Girls Get Donations in Colo. Cookie Case

Yahoo ^ | 2/10/05 | ROBERT WELLER

[Judith Anne]

Thanks for the sensible answer. I don't know if she went too far, because I'm not her. But I do live way in the boonies, where my nearest neighbor is a mile away, and we DID buy a house that had been rented by drug sellers (now in prison) and fix it up at great expense of money and labor. It took all of us neighbors several years to get all of the bad element out of our area, to where it is now a really nice place to live.

We used to have a circle drive, but we had to close half of it off, because drug buyers would come in, blink their lights and honk in a particular sequence....we found drugs stored just off our property on state land...most often they'd come late in the evening...

We're armed, and we have a great yard dog, and there haven't been any dealers around for 6 or 7 years, but...

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

"It's horrible, nobody has heard our side," said Herb Young, adding the couple has had to hire a lawyer. "I don't believe the girls meant for this to happen. But they could have prevented it from happening if they had just shut their mouths when they came out of (small claims) court. Now they are caught in something they can't control."

True to form, these clowns refuse to accept that ANY of this is their fault for making a mountain out of a molehill. Nope, not one iota.

Clue to the Youngs...people hate people like you, people think there are WAY too many people like you around (and they are right), and because of your greedy hateful ways, you painted yourselves as a national poster child For People We Hate, and you're getting your just rewards. What, did you really think your ridiculous lawsuit would go unnoticed? Have fun, suckers, and hope the $900 was worth it...

[beezdotcom]

Thanks for the sensible answer. I don't know if she went too far, because I'm not her.

Nor am _I_ her. And believe me, I understand what it's like to have to worry about every sound you hear outside. But since the article reports that the girls and their family apologized and offered to pay the medical bills, and she STILL sued, it does beg the question "was she just trying to rub their noses in it?"...

[freedumb2003]

And they should drag the local TV media along for the ride, so everyone can see the girls hand over that check, and get a good look at the people who were too mean-spirited to keep such a minor incident out of the public eye.

They should hand them the check, and a bag of cookies with "no hard feelings" on it.

I know it is a little mean, but the girls would become legends if they did that.

[Judith Anne]

Who knows? Did anyone say that or report that she was "trying to rub their noses in it"?

If so, I missed it. Still, it's possible, and I don't know the answer.

As a kid of 8, one time I walked up to a neighbor man, elderly, who was clipping roses. On a mischievous impulse, I said "BOO!" in a loud voice. He sat down on the ground, got a little bottle out of his pocket, and put a nitro under his tongue...he scolded me--he never had before--and it took a day for me to get over it, talk to my mom, and come back to apologize. He didn't have a heart attack, or even go to the hospital, but he was never welcoming to us kids after that, and I lost a good friend...

[mcg1969]

Had the teenagers apoligized in the first place, there would have been NO reason to go to court. The Youngs didn't GO to court to get the apology, they went to court because they DIDN'T GET the apology.

And as I have said many times, that is a completely unacceptable, insufficient reason. After all, when they decided to go to court they did not seek an apology---they sought monetary damages.

Whatever you think doesn't matter actually.

Oh, yes it does. What we are talking about here is the responsibility of citizens not to clog our court system with unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits. The Youngs wouldn't know the meaning of that.

The Youngs won in court so the law was on their side.

Not exactly. The judge refused to give them all they asked for---he only awarded them the compensation for the medical bills. But the teenagers had already offered that. So in effect, they wasted the court's time. Had they not gone to court, and accepted the offer from the teenagers, the result would have been EXACTLY the same, except that perhaps they wouldn't have this media circus, the harassment from strangers, and they wouldn't have to pay an attorney.

The reason they won probably had little to do with the apology one way or the other.

Correct, it had nothing to do with the apology. It had everything to do with whether or not the teens should be liable for the damage caused. Hence the lack of a verbal apology was not reasonable jusitification to go to court.

The girls caused the anxiety attack and they were made to pay for listening to their poorly chosen lawyer.

No, they were not "made" to pay anything more than what they had already offered to pay. The court didn't MAKE them do any more than that---except to pay the court costs. Oh, and she was not "awarded" a verbal apology, either.

So you tell me: in what way does that constitute a victory for the Youngs?

[beezdotcom]

Who knows? Did anyone say that or report that she was "trying to rub their noses in it"?

If so, I missed it. Still, it's possible, and I don't know the answer.

No, it didn't explicitly say that. However, it did say that she insisted on pursuing the case despite offers of apology and compensation.

In the absence of additional facts, all we have is speculation and probability. I'm hard-pressed to come up with reasons why a reasonable person would press the issue - but I'm sure some might exist. However, it seems far more likely that her motivation was to seek punishment or revenge, rather than seeking mere justice. "Far more likely" is far from "certain", but I'm more inclined to go with that.

