Can people PLEASE stop attacking each other and focus on the Lululemon case?

Have either of the Apple employees spoken publicly? I googled the woman's name out of curiosity and saw that her LinkedIn and Flickr have been disabled. I assume that's because she's being harassed. I do think what they did was unforgivable and I consider myself a 'normal' 911 caller who understands when to call - I've called handful of times including for two fairly serious car accidents, a family member having a stroke etc and would DEFINITELY have called had I heard this. They'll have to live with the fact that they could have saved Jayna.

Brittany is a monster.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the poster you are fighting with, but I see nothing in your post that has any relevance to the LuluLemon trial. So how do you get off telling someone else they are adding nothing to the thread?

True, but it has certainly been a very large part - how tangential - of this thread.

The fact remains that deliberately misrepresenting people, especially after you have been called on it and even in a tangent of the thread, adds nothing to any debate.

I'm not the poster you are fighting with, but I see nothing in your post that has any relevance to the LuluLemon trial. So how do you get off telling someone else they are adding nothing to the thread?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't had a chance to read all the comments so what I'm saying may be a repeat of what others have said.

I have also been haunted by the testimony of the Apple employees and want to condemn them but rather than spending a lot of time condemning them, we should use this incident to remind ourselves to err on the side of caution in the event something like this happens to us. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do and it's difficult to pick up the phone and call 911. But we should call and deal with the possibility of embarrassment later if it was nothing.

Let's all promise ourselves that we will call.

I'm guessing there's one poster in this thread who won't be taking the pledge. That individual only calls 911 when he or she deems the situation to be an emergency.

Apparently you haven't read the thread. No one here has said that they don't think you should call 911 when you hear an altercation - which was the case for the Apple employees. The most anyone has said is that it isn't fair to judge them harshly because you have the benefit of hindsight, and it is easy from your armchair to say what should have been done. Several people have jumped on the woman who said she called 911 for the broken down car and man hitting the dog. There is a huge difference among these situations, so stop putting words in other people's mouths. It is tiresome.

I notice you didn't mention how people also jumped all over her for calling 911 when she saw a woman on the side of the street who appeared off and in need of help. Many of you thought it was not appropriate to call in that instance. I guess you're the same type of people who just assumed my sick dad was just some drunk on the street when he had his brain bleed.

Better safe than sorry - better to make an unnecessary call than not to make the call. Save a life, not your pride. And if 911 is really struggling, then maybe we should demand more resources for it.

Wow! She was right one third of the time! That is a failing grade.

As for your father, why are you jumping on the strangers that you assume didn't help him? He spent the entire day at work, and not one of his co-workers did anything. Geez. That is what is appalling about your story.

Her failing grade would have saved my dad's life, but your decision tree would not have. In fact, he spent the entire day among coworkers but not people who knew well. Yes, they should have called. So should the people who saw him walking in the middle of the street, looking dazed. Instead they, like you, just went along their own merry way, minding their own merry business.

I'm jumping on strangers for your OWN STATEMENTS about how little inclined to help you are, and even worse, your statements discouraging people who are doing the right thing, which you are NOT, from continuing the correct response. You're getting jumped on for your own statements, own them if you must, but please do not discourage others from helping. You are wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue.

Actually, there are several people who have posted criticizing the woman who calls 911 frivolously. YOU are the person apparently who acts as if that means we keep our heads down and ignore actual emergencies. And that is such a misrepresentation of what I've said - and what others have said - that has crossed the line from ridiculous to offensive. It is as much b.s. as if I came on here and characterized you as advocating calling 911 for a hangnail. Please stop making sh!t up about me and other people on this board. It adds NOTHING to any thread or debate to argue the way you do. Your anecdote about your dad is not proof of anything. It is one story in a world with millions of stories. It is not, however, indicative of rhetoric skill.

