Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Girl Claims Price Scanner Gave Her Tourette's Syndrome

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the it's-$4.99-you-f*#@ing-co^&%#@!er dept.

Medicine 558

Attorneys for Dominica Juliano claim that she was burned and developed psychological problems after a store clerk aimed a hand-held price scanner at her face. Store attorneys say their scanners uses a harmless LED light and that the girl had serious health problems before she was scanned. From the article: "Dominica Juliano was 12 when she and her grandmother entered the Country Fair store in Erie in June 2004. A clerk allegedly called the girl 'grumpy' before flashing his hand-held bar code scanner over her face and telling her to smile. Attorneys for Ms. Juliano and her guardian say the girl was sensitive to light and burned, and later developed post-traumatic stress and Tourette's syndrome."

cancel ×

558 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Grumpy (3, Funny)

Dark_Matter88 (1150591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851810)

"You're grumpy" *beep* OOOh...Sick burn!

Re:Grumpy (5, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851858)

"You're grumpy" *beep* OOOh...Sick burn!

I am not *motherfucker*! *Cockbag*! Shit!

Oh my goodness, I don't ever recall speaking like that before. Must have been the scanner!

Re:Grumpy (3, Funny)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852124)

I always knew something was up with the Self Checkout... no wonder I get all angry and stuff... "Please place the item in the bag".. ."Please remove the item from the bag"... it's all the scanner's fault.

Fire that Judge (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851812)

The Judge that let this go to trial should be out of a job. Why waste the time of a jury and tax-dollars on such ridiculous claims?

Re:Fire that Judge (4, Informative)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851830)

"Why"? To have prior case study so that we can debunk future ones by showing frivolity. About the only good reason I can think up.

Then again, this audience probably knows more about the inner workings of such a device than the general public, so we're quick to dismiss obvious BS claims whereas another peer group might not understand what's going on here.

Re:Fire that Judge (3, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852018)

Disclaimer: I also believe it's a bullshit cause

But what if not? Just because it hasn't caused problems before? Would it be fair justice to ignore this persons claims and later find out they were true? Then we would have a slashdot story where everyone would say that the judge was biased and asshole because he didn't accept the case.

One should only be banned from making court cases directly by himself/herself if he continually abuses court (like the anti-violent game lawyer). Otherwise he/she should be heard and try to show the proof - not just directly ignore it.

Re:Fire that Judge (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852078)

Simple science check would be fine.
You can only get burns with enough energy exposure, the Price Scanner does not supply that.

Re:Fire that Judge (2, Insightful)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852210)

I'm not sure it works that way. The wave length is a very specific determining factor for how much absorption occurs. What strikes me as odd is why the store lights are not burning her if the scanner does. They spit out pretty much all kinds of light. What would be needed is rigorous scientific experimentation to determine if the scanner is dangerous not a court system, but hey thats the breaks.

Re:Fire that Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852292)

The Sun puts out more energy in 5 seconds of exposure than the scanner does in a year.

and yes, it does work that way.

most scanners are either visible spectrum red, or infrared - neither coming close to burn energy levels

Re:Fire that Judge (1, Redundant)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852130)

Mmmm. Pretty good point. But, the wench cheapens the suffering of everyone who really has experienced the problems she claims. Someone needs to bitch slap her and her guardian, then hear their evidence, then bitch slap them again.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852286)

The US court system allows anyone to sue for anything - that's why. The judge didn't write the law.

But I can just see the next lawsuit when they claim the MRI or the CAT scan made them unable to work ...and turned them into brain-eating zombies.

Re:Fire that Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852324)

Disclaimer: I also believe it's a bullshit cause

Yes, but there is also a wrong that has been committed that ought to be remedied. A shame they have to use such implausible route, though.

If some arsehole flashed a scanner in my eyes I'd be pissed off too. If he did it to my kid an I'd hire a couple of guys to kneecap the prick.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851890)

The Judge that let this go to trial should be out of a job. Why waste the time of a jury and tax-dollars on such ridiculous claims?

Because judges aren't generally empowered to prevent a case from going to trial because they don't believe the facts alleged. A judge can prevent a case from going to trial because the facts alleged, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, don't support a legal cause of action.

Re:Fire that Judge (3, Funny)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851936)

Because judges aren't generally empowered to prevent a case from going to trial because they don't believe the facts alleged. A judge can prevent a case from going to trial because the facts alleged, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, don't support a legal cause of action.

And, of course, the light here is definitely not favorable to the plaintiff.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852288)

Apparently it causes Tourettes!