Now, if the girls had been shot, I'd be defending the Youngs; it's a lot easier to understand acting in the confusion of the moment. But after it's all over, and once you find out the whole story, and you find out you weren't singled out, and all the other neighbors were happy about it - well, let's just say that extreme measures require extreme motivation, and I haven't seen a real good reason why extreme measures should have been pursued in this case. Maybe we're missing some details - but I can only go with what I see, and use common sense to fill in the gaps.

[mcg1969]

Judith---I am a bit of a funny beast on this thread. For example, I agree that the teens exercised bad judgement. And I applaud the parents' willingness to pay the medical bills.

My sole, yet quite vehement, complaint is regarding the Young's determination to take this to court. That crossed the line---particularly since the teens were already agreeing to pay the medical bills and issued a written apology. The judge apparently agreed that that was sufficient restitution in this case, too, because he refused to award the Youngs any more than that.

Our court system has no business being clogged with cases like these that can so easily be settled outside of it. The teens had offered a perfectly reasonable settlement, and the Youngs refused: and why? I have to admit I doubt the genuineness of the Youngs when they claim that a verbal apology would have been sufficient. Clearly, their court lawsuit demanded far, far more than that. But even if we take them at their word, the failure to deliver a VERBAL apology it is a wholly inadequate reason to go to court.

[DB]

You can read, right?

[Judith Anne]

You both gave thoughtful replies, and I appreciate that.

I don't know why it ended up in court--do any of us REALLY know? At what point was somebody intransigent--the lawyers, Mrs. Young, or the girls?

One thing that irritates me is the girls' family defending them as wonderful kids that never did anything bad, and then taking money from strangers because of this story. Maybe people are paying the bills for the girls' prank. I wouldn't--and if they were my kids I would have had a long talk with girls who are old enough to know better, frankly.

If they wanted to do a good deed, and surprise somebody, I can think of lots of ways other than what they did. Bad judgement, compounded by parents who can't say, "My daughters used bad judgement, and I've had a long talk with them about that."

Instead, Mrs. Young is demonized...in my opinion, the comments about her are way over the top.

I'm coming to the conclusion that Mrs. Young did the wrong thing by going to court, if she wanted to teach the girls a lesson (which they should have learned, by the way) she was facing an uphill battle.

I recall hearing in the FoxNews interview with Mrs. Young that the sheriff was going to issue the girls a summons, but Mrs. Young said she wouldn't press charges, she just wanted an apology in person and I would guess that's when the parents lawyered up. Once they did, Mrs. Young had to do the same.

I don't know--the whole thing got out of hand on both sides. Knowing rural courts in my own county, they're just not clogged up with cases.

The media spin of "poor little girls just wanted to be nice and that vicious pig Mrs. Young sued them FOR NO REASON!" just doesn't fly with me. It doesn't sit well. I don't trust the media for much anyway, we don't know if the person who wrote the original story was a friend of the family, we don't know anything really.

I just fall on the side of the woman at home in a very rural area with her husband out of town, and somebody banging on the back door, not answering her, not showing themselves, and with no car in sight...

Of course, as I said before, I have a big yard dog that would likely scare them off, that would be in their faces barking before they ever got to the door...

We have teens in our area, really nice kids. Not in a million years would they ever prank anyone--it just isn't done out here. Maybe Mrs. Young's area is different.

[mcg1969]

Failure to deliver a verbal apology tells me that maybe they weren't that sorry. Sure, a written apology might let them off the hook, but it takes a lot more guts to fact the woman. They need to grow up and stop delivering "cookies" at 10:00 at night. :(

Look, I've been chastised on this forum for not knowing the full story on the Youngs' side. Well, I can certainly say the same for you. You don't really know the reason why the lawyer recommended against a verbal apology. Obviously I am leaning towards giving the girls the benefit of the doubt on that, but because the lawyer recommended against it I'm inclined to think that it wasn't because they weren't willing. If they detected---apparently, rightly so---that Mrs. Young was particularly litigious, then I could imagine that it is important that the apology be parsed so that it cannot be used in court.

Remember, one of the teens' parents offered to pay the medical bills from the very first conversation he/she had with Mrs. Young. So it's not like they were attempting to completely avoid responsibility.

[mcg1969]

I recall hearing in the FoxNews interview with Mrs. Young that the sheriff was going to issue the girls a summons, but Mrs. Young said she wouldn't press charges, she just wanted an apology in person and I would guess that's when the parents lawyered up. Once they did, Mrs. Young had to do the same.

"Once they did, Mrs. Young had to do the same?" No. This kind of thinking simply ignores the fact that it is always the plaintiff's prerogative to proceed with a lawsuit. Mrs. Young was in no way forced into a lawsuit just by virtue of the fact they consulted a lawyer---unless she felt she was entitled to more than was being offered, plain and simple. And remember, she was offered full compensation for her medical bills and a written apology---that's not trivial, even if it's not what she wanted.

