PDA

View Full Version : I am skeptical of this and truthfully hope it ends up being BS



TJMAC77SP
06-16-2014, 04:17 PM
Girl asked to leave restaurant because scars were scaring customers, grandmother says...

“The grandmother of a 3-year-old girl who was viciously attacked by three dogs says she was asked to leave a KFC in Jackson, Miss., by an employee who said the girl's scars were scaring other customers.

“They just told us, ‘We have to ask you to leave because her face is disrupting our customers,’" Kelly Mullins, Victoria Wilcher's grandmother, told WAPT-TV. "She understood exactly what they said."

Mullins said she was driving her granddaughter home from the hospital in early June when they stopped at KFC for mashed potatoes…………..”

http://news.yahoo.com/girl-scar-pit-bull-kfc-asked-to-leave-172943098.html

I guess the last shred of me that isn't cynical can't believe that someone would actually say this to a little girl. All the reporting I have found seems to be circular in source and given the abandonment of fact checking that is rampant in 'journalism' I hope this is one of those times that someone made some BS up and it took off like a rocket.

If not, the chair in hell is awaiting whoever said that.

((maybe I should have posted this in the Political Correctness thread))

Rusty Jones
06-16-2014, 04:27 PM
There are ten million ways to die (or get injured), but you know what the two worst are?

1. Getting wounded in a mass shooting

2. Getting mauled by a pit bull.

In the first case, no one gives a fuck about you. All they want to take about is the 2nd Amendment.

In the second case, all people want to talk about is "Pitbulls are sweet, blame the owner."

#2 is worse, in my opinion, because it reeks of fanboyism.

Anyhow, I agree... I'm in disbelief as well. However, shit far more ignorant than this has happened... so my disbelief can only go but so far.

Measure Man
06-16-2014, 04:34 PM
Girl asked to leave restaurant because scars were scaring customers, grandmother says...

“The grandmother of a 3-year-old girl who was viciously attacked by three dogs says she was asked to leave a KFC in Jackson, Miss., by an employee who said the girl's scars were scaring other customers.

“They just told us, ‘We have to ask you to leave because her face is disrupting our customers,’" Kelly Mullins, Victoria Wilcher's grandmother, told WAPT-TV. "She understood exactly what they said."

Mullins said she was driving her granddaughter home from the hospital in early June when they stopped at KFC for mashed potatoes…………..”

http://news.yahoo.com/girl-scar-pit-bull-kfc-asked-to-leave-172943098.html

I guess the last shred of me that isn't cynical can't believe that someone would actually say this to a little girl. All the reporting I have found seems to be circular in source and given the abandonment of fact checking that is rampant in 'journalism' I hope this is one of those times that someone made some BS up and it took off like a rocket.

If not, the chair in hell is awaiting whoever said that.

((maybe I should have posted this in the Political Correctness thread))

I share your skepticism on the truth and accuracy of this report.

garhkal
06-16-2014, 07:14 PM
I guess the last shred of me that isn't cynical can't believe that someone would actually say this to a little girl. All the reporting I have found seems to be circular in source and given the abandonment of fact checking that is rampant in 'journalism' I hope this is one of those times that someone made some BS up and it took off like a rocket.

If not, the chair in hell is awaiting whoever said that.

((maybe I should have posted this in the Political Correctness thread))


I have heard of other situations where someone 'scarred' was asked to leave cause it was 'scaring others'. So maybe it is true. As for witnessing it, i have only my own experiences to call on as i have yet to see anyone else suffer from it.
Back in the 80's when i was going through English schooling i was consistently asked (and in one case forced) to wear a t shirt when i went swimming with the rest of the school kids for class, cause my burn scar was 'too scary'. Last time i remember that happening was back in 98 at a public swimming pool in England.

garhkal
06-17-2014, 12:49 AM
During half time in the USA vs Ghana match, i tuned into MSNBC and saw Al sharpton having a segment on this. Apparently cause the Grandmother tweeted about this it raised such a stink online, that KFC has not only apologized, but offered up 30k for this girl's medical bills.
Since when has a store been required to pay someone else's bills?

TJMAC77SP
06-17-2014, 01:21 PM
During half time in the USA vs Ghana match, i tuned into MSNBC and saw Al sharpton having a segment on this. Apparently cause the Grandmother tweeted about this it raised such a stink online, that KFC has not only apologized, but offered up 30k for this girl's medical bills.
Since when has a store been required to pay someone else's bills?

Well, if it's true the store is liable for pain and suffering that's for sure.

