What's new
By:

Erin Andrews - Awarded $55M

Okay, in trying to find the breakdown between the compensatory damages and punitive damages it seems like there were no punitive damages. If someone can find something that says otherwise I'd be interested.

That actually changes my view of the award a lot. 55mil is ridiculous for compensatory damages. Very hard to understand how she could have suffered 55mil worth of quantifiable damages.

Also, in reading stuff to try to find punitive damages I read some details (unverified) about what happened. Someone in the legal section on reddit said that the stalker simply asked to be connected to Erin Andrews phone, which is normal. He then used a "hack" that allowed him to decode her room number from that phone connection. So it appears he didn't ask for and receive the room number from a hotel employee. He acquired the room number through deceitful means. He then sawed a hole into the adjoining door, which clearly wasn't with the consent of the hotel.

Those facts change my mind. Would have been pretty cool if the people up in arms over this would have provided any. But I get the feeling, Joe, that even without those details you'd still think this was ruining America.
 
If the law/court system/justice system wanted to really try to prevent something like this from happening again then they would put the guy who made the film and the hotel employee in prison.

I don't see how taking money from someone who had no involvement in the crime helps to prevent this from happening again.

The amount awarded to Andrews could be 10 billion dollars and yet the next time ariana grande was seen checking into a Hilton by a perverted papparazzi trying to make a buck this same thing would happen again.

Though the 10 billion dollar penalty levied to the hotel might serve to get the hotel shut down and bankrupt and cause hundreds of people to lose their jobs, so at least that good could come from it I guess
 
Gameface said:
Okay, in trying to find the breakdown between the compensatory damages and punitive damages it seems like there were no punitive damages. If someone can find something that says otherwise I'd be interested.

That actually changes my view of the award a lot. 55mil is ridiculous for compensatory damages. Very hard to understand how she could have suffered 55mil worth of quantifiable damages.

Also, in reading stuff to try to find punitive damages I read some details (unverified) about what happened. Someone in the legal section on reddit said that the stalker simply asked to be connected to Erin Andrews phone, which is normal. He then used a "hack" that allowed him to decode her room number from that phone connection. So it appears he didn't ask for and receive the room number from a hotel employee. He acquired the room number through deceitful means. He then sawed a hole into the adjoining door, which clearly wasn't with the consent of the hotel.

Those facts change my mind. Would have been pretty cool if the people up in arms over this would have provided any. But I get the feeling, Joe, that even without those details you'd still think this was ruining America.
Click to expand...
You think my opinion is going to change as a result of your post? Uhh... no.

I think that common sense has been thrown out the window, and I think the vast majority of lawyers are thrilled about that.
 
fishonjazz said:
If the law/court system/justice system wanted to really try to prevent something like this from happening again then they would put the guy who made the film and the hotel employee in prison.

I don't see how taking money from someone who had no involvement in the crime helps to prevent this from happening again.

The amount awarded to Andrews could be 10 billion dollars and yet the next time ariana grande was seen checking into a Hilton by a perverted papparazzi trying to make a buck this same thing would happen again.

Though the 10 billion dollar penalty levied to the hotel might serve to get the hotel shut down and bankrupt and cause hundreds of people to lose their jobs, so at least that good could come from it I guess
Click to expand...

Wait the dude was charged for some sort of voyeurism crime, right? I mean he should have been. Isn't filming someone without their knowledge(like in a bathroom) a sex crime? Sounds like they could have thrown in vandalism. This dude had to go to jail, right?
 
♪alt13 said:
Wait the dude was charged for some sort of voyeurism crime, right? I mean he should have been. Isn't filming someone without their knowledge(like in a bathroom) a sex crime? Sounds like they could have thrown in vandalism. This dude had to go to jail, right?
Click to expand...
I would think so but another perv/vouyer/papparazzi out there reading about this might not see anything but a hotel getting charged big bucks and not be deterred.


In fact the 55 million dollar headline could have the opposite effect and rather than make this type thing happen less, actually increase the frequency of this type of a thing occurring.

I could imagine some lower level celebrity who wants more fame and more money see what happened here and try to devise a way for this same thing to happen to them in hopes of getting more fame and money.
 
fishonjazz said:
I would think so but another perv/vouyer/papparazzi out there reading about this might not see anything but a hotel getting charged big bucks and not be deterred.


