't enough that we are basically the US treasury's ATM here, as we receive little back in federal money compared to what we pay, but that we also need to be the whipping boy of society as well.

I don't have a problem with anybody on this website, but it does get annoying when people bash California for having a lot of crazy people. When you are the most populated state, chances are you will have the most crazy people as well.

[Croc]

Croc, I'm with you on this. I live in California and I could start blasting away at all kinds of places that I have visited and learned about, but I see no need to do so. It is unfair that California has such a bad rap. I guess it isn't enough that we are basically the US treasury's ATM here, as we receive little back in federal money compared to what we pay, but that we also need to be the whipping boy of society as well.

I don't have a problem with anybody on this website, but it does get annoying when people bash California for having a lot of crazy people. When you are the most populated state, chances are you will have the most crazy people as well.

Exactly, except I don't know if we even deserve that dubious distinction--I mean Waco? The FLDS compound? The school district in the middle of nowhere that decided to give handguns to all their teachers in case they "needed" them...I think there are a lot of, um, outside-the-mainstream people in Texas. And don't get me started as Utah, the state that became populated as a safe haven for polygymists. Frankly, I think strict fundamentalists are "crazy" in the sense that their world outlook is almost the polar opposite of mine--yet that would indict pretty much the entire country, save the coasts.

It's just ridiculous that this amount of sheer ignorance pervades. I don't have a problem with anyone on the site, but I don't know hardly any of them in real life, so I won't judge. But what some posters appear to reveal about themselves on this site...let's just say I find it most dissimilar to what I would have expected.

[Intrepidation]

...back on topic.

I maintain that I don't like the idea of the lawsuit being allowed to go forward, for 2 reasons: the woman suing implied that her back was injured and her liver was lacerated while being pulled out of the car. I can see one, but the latter would clearly be the result of the accident. That she appears to be trying to pin it on the GS, makes it seem very fishy to me. The other reason is that it does make one hesitate to do stop and help someone, for fear they may be sued. That hesitation could have life or death consequences.

And while I do now admit that perhaps the GS should have just left the woman in the car, I believe she did it with the best of intentions, and it seems like a real slap in the face to her and to anyone who actually gives a damna bout other people and is willing to actually help someone in need.

The woman could have said, "No, I'm good, I'll just wait for the EMTs."

Anyway, this thread has degraded to mudslinging at CA for whatever reason. It's run it's course, I'm done with it.

[XP715]

I never hear anyone obsessively deriding any other state in any way.

New Jersey.

</thread>

[Intrepidation]

New Jersey.

</thread>

Well I'm going to hijack this thread for a better reason: dude what's the deal with that awesome sig?

[XP715]

Well I'm going to hijack this thread for a better reason: dude what's the deal with that awesome sig?

No reason, just a neat pic I found while dicking around online here at work, thought it would be an acceptable replacement for my '58 Chevrolet one-ton panel truck/bookmobile trailer combo that had been up since summer. Can't go wrong with a three-pack of 1959 Buicks, one in each basic bodystyle (two-door/four-door/wagon).

Edited December 24, 2008 by XP715

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Really...how many times have you been there? As obsessed as you and several others seem to be on this site with denouncing California as being the home of some "crazy," "whacked out," and often "liberal" people, maybe you should think about how "crazy" and "whacked-out" you sound when painting such a broad brush across a state that, if separated from the US, would have the 9th largest GDP in the world and the 11th largest if measured by Purchasing Power Parity. What's funny is that in California, I never hear anyone obsessively deriding any other state in any way. There might be some NYC envy in LA, but Californians don't have pent-up hostility toward other states. It really says a lot more about you than it does us when you go on these ridiculous rants. Also, why do you care? How does it affect you in any other state what the Californian Supreme Court decides for the State of California? Oh, yeah, it doesn't! What this says to me is that whatever issue you have for whatever irrational reason, you're just looking for any possible reason to go on a rant about the good people of California. If what many of you typed about Californians were applied to different ethnicities or religions, it would be considered heinous bigotry and the mods would be taking care of it along with your memberships. But no. Frankly threads like these demonstrate just how low the common denominator at C&G has become since the gradual exodus began a year and a half ago. This site is but a shadow of itself, and it's the result of the assinine trolls and one-trick-ponies annoying all the intellectual members to the point of abandonment.

Keep it up guys, and see where these kinds of ignorant, ridiculous attitudes toward other Americans get this site. Merry f@#king Christmas.

All of this whining over me saying "Naturally, it's in California."

And yes... As I said, you "took the bait" and we're made an example of. The reason I decided to make an example of you is because you called me out. If you don't want to get punched in the face, don't talk sh*t. You could've let it go, but you didn't.

Had I said something degrading or offensive, then more power to you and I probably would've eventually apologized or rationalized. But that wasn't the case.

I said nothing derogatory at all. In fact, what I said was OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Just because you interpreted it a certain way doesn't mean that it was meant that way.

I think it's funny how you always claim to be so non-judgmental, yet you're THE FIRST one to jump to conclusions and b*tch when someone 'offends' you.

I also think it's funny and ironic that the post I quoted pretty much proves the point it makes.

Besides, we all know it was Brian and his actions that started the "exodus". :twocents:

Edited December 24, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Intrepidation]

No reason, just a neat pic I found while dicking around online here at work, thought it would be an acceptable replacement for my '58 Chevrolet one-ton panel truck/bookmobile trailer combo that had been up since summer. Can't go wrong with a three-pack of 1959 Buicks, one in each basic bodystyle (two-door/four-door/wagon).

