Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

[adoucette]

Well, naturally, if how the woman feels is irrelevant to your assessment.

Actually the standard is a "reasonable person" and the Supreme Court provided some guidance by noting some factors that could be part of the circumstances of a case of Sexual Harassment:

· frequency of the discriminatory conduct;

· severity of that conduct;

· whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance;

· whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance


No matter what you think about it, it wasn't SEVERE nor threatening and there was no repetition and so NO, it is not anywhere near the level to be called sexual harassment. (you should read some of the actual cases on sexual harassment, they are incredible, but many were tossed out and only won on appeal, the bar is simply not that low)

You keep focusing on the criminal aspect; he is clearly in violation of §2724(a), a point to which you responded that since her address is available elsewhere, it shouldn't be a violation.

Yes, given just her name, which she could have TOLD him, he can find her address (as demonstrated on this board)

A driver's license is a DMV record, according to the statutory definition—see §2725.

See previous note.

Only for those looking to argue that police officers should not be obliged to obey the law.

Nope, even if they find that he shouldn't have left the note, what he said will be important. In this case, the polite and non-threatening content of the single note works in his favor.

And the fact that traffic infractions are not crimes?

Of course they are, you can go to jail for them.

Easy enough:

Boat owners or operators are required by law to report any accidental or intentional discharges of oil into the marine environment. Failure to do so may result in substantial monetary penalties. The U.S. Coast Guard vigilantly enforces these regulations through monitoring and observation.

(National Marine Manufacturers Association)​

Should he be fired? Not for the fact of an oil leak, but, if the "oil sheen [became] obvious around his boat" and he failed to report it, his job might well be in danger should the Coast Guard cite him.

Nope, being a boat owner I'm well aware that discharge by itself is breaking the law, reported or otherwise, it just gets worse for you if they figure you knew and didn't report it.

However, the thing about those oil sheens is more easily comprehended when one sees them at the marina; it is unlikely that a first-time accidental oil leak in which he is truly innocent would result in a fine. In fact, it is more likely that the marina management would tell him they think there's a problem with his boat, and if he didn't fix it, or at least pull the thing out of the water until he could effect repairs, they might revoke his moorage right.

If you live near coastal water, and ever walk a marina pier where yachts are moored, you would know why your analogy is silly.

I keep my boat (32 ft with twin Mercs) in the water at the marina with several hundred other boats. There are no longer any oil sheens in the marina like there were just a few years ago. The Coast Guard here is very strict about it. You get caught pumping oily bilge water and you are going to be paying a fine.

I suppose, if I imagine that the Coast Guard and federal government are full of sadistic fascists looking for people to punish, then, yeah, you might have a point, but I don't think being realistic is too much to ask of you.

Funny you should be mentioning that because in this case that's EXACTLY what you appear to be acting like over a single polite note.

 

[Tiassa]

So the woman doesn't matter at all, then?

No matter what you think about it, it wasn't SEVERE nor threatening and there was no repetition and so NO, it is not anywhere near the level to be called sexual harassment. (you should read some of the actual cases on sexual harassment, they are incredible, but many were tossed out and only won on appeal, the bar is simply not that low)

Oh, please do explain. Severe, threatening, and repetition are, as we have seen asserted in this thread, are considerations of stalking, not sexual harassment.

The mere fact of hitting on someone in, say, a tavern, is not automatically sexual harassment. But within the confines of professional relationships, it certainly can.

The argument in Collins' defense would erase the line between personal and professional considerations.

What cases should I read?

Yes, given just her name, which she could have TOLD him, he can find her address (as demonstrated on this board)

And if she told him her name while he was drinking a beer, out of uniform, at the local pub, the only question would be the propriety of tracking someone down from that.

