Thursday, October 15, 2015

An addendum to yesterday's "Whom to hate" post


Yesterday, I wrote a post stating that Jennifer (Auntie Jen) Connell and her lawyer William (Bill) Beckert were deserving of internet hatred because they attempted to sue Connell's nephew, who was 8-years-old at the time, for hugging her too hard, which caused her to fall down and break her wrist, with the emphasis on suing her nephew for hugging her too hard. I was contacted by someone who had this to say (translated from Twitterese):
"More to the story - Homeowner insurance denied medical bills saying the nephew was responsible. She sued the kid because you have to name a defendant. Direct the hate to the messed up insurance system that refuses medical claims because a little kid might be responsible."
I asked why she and her lawyer didn't get in front of this by saying that was the situation before social media got hold of it.
"Just guessing, but it probably wouldn't serve the aunt well to publicly blast the insurance company until after the medical bills got covered."
All of that sounds completely logical to me. Further, this person (I won't reveal their name) works at a high level in a field where they would absolutely qualify as an expert in a situation like this. It's almost enough to make me rescind the entire original post. Almost.

But I'm not going to do that because while it's highly likely that there is more to the story (there almost always is), it's still really scummy. For starters, how did they ever think that any jury not comprised of actual monsters would ever side in a million years against an 8-year-old who loves his aunt?
"Actually, we're with the kid on this one, too. I mean, yeah, we're monsters, but come on."
Secondly, why is she testifying in court how her injury hampers her ability to hold a plate of hors d’oeuvres? There is no better way to brand yourself a douche than throwing the phrase "hors d’oeuvres" around. People hate that. She'd have been better served saying the injury hampered her ability to read to blind orphans or even sort her recyclables. She should have at least referenced snacks or munchies.
Douche food
What else could they do, you ask? Well, how about instead of a lawsuit, a public relations campaign, coupled with a GoFundMe or Kickstarter, about how the shitty insurance industry tries to make people do scummy things like sue their families just so they can pay their basic medical bills? There is no institution more universally loathed than the insurance industry. Imagine if she had taken on a righteous beef against some vile, faceless, bloodsucking insurance company with every single person who hates vile, faceless, bloodsucking insurance companies on her side. She would have been hailed a hero AND made enough money to cover her bills and take her nephew to Disneyworld for a month.

So, no I'm not rescinding the post. Maybe Connell and Beckert don't deserve utter hatred (although I still wonder how enthusiastically Beckert offered any alternatives to a lawsuit that he had to know had less than a snowball's chance of succeeding) but they should have used better judgment.

2 comments:

Michael Noble said...

Your "Whom To Hate" posts are becoming a regular feature, just like the post I note concerning "The Decline Of Western Civilization."

Kathi said...

Regardless of the situation, no one with a heart sues a child! Seriously, she should have dropped the case when his Mom died. She is a shitty, hors d'oeuvres eating douche AND the bag in comes in! Preach on brother Clark!