She claimed she'd face undue hardship because it's during the school week.
What?
She's got a husband. I bet she still has a nanny - she mentioned having one in her book. She's got two brothers that aren't going to be testifying at the same time.
The kids will be in school for 8 hours, and literally any one of those people could watch her kids for the remaining time. Normal people have to deal with this all the time.
No, I read one of the many ridicule reviews that are quotes pieces. In this quote, she said that most of the good pics she has of her kids came from the nanny during the day.
I hope this lawsuit forces them to remove this. I’m sorry this young girl died. This isn’t the first issue they had with this drink. My husband and I were discussing it months ago. He thought it was just lemonade - sugar, water, lemons. We didn’t figure out why he was up all night. Later someone old him how much caffeine it has. We had no idea. It’s dangerous to those with high bp.
I’m not going to lie when I first read the headline I thought this was probably a frivolous lawsuit but after reading the article I thought that stuff should get pulled.
It's like that McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. Poor lady was made a mockery of for ordering hot coffee because it sounds ridiculous at first but she had 2nd degree burns. It was recklessly hot, as was this drink recklessly produced and marketed.
She initially asked for just 20k to cover her medical bills, and they instead offered like $800.
Also of note, that huge 2.7mil fine the jury found? Just the profits from 2 days of McDonald’s coffee sales. The judge reduced it to $650k, but even that likely wasent paid as they settled out of court at that point.
It was also discovered that McDonald’s was aware of the danger of serving their coffee that hot, yet they continued to do so because it meant they had to give fewer free refills. If you have to wait 20 minutes for your coffee to cool down before you drink it, you’re going to get less refills overall
The worst part of that is knowing they probably determined it’s cheaper to settle injuries than keep it at the temps they were supposed to. I know corporations are soulless money making machines but that always feels extra dark to think about
The worst part: Corporations are run by people, people hired to do a job, people who can say “fuck no, I’m not doing this evil thing for a couple bucks of a raise”… but eventually some people get hired who will do that evil thing, even with no raise.
Remember Google’s “don’t be evil”? Eventually they hired enough people who don’t care, that they could remove the slogan.
I thought the specific wording in their documentation was because they wanted the smell of the coffee to fill the restaurant. Did McDonald’s give refills of coffee?
Funny you should mention that. I use to work for the franchise owner who’s brother-in-law (who also worked for the franchise) gave that woman the cup of coffee (or so he would say) when they were franchising with McDonalds. And guess where I was working at the time? Panera
The McDonald's lady's case blew up because the jury slapped McDonald's with huge punitive damages. If she would have gotten the 10-30k she asked for initially or even just the 125k for actual damages no one would care about the case. But the 2.7 million in punitive damages just make this lawsuit seem frivolous. But she had no control over that.
And IIRC one big reason why she won was because the cups weren't suited for holding such hot liquid. The temperature of coffee didn't decrease in McDonald's after the lawsuit.
There were several factors at once. Serving to a customer at 180+ is a bit high. And that particular machine was slightly overcalibrated. It was 193 degrees if I recall, not 180-190. And then, yeah, the cups are crap.
I didn’t fully appreciate our mouth’s tolerance to temperature until I was lazy the other day and used my finger to stir some tea instead of going back to the kitchen and getting a spoon.
Blazing hot for a finger, nice and refreshing for a drink
Gonna suggest it’s less simple than that. The mouth only touches a small amount of fluid at once. The temperature plummets really quickly when you sip the hot coffee.
When you stick a finger in the coffee, there’s a lot more coffee keeping the liquid contacting your finger hot. That’s why you sip hot coffee. If you do a quick dip with your finger, it won’t burn.
It’s similar to how you can accidentally brush a hot pan and not get a burn.
It should be brewed at 195-205 F, just a bit higher than McDonalds served it.
But normally it would quickly cool down after it’s brewed. Any burning from reaching that temp is from a hot plate exceeding the temp and burning the bits of oil and soot that are in contact with the plate. Water, and I assume coffee, can’t be heated above boiling at 212 F anyway, but the hot plate and carafe or urn parts can, and steam can, and oil can.
Anyway I’m just saying it would be reasonable for fresh and good-tasting coffee to be in that temperature range. But it’s only going to stay there for any length of time if it’s burned on a hot plate or, more ideally, dripped directly into an insulated container.
