I cant wait to find out that her lawyer is actually from Americas Funniest Home Videos and her settlement is.... $100,000

I wish something like this would happen to me, it's so easy to turn 15 mins of internet fame into good hard earned money with no lawsuit necessary.

I didn't sue when Bojangles put a plastic bag in my drink, I guess I should have!

I think there's a Saturday Night Live sketch devoted to this kind of thing...

human.

Actually, to add to your story...

"Angel from housekeeping" apparently did check to see if she was okay.

Not that this is relevant to the "I'd like to volunteer that *I* am the human who was once anonymous, but this decision on my part is now somehow your responsibility." claim.

To add to goldenthorn's comment, she should add the friend she was replying to to the suit, cuz if she hadn't received that text she wouldn't have had the compulsion to reply to it!

Hey wait a minute, if we are to believe the news report from the second video, the basis of her suit is that:

• Nobody helped her.

• The guards just laughed at her.

1. You can clearly hear one of the people on the tape say that "Angel from housekeeping checked to see if she was okay." and that the lady merely responded that she was "fine, just a little wet."

2. Cathy Marrero seems to be characterizing this as if the guards were right there laughing as she fell. The guards are laughing at watching a video from a camera some distance away and seemingly quite some time after the incident happened.

So, Ms. Marrero appears to be lying.

woot!, I love you. Thank you for seeing her as the Vogonity she is.

jornk wrote:So, Ms. Marrero appears to be lying.

Right. I think the whole reason behind the lawsuit is actually "I'm mad that I look like an human on YouTube."

The part that really sucks is the mall will probably cave and some poor security guard making $13/hour will lose their job for doing what anybody would do in that situation.

This "lady" and her greedy lawyer are what is wrong with America. We live in a country of ambulance chasing lawyers after petty lawsuits, and dumb people who consider themselves blameless for everything. You can sue for anything, even if you are the one at fault. It disgusts me and the court system should make this case an example on what could be right with our legal system - and throw it out of the courts and charge her any taxpayer money she is wasting!

"Watch the video again. She tumbles in, leaps to her feet, gathers her now useless phone, and trots out. The footage cuts off there so I guess it's possible she immediately collapsed BACK into the pool, but you'd think they'd keep that footage in for the sheer hilarity."

Except the video does continue, just from a different perspective. Se falls in, then gets out and walks over to a sign.

The mall should counter sue for trespassing. She clearly ignored the "Do not enter fountain" signs.

llandar wrote:The part that really sucks is the mall will probably cave and some poor security guard making $13/hour will lose their job for doing what anybody would do in that situation.

Does that make me a jerk for thinking the part that really sucks is that malls will start to remove their fountains?

"Marrero, who works in a store at the Wyomissing mall, said she ... came forward publicly to highlight the dangers of texting while walking, privacy issues and security problems at the mall."

hahahahahaha.
just amazing...

To me, the issue isn't the mall being at fault. It was her fault, and her's alone, and she she admitted not paying attention. And the truth be told, we ALL walk and text sometimes. Don't deny it!

The issue IS why would MALL SECURITY allow somebody to take this secuirty video and post it on the internet? Hel-LO? They had no business doing that. None. Somebody SHOULD be accoountable who allow that to happen. Totally lack of judgement, and just be glad this ins't YOU that had this happen to.

Because this wasn't backyard video. This is video captured by mall security, and the employees of theat company were hired to provide security and PROTECT shoppers. What if AIRPORT SECURITY posted the video it took of YOU, walking through and x-ray machine, and posted it to the world? How would you like THAT? The security company providing that service to the mall evidently didn't not provide proper training to their employees.

Idiocracy in action.

manypatxgaca wrote:Because this wasn't backyard video. This is video captured by mall security, and the employees of theat company were hired to provide security and PROTECT shoppers. What if AIRPORT SECURITY posted the video it took of YOU, walking through and x-ray machine, and posted it to the world? How would you like THAT? The security company providing that service to the mall evidently didn't not provide proper training to their employees.

Wow, so wrong. She was not identifiable until she came forth to make herself known for a lawsuit. Waaaayyy different!

I work for a major corporation, and any employee that shared security video, that was captured with company secruity cameras, would be immediately terminated. The only exception, would be if the video was required by the police. Keep watching this story, and I am sure the same thing will happen here as well, as heads will roll, as indeed they shoud.

Sure, she came forward, after her family members called to tell her she was all over YouTube. She is obvioulsy embarrassed, but my only point is this is SECURITY VIDEO and should not be been posted. That was wrong. Cities, airports, parking garages, Home Depot, supermarkets, drug stores ....security cameras are everywhere. All of it captured for secuity reasons.... and not to be used simply to make fun of people.

If you really watch the video, it almost looks like she did it somewhat intentionally. You can see as she gets closer to the fountain she starts to swerve as if to go around, but then changes her mind and you can see her lift her leg UP fairly high as if to try and step up onto the edge of the fountain or something, which is not normal when just walking on a flat surface. She knew something was there, and could easily have avoided it.

She was probably setting this up intentionally.

It would be the same thing as suing the local news station because they should a clip with you in it for their obesity clip.

The camera was in a public area. I'm sure there were notices posted that there are cameras. The camera wasn't focused on her, it was focused on an area.

The only issue is the sharing of the video, but that is only limited by the policy of the security company. There is nothing she can obtain by suing (unless there is something wrong with the court system).

As for firing the employee, again, in the company's policy would lie the answer.