Maybe it's a cultural difference, something about age or region of the country, or urban/rural considerations, or something abstract like that, but the women I know would, generally speaking, be at least a little unsettled if someone tracked them down at home based solely on their name. After all, I live on the progressive west coast, in a suburb just outside metropolitan Seattle. Much like metropolitan Chicago—have you looked at a map to see where Stickney is?—it seems that women around here are not consistently charmed by cheap pick-up clichés. Indeed, the argument that the reason you're mad at me is also the reason you should go out on a date with me is a gamble against the odds around here. It's possible the odds improve if I go east of the mountains to Cle Elum, or even Yakima. But, no. Nothing about Collins' alleged behavior counts as charming, harmless, or polite around here.

See previous note.

Which one? I mean, I'm happy to guess, but there's a chance I'll be wrong:

"What is more clear is the intent of the law was to prevent people from disclosing information found on DMV records to others and of course he didn't do that. Indeed it's not clear that he ever accessed any DMV record at all."​

That would appear to be the most recent, though I might be missing something.

But if that is the previous note you refer to, then you are incorrect; he accessed her driver's license, by force of law.

• It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to obtain or disclose personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for any use not permitted under section 2721(b) of this title. (§2722(a))

• A person who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under this chapter shall beliable to the individual to whom the information pertains, who may bring a civil action in a UnitedStates district court. ((§2724(a))

• "personal information" means information that identifies an individual, including an individual's photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations,and driver's status. ((§2725(3))​

The first two of those include the use of information; the third notes a photograph, which is on the driver's license; name, which is on the driver's license; address, which is on the driver's license; and the driver's license number itself.

Collins' defense, as such, must establish that he had her name, face, and location data prior to the stop, which, of course, calls the entire traffic infraction into question.

Nope, even if they find that he shouldn't have left the note, what he said will be important. In this case, the polite and non-threatening content of the single note works in his favor.

The idea that the note was polite is not factually established. The idea that going uninvited to someone's house in order to ask them out is not threatening is not factually established.

We understand that you believe this behavior is harmless, but simply repeating the point over and over, without any regard for how Ms. Paredes might feel about it, doesn't make your belief true.

Of course they are, you can go to jail for them.

When they rise to the level of crimes, traffic infractions become crimes. Like the difference between mere speeding, which is an infraction, and reckless endangerment, which is a crime.

Nope, being a boat owner I'm well aware that discharge by itself is breaking the law, reported or otherwise, it just gets worse for you if they figure you knew and didn't report it.

I can think of any number of marinas in my area that need to be shut down by your application of the law. And maybe that's a good thing.

I keep my boat (32 ft with twin Mercs) in the water at the marina with several hundred other boats. There are no longer any oil sheens in the marina like there were just a few years ago. The Coast Guard here is very strict about it. You get caught pumping oily bilge water and you are going to be paying a fine.

I applaud the Coast Guard, then, for their vigilant efforts.

Funny you should be mentioning that because in this case that's EXACTLY what you appear to be acting like over a single polite note.

"No harm, no foul," is not much of a defense, insofar as it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not one violated the law, and especially as it disregards Ms. Paredes' feelings entirely.

Why is she of such little importance to your outlook?
____________________

Notes:

18 U.S.C. § 2721 et. seq (Public Law 103-322). 1994. AccessReports.com. January 9, 2012. http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

 

[adoucette]

Oh, please do explain. Severe, threatening, and repetition are, as we have seen asserted in this thread, are considerations of stalking, not sexual harassment.

No, they are considerations for sexual harassment as well.
As per the Supreme Court

The mere fact of hitting on someone in, say, a tavern, is not automatically sexual harassment. But within the confines of professional relationships, it certainly can.

Nope.
Got to be more than that.

The argument in Collins' defense would erase the line between personal and professional considerations.

Hardly.
She received a single polite note.
She didn't respond.
He didn't send another note.
End of Story.

