Patterico's Pontifications

1/13/2014

Inmate Who Stomped the Crap Out of Some Guy Sues Nike for Not Warning Him That Kicking People in the Face with Nikes Can Be Dangerous

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:13 am

What a country!

A 26-year-old Portland pimp has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Nike, claiming the shoe manufacturer is partially responsible for a brutal beating that helped net him a 100-year prison sentence.

Sirgiorgiro Clardy claims Nike should have placed a label in his Jordan shoes warning consumers that they could be used as a dangerous weapon. He was wearing a pair when he repeatedly stomped the face of a john who was trying to leave a Portland hotel without paying Clardy’s prostitute in June 2012.

Jurors early in 2013 found him guilty of second-degree assault for using his Jordans — a dangerous weapon — to beat the john’s face to a pulp. The man required stitches and plastic surgery on his nose.

As we all know, in this wonderful land of ours, anyone can file a lawsuit — even violent convicted criminals whose claims are nonsense. And what’s stopping him? He’s a loser with nothing but time on his hands. It provides amusement to hassle an innocent defendant, and there is unlikely to be any real price paid.

Thank God for Democrats and their staunch opposition to loser pays, huh?

Oh well. At least this guy is locked up forever, where he belongs.

Thanks to Dana.

112 Comments

  1. Ding!

    Comment by The Other Dana (3e4784) — 1/13/2014 @ 7:39 am

  2. imagine an overpriced Nike sneaker endorsed by Michael Jordan stamping on the human face of somebody what didn’t pay his hooker – forever

    it’s the future

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/13/2014 @ 7:40 am

  3. I dream of a world where men pay their prostitutes, and not force chivalrous young men to resort to violence coming to the aid of the frail doves. I seriously hope the judge gave him half the sentence he would have given to somebody who stomped somebody’s face in a run of the mill bar fight.

    Access to the courts is probably the most valuable of our rights. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater because some people humans persons sentient entities two-legged creatures with the gift of speech abuse it.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 7:46 am

  4. If Nike put such a notice on their shoes sneakers, and then somebody attacked someone with it, couldn’t Nike be accused of encouraging it or contributing to it and be sued?

    And what’s so special and non-obvious about Nikes?

    It doesn’t matter anyway – if someone hits someone who turns out to be frail, he’s stuck with the consequences.

    Maybe he could sue the warden for letting him have such a dangerous weapons.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (28600b) — 1/13/2014 @ 7:55 am

  5. Oregon parents better start worrying that they don’t send their kindergartners to school armed with Nike Jordans. Not just weapons but … “DANGEROUS WEAPONS”.

    Who thinks we should apply loser pays to criminal prosecutions as well, BTW?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:01 am

  6. Just another reminder that Dad was right when he said “Three Generations Off the Farm and Common Sense Goes Out the Window” can you imagine this happening in the fifties, the first person Mr Clardy tried to file the suit with would have torn it up and sent him back to his cell.

    Comment by Glenn (647d76) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:20 am

  7. Well if Air Jordans are dangerous weapons, what would you call a Doc Martin boot? I might add that this clown should receive a swift kick in his backside by say an NFL kicker wearing a Doc Martin.

    Comment by Comanche Voter (12e67d) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:33 am

  8. Zero Tolerance for Nike!!!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a5463a) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:38 am

  9. Illinois has issued 13,000 concealed carry permits for firearms so far. I don’t know if Nikes are permitted, what the training requirements are, and how much they must be covered by a holster or clothing to comply with the law. To be safe, I’m wearing my Timberlands in public.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:44 am

  10. Nike should react like Frank Cross when, early in “Scrooged,” the newspapers run headlines screaming that his ads for his Xmas special are scaring people to death. YOU CAN’T BUY PUBLICITY LIKE THIS, PEOPLE.

    Comment by Mitch (3c737d) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:51 am

  11. second-degree assault for using his Jordans

    Did the charges really include the use of Nikes as an instrument of beating the victim?
    I mean, the claim is ridiculous, but is there really a logical connection to how the charges were filed and the case was prosecuted to the Nikes being the instrument of the crime?

    I am assuming/hoping that he is making this charge himself, without the help of a licensed attorney. If a licensed attorney is involved, I think he/she should be censured somehow.

    Yes, we have a problem. Even bare feet can be dangerous.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:55 am

  12. I’m not so sure, Mitch. Half the people Chicago cops shoot are “armed” with cellphones that the cops say look like guns. (The other half are armed with cars.) Black kids in Chicago who hear this story might start asking their parents for Adidas, instead of Nikes, I think.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:58 am

  13. I looked at the link. This fellow is a seriously damaged and messed up human being; makes me think of the Gadarene demoniac in the Gospels who lived among the tombs and possessed by a “legion” of demons.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:03 am

  14. Chuck Taylor was never this popular.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:07 am

  15. mg-
    Chucks may be more popular than you realize these days.
    http://www.converse.com/landing-all-star?CSID=PS|Google|Brand-Chuck-Taylor-All-Star|chuck%20taylor

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:13 am

  16. Seems like sanctions would be in order. But then I think that a lot, and they never are.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:16 am

  17. And finally, a suit stupider than the DC judge’s pants suit.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:18 am

  18. #2: Big Bro’

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:19 am

  19. I tremble thinking of the damage former Detroit Pistons center Bob Lanier would’ve done w/his size 19 Adidas… or, God forbid, teh Shaqster!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a5463a) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:22 am

  20. Greetings:

    At the risk of diminishing your fun, back in the Bronx of my youth, the local folk wisdom included a somewhat subtle admonishment about the guy who told the judge that he was “just standing on the corner, cleaning my knife, when this guy ran up and jumped on it 27 times.”