I do own my statements (don't even know where you think you are going with that one), and they are correct. Little inclined to help? That's so far out of left field it isn't funny. I have called 911 for other people - in actual emergencies. A person phoning 911 about man hitting a dog or a car that appeared to be broken down is wasting our emergency resources. That should be self-evident. I am not discouraging people from helping. I am discouraging them from wasting other people's time and money when there are other ways to help.

And again, the people with the greatest responsibility to your father did nothing. Direct your anger at them, as they are far more culpable than strangers who might or might not have seen your father, given that you don't even know if they did notice anything strange about him or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been following the tweets being posted on WTOP, and one thing that came up yesterday is that they won't allow the co-worker who Jayna called that night to testify regarding the call, in which apparently Jayna told the co-worker that she found stolen merchandise in Britanny's purse. The judge is saying it would be heresay, and I don't understand why.

Isn't that the definition of hearsay - a person testifying about what someone else said, when they have no direct knowledge of the incident?

But the co-worker actually had the conversation with Jayna, so how is it hearsay? How would it be different than anyone else's account of what they witnessed/experienced/saw?

It depends on why they would offer the testimony. If they are offering it up as proof that Jayna found stolen merchandise in her purse = hearsay. If they are offering it up to prover that a call was made = not hearsay.

But it's hard to find a way that accomplishes #2 without effecting #1. Phone records would be adequate to establish that a call was made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't had a chance to read all the comments so what I'm saying may be a repeat of what others have said.

I have also been haunted by the testimony of the Apple employees and want to condemn them but rather than spending a lot of time condemning them, we should use this incident to remind ourselves to err on the side of caution in the event something like this happens to us. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do and it's difficult to pick up the phone and call 911. But we should call and deal with the possibility of embarrassment later if it was nothing.

Let's all promise ourselves that we will call.

I'm guessing there's one poster in this thread who won't be taking the pledge. That individual only calls 911 when he or she deems the situation to be an emergency.

Apparently you haven't read the thread. No one here has said that they don't think you should call 911 when you hear an altercation - which was the case for the Apple employees. The most anyone has said is that it isn't fair to judge them harshly because you have the benefit of hindsight, and it is easy from your armchair to say what should have been done. Several people have jumped on the woman who said she called 911 for the broken down car and man hitting the dog. There is a huge difference among these situations, so stop putting words in other people's mouths. It is tiresome.

I notice you didn't mention how people also jumped all over her for calling 911 when she saw a woman on the side of the street who appeared off and in need of help. Many of you thought it was not appropriate to call in that instance. I guess you're the same type of people who just assumed my sick dad was just some drunk on the street when he had his brain bleed.

Better safe than sorry - better to make an unnecessary call than not to make the call. Save a life, not your pride. And if 911 is really struggling, then maybe we should demand more resources for it.

Wow! She was right one third of the time! That is a failing grade.

As for your father, why are you jumping on the strangers that you assume didn't help him? He spent the entire day at work, and not one of his co-workers did anything. Geez. That is what is appalling about your story.

Her failing grade would have saved my dad's life, but your decision tree would not have. In fact, he spent the entire day among coworkers but not people who knew well. Yes, they should have called. So should the people who saw him walking in the middle of the street, looking dazed. Instead they, like you, just went along their own merry way, minding their own merry business.

I'm jumping on strangers for your OWN STATEMENTS about how little inclined to help you are, and even worse, your statements discouraging people who are doing the right thing, which you are NOT, from continuing the correct response. You're getting jumped on for your own statements, own them if you must, but please do not discourage others from helping. You are wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the most I heard was an argument, I would not call the police. Even if I heard the sounds of an actual fight between women, I would probably not call the police. I WOULD call the police if I heard someone say/shout "Help me" or if I heard screaming that's associated with pain. (Most people don't scream out during a fist fight).

This, of course, is not Murray's fault AT ALL, but I'm curious why she didn't scream for help rather than plead with psycho Norwood.

Maybe Murray's instincts told her that screaming might make Norwood more aggressive, enraged, crazy than she was in that instance.

