Miss Piggy's Grocery Store Checkout Headlines

**NynJa** · 2014-03-03 14:14

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/2...ast-costs.html

Daughter’s Facebook boast costs former Gulliver Prep headmaster $80,000 discrimination settlement

A court tosses a Gulliver headmaster’s confidential settlement with school after his daughter boasts about it in post.

“Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver,” Dana Snay posted days later to her 1,200 Facebook friends. “Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

The post, seen by current and former Gulliver students, made its way back to the school’s attorneys, who told the Snays they’d violated the deal. Patrick Snay last year won a Circuit Court ruling to enforce the deal, but Judge Linda Ann Wells overturned that decision Wednesday.

what a dumb bitch

**Outlaw** · 2014-03-04 20:52

LEXINGTON, Miss. —Leaders at a funeral home in Lexington found a person alive and kicking in a body bag. The man was found at the Porter and Sons Funeral Home, on Yazoo Street.

Walter Williams woke up and surprised many people.

"I asked the coroner what happened, and the only thing he could say is that it's a miracle," Holmes County Sheriff Willie March said.

"I stood there and watched them put him in a body bag and zipped it up," Williams' nephew, Eddie Hester, said.

The coroner said he checked Williams' pulse about 9 p.m. Wednesday and pronounced him dead at his home in Lexington.

"That was at 10:30, and at 2:30, my cousin called me and said, 'Not yet,' and I said, 'What you mean not yet?' He said, 'Daddy still here,'" Hester said.

After the coroner helped move Williams to Porter and Sons Funeral Home, workers were getting ready to embalm him, but that's when he started to move.

Byron Porter said it's the first time he's ever seen anything like it. Williams' was inside the zipped-up body bag and kicking to get out.

Paramedics rushed Williams him to a hospital, where family members said Thursday night that he's happy to be alive.

"I don't know how long he's going to be here, but I know he's back right now. That's all that matters," Hester said.

The coroner said Williams' pacemaker may have stopped working and then started up again.

Family members said Williams is a fighter. He's been a long-time farmer and worked for the school board.

http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mis...-home/24722536

**jmc** · 2014-03-05 17:06

MA Supreme court has ruled that "upskirt pictures" are legal, even if the victim doesn't consent.

The highest court in Massachusetts has determined that a man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not "nude or partially nude."

The Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday dismissed charges against Michael Robertson who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police, who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female rider's skirts and dresses.

**Blubbartron** · 2014-03-05 17:14

Originally Posted by jmc

MA Supreme court has ruled that "upskirt pictures" are legal, even if the victim doesn't consent.

Got a link? I'm curious about whether these were pictures taken through above and beyond methods to achieve the upskirt view (i.e. a camera pointing upwards from the toe of a shoe), or if they were of women sitting down and essentially exposing the upskirt view to anyone sitting down across from them. In the former, I would expect that should be illegal, simply out of bad faith actions, but in the latter hypothetical scenario, of course it shouldn't be illegal, because it's not illegal to take photos of people in public. If the "victims" don't like what's visible under normal conditions like sitting down, then they shouldn't wear what they were wearing, or sit in the way they were sitting.

**jmc** · 2014-03-05 17:17

Originally Posted by Blubbartron

Got a link? I'm curious about whether these were pictures taken through above and beyond methods to achieve the upskirt view (i.e. a camera pointing upwards from the toe of a shoe), or if they were of women sitting down and essentially exposing the upskirt view to anyone sitting down across from them. In the former, I would expect that should be illegal, simply out of bad faith actions, but in the latter hypothetical scenario, of course it shouldn't be illegal, because it's not illegal to take photos of people in public. If the "victims" don't like what's visible under normal conditions like sitting down, then they shouldn't wear what they were wearing, or sit in the way they were sitting.

Let me find you a good link of the original arrest.

This guy would take pictures in crowded trains of females standing up, by putting his phone under their skirts.

*Edit* Sounds more like he only got off due to the poor wording in a state law that was used to charge him.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion..._massachusetts

The state’s highest court ruled today MBTA passengers have no expectation of privacy from “upskirting,” as the criminal case against a man accused of trying to sneak cellphone photos of female passengers up their skirts was ordered dismissed by a lower court.

Supreme Judicial Court justices concluded that a state law that prohibits photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person “is concerned with proscribing Peeping Tom voyeurism of people who are completely or partially undressed and, in particular, such voyeurism enhanced by electronic devices.”

The law, they found, “does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA.

“In sum, we interpret the phrase, ‘a person who is ... partially nude’ in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed, but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her. A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” the court ruled.

Michael S. Robertson, 32, of Andover, was facing more than two years in jail had he been convicted. He could not immediately be reached for comment, but the SJC’s decision sparked calls for updating the law.

“We believed that the statute criminalized upskirt photography, but since the SJC found otherwise we are urging legislators to act with all due haste in rewriting this statute in protecting commuters’ privacy,” Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley said. “Everyone — man or woman — should have a right to privacy beneath their own clothes.”

T spokesman Joe Pesaturo said, “MBTA Transit Police support the Suffolk DA’s efforts to work with the Legislature in rewriting the statute.”

Robertson was arrested in 2010 for allegedly using his cellphone to try and take pictures up the skirts of a T passenger and an undercover transit cop.

His appellate lawyer Michelle Menken argued in her brief, “In light of the ubiquitous nature of cell phone cameras in today’s society, and the ease with which digital images are disseminated worldwide, the Legislature may choose to criminalize up-skirting ... But this court is not free to give new meaning to the existing statute as a consequence of the changing times.”

Robertson’s case in Boston Municipal Court was stayed pending the SJC’s ruling.