    Apparently, his knife had no warning labels either.

    Comment by 11B40 (db2116) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:41 am

  21. Sorta like the case,11B40, about thirty years ago in Dallas area. Woman claimed an accidental shooting of her husband. She said the gun accidentally went off, 12 times! Only one problem with that so-called defense was, the weapon involved was a six shot revolver! WTF?

    Comment by peedoffamerican (c1890a) — 1/13/2014 @ 10:56 am

  22. Yes, it is ridiculous that this idiot would think that Nike should include a warning that their shoes could be dangerous if you are wearing them when you stomp on someone’s face.

    It is equally ridiculous that the legal system was able to pervert justice and increase this guy’s sentence by claiming that the fact that he was wearing shoes when he did the stomping meant that he was using a dangerous weapon.

    It would be nice to see other prosecutors mock their brethren when they dishonestly use a statute in a way in which it was not intended to convict someone of a [more serious] crime.

    Comment by Anon Y. Mous (8ec442) — 1/13/2014 @ 11:15 am

  23. Hey, I think that this case raises an important issue. If Nikes — named after the Goddess of Victory, I’d note — are potentially deadly weapons, then it logically follows that all shoes are potentially deadly weapons. Clearly, the only safe policy for prisoners is to require them to go barefoot. This will have the practical effect of rendering prisoners less capable in a fight if there is a confrontation with the guards.

    Further, it would seem to me that convicted felons would have to give up their right to own or wear shoes. We need to do this!

    Comment by The practical Dana (3e4784) — 1/13/2014 @ 12:05 pm

  24. Good thing he didn’t strangle him with his pants.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 12:10 pm

  25. As MD and AnonYMous pointed out, this suit, ridiculous as it sounds, actually makes sense. His point isn’t really that shoes should bear a warning label, but that his sentence enhancement for using them as a deadly weapon was bogus. When the legislature enacted tougher penalties for using a weapon in the commission of a crime, it had actual weapons in mind, not any object that happens to come to hand. It surely never crossed any legislator’s mind that the mere failure to remove ones shoes before kicking someone would turn an ordinary assault into assault with a weapon.

    I have a friend who was an assistant DA here in Brooklyn; in discussing grand juries he told me about a case in which someone picked up a chair and beat another person senseless with it. On top of all the other charges, he wanted to charge this fellow with possession of a weapon, to wit the chair. Using it to commit the assault turned it into a weapon, and unlicensed possession of a weapon is a crime! Or maybe it was wielding, rather than possession.

    Anyway, the grand jury no-billed that charge, and my friend was astonished at the grand jurors’ stupidity and stubbornness for not accepting his legal advice that under the law a chair is a weapon if it’s used as one. And he was astonished when I said I agreed with the grand jury, and condemned him for having tried to bring such a charge in the first place. He had got into the habit of thinking a certain way, and couldn’t see that he’d lost the plot.

    The law clearly means not any object that can be used as a weapon, not makeshift weapons, but only objects which are inherently weapons, and that an ordinary person would recognise as such. Trying to kill someone with a chair or with shoes is attempted murder, but it’s no worse than doing so with bare hands, and the legislature didn’t intend to make it worse. If chairs and shoes are to legally count as deadly weapons, then they should be covered by whatever laws require deadly weapons to come with warnings.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 1/13/2014 @ 12:11 pm

  26. 15-md- wow, I had no idea.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/13/2014 @ 12:19 pm

  27. Sirgiorgiro Clardy– wait a second… that’s MY pimp’s name!

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:19 pm

  28. When did teh pimps make the switch from boots with Cuban heels?

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a5463a) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:23 pm

  29. #23 Dana–

    Pretty sure that many jails insist on a simple, standard shoe, like Vans, and prisoners who arrive in Nikes or other flash shoe go barefoot until they get something acceptable.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:23 pm

  30. “Using it to commit the assault turned it into a weapon, and unlicensed possession of a weapon is a crime! Or maybe it was wielding, rather than possession.”

    Milhouse – A chair would not fall under the definition of a “deadly weapon” under New York State penal code, but it could fall under the definition of “dangerous instrument” depending how it was used to inflict injuries on the crime victim. Knowing what the perp was charged with does make a difference.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:39 pm

  31. The lawsuit is far less of a problem than the fact that our laws allow for sneakers to be classified as dangerous weapons, and the fact that a jury actually convicted him for it.

    Comment by Just A Guy (08458e) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:45 pm

  32. How about stiletto heels? Do we need licenses or regulations for those too?

    Comment by rochf (f3fbb0) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:47 pm

  33. I don’t think my ski pole have a warning that they could be used as dangerous instruments to stab people if I tried hard enough and they didn’t bend, but then again they are pretty old.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:50 pm

  34. I bought a new rolling pin in November that I could do damage to somebody with. It did not come with a warning label. Clearly that was a government oversight.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:51 pm

  35. Not in Texas, apparently. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/justice/texas-stiletto-stabbing/

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 1:52 pm

  36. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the entire tragic story could have been avoided if the deadbeat john had paid for his hooker. Will he be joined as a defendant in this suit under Oregon’s Rules of Civil Procedure or can he be sued separately? Will Nike implead him as a third-party defendant for indemnity and contribution? How about the hooker? Shouldn’t she have gotten the money in advance? There’s a lot of blame to go around.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 2:07 pm

  37. It is the enhancements like this that make me very worried about prosecutors/judges using the law to get whatever results they want.