What cases should I read?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6601330826990037941&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...rnational+Paper+Co&hl=en&as_sdt=2,43&as_vis=1

Also see

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html

Maybe it's a cultural difference, something about age or region of the country, or urban/rural considerations, or something abstract like that, but the women I know would, generally speaking, be at least a little unsettled if someone tracked them down at home based solely on their name. After all, I live on the progressive west coast, in a suburb just outside metropolitan Seattle. Much like metropolitan Chicago—have you looked at a map to see where Stickney is?—it seems that women around here are not consistently charmed by cheap pick-up clichés. Indeed, the argument that the reason you're mad at me is also the reason you should go out on a date with me is a gamble against the odds around here. It's possible the odds improve if I go east of the mountains to Cle Elum, or even Yakima. But, no. Nothing about Collins' alleged behavior counts as charming, harmless, or polite around here.

Except leaving a single polite note is entirely harmless.

 

[quadraphonics]

Why is she of such little importance to your outlook?

Or, more to the point, why is negating her agency of such central importance to his outlook?

But, it seems obvious enough. This whole line is straight out of the Limbaugh playbook: uppity woman files frivolous lawsuit to destroy upstanding, patriotic, white male authority figure. The sneering banter pretty much writes itself, as we've already amply seen here.

 

[Tiassa]

Case History

Case History

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6601330826990037941&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...rnational+Paper+Co&hl=en&as_sdt=2,43&as_vis=1

Also see

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html

Thank you. It would seem, however, that these issues pertain specifically to longer patterns of harassment, employment and promotion, and/or the proposition of a hostile work environment.

Many people have been subject to workplace discipline for single events; can you provide a case in which that disciplined employee has sued the employer over that discipline, and won?

Except leaving a single polite note is entirely harmless.

Only as long as Ms. Parades' feelings, or any subject of such an advance, don't matter at all.

Why should they not?

 

[adoucette]

Or, more to the point, why is negating her agency of such central importance to his outlook?

Nope, the law's standards for sexual harassment are based on a REASONABLE person's reactions.

It isn't oriented towards either the thickest skinned of us nor the most skittish of us.

The rest of your post, is as usual, your typical Trolling exercise.

 

[adoucette]

Case History

Thank you. It would seem, however, that these issues pertain specifically to longer patterns of harassment, employment and promotion, and/or the proposition of a hostile work environment.

Many people have been subject to workplace discipline for single events; can you provide a case in which that disciplined employee has sued the employer over that discipline, and won?

No, you make the claim that "many people have been subject to workplace discipline for single events", you need to show some examples of these so we can see if these "single events" are remotely similar to leaving a single polite note asking for a date.

What I brought was actual sexual harassment cases so as to compare that to what is being alleged here as sexual harassment and show they aren't in the same league.

Only as long as Ms. Parades' feelings, or any subject of such an advance, don't matter at all.

Why should they not?

Because they don't.
See previous post.
That's not the way the law works.

 

[quadraphonics]

Nope, the law's standards for sexual harassment are based on a REASONABLE person's reactions.

There remains more to this issue than the letter of the law, for about the 20th time.

Moreover, I don't see where the victim has been shown to be "unreasonable," nor where your personal characterizations of the situation are established as "reasonable." I do see where several ostensibly-reasonable people have indicated that they found the conduct in question problematic. And you don't seem to have any answer for that beyond bare repetition and personal attacks.

It isn't oriented towards either the thickest skinned of us nor the most skittish of us.

And you haven't the standing to serve as arbiter of who is who, in those terms. You are not, on the face of it, a "reasonable person" generally.

The rest of your post, is as usual, your typical Trolling exercise.

Takes one to know one, I suppose.

 

[adoucette]

There remains more to this issue than the letter of the law, for about the 20th time.

No, actually since there is a CIVIL SUIT, it is all about the letter of the law.

Moreover, I don't see where the victim has been shown to be "unreasonable," nor where your personal characterizations of the situation are established as "reasonable." I do see where several ostensibly-reasonable people have indicated that they found the conduct in question problematic. And you don't seem to have any answer for that beyond bare repetition and personal attacks.

Well she's not much of a victim now is she?
She got a single polite note on her car.
BOO HOO.
Cry me a river.

