Let me explain it to you.
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.
Whatever you think doesn't matter actually. The Youngs won in court so the law was on their side. The reason they won probably had little to do with the apology one way or the other. The girls caused the anxiety attack and they were made to pay for listening to their poorly chosen lawyer.
The Youngs won, but only received 20% of the judgement they'd asked for. That means they lost 80%. When you consider that the final judgement was for the amount offered before the court case began, I'd say the girls' lawyer was well chosen, and had pretty good judgement.
Drew Garrett
I agree with both of you. But I've stayed off these threads, until now, because when I tried to defend Mrs. Young (whose husband was OUT OF TOWN) I was flamed bigtime.
I think we have a bunch of kid posters on here, to tell you the truth. A lot of nasty remarks about Mrs. Young, too, who was on FoxNews and was an unremarkable, quiet-speaking woman who said that the sheriff advised her not to sleep at home that night.
About her property--she said that the girls had climbed a fence (not used the gate) there was no way to see them, since they hid in the bushes, and that they didn't knock, they banged on her BACK door, instead of going to her FRONT door, which may well have had motion sensor lights and a peephole.
There are cardiac arrythmias that are a definite matter of concern, which some people get. Many are treated with medication. That's what I would guess happened with Mrs. Young, although I don't know for sure.
In addition, I posted on the other thread--one of the first--that my rural neighbors and I are of the opinion that the girls were lucky not to be 1)arrested and 2)shot.
10:30 at night is no time to be delivering cookies. The girls say they only went to houses with porch lights on--but they went to the BACK door, banged on it, hid in the bushes, and didn't answer when Mrs. Young asked who it was. I hope some of the posters here can at least understand why she was upset.
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?