    If the law (and the judges/et.al.) want to charge/convict/incarcerate the guy for 100 years for damn near killing the guy–Fine.

    If however, the maximum “assault” can be charged is 10 years–Adding enhancements (using a shoe, knife, gun)–I don’t care. The victim is still just as damaged.

    The idea that somebody with a fist is less dangerous is a matter of degree that I don’t care about vs somebody with a knife–The intent is still the same.

    200 lb guy and 90 lb women/kid–The results are similar and the lack of ability for self defense (short/non-threatening knife, no hand gun, etc.) still gives the advantage to the 200 lb guy.

    Howabout–Handcuff every person over 180lbs and give metal forks to everyone under 90lbs when in the airport security zone/on a plane.

    Makes just about as much sense.

    Comment by BfC (a1cf00) — 1/13/2014 @ 2:11 pm

  38. Barack Obama actually came with a warning label that electing an angry Alinskyite with no record of accomplisment might result in the US Constitution being stomped on, as well as the potential for our economy to end up on life support.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 1/13/2014 @ 2:37 pm

  39. “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the entire tragic story could have been avoided if the deadbeat john had paid for his hooker.”

    nk – Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that everybody knows you don’t use your Jordan’s to eff somebody up. This guy is not among the winners of the lucky sperm club.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/13/2014 @ 2:56 pm

  40. “You no payah de gurlzz an’ I must break you face… eeesszz good no?”

    - Sirgiorgio

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a5463a) — 1/13/2014 @ 3:12 pm

  41. “Tennis-shoe Pimp” was once a derogatory name used by those who had to deal with them. This clown might just be trying to up their status.

    Reading the caption of the photo in the story, I note the “business manager” is seated in a restraint chair and that his legal adviser was seated well away from him on the other side of a wall, telling me he served as his own attorney and solidifying his lack of intelligence. The man had obviously distinguished himself as one the court should take special interest in.

    Does the story tell us there is enhanced sentence due to the use of shoes? Would he have been sentenced to only 50 years if barefoot? In CA the statute includes “force likely to produce great bodily injury”, which includes kicking, regardless of the shoes worn. “Likely to..” is not the same as actually causing, either. Don’t know how OR handles that.

    Comment by gramps, the original (64b8ca) — 1/13/2014 @ 3:25 pm

  42. Can Michael Jordan or Nike counter sue for having their good name and brand sullied by moron pimps, lawyers and judges and being identified with this man’s thuggery in countless news articles and google hits?

    Comment by elissa (5b28d4) — 1/13/2014 @ 3:28 pm

  43. Bro’s before ho’s.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/13/2014 @ 3:31 pm

  44. I say write it on the arch of the sole in very fine print… but large enough to read as it descends.
    At that point you thank God they aren’t steel toed boots of any brand.

    Milhouse, how is it that the cops always charge the driver who nudges their police car with assault with a deadly weapon.
    A car is not inherently a weapon but clearly even at 2MPH the police believe it to be

    How about getting 26OZ of a 40 upside the head… deadly weapon or not? I can’t remember…

    It is an awful thing not to pay the girl… the girl will take a beating, so if anyone needs the Nike protocol it is the john.

    Who named the pimp? An idiot?

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 1/13/2014 @ 3:54 pm

  45. Rooster on Baretta was a well dressed pimp.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/13/2014 @ 4:01 pm

  46. Don’t forget Huggy Bear, on Starsky and Hutch;

    http://freebeacon.com/nyt-reporter-asks-scotus-to-review-reporters-privilege-case/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/13/2014 @ 4:03 pm

  47. MD…, ridiculous as it sounds, actually makes sense.
    Milhouse

    And there you have it.

    mg-either you don’t have much direct interaction with teens these days, or yours are into different stuff.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/13/2014 @ 4:31 pm

  48. There’s also another McDonald’s lawsuit over hot coffee.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/13/2014 @ 4:32 pm

  49. My daughters are 25 and 29.
    The teens I know wear golf shoes or hip boots.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/13/2014 @ 5:00 pm

  50. How exactly does this lawsuit survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief is granted?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (906585) — 1/13/2014 @ 5:13 pm

  51. One thing a little confusing here: he wasn’t an inmate when he did the stomping. He’s an inmate now. I agree with Anon Y Mous and Milhouse at 22 and 25: This suit is almost satire because of the way his sentence was enhanced.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (e6d54e) — 1/13/2014 @ 5:22 pm

  52. DRJ – history repeats itself. We don’t seem to learn.

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 1/13/2014 @ 5:52 pm

  53. When the economy is bad, people sue more.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 5:57 pm

  54. hat tip or link from Ace:

    The Untold Legal Drama Of Coyote v. Acme

    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1990/02/26/1990_02_26_042_TNY_CARDS_000353816

    From the Feb. 26, 1990 issue of the New Yorker. Most of it behind a paywall.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (e6d54e) — 1/13/2014 @ 5:59 pm

  55. Complete opening statement:

    http://www.jamesfuqua.com/lawyers/jokes/coyote-acme.shtml

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (e6d54e) — 1/13/2014 @ 6:05 pm

  56. HHS has revealed for the first time demographic information. Only 24 percent of enrollees are from the important 18–34 age group (whose premiums are being relied upon to cover the costs of care for older, sicker people). As the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein reports, that’s well below the administration’s goal of nearly 39 percent.

    Comment by Icy (b22f5c) — 1/13/2014 @ 6:39 pm

  57. Loser pays is indeed the solution to this.

    Of course, some extremely litigious nuts are good at ducking paying judgments and hiding assets, and some are simply judgment proof (flat broke).

