Should Disney Be Allowed to Alter "Tigger" Costume Evidence for Court Trial?

[mrtoad]

If convicted, he could face up to 15 years. (I don't know about you, but as a Florida taxpayer I do NOT think that 15 years is an approrpriate amount of time for a "touching" crime that caused no physical harm or damage. That is EXTREMELY overboard. Let's calculate how much money keeping someone in prison for that long costs...)

First off, MKT is probably right and it is somebody being sue happy but who knows.

But in regards to this little tid bit you have here. A 'touching" crime as you have it, if someone touched my kid (on purpose) cutting there hand off and shoving up there you know what is not overboard. You are worried about your taxes, are you out of your mind. I am not saying in this case the person did or did not, but if someone really does you think there is an overboard? You are crazy if you feel that way, the act would be inexcusable. They should be in prison getting "touched" for the rest of their lives.

 

[GoofMaul]

I cannot believe how ignorant many of you are (especially if you read the newspaper article on this)

This is a CRIMINAL case brought forward by a SHERIFF's investigation and the STATE ATTORNEY's prosecution. The STATE OF FLORIDA is "going after" an alleged molester. The victim NOT "going after" Disney. She is NOT suing the company in CIVIL court, so this is NOT about money.

(Someone said a conviction would make it "easier" for the victim to sue later. But an acquittal would certainly make it harder! If this was about money, why didn't the victim take this directly to civil court?)

You are right they haven't brought the civil suit yet, but that can't really happen until they get the conviction for wrong doing. Yeah, they could try without it but the case is not nearly as strong. They are probably trying to get a conviction out of this so they are almost guaranteed a win in a civil suit. What would the evidence be? Their word against his plus a 2D photo that is very incriminating outside of intent.

Now I have never worn a costume like that so I can't say what this guy could and could not have felt and I don't know what was going through his head so I can't say he is guilty or not. But, if this guy is found guilty, I will be watching to see what these people do. If they go after Disney for money then, I believe, you will see their true intent. If not or they just want reimbursement for their tickets and time in dealing with this then maybe they felt this guy did do something wrong and will think better of them. Until then I will remain skeptical (Ignorant if you say so). :lookaroun

 

[Lynx04]

I believe Disney has an interest in making sure people differenate character and the person be held on trial. They certianly have a right to motion to have the costume altered. I think as long as it is not altered in a way that changes what is being argued. Like adding more padding to his paws. I don't see how changing the color or chopping off his ears has any relevance. I am simply argueing disney's case. I don't know this person on trial, nor the exact arguements of his case or the prosecuters, besides molestation. Is Disney on trial or the person accused?

 

[Miss Bell]

Whether he can or can't feel anything, whether he did or did not do anything--I cannot even begin to predict. If they get a conviction in the civil case, will these people be suing Disney? My guess, in a heartbeat.

 

[Timekeeper]

A 'touching" crime as you have it, if someone touched my kid (on purpose) cutting there hand off and shoving up there you know what is not overboard.

Ah, very interesting. So you are differentiating between touching "on purpose" and (by implication) "by accident." So an accidental touching should not be punishable? What if some parent accused you of touching their child in a mall because say you bumped into that kid by accident. They claim intent, and you go to jail for 15 years.

As for "cutting their hand off and... is not overboard," sorry to tell you this but in THIS Country it is. The law speaks for itself. Literally.

If someone touched your kid and you in turn cut their hand off, guess who would be spending a greater amount of time in prison (and subject to greater damanges in civil court)...? Any guesses?

Tk

 

[mrtoad]

Ah, very interesting. So you are differentiating between touching "on purpose" and (by implication) "by accident." So an accidental touching should not be punishable? What if some parent accused you of touching their child in a mall because say you bumped into that kid by accident. They claim intent, and you go to jail for 15 years.

As for "cutting their hand off and... is not overboard," sorry to tell you this but in THIS Country it is. The law speaks for itself. Literally.

If someone touched your kid and you in turn cut their hand off, guess who would be spending a greater amount of time in prison (and subject to greater damanges in civil court)...? Any guesses?

Tk

What I am saying is if some brushed their hand unintentionally against a childs bodypart that is an accident. If someone squeezes, rubs, inserts that is intentional.

And no I am not saying for people to go cut someones hand off what I am saying is in my opinion that is not too harsh of a crime. And that you crying about the taxes you might have to endure for a "touching" crime as you put is flat out selfish. I am not saying the person in case really did anything, I do not know. But I am saying that if someone actually does a "touching" crime and you are concerned about your taxes makes me cringe. It is just another example of how some people in the world are dulled to violence and ______ crimes becuase they are so widely shown on TV and media.

If your kid had a crime done against them (god forbid) and the person who did it went to jail for the next 15 years, are you going to look at your taxes and wish that person were released from jail?

 

[Atta83]

I have a friend who was working with Pluto today and somebody rubbed and pinched his poor little doggy butt! I think that is wrong, but that person got away with it. And poor Pluto could not do anything........I still love you Pluto.

 

[phlydude]

I have seen many male guests grab the character's butt thinking that it can only be a girl that is that short being "a friend" or Mickey or Minnie. What recourse is there on part of the CM? None! Not right my friends.

