4 ms·

>there probably was some solid evidence against Ms. Nurse besides just the videotape. WTF are you talking about? Can you even read what you wrote? >The shopli

>there probably was some solid evidence against Ms. Nurse besides just the videotape. WTF are you talking about? Can you even read what you wrote? >The shoplifting charge was dropped in March 2017 when the store’s asset protection specialist failed to show up to court This course case wasn't about whether Ms. Nurse shoplifted or not. She didn't. There has been no evidence of that. Not only Walmart had literally nothing to show for that, they destroyed the evidence on purpose. This court case was about whether Walmart was to blame for false imprisonment - and, frankly, they are not. The police and justice system are at fault here. One doesn't need much to have a reasonable suspicion to make an accusation - mistakes happen; arresting someone has a much higher bar. And the continued harassment from Walmart was what merited her 2.1M. Let's stop with victim-blaming, shall we?

listenallyall 5y ago
> Not only Walmart had literally nothing to show for that You don't know that. Neither do I. That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. Obviously there was a lot of stuff presented other than just a missing videotape. I agree this was a civil case, Ms. Nurse is not on trial for criminal activity. But private individuals and companies do not have the right to detain you, the fact that the jury did sided for Wal-Mart on that part of the suit suggests they may have had some cause to do so. I don't think that is victim-blaming, in this specific piece of the trial -- not the others -- the jury did not find her to be a victim.
- romwell 5y ago
  >You don't know that. Neither do I. That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. Yeah we know that. Presumption of innocence, it's called. >That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. No, it wasn't. It was a 0-day-long-trial: "The shoplifting charge was dropped in March 2017 when the store’s asset protection specialist failed to show up to court." (quote). >I agree this was a civil case, Ms. Nurse is not on trial for criminal activity You seem to be missing the point that Ms. Nurse is not on trial for anything, and never has been. In this case, Walmart is on trial for criminal activity. >But private individuals and companies do not have the right to detain you, the fact that the jury did sided for Wal-Mart on that part of the suit suggests they may have had some cause to do so. Well that's exactly victim-blaming: lack of a court decision on the side of the victim to insinuate that there was "some" victim's fault in it. Since Ms. Nurse was the plaintiff, and we have this concept of presumption of innocence, all we know is that her team didn't present a compelling enough case to prove that she was falsely arrested. Example: if she was "held" in a back room because a store rep told her "you have to stay here until the police arrives", closed the door, but didn't lock it - it's not false arrest, because technically she could have walked out. Proving false arrest is a pretty high bar. Since Ms. Nurse is the plaintiff, the jury is obligated to side with Walmart by default, unless Ms. Nurse and her teams persuades them to take her side. You seem to be misled by the language of "jury sided with Walmart". Let me make it better: > on this charge, the jury didn't find the evidence presented by Ms. Nurse to be compelling enough to conclude that Walmart has committed a criminal act. Do you have any further questions, or does the above makes things clear?

listenallyall 5y ago

> Not only Walmart had literally nothing to show for that You don't know that. Neither do I. That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. Obviously there was a lot of stuff presented other than just a missing videotape. I agree this was a civil case, Ms. Nurse is not on trial for criminal activity. But private individuals and companies do not have the right to detain you, the fact that the jury did sided for Wal-Mart on that part of the suit suggests they may have had some cause to do so. I don't think that is victim-blaming, in this specific piece of the trial -- not the others -- the jury did not find her to be a victim.

romwell 5y ago
>You don't know that. Neither do I. That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. Yeah we know that. Presumption of innocence, it's called. >That's the point. This was a 3-week long trial. No, it wasn't. It was a 0-day-long-trial: "The shoplifting charge was dropped in March 2017 when the store’s asset protection specialist failed to show up to court." (quote). >I agree this was a civil case, Ms. Nurse is not on trial for criminal activity You seem to be missing the point that Ms. Nurse is not on trial for anything, and never has been. In this case, Walmart is on trial for criminal activity. >But private individuals and companies do not have the right to detain you, the fact that the jury did sided for Wal-Mart on that part of the suit suggests they may have had some cause to do so. Well that's exactly victim-blaming: lack of a court decision on the side of the victim to insinuate that there was "some" victim's fault in it. Since Ms. Nurse was the plaintiff, and we have this concept of presumption of innocence, all we know is that her team didn't present a compelling enough case to prove that she was falsely arrested. Example: if she was "held" in a back room because a store rep told her "you have to stay here until the police arrives", closed the door, but didn't lock it - it's not false arrest, because technically she could have walked out. Proving false arrest is a pretty high bar. Since Ms. Nurse is the plaintiff, the jury is obligated to side with Walmart by default, unless Ms. Nurse and her teams persuades them to take her side. You seem to be misled by the language of "jury sided with Walmart". Let me make it better: > on this charge, the jury didn't find the evidence presented by Ms. Nurse to be compelling enough to conclude that Walmart has committed a criminal act. Do you have any further questions, or does the above makes things clear?