    In those cases, the payment should be from community service which the lawfare victim can use as a tax deduction or something.

    Comment by Dustin (fdf8c8) — 1/13/2014 @ 6:51 pm

  58. I looked at DRJ’s link and read some of the comments.
    I must admit I was not real familiar with the details of the previous incident, and that McDonald’s coffee can be as hot as 195 degrees. That is far hotter than one needs coffee to be. I believe it is 126 degrees that is recommended for the top temp for a hot water heater if there are young children or elderly in the house, as over 126 burns happen quickly.

    FWIW

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/13/2014 @ 6:53 pm

  59. if you’re a hooker in portland

    they’ll say you’re unambitious

    but if you work hard and do your best

    they’ll stop saying that

    so much

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/13/2014 @ 7:19 pm

  60. Starbucks is served from 170-180 degrees.

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:19 pm

  61. Pimps should be able to deduct shoe expenses for wear and tear on johns. It’s hard to be a pimp in the city.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:30 pm

  62. except this was Portland

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:31 pm

  63. 57.Loser pays is indeed the solution to this.

    I don’t see why it would make any difference at all here. The guy isn’t going to pay if he loses.

    Comment by James B. Shearer (878baf) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:03 pm

  64. In the same stupid light;

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/panel-yemeni-detainee-should-be-transferred-out-of-guantanamo/2014/01/09/ca5f81fe-7979-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:13 pm

  65. MD, the coffee is that hot because people want it that hot, in part because they may not be drinking it immediately. The plaintiff in the infamous suit got burned because she was stupid enough to try to open a hot cup of coffee while in a moving car. The caps are on the cups for a reason.

    I see that the new suit is not nearly as silly; the allegation is not that the coffee was too hot but that the cap was not put on properly. That seems to me like a good claim, if true.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:34 pm

  66. you didn’t put the cap right on the cup

    and now look what’s happened that poor lady is burned scalded and blistered and mcdonald’s is getting sued what do you have to say for yourself?

    SHUT UP NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK

    you can’t even put a cap on a cup

    you disgust me

    oh and btw you’re fired

    good luck working again in this town

    you’re on the list now, booba

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/13/2014 @ 9:46 pm

  67. Milhouse

    I don’t think the woman from New Mexico was in a moving car when the coffee spilled (I think thecoffee was purchased at the drive thru) but regardless here are some nice pictures of a 81 year old womans blackened crotch and the skin grafts.
    grandmas charbroiled lady parts

    I had coffee from starbucks go into my boot and made a huge bubble that has left a scar on my ankle. The woman handed me my coffee and the cup top was loose (I ordered black) and the cup itself was flimsy for some reason.
    I took my cup, the cup crushed and coffee flew into my boot.

    Anyway, burns really hurt. years ago I burned my stomach with some 3rd degree burnt patches and the worst part (way worse than the original burn) was every tuesday when the wound was scraped clean over the raw nerve endings. I’d heard that burn victims think about suicide when they are facing that day and I can see why. I had to muster up some courage before going into the office. Then at the very end of the process, one of the wounds gets MRSA and I find out I have developed an allergy to sulfa drugs.
    And no, I did not sue ayone

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 1/13/2014 @ 11:24 pm

  68. On a cheerier note, I see Octomom got dinged with felony welfare fraud charges. Turns out she made too much money on the masturbation video… they called those payments residuals and it made me want to use some bleach

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 1/13/2014 @ 11:40 pm

  69. Is it too late to point out that 100 years is excessive by about 98.5 years, for the crime of beating the snot out of a guy who just porked your old lady?

    No matter what the defendant looks like, minion of Bealzebub or not, the victim didn’t die and was at least some fractional amount at fault.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/14/2014 @ 12:08 am

  70. “Is it too late to point out that 100 years is excessive by about 98.5 years, for the crime of beating the snot out of a guy who just porked your old lady?”

    papertiger – He also beat the snot out of his old lady and was charged with some other stuff as well if you read the article.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/14/2014 @ 12:15 am

  71. yeah, bad burns are no fun, and Debridement is diametrically opposed to fun.

    i’d go into details, but even 31 years later, just remembering them cleaning off my right hand makes me sick to my stomach…

    and then there was w*rking the burn ward at BAMC at Ft Sam, where the worst military burn victims go.

    i think i’ll go throw up now, then find something mindless to take my brain elsewhere.

    at the very least, could we talk about MRSA instead? i’ve never had that…. (yet %-)

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 1/14/2014 @ 1:41 am

  72. I looked at DRJ’s link and read some of the comments.
    I must admit I was not real familiar with the details of the previous incident, and that McDonald’s coffee can be as hot as 195 degrees. That is far hotter than one needs coffee to be. I believe it is 126 degrees that is recommended for the top temp for a hot water heater if there are young children or elderly in the house, as over 126 burns happen quickly.

    FWIW

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/13/2014 @ 6:53 pm

    I respectfully disagree.

    I wasn’t there and can’t say if they negligently left the lid off, but coffee is supposed to be hot. Coffee doesn’t brew correctly if it isn’t 200 degrees. I brew tea at 212. I love Mcdonalds for giving me coffee that is hot enough that it’s still good and hot when I am done with my commute.

    But hot coffee will give you a burn if you can’t get it off your skin fast enough. So will many other products that adults should be able to enjoy without the government nannying them away, in my opinion.