And again, even if we accept that she truly "just wanted a verbal apology", going to court would in no way achieve that.

[stands2reason]

That wasn't good enough for her.

[beezdotcom]

One thing that irritates me is the girls' family defending them as wonderful kids that never did anything bad, and then taking money from strangers because of this story. Maybe people are paying the bills for the girls' prank.

You seem hung up on the fact that this was a 'prank'. Most of the other neighbors agree that it wasn't, but was instead a nice gesture. Doesn't the judgement of the rest of the neighbors count for anything in this story?

[Bluegrass Federalist]

Like the two girls in this story. The knock and hide with the "Look! We were just leaving cookies, aren't we the sweetest thangs?!" cover story they had going when it appears to me that they were getting a rise out of their "neighbors".

I'm not behind frivolous lawsuits, but my thinking from the start was these two young women were not innocently delivering cookies hither and yon.

What's amusing about this story is the vitriol those who side with the young women take to anyone who questions the little darlings' motives. It's positively hilarious.

I know that when I was a kid, and was doing the "knock and run" gag, I always started by wasting a lot of time taking the trouble baking freaking cookies for my victims. I then went around to all the other neighbors and delivered the cookies with a smile so that I could be positively identified by as many people as possible. Only then would I spring the terrible trap of knocking on the door, which of course violates all custom for doors. It was almost too perfect.

[Judith Anne]

I don't know...just seems to me that the girls could think of a lot of ways to make a "nice gesture" that wouldn't get the sheriff called.

I'm not "hung up" on anything except I'm annoyed at the really low comments posted by some FReepers about Mrs. Young, and I just don't buy the GIRLS' as victims sob story. Apparently most here do.

[PLOM...NOT!]

I've come to the conclusion that BushIsTheMan is trolling.

I'm thinking BITMs' first name is Herb.

[beezdotcom]

Before I wade back in, are you somebody who just likes to pull for the 'underdog'? I should just rest, in that case... ;-)

I don't know...just seems to me that the girls could think of a lot of ways to make a "nice gesture" that wouldn't get the sheriff called.

And with all the other neighbors, it DIDN'T get the sheriff called.

Sure, they could have done LOTS of other things. They didn't - they did THIS. It's easy to armchair-quarterback these girls, and say that they shouldn't have done it. Their father approved the mission in advance, though, and I have to assume that if they lived in a community where this wouldn't have been acceptable, he would have known it.

You've made a number of good arguments about the fear experienced by people living in isolated surroundings, but my guess is that the error in judgment here is to have included this particular neighbor in this particular gesture. Given that it was well received by the other neighbors, I think it's demonstrable that the act was "well-suited" for the neighborhood at large.

As long as we're Monday-morning-quarterbacking, I'm getting the impression that the Youngs were more socially isolated and fearful than your average Joe. It's easy to say, after the fact, that the girls should have just left them out of their gesture. Sometimes, though, doing that ALSO plays into the fears of some people, who then think that they've been singled out for alienation, and 'here's the proof; they're the ONLY ones who didn't get cookies'.

Here are the biggest (circumstantial, admittedly) indications I have that the Youngs were only trying to take their pound of flesh. The girls were acting with the express approval of their father, but he wasn't named in the suit; seems you should go after the adult in a case like that. Young wouldn't accept the apologies from the family because "they rang false".

I have no doubt that Mrs. Young was every bit as terrified as she claims, but I know plenty of people who get way more scared about things than is realistic (ask my wife, I *are* one!) Then, after the dust had settled, I think she was so mad about being terrified at something less than sinister, that she sought to take it out on the people who sparked her terror. How's that for a completely invented analysis?

Meanwhile, ask my wife about the time the band boosters got caught flocking my yard with pink plastic flamingos, after someone paid for them to do it as a fund raiser...


But you know who I'd really like to hear from? The Youngs' 18 year old daughter. If I found out that she and these girls didn't get along, that could add a whole new dimension to the argument, in either direction.

[beezdotcom]

Hmmm...this may or may not be relevant. I agree that facts taken out of context can paint a skewed picture...but it could indicate an unwillingness to settle before things go to court: link here, excerpt below

The Youngs are no strangers to court proceedings. In addition to the cookie lawsuit, records show the Youngs have sued or been sued at least nine times since 1991. Two more court actions have involved restraining orders.

Many of the suits filed by the Youngs were small claims. In 1994, Renea Young was granted a restraining order against one neighbor after they quarrelled over a shared driveway.

Another complaint was spurred by a July 4, 1997, accident in which the Youngs' pickup collided with a slow-moving hay-bale loader turning into a field as they attempted to pass it on a county road.

Again, it proves nothing, except maybe that the girls were foolish to think this could ever have been prevented from going to court with an apology and offer of payment.