Posts
Kansas City - On December 27th, 2009, Alesha McMullen, 19, was not saying “I’m Lovin’ It.” Instead, she was “throwing a tantrum,” as some have put it.
Allegedly, the situation started when McMullen went inside McDonald’s and ordered a cheeseburger snack wrap. The wrap is a newer item on the menu, and apparently the person taking the order either was not familiar with the item or misheard McMullen (both possibilities are mere speculation). As a result, the employees handed McMullen a standard cheeseburger.
Once the mistake was acknowledged, the employees reportedly made and offered the correct item to her in place of the cheeseburger. Apparently, she declined this offer and requested a refund.
In response to McMullen’s request for a refund, the employees denied the request. At this, McMullen then threw wet floor signs, as well as a water dispenser, over the counter. Then, to make matters even worse, she proceeded to knock three cash registers off the counter, as well—one of which broke.
All in all, the damage was estimated at $3000.
After video surveillance of the event was released, McMullen was identified through TIPS Hotline calls. When she was arrested and charged with felony property damage, McCullen was reported to have been hiding in her apartment’s closet.
Needless to say, when questioned about the incident, she explained that McDonald’s “served a ‘messed up’ cheeseburger.” She did admit to throwing items, saying that she was “having a ‘bad day.’”
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Supreme Wordsmiths: Dropping the O-bomb in Court
Words create the outline around society. They define the truth, explain the past, and speculate about the future. They also find their way to court.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Briscoe v. Virginia. (View the complete transcript here.) Within the case, the court theorized over the implications of a State imposing “the burden of calling a prosecution witness to the stand” on the defendant.
The legal drama was momentarily halted when Richard D. Friedman, a law professor from the University of Michigan reflected on Justice Kennedy’s question regarding a lab witness. Within Mr. Friedman’s answer, he said, “I think that issue is entirely orthogonal to the issue here because . . .”
Soon after, Chief Justice Roberts, broke in and exclaimed, “I’m sorry. Entirely what?” One can only imagine his facial expression, and if it counted as having talked twice. (A little reference to an old "Nightline" with the Chief Justice.)
Needless to say, Mr. Friedman immediately did an excellent job of defining the word in small, easily understandable phrases. “Orthogonal. Right angle. Unrelated. Irrelevant.”
I must say that I wonder about that second definition inclusion. Perhaps “tangent” would have been more appropriate. As it stands, the addition of “right angle” almost makes me wonder if he didn’t prepare to have to define the word.
Don’t get me wrong, the word does work. Orthogonal is a mathematical term used to describe where two perpendicular lines meet, thus forming a right angle. However, it seems like an odd description to reach in the middle of a legal argument. Given the context, one would have expected his mind to go to the latter two definitions, not so much the descriptive, mathematical one.
That being said, there is a lot to be said about a man who’s thoughts are grounded by mathematical terms. Math and science are objective studies, whereas law and literature are in many ways subjective. In order to lady justice to remain impartial, objective thoughts must prevail.
On that note, let me leave you with an inspiring song from Bob Grone and his “Home on the Numerical Range” that I recently ran across.
Oh give me a home
where the matrices roam,
where the scalars and vectors all play,
where never is heard,
an orthogonal word,
and determinants never go ‘way.
I hope my fellow word-loving mathematicians interested in the law all enjoyed that as much as I did.
If you would like to read the rest of the dialogue regarding the orthogonal word-bomb, go to the transcript. The fun starts on page 24, line 17. The word itself is first used on line 21.
Preview: As you probably know, Justice Scalia is quite the wordsmith on the Court, and he immediately becomes interested in the word as well. Once that happens, the Court proceedings take on a humorous air for awhile.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Briscoe v. Virginia. (View the complete transcript here.) Within the case, the court theorized over the implications of a State imposing “the burden of calling a prosecution witness to the stand” on the defendant.
The legal drama was momentarily halted when Richard D. Friedman, a law professor from the University of Michigan reflected on Justice Kennedy’s question regarding a lab witness. Within Mr. Friedman’s answer, he said, “I think that issue is entirely orthogonal to the issue here because . . .”
Soon after, Chief Justice Roberts, broke in and exclaimed, “I’m sorry. Entirely what?” One can only imagine his facial expression, and if it counted as having talked twice. (A little reference to an old "Nightline" with the Chief Justice.)
Needless to say, Mr. Friedman immediately did an excellent job of defining the word in small, easily understandable phrases. “Orthogonal. Right angle. Unrelated. Irrelevant.”
I must say that I wonder about that second definition inclusion. Perhaps “tangent” would have been more appropriate. As it stands, the addition of “right angle” almost makes me wonder if he didn’t prepare to have to define the word.
Don’t get me wrong, the word does work. Orthogonal is a mathematical term used to describe where two perpendicular lines meet, thus forming a right angle. However, it seems like an odd description to reach in the middle of a legal argument. Given the context, one would have expected his mind to go to the latter two definitions, not so much the descriptive, mathematical one.
That being said, there is a lot to be said about a man who’s thoughts are grounded by mathematical terms. Math and science are objective studies, whereas law and literature are in many ways subjective. In order to lady justice to remain impartial, objective thoughts must prevail.
On that note, let me leave you with an inspiring song from Bob Grone and his “Home on the Numerical Range” that I recently ran across.
where the matrices roam,
where the scalars and vectors all play,
where never is heard,
an orthogonal word,
and determinants never go ‘way.
I hope my fellow word-loving mathematicians interested in the law all enjoyed that as much as I did.
If you would like to read the rest of the dialogue regarding the orthogonal word-bomb, go to the transcript. The fun starts on page 24, line 17. The word itself is first used on line 21.
Preview: As you probably know, Justice Scalia is quite the wordsmith on the Court, and he immediately becomes interested in the word as well. Once that happens, the Court proceedings take on a humorous air for awhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)