**Blubbartron** · 2014-03-05 17:31

Originally Posted by jmc

Let me find you a good link of the original arrest.

This guy would take pictures in crowded trains of females standing up, by putting his phone under their skirts.

*Edit* Sounds more like he only got off due to the poor wording in a state law that was used to charge him.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion..._massachusetts

Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. Hopefully they'll fix the wording and/or make a new law explicitly banning this type of shit. A fully clothed person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to trying to get pics of the goods.

**Eticket** · 2014-03-05 21:36

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-flo...s-say/24804232

That could have ended a lot worse.

**Nephlite** · 2014-03-06 00:23

Jesus... What is up with people taking out kids these days? Leave the kids out of this and off yourself away from them.

**Ksandra** · 2014-03-06 00:46

Originally Posted by Nephlite

Jesus... What is up with people taking out kids these days? Leave the kids out of this and off yourself away from them.

I dunno enough about it, but I often think that it could be that we (society) don't take enough look at depression on pregnant women (and ppd). It seems like whenever these situations happen it's with preggo or mothers with very young children. Not enough are seeking help, and it isn't really talked about much.

Unrelated: Dunno how many people have heard this story, but there's a girl trying to sue her parents to get them to pay for college and various other things. Judge already struck down high school tuition and living expenses:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/living...ege-education/

- It's another one of those "you can't make this kind of stuff up" stories.

A New Jersey high school senior sued her parents, accusing them of tossing her out of the family home when she turned 18 and refusing to pay for her private high school and college education.

In a lawsuit, Rachel Canning of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, asked a court to have her parents pay the outstanding tuition for her private high school, pay her living and transportation expenses for the foreseeable future, use money from an existing college fund to pay for at least some of her college education, and pay her legal bills.

At a hearing Tuesday in New Jersey State Superior Court, a judge denied the request for high school tuition and current living expenses. Another hearing will be held in April to deal with the other issues in the suit, including college costs.

It's a case of she said versus they said.

Rachel Canning says she is an honors student and cheerleader, who was cut off from her family and could lose the opportunity to attend college, where she hopes to major in biomedical engineering.

Canning's parents, Sean and Elizabeth, argue that she was not kicked out of the house. Instead, they say she left on her own back in October because she didn't want to abide by their rules.

Mixed into this seemingly dysfunctional family brew are a number of other allegations against each side: that the Cannings didn't like Rachel's boyfriend and that they were abusive to her, and that Rachel missed curfews and was suspended from school.

**Aksannyi** · 2014-03-06 00:48

Originally Posted by Nephlite

Jesus... What is up with people taking out kids these days? Leave the kids out of this and off yourself away from them.

Not sure what that particular article states, but a lot I've read indicate that she jumped out of the car on her own, leaving the kids in there, so not sure she was trying to kill herself, just her kids.

And that girl who sued her parents sounds like a totally entitled little brat.

**Moss** · 2014-03-06 07:15

Well if she had a disagreement with her parents, her best option is taking them to court. It would be silly to try to work things out otherwise.

**Brill Weave** · 2014-03-06 07:40

I remember before we had Noah I could read stories like that and not be bothered at all. Anything involving children really. I would recognize that it was a horrible thing that happened and move on with my day. Now that I have a child I find that I have an extremely difficult time reading things involving kids because I automatically now substitute Noah into the story. I can't imagine what the fuck is wrong with people that would harm a child. It disgusts me.

**Aksannyi** · 2014-03-06 09:28

Originally Posted by Brill Weave

I remember before we had Noah I could read stories like that and not be bothered at all. Anything involving children really. I would recognize that it was a horrible thing that happened and move on with my day. Now that I have a child I find that I have an extremely difficult time reading things involving kids because I automatically now substitute Noah into the story. I can't imagine what the fuck is wrong with people that would harm a child. It disgusts me.

Trust me, I know that feeling. I am hyper-sensitive to stories about kids now.

A few years ago when I still lived up in Erie, there were two little girls that got out of their house while their hung-over 18 year old babysitter was passed out and made their way to a pond in the backyard. Both drowned. They were both under 2. The articles in the paper said that the little girls were best friends, and their families were devastated. That article haunted me for a long time. My kids were still young then.

That made big news up there, unsure if you had heard that one Brill. That one still messes with me, and that was more accidental negligence than anything.

**myreality** · 2014-03-06 11:57

Originally Posted by Eticket

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-flo...s-say/24804232

That could have ended a lot worse.

"Our mommy is trying to kill us, please help, "

I think my heart literally started bleeding after reading that.

**Xajii** · 2014-03-06 12:04

Originally Posted by Brill Weave

I remember before we had Noah I could read stories like that and not be bothered at all. Anything involving children really. I would recognize that it was a horrible thing that happened and move on with my day. Now that I have a child I find that I have an extremely difficult time reading things involving kids because I automatically now substitute Noah into the story. I can't imagine what the fuck is wrong with people that would harm a child. It disgusts me.

terrible quality but

**Aristio** · 2014-03-06 12:28

Originally Posted by myreality

I think my heart literally started bleeding after reading that.

"The kids are like, 'No there's a baby. There's a baby,'" Tesseneer said.

I'm sensitive about child stories as well, for the same reason most here are as well but after reading this, my heart sank a little.

**Aksannyi** · 2014-03-07 10:44

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/...-St-Petersburg

CS is this your uncle? lol

**Outlaw** · 2014-03-10 00:23

Originally Posted by Aksannyi

And that girl who sued her parents sounds like a totally entitled little brat.

A judge has ruled against her in demanding money for certain expenses. It's not over but just seeing her face in that courtroom makes you hate her ever more.

The case appears to be in good hands.