Woman sues mall after falling in fountain while texting; video inside

[CptStern]

You're joking, right? Companies get sued all the time for the actions of their employees.

only if the employers perpetuated or participated in the harassment. employers are not responsible for their workers if they conduct themselves outside of their guidelines; harrassment is a guideline in pretty much every palce of employment

You are repeatedly side-stepping the issue and you know it.

I'm not sidestepping anything. what the security staff did might have been unethical (IF they have a policy against it) but you're speculating that it was done with the knowledge of the security company rather than an individual

The issue was security's lack of interest in her well being, both at the time of her "accident" and afterward.

only because you're just now making it that issue. she's sueing because of embarrassment not because of negligence ..and it wasnt even negligence; what would be the proper resonse time in minutes? 2 mins? 3 mins? 10 mins? what if they didnt see it happen and were at another part of the mall. would 20 minutes be acceptable? what's an acceptable timeframe?

The security was absolutely negligent.

how the hell was it negligent? they didnt cause her to fall. posting a video isnt negligence

Your point is completely superfluous.

not really as I'm saying "out of al the shitty things on the internet you're getting upset about this?

I was not implying that she worked on the security staff. I would assume she worked at a store. You're trying to make a point here when there isn't one to make. Who are the mall security meant to protect? Mall employees? One of the two janitors that clean the floors? Please. They are their to assist and protect employees who work at any one of the numerous businesses that rent space from said mall.

you're making one hell of an assumption that "protect" means to protect them from everything including being ridiculed. that's a silly assumption to make

 

[CptStern]

How can suing be ethically or morally wrong or right? She claims she has suffered damages and is seeking an equitable remedy. She wishes to come to equity, how can that be right or wrong? Denying her the right to bring a law suit would be morally or ethically wrong.

please explain what the mall has to do with her falling into the fountain. it's not ethical to bring a lawsuit against a company that had absolutely nothing to do with your humiliation. it's not like their policy is to post videos on the web. someone decided that for them

She has obviously identified the party that is responsible for capturing and monitoring the CCTV and is suing them.

you're speculating. she said she's thinking of suing

"Cruz Marrero, 49, who works in the mall, has hired an attorney"

it doesnt mean she has a case. that's for her attorney to decide

If she is deemed to not have suffered damages then she won't win anything will she?

and yet taxpayers will foot the bill for another silly lawsuit

I'm not saying that she has a case, or will get anywhere with the legal aspect of this. There should be laws against this sort of thing, peoples actions shouldn't be allowed to be released into the public domain.

freedom of speech goes right out the door because someone might interpret it as harassment

]I think I get it now - I see this as a form of bullying, and bullying of your customer / customer of your customer / employee no less.

except you think it's initiated by the company and not by an individual working outside of the company's guidelines. your logic is opening the padora's box on personal responsibility where pretty much anyone can shoot down anyone elses speech due to perceived harassment. all of the sudden simply posting a comment on youtube leads to you being sued for harassment

 

[No Limit]

If you put up CCTV on your property then surely there is only one purpose, to protect that property. If you put it up to catch someone falling into a fountain whilst texting, you'd probably be waiting a while for anything like that to happen.

Do malls really have no responsibility to their patrons in this respect? Do companies really have no responsibility to their employees? (if she did work there). If this was your security company, would you be happy that your security man was just releasing footage willy nilly?

But see, maybe it has nothing to do with protecting my property. Maybe I live in view of a busy road and I just want to capture video of crashes so that I can post them online. As far as I know that is not illegal. In this case the mall clearly doesn't have those cameras just so they can post funny incidents online, but you have no right to expect privacy when you are being filmed on someone elses property.

And technically the malls probably do have some obligation to it's customers. But it is not a legal obligation, just a business one.

 

[Paulaner]

I think she is in the right. You just cannot film a person and put the movie on a public medium without his permission. I mean, casual crowd caught in a video is one thing, but this is a different case: the purpose of the video was to ridiculize her. In my country, this behaviour would be illegal.

 

[CptStern]

I think she is in the right. You just cannot film a person and put the movie on a public medium without his permission. I mean, casual crowd caught in a video is one thing, but this is a different case: the purpose of the video was to ridiculize her. In my country, this behaviour would be illegal.

did the person who video taped this get sued by berlusconi?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyli4pBysZg

it was posted for the sole reason of humiliating berlusconi

 

[Stylo]

Who the hell would have recognised the woman in this video had she not come out publicly and spoken against it? In that video you see a person falling into a fountain.

