|
Via Ginger Stampley comes this piece of stupidity and possibly criminal negligence (IANAL, thank Heaven) by SFX. I know some diabetics. Some, frankly, I'll stay in the same room with only because of family connections. Others are, however, very good people indeed, for whom I weep that, being only mortal, I cannot cure even with the sacrifice of my life. I have about a tenth of a gnat's whisker's worth of sympathy for SFX:
"My guess is that it's just easier for SFX to have a blanket policy than to carve out exceptions that take time and training to enforce," said Gary Hartman, associate dean for information technology at UH's law school and manager of Tapir Productions. And my guess is that if they did carve out such exceptions, some greedy slacker would decide that lack of a "zero tolerance" policy towards legitimate injectable medications meant that they could sue SFX for not having one, and twelve pliable idiots and/or an ivory-tower judge would find that SFX should transfer big bucks to said greedy slacker. But, like the "Palestinians" committing terrorist atrocities, this kills any possible sympathy for and understanding of their cause:
Four people are named in the suit, including a woman who had her diabetes kit confiscated at a nightclub in Philadelphia in 2000. (Emphasis mine). Are the fools and sharks at SFX unaware that this could have meant death for the woman? Or are they so stupid and greedy as to reckon that the settlement in a wrongful-death suit would be less than the cost of defending lawsuits claiming that SFX and its employees have committed an offense by using their judgment instead of reading a boardroom memo. I'll say that "zero tolerance" policies, whether towards nail clippers at school or diabetes kits at a nightclub, are stupid, evil, and indefensible. And, certainly, it is our responsibility to ensure that groundless suits that Billy got four days' detention whilst Susie only got three, or that Heather was warned about carrying needles whilst Babs wasn't. should, are thrown out, and that those bringing them are publicly ridiculed and humiliated. But it is also our responsibility to see that potential defendants proceed in step with us, if they are yet too small to lead. They cannot be allowed to use a faux legal responsibility as an excuse for committing real crimes. John "Akatsukami" Braue Thursday, April 11, 2002 |
|