I really, really hope you are not a practicing lawyer. Because if you are then you should no that when there are statutory caps on damages or a common-law legal test setting caps, then it is perfectly acceptable for someone to say “those damages are too much” under a legal test. Your emotional response is illogical.

Lol. Nice pun.

No I do not have to have a “number.” If under the legal standard, his number is not allowed, then I don’t have to tell you what number would be allowed. And I believe under the legal standard, this amount is unsupported. It is a pure legal argument. It is not an emotional argument where I have to justify it to you.…

Yeah, saying it was exorbitant is based on my experience with punitive damages. My state caps punitive damages at $10 million, so unless he could prove $5 million in actual damages, he would never get what he asking here. Other states have similar caps. So from a legal standpoint, it likely is exorbitant. However, I…

Yeah, most states just have “voyeurism” statutes. I have never actually heard it called “peeping tom.”

I don’t know what the number is. I know in my state, punitive damages are capped at $10 million. So he would never get the number he is asking. Other states have similar caps. I guess the number depends upon (a) whether there is a cap, and (b) if there is not a cap, what the standard is. I think I saw somewhere that…

Well, the whole point of a civil trial is to get to the truth. So if there is any truth to what you are saying, then it would presumably come out in trial.

You realize that people get voted out of office for causing their taxpayers millions in damages right?

I don’t know why you interpreted my comment as saying that punitive damages should not go to the victim here. My only point was that I am not certain what the appropriate amount of punitive damages should be.

So the fact that his damages were mitigated has no bearing on what a jury will come back with? It’s not about the actions of other organizations. It’s about how much he was damaged. And I don’t know where you got your law degree, but if you think a jury won’t get to hear about the benefits he received, then you have…

I always think people are so rational when their first dialogue with me is to call me a name. You realize that the whole point of a trial is to get to the truth right? That a jury gets to hear and weigh the facts and come back with a verdict? If what you say has any hint of truth to it, then the city and school should…

Thanks for that info!

That is truly ridiculous.

Some states do have a non-profit fund where portions of punitive damage awards go. So, maybe if he does get high punitive damages here, he would consider something like that.

I know this isn’t the point, but there is a crime of “misdemeanor peeping tom?” Does that mean there is a “felony peeping tom?” And could they not have come up with a better name for it than “peeping tom”?

And to be clear, I absolutely think he is entitled to damages. Just not that amount.

Lol. I don’t think anybody seriously labelled him a terrorist. You know what the defense is going to say? What are his damages when he was invited to the white house, vindicated by the media, given several scholarship opportunities, and sent tons of free electronics from companies like Microsoft.

It depends. If the amount is too ridiculous, the message sent is “I’m just doing this for publicity.” Even if he is serious about filing a lawsuit, nobody is going to take seriously an amount that is too far above what they believe their actual liability is.

Yeah, except a court can’t award “damages”to him for a “symbolic sum” that relates to the horror and suffering of others. His damages have to be relative to what he personally suffered. I believe he should get something for punitive damages, but I doubt it will be anywhere near that amount.

Good point.