I think maybe she couldn't believe this was actually happening even though it was happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been following the tweets being posted on WTOP, and one thing that came up yesterday is that they won't allow the co-worker who Jayna called that night to testify regarding the call, in which apparently Jayna told the co-worker that she found stolen merchandise in Britanny's purse. The judge is saying it would be heresay, and I don't understand why.

Isn't that the definition of hearsay - a person testifying about what someone else said, when they have no direct knowledge of the incident?

But the co-worker actually had the conversation with Jayna, so how is it hearsay? How would it be different than anyone else's account of what they witnessed/experienced/saw?

It depends on why they would offer the testimony. If they are offering it up as proof that Jayna found stolen merchandise in her purse = hearsay. If they are offering it up to prover that a call was made = not hearsay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been following the tweets being posted on WTOP, and one thing that came up yesterday is that they won't allow the co-worker who Jayna called that night to testify regarding the call, in which apparently Jayna told the co-worker that she found stolen merchandise in Britanny's purse. The judge is saying it would be heresay, and I don't understand why.

Isn't that the definition of hearsay - a person testifying about what someone else said, when they have no direct knowledge of the incident?

But the co-worker actually had the conversation with Jayna, so how is it hearsay? How would it be different than anyone else's account of what they witnessed/experienced/saw?

Anonymous wrote:I've been following the tweets being posted on WTOP, and one thing that came up yesterday is that they won't allow the co-worker who Jayna called that night to testify regarding the call, in which apparently Jayna told the co-worker that she found stolen merchandise in Britanny's purse. The judge is saying it would be heresay, and I don't understand why.

Isn't that the definition of hearsay - a person testifying about what someone else said, when they have no direct knowledge of the incident?

Agree, I am not a lawyer but not sure why that would not be allowed.

I've been following the tweets being posted on WTOP, and one thing that came up yesterday is that they won't allow the co-worker who Jayna called that night to testify regarding the call, in which apparently Jayna told the co-worker that she found stolen merchandise in Britanny's purse. The judge is saying it would be heresay, and I don't understand why.

anyone read the Post today, Petula Dvorak's piece on this issue? Those two employees must be getting harrassed to no end.

Dc's 911 page says you should call if a stalled car is causing a traffic tie- up or if there is major damage or an injury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't had a chance to read all the comments so what I'm saying may be a repeat of what others have said.

I have also been haunted by the testimony of the Apple employees and want to condemn them but rather than spending a lot of time condemning them, we should use this incident to remind ourselves to err on the side of caution in the event something like this happens to us. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do and it's difficult to pick up the phone and call 911. But we should call and deal with the possibility of embarrassment later if it was nothing.

Let's all promise ourselves that we will call.

I'm guessing there's one poster in this thread who won't be taking the pledge. That individual only calls 911 when he or she deems the situation to be an emergency.

Apparently you haven't read the thread. No one here has said that they don't think you should call 911 when you hear an altercation - which was the case for the Apple employees. The most anyone has said is that it isn't fair to judge them harshly because you have the benefit of hindsight, and it is easy from your armchair to say what should have been done. Several people have jumped on the woman who said she called 911 for the broken down car and man hitting the dog. There is a huge difference among these situations, so stop putting words in other people's mouths. It is tiresome.

I notice you didn't mention how people also jumped all over her for calling 911 when she saw a woman on the side of the street who appeared off and in need of help. Many of you thought it was not appropriate to call in that instance. I guess you're the same type of people who just assumed my sick dad was just some drunk on the street when he had his brain bleed.

Better safe than sorry - better to make an unnecessary call than not to make the call. Save a life, not your pride. And if 911 is really struggling, then maybe we should demand more resources for it.

Wow! She was right one third of the time! That is a failing grade.

As for your father, why are you jumping on the strangers that you assume didn't help him? He spent the entire day at work, and not one of his co-workers did anything. Geez. That is what is appalling about your story.