Hawaii Rejection of Right to Bear Arms

[Cameramonkey]

What is the recommended brewing temperature for Foldgers?

MUCH hotter than the recommended serving temperature.

I guess the better question is how hot does the warming plate on a drip coffee maker keep the coffee warm? (hint about 25% cooler than the brew temp) Because the McD's case revolved around the storage/serving temp, not the brewing temp.

 

[KLB]

Have any of you read the documentation that usually comes with your water heater?

View attachment 332548

So, given that information, would you put an open container full of even a beverage served at 155 - 185 °F between your legs

The real problem was McDonalds has deep pockets and a record of paying out claims for that 'problem'. Target of opportunity

You really didn't read about the case did you. She asked for money to cover medical bills and lost work for her daughter, 20K. They offered her 700.

They admitted they knew it was dangerous, but it wasn't worth it to them to change their ways.

I would not expect something I just bought to drink to be capable of causing 3rd degree burns. McDonald's coffee was off your chart.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I would not expect something I just bought to drink to be capable of causing 3rd degree burns. McDonald's coffee was off your chart.

That's because you're using common sense. Spilled coffee causing redness and pain? Normal. You shouldn't have spilled it. Coffee requiring a multi-day hospital stay and skin grafts? Nobody expects that. It shouldn't have been given to you in that condition.

 

[BugI02]

That's because you're using common sense. Spilled coffee causing redness and pain? Normal. You shouldn't have spilled it. Coffee requiring a multi-day hospital stay and skin grafts? Nobody expects that. It shouldn't have been given to you in that condition.

Believe as you will

 

[gassprint1]

I think there is more to Hawaii to be concerned about besides the 2A. How many of you know that they are about to pay any citizen that lost to the wild fires a cool $1.5 million!! Thats right. If you have fire tv service..not regular fire tv...watch the Hawaii news channels and see what goes on. I watch many news channels from our US cities to those over seas too before i form an opion on wars and such.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

And it also highlights the term Illusory Truth Effect. A term for the old saying about a lie can make it all the way around the world before the truth can even put it's pants on: So many people parrot the wrong info that becomes the defacto truth.

So many people believed it was frivolous because it was "just spilled coffee" and nobody bothered to read for themselves why McDs lost. "just (155*F) spilled coffee" doesnt give you severe burns. And most people missed that fact.

I admit I fell for it at first too until I read more about it and learned the actual facts.

This is why I try to not use absolute terms unless I know for certain what I'm talking about, and even then sometimes I'm wrong. As much as I hate seeing the term "allegedly" used in news pieces with very obvious news (like "the sun allegedly rose this morning"), I find myself using that word more and more lately. People can't know everything there is to know.

However in this situation, when a story follows what is perceived to be the status quo, there will be likely generalizations and assumptions made. We're living in an age where idiots are doing stupid things like drinking bleach, and then suing Clorox when they get sick. The media also doesn't help this as the headline "woman sues MD's for coffee being too hot" is more controversial than "MD's forced to pay for unsafe coffee storage and serving". The first headline also fits with the increasing trend of idiocrasy that many will assume it's true.

At the same time we all will give assumptions and generalizations at some point, and that is okay. We're only human, and we don't have time to fully research and fact-check every controversial subject that may come up in a conversation. It's more telling on how people respond to being told they're wrong rather than being wrong in the first place.

 

[two70]

That's because you're using common sense. Spilled coffee causing redness and pain? Normal. You shouldn't have spilled it. Coffee requiring a multi-day hospital stay and skin grafts? Nobody expects that. It shouldn't have been given to you in that condition.

"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let'em crash."

 

[actaeon277]

"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let'em crash."

 

[BugI02]

"They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let'em crash."

Or, if you shoot yourself in the leg trying to jam your G***k back into your waistband (or Uncle Mike's), blame it on the 'safety-trigger' because, as Howard Jones said, 'No one ever is to blame'

 

[manifest destiny]

Criminally true, civil side, not true. Balancing act of gov't interest in apprehension vs danger to all involved is the court's metric. Civil side is what's under discussion. We get that pursuits can be dangerous, but we also get the concept of competing harms.

Reasonable in the main. Peculiar in its application. You stated fairly something that could be viewed with exclusive differences, specifics being paramount. Respectively, the gov't interest(s) aren't [usually] balanced against my concept of harm potential.

What if instead of water, I used a super lube?