How many people seriously would've gone "OMG TAT BUNCH OF PIXELS IZ CRUZ MERERRO!!! LOLOLOLOLOL LET LAUGH AT HARR".

Is she not doing more damage by saying "This was me, I feel so humiliated".

If it was me, I would probably go on the video and comment the following:

"Lol this was me. XD"

 

[Ren.182]

Yeah, now people will see her walking down the street and recognise her as the woman that fell in the fountain.

People need to lighten up. So what, people had a bit of a laugh at her expense. They would have forgotten about it by now (I had until this thread was made). But with this law suit it's just given it more attention and it's now all focused on her rather than some random person in a video.

I'd have just laughed it off and got on with my life.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah, now people will see her walking down the street and recognise her as the woman that fell in the fountain.

People need to lighten up. So what, people had a bit of a laugh at her expense. They would have forgotten about it by now (I had until this thread was made). But with this law suit it's just given it more attention and it's now all focused on her rather than some random person in a video.

I'd have just laughed it off and got on with my life.

but someone must pay for her humiliating herself. this is why the legal system and litigation is broken in america: frivilous lawsuits

 

[kazsymonds]

please explain what the mall has to do with her falling into the fountain. it's not ethical to bring a lawsuit against a company that had absolutely nothing to do with your humiliation. it's not like their policy is to post videos on the web. someone decided that for them

Again, her falling into the fountain isn't the problem here. If she was going to sue because she fell into the fountain due to her own negligence, then that would be stupid. A lawsuit is about fairness, hence the equity. All she wishes to do is to come to a fair balance. She feels that she has suffered damages due to the actions of the security people posting the video.

you're speculating. she said she's thinking of suing

"Cruz Marrero, 49, who works in the mall, has hired an attorney"

it doesnt mean she has a case. that's for her attorney to decide

And you're speculating by saying that
She is stupid for considering the action
She wouldn't have a case
That the mall security staff didn't cause her damages
There aren't provisions within American civil law for such an occurence

etc

and yet taxpayers will foot the bill for another silly lawsuit

I don't know about the US, but in the UK the court fee is usually paid by the plaintiff (if unsuccessful) or the defendant (if the plaintiff is successful), not by the tax payer at large.

freedom of speech goes right out the door because someone might interpret it as harassment

What? She feels like she is harassed, the video has been viewed millions of times. Somebody in a position of power abused that power to ridicule another. This is straight up bullying.

except you think it's initiated by the company and not by an individual working outside of the company's guidelines. your logic is opening the padora's box on personal responsibility where pretty much anyone can shoot down anyone elses speech due to perceived harassment. all of the sudden simply posting a comment on youtube leads to you being sued for harassment

If the company has no provisions for the protection of the video material, then the company is at fault. Posting a comment on youtube has no consequences in this day and age. If the worker acted outside company regulations to post the video, then where are the systems and controls to stop such an act? The company is responsible for the information it gathers, the same way that a bank is responsible for credit card details.

Again, I don't know about the legal system in America, but that's how I think it should be.

 

[Krynn72]

As far as ethics goes, I'm torn between agreeing with Kazy, but still wanting to see hilarious accidents on youtube.

 

[kazsymonds]

But see, maybe it has nothing to do with protecting my property. Maybe I live in view of a busy road and I just want to capture video of crashes so that I can post them online. As far as I know that is not illegal. In this case the mall clearly doesn't have those cameras just so they can post funny incidents online, but you have no right to expect privacy when you are being filmed on someone elses property.

And technically the malls probably do have some obligation to it's customers. But it is not a legal obligation, just a business one.

The road is public property so, in the UK at least, you would have to put up a sign stating that the area is covered by CCTV.
Filming for no purpose is probably ok, but sharing the footage for the purpose of ridiculing somebody might be harassment, and there are also human rights laws involved with CCTV.

But, again, I've never said that she has a case. I have no idea.

 

[Escaep]

Again, I don't know about the legal system in America, but that's how I think it should be.

Well, judging by some posts in this thread we have plenty of lawyers here on halflife2.net that could clear the issues up for you.

 

[Raziaar]

You fell in some ****ing water because you were carelessly distracted and it was caught on camera. BIG ****ING WHOOP LADY. No need to cry for days. It's not like your clothes fell off and they released a video of that.