    My water heater’s label suggests I set it at 140 (which is where I set it). I have never been burnt by it (and I suspect that the billions of McDonalds customers who keep buying this 195 degree coffee aren’t getting burned either. I think the 120 degree rule is a nanny one that leads to bacteria problems.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 1/14/2014 @ 2:56 am

  73. I’m sure he’s scum and his lawsuit worthless, but I cant help but feel someone who screws a prostitute and refuses to pay deserves to be beaten to a pulp.

    OK, have sex with a prostitute. Do something sleazy. Betray your wedding vows, be a degenerate, whatever. But pay. I mean, pay, right? At least pay. Who the hell do you think you are? Do you think you get to do all that and not even hand over the money??

    Comment by Amos (323e4e) — 1/14/2014 @ 3:50 am

  74. speaking of travesties of mockeries of shams;

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/14/2014 @ 5:05 am

  75. I appreciate the other comments about coffee temperature.

    papertiger- I don’t know if you read the article. The important points about how the person “looked” was that he was in a restraint chair ala Hannibal Lecter (sans mask) because of his previous behavior in the courtroom, and his legal advisor, the person there to assist him, was sitting at a distance for safety.
    Testimony at trial said he had a “100% chance” of further violent crimes.
    Often we see articles about repeat offenders and wonder “how did that person get released so they can terrorize the public again”; this seemed, from what we are given, as one place where keeping someone off the street indefinitely was the right thing to do.
    I think protecting society from minions of Beelzebub is a good thing, if “the shoe fits”, so to speak.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/14/2014 @ 5:26 am

  76. Here is a link to a legal article that has many more facts about the original McDonald’s coffee lawsuit.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/14/2014 @ 5:35 am

  77. The facts start on the right side of page 2, in the section entitled “A Grievant becomes a Claimant: Stella Liebeck Seeks Recompense.”

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/14/2014 @ 5:37 am

  78. I was told by my daughter’s boyfriend – a drummer in a rock band – that the beef in Mickey D’s hamburgers will not spoil or change in appearance even after 30 days of laying unrefridgerared on the kitchen counter. He said he and his band mates will attest to this, based on their controlled experiment.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (f6a9d4) — 1/14/2014 @ 5:58 am

  79. Who thinks we should apply loser pays to criminal prosecutions as well, BTW?
    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/13/2014 @ 8:01 am

    – Well, uh, there’s that guy “nk”; he thinks we should do that there thing you done said. So that’s ‘one’.

    Comment by Icy (2ef921) — 1/14/2014 @ 6:09 am

  80. At this point I won’t call them out by name (although it’s a given that Sammy, for one, always makes it into a comment about misinterpreting available data) but perhaps — if it isn’t too inconvenient — some of my fellow commenters could choose next time to CLICK ON THE LINK AND READ THE F*UCKING ARTICLE before commenting.

    Comment by Icy (2ef921) — 1/14/2014 @ 6:29 am

  81. 74. Just lay back and enjoy.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/14/2014 @ 6:47 am

  82. I believe that about the McDonald’s beef patties. They’re definitely sprayed with ammonia gas at the factory to kill all the bacteria, and cooked to leather, still frozen, before they’re served. There may be other preservatives — McDonald’s provides no public information about any preservatives in its food that I could find. Unless you introduce bacteria to the cooked patty, why should it spoil? No mold either? Your daughter’s boyfriend keeps a clean kitchen, Haiku.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/14/2014 @ 7:16 am

  83. DRJ,

    The lawsuit sounds like they essentially spilled the coffee on her at the window.

    A friend of mine had boiling hot water for tea spilled on her in an airplane. She was buckled in her aisle seat, and the stewardess leaned over with a tray in her hand, and a container with the hot water with no lid spilled all over my friend’s abdomen. She required surgery for the burns, missed weeks of work, and has a scar that causes her to wear one-piece bathing suits where she previously wore bikinis. She was in horrible pain for weeks. I don’t know if she ever sued the airline, but it was a terrible thing for her and the airline mistreated her in the minutes after the spill, acting like she was making a mountain out of a molehill. She is not a dramatic person who exaggerates; she is very smart and funny and reasonable.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 1/14/2014 @ 7:16 am

  84. Re: Mickey D’s from a sometime traveler by auto.

    This large corporation is constantly making improvements, e.g., the soy burgers are delicious and the soy malts now better than Dairy Q(small comfort doubtless).

    While, following introduction in the Mpls/St.P market some years back the coffee(soy too?) was tea-thin and scalding hot, it has improved, albeit quantitatively.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/14/2014 @ 7:26 am

  85. So, If you want to be able to exit the plane more quickly to better survive an emergency, strive to sit on the aisle. If you want to survive a stewardess/steward with hot water and a bad attitude better you should strive to be put in a window seat. Life really is full of choices that can be both innocuous and life changing.

    Comment by elissa (5b28d4) — 1/14/2014 @ 7:37 am

  86. The band lives in a house in Goleta, Ca. The young man is sharp, don’t know about the rest of the band… but they must be doing something right to make a good living playing music.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (f6a9d4) — 1/14/2014 @ 7:48 am

  87. Milhouse wrote:

    As MD and AnonYMous pointed out, this suit, ridiculous as it sounds, actually makes sense. His point isn’t really that shoes should bear a warning label, but that his sentence enhancement for using them as a deadly weapon was bogus. When the legislature enacted tougher penalties for using a weapon in the commission of a crime, it had actual weapons in mind, not any object that happens to come to hand. It surely never crossed any legislator’s mind that the mere failure to remove ones shoes before kicking someone would turn an ordinary assault into assault with a weapon.

    Really? And you know this how?