They are quite awesome, I'd like to know the story behind the photo if there is one. I bet it would be very interesting.

[Enzora]

I said nothing derogatory at all. In fact, what I said was OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Just because you interpreted it a certain way doesn't mean that it was meant that way.

Alright, FOG, since you've put yourself on the spot, would you please be so kind as to explain to us just what non-derogatory interpretation you meant to convey?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I meant it as a joke or sarcasm. It was taken as an insult.

Maybe I shouldn't have pushed the issue but Croc and I have had words before, so I guess it just pissed me off.

It just irks me that some people on this site get their panties in a tangle over the stupidist things. Like it or not, California does have a "reputation" and it's not a good one. But the same can be said for almost anything. The south and the appalachians have a "reputation" that the majority subscribes to... Detroit has a "reputation" that the majority subsribes to... Races/ethnicities have "reputations" that the majority subscribes to. Like it or not (i.e. Doesn't matter if it's true of not) this is reality. The fact that certain members feel it their duty to reprimand people like some sort of forum PC nannie makes them out to be "irksome" and arrogant. It's fake and shallow.

Edited December 24, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Justin Bimmer]

I see California's "reputation" as a state that is proactive with the environment, social policy, being attractive to millions of Americans as a place to live, and technology. I also see California as a state that has serious polarity in the legislature, a problem with water, and serious congestion and business problems that are driving away the people that want to move here.

That is a fair statement. Every state has its weirdos and freaks and crazies.

[Croc]

I see California's "reputation" as a state that is proactive with the environment, social policy, being attractive to millions of Americans as a place to live, and technology. I also see California as a state that has serious polarity in the legislature, a problem with water, and serious congestion and business problems that are driving away the people that want to move here.

That is a fair statement. Every state has its weirdos and freaks and crazies.

This is what I'd subscribe to, and I'd only add beautiful coastlines, Hollywood, and freeways. FHWA design standards were almost entirely taken by Caltrans standards developed well before any federal standards existed, from striping, signage, interchange designs, etc.

CA is also the car culture capital of the world. Drive-thru, fast food, street racing (still very common, although illegal)...all born here. And nowhere else do you see as many wonderfully-preserved classics on the streets everyday.

[Croc]

All of this whining over me saying "Naturally, it's in California."

...

Had I said something degrading or offensive, then more power to you and I probably would've eventually apologized or rationalized. But that wasn't the case.

...

I said nothing derogatory at all. In fact, what I said was OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Just because you interpreted it a certain way doesn't mean that it was meant that way.

Really? Don't think so. And while you were the only poster I called out by handle, I made it clear that it was directed at others. You're not the first, but merely the latest to express such disdain for CA, and disdain with very little basis in reality.

And the "oh, you chose to take it the wrong way" defense is really weak. I stopped using that one in HS. Like Enzora, I'm eagerly awaiting your explanation of an inoffensive way to interpret that post.

And yes... As I said, you "took the bait" and we're made an example of. The reason I decided to make an example of you is because you called me out. If you don't want to get punched in the face, don't talk sh*t. You could've let it go, but you didn't.

My dignity is fully intact over here; I don't know what you're talking about.

I think it's funny how you always claim to be so non-judgmental, yet you're THE FIRST one to jump to conclusions and b*tch when someone 'offends' you.

How does that make me judgmental at all? Outspoken, not afraid to stand up to someone on the internet? Yup. But not judgmental. The fact that you say you were baiting me merely proves you were trying to pick a fight. Mission accomplished.

Besides, we all know it was Brian and his actions that started the "exodus". :twocents:

I had no idea the site was so dependent on a single individual's contributions.

I meant it as a joke or sarcasm. It was taken as an insult.

Maybe I shouldn't have pushed the issue but Croc and I have had words before, so I guess it just pissed me off.

It just irks me that some people on this site get their panties in a tangle over the stupidist things. Like it or not, California does have a "reputation" and it's not a good one. But the same can be said for almost anything. The south and the appalachians have a "reputation" that the majority subscribes to... Detroit has a "reputation" that the majority subsribes to... Races/ethnicities have "reputations" that the majority subscribes to. Like it or not (i.e. Doesn't matter if it's true of not) this is reality. The fact that certain members feel it their duty to reprimand people like some sort of forum PC nannie makes them out to be "irksome" and arrogant. It's fake and shallow.

You say certain races/ethnicities have "reputations" that the majority subscribes to--that's stereotyping, and just because the majority subscribes to it doesn't make it any less inaccurate or offensive. Racial stereotypes, when acted upon, are the foundation of racism. Racism is bigotry. Like it or not, that's reality. Going on and on about "crazy California" is NO DIFFERENT than someone going on and on about "half-ass backward, dumb-as-&#036;h&#33; Apalachia," something which I have NEVER done on this site. Like it or not, that's the "reputation" your region has that the majority subscribes to. And I know you don't like it and take offense to it, as you should. That kind of speech is offensive and inappropriate, whether applied to California or Apalachia, or New England, or China. If your region were constantly being knocked on here, I wouldn't criticize you one bit for standing up for yourself with a reasoned counter.

You don't know me and you won't know me, so don't go calling me fake and shallow. Anyone who has met me in real life knows those adjectives aren't even close to who I am, or what I'm about. What is really shallow is taking a stereotype and applying it to 38M people based on the state in which they live.

It has nothing to do with being a forum PC nanny, but everything to do with keeping this site civil and enjoyable for me and my fellow Californians. Would you really stick around if a small but vocal contingent of posters bagged on Apalachia day in and day out? No, after a while you'd get tired of it and pissed too.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Croc