And you haven't the standing to serve as arbiter of who is who, in those terms. You are not, on the face of it, a "reasonable person" generally.

More then you I'd say. Unlike you I have no bizarre belief that that the letter is OVERTLY SEXUAL.

Which come to think of it is also probably why you thought those notes left on your car, most likely telling you to please park between the lines or some such, were actually code for the women wanting to fuck you.

 

[quadraphonics]

No, actually since there is a CIVIL SUIT, it is all about the letter of the law.

There remain plenty of other aspects of the issue to discuss, regardless. As has already been pointed out to you umpteen times, now.

Meanwhile, I'll note that you've displayed no such strict adherence to legalism in this thread generally, and only invoked such demands in a cravenly tactical manner. You can't even make it through a single post without veering away from such, even when you're in the middle of arguing for such a limitation. So you should probably give up on trying to browbeat your way into dictating the scope of the thread. Nobody's going to go along with that, nor fail to recognize it for the rich opportunity to thwart you that it so clearly is.

Well she's not much of a victim now is she?

Sure she is.

She got a single polite note on her car.
BOO HOO.
Cry me a river.

Again, we see that you've come here to run a script built around sneering contempt at Evangelides (and anyone who disagrees with you).

Which has exactly what to do with the letter of the law, according your putative limitation of thread topicality?

More then you I'd say.

Given - again - your lack of credibility on such, I won't be losing any sleep over that.

Unlike you I have no bizarre belief that that the letter is OVERTLY SEXUAL.

A casuist pretense to obliviousness of the relationship between sex and dating does not aid your credibility.

Nor does shouting and personal spite.

Your reliable reliance on argument from personal authority, on the one hand, and the ease of prompting a childish display, on the other, are the combination that make you such irresistable troll fodder.

I mean, really: two posts back, you were attempting to dictate the scope of the thread and argue from your own "reasonable" nature. And now you've been handily reduced down to infantile bluster. But, hey, as long as you never admit defeat, you must be "winning," right? By all means, keep doubling down. Beats admitting that you're little more than a chew-toy around here.

Which come to think of it is also probably why you thought those notes left on your car, most likely telling you to please park between the lines or some such, were actually code for the women wanting to fuck you.

And there you have it, again: a would-be arbiter of "reasonableness" determined to consider formal legal issues one moment, a sneering personal vendetta expressed in risibly childish terms the next.

Tell us, though: has anyone ever left you a note asking for a date? Do you have any experience whatsoever from which to draw conclusions about how a "reasonable person" would perceive that? Or are you relying entirely on hypothetical scenarios considered after you've already formed a conclusion on the matter? Why should anyone give the slightest crap about your opinion on how the victim should have perceived the actions in question? Because you described it as "polite" in all-caps until you went blue in the face?

 

[adoucette]

A casuist pretense to obliviousness of the relationship between sex and dating does not aid your credibility.

No Quad, it's understanding the meaning of OVERT.

Something you seem to not quite grasp.

Asking a woman out for a date and telling her she is attractive is NOT being overtly sexual.

But it does explain why you are reacting UNREASONABLY, since you think that it is so.

Tell us, though: has anyone ever left you a note asking for a date? Do you have any experience whatsoever from which to draw conclusions about how a "reasonable person" would perceive that? Or are you relying entirely on hypothetical scenarios considered after you've already formed a conclusion on the matter?

Why yes I have. (once an actual note from a girl I didn't actually know but has seen at school and once passed on by a mutual friend)
And no I did not think the requests were overtly sexual either.
They were was just asking to go out on a date.

Something which is
Not Sexual.
Not Harmful
Not Shameful
Not Degrading
Not Insulting
Not Threatening.

etc etc etc

 

[quadraphonics]

No Quad, it's understanding the meaning of OVERT.

The issue seems to be some kind of weird mental blockade you (and others) have erected between society's standard rituals and expressions of sexual desire, and aknowledgement that such is exactly that.

Watching you freak out when that is challenged has been kinda funny for a while, but is getting real old and repetitive by now.