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851968)

Because judges aren't generally empowered to prevent a case from going to trial because they don't believe the facts alleged. A judge can prevent a case from going to trial because the facts alleged, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, don't support a legal cause of action.

I shall refrain from passing judgement upon this case or the alleged victim until the girl has been satisfactory examined by a neutral party with the knowledge (and possibly lab) required to study this case properly. This may or may not be a false claim; but it is easy to jump to conclusions. I believe that dismissing a case simply by gut instinct is to risk perpetrating a great crime against the potential victim.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852104)

You think a a 1mw light bulb could burn someone?
You think this girl's home has no lights in it?

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852122)

Parent and GP are exactly right. Tourette's may be a bit of a stretch, but I'm going to assume that a good majority of us are not qualified to make the judgment of whether or not the girl's light sensitivity is serious enough that holding a particular light source near her face will cause any pain and/or injury. Perhaps only a certain range of EMR wavelengths would trigger a reaction? There are a number of possibilities. I'm not a doctor. Most of the rest of /. are not doctors. The judge is not a doctor.

There are a number of things that happen before a trial occurs. There are details to which we are not privy. Did the girl's lawyer(s) contact experts? If so, did those experts admit of a possibility that events could have transpired as described? If so, then there might be a basis for a case. If the answer is negative for either of those questions, then the lawsuit may be frivolous. But most of us are simply unqualified to make that judgment without further information.

I know, I know. I must be new here.

Re:Fire that Judge (2, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852178)

So shine the light on her again.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852184)

No. She would receive vastly more energy even on the limited wavelengths put out by an LED every second she spent in natural sunlight.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852006)

A judge can prevent a case from going to trial because the facts alleged, if viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, don't support a legal cause of action.

"I allege that my daughter was burned by the application of a 1mW laser to her face for five seconds."

"Yes, your honor, we do have light bulbs in our house. Yes, we have some 100W light bulbs. Yes, we do allow our daughter to go outside in the sunshine. What's that? Case dismissed?"

The "facts alleged", in the most favorable light, show the plaintiff is a moron or crook or both, neither of which is a legal cause of action against the store or clerk. It IS a cause of action against the plaintiff.

Re:Fire that Judge (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852092)

Forget that, the simple matter that this is not possible should prevent it. It would be like me suing you for my migraines because I believe your invisible unicorn witch put a hex on me.

Re:Fire that Judge (5, Funny)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851896)

It's even more annoying, considering a judge threw out my case against my city's bus service. I was splashed in the face by a puddle in the bus station, where I was picking up some hookers. Next day: BAM. Herpes.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852004)

It's even more annoying, considering a judge threw out my case against my city's bus service. I was splashed in the face by a puddle in the bus station, where I was picking up some hookers. Next day: BAM. Herpes.

Didnt it give you tourette's too? I mean, after being splashed in the face, I bet you yelled all kind of things. You should fire your lawyer and get a new one.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852014)

You were picking up hookers in a puddle? No wonder you caught some germs. Have you ever taken a look at that water under a microscope?

Re:Fire that Judge (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851996)

The Judge his doing his job as set out by the laws. It is not generally within a Judge's responsibilities to simply block or prevent a case going to trial just because some people might feel it is a waste of time in their opinion.

"I think the claims are ridiculous" is not a valid legal reason for denying the person of their right to seek justice under the law.

Basically, this Judge is doing his job properly, and any judge which would deny a case going to trial, simply because someone thinks its ridiculous, is not properly executing the role of a Judge...

The Judge's responsibility is to analyze the claims put forward, and the show of evidence, based on the law, not based on some political opinion of the "proper cases" to come before the courts.

Re:Fire that Judge (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852120)

What about these claims are not possible?
If I claim your pet invisible purple unicorn witch put a hex on me and that gave me genital warts, should I be allowed to sue you for damages?

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

Anthelme (1759920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852010)

this is a civil case, sadly people can sue for whatever stupid, frivilous, etc etc reasons they want, like that person on ebay who lost his 100% rating becuase someone marked him down for selling defective merchandise...

your commecnt is right on the money

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

amosh (109566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852012)

Yeah! You're right! The JUDGE should be the ones deciding which claims are legitimate or not!

Jesus. Half the country wants to burn the government, the other half wants to give it ten times as much power...

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852136)

No, he should decide only if claims are even possible or not. No one should be allowed to waste the courts time if their claims are outside the bounds of reality.

Re:Fire that Judge (5, Informative)

GasparGMSwordsman (753396) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852024)

So you suggest that a judge should throw out cases BEFORE hearing any evidence or examining the facts of the case. I question if you really understand the implications of that action. I also question your understanding of the law or history.