If a women who admittedly puts a hot cup of coffee on a dash board and then that coffee spills when her son makes and admitted jack rabbit start from a traffic light gets a 5 million dollar payout then KFC should definitely pony up something (of course if it is true....I am still holding out for BS)

Al Sharpton reporting on it does ZERO for the story's credibility. (

Cache Trogle
06-17-2014, 06:19 PM
Well, if it's true the store is liable for pain and suffering that's for sure.

If a women who admittedly puts a hot cup of coffee on a dash board and then that coffee spills when her son makes and admitted jack rabbit start from a traffic light gets a 5 million dollar payout then KFC should definitely pony up something (of course if it is true....I am still holding out for BS)

Al Sharpton reporting on it does ZERO for the story's credibility. (

I shared your view of absurdity on the famous hot coffee case. Then I read about it, and watched the documentary.
It was eye opening to say the least.

TJMAC77SP
06-17-2014, 07:51 PM
I shared your view of absurdity on the famous hot coffee case. Then I read about it, and watched the documentary.
It was eye opening to say the least.

What could possibly change your outlook? The extent of her injuries? Yes she was burned badly (as in permanently on her genitalia requiring skin grafts). The extent of her burns have nothing to do with liability, only amount of damages in the event a party is found liable. The fact that McDonalds was found solely liable was purely a emotional reaction to the suffering this woman endured.

Even if the coffee was 'too hot' where is her liability for causation?

Just to illustrate the silliness it should be noted that while McDonalds has reduced the temperature at which they serve their coffee other major chains, to include Starbucks serves their in the same temperature range as in the case we are discussing.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure I should note that some of the 'facts' of the case as I stated them were incorrect. It was her grandson driving, he had stopped the car so she could put cream and sugar into the coffee. She held the cup between her legs and the coffee spilled when she removed the lid......................nothing else that I said changes.

Measure Man
06-17-2014, 08:47 PM
What could possibly change your outlook? The extent of her injuries? Yes she was burned badly (as in permanently on her genitalia requiring skin grafts). The extent of her burns have nothing to do with liability, only amount of damages in the event a party is found liable. The fact that McDonalds was found solely liable was purely a emotional reaction to the suffering this woman endured.

McDonald's was not "solely" liable. They were found to be 80% at fault, with her being 20% at fault.


Even if the coffee was 'too hot' where is her liability for causation?

One of the most egregious aspects of tort law, IMO, is the idea of joint and several liability. Baically, if several parties are "at fault" for an injury...they are each jointly and severally liable for the injuries. What this means is that the injured party can seek to collect all the damages from any party that is at least 1% at fault. I'm oversimplifying this a little...there are two types of damages, and this applies to only one type, which, of course, is the larger one, typically...the words escape me at the moment.

Basically it allows the injured party (and lawyers) to collect as much as possible from whoever has the most money....whether or not they had any direct role in the accident, really. The tendency of juries is to assign "some" fault to everyone being sued, even if it's just what they think is a symbolic 1 or 5%...and the lawyers know this. So, if you are the only one around with money when an accident happens, you can expect to bear the brunt of the litigation...even if you were only distantly connected.

OH...by the way, it is also NOT permissible for the defendents lawyers to explain this to the jury. Leaving many juries to come out of the room awarding a 1% fault to somebody, believe they are doing the defendent a favor, and unaware that this allows the plaintiff to go after them for the full amount of damages...leaving that defendent to try and collect from the other defendents.


Just to illustrate the silliness it should be noted that while McDonalds has reduced the temperature at which they serve their coffee other major chains, to include Starbucks serves their in the same temperature range as in the case we are discussing.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure I should note that some of the 'facts' of the case as I stated them were incorrect. It was her grandson driving, he had stopped the car so she could put cream and sugar into the coffee. She held the cup between her legs and the coffee spilled when she removed the lid......................nothing else that I said changes.

I guess "hot" coffee should be an expected hazard. The question is whether or not a certain temperature results in unreasonably "too hot"...I'm sure that temperature exists, what it is is a matter of judgement. I'm kind of with you on the idea of the frivolousness of this lawsuit, but there are some good arguments against.

garhkal
06-17-2014, 09:09 PM
Well, if it's true the store is liable for pain and suffering that's for sure.


What of the 'pain and suffering' of the other kids and parents, who had to see this scarred person? Should KFC also have to pay them?

TJMAC77SP
06-17-2014, 10:20 PM
McDonald's was not "solely" liable. They were found to be 80% at fault, with her being 20% at fault.