It’s more likely their coffee tastes like shit because it was badly roasted, ground months ago, has since gone stale and bitter, and is full of unnecessary added chemicals and preservatives, just like the rest of their shit food.
Do a bit of research into the marketing actually used for this drink. Assuming the store uses the standard Panera marketing, there’s a big sign on the dispenser saying how much caffeine is in it. It’s a tragic mistake, but unless that location uniquely screwed up, that’s all it is.
I noted that. Yet another commentor linked to a vlog where the signs weren’t present because the dispensers were behind the counter and had to be ordered. I think there are absolutely locations NOT showing the marketing.
But please check out the other comments here and see the one showing what the dispensers with signs look like. Those are BIG signs with BIG mention of caffeine.
I don’t think they’re legally liable after what I’ve read through and personally experienced – but I absolutely don’t think this is a frivolous lawsuit. It’s still worth merit when it comes to signage and frankly medical testing.
The biggest problem is that she drank it without knowing the heart condition. We need to have better detection and screening to make sure people know this.
Katz had a heart condition called long QT syndrome type 1 and avoided energy drinks at the recommendation of her doctors, according to the filing.
her roommate and close friend, Victoria Rose Conroy [said,] “She was very, very vigilant about what she needed to do to keep herself safe,” Conroy said. “I guarantee if Sarah had known how much caffeine this was, she never would have touched it with a 10-foot pole.”
Yeah, I also wasn’t aware. I imagine there were signs, but who looks for the caffeine content of lemonade? In my case I just had a dash t flavor soda, so I didn’t notice until my kid pointed it out
Similarly, when my kids were little, I kept them away from stimulants, but who expects to have to prohibit lemonade for the caffeine hit?
The Charged Lemonade was “offered side-by-side with all of Panera’s non-caffeinated and/or less caffeinated drinks” and was advertised as a “plant-based and clean” beverage that contained as much caffeine as the restaurant’s dark roast coffee, according to photos of both the menu and beverage dispensers in the store, which were included in the wrongful death lawsuit.
Forget the article; go to an actual Panera. The amount of caffeine is clearly labeled right under the name of the drink. To be fair, their drinks contain way too much, but you can’t say that they don’t already make the label clear and easy to interpret. People are idiots who don’t read the label beyond the “lemonade” part.
I don’t think it’s “way too much”. A large of those every morning is still under the “healthy” FDA recommendations, wherein there are zero known negative side-effects for most people.
contained as much caffeine as the restaurant’s dark roast coffee
That part. Though I don’t think people realize how much caffeine is in their dark roast coffee. Because it is more caffeine than multiple energy drinks for the same volume. There’s a reason a standard cup of coffee is like 6 oz instead of 20 oz.
Standard isn’t what people drink. It’s what the nutrition label on the package and medical guidelines are generally talking about, though. When the FDA says 4-5 cups of coffee is safe for most adults, they don’t mean 48-100oz of coffee.
But as to who makes 6 oz cups? When you make coffee yourself, the cups on the coffee maker are 6 oz.
“Plant based and clean with as much caffeine as our dark roast coffee.” is the full quote. Then, it lists the specific amount of caffeine for the two sizes.
You can argue it should have a more eye-catching and cautionary presentation, but it’s disingenuous to say it wasn’t clear and explicit.
I don’t mind it existing as a product. If it does though it should be very clearly labeled with warnings that are impossible to miss. This seems great for Panaras on college campuses, but there should be no possibility you confuse it for something else.
Most light- to medium-roasts approach 150mg/250mL. The one I’m baselining is Dunkin Donuts, the most popular coffee in the US. A standard Large Iced has almost 400mg of caffeine. You can order it with a shot of espresso, if you like.
We have to remember that the drink she was consuming (multiple times) was a 30oz. There are very few coffees with less than 350-400mg of caffeine in a 24oz size (or smaller)
Wondering the context of this question, considering the topic of this particular chain. Someone said 400mg is excessive, and then someone else doubled-down that they thought coffee didn’t have 400mg of caffeine.
And if it helps you feel better, this actually is coffee. It’s the same green coffee extract that Starbucks Refreshers use, more of it (ironically, Starbucks no longer advertises that their refreshers are caffeinated like they used to despite the fact they are).
Interesting. I tried to find an informative link about green coffee extract, and I stumbled into this. People are acting like that lemonade is this stuff. LOL
You used the size of the lemonade to argue its caffeine content was not excessive given the lemonade was larger in volume than a comparable coffee beverage.