In fact the 55 million dollar headline could have the opposite effect and rather than make this type thing happen less, actually increase the frequency of this type of a thing occurring.

I could imagine some lower level celebrity who wants more fame and more money see what happened here and try to devise a way for this same thing to happen to them in hopes of getting more fame and money.
Click to expand...

Looks like the guy spent 2 and half years in prison with 3 years probation.

https://espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324

It says he may face charges for doing this to at least 12 other women. If they found those victims this could get real expensive for the hotels involved.
 
♪alt13 said:
Looks like the guy spent 2 and half years in prison with 3 years probation.

https://espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4998324

It says he may face charges for doing this to at least 12 other women. If they found those victims this could get real expensive for the hotels involved.
Click to expand...
Damn what a perverted a hole.
Hopefully he gets convicted on those other times he did this too.

Andrews sounds like this event really ****ed her up too and she will never recover. I feel bad for her.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
You think my opinion is going to change as a result of your post? Uhh... no.

I think that common sense has been thrown out the window, and I think the vast majority of lawyers are thrilled about that.
Click to expand...

My opinion changed...
 
My opinion changed because I found out two things.

1) The award given DID NOT include punitive damages.

2) The hotel DID NOT voluntarily give out Andrew's room number.














I made a point over and over and over in regard to punitive damages. No one refuted my incorrect argument. I had to go find details that supported what other people were saying. I don't think any of you that don't like the ruling had any idea at all that there were no punitive damages. You didn't care about that fact. You don't care about the technical details of this case. I do and I was making an (incorrect) argument based on what I thought the technical details were. When I discovered my own mistake it changed my opinion. How is that possible? Because I'm not emotionally locked into what I want the answer to this question to be.

It has been said many times by me and others in this thread that the hotel gave the stalker Andrews room number. It looks like they did not. Any of you on the other side could have corrected those statements, but you didn't because I don't think you knew or cared one way or another.

The facts CAN change my opinion. Can they change yours?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Do you find it at all ironic that many of the same people who are saying that our sex education system and our societal attitudes toward sex are so outdated (I agree with them, BTW) are also saying that this particular violation of sexuality is deserving of a huge financial award at the expense of a company that was tangentially involved?
Click to expand...

There is no irony there. Both ideas are based in the concept of personal sovereignty. That people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and that it is a gross violation to force your gaze or actions upon their bodies.

Now, it's probably more ironic to argue that we should be super conservative about sex but also that someone just looked at her and that's no big deal.




Gameface said:
Okay, in trying to find the breakdown between the compensatory damages and punitive damages it seems like there were no punitive damages. If someone can find something that says otherwise I'd be interested.

That actually changes my view of the award a lot. 55mil is ridiculous for compensatory damages. Very hard to understand how she could have suffered 55mil worth of quantifiable damages.

Also, in reading stuff to try to find punitive damages I read some details (unverified) about what happened. Someone in the legal section on reddit said that the stalker simply asked to be connected to Erin Andrews phone, which is normal. He then used a "hack" that allowed him to decode her room number from that phone connection. So it appears he didn't ask for and receive the room number from a hotel employee. He acquired the room number through deceitful means. He then sawed a hole into the adjoining door, which clearly wasn't with the consent of the hotel.

Those facts change my mind. Would have been pretty cool if the people up in arms over this would have provided any. But I get the feeling, Joe, that even without those details you'd still think this was ruining America.
Click to expand...

Link please.
 
Gameface said:
My opinion changed because I found out two things.

1) The award given DID NOT include punitive damages.

2) The hotel DID NOT voluntarily give out Andrew's room number.














I made a point over and over and over in regard to punitive damages. No one refuted my incorrect argument. I had to go find details that supported what other people were saying. I don't think any of you that don't like the ruling had any idea at all that there were no punitive damages. You didn't care about that fact. You don't care about the technical details of this case. I do and I was making an (incorrect) argument based on what I thought the technical details were. When I discovered my own mistake it changed my opinion. How is that possible? Because I'm not emotionally locked into what I want the answer to this question to be.

It has been said many times by me and others in this thread that the hotel gave the stalker Andrews room number. It looks like they did not. Any of you on the other side could have corrected those statements, but you didn't because I don't think you knew or cared one way or another.

The facts CAN change my opinion. Can they change yours?
Click to expand...
What does punitive damages mean?

What opinion of yours changed? (What was it before and what is it now)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top