Meanwhile, this has what to do with the letter of the law? Or did you give up on that tack already?

Asking a woman out for a date and telling her she is attractive is NOT being overtly sexual.

Yes it is. Asking people out on dates and telling them they are attractive are the standard, accepted means of conveying sexual interest in somebody. It's very clear-cut.

I mean, exactly what is the distinction you think is so important here? That the note didn't literally use the words "sex" or "vagina" or something? Do you think that there is the slightest doubt in the victim's mind as to whether the perpetrator was sexually attracted to her, and that this motivated his note? Or that the perpetrator intended to convey his sexual attraction to the victim? Would this whole incident have been rendered unacceptable, in your view, if the note had contained a sentence to the effect of "I would like to have sexual intercourse with you" or... what?

But it does explain why you are reacting UNREASONABLY, since you think that it is so.

It's unreasonable of me to infer that a missive flattering the receiver's attractiveness and requesting the standard courtship ritual for initiating a sexual relationship was clearly, intentionally sexual in nature?

If that's your indictment of my reasonableness, then you're doing my work for me.

Why yes I have. (once an actual note from a girl I didn't actually know but has seen at school and once passed on by a mutual friend)

But never a note left on your personal property (car, house, whatever) by someone when you weren't around?

And no I did not think the requests were overtly sexual either.
They were was just asking to go out on a date.

Dating is overtly sexual. It's our society's standard, primary courtship ritual. You don't generally go on dates with someone you aren't interested in initiating a sexual relationship with.

Or, do you? How would you respond if a man asked you out on a date? There's nothing overtly sexual about a date, after all, so you'd have no particular reason to refuse on grounds of heterosexuality. Indeed, please explain this strange phenomenon where almost all dates occur between people who are sexually attracted to one another, despite the clearly non-sexual nature of the practice?

Something which is
NOT threatening.

The threatening part would be when there are perceived consequences to saying no to the date.

That, in turn, depends on what sort of power the requester has, and what sorts of behaviors they displayed in asking you out. On one end of the continuum, we have scenarios wherein someone of peer (or lower) power status does the asking, and does so in a polite, open way. This is typically non-threatening. At the other end of the spectrum, we have scenarios wherein someone of superior power status (an authority figure such as a police officer, say) asks in a way that is improper, and suggests surveillance and abuse of authority. This is threatening.

There's also the gender dynamic. Males generally have much less to fear from females than vice-versa, so this should be factored into your assessment when comparing experiences. I, as a (relatively large, athletic) male felt somewhat creeped out by a female leaving a note on my car, as it indicated that she'd watched me from some safe remove and then approached my car after she knew I was elsewhere. That whole surveillance/stalker aspect is pretty creepy. Reverse the gender dynamic and it gets creepier still. Add in an aspect of authority, and you're really creeping up the creepy scale.

Not Sexual.

Again, please substantiate this assertion by asking another heterosexual male out on a date - after telling him that you find him irresistably attractive - and let us know what his reaction is. Since neither the description of attractiveness, nor the request for a date on that basis, are sexual in nature, neither of you should have any problems with that.

 

[parmalee]

Dating is overtly sexual. It's our society's standard, primary courtship ritual. You don't generally go on dates with someone you aren't interested in initiating a sexual relationship with.

Or, do you? How would you respond if a man asked you out on a date? There's nothing overtly sexual about a date, after all, so you'd have no particular reason to refuse on grounds of heterosexuality. Indeed, please explain this strange phenomenon where almost all dates occur between people who are sexually attracted to one another, despite the clearly non-sexual nature of the practice?

Dear Arthur,

It’s Parmalee. I’m that cute fuzzy Sciforums canine who bantered with you the other day. I know this may seem crazy and you’re probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since. I don’t expect an anonymous internet forum poster as attractive as you to be single, or even to go for a guy like me but I’m taking a shot anyways.