Also... is it so ****ing hard to look up from whatever you're doing every couple of seconds? Seriously, only a person being intentionally careless is going to walk without ever looking up at all.

 

[No Limit]

The road is public property so, in the UK at least, you would have to put up a sign stating that the area is covered by CCTV.
Filming for no purpose is probably ok, but sharing the footage for the purpose of ridiculing somebody might be harassment, and there are also human rights laws involved with CCTV.

But, again, I've never said that she has a case. I have no idea.

But I really don't think it is harassment. You guys have strict laws when it comes to surveillance in public as it is the government that is spying on you. And if the government had cameras on every corner here in the US I would demand the same laws here. But a mall is quite different, it is private property. Everyone knows when you enter a mall people will be watching you, by CCTV and otherwise. And I don't really think there is anything wrong with that. So if you are texting on a phone and a fountain just happens to get in your way that will get caputred on video. And having the limited experiance that I have with surveillance cameras I can tell you that nobody will ever identify you on that video unless you ask for the attention, such as filing a lawsuit.

So lets not pretend that this is a legitimate lawsuit, it's not. She saw her opportunity to cash in and she took it. Had she kept quiet nobody on this planet would have known it was her.

Well, judging by some posts in this thread we have plenty of lawyers here on halflife2.net that could clear the issues up for you.

Fo shizzle. We are representin' ourselves as lawyers.

 

[unozero]

lol I saw her on CNN earlier balling her eyes out, dumb ****.

 

[Warped]

isn't there an app that uses the camera as a background for the texting program your using??

also posted this to Facebook

 

[kazsymonds]

But I really don't think it is harassment. You guys have strict laws when it comes to surveillance in public as it is the government that is spying on you. And if the government had cameras on every corner here in the US I would demand the same laws here. But a mall is quite different, it is private property. Everyone knows when you enter a mall people will be watching you, by CCTV and otherwise. And I don't really think there is anything wrong with that. So if you are texting on a phone and a fountain just happens to get in your way that will get caputred on video. And having the limited experiance that I have with surveillance cameras I can tell you that nobody will ever identify you on that video unless you ask for the attention, such as filing a lawsuit.

So lets not pretend that this is a legitimate lawsuit, it's not. She saw her opportunity to cash in and she took it. Had she kept quiet nobody on this planet would have known it was her.

Actually, companies AND the government here have very strict rules due to the data protection act and human rights act. I believe the regulations are strict on what / where you can film, and the notification you have to provide to the people being filmed.

Surely it's a freedom to do an action (no matter how stupid) and not have that action published. Whether they name you or not, someone could still recognise you. What happens if a family member or potential employer happens upon her acting like a tool.

Unless she's committing a crime, surely her actions should never be reviewed by anyone. Imagine turning up to a job interview and they have a video of you picking your nose in the mall.

I personally think, whether they identified her or not, it's a massive breach of her human rights to have the footage released. They don't know who could recognise her, and aren't qualified to judge what effects it could have on her life. Whether it's ok for them to release the footage should not be their decision.

 

[No Limit]

Actually, companies AND the government here have very strict rules due to the data protection act and human rights act. I believe the regulations are strict on what / where you can film, and the notification you have to provide to the people being filmed.

Surely it's a freedom to do an action (no matter how stupid) and not have that action published. Whether they name you or not, someone could still recognise you. What happens if a family member or potential employer happens upon her acting like a tool.

Unless she's committing a crime, surely her actions should never be reviewed by anyone. Imagine turning up to a job interview and they have a video of you picking your nose in the mall.

I personally think, whether they identified her or not, it's a massive breach of her human rights to have the footage released. They don't know who could recognise her, and aren't qualified to judge what effects it could have on her life. Whether it's ok for them to release the footage should not be their decision.

You really think your potential employer will care that you picked your nose in front of a camera? That just seems a little bit absurd.

you say that publishing a video of someone even if not identified is a violation of their human rights. To me, when it comes to someone falling in a little bit of water, that kind of statement is just stretching the definition of human rights a bit. I mean lets look at human rights around the globe, I don't think most people suffering from actual human rights abuses are doing so becase they got caught on camera doing something embarrassing.

The bottom line is this, this women went on private property that did not belong to her. And she knew she was being filmed while on this property. At that point she has absolutely no right to privacy and any video shot of her does not belong to her, it belongs to the person that owns the CCTV system. If you don't agree with that how far are you willing to take it? Am I not allowed to shoot video in public and post it online? How about if I film cops, am I not allowed to do that without their permission first?

