Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-09-2016, 06:57 PM
 
943 posts, read 782,428 times
Reputation: 587

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Severe?


Not really.


She likes to play both ends against the middle...a strategy that works well in a society divorced of common sense.


Modesty and/or unwanted attention was hardly an issue for flirty Andrews when she used her looks, low-cut tops and short skirts to push her career past less attractive female sports reporters and male sports reporters generally.


Now that presenting herself to the sports world as a premium POA and enjoying all the unearned benefits and privileges that comes with doing so has also brought about some very unwanted attention, little miss sugar and spice needs to fix her mascara.
Being filmed nude without your consent is quite different than wearing sexy outfits in public. And she is not responsible for goofy men willing to pay her. That is due to their own superficiality.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2016, 07:14 PM
 
943 posts, read 782,428 times
Reputation: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeHa View Post
Bull. First off, she didn't use her looks, at least not intentionally. It's not her fault that sports reporting is a "man's job" and that there would never be an ugly overweight, female, sportscaster. She's worked her but off to get where she is and put up with a lot of crap to get there.

This video isn't something she made and sent out, it's not sexting or any of that. It's a grainy video of her walking around naked in the privacy of her hotel room. This isn't about sexual gratification from the video. It's about a crazy stalker who filmed her from a peephole because he's a sick individual who was obsessed with Andrews.

The ability of some men to blame things like this on the woman is disgraceful. Though most of these guys are men's rights activists and are threatened by a woman, or just jealous they can't find someone to date them.
Men give favoritism towards attractive women, but then hate those women for simply living. Men are so complicated and hateful.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 07:17 PM
 
943 posts, read 782,428 times
Reputation: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates View Post
I think what happened was terrible and everyone who is involved should be liable.

But $55 MILLION dollars?

That is just ridiculous.
Mariott is very rich. Damages are mostly based on the wealth of the sued party. Plus her video will be floating around the Internet forever.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 08:19 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,617,602 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
I don't hate women. Just this broad.

What did she ever do to you?

Hate? Really! That is rather shallow minded.
Bless your heart.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,853 posts, read 17,357,575 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
What did she ever do to you?

Hate? Really! That is rather shallow minded.
Bless your heart.
She's a useless annoying attention blank.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 06:03 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,264 posts, read 26,199,434 times
Reputation: 15637
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeHa View Post
Yes they could, it's why they have a policy about privacy. So things like this don't happen. They're a national brand hotel, I'm sure they've put a lot of research into their policies and what they need to do, legally, to cover their behinds. Obviously, this incident was a breakdown in management.



It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, it matters what the jury thinks. It's beyond aggravating when a large sum is awarded in a civil case and people complain about it being too much and blame the victim for getting so much money.

That's not how it works. Andrews doesn't get to dictate her reward amount. I actually think she sued for $75M, and the jury decided from there.


No one is blaming Andrews, this is the way the system works but it is still a ridiculous sum of money based on other civil suits although this amount will surely be scaled down. Let's not try to make this trial more complicated than it is, most of the facts are known and this is far from an exact science.


The publicity from this actually elevated her career, she was on the panel for dancing with the stars and some other shows. I'm sure she was damaged by this but in her line of business publicity is beneficial for name recognition.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 07:02 AM
 
78,385 posts, read 60,579,949 times
Reputation: 49663
Again, most of the time the damages in these cases are more about punishing the offender than rewarding the victim.

That's why states like California have laws like MICRA.

It's also why lawyers try to move these cases to the poorest, most uneducated parts of the country and insurance companies actually refuse to do business in some states.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 08:05 AM
 
2,936 posts, read 2,334,181 times
Reputation: 6690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The publicity from this actually elevated her career, she was on the panel for dancing with the stars and some other shows. I'm sure she was damaged by this but in her line of business publicity is beneficial for name recognition.
This is by far the most disgusting response I've heard. To say being stalked, violated and had her naked body on the internet for the world to see.

To say that this helped her career and was a benefit is just another form of **** shaming.

It's like people want her to be grateful and say thank you to her stalker.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 08:26 AM
 
78,385 posts, read 60,579,949 times
Reputation: 49663
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeHa View Post
This is by far the most disgusting response I've heard. To say being stalked, violated and had her naked body on the internet for the world to see.

To say that this helped her career and was a benefit is just another form of **** shaming.

It's like people want her to be grateful and say thank you to her stalker.
In the discussion of monetary damages which her law suit seeks that persons comments were not disgusting at all. I mean basically, that's the claim in her suit and so they are basically asking people to put damages on such a thing.

It doesn't mean we agree with what was done but they are asking the public to consider the damage done to her career as well as pain and suffering so these are all valid considerations.

If you were to look at the damages argument clinically, there really are very few economic damages to her in terms of career. There are of course emotional etc. damages but the biggie is really just punishing the hotel chain for enabling her stalker.

If this had happened at Marge's bed and breakfast or some non-chain hotel somewhere this case would have settled out for the insurance policy limit long ago and she would have collected maybe $1mil.

I wish they could give the guy some sort of creative punishment like force him to work every weekend for free for 5 years picking up trash along the highway regardless of the weather.

Last edited by Mathguy; 03-10-2016 at 08:46 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 02:53 PM
 
7,578 posts, read 5,324,132 times
Reputation: 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
It doesn't mean we agree with what was done but they are asking the public to consider the damage done to her career as well as pain and suffering so these are all valid considerations.
Would people be outrage if Joe Blow was ordered to pay a days wages, which is about the amount that Marriott will be on the line for.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top