Teens' Party Costs $1,000,000.00 in Damages (Orgy of Arson and Looting, Parents on Vacation)

Arizona Central.com ^ | May 30, 2002 | John Masson

[A Navy Vet]

Don't you have any pictures of women with curves? This thread looks like the "Invasion of the Stick People".

[connectthedots]

Gross negligence may not be covered under that policy..depends how you define it

Vandalism is almost always covered. Once the kid left to spend time with his parents, it became vandalism. The insurance company will likely pay and then go after the kids who did the damage under the subrogation clause.

[cmsgop]

Ali was very good. Of course I am a Huge Michael Mann Fan though.

[Chemnitz]

Great idea. I think all calls by safety forces should be paid by the user, when it caused by mischief, etc. The parents should pay for the kids. Otherwise there is no motivation for the parents to impose discipline (given that the parents are lax anyway). Parents should be motivated but we have the children of dysfunctional families raising kids who are even more destructive, plus many lazy spoiled white kids with too much money.

[Howlin]

Oh, lord, I love that song. My absolute favorite.

[stands2reason]

I hope you got your money back! I would have.

[aruanan]

Thank you SO much!

[pray4liberty]

By golly, is that good advice. I'm going to try it. Hehehe, that will sure put a dent in my daughter's style in about..say, 3 years, when Mom or Dad just happens to show up unexpectedly and unannounced. Keep 'em on their toes!

[Libertina]

No doubt their liberal parents will ask the youths to "write a paragraph" expressing their apologies...
So, everything's OK now, right? (/sarcasm)

[stands2reason]

When I was a teenager working the ticket booth at a theatre, I was always to refund anyone's money if they asked because they didn't like the movie, even if they'd seen the whole thing. Of course, that was General Cinema, and they did go out of business, so don't expect that policy everywhere, but I would think if you'd seen only half or less of the movie you shouldn't have a problem.

[cgk]

One thing from Vanilla Sky, were we supposed to think that Pelelope Cruz was some sort of prize catch for Cruise lead character? Ask 9 out of 10 guys and they would take Ms. Diaz in a heartbeat

Label me: Happily Married to the 10th man in that survey.

Mrs Kus

[cgk]

If anyone can find the picture of Cameron Diaz wearing this shirt, I'd be indebted, as would my 10th man.

Mrs K

[codebreaker]

Didn't know Cam was a wacky leftist.

[cgk]

Didn't know Cam was a wacky leftist.

Here's a pre-election interview from here where she states her political "feelings":
The Girls of Charlie's Angels

(snip...)
Betty: Cameron, can you tell us what you'll be thinking about when you go into the voting booth to pick our next President?

Cameron: Yes. I will be thinking about our rights as women and our environment. We want everyone to vote.

Lucy: We're not saying you have to vote for...

All: GORE!!!

Lucy: But you should just go out and vote.

Cameron: But voting for Gore is the best choice you can make at this time. People don't think that their choice makes a difference.

Drew: They also think they'll always be protected and that's not true.

Lucy: God, we could possibly be really screwed if we don't pay attention and wake up.

Cameron: But the issue is that there is a man out there [BUSH] that's going to take the rights away from women and tap into our natural resources.

Drew: But there are people out there that think "What do you crazy Hollywood girls know?" We just have to vote at this election!

Betty: Okay! I'm going! I'm going!

Bush is going to take rights away from women and tap into their natural resources! OMG! Hide the Oil of Olay! It's all we'll have left with Bush in office!(gag)

I just assume all Hollywood-types are wacky leftists unless they come out and state otherwise. (Bruce Willis comes to mind)...

Mrs Kus

[afraidfortherepublic]

It made for a wonderful and peaceful teen transition, resolving into marriage and then (in the proper order) two delightful grandchildren.

Mine too. One of my most gratifying moments was when my 28 year old son called me up when he was struggling with a decision about buying a lot to build a house. "The problem is, Mom, is that you and Dad spoiled us when we were growing up."

"Who is this on the phone," I said, "Is this the same son who was always complaining that he had to drive an old car, or that he had to be in earlier than the other kids, or that he had to pay for his own auto insurance, or that he had to have a part time job?"

"Well," he answered, "You and Dad always made sure that we had a good place to live and everything we needed, and you were always there for us. I see now that it's really hard to provide all that for a family. Thank you."

[Chemnitz]

That's good to hear. I hope more parents discover the advantages of short-term pain and long-term gain.

[Chemist_Geek]

According to the story in our paper, the son wasn't innocent as it first appeared. Apparently, he had been ciruclating news of his party around his school for weeks prior to the event.

Yes, this is what I understand as well. Unfortunately, Farmington Hills is soccer-mom territory, where teenagers are given new cars for birthdays, and the TV is the substituite for parenting...

Also, the family's two cats died in the fire.

The only good news out of the whole situation... (/sarcasm)

[Chemist_Geek]

I think all calls by safety forces should be paid by the user, when it caused by mischief, etc.

They talk about that idea every year, in connection to the ice fishermen needing rescue out on Lake St. Clair. I am very leery of charging a per-call fee for police and fire service.

First off, our taxes already pay for the salaries and equipment. These fees would be "play money" for the government, enabling them to go hog-wild in the gadget catalogs. (Some of which are valuable, like the IR cameras for fire service. If it's that useful, though, then vote on a bond issue to buy some.)

Secondly, it's already possible in Michigan (at least; I don't know about elsewhere) for the prosecutor to force the defendant to pay the prosecutor's time and court costs, etc. That will generally be enough to run any normal defendant into a life of bank robbery or bankruptcy.

Thirdly, it's in society's interest to have police and fire service, so we should not single out any one group upon whom to rest the financial burden.

Fourthly, charging a per-call fee will be a major disincentive to report activity or trouble or need of rescue, for fear of being sent a bill. We should not place a price tag on human life or our public peace.