    “(A)ny object that happens to come to hand” could certainly increase the severity of the attack, whether it was a baseball bat, a beer bottle that was laying on the ground, a tire iron, or any of a host of ordinary objects.

    The soles on Nike’s are a hard rubber, and would have made kicks from the assailant more damaging; they increased the damage done by his assault, and I would say that that certainly falls within the definition of a weapon.

    Comment by The very practical Dana (3e4784) — 1/14/2014 @ 9:00 am

  88. Since you brought it up, Dana:

    When the legislature enacted tougher penalties for using a weapon in the commission of a crime, it had actual weapons in mind, not any object that happens to come to hand. It surely never crossed any legislator’s mind that the mere failure to remove ones shoes before kicking someone would turn an ordinary assault into assault with a weapon.

    No. If the legislative intent is that clear, the defendant is not guilty. If the legislative intent is ambiguous, under rules of construction of penal statutes the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defendant, and again she is not guilty. For the jury to have been given an instruction that allowed them to find him guilty in this case means that the court(s) found the legislative intent to be clear that Nikes are weapons. More than that. That they are dangerous weapons. Not safe weapons.

    Forgive me for not taking this all that seriously. The prosecution, the jury, and the judge are the only good guys in this case. The pimp, the hooker, and the john are the dog excrement of society, and whether they are hosed away, or scraped off, or left out to dry and blown away, it’s all the same.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/14/2014 @ 9:17 am

  89. Comment by Icy (2ef921) — 1/14/2014 @ 6:09 am

    Is Icy capping on me? Oh well.

    Yeah, I looked at the article the first time, and just for giggles took a second peek.

    Beating up a hooker and a john and emptying the guys wallet that equals two assault and batteries, one of the second degree, and a petty theft.

    I’m not a lawyer but I hang out with some on the internet.

    Two counts of felony battery and a petty theft do not a life sentence make. At least not in a sane world.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/15/2014 @ 11:55 am

  90. papertiger- I don’t know if you read the article. The important points about how the person “looked” was that he was in a restraint chair ala Hannibal Lecter (sans mask) because of his previous behavior in the courtroom, and his legal advisor, the person there to assist him, was sitting at a distance for safety.

    Put yourself in that position for a minute. You have just been convicted to 100 years for a crime that a Kennedy would have been given probation over. Fabian Nunez (former Speaker of the Assembly) son got probation for murdering a guy with a knife.
    Another person without political connections could expect, if the judge is PMSing or harbors a grudge, 5 years. Seven tops.

    Would you be a little bit hostile to the public defender after getting a life sentence for bloodying a guy’s nose?
    I would be. You might even have to put me in restraint to keep me from my court appointed lawyer in that circumstance.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/15/2014 @ 12:45 pm

  91. This is what bothers me. From the linked article:
    “Clardy wrote that he’s tried to starve himself and kill himself multiple times.”

    Since he’s in prison, this can only mean that he was prevented from starving himself and killing himself multiple times by the prison guards. That is unconscionable. If he tries to starve himself or kill himself multiple times he must be allowed to do so without any interference by brutal, officious, minions of the police state. Attica! Attica! Attica!

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2014 @ 3:51 pm

  92. papertiger-
    I often try to put myself in the position of other people, but at the moment I can’t wrap my head around being a pimp who stomps people’s faces and then beats up my girl for whatever reason, and then getting bent out of shape because they said my shoe are weapons.
    Though I guess I could have argued that had I wanted to use shoes as weapons, I would have been wearing Doc Martin’s or some good steel toed work boots.
    I did know a fellow once who did time for an armed robbery he didn’t commit. He actually had no complaint, because when he was arrested it was while actually planning a different armed robbery. He guessed that maybe being arrested was a better ending than getting killed or killing somebody else in his planned robbery attempt and then getting a much longer sentence.
    I did know a pimp once, but he used brass knuckles. But that was actually before I had met him. When I knew him he was working the corners trying to get people off of the streets and into rehab.

    BTW, I think he started exhibiting such behavior when he was originally on trial, and his very own behavior in the courtroom before being convicted I believe is what “earned” him such a sentence.
    I mean, if being on your best behavior means you are a threat to those who are supposed to help you, don’t go cryin’ when you can’t find a friend.
    That said, I don’t wish him ill treatment or any such thing while in prison, but I hope some day he can be glad that he was kept from doing more evil.
    Seriously.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/15/2014 @ 4:16 pm

  93. BTW, I think he started exhibiting such behavior when he was originally on trial, and his very own behavior in the courtroom before being convicted I believe is what “earned” him such a sentence.

    I have the Jud Hersch scene from “The Breakfast Club” running through my head.
    “I’ll give you another week in detention if you act up again mister” said the judge. “I can do this all day.”

    I mean, if being on your best behavior means you are a threat to those who are supposed to help you, don’t go cryin’ when you can’t find a friend.

    That’s rationalizing a punishment far in excess of the man’s crime because he wasn’t politically connected, and doesn’t have the money to grease the right palms to gain his freedom (but I repeat myself). Also some good old fashion demonizing tossed in for effect. (Implying that the man’s behavior was a cause, rather than the effect of his treatment by the court.)

    That’s not justice. That’s not equal protection before the law.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/15/2014 @ 6:17 pm

  94. This is related. Sometimes the press can report an event fairly and accurately. http://i.imgur.com/RxgIOSX.jpg Safe.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:21 pm

  95. papertiger, I don’t think aggressive and aggravated behavior is rationalizing, but that it is reasoning.