Will you be taking off the lid and placing it in your lap? Choices.

What's the balancing interest in serving coffee at temperatures sufficient to require skin grafts if spilled?

What specifically is that temp?
Is there a temperature specific that would/should compel a coffee buyer to not place 'hot coffee' between his/her legs and remove the lid? Coffee being 'too hot' is subjective. Choosing to order 'hot coffee' and then placing it in a precarious area after removing the spill guard, aka lid, seems to be risky behaviour, aka assumed risk.

I'll accept the position of the jury and this thread -McD's lost- but I accept it with prejudice against the judgement in this case. Subjective temp doesn't remove liability from objective actions.... Unless ya' get the right jury.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Reasonable in the main. Peculiar in its application. You stated fairly something that could be viewed with exclusive differences, specifics being paramount. Respectively, the gov't interest(s) aren't [usually] balanced against my concept of harm potential.


Will you be taking off the lid and placing it in your lap? Choices.


What specifically is that temp?
Is there a temperature specific that would/should compel a coffee buyer to not place 'hot coffee' between his/her legs and remove the lid? Coffee being 'too hot' is subjective. Choosing to order 'hot coffee' and then placing it in a precarious area after removing the spill guard, aka lid, seems to be risky behaviour, aka assumed risk.

I'll accept the position of the jury and this thread -McD's lost- but I accept it with prejudice against the judgement in this case. Subjective temp doesn't remove liability from objective actions.... Unless ya' get the right jury.

Luckily the jury wasn't requested to define an exact temperature. Only if a temperature capable of causing 3rd degree burns was too hot.

It's subjective that you have to be 18 to join the military without a parent's signature, sign a legally binding contract, or vote. It's subjective that you have to be 21 to buy alcohol. These hard rules only exist because society decided so. Reasonable minds could argue you should only be 18 to buy alcohol given the weight of the other decisions an 18 year old can make. Others could argue 21 is too young given the biological fact the forebrain is still forming and alcohol is more impactful. Yet no reasonable person would argue a 5 year old should be able to buy alcohol nor that the minimum age should be 45. I'm not swayed by the fact a middle ground exists in which reasonable minds can differ when the actual facts are so obviously unreasonable. Nor am I swayed by the fact it's subjective. Most of human interaction and decision making is. From speed limits to how much lead exposure is safe to the age of sexual consent to curfews for our children. Yet we, collectively, do make decisions about these things and enforce them, both as a society and as individuals.

 

[manifest destiny]

Luckily the jury wasn't requested to define an exact temperature. Only if a temperature capable of causing 3rd degree burns was too hot.

What temp is too hot without a definition specific? Should/would 5 degrees change the verdict? What about one degree? How many bought the same coffee, at the same temp and didn't rec'v injury?

If the McD's coffee had been less than hot, subjectively, the buyer of the coffee could have sued for cold coffee (advertised as 'hot'), could have won, and it would still be a frivolous lawsuit. And that's before we get into any risky behviour of the coffee buyer.

Lawsuit, verdict, payment settlement, because it's cheaper than legal defense. Rinse, repeat. Every civil suit everywhere, darn near. Your argument re: statutory age limits, lead levels, curfews and speed limits are very specific, defined and legally objective. What's the temp limit for 'hot coffee'?

 

[cbhausen]

Luckily the jury wasn't requested to define an exact temperature. Only if a temperature capable of causing 3rd degree burns was too hot.

It's subjective that you have to be 18 to join the military without a parent's signature, sign a legally binding contract, or vote. It's subjective that you have to be 21 to buy alcohol. These hard rules only exist because society decided so. Reasonable minds could argue you should only be 18 to buy alcohol given the weight of the other decisions an 18 year old can make. Others could argue 21 is too young given the biological fact the forebrain is still forming and alcohol is more impactful. Yet no reasonable person would argue a 5 year old should be able to buy alcohol nor that the minimum age should be 45. I'm not swayed by the fact a middle ground exists in which reasonable minds can differ when the actual facts are so obviously unreasonable. Nor am I swayed by the fact it's subjective. Most of human interaction and decision making is. From speed limits to how much lead exposure is safe to the age of sexual consent to curfews for our children. Yet we, collectively, do make decisions about these things and enforce them, both as a society and as individuals.

You’re describing a direct democracy, not a representative republic. The “we” you speak of isn’t always representative.

