Posted on 08/15/2009 8:08:41 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
A Connecticut hotel where a woman was raped at gunpoint in front of her children says the victim was careless and negligent.
The papers filed last month in Superior Court by the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa say the victim "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."
Prosecutors say Gary Fricker assaulted the woman in her minivan in the hotel's parking garage in front of her two children, then ages 3 and 5.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
No longer in PA - back in Texas but yes, it is a nice place, despite Rendell and Specter
WHY is everyone in this thread ignoring the THIRD leg of this stool: the poor RAPER?
A little compassion should be shown this man (it IS a man; right?) here!
After all; he may have been LURKING the garage, trying to overhear folks talking about the PORNO film they’d watched in their room the night before.
He may have been unable to AFFORD a Marriott room and has had to stay in CRUSTY hotels (See’s seen the expose’s on TV about them).
He was born on the wrong side of then tracks, under-educated by our public schools, treated badly by voting officials, his dog died when he was young an he’d been abused as a child too boot!
HE’s the ‘victim’ here!!!
(and women probably didn’t find him(?) attractive; either.)
As far as we konw this woman is making substantiated accusations. Herein lies the difference between you and me. Absent facts, I am willing to wait and see if Marriott is culpapble. Hence, I am interested in the truth. You, on the other had, have already concluded that Marriott is being unfairly sued and is at the mercy of emotional (stupid) juries.
You contradict yourself. First you say that you assume the woman is making substantiated accusations then you say we are absent facts and then you are willing to wait and see.
Me, I say that the facts are as yet unknown and I am willing to assume that the accused is innocent until proved otherwise which is the assumption of our justice system (even though this is not a criminal case).
As a defender of the Second Amendment I also have a certain sympathy for their argument that the victim "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities." The USSC has ruled that the police department is not liable for the protection of citizens from crime so I do not see that a hotel should be held to a higher standard.
Every individual is ultimately responsible for their own safety. Yes the owner should make a reasonable effort to ensure the safety of their guest, but in the end the individual must remain vigilant for his or her own safety.
Unless Marriott can be shown to have been willfully or recklessly negligent I do not believe they should be liable.
If I was on the jury, the damages award would increase by a very large factor.
>> This is their lawyers speaking, trying to reduce the amount of the judgement.
Who’s paying these lawyers?
A callous public response is unnecessary and indicative of an organization insensitive to the rape this woman suffered.
The lawyers should be dismissed if your conclusion that they’re responsible for the statement is true.
If what the prosecutor says is fact, how does one get from the hotel’s parking lot to the room without getting raped? I’d rather patronize a hotel that at least has the appearance of responsibility for hotel and lot security.
(end sarcasm)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.