But the topic of this chain started with the girl not realizing the drink was caffeinated to begin with.
The context of my question was calling into doubt the relevance of caffeine to volume ratio in defining “excessive” when the underlying issue was accidental consumption due to (alleged) poor product labeling.
Given she had a heart condition, any amount seems to have been “excessive”.
I think you just made the mistake of conceding my whole point. Yes, if she shouldn’t have had ANY caffeine, we have a problem. And the problem is that she walked to a self-service area where over 90% of the beverages are caffeinated (they have maybe 2 or 3 things that aren’t, tops?), and she filled her cup with the ONLY one that explicitly advertised being caffeinated.
Back to your question:
How many people are confusing a large iced coffee with a shot of espresso as a caffeine free beverage?
Yet again, I don’t think this question is relevant ESPECIALLY now that you conceded that the amount of caffeine is irrelevant and not problematic. But here’s the key quotes of the thread, and why I felt your question was out-of-touch:
“More caffeine than two energy drinks combined seems very excessive to me.” <–topic is amount of caffeine
"What coffee are you drinking that has almost 400mg of caffeine in it? Most have around 100mg." <–topic is amount of caffeine
"How many people are confusing a large iced coffee with a shot of espresso as a caffeine free beverage?" <–topic is “caffeine-free beverage”
Note, you just accepted my side of the underlying discussion as fact because it didn’t matter to your new point. That’s how I know your reply was a context-switch.
Can you show me where I conceded your point? That was not my intention, as I do not concede your point. To the contrary, I assume the “typical” coffee contains far less than 400mg of caffeine.
I further do not concede that the drink was adequately labeled as caffeinated. Not because I know it wasnt, I don’t, but since the girl knew she couldn’t have caffeine it seems unlikely she would intentionally ignore information about caffeine content that was adequately marked.
It’s possible she was being generally unobservant, maybe even fair to assume it, but that just brings us back around to the only point I’ve tried to make. It’s reasonable to assume lemonade is not caffeinated since AFAIK it’s pretty much always uncaffeinated. So it doesn’t necessarily matter how many beverages at the self serve were caffeinated because who has ever heard of caffeinated lemonade?
There’s no calculation she should have been expected to assume re: caffeine to volume ratio of lemonade so it’s not a stretch that she wouldn’t think to check.
The fact that any amount would have been too much was just a compounding factor in a tragedy.
The average cup of coffee has about 95mg of caffeine (found it: www.mayoclinic.org/…/art-20049372). So each of these lemonades she drank was over 4 cups of coffee.
If she was able to miss the labeling, which is reasonable to assume - bc she would she ignore it on purpose? - then it would have been very easy for her to ingest an extreme amount of caffeine in a short period of time, which is what I assume happened.
Girl dies from drinking caffeine presumably millions of people drink every year.
/u/Orionza I hope this lawsuit forces them to remove this.
Per Google definition
adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Seems arbitrary to me. If we just start removing items because someone unalive themselves with it… where does that line get drawn? The regular 20-ounce serving has 260 milligrams. The can of energy drink in front of me is 200mg @ 12 oz. So per fluid ounce, it’s not that high.
If I get in a car accident and die… are we going to call for the removal of cars? Just the model that killed me? How is this the companies/products fault?
When he was just running Tesla and SpaceX, and generally keeping his mouth shut he seemed okay. It was around Hyperloop that he started to show his true self.
“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”
– Musk Tweeted that after getting criticized for censoring Twitter in Turkey and India. So apparently if North Korea allowed Twitter, he’d happily censor away since that would be the law.
The good ol “Everything I say has super smart and deep meaning that needs to be explained everytime I make seemingly absurd, contradictory and short-sighted comments.” What a deep, mysterious and nuanced fellow.
Jones’ general unsecured creditors—comprised mostly of Sandy Hook families holding about $1.5 billion in defamation judgments against the famed conspiracy theorist—voted 100% in favor of a Chapter 11 plan that would methodically liquidate and redistribute his property and cash, while preserving potential legal actions against parties affiliated with Jones and his Infowars program.
I hope he dies penniless under a bridge somewhere, like the troll he is.
Once you reach a certain level of wealthy, you literally cannot die poor. Sadly this isn’t the movie trading places. Billionaires don’t go fully broke, they’re always allowed to keep a certain level of wealth forever after
Well ya super rich people designed the entire legal system in the US specifically to protect themselves from ever have to face any real consequences for their crimes. You dont have to look much further than Donald J Trump to see how thats working.