One of the most egregious aspects of tort law, IMO, is the idea of joint and several liability. Baically, if several parties are "at fault" for an injury...they are each jointly and severally liable for the injuries. What this means is that the injured party can seek to collect all the damages from any party that is at least 1% at fault. I'm oversimplifying this a little...there are two types of damages, and this applies to only one type, which, of course, is the larger one, typically...the words escape me at the moment.

Basically it allows the injured party (and lawyers) to collect as much as possible from whoever has the most money....whether or not they had any direct role in the accident, really. The tendency of juries is to assign "some" fault to everyone being sued, even if it's just what they think is a symbolic 1 or 5%...and the lawyers know this. So, if you are the only one around with money when an accident happens, you can expect to bear the brunt of the litigation...even if you were only distantly connected.

OH...by the way, it is also NOT permissible for the defendents lawyers to explain this to the jury. Leaving many juries to come out of the room awarding a 1% fault to somebody, believe they are doing the defendent a favor, and unaware that this allows the plaintiff to go after them for the full amount of damages...leaving that defendent to try and collect from the other defendents.



I guess "hot" coffee should be an expected hazard. The question is whether or not a certain temperature results in unreasonably "too hot"...I'm sure that temperature exists, what it is is a matter of judgement. I'm kind of with you on the idea of the frivolousness of this lawsuit, but there are some good arguments against.

You are right...I spoke in an absolute. Seems to me that at worst the percentages should be reversed. I have known since I could form a cogent thought that liquid which is hot will burn me. I don't need to know if it is 90 degrees or 180 degrees. It will burn me.

I was unaware of those intricacies of tort law although I can't say I am surprised. Ant tort reform will start and end with lawyers (including a majority of elected officials) so that's why we have what we have.

TJMAC77SP
06-17-2014, 10:23 PM
What of the 'pain and suffering' of the other kids and parents, who had to see this scarred person? Should KFC also have to pay them?

Interesting point from a devil's advocate perspective. Of course I don't agree with that and were I in that position I would use the experience to teach my young kids about things that happen which can't be helped and people shouldn't be punished for those things. I certainly wouldn't be looking to blame anyone for anything. Of course this is all moot because I haven't heard of any other patron taking that position.

Measure Man
06-17-2014, 10:40 PM
What of the 'pain and suffering' of the other kids and parents, who had to see this scarred person? Should KFC also have to pay them?

So, you're saying I should be able to sue ugly people for the distress they cause me?

Man...I'm gonna be RICH!!

garhkal
06-18-2014, 06:12 AM
Nope. I am just saying that here and on other sites i see this topic being discussed, most seem to only take the side of the little girl, not caring about any of the other restaurant goers and their kids.

TJMAC77SP
06-18-2014, 01:06 PM
Nope. I am just saying that here and on other sites i see this topic being discussed, most seem to only take the side of the little girl, not caring about any of the other restaurant goers and their kids.

I don't 'care' for them. Exactly what concern would I have for someone who witnesses the terrible results of someone's else's tragedy? We aren't talking witnessing a horrifically violent incident. Is there a PTSD threat here? Exactly what point are you trying to make?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 01:29 PM
I don't 'care' for them. Exactly what concern would I have for someone who witnesses the terrible results of someone's else's tragedy? We aren't talking witnessing a horrifically violent incident. Is there a PTSD threat here? Exactly what point are you trying to make?

At first I thought he was joking, but he appears to be sincere.

This is every bit as astonishing as the KFC employee who reportedly asked the little girl to leave because of her scars.

hustonj
06-18-2014, 01:45 PM
Nope. I am just saying that here and on other sites i see this topic being discussed, most seem to only take the side of the little girl, not caring about any of the other restaurant goers and their kids.

How is taking the little girl (and her family's) right to their freedoms of movement and association, let alone their ability to conduct legal trade openly and honestly, away from them (denying a minorty their rights) serving the rights of the majority (those not wanting to see that the minority eixsts, regardless of what makes that group a minority)?

Your rights end where mine begin.

You are not forced to be where I am, but I am not forced to avoid where you are. If either of those two phrases becomes false, SOMEBODY is having their rights trampled.

Since no one was forcing people to remain with the family, their rights were not challenged or threatened.

THAT is why people (should) side with the girl and her family.

garhkal
06-18-2014, 07:21 PM
At first I thought he was joking, but he appears to be sincere.

This is every bit as astonishing as the KFC employee who reportedly asked the little girl to leave because of her scars.

What's astonishing about seeing the other side of the coin here? As mentioned, i have had to go through it myself, all cause others were grossed out/sickened/scared of my scarring, so i was asked (and in some cases denied use of facilities till i complied) to cover up. I can see why those other parents would bring those issues up to management to protect their young ones, hence i can see the parents in that store doing the same.
What I find astonishing, is how many seem to either not care about those other parents (or their kids), let alone the # of times i have heard others call them A$@*0l3s, or say they should get smacked for "DARING" to dispariage such a cute kid.


