Tigger Punches Guest??

[GoofyFan1]

Give it up, you're either related to him or your that sleezy lawyer. Come on tell us, it can be our little secret...

I was thinking the same thing last night.

 

[juan]

Again though, regardless of what the kid may or may not have done, the Union is saying that the actual hit itself was caused by bad vision in the costume (Which in my book means 'accidental'). They aren't saying he hit him to get him off (which would be 'self-defense').

so even though the statement explicitly states "self defense" you conclude that they aren't saying self defense????


______________________________________________

i think we need to consider the event as two actions --- one being Tigger's attempts to alleviate the his constricted breathing and two the contact made with Tigger's hand and the boy's face

considering the event as two actions make directly puts it as actions of self defense causing an accidental contact with the kid

 

[Monty]

I posted my opinions early in this thread.

Let me state categorically that I:

A) Don't consider the family's accent or State of residence pertinent to the issue.

B) Don't care what the 14-yo was wearing during the incident, though I find it interesting that he changed into a more conservative T-shirt prior to being interviewed by the press.

C) I quickly reached a personal opinion that the family intended to pursue monetary compensation and that they never solely wanted an apology. Given that that opinion has been borne out by the facts, I am understandably comfortable with having reached it.

All of that said:

- I cannot fathom any circumstance under which the CM would have attacked a guest unprovoked. Particularly while knowing full well he was being filmed by a family member of the person I would be attacking.

- I have viewed every variation of the video and cannot see anything beyond the CM reacting to something painful being done behind him. His first action is to cinch in the arm of the teen, with what I assess to be an initial attempt to cease the action that is causing the problem. Then the CM's other arm comes across his body to go between himself and the source of the action tha is causing the problem, with a clear intent to push the offending individual away. In doing so, he inadvertently [accidentally isn't the right term, though it was used by his Union] makes contact with the teen's face. The motion doesn't stop with contact, but follows through to what appears to me to have been the original intent and gets between the teen's shoulder and himself and pushes the teen away.

- In my opinion, the contact with the teen's face was neither intentional nor did it have remotely enough force to do injury. This opinion is based on the combination of two clear indicators, as I see it; First, the contact doesn't even dislodge, let alone displace, the teen's glasses and, Second, the teen is clearly still grinning his rather annoying grin after the contact is made.

I don't believe for a moment that the CM owes any form of apology to the teen or his family, the contact wasn't "accidental", it was inadvertent or consequential to a reasonable act on the CM's part. I sincerely hope the Disney organization has the sense to see what I see and ultimately exonerate the CM and, in the [sadly likely] event event the family sues, provide every legal assistance to him in defending against what, in my opinion, would be a spurious legal action.

For clarity: Disney can and does impose significant contractual limitations on contact outside the organization, however such limitations cannot and do not limit or restrict cooperation with authorities conducting an investigation. As a result, the press can quote statements made to police by the CM despite that the CM is contractually constrained for talking to the press or the public.

 

[askmike1]

And it was clearly accidental. Meaning the CM wasn't right OR wrong. What happened was an accident.

Again, we do not know that for a fact. That is what the CM/Union is saying. The family and some secret witness is saying something else. Someone is wrong. But while we all have our opinions on the matter, we don't know for a fact who is right.

In this case then, there would be no case without the actions of the kid (cause). There would have been a lovely family picture and nothing for us to discuss.

Again, that is still not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying the cause doesn't matter (which apparently everyone is interpreting what I wrote as). I was saying that for the point I was making (about whether the CM's hit was accidental) the cause did not matter. Let's say Mickey hits Pluto by accident. Whether or not Pluto was barking at Mickey or just laying next to him change the fact that Mickey's hit was an accidental?

 

[slappy magoo]

Point is, if they are allowed to talk to the police department (and not just in court under oath like someone said earlier), I'd be willing to bet Disney wouldn't ban the guy from apologizing.

So, askmike, I haven't been one to do any heavy jumping on you, because, while I felt the family would eventually be looking for a payday, I admire the moral stance that you took, that people shouldn't assume that somebody will do something until they do it. It's unfair to them, and says more about your character than theirs and so on and so forth. No problem there.

Also, now that we know that the family is contemplating a lawsuit, I see no reason for you to "eat your words" as a result. I'd certainly want people to always give me the benefit of the doubt that I'll do the right thing in any given scenario, being that I certainly make the effort to do what I think is right.

So HERE is what's bugging me:

The assumptions of others that the family will seek a lawsuit is wrong wrong wrong, but you're "willing to bet" Disney will let this CM talk to the press is OK? Even after present and former CMs have stated that the CM talking will violate the confidentiality agreement he signed? Even though, while it wouldn't be a criminal lawsuit, anything he says to the family or the media could wind up biting him in the butt on the stand?