I agree with you. Just a note, though; Alex isn’t a billionaire. Even the plaintiff’s lawyers estimated his wealth at only “as much as $270M”. It still makes me sad to realize how many people he grifted, defamed, and otherwise harmed to make that much money…
Funny thing is that his base really doesn’t like losers.
Yeah but they would never blindly follow a loser. All these court cases and elections are just frauds and everyone knows that if you’ve been frauded you didn’t really lose! 100% win rate confirmed, logical consistency achieved.
Yup, usually an African prince trying to hide his wealth ends up giving a sack of cash to homeless, temporarily embarrassed billionaires while he’s on a date with a business mogul’s knockoff’s daughter.
The vote indicates the creditors’ preference over a competing plan submitted by Jones that would allow him to reorganize by preserving parts of his media empire and paying the group at least $5.5 million a year over 10 years.
Lmao this part cracks me up the most. He was like “how about instead of selling all my stuff, I give you pennies on the dollar of what I owe you for a few years and we call it good?”
He’s been dealing with some of the dumbest fucks on the planet (his viewers/listeners) for so long he thinks ridiculous shit like that works on everyone
Exactly! They know their book says “love your neighbor” and care for the widow, the orphan & the stranger, but they don’t even vaguely do anything like that.
It’s so hard to tell anymore, but it’s either sarcasm or misinformation because the plaque is still on the statue and a replica of it is displayed in the museum.
Gotta question whether even White Northern Europeans would be accepted by these people. I suspect no, not really. Such is the extent of the hateful fear mongering they subject themselves to daily.
So racist they hate everyone who isn’t themselves.
TBH I detest much of humanity as well, but it’s mostly because there are so many of us that we’re wrecking the planet / ecosystem. It’s easy psychologically to dislike the faceless ‘other’ until you meet them personally and grok their individual humanity. At least I understand the concept and can temper my instincts with logic. These dipshits need a good therapy session.
I don’t know why people are down voting you. This is exactly what Pew Research has said about religious “nones” in America. The number of dyed-in-the-wool atheists is still quite low and projected to decrease because birth rates.
The reason for the low “nones” is because those who profess to being atheists and agnostics are discriminated against, socially, employment-wise and politically. The vast majority of so-called Christians don’t believe a fucjing thing in the bible - it’s a dishonest social maneuver designed to create acceptance by the tribe, especially if you are a low-life.
Because things that previously were general “adulting” functions have been hypercommodified and we’re left having to navigate the world with less money, less time, and less idea of what’s real and what’s a scam.
This isn’t a generational issue, it’s fucking capitalism.
Thank you! I get so tired of the generational generalizations. And you’re right, it’s getting more difficult for working people of all ages to navigate this late stage capitalism shit show.
The old(?) Ricola cough drops commercials. They were huge in the '90s, not sure about since then though (I stopped watching tv a little after that period).
It will be the anti surge. Just charge prices 3x higher but if you own the app and come in between 1pm and 5pm you can get 50% off. I hate this “own the app for discounts” but this is 100% what will happen. Id be willing to wager my sons entire life on this.
an app which invades your phone and gives them shitloads of data
Their app isn’t too bad (at least for now). It has enough data collection that I wouldn’t want to download it, but it isn’t just strait spyware like some fast food apps cough McDonald’s.
edit to clarify: is it a useful feature? I guess. but, I very much doubt that people are using that feature more than the first time they find a location. or needing to.
I have set it as “Ask me everytime” and only used it when I needed to locate a nearby McD. Recently the “Deals” stopped showing up as it required location data with precision setting turned on. So, if I need to use the Deals I need to share my location which shows that they are mining your data for the deals. I kill the app after I order as they don’t need to track me from my home to the restaurant.
Speaking of things that the McDonald’s app has access to, I just double checked mine on Android and it has permissions to access your pictures and files by default, I’m sure it was part of that thing that you just select through in order to access the app but that’s kind of concerning can understand location, files is a little weird
The earlier version required access to all your files to even start. They did update it to not need that anymore. But if you already had it installed with access to files, it kept that access.
But, yes, that’s completely unacceptable they required that at all.
I think all CEOs think their clientele are dumb. It’s literally the only real requirement to be a CEO, besides already being rich and knowing the right people.
