No way do we have all the facts here. The girls baked cookies, dropped them on the porch, rang the doorbell and left, and this caused unreasoning distress? Bullshit.
I think these girls knocked on her door over, and over, and over again, because she wasn’t answering, and they could tell she was home. They were probably hiding in the bushes watching as people collected their gifts – part of the experience for them. If that’s the case, I can better understand this lady’s distress. That behavior rises to the level of harassment.
I have e-mailed the author of the article, asking about the possibility of making a contribution to the families of the Evil Cookie Hooligans to offset their $900 judgement. I’ll pass on any info I receive.
Can I just say that if I had just masturbated three times in a row, no way would I be getting boner enough to go up anyone’s ass, not even [name omitted on advice of someone acquainted with stalking laws], let alone a harpy like this?
Oh, and Bricker: You da man. Two thumbs way, way up.
I won’t post the results outright, in case there’s any concern about disclosing people’s home addresses and phone numbers, but contact information for Richard Ostergaard is public information which can be found by searching http://directory.superpages.com/people.jsp. The other girl’s family is a bit more difficult to pinpoint, but there are only 5 Zellittis at 2 different addresses listed in Durango, CO. If one of them isn’t the party in question, there’s little doubt they could direct you to the appropriate person.
Yeah, let us know what you find. Just to rescue the good (? :D) name of Fark.com, where I first saw this article, I’ll pass any info on to the Fark Nation.
I’m going to open myself up to a humongous pile of abuse by siding with the nasty crank of a woman. These girls tried to do a nice thing but wound up scaring the bejesus out of this lady, causing her to wind up in the ER, and $900 poorer. The girls offered to pay for her expenses… however… that was contingent upon the old lady indemnifying them against future claims. As if she should give up the right for compensation if this episode winds up causing her future health problems. As it is, the old lady has been compensated for her actual damages, and that’s it.
They rang her doorbell late at night, didn’t answer, and ran off. For everyone who thinks that buglars and rapists don’t ring the doorbell, you’re just fucking morons. ding dong! Who is it? Hi, my car broke down, can I use your phone? Sure, let me open the door so you can force your way in, bash my head, rape me, kill me and steal all my stuff. Or even, ding dong!, let’s wait, if nobody answers, we’ll go round back and break in. Either of those situations are unsettling. Somebody knocking on my door late at night and not answering would creep me out too, and I’m no old lady.
They unwittingly caused her harm, that’s enough for me to consider them liable for damages.
Gotta disagree. What if I had a peculiar psychological ailment that caused an anxiety reaction to the word ‘humongous’? Then you’d have unwittingly caused me harm just now. Are you saying you’d be liable in that situation?
No, I have to go with the side of reasonable expectation.
I’m just amazed that people are so happy to believe yet another story about “the courts run amuck” that no one’s stopped to wonder whether we’re getting the whole story out of the newspaper. Hey, I know people love these stories, but it really makes me worried for this country when the fundamentals of media literacy are so foreign to most people.
