Hawaii Rejection of Right to Bear Arms

[Principal Skinr]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...dc&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=9&sc=shoreline

I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see Hawaii's opinion is biased. What is unclear about "the right of the people"?

Well, Hawaii's court thinks it is higher than the SC.

The left seems to think that if they want something badly enough, it is ok to violate the law. That will turn on them and bite them. We've already seen that with 2A sanctuary counties with sheriffs all over the country saying they wouldn't enforce some Fed gun laws.

We either have laws, or we don't. It won't play out well for them, or probably anyone else, if they decide we don't.

Just my humble 2 cents.

 

[manifest destiny]

Suing McD's because one first ordered hot coffee, then placed said hot coffee between their legs, removed the lid and spilled the hot coffee on their lap. Also, the buyer described the pain and suffering as being greater due to wearing cotton pants as if that should be a consideration for McD's when they sell hot coffee.

Coffee is hot. There is no legal limit to how hot coffee can be. Nobody involved negotiated the terms of "hotness". Every decision made before and after purchase is out of McD's control. The suit was frivolous and successful.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Suing McD's because one first ordered hot coffee, then placed said hot coffee between their legs, removed the lid and spilled the hot coffee on their lap. Also, the buyer described the pain and suffering as being greater due to wearing cotton pants as if that should be a consideration for McD's when they sell hot coffee.

Coffee is hot. There is no legal limit to how hot coffee can be. Nobody involved negotiated the terms of "hotness". Every decision made before and after purchase is out of McD's control. The suit was frivolous and successful.

Hot coffee spills that require skin grafting to remedy is not just 'hot coffee'. What's the legal limit on how close you can set a pot of boiling water to a toddler? Right. "There's no legal limit" isn't a valid argument against creating a condition you know, or should know, creates a substantial risk of severe injury. You're obviously free to believe it's mere frivolity when coffee requires a multiple day hospital stay to recover from, but I think you'll find little company there.

 

[miguel]

Sell Hawaii to China for the cost of our national debt to them. See how the spirit of aloha deals with the CCP.

Two less commie Senators, too.

 

[manifest destiny]

Hot coffee spills that require skin grafting to remedy is not just 'hot coffee'. What's the legal limit on how close you can set a pot of boiling water to a toddler? Right. "There's no legal limit" isn't a valid argument against creating a condition you know, or should know, creates a substantial risk of severe injury. You're obviously free to believe it's mere frivolity when coffee requires a multiple day hospital stay to recover from, but I think you'll find little company there.

Who spilled the coffee? It wasn't McD's. They served a cup of coffee with a lid. Who removed the lid? How often do you place a potentially injurious item near your, ahem, lap? If the sign reads, "caution, wet floor", and I decide to walk across the wet floor, have I not assumed the liability of such action? There is no debate about the injuries suffered. The debate is who is at fault. Who ordered hot coffee, placed it between legs while driving, removed the lid and spilled the drink? It sure as hell wasn't McD's.

RED= Straight from the mouths of ambulance chasing lawyers.
UNDERLINED= IMPD claiming they carry no culpability in auto pursuits that result in personal and/or property damage. You know, he wrecked, not us.

 

[xwing]

I read the actual ruling. It's crazy. They specifically say that Hawaii courts can ignore the United States Supreme Court if they don't like the SCOTUS ruling.

"Long ago, the Hawaii Supreme Court announced that an opinion of the United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration, but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawaii Constitution. State v. Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 369 n.6, 520 P.2d 51, 58 n.6 (1974). Further, this court has not hesitated to adopt the dissents in U.S. Supreme Court cases when it was believed the dissent was better reasoned than the majority opinion."

They then spend a lot of time talking about the laws in the "Kingdom of Hawaii" (e.g. before it became a territory) and pretend that matters.

They talk the entire time about why the Hawaii Constitution doesn't mean the same thing the U.S. Constitution does, and then completely skip the U.S. Constitution.

And finally, decide that the "spirit of aloha" (e.g. whatever they want it to be) trumps Federal Law.

"The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities"

 

[foszoe]

Who spilled the coffee? It wasn't McD's. They served a cup of coffee with a lid. Who removed the lid? How often do you place a potentially injurious item near your, ahem, lap? If the sign reads, "caution, wet floor", and I decide to walk across the wet floor, have I not assumed the liability of such action? There is no debate about the injuries suffered. The debate is who is at fault. Who ordered hot coffee, placed it between legs while driving, removed the lid and spilled the drink? It sure as hell wasn't McD's.

RED= Straight from the mouths of ambulance chasing lawyers.
UNDERLINED= IMPD claiming they carry no culpability in auto pursuits that result in personal and/or property damage. You know, he wrecked, not us.

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

 

[Cameramonkey]

Suing McD's because one first ordered hot coffee, then placed said hot coffee between their legs, removed the lid and spilled the hot coffee on their lap. Also, the buyer described the pain and suffering as being greater due to wearing cotton pants as if that should be a consideration for McD's when they sell hot coffee.