You are not forced to be where I am, but I am not forced to avoid where you are. If either of those two phrases becomes false, SOMEBODY is having their rights trampled.

Since no one was forcing people to remain with the family, their rights were not challenged or threatened.

THAT is why people (should) side with the girl and her family.

So the other families should either have sucked it up, or left? So where is the protection of THEIR rights?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 07:25 PM
What's astonishing about seeing the other side of the coin here? As mentioned, i have had to go through it myself, all cause others were grossed out/sickened/scared of my scarring, so i was asked (and in some cases denied use of facilities till i complied) to cover up. I can see why those other parents would bring those issues up to management to protect their young ones, hence i can see the parents in that store doing the same.
What I find astonishing, is how many seem to either not care about those other parents (or their kids), let alone the # of times i have heard others call them A$@*0l3s, or say they should get smacked for "DARING" to dispariage such a cute kid.



So the other families should either have sucked it up, or left? So where is the protection of THEIR rights?

Learn how to work the quote function, the second part of that is from hustonj.

hustonj
06-18-2014, 07:26 PM
What's astonishing about seeing the other side of the coin here? As mentioned, i have had to go through it myself, all cause others were grossed out/sickened/scared of my scarring, so i was asked (and in some cases denied use of facilities till i complied) to cover up. I can see why those other parents would bring those issues up to management to protect their young ones, hence i can see the parents in that store doing the same.
What I find astonishing, is how many seem to either not care about those other parents (or their kids), let alone the # of times i have heard others call them A$@*0l3s, or say they should get smacked for "DARING" to dispariage such a cute kid.



So the other families should either have sucked it up, or left? So where is the protection of THEIR rights?


What part of the complaining party's rights were violated?

You are not granted a right of protection form insult. You are not granted a right of protection from the presence of others in a public location.

What right of those other customers was violated?

(Hint: The answer is NONE.)

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 07:29 PM
So the other families should either have sucked it up, or left? So where is the protection of THEIR rights?Yes, they should have. I'm not sure which of their rights were trampled. Having to see something they didn't like? That would be like me going to a bar and suing because I had to be around drunk people. How far can it go? I don't want to be in any establishments with anything but female supermodels. I don't like looking at guys. It's scares me. I don't like looking at fat women. It scares me. Unless I'm getting this completely wrong, it sounds like you are saying that we should only have to be around people we like. I guess we better stop going outside.

TJMAC77SP
06-18-2014, 07:36 PM
At first I thought he was joking, but he appears to be sincere.

This is every bit as astonishing as the KFC employee who reportedly asked the little girl to leave because of her scars.

I took it at a fairly ill-executed attempt to troll.

TJMAC77SP
06-18-2014, 07:38 PM
Yes, they should have. I'm not sure which of their rights were trampled. Having to see something they didn't like? That would be like me going to a bar and suing because I had to be around drunk people. How far can it go? I don't want to be in any establishments with anything but female supermodels. I don't like looking at guys. It's scares me. I don't like looking at fat women. It scares me. Unless I'm getting this completely wrong, it sounds like you are saying that we should only have to be around people we like. I guess we better stop going outside.

I am picturing Wal-Mart folks......................a lot of potential lawsuits there !!!

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 07:41 PM
I am picturing Wal-Mart folks......................a lot of potential lawsuits there !!!Yep...I could make a fortune suing them. I also think that at hospitals there should be a separate waiting room the injured/sick and the healthy as I don't want to be forced to look at someone bleeding or coughing.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 08:01 PM
Yep...I could make a fortune suing them. I also think that at hospitals there should be a separate waiting room the injured/sick and the healthy as I don't want to be forced to look at someone bleeding or coughing.

My rights are being violated by reading garkhal's posts. Plus, he put hustonj's comments inside my quote box!

I want to file a lawsuit!

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 08:08 PM
My rights are being violated by reading garkhal's posts. Plus, he put hustonj's comments inside my quote box!

I want to file a lawsuit!You should. By attributing a quote to you that was not yours it could hurt your credibility. Sounds like a defamation case to me.

Measure Man
06-24-2014, 04:02 PM
I guess the last shred of me that isn't cynical can't believe that someone would actually say this to a little girl. All the reporting I have found seems to be circular in source and given the abandonment of fact checking that is rampant in 'journalism' I hope this is one of those times that someone made some BS up and it took off like a rocket.If not, the chair in hell is awaiting whoever said that.