    I have friends who have suffered hell from a SLAPP suit from people who can afford to harass them when they can’t afford a lawyer.
    I have had many a patient and other interactions with people from crime ridden corners in Philly. Maybe this is a travesty of justice against this person, but I suspect this person is the kind of person that gets released, kills or rapes, and we all wonder why they were ever let out.

    If others get out of such a thing with a slap on the wrist because they are connected, that is the problem.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:32 pm

  96. May be worth its own post:

    http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/01/15/a-hotel-lobby-is-like-a-house-at-least-when-you-rob-it/

    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B244436.PDF

    Luis Rosales doesn’t really dispute that he robbed desk clerks in the lobbies of three Los Angeles-area hotels in October and November 2011. But he doesn’t think his trial judge should have classified the lobbies as “inhabited dwelling houses,” which made the crimes first-degree robbery and contributed to Rosales’ 30-year prison sentence.

    One justice on a state appeals court agreed with Rosales. Two disagreed and upheld his sentence.

    30 years for three armed robberies–Maybe.

    30 years because the hotel lobby was a “home”–A stretch to make the punishment more severe. I am not sure that is right (30 years for armed robbery for all).

    Comment by BfC (a1cf00) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:25 pm

  97. I admit that I am confused. People complain that career criminals routinely get out too early and easily, and people also complain that people get sentences that are too severe.
    Is it reflective of simple human error, that of all of the thousands of criminal guilty verdicts each year “a few” are too lenient and “a few others” are too strict, and what appear to be obvious mistakes are not evidence of systemic problems but rather individual cases of poor judgment (on retrospect)?

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/16/2014 @ 5:08 am

  98. For my two cents’ worth, sentences overall are three times as long as they should be. In the past thirty years sentences have been going up by 1) simply making it longer for the predicate offense, 2) enhancements, and 3) high mandatory minimums for both the predicate offense and the enhancement.

    There is a philosophy, self-defeating in my opinion, that locking up fewer people for longer periods is better than locking up more people for shorter periods. My cynical side says it’s all the same to the prisoner industry, they still make their money, and the real effect on crime is irrelevant. But what do I know?

    Having said that, overall longer sentences do not necessarily equate to unjustly harsh sentences in any particular case. This guy, I think, got his just desserts. I could not care less about the john, but I would have given him a hundred years for forcing the girl into prostitution and abusing her. His crimes against the girl may not have netted him a hundred years, but I’m ok with using his crimes against the john to make up the difference.

    And having said that, the sentencing schemes can be unjustly abused. For one example, Angela Corey uses the enhancements and threats of mandatory minimums to coerce pleas to lesser offenses. If a defendant refuses to plead and take a couple of years, he gets twenty years for going to trial and losing. For firing two warning shots into the ground to chase away a couple of suspicious characters on his neighbor’s property. Actual case.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/16/2014 @ 7:27 am

  99. I could not care less about the john, but I would have given him a hundred years for forcing the girl into prostitution and abusing her. His crimes against the girl may not have netted him a hundred years, but….

    Where are these delicate flowers who can be forced against their will to do a man’s bidding? Where I live it’s the 21st century, and women are born with free agency. Moreover that free agency is used carelessly to destroy men who make the mistake of believing they can impose their will on a woman.

    So it must be in this special circumstance that suddenly a woman is left without recourse, responsability, or a mind of her own.
    I’ve never met a girl like that. Usually, the ones I’ve known, it’s the women conducting the orchestra.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/16/2014 @ 12:10 pm

  100. Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/16/2014 @ 12:10 pm

    Where are these delicate flowers who can be forced against their will to do a man’s bidding?

    It’s genetic.

    Women can get scared very easily even of preposterous contingencies. And she may be depressed as a result of having been raped.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ee49e7) — 1/16/2014 @ 12:19 pm

  101. Oh please. If it were genetic than Muslims wouldn’t have had to invent a religious imperative to keep women subservient.

    I am honestly shocked at the amount of crime being invented from whole cloth, without any support from the facts layed out by the article, by the commenters on this thread.

    Seems you’ll grasp at straws just to deprive the defendant of his liberty.

    You know what I like about this guy? He was hosed by the government. Stuck with a stuttering incompetent “Cousin Vinny” type PD, who managed to Forest Gump a one year offense into a hundred, the guy steps up to fight back in a novel and public way.

    That takes ingenuity and guts.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/16/2014 @ 12:47 pm

  102. From the article:

    During his two-week trial and his two-day sentencing hearing, Clardy was known for his unusual courtroom antics. He shouted expletives at the judge, prosecutors and jurors.
    A psychologist declared him an anti-social psychopath who was 100 percent likely to commit violent crimes again. And Clardy disagreed so loudly — making such a scene — that he was removed from the courtroom.

    Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but I did not invent things out of whole cloth when I said that his aggressive behavior started during the trial prior to his conviction (and sentencing) and that maybe his own behavior played a role in his harsh sentence.
    Would I likely balk at being called a psychopath who had a 100% chance of repeating violent crimes?
    Probably to some degree, but if I didn’t want to confirm the claim I would have done it without needing to be taken from the courtroom.
    And assuming the assailant did not take off his shoes to use them as a club, he was stomping on or kicking the assaultee, apparently in the face and head. That is a bit different than simply “bloodying a nose”.

    FWIW, any ideas anybody if/when he will be up for parole, with good behavior?

    As far as prostitution goes, maybe there is some kind of selection bias in those who make their living that way. The ones who I have known as patients, definitely not among the “high class”, typically had a history of victimization prior to entering the life. I think having bad things happen to you while a mid teen and younger does qualify as victimhood.