Coffee is hot. There is no legal limit to how hot coffee can be. Nobody involved negotiated the terms of "hotness". Every decision made before and after purchase is out of McD's control. The suit was frivolous and successful.

It was more than that. Read the actual case.

It was above and beyond a reasonable limit ON PURPOSE.

They purposefully stored and served the coffee excessively hot (<200* as I recall) to reduce the free refills they offered and save money. If you couldnt drink the coffee until after you left the restaurant, you couldnt get a refill.

So it wasnt about who spilled it, but how it was delivered "maliciously".

EDIT: Coffee is typically served between 155-185*.

 

[foszoe]

It was more than that. Read the actual case.

It was above and beyond a reasonable limit ON PURPOSE.

They purposefully stored and served the coffee excessively hot (<200* as I recall) to reduce the free refills they offered and save money. If you couldnt drink the coffee until after you left the restaurant, you couldnt get a refill.

So it wasnt about who spilled it, but how it was delivered "maliciously".

Once this case became a poster child for the dittoheads about frivolous lawsuits, it exploded in popularity. It reminds me of the AL Gore invented the Internet mantra. I am actually surprised to see it being frowned upon by INGO. well not BBI. He can be a contrarian

 

[Cameramonkey]

Once this case became a poster child for the dittoheads about frivolous lawsuits, it exploded in popularity. It reminds me of the AL Gore invented the Internet mantra. I am actually surprised to see it being frowned upon by INGO. well not BBI. He can be a contrarian

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.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

UNDERLINED= IMPD claiming they carry no culpability in auto pursuits that result in personal and/or property damage. You know, he wrecked, not us.

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.

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

 

[BehindBlueI's]

well not BBI. He can be a contrarian

Nuh-uh.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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

Same.

 

[foszoe]

Same.

I certainly cannot cast the first stone. That goes for a lot of things.

It's just things you believe, for a variety of reasons in your twenties, may not be what you believe in your .... ahem....30s? OK 40s.....








Ok. 50s.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Same.

And the most egregious? As I recall one angle said it was mainly a defense against the senior citizens. They were offering free coffee for the elderly to "lure them in" in hopes they would also buy breakfast.

Apparently lots of them weren't that hungry and were perfectly happy shooting the breeze with other seniors, treating the dining room like a community center with free coffee. How DARE those hooligans take advantage of poor Ronald.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I certainly cannot cast the first stone. That goes for a lot of things.

It's just things you believe, for a variety of reasons in your twenties, may not be what you believe in your .... ahem....30s? OK 40s.....








Ok. 50s.

I've repeatedly said, and truly mean, even I don't agree with me on everything I believe. If I'm contrarian, it's largely because I don't tolerate lousy arguments even if they support "my side" and seldom agree entirely with any "side". Plus it's likely more memorable and certainly takes up more volume to disagree than to simply agree. How many "yeah, me too" posts by anyone does anyone really remember?

And, yes, if I still believed in things I believed in while in my 20s, I'd be just as foolish as if I still believed in things I believed in when I was ten. Well, slightly less foolish, I suppose. See, again, not agreeing with myself... I certainly hadn't learned how manipulative and untrustworthy the media was yet at least.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And the most egregious? As I recall one angle said it was mainly a defense against the senior citizens. They were offering free coffee for the elderly to "lure them in" in hopes they would also buy breakfast.

Apparently lots of them weren't that hungry and were perfectly happy shooting the breeze with other seniors, treating the dining room like a community center with free coffee. How DARE those hooligans take advantage of poor Ronald.

*Puts on papaw hat*

I remember when McD's had cups with people's names on them hung on the wall and coffee was free "forever" if you bought one of those cups, but you couldn't leave with it. Of course, I also remember when they had a smoking section, people paid cash, and when the breakfast burrito was a topic so new and shiny as to excite comment in casual conversation. Yes, I'm aware some people in this thread remember the invention of cows, but I'm not ready to wear a super-papaw hat yet.

 

[indiucky]

*Puts on papaw hat*

I remember when McD's had cups with people's names on them hung on the wall and coffee was free "forever" if you bought one of those cups, but you couldn't leave with it. Of course, I also remember when they had a smoking section, people paid cash, and when the breakfast burrito was a topic so new and shiny as to excite comment in casual conversation. Yes, I'm aware some people in this thread remember the invention of cows, but I'm not ready to wear a super-papaw hat yet.

Hardee's in Scottsburg had a wall like that late 90s/early 2000's.....personal cups....

A lot of knife trading went on there....they'd bring in knife rolls and a can do spirit iirc....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hardee's in Scottsburg had a wall like that late 90s/early 2000's.....personal cups....

A lot of knife trading went on there....they'd bring in knife rolls and a can do spirit iirc....

Yup, I remember those cups as well. Though I thought it was earlier than that. Wouldn't testify to it under oath either way, though.

 

[indiucky]

Yup, I remember those cups as well. Though I thought it was earlier than that. Wouldn't testify to it under oath either way, though.

Just because it was seen by me in early the early 2000s...does not mean it wasn't also seen by a youthful BBI earlier than that as well...time is like a river....

Remember the wise words of Robert E Lee's great grandson Bruce....