This is exactly what Sonic does with drinks. They used to have a half price afternoon window, but now I believe you have to use the app to get it (not 100% sure, their food is garbage)
there’s an old not-chain drive-in diner near here that’s a thousand times better. (and I mean, like it’s been around long enough to have been one of the OG’s.) IIRC, the only thing I really liked was their ice.
The CEO should be fired. Thousands of restaurants already have variable, demand based pricing, but no one cares because those restaurants call it “happy hour”.
I mean in the CEOs defense most people are fucking dumb. I mean just look what happened to jcpenney, their CEO decided let’s stop with the bullshit no more fake sales no more fake prices everything is the real price on the sticker and it almost bankrupted them.
People were so stupid that they would go to the store across the mall to buy the exact same pair of pants that JCPenney was selling for $20 normal price at $40 “half off” because brain stupid likes the shiny discount sign
it doesn’t help that they have an entire army of Doctorates specialized in the psychology of marketing just to bypass your reasoning for emotion.
our brains are designed to process emotion before reason on account of evolution so it’s not as simple as to say “people are dumb”… even if… people are dumb.
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin called today’s vote to oust McCarthy a “sad day for our country” that sends a negative message to the rest of the world about American democracy.
-Said a douchebag who spent years obstructing progress.
Perhaps. But consider Speaker Jordan. McCarthy may be a jellyfish who had no business wrapping his tentacles around the House gavel, but he at least tried to slither across the aisle on occasion.
Including the fact that there are plenty of other Democratic senators who believe the same shit he does and vote accordingly but he’s doing what he agreed to do as the public whipping boy.
He doesn’t always vote with the democrats, but if a republican had won that seat, they would be much more likely to side with the republicans.
He hasn’t done anything single-handedly, in every case where he gets blamed, it’s because there’s a huge Republican minority opposing something and he joins them. You can never blame him unless you’re first blaming all the Republicans he’s joining.
He’s a lightning rod because people think that for some reason he should vote with the democrats every time, but that’s not realistic. He’s a democrat from a very conservative state. The problem isn’t Manchin, it’s that they have to rely on Manchin and Sinema so much. If the democrats had a firm majority, his votes wouldn’t matter. Instead he’s often the deciding vote on something, so if he doesn’t support it it fails. But, again, it would be worse if a Republican had won instead. Right now the senate is 51/49, and the Democrats can occasionally pass things. If Manchin had lost it would be 50/50 and they’d virtually never pass anything.
When people look back at Biden’s term, they’ll note that it was the Republican who blocked everything, and that the 51/49 senate was too close to pass anything meaningful. Sinema and Manchin will probably get a mention, but anybody objective will note that it was the Republicans who blocked things, not Manchin and Sinema.
There are two things he’s useful for: having a Democrat as Senate Majority Leader, and he actually does side with Dems on voting rights most of the time (even co-sponsoring bills). That’s it. Other than that, might as well let the seat fall to a Republican for all the good he does.
With his position as swing vote, Manchin is arguably the most powerful person in the world. He’s doing fuck all with that power besides obstructing things. If I were a W. Virginia voter with sense, I would be asking how he’s using his position to help W. Virginia. You want to bring jobs and industry and sweet government pork to your state, Joe? You’re in a prime position to do it.
He’s like the swing vote guy, or one of them. Votes against party policy.
Summary of voting record: opposes big business, environmental protection, financial sector regulation, gun control, hawkish foreign policy, foreign and humanitarian aid, taxing the middle class, military spending, domestic surveillance. Supports taxing businesses, restrict money in politics, consumer protection, disaster relief, funding education, public health, labor rights and wages, lgbt rights, internet freedom, a robust safety net, higher spending, women’s rights.
He's the dem senator from west Virginia. He's a coal barron we put up with because if he lost a Republican would most likely take his seat. He's the Senate's kingmaker
The real rich don’t pay any income tax tho? Not sure what you mean. Sure the high-income developers and engineers and lawyers etc. would become a richer, but they are not the rich, are they? The owners of the businesses they work at are. And they don’t pay income taxes.
In the USA in 2021, the top 1% of earners payed 26.3% of federal income from taxes, $3,872,395,000,000 Total. The top 50% of earners payed 89.6% of income taxes.
You could argue that the “true” rich people weren’t earners because they took out loans against their stocks and properties, but they’re either going to sell or die sometime and that has been true for centuries. However, Elon Musk for example won’t make your list if that’s how you measure it because he did sell and he paid billions in taxes.