 

[Raziaar]

lol I saw her on CNN earlier balling her eyes out, dumb ****.

THIS is what she should be embarrassed about. Not the video. BAWLING HER EYES OUT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

 

[kazsymonds]

You really think your potential employer will care that you picked your nose in front of a camera? That just seems a little bit absurd.

Would you or would you not like to control whether they know you did that / view it on video.

you say that publishing a video of someone even if not identified is a violation of their human rights. To me, when it comes to someone falling in a little bit of water, that kind of statement is just stretching the definition of human rights a bit. I mean lets look at human rights around the globe, I don't think most people suffering from actual human rights abuses are doing so becase they got caught on camera doing something embarrassing.

So, other countries have lower standards of human rights so America should reduce theirs? Instead of fighting for more rights in less privileged countries, just reduce peoples rights in countries with a higher standard. That will close that gap nicely! Others suffer greatly, that's no excuse for violations in countries that proclaim to have higher standards, no matter how large or small you think they are.

The bottom line is this, this women went on private property that did not belong to her. And she knew she was being filmed while on this property. At that point she has absolutely no right to privacy and any video shot of her does not belong to her, it belongs to the person that owns the CCTV system. If you don't agree with that how far are you willing to take it? Am I not allowed to shoot video in public and post it online? How about if I film cops, am I not allowed to do that without their permission first?

So private property is some kind of lawless land where you can troll members of the public? Maybe they should put cameras in the changing rooms, and then sell the videos to porn websites? It's private property after all, they own the images! Once you are invited into the mall, the mall owners owe you a duty of care (at least, in my opinion). You would sue if they left oil on the floor and you slipped? Why should this be any different?

Why should the mall be allowed to release images of a persons actions, no matter how innocuous / daft?

It isn't for them to judge whether the image could be damaging to you. It isn't for them to judge whether you can be identified from the image.

I'm willing to take it to the extent that you are free to film anyone provided you notify them;
1. That you are filming them
2. The purpose for which you are filming them, and you don't deviate from that purpose (or you get permission if the reason changes)

It's reasonable for her to assume that the CCTV cameras are there for her protection / the protection of the store owners, not to ridicule her at a later date.

How about this scenario? Let's say you are really good at skateboarding. You turn up to a skate park which has CCTV. You do a bunch of skating. The owners of the skate park use the footage as instructional videos and sell it for millions of dollars without your permission? That cool?

Only my opinion, so I won't post any more on it, I've a feeling we will always differ.

 

[No Limit]

Would you or would you not like to control whether they know you did that / view it on video.

They are interviewing me to work for them. I can't really control how deep they care to dig in to my background, can I? I still think the idea that they care that I picked my nose is really absurd.

So, other countries have lower standards of human rights so America should reduce theirs? Instead of fighting for more rights in less privileged countries, just reduce peoples rights in countries with a higher standard. That will close that gap nicely! Others suffer greatly, that's no excuse for violations in countries that proclaim to have higher standards, no matter how large or small you think they are.

My only point is that do you really want to call this a human rights issue? Really?

So private property is some kind of lawless land where you can troll members of the public? Maybe they should put cameras in the changing rooms, and then sell the videos to porn websites? It's private property after all, they own the images! Once you are invited into the mall, the mall owners owe you a duty of care (at least, in my opinion). You would sue if they left oil on the floor and you slipped? Why should this be any different?

Why should the mall be allowed to release images of a persons actions, no matter how innocuous / daft?

It isn't for them to judge whether the image could be damaging to you. It isn't for them to judge whether you can be identified from the image.

I'm willing to take it to the extent that you are free to film anyone provided you notify them;
1. That you are filming them
2. The purpose for which you are filming them, and you don't deviate from that purpose (or you get permission if the reason changes)

It's reasonable for her to assume that the CCTV cameras are there for her protection / the protection of the store owners, not to ridicule her at a later date.

How about this scenario? Let's say you are really good at skateboarding. You turn up to a skate park which has CCTV. You do a bunch of skating. The owners of the skate park use the footage as instructional videos and sell it for millions of dollars without your permission? That cool?

Only my opinion, so I won't post any more on it, I've a feeling we will always differ.