    Bad people should get locked up according to their crimes no matter what their connections or ability to pay for a top-notch attorney. People should not get a bad deal simply because they don’t have funds. I think we likely all agree on that, just maybe differ where this instance falls.

    Are there any legal systems in the world where there is more of a joint search for truth, rather than an adversarial relationship, that allows for financial status being less of a factor?

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/16/2014 @ 1:25 pm

  103. Well thank God for the precrime division. If it weren’t for court psychologists we might never know what a person is liable to do. Hundred years of liability in this case. And we have a clear cut casus belli. It’s not as if our defendant was given to randomly beating the snot out of his erstwhile costomers.
    The dude didn’t pay.
    The defendant used restraint while wealding the so called “murder weapon”. He knocked the guy senseless, then took his wallet.
    Just enough force to settle the debt.
    Not to kill somebody. Otherwise surely the victim would have met his maker with a Nike Swoosh tattooed on his noggin.

    So much for the description of antisocial psychopath. If anything this guy is the opposite of antisocial. He’s out there in the thick of it. He’s hypersocial.

    Then there’s the timeline. Somewhere right up front this guy was told he was being charged with discharging a lethal Addidas in the commission of a crime, and that’s going to make it a life sentence.
    All of his antics, the court proceeding, the news coverage, the suicide attempts, its all colored by that sword hanging over his head..

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/16/2014 @ 5:36 pm

  104. You don’t think his less than stellar courtroom behavior played a role in his sentencing?

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/16/2014 @ 5:51 pm

  105. He’s entitled to one direct appeal as of right, with free counsel, and a free transcript. Let’s see how it shakes out. It might take a year to to get a decision.

    He may be such a doofus that he would want to do his appeal pro se under the delusion that he will be allowed to go to court to argue it. That may even be his thinking about his suit against Nike. He’s in for a disappointment. They won’t let him out for either.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/16/2014 @ 6:12 pm

  106. And there’s more if you care to Google him, but this is a start. http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/2012/06/beaverton_police_arrest_two_in.html

    His 100 year sentence included compelling prostitution, BTW. http://fredericacade.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/press-release-sirgiorgio-clardy-a-pimp-to-100-years-oregon-and-southwest-washington-law-enforcement-partners-recover-two-young-victims-of-commercial-sexual-exploitation/

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/16/2014 @ 6:35 pm

  107. “Stuck with a stuttering incompetent “Cousin Vinny” type PD, who managed to Forest Gump a one year offense into a hundred”

    papertiger – Why not find out what the goblin was actually convicted of before spewing that one year BS and insulting everyone here by making crap up?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 7:30 pm

  108. nk’s link to the press release is pretty interesting.

    For instance it says, “This year, the FBI’s Child Exploitation Task Force (CETF), working with more than a dozen other local, state, and federal agencies in the Portland/Vancouver metro area, recovered two children who were being trafficked as part of the national Operation Cross Country VII event.

    Then a bit later, “Beaverton Police arrested Sirgiorgio Clardy, the pimp recently sentenced to 100 years in prison, in June 2012 during the Operation Cross Country VI sting.

    What is Operation Cross Country? According to Greg Fowler, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oregon, one of it’s goals is “…targeting the pimps and putting them in prison for some very long prison sentences.

    Now you tell me he was originally charged with compelling prostitution, but because that charge by itself didn’t meet the task force goal of “very long prison sentences” they dredged up an unrelated incident, redefined the terms deadly force and deadly weapon downward, in order to acquire a length of sentence in keeping with the task force’s importance and expenditures.

    Still a bit vague on how this makes it not a travesty of justice.

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:59 pm

  109. You’ve piqued my interest, papertiger. (Plus, I have a little flu and don’t feel like doing anything).

    For the john, assault with a deadly shoe carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. For the hooker, assault that causes serious physical injury but no deadly shoe was used carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. One count of trafficking in persons carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Even with consecutive sentences (and I can see that consecutive could be appropriate here), it’s 40 years.

    So what could be the additional counts? Armed robbery — 20 years? More human trafficking at 10 per?

    And since I brought up consecutive sentencing, I’m not sure that’s the case. It could very well be concurrent, where the guy looks at a maximum of 20 years and with good behavior gets out after 17. The armed robbery should be concurrent with the assault under any reasonable sentencing guidelines.

    Sometimes
    Many Most times these sentencing totals are put out by the prosecution for publicity value. You know, like seeing on the news that the DEA seized a pound of “Mexican brown” (is that still a thing?) with a “street value” of three million dollars. ;)

    I might google some more if nothing more interesting catches my attention.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:35 am

  110. It is unclear to my unsophisticated reading as well. If he had somehow been involved in forcing underage girls into prostitution with the threat or actuality of violence, that would understandably add to the reasoning for locking him up as long as possible.
    But I defer judgment for those who know more and more details.

    FWIW, DRJ’s link somewhere discussing facts of the “original” McDonald’s coffee case also reinforced what we should know, but forget due to Crichton’s Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect-
    a news report and the facts of a matter have varying degrees of overlap.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:30 am

  111. Most times these sentencing totals are put out by the prosecution for publicity value.

    Or to scare a defendant into a plea bargain.

    Anyhow you found the magic key to getting me to shut up. Just agree with him.

    ;)

    Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:16 am

  112. I discovered your page and noticed you could have a lot more hits. I have found that the key to running a popular website is making sure the visitors you are getting are interested in your niche. There is a company that you can get visitors from and they let you try their service for free. I managed to get over 300 targeted visitors to day to my website. Visit them today: http://monurl.ca/85kk

    Comment by Karen (f8f2c1) — 2/10/2014 @ 1:18 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4185 secs.