 

[Wckd Queen]

From CNN.com...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/03/tigger.trial.ap/index.html

 

[mrtoad]

I have seen many male guests grab the character's butt thinking that it can only be a girl that is that short being "a friend" or Mickey or Minnie. What recourse is there on part of the CM? None! Not right my friends.

I agree, it goes both ways. CMs can be harassed and it would never come to light.

And what you say is true, who is to say Minnie is a girl in there or Mickey is a guy.

 

[Atta83]

I agree, it goes both ways. CMs can be harassed and it would never come to light.

.

Thats my point exactly!!! You know how many ppl would be convicted of this such crime everyday....quite a few!!!

 

[Bairstow]

Check it out! Looks like this trial has just crossed the line from hilarious to surreal.
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=42563

 

[xfkirsten]

I have a friend who was working with Pluto today and somebody rubbed and pinched his poor little doggy butt! I think that is wrong, but that person got away with it. And poor Pluto could not do anything........I still love you Pluto.

That happened when I worked with Pluto a couple of times. It's like "Jeebus! He's a DOG."

*shudders*

-Kirsten

 

[Tim G]

I cannot believe how ignorant many of you are (especially if you read the newspaper article on this)

This is a CRIMINAL case brought forward by a SHERIFF's investigation and the STATE ATTORNEY's prosecution. The STATE OF FLORIDA is "going after" an alleged molester. The victim NOT "going after" Disney. She is NOT suing the company in CIVIL court, so this is NOT about money.

No.......... NOT YET !!!

IMO the guy is innocent... Have you ever moved around in a tigger suit??
A civil case will follow...

 

[Tim G]

Again... Disney is NOT a party to this case. If you're accused of shooting someone in a McDonald's parking lot, McDonald's has NO legal standing in your criminal case. It's the state prosecutor versus you, the defendant. That's it. No judge is going to prevent the jury from hearing all the facts in the case simply because McDonald's wants the crime scene to be referred to a "fast food restaurant." The crime scene was McDonald's and that's an essential fact in your case. Likewise, Walt Disney World was the alleged crime scene in this case.

But it would be, if it was a McDonald's employee who shot a customer in one of their restaurants... and they still would try to make some money out of it afterwords...

 

[Timekeeper]

We The People

And that you crying about the taxes you might have to endure for a "touching" crime as you put is flat out selfish.

It may be more appropriate for you to save your personal comments for Private Messages. That's what they're there for. (Just click on the "User CP" link in the menu provided near the top of this - or any - page.)

As for taxpayers funding criminal incarcerations, there is something called the "greater good." This is similar to the concept of utilitarianism. Let's face it, not all crimes are created equal. And in a world where financial resources are finite, I'd prefer to keep a "serious" offender behind bars rather than prematurely let them go and put a "toucher" behind bars instead (for the max possible sentence). Regardless of your personal issues with this alleged crime, there are bigger fish to fry. Taking into consideration what is in the best interest of society (residents) is the furthest thing from selfish.

Tk

 

[mrtoad]

It may be more appropriate for you to save your personal comments for Private Messages. That's what they're there for. (Just click on the "User CP" link in the menu provided near the top of this - or any - page.)

I know exactly how to send a PM, thanks for the crash course though.

Because my opinion differs from yours, I need to send a PM? This is a forum where you discuss things. That is what forums are for, are they not.

We agree to disagree I guess, I see no sense in sending PMs back and forth over it. I think the crime of child molestation is one of the more horrible crimes that can be committed, and you obviosly do not. Like I said, I am not saying this guy did it, he probably did not. I was reacting to you thinking a simple "touching" crime is not worth the taxpayers money to keep the guy behind bars. I think you are wrong, that is my opinion. Does not mean it is right, it means it is my opinion. You have yours and you have the right to it, I have the right to dissagree.

 

[mrtoad]

And in a world where financial resources are finite, I'd prefer to keep a "serious" offender behind bars rather than prematurely let them go and put a "toucher" behind bars instead (for the max possible sentence).

Sorry, I just need to comment again. You are saying "serious" offenders, you don't think child molestation is serious?

 

[Timekeeper]

Name

Because my opinion differs from yours, I need to send a PM? This is a forum where you discuss things. That is what forums are for, are they not.

My point was that name-calling should be reserved for PM's, if anything. (Some people still believe that if you don't have anything nice to say...) I need not repeat your statements here; anyone can obviously go back and read it. Your original post to which I replied contained a little bit more than "discussion."

Enough said.

TK

 

[mrtoad]

My point was that name-calling should be reserved for PM's, if anything. (Some people still believe that if you don't have anything nice to say...) I need not repeat your statements here; anyone can obviously go back and read it. Your original post to which I replied contained a little bit more than "discussion."

Enough said.

TK

Yep, you are right they can go back and read it. I did not call you any names, go back and read it. I mearly stated that you crying about your taxes rather than worry about some kid who may have been molested was selfish. I still think that. Have you ever met someone who was molested as a child? I have, and to this day it has affected them. They have trouble dealing with everyday situations that you or I would have no trouble with.

I stand by my statements, I think worrying about taxes rather than someone's well being is selfish.