If there is a giant sign that says a CCTV system will film you while you undress in a lockeroom and then post that video online and you still undress yourself then that is your isse, you knew what you were getting yourself in to. I understand the point you are making about private property not being a excuse to do whatever you want, you are absolutely right about. But if a warning is given to you in plain sight then you can't really complain, can you? When you enter a mall in this country you are told you will be videotaped, simple as that. You have no right to expect you own some kind of right to that footage. It boils down to my original question. Am I allowed to film in public and post that video online? Am I allowed to film cops in public or on my private property doing what they do without having to worry about going to jail? It's a fine line you are trying to walk here.

 

[Stylo]

So what, people had a bit of a laugh at her expense. They would have forgotten about it by now (I had until this thread was made)

I wasn't even aware of the whole thing until this article. By trying to push legal action she's made MORE people aware of who she is and that she fell in a fountain because she wasn't looking where the f*ck she was going...

 

[Kaptain H]

Holy shit, the Berkshire Mall in Reading, PA. I used to go there with my sister all the time when I was in college. I had all of my hair break off at one of the hair salons there once when the stylist left the color in for too long. Was pretty traumatizing, but I never contemplated suing.

 

[dfc05]

Meh, I don't care that much.

But to point out a couple things:
(1) I have a hard time believing these were just random people taking cellphone videos of the CCTV screen. First, who randomly decides to capture video of that? Exactly at the moment a "funny" incident occurs? (It's not that funny; it's actually quite boring). And gets it from two different angles???
(2) I've had to fill out media release forms before. Not sure when it does and doesn't apply, but presumably it could be illegal to post images of people without their consent. I don't know if it applies here though.

 

[JUL3]

CCTV should be covered by a law similar to the data protection act IMO. The footage was supposedly recorded to protect the very people that it is being used to ridicule. How are CCTV operators allowed to do anything they like with the footage? The only people that need to see that footage are the CCTV operators or the police.

I agree with this. I don't think she should be condemned for being upset about people laughing at her, it's not like a friend filmed her & uploaded it; clearly she's sensitive to humiliation. I stopped laughing at her when I read this:

"I cried for days. … You don't know how many people are laughing at me."

Laughing after reading that would be equivalent to a schoolyard bully laughing while someone cries at their hand, which I know from experience f*cking sucks.

 

[nofreeman]

i laughed, oh shit am i going to get sued

 

[CptStern]

ok I admit I'm being an ass by laughing at her misfortune. I really should be more sympathetic .... oh wait:

"In the hours that followed Cathy Cruz Marrero's appearance on 'Good Morning America' today to talk about the fall and its aftermath, she was in court for a status hearing on charges of five felony counts, including theft by deception and receiving stolen property,"

Turns out Marrero's been out on $7,500 bail since 2009, after being charged with running up more than $5,000 in purchases on a co-worker's credit card. No wonder she had a lawyer handy.

isnt that a pickle?


but wait there's more:

According to public court documents, Marrero has convictions for retail theft four times and one other theft in New York from 1997 to 1999 and retail theft in York County in 1999.

She also received 12 months of probation after being convicted of a hit-and-run charge in Berks County in 2009.

the irony here is that without the lawsuit we wouldnt have known who she was. and without the lawsuit we wouldnt have know she was a criminal and had a criminal past that included fraud, theft and hit and run. so yes the internet does come back to bite you in the ass but it was all of her making. had she shut up none of this would have happened. so I have ZERO sympathy for her

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...problems-bigger-than-youtube-fame?pc=25&sp=25

 

[Krynn72]

Meh, I don't care that much.

But to point out a couple things:
(1) I have a hard time believing these were just random people taking cellphone videos of the CCTV screen. First, who randomly decides to capture video of that? Exactly at the moment a "funny" incident occurs? (It's not that funny; it's actually quite boring). And gets it from two different angles???
(2) I've had to fill out media release forms before. Not sure when it does and doesn't apply, but presumably it could be illegal to post images of people without their consent. I don't know if it applies here though.

ITT; dfc05 doesn't know what security cameras are.

 

[Emporius]

the irony here is that without the lawsuit we wouldnt have known who she was.

Of course it was known before the lawsuit, it was bouncing around everywhere online; Krynn even posted it in the video dump a few days ago. She's suing BECAUSE it went so viral.

 

[CptStern]

Of course it was known before the lawsuit, it was bouncing around everywhere online; Krynn even posted it in the video dump a few days ago. She's suing BECAUSE it went so viral.

you could make out who she was from the video? I'm willing to bet her own mother wouldnt know. the first video even identified her as being a "girl" despite being middle aged.