((maybe I should have posted this in the Political Correctness thread))


I share your skepticism on the truth and accuracy of this report.

KFC investigation so far:

- Surveillance camera does not show family in the restaurant
- Review of sales data does not show any sales of "Mashed Potatoes and Sweet Tea"

Investigation remains open...but sounding more like the family made it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/kfc-girl-hoax-133756398.html

KFC has pledged $30K for the child's medical bills regardless of the investigation finding...

garhkal
06-24-2014, 07:26 PM
I wouldn't/ If it DOES turn out that they were lying to get attention/freebies, i would hit them with charges for defamation etc..

Measure Man
06-24-2014, 07:51 PM
Had to shake my head over this part of the story:


The attack happened at the child's grandfather's mobile home on Garrett Road in Simpson County.

and


Officials said 10 pit bulls were at the home at the time.

Okay, I suppose it's possible that this mobile home was on a large piece of property and this guy was some kind of breeder, and the dogs were outside dogs...but, then it would seem odd they entered the mobile home.

10 pit bulls in a mobile home? Sheesh

garhkal
06-25-2014, 07:10 AM
Its not that outlandish when you see some of the large # of animals some of these hoarders have.

TJMAC77SP
06-27-2014, 09:56 PM
KFC investigation so far:

- Surveillance camera does not show family in the restaurant
- Review of sales data does not show any sales of "Mashed Potatoes and Sweet Tea"

Investigation remains open...but sounding more like the family made it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/kfc-girl-hoax-133756398.html

KFC has pledged $30K for the child's medical bills regardless of the investigation finding...

My ex-wife once asked me if I get tired of being right.......I answered yes. In this case I am very glad my gut was right. As to KFC still helping the girl....good for them. Grandma's the DB, not the little girl.

efmbman
06-27-2014, 10:40 PM
My ex-wife once asked me if I get tired of being right.......I answered yes. In this case I am very glad my gut was right. As to KFC still helping the girl....good for them. Grandma's the DB, not the little girl.

But neither is KFC. Sure, a great move on their part. Remove the grandmothers involvement and KFC would not even part of the conversation regarding this little girl. I'm torn on this one. Part of me thinks KFC should just let this one die off as it is, but I am also glad the girl will get some help even though the help was obtained by crappy means.

Stalwart
06-27-2014, 11:16 PM
But neither is KFC. Sure, a great move on their part. Remove the grandmothers involvement and KFC would not even part of the conversation regarding this little girl. I'm torn on this one. Part of me thinks KFC should just let this one die off as it is, but I am also glad the girl will get some help even though the help was obtained by crappy means.

I agree with you, the little girl at the center of the issue is in no way to blame.

I don't know if the motivation of the grandmother was really to get some money to help the little girl, or just to get some money by any means available. I do wonder if this will somehow spur any kind of 'copy-cat' effort from people trying to get some money any way they can.

garhkal
06-28-2014, 06:25 AM
I agree with you, the little girl at the center of the issue is in no way to blame.

I don't know if the motivation of the grandmother was really to get some money to help the little girl, or just to get some money by any means available. I do wonder if this will somehow spur any kind of 'copy-cat' effort from people trying to get some money any way they can.

With all the scammers, credit card fraudsters etc we have, they imo don't need yet another way to filch people.

TJMAC77SP
07-09-2014, 01:43 PM
UPDATE:

The story was indeed a hoax. That chair in Hell is already reserved for the grandmother and whoever else perpetrated this lie.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/06/23/girl-tossed-from-kfc-hoax/11284405/


It appears the story generated over $100K in donations on their Go Fund Me page but they have turned down KFC's donation or $30K. Could it be because the Go Fund Me donations could not be definitively proved as benefiting from a fraud but taking money directly from the company you defame could be?

http://www.people.com/article/family-girl-attacked-pit-bulls-rejects-kfc-donation-victoria-wilcher-kelly-mullins-mississippi

garhkal
07-09-2014, 06:34 PM
WOW. I am wondering if any of those who donated to the "Go fund me site" can sue to reclaim their donations?

TJMAC77SP
07-10-2014, 11:30 AM
WOW. I am wondering if any of those who donated to the "Go fund me site" can sue to reclaim their donations?

Evidently some are trying to recover their donation. My first reaction to that is that the girl needs medical care so hopefully the money will go to that. Of course, with this family that is not guaranteed.

Another potential hole in the story I noted in the article...supposedly the KFC incident happened on May 15 when grandma took Victoria to KFC for some mashed potatoes and sweet tea and yet the FB page for Victoria states that she pulled her feeding tube out on May 16. I am not a dr but does that make sense?