What, exactly IS the difference between "assuming" and "willing to bet?" I mean, splitting semantic hairs aside, aren't you making an assumption on what Disney will allow the CM to do? And how is that different from the assumptions other people made? If you think assumptions are wrong, then wrong is wrong.

 

[askmike1]

The assumptions of others that the family will seek a lawsuit is wrong wrong wrong, but you're "willing to bet" Disney will let this CM talk to the press is OK? Even after present and former CMs have stated that the CM talking will violate the confidentiality agreement he signed? Even though, while it wouldn't be a criminal lawsuit, anything he says to the family or the media could wind up biting him in the butt on the stand?

What, exactly IS the difference between "assuming" and "willing to bet?" I mean, splitting semantic hairs aside, aren't you making an assumption on what Disney will allow the CM to do? And how is that different from the assumptions other people made? If you think assumptions are wrong, then wrong is wrong.

To be quite honest, it was just bad wording on my part. My intention was just to say that I think Disney should let the CM talk to the family if it means bringing this story to an end and limit any further negative publicity.

 

[mrtoad]

To be quite honest, it was just bad wording on my part. My intention was just to say that I think Disney should let the CM talk to the family if it means bringing this story to an end and limit any further negative publicity.

But then your clients, um relatives, I mean the family could twist what is said and they could sue.

 

[Iakona]

Again, we do not know that for a fact. That is what the CM/Union is saying. The family and some secret witness is saying something else. Someone is wrong. But while we all have our opinions on the matter, we don't know for a fact who is right.

True, and unless some magical device is invented all we will ever have is our opinions.

Again, that is still not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying the cause doesn't matter (which apparently everyone is interpreting what I wrote as). I was saying that for the point I was making (about whether the CM's hit was accidental) the cause did not matter. Let's say Mickey hits Pluto by accident. Whether or not Pluto was barking at Mickey or just laying next to him change the fact that Mickey's hit was an accidental?

Apples and Oranges. Barking/yelling does not equate to someone choking you or pulling you off balance. When you physically interfere with someone and the result is the offender somehow receiving physical contact in return (inadvertent or deliberate) then that is not an unexpected reaction to the original action. Cause and effect in this case is extremely relevant. It goes to intent (which impacts criminal charges) and the entire veracity of the supposed victims story.

 

[juan]

To be quite honest, it was just bad wording on my part. My intention was just to say that I think Disney should let the CM talk to the family if it means bringing this story to an end and limit any further negative publicity.

chances are that an apology wouldn't end the situation
the family claimed that they didn't want money, but now they do. So an apology would not do anything because that's not what they want.

And if the family received an apology, they would probably turn around and go "hey! he admitted he did it!! See! See! See! It was on purpose! Now we want MORE $$$$$"

 

[GothMickey]

Maybe AskMike1 is actually the kid who tried to choke out Tigger then went crying when he was knocked out. AskMike1, again, you FAIL to answer my question. You know you are wrong and you cannot defend your stance. You don't care about what CAUSED the CM to "accidently" hit the kid. All you care about is the fact that a kid was "accidently" hit. Regardless if the hit was an ACCIDENT, if that kid wasn't doing what he did (CHOKE TIGGER BY GRABBING HIS COSTUME) then no hit would have taken place. And please don't say YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. The hit came directly do to the kid choking, simple cause and effect. Just admit you are wrong.

Also, please answer me... you step up on the side of me, grab my shirt causing my neckline to cut into my throat cutting off my air and choking me.. I grab your arm that is pulling on my shirt and I twist away from you to shake free so I can breath... I ACCIDENTLY hit you.... Who should apologize? Me for accidently hitting you cause you choked me or YOU for choking me?

 

[EthylCooper]

Tigger is unsafe and needs to be toned down like Mission space. There will now be tigger green for those who think being touched on the face causes enough harm to require a hospital visit.

:lol: LMAO!! :lol:

This comment made it worth reading through the entire degeneration of this thread. ^_^

(And I love the avatar, btw)

 

[Iakona]

The assumptions of others that the family will seek a lawsuit

What, exactly IS the difference between "assuming" and "willing to bet?" I mean, splitting semantic hairs aside, aren't you making an assumption on what Disney will allow the CM to do? And how is that different from the assumptions other people made? If you think assumptions are wrong, then wrong is wrong.

I disagree people were assuming there would be a lawsuit. Most, myself included, viewed a progression of actions that fit a pattern of other incidents where "victims" seek out the publicity, demand an apology, get a lawyer, increase publicity levels by doing the talk show or news show circuit and then demand money. This was not taken for granted, it was an informed and educated opinion.