Because the truth is I’ll probably never see you un-less I do, and I could never forgive myself. Listen if I never hear from you I understand, but hey, I did call you a robot, least I can do is buy you dinner. Little about me real quick: I just turned 4, did 3 years in Rikers, and have been a free dog for just over a week. Hope to hear from you one way or another. Thanks!!!








P.S. Just 'cuz I said that "I don’t expect (someone) as attractive as you to be single, or even to go for a guy like me" doesn't mean that I have anything sexual in mind--you know, by "go for" I simply mean... Well, you know.

And I mention that you're so "attractive" simply because... well, you're HOT!


:

 

[Pandaemoni]

Curiosity gets the better of me:

Would people here say the conduct of the cop in the case discussed in this thread (arguably violating the plaintiff's constitutional and/or statutory right to privacy) is worse, not as bad as, or about the same as this case:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...st-for-cell-phone-recording-was-a-mistake.ars

In the latter case, a man decided to take video of an arrest in public after he heard someone in the crowd state that the police were hurting the subject, so he was arrested by those same police for "illegal wiretapping." His constitutional first amendment right was violated (as found by a federal court), as well as his right to liberty, which are both expressly constitutional rights. The officers now have the city admitting they were unreasonable to arrest him, and they face a verbal warning or a suspension.

My personal opinion is that the conduct of the police in the Boston case was far worse that this case in Chicago, but they are not being fired.

I am curious if there would be a fundamental disagreement between the two sides of this debate on the question of the relative seriousness of the Chicago case relative to the Boston case (and, tangentially, if anyone is outraged that the Boston officers face only a verbal warning or temporary suspension, since so many want the Chicago cop fired).

 

[adoucette]

Dear Arthur,

It’s Parmalee. I’m that cute fuzzy Sciforums canine who bantered with you the other day. I know this may seem crazy and you’re probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since. I don’t expect an anonymous internet forum poster as attractive as you to be single, or even to go for a guy like me but I’m taking a shot anyways.

Because the truth is I’ll probably never see you un-less I do, and I could never forgive myself. Listen if I never hear from you I understand, but hey, I did call you a robot, least I can do is buy you dinner. Little about me real quick: I just turned 4, did 3 years in Rikers, and have been a free dog for just over a week. Hope to hear from you one way or another. Thanks!!!

P.S. Just 'cuz I said that "I don’t expect (someone) as attractive as you to be single, or even to go for a guy like me" doesn't mean that I have anything sexual in mind--you know, by "go for" I simply mean... Well, you know.

And I mention that you're so "attractive" simply because... well, you're HOT!
:

Thanks for the nice note Parmalee, but as you guessed, someone as HOT as I am, is no longer available.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Curiosity gets the better of me:

Would people here say the conduct of the cop in the case discussed in this thread (arguably violating the plaintiff's constitutional and/or statutory right to privacy) is worse, not as bad as, or about the same as this case:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...st-for-cell-phone-recording-was-a-mistake.ars

In the latter case, a man decided to take video of an arrest in public after he heard someone in the crowd state that the police were hurting the subject, so he was arrested by those same police for "illegal wiretapping." His constitutional first amendment right was violated (as found by a federal court), as well as his right to liberty, which are both expressly constitutional rights. The officers now have the city admitting they were unreasonable to arrest him, and they face a verbal warning or a suspension.

My personal opinion is that the conduct of the police in the Boston case was far worse that this case in Chicago, but they are not being fired.

I am curious if there would be a fundamental disagreement between the two sides of this debate on the question of the relative seriousness of the Chicago case relative to the Boston case (and, tangentially, if anyone is outraged that the Boston officers face only a verbal warning or temporary suspension, since so many want the Chicago cop fired).

I agree with you. But the problem is in the Boston case both the police Dept. and city took the wrong position siding with the officers. It doesn't look very good if both the city and police Dept. do a hypocritical flip flop on their position and fire the officers.

In the Chicago case I don't remember any position being taken by the police Dept. or city yet. However I would ask that anybody who sees any updates on this case to please post them in this thread.