In January 2011, a leaked security camera video of a mall patron falling into a fountain near the entrance to Boscov's while texting, uploaded to YouTube with titles such as "Girl falls into fountain while texting at the Berkshire Mall" went viral and received international news coverage. The lady was later determined to be Cathy Cruz Marrero, who is reportedly evaluating legal action action against the mall because no one came to her aid after falling.

she was unidentified and beign humilated wasnt the initial complaint:

Her attorney, James M. Polyak of Reading, said he plans to conduct an investigation into what happened.

"We are troubled by the fact that anyone at the Berkshire Mall responsible for releasing this video would find humor in an employee injured on the premises," Polyak said. "We intend to hold the appropriate persons responsible.

"No one from that security office came to her aid in a timely manner."

and it was dealt with:

The video, captured on a security camera, was released by a sercurity guard. The guard was fired.

the video never identified her:

What most people probably won't ever understand is why Marrero came forward in the first place. Her face is blurred in the video, it's highly unlikely anybody would ever known it was her.

Instead she's doing tv interviews, appearing on Good Morning America, etc. She has a simple answer for that.

"But I know it's me," she said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fountain-falling-texter-cathy-cruz-marrero-dont-text/story?id=12685189
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/cathy-cruz-marrero-fountain-girl_n_811701.html
http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/clumsy-lady-cathy-cruz-marrero?xg_source=activity

 

[<RJMC>]

I guess she is trying to get some of those uber sues where she can get millions of dollars

 

[Warped]

Well when suing always aim higher that way when you'd don't win big you still win big in some respect.

 

[CptStern]

this thread:

http://instantcrickets.com/



funny how all those who were screaming bloody murder at the injustice of this all havent posted about this latest development

 

[Raziaar]

this thread:

http://instantcrickets.com/

 

[Krynn72]

this thread:

http://instantcrickets.com/



funny how all those who were screaming bloody murder at the injustice of this all havent posted about this latest development

Considering I posted this latest development several posts before you did, I don't think they're phased by it.

 

[dfc05]

ITT; dfc05 doesn't know what security cameras are.

I was responding to that one post (can't be bothered to find whose) that said some random shoppers in the mall just captured it on their phone while it was publicly displayed. In which case I'd assume they mean those TVs you see at like walmart or the gas station where there's a TV and and it's showing real time feed off the video camera. I know these are public, but my point was, who would bother to sit there capturing that with their phone? Since it's real time and they caught the entire incident, they would've been sitting there recording for no logical reason. Nobody goes to a store, is like "Oh hey security cameras, bet something funny's gonna happen, lemme pull out my phone," and then OH HEY coincidence someone falls in the fountain. And since they got two screens, they'd have to be doing it on two screens at the same time, presuming each TV is showing in real time and not like.... looping (that would be weird).

So my point was that it was most likely people who had access to the vids (e.g. security personnel) who leaked it. NOT just anyone in public eating their lunch or whatever. Which would lend credence to the "abuse of power" arguments. Getting the beginning of the incident points to someone who has access to, say, a REWIND function. Otherwise I'd expect the vid to start sometime after she fell in the fountain.

If you meant something different by "security camera", please enlighten. (Because that would mean I really don't know what a security camera is, in which case... I would actually like to be corrected with a definition as that seems like something I ought to know, in all seriousness. Sometimes I feel like I live in bizarro-world where common sense, basic terminology, and/or social norms in my world, are totally crazy to everyone else here.)

 

[Stylo]

The people saying she could have been identified, are you sh**ting me?

You're saying you could identify a person from this? :

You gotta be kidding. It's a featureless outline. You can barely tell it's a female!

I, for one, have zero sympathy for a criminal who has fallen into a fountain through her own fault and has done nothing but draw attention to herself since, when I'm pretty sure no human being could've recognised her from this CCTV footage or even cared that much that she fell into a fountain.

It's like everyone in the world is bullying her or something. It's ridiculous.

1. She should get a sense of humour
2. She shouldn't have told the world it was her in the video
3. She should look where she's going
4. Being a thief is bad, mmkay?

 

[EversorAssassin]

Magnify and Refine, duh.

 

[VirusType2]

"Enhance 34 to 36. Pan right and pull back; Stop."

 

[Paulaner]

it was posted for the sole reason of humiliating berlusconi

That video is a clear fake.
By the way: Berlusconi does worse things in his private rooms...