That nicer place is probably at home. Not that there’s anything wrong with it. But I think all fast food chains raised prices? At least here in Europe it’s not like McDonald’s is somehow standing out as more expensive. Worse, yes. But that was always the case
You’re failing to realize that the issue here is that it went from basically the cheapest food you could buy to more expensive than cooking at home is the issue here.
Millions of people grew up eating this crap cuz it was cheap. Now that it’s as expensive as other better options people are starting to realize it isn’t cheap anymore.
I know a Sysco burger when I see one. Normal burgers aren’t chode cylinders; Sysco burgers have goddamn right angles. They taste like they’re about 40% gristle. It’s basically just the “technically beef” parts of dollar store dog food pressed into the vague shape of a burger patty. The paper that separates the frozen turd patties is better, both in terms of flavor and nutrition. Fuck Sysco burgers. If Sysco reads this and doesn’t like what I have to say, they can go fuck themselves until their asshole is as fucked up as a Sysco burger eater’s asshole 93 minutes after their shitty lunch.
Sysco supplies a lot of restaurants with food, all kinds of places. But they have also optimized and helped with Enshitification by having restaurants mold their menu on the offerings of Sysco.
What ends up happening is every Mexican, Burger, and pretty much everything else that buys from Sysco tastes exactly the same. Mexican food is especially obvious.
I chose to label it that way since all these places that had to make their own food are just making the same, tasteless meals.
I go to a mom and pop Mexican place and it’s the same shitty salsa, chips, and menu options. Same with burgers and so many others. I just need to learn to cook better quick meals.
That just means it’s shitty and common (due to its ease) though. Please don’t let enshitification lose its meaning like the word “literally” did - we’ve got a good thing going there.
Sysco provides a lot of restaurant ingredients/premade food. Your chili from fancy restaurant might just be the same damn thing from Wendy’s, the dollar store, and the niche “homemade” food cart.
They might decorate it a bit differently once they open the bag.
This isn’t a good or bad thing. It’s how you can order fries in Maine and California, and they still taste the same. But also why some restaurants, side dishes taste the damn same.
Though I’m sure a lot of them are just variations on leanness and package size. Point is, unless you’re going to a specialty place, any restaurant is going to be buying Sysco patties (or at best, Sysco ground beef packs and hand-formed into patties) but the nicer restaurants are going to be using the better choices, and the shitty places are going to be using the cheapest ground beef formed into a cylinder and frozen.
I hate McDonalds, but on roadtrips they are usually a godsend. A lot of them still have a play place which lets my kids be monkeys for a bit, and the Happy Meals give them a shitty toy to occupy their time for the evening.
It sucls, I don’t eat there, but McD’s has its place.
I’ve eaten a lot of burgers and fries in my life and can’t think of a single place that replicates a McDonalds burger and fry. Having the same menu item (as in a “double cheeseburger”) doesn’t mean anything as they all taste and look different from one another.
If you go to a McDonalds you know exactly what you’ll get
A poorly put together “meal” that very likely has been sitting under a heater for a length of time unless you went there when it was busy. And if it was busy, the chance for mistake is high and it’s going to be sloppily put together. What so you can save a few minutes? Most places do take-away… so you call them, place an order, pick it up. No sitting 10-20 minutes in drive-thru. And you got more food, better food, for the exact same price and you probably got it faster on take-out. And dining in… you wait a few minutes… how do you not have a few minutes?
And who actually cares about familiarity? That’s either saying, you go to that one place way to much and your food choices are predictable and boring. Or you’re highly susceptible to advertising. And really, those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
Speed, for one. If I’m traveling across the country and I just want to eat and get back on the road, or even if I just need some breakfast before work, it’s a lot faster.
Seriously. For the same price as McD's I can go to In-n-Out. That's just comparing fast food places. For the price they're charging for a Quarter Pounder I may as well go to a sit-down restaurant.
Obvious food quality and health issues aside, I know some are still boycotting McDonald’s for providing free meals to the IDF. They also exploit forced prison labor to drive profits.
Yeah I can get a better burger/fry combo from a local restaurant that uses high quality ingredients and cares about having my business. There’s no reason to pay the same for low quality junk from a fast food chain.