The judge did in fact throw out the case, AFTER the facts were examined.

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/NEWS02/304149909 [goerie.com]

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852192)

Then he did his job. My concern is that it is possible to even bring such a suit without any evidence.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852300)

Mod parent up. This waste of time suit was tossed within a day.

Re:Fire that Judge (1)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852046)

This is why we need laws allowing judges to fine people for bringing trivial lawsuits. Aren't the courts jammed enough with legitimate cases?

fuck this shit ... FML (-1, Troll)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851814)

and suck my bawlz

~ probably need more text to pass the lameness filter huh?

The sun should've killed her long ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31851820)

If she's that sensitive to light, just a few seconds exposure to any amount of sunlight or even a 15W incandescent should have killed her years ago. I mean burned her to a crisp.

I'll Bet (4, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851824)

'Attorneys for Ms. Juliano and her guardian say the girl was sensitive to light and burned, and later developed post-traumatic stress and Tourette's syndrome.'

To fix that: "Ms. Juliano and her guardian say the girl deserves a Million Billion Gazillion dolars (and that she [Ms. Juliano] should be trustee)."

Um yeah, ok easy enough (4, Insightful)

DnemoniX (31461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851832)

Easy to figure out, shoot her again and again to see if it still burns. Oh and never mind that Tourettes is an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder. Don't let a little thing like that stop you from filing a lawsuit though.

Re:Um yeah, ok easy enough (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851914)

fuck you!

Re:Um yeah, ok easy enough (1)

ic3p1ck (597610) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852312)

Dammit where are my mod points when I need them!

Re:Um yeah, ok easy enough (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852040)

Oh and never mind that Tourettes is an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder.

The laser was obviously set to stunt.

To verify (or disprove) the claim... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31851834)

...just point a laser at the back of her head in court.

Re:To verify (or disprove) the claim... (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851958)

I'm pretty sure the clerk didn't shoot her in the back of the head with a laser pointer in a courtroom, so I'm not real sure what you think that would prove (or disprove).

Damn! (0)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851838)

F*cking clerk! A*shole!

Re:Damn! (0, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851888)

99% of slashdotters have tourette's, and thanks to you they'll all be in here explaining that it doesn't just make people swear, and why they're such better geeks because of it. Thanks a bastard bunch, pissass.

Re:Damn! (1)

heptapod (243146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851900)

Oh come now, AOL's terms of service don't extend to Slashdot. You're free to swear as much as you fucking like, cunt.

Re:Damn! (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852076)

Except the slashdot mobs are free to rate your swearing down as much as they like, if they swearing gets excessive...

Also, some of may have tourettes, and pick "-1 Redundant" at random; due to imagined repeated swear words.

Re:Damn! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31851902)

I rate your quaint troll as follows:
2/10

That is all.

A Possibility (1)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851840)

Some people have photosensitive epilepsy. Not saying that it's the cause here, but it's a possibility.

Re:A Possibility (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851892)

Those people do not get burns though.

Re:A Possibility (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851932)

Vampires get burned by light. What do you have to say to that, smart guy?

Re:A Possibility (2, Funny)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851988)

Hrmm, according to current popular opinion vampires just sparkle in light, and it has to be sunlight not visible light LEDs.

Re:A Possibility (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852150)

Vampires are dead and therefore have no legal rights.

Re:A Possibility (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852282)

Vampires are dead and therefore have no legal rights.

You insensitive clod!

They're not dead, they're Vitality Impaired!

Re:A Possibility (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852170)

I doubt very much that the scanner LEDs were flashing.

If passing a simple light across your face triggers an epleptic event, you have a very unusual and problematic situation, since changes in ambient light are basically unavoidable, unless you spend the rest of your life living indoors, in the same room, with lights that never go out....

Malicious use of a :CueCat (1)

DesertNomad (885798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851842)

I'd be swearing about it as well. PTSD, however, is real and can be caused in all sorts of ways. But probably not from this.

Litigation Land (5, Insightful)

muphin (842524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851848)

Welcome to the land of the "owe, i hurt myself, lets blame who's near my so i don't look like an idiot"
this is obviously a grab for cash, when genetic disorders like this cannot instantly be created from a flash of light, if she had a pre existing condition, light sensitivity, then i doubt she's gonna get that cash she so hope she would, poor girl is probably stuck in the middle of the greed from her parents.

Re:Litigation Land (2, Informative)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851990)

It is not that. It is "Hey, he did something with technology I don't understand. I bet if I lie and say it hurt me, they will pay me big bucks to shut up and go away. Cha-CHING!"