Merriam-Webster - assume 5 : to take as granted or true

 

[slappy magoo]

I disagree people were assuming there would be a lawsuit. Most, myself included, viewed a progression of actions that fit a pattern of other incidents where "victims" seek out the publicity, demand an apology, get a lawyer, increase publicity levels by doing the talk show or news show circuit and then demand money. This was not taken for granted, it was an informed and educated opinion.

Merriam-Webster - assume 5 : to take as granted or true

Not to belabor the point, but, uh, that IS an assumption. People (myself included, so it's not like I'm jumping on an I'm-better-than-you high horse, here), saw the actions and behavior of the father and son and assumed they'd be looking for a payday. They said they wouldn't seek a payday, but their behavior led people to think they would. As it turns out, our assumptions were correct, but THAT IS an assumption, informed and educated as it may be. What would be considered an opinion is how you personally judge their actions, or Disney's response to the situation. You can base your opinion on the law, your religious beliefs, societal mores or just your gut.

Suspecting that the families are contemptible opportunists? Opinion.
Believing that sooner or later they'd get a lawyer and instigate a lawsuit? Assumption.

 

[wannabeBelle]

Is there any official word on how the CM is doing??? I Am not going to go into how I feel about the kid or his family but it isnt a good thing. However I Am more concerned how the CM is doing. I Am sure he/ she is a great person just out there trying to do the best job they can!!! Keep your chin up there, Tigger!!! Belle

 

[Mrs Master Yoda]

I just had to respond to this. Tigger is now and forever shall be innocent of all wrong doing. I have seen stupid teens punch, pull and verbally and physically harass these wonderful characters and nothing is ever done to the kids. We unfortunately have become a sue happy nation and people will do anything for a quick buck. I fell at the Boardwalk and broke my arm. When I told people I fell at Disney the first thing they said is "did you sue". No, I didn't. It was my fault I wasn't paying attention to where I was walking and I fell. Is this Disney's fault I am clumsy? I think not. I think it is about time parents start controlling there kids and start holding them responsible for their actions instead of blaming someone else. Oh and by the way, trying to make a quick buck off of our kids bad behavior. This was on the Channel 6 news sight and is the actual "incident" report. Please view, it does contain the "victims" address and phone number! Free Tigger, Free Tigger, Free Tigger!http://www.local6.com/download/2007/0108/10698289.pdf

 

[smk]

Give it up, you're either related to him or your that sleezy lawyer. Come on tell us, it can be our little secret...

:lol: :lol: :lol: I quit reading his posts many pages ago, I simply scroll right thru them, but this one where you quote him caught my eye!:lol: :lol: :lol: so funny. I think you are onto something!

 

[smk]

Give it up, you're either related to him or your that sleezy lawyer. Come on tell us, it can be our little secret...

I just had to respond to this. Tigger is now and forever shall be innocent of all wrong doing. I have seen stupid teens punch, pull and verbally and physically harass these wonderful characters and nothing is ever done to the kids. We unfortunately have become a sue happy nation and people will do anything for a quick buck. I fell at the Boardwalk and broke my arm. When I told people I fell at Disney the first thing they said is "did you sue". No, I didn't. It was my fault I wasn't paying attention to where I was walking and I fell. Is this Disney's fault I am clumsy? I think not. I think it is about time parents start controlling there kids and start holding them responsible for their actions instead of blaming someone else. Oh and by the way, trying to make a quick buck off of our kids bad behavior. This was on the Channel 6 news sight and is the actual "incident" report. Please view, it does contain the "victims" address and phone number! Free Tigger, Free Tigger, Free Tigger!http://www.local6.com/download/2007/0108/10698289.pdf

WOW, what a mistake that is...:animwink: I hope no one calls them:animwink:

 

[disneydata]

Is there any official word on how the CM is doing??? I Am not going to go into how I feel about the kid or his family but it isnt a good thing. However I Am more concerned how the CM is doing. I Am sure he/ she is a great person just out there trying to do the best job they can!!! Keep your chin up there, Tigger!!! Belle

Nothing official ...

but from what I've 'heard', he's doing OK (and glad for all the support).

 

[carolina_yankee]

I'm more than a little concerned about this line in the report:

"Mr. Monaco advised his son is complaining about some neck pain and their was some redness on the right side of his face."

The report was taken at 10 pm, and the incident occurred at 12:30 pm. 9 1/2 hours later. How can contact that didn't knock the kid's glasses off leave a red mark visible 9 1/2 hours later?

I think there are many unanswered questions about this while incident.

Dirk

 

[Monty]

I'm more than a little concerned about this line in the report:


The report was taken at 10 pm, and the incident occurred at 12:30 pm. 9 1/2 hours later. How can contact that didn't knock the kid's glasses off leave a red mark visible 9 1/2 hours later?

I think there are many unanswered questions about this while incident.

Dirk

He was blushing because of abject embarrassment?