That would be great, but police can barely take a person’s guns away if they aren’t actively involved in a crime. I’d be shocked if a court found an HOA to have that power. I’m not against it but I don’t even think the Supreme Court of 12 years ago would do for it, much less this Supreme Court.
I doubt that fine would be legal. The most I’ve seen is just a standard requirement for a license/permit (i.e. legal ownership), and maybe restricting open/concealed-carry in the neighborhood (but outside the house. Inside your house is out of the HOA’s grasp, though.)
HOAs implement illegal rules all the time. They were literally first used to end run discrimination laws. It doesn't even have to be insurance, it could be something else to frustrate gun owners lives. That's the beauty of selective enforcement /s
Illicit rule making being in their repertoire wouldn’t make it any more just (two wrongs, and everything) or enforceable, as the gun owner could easily just not abide by or pay it. Also, Making any regulation/fee or anything to “frustrate” gun owners could also be seen as harassment.
There is no indication that the guy ever used or brandished the gun outside his home, which is where the HOA’s jurisdiction would be. Like I said, the HOA can’t do a damn thing about what goes on inside someone’s home. If they were to try, it would fall flat the minute it gets challenged especially with Kansas being one of the states having a castle doctrine which implies the possibile use of a gun (i.e. deadly force) for defense.
The case is likely going to be about the castle doctrine and it’s limits on whether someone standing on your doorstep constitutes a threat, (which it doesn’t) along with trying to prove that the kid was trying to break in (this I doubt) which could justify an imminent threat.
I am in no way on the side of the old man. I actually think he was completely in the wrong (also got off way too easy) and the kid was legitimately just at the wrong house.
My opinion is the man should be evaluated for mental fitness and if unfit would be required to need a caretaker, of sorts. If no mental issues, be tried and convicted for the first degree assault (attempted homicide) charge.
The HOA however does not have any actual stake in it that I’ve found, as the kid was shot from behind the storm door by the old man who was inside his house.
Yes. I’m not saying that they wouldn’t try to come up with bogus/farfetched regulations, but they legitimately cannot do anything about what goes on behind closed doors in someone’s house. To do otherwise would be a breach in that person’s right to privacy. It’d be like an HOA telling you, you have to vacuum/sweep/mop every other day, otherwise you can be fined. (or saying you can’t have sex on Sundays)
HOAs do have some extralegal clout, but the right to privacy stops them from interfering in anything you do that isn’t openly visible. (i.e. Doing a meatspin in front of a window facing the street can be penalized, but taking a dump in your kitchen sink can’t, unless the sink is in front of a window facing the street and the blinds/curtains/shutters are open.)
And if they do, they open themselves up to a lawsuit.
But, in relation to the story. It’s a gun owning, likely conservative (and MAGA’d), prejudicial old white man with nothing better to do but watch his balls sink lower and lower. Harassing him or his money with BS regulations for him having a gun in his house will just have him spend the huge amount of free time he has fighting them and likely filing a claim/s against the HOA
Guns aren’t cheap. If you can buy a gun, and you can buy ammo, you can afford insurance. It’s only the well off who already can afford firearms so I don’t get what you’re arguing? You wanna give guns to poor people?
No, all of that is wrong, and yes, the poor people should have guns. Everyone has the right to self defense.
Guns can be cheap, ammo is generally affordable, and there could be many who could afford both but not insurance. $250 one time purchase versus $hundreds or $thousands annually.
Also, there’s no way in hell you could put a requirement to pay regular insurance costs as a requirement to exercise a Constitutional right. The courts would flush that down the shithole immediately.
Ah yes, let’s ensure only the well off can afford firearms.
Let’s be fair, half the point of an HOA is keeping the poors (and ethnics, but they aren’t allowed to say that part out loud any more) out of your neighborhood to maintain property values. So your HOA requiring you to carry some kind of gun insurance wouldn’t be completely unreasonable, if you can’t afford it (or anything else they want) you shouldn’t be living under that HOA.
Also why I don’t live in an HOA, and having an HOA was a red flag when I was looking for a house.
I’d be shocked if a court found an HOA to have that power.
Courts have pretty consistently found that HOA’s have more power than local authorities. That’s why they can set their own laughably restrictive bylaws.
Second amendment violations may not fly, but that’s a constitutionality problem, not a limit specifically on HOAs.
I hate HOA’s, but some people like them. Regardless of how I feel about HOA’s I still think it’s dumb as hell that they should have any sort of liability for a member of an hoa doing something like this.