It is much more malicious and she and her family are shit.

Re:Litigation Land (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852116)

She might actually be sincere. People sincerely believe strange things. Among the strange things I've found:

* Mirrors attract lightning. To solve this problem, cover your mirror with a blanket during a thunder storm (never mind that a mirror inside the house is already covered) (from Latin America)
* Don't use the iron during a thunderstorm or you could go blind (met an old woman who literally had this problem and was later healed by a preacher. That was her story, of course. Also Latin America)
* People with 'evil eye' can curse babies if they look at them. A bracelet with the seed from a certain seed can protect them (Latin America, I met a main who claimed to have an evil eye. Who knows how he figured that one out).
* If you fall asleep with the wind from a fan blowing on you, it can suffocate you and kill you. Known as fan death (South Korea)
* If you take a shower/bath while you are still sweating, it will kill you (Latin America)
* Any number of natural herbal remedies found in Whole Foods (Americans, a lot of whom have gone to college and should know better)

It is very possible this girl's grandmother never got a formal education and still believes in the old traditions. 'Genetics' mean nothing to her: all she knows is one event happened, and then another event happened, and she drew a correlation. In this case you could say 'sequence != correlation' but she probably doesn't understand those words. Let's hope the jury members do.

Re:Litigation Land (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852186)

And don't forgot the old-school favorite, where a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

If someone would believe that, why wouldn't they believe that a 1-milliwatt laser could burn them?

Re:Litigation Land (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852260)

If someone would believe that, why wouldn't they believe that a 1-milliwatt laser could burn them?

Wait, it was one MILLION watts? OMGWTFLAWSUIT!

Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31851854)

Take a physics class you fucking dumbass.

Oh wait, that's right. She already knows. She is just lying to take advantage of someone, trying to exploit the legal system to steal their money.

It's easier than working.

Who else wants to show up with a laser pointer? (4, Funny)

tlambert (566799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851882)

Who else wants to show up with a laser pointer?

I'm betting we can chase her away from entering the court house...

-- Terry

Re:Who else wants to show up with a laser pointer? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852188)

Or she could add your name to the suit (or start new lawsuits) with you as co-defendants for the '2nd burning' and further medical problems that followed.

In true RIAA style... everyone in the court room with a laser pointer, cell phone, or any RF/light source is in some danger.

Maggie (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851884)

Maggie Simpson is going to have a terrible case of Tourette's after being scanned every week for the past ~20 years.

Re:Maggie (2, Funny)

G-Man (79561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852016)

Well obviously she has development issues - she still can't really talk, and she's shot people on multiple occasions.

LED + WiFI (5, Funny)

thesaurus (1220706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851886)

The article doesn't explain that it was the combination of LEDs and WiFi that causes this psychological problem. That or vaccines plus violent video games.

Re:LED + WiFI (1)

aquila.solo (1231830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851972)

Don't forget the fluoride in the water and global warming.

Re:LED + WiFI (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852156)

And non-organic vegetables.

Re:LED + WiFI (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852190)

Hey! I like synthetic vegetables.

Costly revenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31851894)

That's one way to get revenge. The scanner is likely to wind up short a few thousand dollars when it's all over, whether they win or not.

While the claim is stupid... (2, Insightful)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851910)

... the cashier's behaviour was inappropriate. That's not how to treat a costumer.

Re:While the claim is stupid... (2, Funny)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851964)

How SHOULD the checker treat someone who creates costumes?

Re:While the claim is stupid... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852226)

Bahhh. I've spent much of my life saying and doing outrageous things. "Appropriate" seems to me another way of saying "politically correct". And, both are asinine bullshit.

If some broad has ever dropped dead after I made an outrageous proposal to her, then I've done my civic duty by eliminating a weak link from the gene pool. Where's my medal?

Oh yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31851938)

Well this thread gave me lupus.

I'll show you grumpy! (-1, Flamebait)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31851946)

The suit is complete nonsense, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for company that hired the worthless cunt of a clerk who thinks it is reasonable to demand a customer smile. Fuck them, fuck the clerk. If I'm polite and pay the bill, that is *all* you can expect from a customer.

I had a similar encounter at a gas station and it still pisses me off to this very day. They turned off the pump and kept telling me to smile over the announcement system. I went in and let them know how unacceptable that was, and then spent time to phone as many people in as high of position as possible at that company to let them know the same. Who knows if it did any good, but hopefully that waste of flesh learned the folly of demanding happy obedience from the person paying their wages.