 

[foszoe]

What temp is too hot without a definition specific? Should/would 5 degrees change the verdict? What about one degree? How many bought the same coffee, at the same temp and didn't rec'v injury?

The temperature that coffee is maintained at in my glass carafe sitting on my counter when I make it since when I went to McDonald's I saw a glass carafe similar to mine sitting on a warmer similar to mine.

And I answered that without even looking up the temperatures.

 

[foszoe]

You’re describing a direct democracy, not a representative republic. The “we” you speak of isn’t always representative.

Is a jury considered a direct democracy or a representative republic?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What temp is too hot without a definition specific? Should/would 5 degrees change the verdict? What about one degree? How many bought the same coffee, at the same temp and didn't rec'v injury?

Already addressed. Subjective grounds were reasonable minds can differ do not preclude limits. Let's illustrate it this way: I have a 5,000 gallon vat of water. I add a cubic centimeter of bullion cube, chicken, carrot, celery, and noodle. I then can it and sell it as chicken noodle soup. You agree it's chicken noodle soup and not very very slightly dirty water, right? After all, there's no legal or socially defined line in which a can of water becomes a can of soup by proportion of water to other ingredients. I can hold up a can of actual soup and ask if it had 5% fewer noodles if it would still be soup, after all. Does that seem logical to you? Exact same argument, just on a larger scale.

However, the subjectiveness of this particular case isn't even that relevant given how many *prior injuries* were associated with it. That knowledge alone should be sufficient. Second thought exercise:

You have a job in which you push one of five buttons to deliver a product to a customer when a green light comes in your office. You have no idea what your product is, does, how it's used, or what the variation is to the product based on the button you select. For a year you push the buttons generally randomly but equally. At the end of the year you get one piece of data: Injuries to customers using your product vs injuries to customers who are using your competitor's product. Buttons #1, 2, 3, and 4 have the exact same injury rate as your competitor's product. #5 is 15% higher than competitor's product. Knowing nothing else...would any right thinking individual keep pressing button #5? Would a person who knows the product is causing significantly more injuries with whatever unknown variation #5 causes be blameless for the next injury caused if they elected to continue to press it with that knowledge?

 

[cbhausen]

Is a jury considered a direct democracy or a representative republic?

I’m referring to how laws get written, not how they are enforced.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Guy covered the "Aloha Spirit" BS from the Hawaii SC tonight. Wilson doesn't have a good case but this needs a good SCOTUS beat down.

 

[JAL]

Guy covered the "Aloha Spirit" BS from the Hawaii SC tonight. Wilson doesn't have a good case but this needs a good SCOTUS beat down.

Guy mentioned something I didn't know -- that Wilson could easily file Writ of Cert. Petition directly to SCOTUS from the Hawaiian Supreme Court loss -- bypassing the Hawaiian District Court and 9th Circus Court of Appeals. Not something that would normally happen if he had started in Fed Court. It's also a criminal case, which makes it different from a Civil Action challenging a law -- so it could end up with a narrow "As Applied" to Wilson. Worth making popcorn to see if Wilson is willing and able to pursue it. There would be a time limit to do so . . . and I don't know how long that is.

 

[JAL]

Guy covered the "Aloha Spirit" BS from the Hawaii SC tonight. Wilson doesn't have a good case but this needs a good SCOTUS beat down.

Additional info on Wilson's Hawaii case. He can petition for Writ of Cert. to SCOTUS, but whether SCOTUS has the option of taking it will rely on some decision-making about the details of his trial in the Hawaiian State (trial) Court. It would have been complex and lengthy or Guy to get into on his talk show. There must be an applicable Federal question (e.g. US Constitution and/or US Law) raised during trial properly for the state court(s) to consider it (to preserve for Fed appeal later), and the outcome had to have been potentially different had the state courts dealt with the Fed question properly when it was raised. There's some analysis done by SCOTUS to see if it clears that hurdle before deciding to accept one. It's not necessarily straightforward.

Here's more detailed information about how and when SCOTUS will consider a Petition for Writ of Cert from a state court case. It's multiple paragraphs in length.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-5/ALDE_00001223/

The questions then become as I understand reading the linked page about it:
(1) Did Wilson properly raise the applicable Federal Constitutional Questions properly during trial?
(2) If it clears (1) above, would proper state consideration of them have potentially changed the outcome?
(3) Will Wilson Petition for SCOTUS Writ of Cert.?