The percentage of people I know that like HOAs is absurdly small, including neighbors and acquaintances from the last HOA I was in. Almost everyone I know hates them but is forced to deal with them because almost every neighborhood has one. Towns require them for new zoning because it allows them to pass the buck on code enforcement and then a handful of people love them because it lets them power trip The vast majority are just stuck with them due to lack of options.
That, or a developer buys a plot of land, makes a neighborhood with some amenities, and then it’s damn near impossible to kill because of those amenities. My HOA is pretty lightweight - half our budget pays the trash bill. But we do have a few plots of land that belong to the association, don’t even have any structures on them, and if the HOA were to dissolve someone would need to assume responsibility for those spots. I can only imagine what it would be like if we had a pool.
I’ve ran into a lot of people living in them who like em. Some people are just anal about wanting to only see trimmed uniform lawns and no trashcans or broken down vehicles anywhere near them.
I think it’s dumb to let others have a say in what color I make my house or how long I can have a car sit as a driveway ornament.
We specifically only looked for houses without HOAs, then during closing it was revealed that there was one the realtor “missed” because it was basically defunct. Within weeks of moving in we got a letter saying how the HOA was stepping up its game to make up for the last few years and it became the bane of our existence. One of the board members was obsessed with issuing citations and fining people for backing cars into their driveways because “the CCRs say that you can’t park a vehicle in an extreme state of disrepair for more than 48 hours so if you back it in I can’t see if it has a current registration sticker on the license plate.” The only people I’ve ever met that like them are control freak karens like that dude.
You should have bailed at closing and fired your realtor with prejudice. Most realtors are almost bigger pieces of scum than hoa’s. Taking like 12 grand each for doing up a bit of paperwork. You can pay a lawyer $1500 and find your own place on zilliw or Facebook marketplace. I bought my house in 2010 with no realtors or lawyers at all (seller also didn’t have one). Just met up at the bank I was getting the home loan through and filed some generic stuff. Done deal.
It wasn’t worth starting over again with the way the market was. It was Seattle area in 2017 where every sale was a bidding war. There are good realtors, that just wasn’t one.
When moving to an unfamiliar area there’s tons of value to a good realtor. To know what the local market is like, which school districts matter to which people. Which roads can flood and what your morning commute is going to be like or how loud the planes are going to be over the house. I can spend weeks doing all the leg work myself but realistically, my time is worth more than that to me. A shitty realtor doesn’t give much value, a good one absolutely can. Also, working as an intermediary with shitty sellers or buyers to insulate you from other peoples unreasonableness is one of their main jobs.
The realtor we used to buy that HOA house saw us as a zero effort easy payday. The one that sold that house for us did an absolutely amazing job and the one we used to buy our current home got us a house we absolutely love for less than we were looking to spend.
Yeah, that part of the suit will fail. But I think it’s worth trying to expand the dragnet of responsible parties regardless. The more people at risk of going to jail for shootings, the more people might support gun control.
It isn’t the same as parents getting jailed for their kid’s mass shooting. But I kinda feel a little bit like it’s still worth trying just to increase a societal sense of culpability.
I 100% disagree. There shouldn’t be any sort of dragnet for a crime beyond the people who did it or planned it.
Where does it stop? Blame the auto manufacturer for making a fast car used as a getaway vehicle for a robbery?
Blame the knife manufacturer for a stabbing? Blaming the company that sold the knife manufacturer the steel blanks, knowing they were getting made into knives? Blame the mining company that sold the iron ore to the steel company? It’s all an idiotic well of useless accountability. No one else should be accountable outside of the stabber. Same for guns, ammo manufacturers, steel factories, etc.
You can commit crimes with almost anything. Maybe I’ll shove kleenex down your throat until you pass out and you can sue kleenex for it.
Nooo. Like their cars say, they’re there to protect and to serve and-… Oh, I see how they may have slipped up on this one. And maybe in a few other incidents… Regularly… All the time…Okay, you have a point.
Protect capitalist interests and serve the capitalist agenda. Steal from a wal mart? Multi unit response. Shoot up a school, light your wife on fire so she burns to death horrifically? Not worth the effort
Seems like false advertising. Cease and desist! If not, should be forced to add disclaimer everywhere, stating the fact that they’re not actually legally required to “protect and serve” anyone in particular. And will not be personally liable for any damages (like shooting your dog when they raid the wrong house).
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.