Re:I'll show you grumpy! (1)

derfel cadarn (949910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852034)

TFA does not say if the clerk was unhappy because the girl was grumpy or he was just trying to cheer her up (shock, horror). You on the other hand must be a riot at parties. You definitely showed what a grumpy cunt you are (oops, did I say that?), but hey don't let that dampen your sense of entitlement.

Re:I'll show you grumpy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852090)

It would be different if it were a clerk at a handgun store and he shot her.

Much different ....

Re:I'll show you grumpy! (-1, Troll)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852296)

...don't let that dampen your sense of entitlement.

The only sense of entitlement is on the clerk's side. I'm willing to treat others the way they treat me. Clearly you feel the clerk deserved a song and dance from the customer, I don't.

Re:I'll show you grumpy! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852066)

While the employees were obviously being annoying fucks, your response was much more obnoxious. I have a hard time feeling bad for the trouble they put you through, you sound like a real asshole to me.

Re:I'll show you grumpy! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852164)

A far simpler would have been to get gas somewhere else and call the owner of the place.

Re:I'll show you grumpy! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852272)

That is what I did.

Error in Summary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31851970)

Summary states:

Attorneys for 12-year-old Dominica Juliano claim

but:

Dominica Juliano was 12 when she and her grandmother entered the Country Fair store in Erie in June 2004.

So the stupid girl is now 17 or 18, but apparently non the wiser. I really wonder why it took so long for their parents to get the idea that they might squeeze some money out of this stupid joke.

Frivolous lawsuits ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852062)

... are giving me Tourette's Syndrom. Can I sue?

Re:Frivolous lawsuits ... (4, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852108)

NUTSACK

Re:Frivolous lawsuits ... (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852236)

Who modded this poor fellow offtopic?

He's a Slashdotter - do you know how many LEDs he's exposed to on a regular basis? Have a heart!

BULLSHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852084)

Erm, sorry; don't mind me.

What everyone's forgetting here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852094)

It's Pennsylvania..... which, like Florida, deserves it's own Fark and Slashdot tag...

South Park did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852110)

Cartman: "I've got a tiiicket!"

B-B-B-Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852112)

If shining a LED in your eyes could give you turrets, I would SHIT CUNT FUCK have DAMN turrets pretty bad by now.

On a more serious note, that just doesn't work. All the scanner does is shine a LED and catch the light bouncing back, shining light into your eyes could not give you turrets, that's not feasible.

I don't know about Tourette's... (1)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852154)

Five years of working retail from 14-19 certainly taught me to hate the vast majority of humanity and swear like a sailor.

However, the good customers made up for the meager paycheck and the idiot boss.

Wonderous (4, Insightful)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852166)

Burned by an LED?

What happens if she's exposed to direct sunlight? Presumably it causes her to burst into flame, being tens of thousands of times more energetic.

Re:Wonderous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852278)

Burned by an LED?

What happens if she's exposed to direct sunlight? Presumably it causes her to burst into flame, being tens of thousands of times more energetic.

Clearly, she's a vampire and should be dealt with as such.

Re:Wonderous (3, Funny)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852294)

And now we know the secret of how vampires never seem to want for money. It's not prudent investments carried out over an endless unlife combined with their ability to derive nourishment from the blood of unwilling victims rather than paying for food and drink. Nowadays they just get a store clerk to burn them with an ultra low power LED scanner, curse a bit, then sue for enough money to support themselves indefinitely.

The way I look at women.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852172)

I'm sure I've put a few in a wheel-chair just by me staring at the legs...
Lately I was following a lady around in the mall with a soft-on bumping
against my zippergate and staring at the back of her legs. Well just
me looking at her provoked a full-blown Tourette attack. My stare is
pretty powerful so maybe I burned her, that patch of skin on her left
calf looked a bit red.. Well she called me a pervert and a bunch of
names and then started to scream for "Security" at the top of her lungs..
Luckily I removed myself before the security guards came around ..
because if she loses the use of her legs I'm going to have to pay her for
the rest of my life.

Go on tv with chris hansen! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852206)

Go on tv with chris hansen!

Could be worse (3, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852218)

She's lucky: if, instead of an LED she was exposed to a microwave and non-dairy creamer, she could've been turned into a mouse!

Claim? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31852232)

They claim? As in right now? Not 6 years ago? Somehow I don't think this is a story.

this is (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852246)

priceless

Sensitive to light (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31852304)

I do not care how sensitive to light you are, if you can survive outside and in a normally lighted room you will have no trouble with a price scanner.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>