If you're going to Googlebomb Cathy Cruz Marrero you should really link her name to the video. So whenever someone searches for Cathy Cruz Marrero they'll get linked straight to that video.

My 2cents. What's wrong with this situation isn't that she fell in, or that she got hurt, or that they laughed at her, or any of that. It's that they released the video on YouTube. I would make that the basis of the lawsuit, and I think it's a valid point. If she's suing for any other reason, well, she's a wacko.

manypatxgaca wrote:I work for a major corporation, and any employee that shared security video, that was captured with company secruity cameras, would be immediately terminated. The only exception, would be if the video was required by the police. Keep watching this story, and I am sure the same thing will happen here as well, as heads will roll, as indeed they shoud.

The security guard was indeed fired. I think it sucks that a dummy like her got a security guard fired, but I agree that if you work for a security company you are bound to whatever their rules and policies are regarding camera footage and the releasing of said footage to YouTube.

Hopefully internet karma will kick in and that guard won't be out of work too long, although if your career is security guard, "fired for releasing tapes I was forbidden from releasing" doesn't look good on a resume.

I could see a Windows Phone 7 commercial coming soon

Got through about half the posts then figured I couldn't hold it any more.

I know at the mall near me, EVERY door in and out states that there are security cameras. The footage of the camera is typically owned by the security company, and you lose all rights of any footage of you taken on that property.

It's obvious that the footage occurred in the past. The security guy more than likely saw it when it happened, and was replaying for others at a later time.

Was laughing at the woman in poor taste? Maybe, but millions watch youtube and the videos posted there every day.

Was filming it with your camera phone(?) and posting it on youtube okay? Not unless it's approved by the security company. That's more likely the reason the security employee(s) got fired.

Reading through the news articles, the lady had made a comment about "what if I was hurt" and went on to say that sometimes that "fountain doesn't have water in it". Which means she's been to the mall enough to know that the fountain was there in the first place.

It would be a shame if malls (And public foot zones in general) start considering taking out the decorative pieces because people can't hold them selves accountable for their own actions.

llandar wrote:The security guard was indeed fired. I think it sucks that a dummy like her got a security guard fired, but I agree that if you work for a security company you are bound to whatever their rules and policies are regarding camera footage and the releasing of said footage to YouTube.

Hopefully internet karma will kick in and that guard won't be out of work too long, although if your career is security guard, "fired for releasing tapes I was forbidden from releasing" doesn't look good on a resume.

then again, there's always a couple of points for the "Brought a spark of happiness and humor to hundreds of people on the internet" bit on his resume.

...maybe.

I fell into a mall fountain once when I was like 4. My grandma was with me. If I recall, I believe she was rather embarrassed.

manypatxgaca wrote:Sure, she came forward, after her family members called to tell her she was all over YouTube. She is obvioulsy embarrassed, but my only point is this is SECURITY VIDEO and should not be been posted. That was wrong. Cities, airports, parking garages, Home Depot, supermarkets, drug stores ....security cameras are everywhere. All of it captured for secuity reasons.... and not to be used simply to make fun of people.

No one would have any way of knowing who this person is by the video, if she had kept her mouth shut and confronted the security company privately instead of going on television she'd still be some anonymous person who fell in a fountain. Well look how that backfired in her face, now her name is everywhere as the woman looking for money to pay off the thousands she stole at a former job in a jewelry store.

manypatxgaca wrote:Sure, she came forward, after her family members called to tell her she was all over YouTube. She is obvioulsy embarrassed, but my only point is this is SECURITY VIDEO and should not be been posted. That was wrong.

I think you're confusing "wrong" with "unwise". There is nothing "wrong" with posting video that shows nothing more or less than you would have seen had you been there in person, and the "there" in question is a place that the general public has access to. While it is definitely UNWISE, it is only unwise on the part of the security guard in that he should have known that he would be likely to lose his job. It would venture into "wrong" territory if it had been video footage of a private moment, private property, or footage (like the backscatter TSA scans) that gave more detail than YOU would have been able to see had you been there at the time.

The security guard who posted the video made no effort to protect his own identity... he put the name of the mall in the title and used his own voice. So I'm thinking either he didn't care if he got fired because this was his one shot at internet fame, or he simply didn't think about the consequences because of course funny stuff should go on YouTube. If the latter is correct, then I guess we have two victims on inattentive misjudgment instead of just one. If he sues the mall for wrongful termination, I think it's a match made in heaven.

jenandlaw wrote:*snip*
It would venture into "wrong" territory if it had been video footage of a private moment, private property, or footage (like the backscatter TSA scans) that gave more detail than YOU would have been able to see had you been there at the time.

This is ridiculous. If some woman's top or skirt/pants fallen down and was caught on security video you don't have a problem with somebody putting it online? (As if this kind of thing isn't already all over the Internet) After all, it's no "more detail than YOU would have been able to see had you been there at the time". Would you argue that it's her fault for not wearing a bra that day or not being more careful?

The point is, as has been mentioned before, the "wrong" part is that the security guard likely broke rules by putting this online. It's also wrong that this is all at the expense of somebody who has no say in the video being made public.

I agree that the woman suing for being embarrassed is more wrong than the security guard for releasing the video. She did something embarrassing (who hasn't?) and now anyone can see it. Sucks for her. I'd hate that as well. She's handling it poorly. But the security guard screwed up, too. A mistake you're making is thinking that one side of the story is right and the other is wrong. All too often both sides are wrong.